ÿWPCœ …UBV %˜U.žÌnXÜ 0P4 4„ 0”˜ 0D, p w p 0Jz 0TÄ 0^ 0hv 0rÞ 0|P 0†Ì 0R 1uâ U,W 0dƒU,çU6B)I BrDC AMÒBÒav~3 D3±vÓä 0@· AO÷ÆF 0D  D/P B<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|Xa «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  Ó»{s (D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóV Ó€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d d####7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ 8Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òMayÏ1,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ÈÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔOn€appeal€to€this€Court,€the€defendant's€conviction€for€aggravated€rape€was€affirmed€but€theÏconviction€for€aggravated€sexual€battery€was€reversed€and€dismissed.€€òòState€v.€Banesóó,€874€S.W.2d€73Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@$$$$'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€"ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ X ÑÑ7€çÌXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÙ€€ÙßL€&'%;+'h|` 81 `€€Lßà àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÓ  Óà@ àDECEMBER€1995ÏSESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òTYLER€WAYNE€BANES,à àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.€NO.Ï02C01„9508„CC„00249ó óÌà àà àAppellant,à àò ò€€€€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àMADISONÏCOUNTYó óÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JOHNÏFRANKLIN€MURCHISON,ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óAppellee.ò òà àà à)à àó ó(Writ€of€ErrorÏCoram€Nobis)ò òÌó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THEÏAPPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òTHOMAS€T.ÏWOODALLà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.ÏBURSONÌó óP.€O.€Box€1075à àà àà àà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€&€Reporterò òÌó óDickson,€TN€€37056„1075ò òÌó ó€€€€€€€€€€(On€Appeal)à àà àà àà àò òà àELLENÏH.€POLLACKó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.ÏAttorney€GeneralÌò òGEORGE€MORTON€GOOGEó ó€€à àà àà à450€JamesÏRobertson€Pkwy.à àPublicÍDefenderà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ì227€West€Baltimore€St.à àà àà àà àÌJackson,€TN€€38301à àà àà àà àò òJERRY€WOODALLó óÌ€€(At€Trial€and€on€Appeal)à àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àDONALD€ALLENó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.€O.€Box€2825Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJackson,€TN€€38302Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÌJudgeÌÇÑ  Ñà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌó óóóÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àOn€May€13,€1992,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€of€aggravated€rape€andÏaggravated€sexual€battery.× ƒ( ××  ×€€He€has€now€filed€a€petition€for€a€writ€of€error€coramÏnobis,€requesting€that€his€conviction€for€aggravated€rape€be€set€aside€and€that€he€beÏgranted€a€new€trial€because€of€newly€discovered€evidence.€€After€a€hearing€on€MarchÏ30,€1995,€the€trial€court€denied€the€petition.ÌÌà àà àIn€this€appeal€as€of€right,€the€petitioner€contends€that€the€trial€court€erredÏin€dismissing€his€petition€which€relied€on€newly€discovered€evidence€in€the€form€of€aÏrecantation€of€testimony€by€the€minor€victim.€€After€reviewing€the€record,€we€affirm€theÏlower€court's€dismissal.ÌÌà àà àPetitioner's€trial€attorney€was€not€allowed€to€interview€the€victim€prior€toÏthe€original€trial.€€However,€trial€counsel€did€cross„examine€the€victim.€€The€victimÏaccused€the€petitioner€of€having€had€sexual€relations€with€her,€but€admitted€priorÏinconsistent€statements€to€the€Department€of€Human€Services,€to€the€detectiveÍinvestigating€the€case,€to€the€doctor,€and€to€a€nurse.€€Also,€evidence€was€presentedÏat€trial€that€the€petitioner€was€not€the€father€of€the€victim's€child€who€was€born€prior€toÏthe€trial.€€Also€admitted€into€evidence€at€trial€was€a€letter€written€by€the€petitioner€toÏthe€district€attorney€in€which€the€petitioner€admitted€to€having€had€sexual€relationsÏwith€the€victim.ÌÌà àà àAfter€the€trial,€the€petitioner's€attorney€met€with€the€victim,€who€wasÏbeing€held€at€a€juvenile€detention€facility,€and€obtained€an€affidavit€from€her€denyingÏthat€she€had€ever€had€sexual€relations€with€the€petitioner€and€stating€that€she€hadÏlied€at€trial€because€she€was€mad€at€the€petitioner.