ÿWPCÉ  Š”§1wÂÿòÌô^̼ƒ©“õ †Žnûšr—ÁÂGÞ >Xnų̚ÿº½½£vS NYF×0>µ½Û(5Š%‡+E—ªgå“Ù"×QŽÛà %Œ”XG3_Í7ì<×­ÚûLÿTRg±˜\aóYž[Ôô´G”òŽä6’ÛV&'À#ûœ}ê(ø§øx¹6D Ž“Ñ+; žüö9sx‹]Pý•6ûðÂà6³ûœ0Á€æÒ·¯€{¶CÉ —<öƒbô5ŽW¶ÿ<‚a°ÞÃ*‹d¶€†ÂÃÌþ4ýTRÚ¨ñYJßY¨Öß§j¬¤-9‰¬YìÕzâ~møO 8Åx˜šT9+ó ÿô™Y-"¨R¥0Hð±»ÍZ¥X>ù£=vŠæVIDôºySÐú)šävýýlÍÕIJ %bž¿kú¹U> cÕ1ssß(!È4IJu„8U!ÜtfJ¾]ÂP9´=èÊéHÌ´¢ÈÊ„û÷!¾¹”·d· ŸX'74áR: æNƒ±MÆåToKp<£¨Ñ‰ëKÓ¹4W‰ö Š—œêÄv¨¹'5WÍ—XµCÉ« ehニ“í·BeÃêáÎ:,zéÎN´ü€+@Ršs Ô'…+U.Z %ˆU:ŽÆÈ 0”Ž 0Œ"U.®Ü˜ô 0Œ D+ ÆD 0 0=— 0Ô AQa Ʋ 0Cx“»Nn^ 0raÓw@Û4o/ 0¶žU:TÊŽ…X BÝU:ú#!4NUW mYY²pU:"U:\\ D3–<þ6X9`(Courierô;þ6X9`("Courier NewTT' Ï 4Valued Gateway Client40Valued Gateway Client .   hÿÿ:Default ParaDefault Paragraph FontÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ô`ÿÿ:footnote reffootnote referenceÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ô%ä2¼A`ArialTT Ö€ Ö ŽÝ ƒ i¶)ÝÔ€XmXôôÔÔ€X¥WXXXmÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÓÈÓÓ  ÓÌß‚€L<8z (   0€ €@ H@E( ð ð( ð‚ßâ   (#(#â°â     â°â (#(#  âÓÈÓÒ°ÒÌÒ°Ò(e2ÇŽ$©©Ý ƒKy!ÝÔ€XaâXõôÔÔ€Xu1XXXaâÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý'ÈÈÈÈdxdƒ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(e2ÇŽ$££Ý ƒKy!ÝÔ€XaâXõôÔÔ€Xu1XXXaâÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$””Ú  ÚÚ  Ú(e2ÇŽ$¢¢Ý ƒKy!ÝÔ€XaâXõôÔÔ€Xu1XXXaâÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý   Cþÿ<< cÿÿ ¼Ý ƒi¶"ÝÔ€XmXôôÔÔ€X¥WXXXmÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÔ€XÍŠXXX¥WÔÔ@  ÔÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚÔA  Ô(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó ‰Ý ƒKy!ÝÔ€XÆpXôôÔÔ€XÅÂXXXÆpÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€X}‡XXXÅÂÔÒ°ÒÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œX?Óà ` àòòò…òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó…óóóÝ‚ÿÿÿ’ƒÝÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  Ý€The€defendant€was€indicted€on€four€counts€of€attempted€first€degreeÐ `  Ðmurder€in€addition€to€the€indictment€for€aggravated€arson.€€The€jury€found€theÏdefendant€not€guilty€on€the€four€counts€of€attempted€first€degree€murder.Ô€XÅÂXXX}‡Ô3|xU«<þ6X9`(CourierôÛdþ6X@ÉüCô@;þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXvþ6X@ÉüCX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTTTXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP(JKy$¡¡Ô€X"XôôÔÔ€X5\XXX"ÔÓ  Ó LEM[NOPDQRSUT'eUÓ€{Z='ö¶¢ eÒ°ÒÝ ƒFAÿÝÔ€XÆpXôôÔÔ€XÅÂXXXÆpÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(X}‡XXXÅÂÔThe€state€inaptly€requested€a€declaration€that€Polk€was€a€hostile€witness.€Ð `  ÐThis€is€an€artifice€designed€to€allow€a€party€calling€a€witness€to€ask€the€witnessÏleading€questions.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€611(c).€€A€declaration€of€hostility€is€not€aÐ @ à Ðcondition€precedent€to€Rule€613€impeachment€of€a€partyððs€own€witness€via€a€priorÏinconsistent€statement.Ô€X}‡XX(X}‡Ô(f(3¦X$¤¤Ý ƒKy!ÝÔ€XaâXõôÔÔ€Xu1XXXaâÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular ÀÒ°ÒÝ ƒFAÿÝÔ€XÆpXôôÔÔ€XÅÂXXXÆpÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡X}‡XXXÅÂÔA€prior€statement€may€be€introduced€as€substantive€evidence€under€theÐ `  Ðhearsay€exception€of€Rule€803(5).€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(5).€€However,€the€stateÐ P ð ó Ðdid€not€seek€to€introduce€Polkððs€prior€taped€statement€into€evidence.€€Additionally,ÏPolk€did€not€testify€that€he€had€ð ðinsufficient€recollection€to€enable€[him]€to€testify€fullyÏand€accurately.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(5).€€Therefore,€Rule€803(5)€is€inapplicable€toÏthis€case.