WPCJ # VUNa % 0(bw@4% 9 0JH 0T 0^ 0hD 0r 0| 0 0 1u 0d% U> U* B) DC AM]v~vB B D32 0@e AO 0D D/ B-HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($- - D EӀ{s "Ar3|x2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d7Border 1dd- C << G  !  #d#     YYY FILEDX October31,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   BA Op Geneva  BA Op Geneva  d%%%%'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! .      ` \RA'\7fNXXdd7      INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEL!" ;+'h|w`  `LATJACKSONFEBRUARYSESSION,1996  STATEOFTENNESSEE,  ) C.C.A.NO.02C019503CC0095     )  Appellee,   )     )     ) MADISONCOUNTYVS.     )      ) HON.JOHNFRANKLINMURCHISON,     ) JUDGE JAMESCECILSELLERS   )      )  Appellant.   ) (Agg.Assault,Esp.Agg.Kidnapping,     ) Agg.Burglary,Poss.DeadlyWeapon)   OPINIONCONCURRINGINRESULTS   Iconcurfullywiththeresultsreachedbythemajorityinthiscase.Indeed,Iagreewithmostofthereasoningofthemajority.However,IdisagreewiththatportionoftheCourtsopinionholdingthataverbatimrecordingofa911callmadebythevictimisnota statementwithinthemeaningofTennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure26.2(g).Statementsmadebystatewitnessesarespecificallyexcludedfrompretrialdiscoveryinacriminalcase.Iwouldholdthatsuchataperecordingisa statementwithinthemeaningoftheruleandthattheStatewasundernoobligationtoproducethiswitnessstatementuntilthewitnesstestified.SeeTenn.R.Crim.P.26.2(a).Tenn.R.Crim.P.16(a)(2).Thus,thefailureoftheStatetomakethetapeavailabletothedefensepriortotrialwasnotaviolationofTennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure16. Althoughthispreciseissuehasbeeninfrequentlyaddressedinotherjurisdictions,caselawfromthosejuristictionssupportstheconclusionthattaperecordingsof911callsshouldbetreatedaswitnessstatementsproducibleafterthewitnesstestifies.Seee.g.,Slyev.UnitedStates,602A.2d135,138(D.C.App.1992);Statev.Cain,596A.2d449,454(Conn.App.1991);Statev.Dedrick,589A.2d1241,1242(Conn.App.1991);Statev.Williamson,552A.2d815,818(Conn.App.1988);Bartleyv.UnitedStates,530A.2d692,697n.10(D.C.App.1987).ThemajorityassertsthatStatev.Cooper,736S.W.2d125(Tenn.Crim.App.1987),supportsitspositionthattaperecordingsof911callsshouldbetreatednotas statementsunderTennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure26.2,butratheras tangibleobjectsdiscoverablepretrialpursuanttoTennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure16(a)(1)(C),iftheyare materialtothepreparationofthedefendantsdefense.InCooper,thisCourttreatedtaperecordingsofconversationsbetweenthedefendantandpoliceinformantsas tangibleobjectswithinthemeaningofTennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure16(a)(1)(C).However,Cooperisdistinguishablefromthecaseatbar. Statementsofdefendantsarediscoverableinpretrialdiscoverywhethercharacterizedastangibleobjectsorstatements.Tenn.R.Crim.P.16(a)(1)(A);Tenn.R.Crim.P.16(a)(1)(C).Statementsofstatewitnessesorprospectivestatewitnessesfoundintheformofdocumentsortangibleobjectsareexcludedfrompretrialdiscovery.Tenn.R.Crim.P.16(a)(2)and26.2(a). Thus,Cooperis,inmyopinion,inappositetothecaseoftaperecordingscontainingvictim911calls;callswhicheveryotherjurisdictiontoconsiderthematterhasdeterminedtobewitnessstatementsproducibleafterthewitnesstestifiesattrial. Inallotherrespects,IconcurfullyinthejudgmentofthisCourt.X        ____________________________________     JERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE