Court Hears Appeal in State v. Derek Morse Over Witness ID and 404(b) Evidence

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals (Eastern Section) heard the second day of oral argument in State of Tennessee v. Derek Morse, a criminal appeal centering on whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove Morse was one of the shooters in a 2014 attack and whether the trial court erred by admitting prior-act testimony under Rule 404(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence.

Brennan Wingerter, appellate counsel with the Public Defender’s Appellate Division for the appellant Derek Morse, told the three-judge panel that “the cumulative error argument ... may be the strongest point” of Morse’s appeal and that the identification testimony and a 404(b) ruling were the primary bases for relief. Wingerter argued the only eyewitness who placed Morse at the shooting, Matthew Callan, changed his account after hearing community rumors and police references, and that physical evidence the state characterized as corroborative—gunshot residue on clothing—did not establish that Morse fired a weapon at the scene.

Wingerter outlined facts the defense says undermine the identification: the April 9, 2014 shooting occurred outside a trailer owned by Jacob (Jake) Lang in the Lookout Valley area near Chattanooga; four people were outside the trailer (Lang, John Morris, Caleb Boozer and Matthew Callan), and Callan was the sole surviving eyewitness. The defense argued that Callan initially told police he did not know who shot him, later adopted an identification after being exposed to rumors circulated by a community member, Molly Morris, and after seeing a photograph of Morse with facial hair. Wingerter told the court the state’s case relied heavily on that identification and on the state’s closing argument that gunshot-residue testing on clothing constituted corroborative forensic proof—an assertion Wingerter said the state expert’s own testimony did not support.

The defense also challenged admission of testimony about an incident five days before the killings at a food-line parking lot (described in the record as a separate confrontation in which Morse fired his weapon after his car was struck). Wingerter said the trial court allowed Brandon Jackson to describe that prior incident under Rule 404(b) for motive, intent and identity even though, the defense argued, the only common link between incidents was a person (John Morris) and the prior act was not a signature crime tying Morse to the later killings. Wingerter warned the 404(b) testimony unfairly portrayed Morse as a local drug dealer and armed aggressor and prejudiced the jury when other evidence tying him to the murders was weak.

Responding for the State, Catherine Redding said the record contains extensive corroboration for Callan’s identification and for the jury’s verdict. Redding summarized proof the state presented at trial: testimony that Morse and codefendants armed themselves and drove to the Morris home area, eyewitness testimony placing Morse with Skyler Allen and Jacob Allison, hotel surveillance placing the three together after the shooting, witnesses who observed Morse’s vehicle at the scene, and ballistics testing linking recovered guns and cartridge casings to casings found in and on Morse’s vehicle. Redding told the court, “A rational trier of fact could have identified the defendant as one of the perpetrators,” and emphasized the jury heard Callan’s initial uncertainty, his explanation for the change in his identification, and cross-examination that exposed weaknesses.

The state said the 404(b) testimony was properly admitted for noncharacter purposes—motive, intent and identity—and that the trial court gave an appropriate limiting instruction before that testimony. Redding further argued the prosecutor’s closing remarks were reviewed under plain-error standards and that the jury was instructed that arguments of counsel are not evidence.

Judges on the panel questioned both counsel about the interplay between jury instructions and sufficiency review, and about whether discrepancies in clothing descriptions, witnesses’ prior inconsistent statements, and evidence of gunshot residue changed the legal sufficiency calculus. The court’s questioning focused on whether the contested identification was a legal insufficiency that required reversal or an evidentiary/admissibility dispute that the jury appropriately resolved.

Counsel for Morse stressed to the panel that several witnesses later recanted or admitted lying to police about Morse’s involvement, and he urged the court to reverse on insufficiency grounds or, alternatively, to grant a new trial based on the 404(b) admission. The state maintained that multiple independent pieces of evidence supported the verdict and that any inconsistencies were matters for the jury to weigh.

Oral argument concluded without a ruling from the bench during the session. The panel did not announce a decision during argument; the appeal remains under submission to the Court of Criminal Appeals for a written decision.