Ô#†XÅÂXXX}‡›#Ô {Ý ƒÇŽ"ÝÔ€XaâXõôÔÔ€Xu1XXXaâÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€ X»^XXXu1ÔÔ€ îѨîX X»^ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ ;´î îѨÔÐ  ÐÌò òAugust€31,€1999Ð ¸¸ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôàõ ;´ÔAppellate€CourtÐ ˜˜ ÐClerkó ó d,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ¨Ý ƒ i¶)ÝÔ€XmXôôÔÔ€X¥WXXXmÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€'XÍŠXXX¥WÔÓ  ÓÚ  Ú2Ú  Ú, øð AZ"Arial Regular, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒKy!ÝÔ€XaâXõôÔÔ€Xu1XXXaâÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝñTñ›ñTñÑTR[° AØ'3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÔ€X»^XXXu1ÔÔ  ÔñUñßr€*<,(j 8 `€€@Ef tt0(H` ¨ÞrßñUñÔ_ÔÌò òà@˜ ˜ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ F æ ÐÌ€à@=='àAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ  ¾ ÐÌà@hh%àMAY€1999€SESSIONó óˆÐ ö – ÐÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À àà  àó ó)à p àÐ ”4  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ €  Ðà ` àà ¸ àAppellee,à h àà À àà  à)à p àC.C.A.€No.€03C01„9802„CR„00076Ð f  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ Lì  Ðvs.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àHamilton€CountyÐ 2Ò  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ ¸  Ðò òHARRISON€PEARSON,à h àà À àà  àó ó)à p àHon.€Stephen€M.€Bevil,€JudgeÐ þž  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ êŠ Ðà ` àà ¸ àAppellant.à h àà À àà  à)à p à(Aggravated€Arson)Ð Ðp Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à h àà À àà  àà p àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:Ð h ÐÌò òARDENA€J.€GARTHà h àà À àà  àà p àPAUL€G.€SUMMERS€à Ð àó óÐ 4Ô ÐDistrict€Public€Defenderà h àà À àà  àà p àAttorney€General€&€Reporter€Ð  À ÐÌò òKARLA€G.€GOTHARD€(at€trial)ó óà À àà  àà p àò òELLEN€H.€POLLACKó óÐ ì Œ ÐAssistant€Public€Defenderà h àà À àà  àà p àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ Ø!x Ð701€Cherry€Street,€Suite€300à À àà  àà p à425€Fifth€Ave.€N.,€2d€FloorÐ ¾"^ ÐChattanooga,€TN€37402„1910à À àà  àà p àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ð ¤#D Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌò òEDWARD€T.€LANDIS€(at€sentencing€andà p àWILLIAM€H.€COX€IIIó óÐ p% ÐAttorney€at€Lawò òà  àà h àon€appeal)ó óà  àò òà p àó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÐ \&ü  Ð744€McCallie€Avenue,€Suite€327ÌChattanooga,€TN€37403à h àà À àà  àà p àò òJOHN€W.€MILLICAN€andÐ .(Î" Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àDAVID€W.€DENNYó óÐ )º# Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAsst.€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à600€Market€Street,€Suite€310Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àChattanooga,€TNò ò€ó ó37402ò òÐ Ò+r"& ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEó óÐ ö5–,1 ÐÌÌÌÌÌÑ€ÑÓÓà@qq*àò òòòOPINIONó óóóˆÐ `;27 ÐÑÑâ âÖ€ Öâ âÑ  ÑÌÓ<( ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œX<Óà ¸ àThe€defendant,€Harrison€Pearson,€appeals€from€his€jury€conviction€inÏthe€Hamilton€County€Criminal€Court€for€aggravated€arson,€a€Class€A€felony.€€òòSeeóóÐ   ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„303(a)(1)€(1997).€The€trial€court€imposed€a€twenty„yearÏsentence€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.€€In€this€direct€appeal,€theÏdefendant€contends€the€state€improperly€withheld€the€existence€of€taped€statementsÏof€witnesses€and€improperly€rehabilitated€one€of€its€witnesses€out€of€court.€€After€aÏreview€of€the€record,€the€briefs€of€the€parties,€and€the€applicable€law,€we€affirm.