WPC 3*)l^ߙ<|_mL)Z=g) - i @ 6@WO{ⷔff3HhNnx!tpQ)ѩ ՁA+Sx872ͩK4rDఎTfV?"?+LpApXz]0m붃Xzi:Fjg0?}ՙ/5l1/K8X.h6I~3`BhS*ŢEI1x6B+@n* 1I{aM">Xgu^a3S]'[+餛LAS]䴚 yn ¿YhyeDJ8T,`_kfSD,Xlu )5V *o}Po 4uƵcg^;U[qΤ]5XpOOI^z|;65<cδo* _PYcRb %\Nb 0d zUNf^ z  w 4      Y mN6#8U@E9k; 0DZUfNDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDb 0 B 0 D5F D-{ 0K ASF 0  0D A(`$.8dd8    C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPT("  Z6Times New Roman RegularC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt{2)  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptr').bk2ש3|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5UHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0(9 Z(Times New Roman  a RJ$      1  z   _Theappellantalsorepeatedlyarguesthattheevidencewasinsufficienttoprovedeliberation.However,after  the1995amendmentstothefirstdegreemurderstatute,theStatenolongerneedstoprovedeliberationasanelement t offirstdegreemurder.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913202(a)(1);seeStatev.Mason,No.01C019603CC00103,1997WL 8 311900,at*11n.4(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,June6,1997).(#$  0   P RJ$      2  z   _ԀNonetheless,theStateisobligatedtoreleaseobviouslyexculpatoryevidenceregardlessofwhetherornotit  wasrequested._Edgin_,902S.W.2dat390.(I Z6Times New Roman Regular- -(|G2J$ !.8_ d d 8         0  < d(|3M$ !.8_ d d 8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3M$ !.8_ d d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8\d d8     _   8+XXdd 8@ttINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE# #Ԉ &    @  @` May2000Session L XX #XX#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.JERRYD._CARNEY_XX  J @@ AppealasofRightfromtheCriminalCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.97D2821CherylBlackburn,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M199901139CCAR3CDFiledSeptember15,2000   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Theappellant,JerryD._Carney_,appealshisconvictionbyajuryintheDavidsonCountyCriminal x  Courtoffirstdegreemurder.Pursuanttohisconvictionforfirstdegreemurder,thetrialcourt d sentencedtheappellanttolifeinprisonintheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrection,withthe P possibilityofparole.Theappellantraisesthefollowingissuesforourreview:(1)whethertherewas < sufficientevidenceofpremeditationtosupporthisconvictionoffirstdegreemurder;(2)whetherthe (x StateviolatedBradybyfailingtodiscloseaudiotapedstatementsmadebythepoliceofwitnesses d thedayaftertheshooting#XX#XX;and(3)whetherthetrialcourterredinprecludingtheappellantscross P examinationofthepoliceofficerswhoweretestifyingattrialabouttheirtrainingregardingself < defenseandtheapplicationofdeadlyforce#XX#XX.Uponreviewoftherecordandthepartiesbriefs,we ( affirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.#XX7 #XX   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtisAffirmed.     #X #XX.NormaMcGeeOgle,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichGary_R.Wade_,_P.J._,andJoe t G.Riley,J.,joined. ` SamuelE.Wallace,Jr.,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,JerryD._Carney_. 8!  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter,MarvinE.Clements,Jr.,AssistantAttorney #`" General,PamelaAnderson,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,andLisa_Naylor_,AssistantDistrict #L# AttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. $8 $  @@OO& OPINION #XX #XX &"&  I.FactualBackground  '"'      ` OnthenightofAugust13,1997,theappellant,Jerry_Carney_,was ridingaround (#( NashvilleanddrinkingbeerwithhisfriendsEricBradshaw,MikeShane,JimmyWomack,and )$) Melia_Gribble_#XX #XX.ErinHarris,anotherfriend,pagedtheappellantandrequestedthathepickherupat p*%* 716VirginiaAvenue#XX#XX.OnthewaytoVirginiaAvenue,Bradshawremarkedthathebelievedthat \+&+ someonewhohadaproblemwithhisbrother,someonenamed Shaneor Shawn,livedatthat H,', address. 