State of Tennessee v. Lavely L. Brown
E2016-02099-CCA-R3-ECN
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Nov 9, 2017Background
- In 1989 Lavely L. Brown was convicted by a Knox County jury of first-degree murder, armed robbery, and aggravated kidnapping and was sentenced to life plus concurrent terms; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Multiple trial witnesses (including Michael Settles, Scott Barker, William Wright, and others) testified Brown confessed or that they saw him fleeing and washing his hands after the killing.
- In 2014 Brown filed a pro se petition for a writ of error coram nobis based on newly discovered evidence: letters and a 2014 affidavit from Benny Joe Cooper claiming he was coerced into giving a false statement and that Michael “Mousy” Settles had been the actual killer or had orchestrated false testimony.
- Cooper’s affidavit alleged detectives coached him and threatened he would remain in juvenile detention unless he repeated Settles’s story about seeing a black Mustang with occupants; Cooper did not testify at Brown’s 1989 trial though he was known to police.
- At the 2016 coram nobis hearing Cooper’s in-court testimony was inconsistent, he disclaimed certain statements in his affidavit, had credibility problems, and did not directly say Settles admitted the murder; the coram nobis court found Cooper’s claims would at best impeach Settles and would not have altered the trial outcome.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial of coram nobis relief, holding the newly offered evidence was not likely to produce a different result and was insufficient to establish Brown’s innocence or warrant a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Brown’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coram nobis relief is warranted based on Cooper’s 2014 affidavit/letter (newly discovered evidence of actual innocence) | Cooper’s evidence shows Settles confessed and that police/cooperating witnesses fabricated testimony; Cooper was coerced into lying at the time of the investigation | Cooper’s affidavit/testimony is unreliable, inconsistent, and even if credited would only impeach Settles; multiple other witnesses corroborated Brown’s admissions and flight | Denied — evidence was not sufficiently credible or outcome-determinative to warrant coram nobis relief |
| Whether petitioner was "without fault" for not presenting Cooper’s testimony at trial and whether the evidence would likely change the verdict | Brown asserted he had no prior knowledge of Cooper’s statements and Cooper was known but did not testify; Cooper’s affidavit constitutes newly discovered proof | State emphasized Cooper was a known witness, his in-court testimony contradicted his affidavit, and impeachment of Settles would not overcome other inculpatory evidence | Denied — court found Brown failed to show the new evidence would probably produce a different result |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mixon, 983 S.W.2d 661 (Tenn. 1999) (describing coram nobis as an extraordinary, narrowly available remedy)
- Harris v. State, 102 S.W.3d 587 (Tenn. 2003) (coram nobis claims may be based on newly discovered evidence when defendant was without fault in not presenting it earlier)
- State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514 (Tenn. 2007) (standard: whether reasonable basis exists that presenting the evidence at trial might have produced a different result)