ÌÌà ¸ àFloyd€Polk,€the€defendantððs€neighbor€and€friend,€testified€that€onÏMarch€1,€1996,€the€defendant€came€to€his€home€at€1117€Belmeade€Avenue€aroundÏ9:30€p.m.€€For€approximately€an€hour,€they€drank€whiskey€and€talked.€€Polk€testifiedÏthat€the€defendant€was€laughing€and€joking€at€this€time.€€The€defendant€left€PolkððsÏhome,€but€returned€between€midnight€and€12:30€a.m.€€Polk€testified€that€at€this€timeÏthe€defendant€smelled€like€gasoline€and€there€was€a€gallon€jug€with€a€liquidÏappearing€to€be€gasoline€in€Polkððs€yard.€€When€Polk€asked€the€defendant€about€theÏgasoline,€the€defendant€said€he€had€obtained€the€gasoline€to€help€Tommy€RamseyððsÏson€whose€car€ran€out€of€gas.€€As€the€defendant€was€leaving€Polkððs€home,€Polk€sawÏthe€defendant€walking€toward€1005€Belmeade€Avenue,€where€the€fire€occurred.€€ÌÌÖ€&ÿÿÖà ¸ àAfter€cross€examination,€the€stateððs€attorney€asked€for€a€benchÏconference.€€During€the€bench€conference,€the€stateððs€attorney€said€Polkððs€testimonyÏwas€inconsistent€with€his€tape„recorded€pretrial€statement.€€The€defendantððsÏattorney€informed€the€judge€that€she€had€not€received€a€copy€of€any€pretrialÏstatements€by€testifying€witnesses,€including€Polkððs€pretrial€statement.€€The€courtÏordered€that€the€defense€be€provided€with€these€pretrial€statements,€and€a€recessÐ  :À04 ÐÑÑÖ€ &ðÖÑ  ÑñUñÑÑÖ€ &ðÖÑ  ÑÑÑÖ€ &ðÖÑ  ÑÑÑÖ€ &ðÖÑ  ÑÑÑÖ€ &ðÖÑ  ÑñUññTñÑÑÖ€ &ðÖÑ  ÑñTñwas€allowed€for€the€defendantððs€attorney€to€review€the€statements.€€After€the€recess,ÏPolk€testified€that€he€reviewed€the€recording€of€his€March€5,€1996€statement€ñTñœñTñduringñTñ›ñTññTññTñÏthe€recess€at€the€district€attorneyððs€office.€€The€defendantððs€attorney€objected€to€theÏdistrict€attorneyððs€allowing€Polk€to€review€his€pretrial€statement€during€the€recess.€ÏThe€court€overruled€the€objection€and€allowed€Polk€to€testify.€€ÌÌà ¸ àPolk€testified€on€further€direct€examination€and€ñTñœñTñcross„examinationñTñ›ñTññTññTñ€thatÏhe€had€forgotten€to€mention€in€his€earlier€testimony€that€the€defendant€was€upsetÏearlier€that€night€about€his€pending€divorce.€€The€defendant€seemed€hurt€by€theÏdivorce€situation.€€Polk€testified€that€he€remembered€the€defendantððs€mood€on€theÏnight€of€the€fire€after€listening€to€his€pretrial€statement€during€the€recess.€€PolkÏtestified€that€the€defendant€was€depressed€when€he€arrived€at€Polkððs€home€at€9:30Ïp.m.,€but€after€they€talked,€the€defendant€was€ð ðacting€all€right.ðð€€Polk€did€not€see€theÏdefendant€set€the€fire€that€occurred€at€1005€Belmeade€Avenue.ÌÌà ¸ àPaulette€Pearson€and€the€defendant€were€in€the€process€of€a€divorce,Ïand€the€defendant€had€permanently€moved€out€of€their€house€at€1005€ñTñœñTñBelmeadeñTñ›ñTñÏAvenue€two€weeks€prior€to€the€fire.€€Paulette€Pearson€testified€that€the€defendantÏarrived€there€at€5:00€p.m.€on€March€1,€1996.€€€They€talked€about€selling€the€houseÏand€splitting€the€proceeds€or€remodeling€the€house.€€The€defendant€left€the€houseÏat€some€point€and€returned€around€11:30€p.m.€€Pearson€testified€that€the€defendantÏwas€drunk€at€11:30€p.m.€€The€defendant€wanted€Pearson€to€drive€him€to€hisÏmotherððs€house.€€When€they€arrived€at€his€motherððs€house,€the€defendant€refusedÏto€exit€the€car.€€Pearson€testified€that€she€had€to€forcibly€remove€the€defendant€fromÏthe€car.€€When€Pearson€arrived€home,€the€defendant€was€on€the€phone€requestingÐ `6-0 Ðto€speak€with€her.€€She€refused€to€talk€to€the€defendant€and€went€straight€to€bed€atÏ11:40€p.m.€€She€was€awakened€by€Yolonda€Pearson€screaming€that€the€house€wasÏon€fire.€€Yolonda€Pearson,€Paula€Mason€and€Denzel€Mason€were€in€the€house€withÏPaulette€Pearson€when€the€fire€occurred€sometime€after€1€a.m.