4-(- Ї_   ` Uponarrivingattheresidence,thefourmalesexitedthecarandbeganurinatingin  thefrontyard.BillMasseyandCraigCartwrightwalkedoutoftheresidencetoinvestigate.The  appellantbeganaskingseveralpeople, WhoisShane?CartwrightrespondedthathewasShane.  UponhearingCartwrightidentifyhimselfasShane,theappellantquicklywalkedbacktothevehicle t andsatinthebackseatbehindthedriver. `    ` Masseyapproachedthecaronthedriverssideandnoticedagunontheseatnearthe 8  appellant.Masseyaskediftheappellanthadaproblem.Theappellantrepliedthattherewasno $ t problem.Masseythenrequestedoneofthebeersthatwaslocatedinthebackseat.Theappellant  ` handedMasseyabeer.AssoonasMasseytouchedthebeer,theappellantgraspedthegunwithboth  L  hands.Masseythrewdownthebeerandgrabbedtheappellant,hopingtodisarmhim.Cartwright  8  hadmovedtothepassengersideofthecar.AlthoughMasseywasindirectcontactwiththe $  appellant,theappellantneverlookedatMassey.Instead,theappellantpulledtheslideofthegun   backtwiceandfiredsixshotsintoCartwrightwhowasstandingneartheopenpassengerdoor.      ` Theappellant,Bradshaw,Shane,Womack,Gribble,andHarrisspedawayinthecar   toBradshawshouse.Theappellanttookashirtandwipedthecar,insideandout,inordertodestroy p evidence.Healsoremovedadecalfromthebackglassofthecarandtriedtoremoveallofthespent \ shellcasingsfromthecar.TheappellantenteredBradshawshouse,removedhisbloodyclothes, H andsoakedtheminwaterinthebathtub.Hethenwenttosleepandsleptuntilthenextdaywhen 4 hewaspickedupbythepoliceforquestioning.  p    ` TheappellanttestifiedthatheshotCartwrightinselfdefense.Theappellantstated H thathewasafraidofMasseyandCartwrightbecausetheyweremuchlargerthanhe.Theappellant 4 claimedthatMasseyhadgrabbedtheappellantbytheshirtcollarpriortotheappellantsretreatto   thecar.TheappellantallegedthathefearedMasseyorCartwrightwouldhurthimortrytotakehis   gunanduseitagainsthim.     ` AjuryconvictedtheappellantoffirstdegreemurderonNovember19,1998.The  trialcourtsentencedtheappellanttoatermoflifeinprison,withthepossibilityofparole#XX#XX.The l appellantappealshisconviction,arguing:(1)therewasinsufficientevidenceofpremeditationto X  supporthisconvictionoffirstdegreemurder;(2)theprosecutioncommittedaBradyviolationby D! failingtodisclose,priortotrial,audiotapedstatementsmadebypotentialwitnesses;and(3)thetrial 0"  courterredinprecludingtheappellantfromcrossexaminingthepoliceofficersabouttheirtraining #l! regardingselfdefenseandtheuseofdeadlyforce#XX#XX.#XX #XX $X" 0    0(#(#  @$(#(#II.Analysis  %0!$ @A.SufficiencyoftheEvidence &"%    ` XXXXTheappellantclaimsthattheevidencewasinsufficienttosupporthisconvictionof '#& firstdegreemurder.Toprovefirstdegreemurder,theStatemustestablishthattherewasa (#'  premeditatedandintentionalkillingofanother.#XXXXY!##XXD #XXTenn.CodeAnn.3913202(a)(1)#XX"#XX(1997). )$( Specifically,theappellantarguesthattherewasinsufficientevidencetoestablishtheexistenceof  premeditation. #  1            ` Tennesseeappellatecourtsaccordgreatweighttoajuryverdictinacriminaltrial. t Inotherwords,ajuryconvictionservestoreplacethepresumptionoftheappellantsinnocencewith ` apresumptionoftheappellantsguilt.Statev.Tuggle,639S.W.2d913,914(Tenn.1982).#XXXXC##XXXX#XXb##XX L  Therefore,onappeal,theappellantcarriestheburdenofestablishingwhytheevidenceisinsufficient 8  tosupportthejurysfindings.#XXXX!&##XXc&#XXId.#XX'#XXԀTheappellantmustdemonstratetothiscourtthatno reasonable $ t trieroffactcouldhavefoundtheessentialelementsoftheoffensebeyondareasonabledoubt.  ` Jacksonv.Virginia,443U.S.307,319,99S.Ct.2781,2789(1979);Tenn.R.App.P.13(e).  L     ` Accordingly,onappealtheState#XXXX'#XXXX#XX'#XXԀisentitledtothestrongestlegitimateviewofthe $  evidenceandallreasonableinferenceswhichmaybedrawntherefrom.Statev.Williams,657   S.W.2d405,410(Tenn.1983).Moreover,questionsconcerningwitnesscredibility,theweightand   valuetobegiventheevidence,andallfactualissuesraisedbytheevidenceareresolvedbythetrier   offact,andnottheappellatecourts.Statev.Pruett,788S.W.2d559,561(Tenn.1990).#XXXX)##XX)#XX      ` Attrial,theStatemustproveallelementsoffirstdegreemurder,including \ premeditation,beyondareasonabledoubt.Statev.Brown,836S.W.2d530,543(Tenn.1992). H Premeditationrequires theexerciseofreflectionandjudgmentanda previouslyformeddesign 4 orintenttokill.XXXXTenn.CodeAnn.3913202(d);Statev.West,844S.W.2d144,147(Tenn.  p 1992)(citingMcGillv.State,475S.W.2d223,227(1971)).Theintenttokilldoesnothavetopre  \ existforanydefiniteperiodoftime.Statev.Sims,No.W199800634CCAR3DD,2000WL H 298901,at*7(Tenn.Crim.App.atJackson,March14,2000).Moreover,itistheappellantsmental 4 stateatthetimetheappellantallegedlydecidedtokillthatistheimportantfactorindeterminingif   theappellantwas sufficientlyfreefromexcitementandpassiontobecapableofpremeditation.   #XXXX$.##XXg,#XXId.#XX\1#XX,seealsoTenn.CodeAnn.3913202(d)#XX1#XX#XXXX1#XXXX.     ` #XXXXy2##XX72#XXAlthoughthereisnoconcretetestfordeterminingtheexistenceofpremeditation,  Tennesseecourtshaverelieduponcertaincircumstancestoinferpremeditation.SeeStatev.Pike, l 978S.W.2d904,914(Tenn.1998),cert.denied,526U.S.1147,119S.Ct.2025(1999). X  Specifically,thefollowingfactorshavebeenusedtosupportajurysinferenceofpremeditation:(1) D! theappellantspriorrelationshiptothevictimwhichmightsuggestamotiveforthekilling;(2)the 0"  appellantsdeclarationsofintenttokill;(3)theappellantsplanningactivitiesbeforethekilling, #l! includingtheprocurementofaweaponorpreparationsforconcealmentofthecrime;(4)thenature $X" ofthekilling,includingtheappellantsusingadeadlyweaponuponanunarmedvictim,killingthe $D # victimwhilethevictimisretreatingorattemptingescape,orkillingthevictiminaparticularlycruel %0!$ manner;(5)theappellantsdemeanorbeforeandafterthekilling,includingacalmdemeanor &"% immediatelyafterthekilling.SeePike,978S.W.2dat91415;Statev.Bland,958S.W.2d651,660  (Tenn.1997)(citingBrown,836S.W.2dat54142,andStatev.West,844S.W.2d144,148(Tenn.  1992));Statev.Gentry,881S.W.2d1,45(Tenn.Crim.App.1993);Statev.Anderson,835S.W.2d  600,605(Tenn.Crim.App.1992). t    ` Ajury,uponconsiderationofthefactsadducedattrial,couldconclude,beyonda L  reasonabledoubt,thattheappellantformedapremeditatedintenttokillpriortoshootingthevictim. 8  Theappellantwaslookingfor Shane,whohadcausedproblemsforhisfriendsbrother.Thisfact $ t suggestsapossiblemotiveforthekilling,namelyretributionforafriend.Next,theappellantquickly  ` walkedtothecarafterCartwrightsaidhewasShane.Atthattime,therewasnoreasonforthe  L  appellanttoreturntothecartogethisgun,unlesshewasplanningtouseit.Theappellantpulled  8  theslideonthegunbacktwice,andfiredsixtimesatCartwright,anunarmedvictim.Multipleshots $  orblowsalonemaynotbeusedtoestablishpremeditation,butmaybeconsideredalongwithother   circumstancesinassessingtheexistenceofpremeditation.Brown,836S.W.2dat542.#XX3#XXԀAdditionally,   theappellantwenthomeandsleptuntilthepolicearrived,indicatinghiscalmdemeanorimmediately   afterthemurder.SeeSims,2000WL298901,at*8.      ` Moreover,thejury,asthetrieroffact,mustdecideiftheappellantactedinself \ defense.Hawkinsv.State,527S.W.2d157,161(Tenn.Crim.App.1975).