WPC  -K\8)сQ Q 2:Q?DpRhC|SҌ>Z-ͨ;,%ӤF_lT=29'1tYH f_[,{ P)9)#jש,C6ON9kj'IQجxTbI˄T9{<ΠMnJhŒ$lI.^7]Kw10I#9KE @u"~(ܛ.g,v;Sg("9w |5pXG\!7߹KBmXPdƨ;0=l߄{ȎDT4y}8Wa2sk1޷EVaa)0>GgKm5mF^/E”G8(8CX: gDE]ǀC5ÑDP`WN8rx'l?.⽪M}<)UB> %U.nX 0P4l 0 0DZw@U:U:RU:V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V AQ  0D 0D 0D/ Bs D/ B D3 <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%2A`ArialTT3|X <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@%2A`ArialTTt10cpiXXX2PQXP(($D  n~<$((2$ !D   ùXX ù   0  (#$  0   D     b b U Ӏ "Arial Regular,rAZ"Arial Regular !"  XM0XXXXXM0   Ad FILEDXM0X  August19,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh ,yAZ"Arial Regular !"#%C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1   d''' dxdP Pd$$$$'dxd !D    `    PD       `    TR[A'Legal3'A' Legal3'T  XM0XXX7 M0 XXdXXd7 t(>.*jx` `@E6 ` ttx0n tߛ   INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE `  @;MATJACKSON r(<,(j 8` `@E ` ttx0" r     @8MMAY1999SESSION STATEOFTENNESSEE,     ` )  v     X      ` )   C.C.A.NO.02C019805CR00142  \    Appellee,  򀀀   ` ) B     X      ` )  SHELBYCOUNTY  (  VS.   X      ` )      X      ` )  HON.ARTHURT.BENNETT,   DERRICKSAYLES,     ` )  JUDGE z     X      ` )  Appellant.      ` )  (SecondDegreeMurder)  F  @:M DISSENT  >       IrespectfullydissentbecauseIdonotbelievethedefendanthasshownreversibleerrorwithregardtothetrialcourtsrefusaltoallowhimtoquestiontheprosecutorand/orthewitnessCallicuttaboutwhetherpromisesweremadeinexchangeforCallicuttstestimonyagainstthedefendant.̜        Contrarytothedefendantsassertions,IdonotbelievehisdueprocessrightswereviolatedunderGigliov.UnitedStates,acasethedefendantclaimsisidentical *>!% tothesituationhere.Inthatcase,theStateallowedthedefendantscoconspiratortotestifyfalselythathedidnothaveanagreementwiththeStateinexchangeforhistestimony.Giglio,405U.S.at15153.BecausetheStatesecuredaconvictionbased 0&+ inpartuponfalsetestimonyregardingthecoconspiratorscredibility,thedefendantsdueprocessrightswereviolatedandhewasentitledtoanewtrial.Id.at15355.Here, 3:*/ however,thereisnoevidencethatagovernmentwitnessfalselyrepresentedtothejurythathewasnotpromisedanythinginexchangeforhistestimony.Oneoftheprosecutors 27-3 specificallystatedontherecordthatnoleniencyhadbeenpromisedtothewitness,andnothingintherecordcontradictedthatrepresentation.SeeStatev.Williams,690S.W.2d ,  517,525(Tenn.1985)(prosecutorsuncontrovertedassertionwassufficienttosupporttheconclusiontherewasnoagreementbetweentheStateanditswitness,despitethedefendants suspiciontherewas).Thus,asthisCourthasconcludedinsimilarcases,whileCallicuttsdecisiontotestifymayappearlinkedtotheStatesbondrecommendation,nothingintherecordprovesthedefendantsclaimthatanagreementbetweenCallicuttandtheStateactuallyexistedandinturn,thedefendanthasfailedtoshowaviolationofdueprocess.Williams,690S.W.2dat52425(nodueprocess ` violationwheretheprosecutorrepresentedtherewasnoagreementwiththewitnessandnoevidencesupportedthedefendantsclaimtherewasanagreement,eventhoughafterthedefendantstrial,thewitnessesnegotiatedapleabargaininexchangefortheminimumsentence);Statev.Teague,645S.W.2d392(Tenn.1983)(nodueprocess  violationwheretherewasnoevidenceofanagreement,onlythedefendantsinsistencethattheremusthavebeenanagreementbecauseseveralmonthsafterhistrial,theStateallowedthewitnesstopleadtoreducedchargesincasespendingagainsthim).  Inmyview,themajorityopinionimproperlyredefinesthisissueforthedefendantbyconcludingthatthedefendantisentitledtoanewtrialbecausedefensecounselwasnotallowedtopursuehisofferofproof.Onlyinpassingdoesthedefendantevensuggestthatthetrialcourterredinnotallowinghimtoprofferevidence,andthedefendantoffersnoargumentorcasecitationforthisassertion.SeeRulesoftheCourt /%* ofCriminalAppealsofTennessee10(b)(issuesnotsupportedbyargumentandauthoritativecitationsarewaived).Eventhoughthedefendantapparentlyhadtheopportunitytopresentadditionalproofonhismotionfornewtrial,hedidnot,suggesting 4 +0 thatthereisnofurtherprooftopursue.Infact,itisthedefendantspositionthattheproofintherecordissufficienttoevidenceanagreementbetweentheStateandCallicutt.  Atanyrate  However ,Idisagreewiththemajorityopinionsconclusionthatthetrialcourtcommittedreversibleerrorbynotallowingthedefendanttoofferproofbecausethedefenserequestitselfandtheneedforaprofferwasunclear.If,forexample,thedefensehadclearlyrequestedtherecordtoreflectwhat,ifanything,theprosecutorsandCallicutthaddiscussedduringtherecessand/orwhatpromptedCallicutttodecidetotestifyagainstthedefendant,thenperhapsreversibleerrorwouldhaveresulted.Here,however,therequestwasmerelytoofferproofthattheStatehadrecommendedareducedbond.Notonlydidtherecordalreadyreflectthis,butnothingintherecordsupportedthespeculationthatthebondrecommendationwasinanywayrelatedtoCallicuttstestimonyorwillingnesstotestify.Underthesecircumstances,Ifindnoreversibleerror.  Itisbothersomethatthemajorityisremandingthiscasetoprovidethedefendantwithanopportunitytofurtherdevelopproofhewillnot,inalllikelihood,presenttothejury.Asthemajorityopinionnotes,itwasprobablyatacticaldecisiontonotcrossexamineCallicuttaboutwhyhedecidedtotestifyandtonotasktorecallCallicutttothestandtoquestionhimaboutthebondreduction.Callicuttscredibilitywasseriouslyquestionedattrialwithoutevidenceofanydealoragreement,sotherewouldbelittleadvantagetofurtherattemptstounderminehiscredibility,even iftherehadinfactbeen anagreementunderlyingthebondrecommendation.YetrevealingtherecommendationandreductiontothejurywouldalsorevealthedefendantsthreatsagainstCallicutt,which 4 +0 wouldcastthedefendantinaveryunfavorablelight.Giventheheavydisadvantagesandquestionableadvantages,thedefendantwouldwiselynotoptnottopursuethisinfrontofajury.Reversalonthisissue,then,seemsunw  ise   arranted .  Onthisissue,Iwouldaffirm.Inallotherrespects,Iconcurwiththemajoritysopinion.  ̜     X      `   _______________________________   X      `   JOHNH.PEAY,Judge