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThere€were€two€fires,€one€at€the€front€door€and€one€at€the€back€door.ÏAs€the€fires€blazed,€Pearson€heard€someone€knocking€on€the€door€and€€thought€itÏwas€the€defendant.€€She€thought€the€defendant€had€started€the€fire€because€he€hadÏthreatened€to€burn€the€house€on€numerous€occasions;€however,€€the€personÏknocking€on€the€door€was€a€neighbor,€who€kicked€the€front€door€open€so€that€theÏoccupants€of€the€house€could€run€through€the€door.€€Pearson€did€not€see€theÏdefendant€set€the€fire,€but€she€believed€he€did.€ÌÌà ¸ àYolonda€Pearson,€the€daughter€of€Paulette€Pearson€and€theÏdefendant,€testified€that€she€discovered€the€fire.€€She€thought€the€defendant€was€theÏperson€knocking€on€the€door€during€the€fire€because€he€had€been€saying€for€yearsÏthat€he€would€burn€the€house.€€She€testified€that€Eric€and€Tim€Fossis,€theÏdefendantððs€step„sons,€went€to€the€defendantððs€motherððs€house€after€the€fire€to€findÏthe€defendant€because€they€believed€the€defendant€started€the€fire.€€The€PearsonsððÏdog€that€always€stayed€close€to€their€house€was€not€at€their€house€during€or€afterÏthe€fire;€instead,€the€dog€was€at€the€defendantððs€motherððs€house.€€This€factÏconfirmed€their€belief€that€the€defendant€started€the€fire.ÌÌà ¸ àSheila€Earvin€testified€that€she€saw€the€defendant€walking€toward€theÏConoco€on€Tunnel€Boulevard€with€a€plastic€jug€at€12:15€or€12:20€a.m.€on€March€2,Ð `6-0 Ð1996.€€The€defendant€had€previously€talked€to€her€about€his€divorce,€and€he€wasÏupset.€€Earvin€did€not€know€if€the€defendant€started€the€fire,€but€she€did€tell€theÏdetectives€that€she€was€angry€with€the€defendant€for€burning€the€house.ÌÌà ¸ àAlec€Conner,€an€investigator€with€the€Chattanooga€PoliceÏDepartmentððs€arson€division,€was€called€to€the€scene€of€the€fire€on€March€2,€1996.€ÏConner€noticed€a€splash€pattern€and€an€oily€film€on€the€front€of€the€house.€€HeÏcollected€samples€of€fire€debris€for€testing.€€As€he€was€collecting€the€samples,€heÏsmelled€a€distinct€accelerant€odor.€€Sample€three,€pink€insulation€at€the€base€of€theÏwall€inside€the€back€of€the€house,€smelled€strongly€of€gasoline.€€Conner€testified€thatÏthe€irregular€burn€patterns€were€caused€by€a€liquid€accelerant.€€Paulette€PearsonÏtold€Conner€that€the€defendant€had€threatened€to€burn€the€house.€€Conner€askedÏan€officer€to€bring€the€defendant€to€the€Fire€Administration€Building€to€talk€to€him.€ÏÌà ¸ àWhen€the€defendant€arrived,€Conner€advised€him€of€his€rights.€ÏConner€detected€a€strong€odor€of€alcohol,€and€the€defendantððs€hands€smelledÏstrongly€of€bleach.€€Conner€terminated€the€interview€because€he€believed€theÏdefendant€was€intoxicated.€€The€Monday€after€the€fire,€Conner€talked€to€severalÏneighbors€near€the€fire.€€Conner€concluded€that€the€defendant€was€a€suspect,€andÏthe€defendant€was€arrested€on€March€7,€1996.€€On€this€date,€the€defendant€signedÏa€waiver€of€rights€form.€€The€defendant€wrote€two€statements€after€waiving€hisÏrights,€one€at€Connerððs€office€and€one€at€the€county€jail.€€The€defendant€deniedÏinvolvement€in€the€fire€in€both€statements.ÌÌà ¸ àConner€identified€his€report€on€the€fire.€€An€unidentified€person€in€theÐ `6-0 Ðcrowd€surrounding€the€house€after€the€fire€told€Conner€that€a€black€male,€who€wasÏfive€feet€nine€inches€tall,€weighing€160€pounds,€wearing€dark€clothes,€was€seenÏrunning€from€the€fire.€€This€information€was€written€in€the€suspect€section€ofÏConnerððs€report.€€The€defendantððs€name€was€not€listed€in€the€suspect€section€of€thisÏreport.Ìà ¸ àÌà ¸ àBetty€Watkins,€a€Century€21€agent,€testified€that€the€defendant€calledÏher€to€perform€a€market€analysis€on€the€house€at€1005€Belmeade€Avenue.€€SheÏtestified€that€she€and€the€defendant€scheduled€an€appointment€for€March€8,€1996Ïso€that€she€could€list€the€house.€€The€defendant€scheduled€the€appointment€at€leastÏone€week€in€advance.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€testified€that€he€was€not€involved€in€setting€the€fire€atÏ1005€Belmeade€Avenue.€€Although€the€divorce€settlement€stated€that€the€houseÏwould€be€sold€and€the€proceeds€split€evenly,€the€defendant€acquired€estimates€forÏremodeling€the€house€because€Paulette€Pearson€wanted€to€keep€the€house.€€OnÏMarch€1,€1996,€the€defendant€went€to€Tommy€Ramseyððs€house€around€4:30€p.m.Ïwhere€he€helped€Ramsey€paint€a€box€surrounding€a€flower€bed.€€At€some€point,€theÏdefendant€saw€a€suspicious€white€male€in€a€maroon€truck€sitting€at€the€corner€of€theÏfence€near€1005€Belmeade€Avenue.€€The€defendant€was€concerned€that€there€wasÏdrug€activity€in€which€his€step„sons€were€involved€with€the€man€in€the€truck.€€TheÏdefendant€went€to€Floyd€Polkððs€house€around€9:30€ñTñœñTñp.m.ñTñ›ñTññTññTñ€and€left€there€around€11:00Ïp.m.€€At€this€time,€the€defendant€walked€to€1005€Belmeade€Avenue€and€askedÏPaulette€Pearson€to€drive€him€to€his€motherððs€house.€€She€drove€him€to€his€motherððsÏhouse,€and€he€exited€the€car.Ð `6-0 Їà ¸ àAt€his€motherððs€house,€the€defendant€realized€he€had€paint€on€hisÏhands.€€He€asked€his€mother€for€50€cents€to€buy€gasoline€to€wash€the€paint€off€hisÏhands.€€On€his€way€to€the€Conoco€station,€the€defendant€encountered€a€man€whoÏwas€having€trouble€starting€his€car€because€the€man€thought€he€was€out€of€gas.€ÏThe€defendant€offered€to€help,€and€he€bought€gas€at€the€Conoco€station.€€TheÏdefendant€helped€the€man€start€his€car,€and€then€walked€to€Polkððs€house.€€HeÏstayed€at€Polkððs€house€for€ten€to€fifteen€minutes,€then€he€walked€to€his€motherððsÏhouse€where€he€changed€clothes€and€fell€asleep.€€The€defendant€was€awakenedÏby€someone€saying€his€house€was€on€fire.€€When€he€awoke,€he€was€bleedingÏbecause,€as€he€was€told,€Tim€Fossis€and€others€had€knocked€him€unconscious€andÏbeat€him.€€The€police€arrived€soon€thereafter,€and€he€changed€into€his€work€clothes.€ÏHis€work€clothes€were€not€clean€and€his€rubber€boots€were€ð ðcontaminatedðð€withÏchlorine€from€his€job€at€Olin€Chemical.€€He€made€a€short€statement€to€the€police,Ïand€they€released€him.€€The€defendant€denied€any€drug€use,€but€admitted€he€hadÏbeen€drinking€alcohol€since€he€was€seven€years€old.€€The€defendant€testified€thatÏhe€received€medical€treatment€for€the€beating€he€received€the€night€of€the€fire.€€€€€€Ï€Ìà ¸ àAfter€hearing€all€the€evidence,€the€jury€convicted€the€defendant€ofÏaggravated€arson.Ý‚ÿÿÿÝÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÑÈÑ׃×Ý ƒÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  +À!$ ÐÌñTñœñTññTñ›ñTññTññTñÓ  Óò òI.€Pretrial€Statementsó óÐ à.€%( ÐÓ  Óà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€the€State€improperly€withheld€the€existenceÏof€taped€statements€of€witnesses.€€As€described€above,€the€defendant€was€notÐ  2@), Ðprovided€with€the€pretrial€taped€statements€of€certain€witnesses€until€the€ñTñœñTñcross„ñTñ›ñTññTññTñÏexamination€of€the€first€of€these€witnesses,€Floyd€Polk.€€The€stateððs€attorney€said€theÏdefendant€had€not€requested€these€statements€prior€to€that€point€in€time.€€TheÏdefendantððs€attorney€said€she€had€requested€all€pretrial€statements€of€witnesses.€ÌThe€court€ordered€the€stateððs€attorney€to€provide€a€copy€of€the€pretrial€statementsÏto€the€defendantððs€attorney€immediately,€and€a€recess€was€called€in€order€for€theÏdefendantððs€attorney€to€review€these€statements.