Supreme Court Reinstates Memphis Kidnapping Convictions, Clarifies Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims

The Tennessee Supreme Court has reinstated convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping charges and affirmed multiple other convictions arising out of a home invasion in Memphis. 

In July 1999, two armed men forced their way into a residence and demanded money and other property from those inside, forced the victims to remove their clothing, and bound them on the kitchen floor. Rashe Moore and another man ransacked the house, took items of personal property, and raped two women inside the home. At trial, multiple witnesses identified Mr. Moore as one of the men who entered the house, but he claimed at trial that he was at a club at the time of the crimes.

At the conclusion of the trial, Mr. Moore’s attorney orally asked the trial judge to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of aggravated rape.  Lesser-included offenses are crimes that are similar and carry some of the same elements of the crime charged, but are somewhat less serious and carry lighter penalties. The trial court declined to instruct the jury on any lesser-included offenses. Mr. Moore was convicted of one count of aggravated burglary, five counts of aggravated robbery, seven counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, and three counts of aggravated rape.  He received a 99-year sentence. 

Shortly before Mr. Moore’s trial in 2002, a new law went into effect that required counsel to request lesser-included offense jury instructions in writing. Based on this new law, the Court of Criminal Appeals declined to address Mr. Moore’s claim on direct appeal that the trial court erred in failing to issue lesser-included offense instructions.

Tennessee law provides an avenue to file a petition for post-conviction relief to request a new trial if a defendant believes he was denied constitutionally guaranteed rights. These rights include the right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.  In order to prove ineffective assistance of counsel and receive a new trial, a defendant must show that trial counsel’s representation was deficient; and that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different if the legal representation had been adequate.  Mr. Moore alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his trial counsel’s failure to file written requests for lesser-included offense instructions at trial. 

The post-conviction court denied Mr. Moore relief because Mr. Moore failed to show that there was a reasonable probability that the result of his trial would have been different if his counsel had filed a written request for jury instructions on the lesser-included offenses.  The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief as to all of Mr. Moore’s convictions except the especially aggravated kidnapping convictions, for which the court granted a new trial. The Court determined that the trial court’s failure to issue lesser-included offense instructions for especially aggravated kidnapping would have been reversible error on direct appeal had trial counsel adequately presented the issue at trial. 

In a unanimous opinion authored by Chief Justice Sharon G. Lee, the Supreme Court agreed in part with the Court of Criminal Appeals and denied Mr. Moore post-conviction relief on his aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and aggravated rape convictions. However, the Court reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals’ grant of relief on Mr. Moore’s especially aggravated kidnapping convictions.  The Supreme Court explained that the counsel’s failure to appropriately request lesser-included offense instructions requires reviewing courts to conduct a thorough examination of the record, including evidence presented at trial, a defendant’s theory of defense, and the verdict returned by the jury.

Employing this analysis, the Supreme Court determined that there was no reasonable probability that a jury would have convicted Mr. Moore of any lesser offense if given the chance.  Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded that Mr. Moore was not prejudiced by his counsel’s performance and was not entitled to relief on any of his convictions. 

Read the opinion in Rashe Moore v. State, authored by Chief Justice Lee.