State of Tennessee v. Tedarrius Lebron Myles, E2016-01478-CCA-R3-CD

Victim Shaphan Word was shot from behind on Aug. 15, 2012, left paralyzed; church security cameras captured the shooting but victim did not see assailant.
Police obtained and played surveillance footage; investigator learned a nickname “Peanut” tied (third-hand) to the shooter and matched the footage to photos of Tedarrius Myles; Myles voluntarily participated in an Aug. 20 reenactment video filmed by the same cameras.
Evidence included the church surveillance videos, the Aug. 20 video of Myles, victim identification (based on prior face-to-face encounters days earlier and on the video), similar shoes, gait, haircut, and a forearm marking/tattoo; no weapon recovered and forensic kits were not tested.
Myles was tried, convicted of attempted second-degree murder and employing a firearm during a dangerous felony, and sentenced to consecutive terms (10 and 6 years); post-trial he sought a new trial and new sentencing hearing (sentencing later resolved by agreement).
On appeal Myles challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence as to identity, (2) admission of hearsay linking him to the shooting, and (3) admission of expert-style testimony from the video extractor without formal expert qualification.

Issue	State's Argument	Myles's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence (identity)	Video, reenactment video, victim ID, matching tattoo/shoes/gait permit a reasonable jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt	Video is not definitive; physical dissimilarities and lack of motive weaken ID; proof is weak	Affirmed — circumstantial/video plus victim ID sufficient for jury to find identity beyond a reasonable doubt
Admission of hearsay (nickname/IDs)	Statements were offered to show investigative steps; any prejudice minimal compared to video evidence	Hearsay identifying Myles ("Peanut") was prejudicial and should have been excluded	No plain error — no timely objection; admission did not breach clear rule or warrant relief
Expert testimony (video/extraction)	Witness’s testimony assisted jury; foundation was sufficient and court would have qualified him	Mr. Hamilton was not formally tendered/qualified as an expert; average juror wouldn’t know infrared/video issues	No plain error — failure to object waived review; even if error, not necessary to do substantial justice
Exclusion of prior robbery evidence (404(b))	State complied with court’s ruling; robbery evidence was excluded	Admission of hearsay later undermined the exclusion of robbery evidence	Robbery evidence was not put before jury; no reversible error

State v. Pope, 427 S.W.3d 363 (Tenn. 2013) (appellate standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Goodwin, 143 S.W.3d 771 (Tenn. 2004) (appellate deference to jury credibility determinations)
State v. Smith, 436 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2014) (jury verdict resolves conflicts in evidence)
State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997) (credibility and factual issues are for the trier of fact)
State v. Wagner, 382 S.W.3d 289 (Tenn. 2012) (affording State the strongest legitimate view of the evidence)
State v. Cole, 155 S.W.3d 885 (Tenn. 2005) (defendant bears burden to show insufficiency on appeal)
State v. Bell, 512 S.W.3d 167 (Tenn. 2015) (circumstantial evidence may establish identity)
State v. Thomas, 158 S.W.3d 361 (Tenn. 2005) (identity is a question of fact for the jury)
State v. Murphy, 953 S.W.2d 200 (Tenn. 1997) (Rule 702 expert testimony required when jurors lack ordinary knowledge)
State v. Bishop, 431 S.W.3d 22 (Tenn. 2014) (plain error factors for unpreserved issues)