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€is€claiming€the€stateððs€attorney€should€have€disclosedÏthe€existence€of€these€pretrial€statements€to€the€defense.€€However,€there€is€noÏclaim€that€any€of€these€statements€were€favorable€to€the€defense€such€that€theÏstateððs€attorney€would€be€required€as€a€constitutional€matter€to€disclose€theirÏexistence€with€or€without€a€request€from€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€òòKyles€v.€Whitleyóó,€514Ð à€ ÐU.S.€419,€433„34,€115€S.€Ct.€1555,€1565€(1995)€(ð ðòòBagleyóó€held€that€regardless€ofÐ À!` Ðrequest,€favorable€evidence€is€material,€and€constitutional€error€results€from€itsÏsuppression€by€the€government,€ððif€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€had€theÏevidence€been€disclosed€to€the€defense,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€haveÏbeen€different.ðððð)€(quoting€òòUnited€States€v.€Bagleyóó,€473€U.S.€667,€682,€105€S.€Ct.Ð @)à" Ð3375,€3383€(1985)).€€Furthermore,€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€16(a)(2)Ïprovides€that€the€defendant€in€a€criminal€case€is€not€entitled€to€pretrial€discovery€ofÏð ðstatements€made€by€state€witnesses€or€prospective€state€witnesses.ðð€€Accordingly,Ïthe€stateððs€attorney€was€neither€required€to€disclose€the€existence€of€the€witnessesððÏpretrial€statements€nor€to€disclose€the€contents€thereof.€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àRule€26.2(a)€provides€that€ð ð[ñTñœñTññTñœñTña]fterñTñ›ñTññTñ›ñTñ€a€witness€other€than€the€defendantÐ `6-0 Ðhas€testified€on€direct€examination,€the€trial€courtòò,€on€motion€of€a€party€who€did€notÐ `  Ðcall€the€witnessóó,€shall€order€the€attorney€[for€the€side€sponsoring€the€òòwitnessóó]€toÐ @ à Ðproduce€.€.€.€any€statement€of€the€witness€that€is€in€their€possession€and€that€relatesÏto€the€subject€matter€concerning€which€the€witness€has€testified.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.ÏP.€26.2(a)€(emphasis€added).€€Based€upon€our€review€of€the€record,€there€was€noÏmotion€by€the€defendant€for€Polkððs€statements€until€the€state€raised€the€issue€afterÏcross„examination.€€Under€Rule€26.2(a),€the€stateððs€attorney€was€not€required€toÏprovide€a€copy€of€the€statement€to€the€defendant€until€a€motion€was€made€by€theÏdefendant€òòafteróó€the€witnesses€testified€on€direct€examination.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,Ð ` Ð771€S.W.2d€387,€394€(Tenn.€1989).€€Once€the€existence€of€the€pretrial€statementsÏcame€to€light,€the€defendant€was€provided€a€copy€and€an€opportunity,€via€a€recess,Ïto€review€the€statements.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€26.2(d).€€Ð   ÐÌà ¸ àThere€was€no€improper€withholding€of€the€pretrial€statements€of€theÏwitness.ÌÌÓ  Óò òII.€Improper€Rehabilitation€of€Witnessó óÐ `'  ÐÓ  Óà ¸ à€€Next,€the€defendant€contests€the€Stateððs€rehabilitation€of€one€of€itsÏwitnesses,€Floyd€Polk,€out€of€court€during€a€recess.€€The€defendant€contends€hisÏright€to€confront€the€witness€was€violated€by€this€out€of€court€rehabilitation,€and€thatÏthe€testimony€after€rehabilitation€was€very€damaging€to€the€defendant.€€ÌÌà ¸ àAt€the€end€of€Polkððs€cross„examination,€the€prosecutor€asked€for€aÏbench€conference€where€he€informed€the€judge€and€the€defendantððs€attorney€thatÏPolkððs€testimony€was€inconsistent€with€his€pretrial€statement.€The€prosecutorÐ `6-0 Ðattempted€to€have€Polk€declared€a€hostile€witness,€but€the€court€declined.€€Instead,Ïthe€court€said€the€prosecutor€would€be€allowed€to€ask€Polk€about€his€pretrialÏstatement.