€€This€recantation€of€the€victim'sÏtestimony€is€the€basis€of€the€petition€for€writ€of€error€coram€nobis.ÌÌà àà àOur€statutes€provide€that€a€proceeding€in€the€nature€of€writ€of€errorÏcoram€nobis€is€available€to€defendants€convicted€in€criminal€cases€and€thatÏproceedings€thereunder€are€to€be€governed€by€the€same€rules€and€proceduresÏapplicable€to€the€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€in€civil€cases.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„26„105.€€ThisÏstatute€also€provides€that€relief€is€confined€to€cases€in€which€errors€were€not€or€couldÏnot€have€been€litigated€at€trial.€€Further,€the€statute€provides€that€if€a€defendant€canÏshow€that€he€or€she€was€not€at€fault€in€failing€to€present€certain€evidence€at€theÍproper€time,€the€writ€will€lie€for€subsequently€or€newly€discovered€evidence€relating€toÏmatters€which€were€litigated€at€trial€if€the€judge€determines€that€such€evidence€mayÏhave€resulted€in€a€different€judgment,€had€it€been€presented.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„26„105.ÌÌà àà àThe€general€test€as€to€whether€a€defendant€should€be€granted€a€newÏtrial€because€of€newly€discovered€evidence€is€composed€of€three€prongs:€(1)€did€theÏdefendant€use€reasonable€diligence€to€discover€the€evidence;€(2)€is€the€newlyÏdiscovered€evidence€material;€and€(3)€would€the€introduction€of€the€evidence€likelyÏchange€the€result€if€accepted€by€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Goswickóó,€656€S.W.2d€355,€358„59Ï(Tenn.€1983).€€Ordinarily,€a€new€trial€will€not€be€granted€where€the€new€evidence€is€toÏdiscredit€the€testimony€of€a€witness,€contradict€a€witness'€statement,€or€impeach€aÏwitness,€unless€the€testimony€of€the€witness€who€is€sought€to€be€impeached€was€soÏimportant€to€the€issue€and€the€evidence€impeaching€the€witness€is€so€strong€andÏconvincing€that€a€different€result€would€necessarily€follow.€€òòRosenthal€v.€Stateóó,€200ÏTenn.€178,€292€S.W.2d€1,€4„5€(1956).ÌÌà àà àIn€determining€whether€to€grant€a€new€trial€in€cases€involving€recantedÏtestimony,€the€test€is€as€follows:€"(1)€Is€the€trial€judge€reasonably€well€satisfied€thatÏthe€testimony€given€by€a€material€witness€was€false€and€that€the€new€testimony€isÍtrue;€(2)€was€the€defendant€reasonably€diligent€in€discovering€the€new€evidence,€orÏsurprised€by€false€testimony,€or€unable€to€know€of€the€falsity€until€after€the€trial;€andÏ(3)€might€the€jury€have€reached€a€different€conclusion€had€the€truth€been€told."€€òòStateÏv.€Phillip€Lloyd€Herndonóó,€No.03C01„9303„CR„00098,€Knox€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ïfiled€May€11,€1994,€at€Knoxville).€€Recanted€testimony€is€looked€upon€with€distrustÏrather€than€favor€due€to€the€great€temptation€to€strengthen€the€weak€points€of€theÏcase€discovered€during€the€trial€by€perjury€or€subornation€of€perjury.€€òòRoss€v.€Stateóó,Ï130€Tenn.€387,€170€S.W.1026,€1028€(1914).ÌÌà àà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing€in€this€case,€the€trial€judge€found€thatÏthe€evidence€offered€was€"not€newly€discovered€evidence."€€In€his€finding€the€trialÏjudge€stated€that€a€witness€changing€his€or€her€story€is€not€the€same€as€a€newlyÏdiscovered€witness.€€The€trial€court€further€found€that€this€was€simply€an€attempt€toÏchange€testimony€by€a€witness€who€had€affection€for€the€defendant€and€thatÏ"affection€[was]€going€in€both€directions."€€The€trial€judge€concluded€that€there€was€aÏstrong€inference€that€what€the€witness€had€originally€testified€to€was€true€in€view€ofÏthe€corroboration€by€the€petitioner's€letter€admitting€the€sexual€relations.ÌÌà àà àOur€review€of€the€record€supports€the€findings€of€the€trial€judge€who€wasÍnot€satisfied€that€the€testimony€given€at€trial€was€false€and€the€new€testimony€wasÏtrue.€€We€also€conclude€that€the€record€does€not€support€a€finding€that€the€"newÏtestimony"€would€likely€change€the€result€of€the€trial.ÌÌà àà àFor€the€reasons€set€out€above,€we€affirm€the€action€of€the€trial€court€inÏdismissing€the€petition€for€writ€of€error€coram€nobis.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€Judge