Tennessee appellate panel weighs whether shotgun testimony and presumptive THC test should have stood in Michael Brown case

A three-judge panel of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals heard oral arguments in State of Tennessee v. Michael Malik Deshaw Brown about whether testimony that officers found an AR-style shotgun and ammunition in Brown’s wrecked truck should have been excluded and whether the state proved the THC content necessary to support a simple-possession conviction.

Appellate Public Defender Joshua Lade, representing the appellant, argued the firearm testimony was irrelevant to the charges and “prejudicial” because it could have led jurors to infer Brown was dangerous. Lade told the court that “the first thing the officer found when he opened the door to Mr. Brown’s wrecked truck was an AR style shot gun, as well as a lot of ammunition in the driver cabin,” and said that testimony likely biased jurors in a case that turned largely on credibility.

Lade also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence on the marijuana count, noting that Tennessee law differentiates hemp from marijuana by THC content and that the state presented no laboratory measurement showing the seized substance exceeded 0.3% THC by dry weight. He pointed out that the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation’s practice, as described at argument, is not to run quantitative THC testing for misdemeanor amounts and said that creates a gap between the statutory standard and the tests the state relies on.

For the state, Ronald Coleman, arguing on behalf of the State and filling in for General Neff, urged the court to affirm. Coleman said the firearm evidence had probative value because it bore on Brown’s credibility and tied him to the truck and crash, and that officers’ communications and body-camera context supported admitting the testimony. “It went directly towards the defendant’s credibility,” Coleman said, arguing the testimony did not unfairly prejudice the jury.

On the marijuana question, Coleman told the panel that the TBI agent’s presumptive test, the agent’s testimony about that test’s reliability, and circumstantial evidence — including that the substance was wrapped in a homemade plastic baggie and the defendant’s behavior at the scene — together were sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the substance was illegal marijuana rather than hemp.

At trial, jurors acquitted Brown of driving under the influence but convicted him of filing a false report, simple possession of marijuana, hit and run and driving without proof of insurance, counsel said. Counsel also described trial evidence that officers found the truck in a nearby church parking lot, recovered the defendant’s wallet in the surrounding area, and saw grass stains on his pants; the state said those facts supported linking Brown to the vehicle and crash.

After argument, the panel said it would take the case under advisement and issue a ruling in due course. “Thank you. We're gonna take this under advisement, and we'll issue a ruling shortly,” the court said.

Why it matters: The appeal raises two frequently litigated appellate questions — the admissibility of potentially prejudicial evidence under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 403 and the evidentiary showing required to distinguish illegal marijuana from legal hemp under the statutory 0.3% THC threshold. The court’s decision could affect how trial courts handle presumptive tests and related testimony in misdemeanor marijuana prosecutions and how juries are instructed about credibility when non-charge-related but attention-grabbing evidence is introduced.

Provenance: The case caption was stated at argument (“State of Tennessee versus Michael Malik Deshaw Brown”). Appellate counsel Joshua Lade argued the firearm and sufficiency issues; the State replied through Ronald Coleman; the court took the matter under advisement.