€€After€Polk€listened€to€his€pretrial€statement€during€the€recess,€theÏprosecutor€attempted€to€lay€a€foundation€for€Polkððs€need€to€refresh€his€memory.ÌÌà ¸ àFloyd€Polk€was€extensively€questioned€on€cross„examination€aboutÏhis€listening€to€his€pretrial€statement€during€the€recess.€€He€never€claimed€on€theÏwitness€stand€to€have€forgotten€the€events€of€March€1„2,€1996.€€However,€PolkÏtestified€on€redirect€examination€that€his€memory€was€refreshed€by€listening€to€hisÏpretrial€taped€statement.€€Polk€testified€on€cross€examination€that€the€prosecutor€didÏnot€tell€Polk€to€testify€differently€or€change€his€testimony€in€any€way.€€According€toÏPolk,€the€prosecutor€only€asked€that€he€listen€to€his€pretrial€taped€statement€duringÏthe€recess.ÌÌà ¸ àFirst,€we€will€analyze€the€procedure€form€as€a€claim€of€trial€court€error.€ÏThen€we€will€review€it€as€a€claim€of€prosecutorial€misconduct.Ì€€ÌÓ  Ó(a)ÌÓ  Óà ¸ àThe€prosecutor€attempted€to€refresh€Polkððs€memory€by€allowing€himÏto€listen€to€his€pretrial€statement€during€the€recess.€€For€a€writing€to€be€used€toÏrefresh€the€memory€of€a€witness,€the€witness€must€claim€a€lack€of€memory€of€theÏevents€in€question.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€612,€advisory€commððn€comments.€€WhetherÐ À0`'* ÐRule€612€extends€to€taped€statements€used€to€refresh€a€witnessðð€memory€whileÏtestifying€need€not€be€decided€in€this€case.€€ñTñœñTñòòCfñLññKñ.ñKññLññMñóóñMññNñ.ñNññMñóóñMññTñ›ñTñ€Neil€P.€Cohen,€Sarah€Y.€SheppeardÐ €4 +. Ðand€Donald€F.€Paine,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€612.2,€at€402€(3d€ed.€1995)Ð `6-0 Ð(ð ðRule€612€provides€no€guidance€for€things€other€than€writings€.€.€.€If€a€witnessÏrefreshes€recollection€by€listening€to€a€tape€recording€of€a€conversation,€Rule€612Ïdoes€not€applyðð).€€Regardless€of€Rule€612's€application€to€a€taped€statement,€aÏproper€foundation€was€not€laid€for€Polkððs€listening€to€his€pretrial€taped€statement€inÏorder€to€refresh€his€memory.€€The€witness€claiming€a€lack€of€memory€is€theÏfoundation€required€for€a€writing€to€be€used€to€refresh€the€witnessðð€memory.€€PolkÏneither€claimed€a€lack€of€memory€prior€to€listening€to€his€pretrial€statement€nor€wasÏhis€memory€refreshed€on€the€witness€stand.€€òòBut€seeóó€òòState€v.€Mathisóó,€969€S.W.2dÐ €  Ð418,€421€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)€(foundation€required€under€Rule€612€was€shownÏwhere€witness€testified€that€his€memory€was€refreshedòò€afteróó€he€was€shown€and€readÐ @à Ða€prior€statement€on€the€witness€stand).Ìà ¸ à€€€€€Ìà ¸ àThe€prosecutorððs€process€of€examining€Polk€can€be€viewed€as€anÏattempt€to€impeach€the€credibility€of€his€own€witness.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€607;€Ð À!` ÐòòState€v.€Randy€Lee€Jonesóó,€No.€01C01„9708„CC„00326,€slip€op.€at€19€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð  #@ ÐApp.,€Nashville,€July€8,€1999)€(prior€inconsistent€statement€may€be€used€to€ñTñœñTñimpeachñOñÏa€partyððsñOññTñ›ñTññTññTñ€own€witness).€€The€prosecutor€could€have€impeached€Polk€by€asking€himÏabout€his€prior€inconsistent€statement€while€Polk€was€testifying.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ð @)à" Ð607,€613.׃×Ý ƒÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Under€those€circumstances,€the€prior€statement€would€not€beÐ  +À!$ Ðsubstantive€evidence.€€It€would€be€admissible€only€for€impeachment€purposes.€€òòSeeóóÐ - #& ÐòòState€v.€Reeceóó,€637€S.W.2d€858,€861€(Tenn.€1982).׃@×Ý ƒÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð à.€%( Ðà ¸ àÌà ¸ àIt€is€evident€from€the€record€that€the€prosecutor€intended€that€PolkððsÏprior€statement€regarding€the€defendantððs€state€of€mind€on€the€night€of€the€fire€beÏsubstantive€evidence.