State of Tennessee v. Scottie Lee Mofield
M2016-02364-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Oct 10, 2017Background
- In June 2015 Robert Vaughn was severely beaten in a convenience‑store parking lot; injuries included multiple facial fractures and permanent blindness in his right eye.
- Defendant Scottie Lee Mofield, codefendant Ricky Palmer, and codefendant Maria ("Piggy") Flowers were tried jointly; Mofield and Palmer convicted of aggravated assault, Flowers convicted of reckless aggravated assault.
- Vaughn identified Mofield and the others at trial; testimony described repeated kicking and punching by multiple assailants. Flowers testified she knocked a beer bottle from Vaughn and that a fight ensued; Palmer later made jail‑call statements taking responsibility.
- At sentencing the trial court found no mitigators, applied enhancement factors including prior convictions, that defendant was a leader in the offense, the victim suffered particularly great injuries, and that the defendant was on probation; it imposed an eight‑year Range II sentence consecutive to an unrelated sentence.
- Mofield moved for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence (Palmer’s jail call in which Palmer said he ‘‘finished’’ the victim and that Mofield and Flowers didn’t touch him); the trial court denied the motion.
- On appeal the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding the sentence and denial of a new trial were within the trial court’s discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Mofield) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sentencing — application of enhancement factor for leadership | Trial court properly applied statutory enhancement factors and considered record evidence | Trial court erred applying enhancement for being a leader and failed to apply two mitigators (minor role; conduct didn’t cause serious injury) | Affirmed: record supports applying enhancement (defendant admitted striking victim; victim’s testimony showed active participation); no mitigators accepted |
| Sentence length and consecutive service | Eight‑year within‑range sentence and consecutive term appropriate given criminal history and seriousness | Eight years and consecutive service were excessive | Affirmed: trial court considered sentencing principles and did not abuse discretion |
| Motion for new trial — newly discovered evidence standard | Jail‑call was not likely to change verdict; it only impeached testimony | Jail‑call was newly discovered exculpatory evidence warranting a new trial or severance | Affirmed denial: jail call impeached/co‑contradicted trial evidence but would not likely produce acquittal; defendant did not claim actual innocence pretrial |
| Whether impeachment evidence can mandate new trial | N/A (inherent in State’s position) | Impeaching evidence was so crucial that it probably would have produced acquittal | Denied: impeachment alone insufficient unless it would probably result in acquittal; here jury credibility findings stand |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (standard of review for within‑range sentencing and presumption of reasonableness)
- State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1991) (factors a trial court must consider at sentencing)
- State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229 (Tenn. 1986) (sentencing considerations)
- State v. Taylor, 744 S.W.2d 919 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987) (sentencing considerations)
- State v. Nichols, 877 S.W.2d 722 (Tenn. 1994) (requirements for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
- State v. Goswick, 656 S.W.2d 355 (Tenn. 1983) (newly discovered evidence standard)
- State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542 (Tenn. 1984) (impeaching evidence generally insufficient for new trial)
- State v. Singleton, 853 S.W.2d 490 (Tenn. 1993) (exception when impeaching evidence is likely to produce acquittal)
- State v. Caldwell, 977 S.W.2d 110 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (trial court discretion on new trial motions)
- State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997) (appellate courts do not reweigh evidence; credibility for jury)
- State v. Freeman, 943 S.W.2d 25 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (enhancement factor for leadership does not require sole leadership)
- State v. Hicks, 868 S.W.2d 729 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) (discussion of leadership enhancement)
