State of Tennessee v. Sharod Winford Moore, M2020-00879-CCA-R3-CD

Defendant Sharod Winford Moore was convicted by a jury of first-degree premeditated murder for the January 29, 2011 killing of Ronald Shelton; McCollum (a co‑defendant) was the State’s key witness.
McCollum testified Moore was a high‑ranking member of the Vice Lords; McCollum described a gang hierarchy, said Moore ordered the killing, and described accompanying Moore to the victim’s door and hearing gunshots.
McCollum testified Moore threatened him to prevent disclosure, used mustard to try to remove gunshot residue, changed clothes and had McCollum dispose of the originals; others corroborated parts of McCollum’s account.
Defense challenged gang‑membership evidence in limine; trial court excluded hearsay about gang involvement but admitted non‑hearsay testimony about gang membership and hierarchy as relevant to the relationship, knowledge of residences, and McCollum’s willingness to comply.
Procedural history: this court previously affirmed sufficiency but found other issues waived due to an untimely motion for new trial; a delayed appeal was later granted and the present appeal raises four preserved issues.

Issue	State's Argument	Moore's Argument	Held
Admission of gang membership evidence	Relevant to explain relationship, knowledge of McCollum’s residence, and motive for McCollum’s participation	Gang testimony was of low probative value, unfairly prejudicial, and impermissible character evidence under Rules 403/404(b)	Admissible; trial court did not abuse discretion—probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice; no plain‑error shown on 404(b) ground
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (gang references)	Comments were fair argument about evidence	Closing included inflammatory gang references intended to frighten jury; warrants new trial	Issue waived because not specifically raised in new‑trial motion; no relief granted
Excluding evidence of victim’s propensity for intoxication/violence	Such evidence was not opened by State and not relevant absent self‑defense	Evidence of victim’s drunken, violent propensity was admissible and State “opened the door”	Trial court properly excluded it—no claim of self‑defense and State did not open the door
Competency of witness (Clifford Watkins)	Witness was presumptively competent; voir dire showed understanding of truth/lie; trial court discretion	Witness’s responses were inconsistent and suggested inability to distinguish truth from lies	Trial court did not abuse discretion; witness competent and jury could assess weight of testimony

State v. Davis, 466 S.W.3d 49 (Tenn. 2015) (trial court’s evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Garrett, 331 S.W.3d 392 (Tenn. 2011) (403/404(b) propensity concerns and limits on proof of other acts)
State v. Dotson, 254 S.W.3d 378 (Tenn. 2008) (use of other‑acts evidence and Rule 404(b) principles)
State v. Vance, 596 S.W.3d 229 (Tenn. 2020) (plain error review framework and required factors)
State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90 (Tenn. 2008) (standard on whether error probably changed outcome)
State v. Nash, 294 S.W.3d 541 (Tenn. 2009) (competency of witness and appellate review of trial court discretion)
State v. Hallock, 875 S.W.2d 285 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) (trial court discretion in witness competency)
State v. Johnson, 970 S.W.2d 500 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (issues not raised in motion for new trial are waived on appeal)