€€After€listening€to€his€prior€statement,€Polk€changed€hisÏtestimony€to€coincide€with€the€prior€statement.€€Because€Polk€changed€hisÏtestimony,€the€substance€of€the€prior€statement€about€the€defendantððs€state€of€mindÏon€the€night€of€the€fire€became€evidence€via€the€direct€testimony.€òòSeeóó€Neil€P.Ð  @  ÐCohen,€Sarah€Y.€Sheppeard€and€Donald€F.€Paine,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ððÐ €  Ð613.1,€at€407€(3d€ed.€1995)€(ð ðthe€in„court€testimony€becomes€the€real€evidenceðð).€ÏThus,€as€long€as€the€prosecutor€was€proceeding€in€good€faith,€he€could€haveÏbroached€the€subject€of€the€pretrial€statement€through€Rules€607€and€613,€and€onceÏthe€witness€adopted€the€content€of€the€pretrial€statement,€the€resulting€testimonyÏwould€be€substantive€evidence.ÌÌà ¸ àAlthough€the€procedure€used€by€the€prosecutor€in€examining€Polk€isÏnot€proper€under€the€rules€of€evidence,€any€trial€court€error€in€allowing€the€redirectÏtestimony€after€Polk€listened€to€his€pretrial€statement€was€harmless.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.ÏP.€52(a).€€Had€the€prosecutor€followed€proper€impeachment€procedures,€theÏevidence€would€have€been€ñTñœñTñsubstantiñPñalñPññQñveñQñlyñTñ›ñTññTññTñ€admissible.€ÌÌÓ  Ó(b)à @¸ àÌÓ  Óà ¸ àThe€prosecutor€did€not€follow€the€proper€procedures€in€examiningÐ À0`'* ÐPolk,€but€his€conduct€does€not€rise€to€the€level€of€prosecutorial€misconduct.€€ToÏestablish€a€claim€for€prosecutorial€misconduct,€the€defendant€must€prove€that€theÏð ðimproper€conduct€could€have€affected€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€the€defendant.ðð€ÏòòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€385€S.W.2d€758,€759€(Tenn.€1965).€€To€determine€whetherÐ   Ðprosecutorial€misconduct€affected€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€the€defendant,€fiveÏfactors€should€be€considered.€€The€five€factors€to€be€considered€are:ÌÓÓÓB+ 4` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#¸ ŠXBÓà8 4 àà8` 4ü!4ü!àà8¸ ` Ð ` Ð à(1)€[t]he€conduct€complained€of€viewed€in€context€andÏin€light€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case,Ð ¸ x¸ x Ðà8 4 àà8` 4ü!4ü!àà8¸ ` Ð ` Ð àÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÒ¸ ÒÒ` °ÒÓ9¸ ¸ hÀpÈ x‚,¸ hˆX9Ó(2)€[t]he€curative€measures€undertaken€by€the€court€andÏthe€prosecution,€ÌÌ(3)€[t]he€intent€of€the€prosecutor€.€.€.,€ÌÌ(4)€[t]he€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€andÏany€other€errors€in€the€record,€[and]€ÌÌ(5)€[t]he€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€case.€€òòÐ ð ÐÌÒ¸ ÒÒ°` ÒÓÓÓ?( ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#¸ ¸ h†X?ÓJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).Ð Ð p Ðà ¸ àÌà ¸ àConsidering€the€five€factors,€we€find€the€prosecutorððs€conduct€was€not€Ïimproper,€particularly€in€light€of€factors€(1)€and€(5).€€It€did€not€affect€the€verdict€to€theÏprejudice€of€the€defendant.€€Under€factor€(3),€the€prosecutor€appears€to€have€actedÏout€of€confusion€in€ð ðthe€heat€of€ñTñœñTñbattleñRñ,ñRñððñTñ›ñTññTññTñ€not€in€a€manner€calculated€to€unfairlyÏprejudice€the€defendant.€Under€factor€(4),€we€note€again€that€Polkððs€testimony€wouldÏhave€been€admissible€if€the€prosecutor€had€used€the€proper€methods€for€examiningÏhim.Ìà ¸ àñTñœñTññSñÌñSññTñ›ñTññTññTññTñœñTññSñÌñSññTñ›ñTñÐ p5,/ Ðà ¸ àFinding€no€error€in€the€trial€court,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à________________________________Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌJOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌALAN€E.€GLENN,€JUDGEÌÌÔ??US.,Ô