State of Tennessee v. Ronald Levon Cosper
E2016-00212-CCA-R3-CD
Tenn. Crim. App.May 12, 2017Background
- Defendant Ronald Levon Cosper was convicted by a jury of first-degree felony murder and attempted especially aggravated robbery for the July 2, 2012 killing of Steve Mosley; sentence: life (murder) and 10 years (robbery), concurrent. The attempted especially aggravated robbery judgment contained a clerical error and was remanded for correction.
- Key eyewitness and investigative facts: co-defendant Dustin Hayes (accomplice) drove Cosper and Devante Stoudemire to the victim’s neighborhood, waited while Cosper went through a nearby cut/trail, and later testified Cosper returned and said the victim fought and he shot him. Witness Cheryl Billups saw three people in a white car and observed a man in a turquoise shirt run into the cut; she later identified Cosper.
- Physical and forensic evidence: Cosper’s fingerprints were lifted from the victim’s screen door; shorts taken from Cosper contained a blood stain and gunshot-residue on the front left; three .32 caliber bullet fragments recovered from the victim matched each other; three .32 shell casings were recovered from a storm drain where Hayes said Stoudemire had dropped them after being given them by Cosper/Stoudemire.
- Corroboration issues: Hayes was an accomplice; the State relied on corroborative evidence (Billups’s identification, fingerprint on screen door, clothing with blood and GSR, damage to the victim’s door consistent with a struggle, Hayes’s role in locating casings) to support Hayes’s testimony implicating Cosper.
- Procedural posture and claims on appeal: Cosper argued (1) insufficient evidence because accomplice Hayes’s testimony lacked adequate corroboration, and (2) due process violation from unreliable identification by Billups. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed convictions, vacated and remanded to correct the robbery judgment clerical error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Cosper) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support felony murder | Evidence, viewed in favor of prosecution, plus independent corroboration of accomplice Hayes (identification by Billups, fingerprints, clothing with blood/GSR, scene damage, casings) supports convictions | Hayes was an accomplice; his testimony was uncorroborated as to key points (esp. predicate felony/robbery and Cosper’s identity) so convictions cannot stand | Affirmed. Court held accomplice Hayes’s testimony was sufficiently corroborated by independent facts that tended to connect Cosper to the crimes; corroboration of every part of Hayes’s account (or of predicate felony specifically) not required. |
| Sufficiency as to attempted especially aggravated robbery | Same corroborative evidence supports attempted robbery conviction | State failed to corroborate that an attempted theft occurred; Bishop limits corpus delicti arguments | Affirmed. Court found adequate corroboration (marijuana sale evidence, struggle, weapon type, testimony about planned robbery, Cosper’s admissions and physical evidence) supporting attempted especially aggravated robbery. |
| Admission of Billups’s in-court identification (due process) | Identification was admissible; defense had full cross-examination; no preserved objection at trial; any claim waived | Identification was unreliable and should have been excluded under due process (suggestive ID) | Not preserved; no timely objection or motion for new trial on this evidentiary issue. Plain-error review denied—no relief. |
| Clerical error in robbery judgment | N/A | N/A | Vacated and remanded to correct incomplete offense name and statutory citation; otherwise conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for appellate sufficiency review)
- Bigbee v. State, 885 S.W.2d 797 (Tenn. 1994) (accomplice testimony requires independent corroboration that connects defendant to crime)
- Bishop v. State, 431 S.W.3d 22 (Tenn. 2014) (corpus delicti of felony murder is the homicide, not the predicate felony; modified trustworthiness standard for confessions)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (due process principles governing admission of identification testimony)
- Bland v. State, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997) (trial-court role in credibility and weight of evidence; appellate review limits)
- Dorantes v. State, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (circumstantial evidence standards equal to direct evidence for sufficiency review)