#XX>#XXAttrial,andinprior H statementstothepolice,theappellantrepeatedlygavefalseorcontradictorystatements,which 4 damagedhiscredibilitywiththejury.Theappellantwenttogreatlengthstoconcealordestroyas  p muchevidenceaspossibleonthenightofthemurder.Theappellantwipeddownthecar,removed  \ adecalandspentshellcasingsfromthecar,washedhisbloodyclothesandgavehisguntoafriends H fathertohide.Eventhoughconcealmentofevidencealonedoesnotsuggestpremeditation, 4 concealmentofevidencemayestablishtheappellantsguiltbynegatingtheappellantsclaimofself   defense.SeeWest,844S.W.2dat148.#XX @#XXԀAdditionally,evidencesufficienttoprovepremeditation   equallyindicatestheabsenceofselfdefense.Statev.Pryor,No.89191III,1990WL11096,at*1  (Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,February13,1990).     ` Althoughtheevidenceoftheappellantsguiltmaynotbeoverwhelming,itisnot l unfathomableforajurytohavereasonablyfoundthattheappellantshotCartwrightwitha X  premeditatedintenttokill.Moreover,thejurycouldhavereasonablyconcludedthattheappellant D! didnotactinselfdefense.Theappellanthasnotdemonstratedwhytheevidencewillnotsupport 0"  hisconviction.Therefore,weupholdthejurysverdict. #l! @  !B.Bradyviolation $D #    ` TheappellantclaimsthathewasdeniedhisrighttodueprocesswhentheStatefailed %0!$ todisclosepotentiallyexculpatoryaudiotapedstatementsmadetothepolicebywitnessesthe &"% morningaftertheshooting.InBradyv.Maryland,373U.S.83,87,83S.Ct.1194,119697(1963), '#& theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthattheprosecutionhasaconstitutionaldutytofurnishthe (#' accusedwithexculpatoryevidence#XXzC#XXԀpertainingtoeithertheaccusedsguiltorinnocenceandthe )$( potentialpunishmentthatmaybeimposed.TheSupremeCourtfurtherheldthat thesuppression |*%) bytheprosecutionofevidencefavorabletoanaccuseduponrequestviolatesdueprocesswherethe h+&* evidenceismaterialeithertoguiltortopunishment,irrespectiveofthegoodfaithorbadfaithofthe  prosecution.Brady,373U.S.at87,83S.Ct.at119697.Moreover,theprosecutionmustdisclose  evidencewhichmaybeusedbytheappellanttoimpeachawitness.Gigliov.UnitedStates,405  U.S.150,15455,92S.Ct.763,766(1972). t    ` BeforethiscourtcanfindaBradyviolation,#XXLI#XXԀallofthefollowingelementsmustbe L  present:(1)theappellantmusthaverequestedtheinformation #  2      #XXL#XX;(2)theStatemusthavesuppressed 8  theinformation;(3)theinformationmusthavebeenfavorabletotheappellant;and,(4)the $ t informationmusthavebeenmaterial.Statev.Edgin,902S.W.2d387,390(Tenn.1995).The  ` appellanthastheburdenofprovingtheBradyviolationbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.#XXM#XXId.#XXO#XXԀ  L     ` #XXO#XXԀFirst,theappellantclaimsheneverreceivedthetapedstatementsofRyanCurtis, $  TiffanyElkins,andNatashaHolland.#XXhP#XXԀWefirstnotethatthereisevidenceintherecordtosuggest   that,priortotrial,theappellantrequestedthedisclosureofBradymaterials.Therefore,thefirst   prongoftheBradytesthasbeensatisfied.However,theappellanthasofferednoproofthattaped   statementsofCurtis,Elkins,or#XX6Q#XXHollandevenexist.Abaldassertionthatthetapesexistwithout   proofisnotenoughtosatisfytheappellantsburdenregardingtheremainingBradyfactors.#XXR#XXԀSeeState p v.Hamlin,No.01C019604CC00174,1999WL77853,at*5(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville, \ February19,1999).Asaconsequence,theappellanthasnotdemonstratedthattheStatesuppressed H informationthatwasfavorableandmaterialtotheappellantscase. 4    ` Furthermore,theappellantcontendsthat,eventhoughhereceivedthetapesofMelia  \ Gribble,ErinHarris,andBillMasseyonthefirstdayoftrial,thedelayinreceivingtheinformation H prejudicedhisdefense.#XXS#XXԀAdelayeddisclosureofevidencerequiresadifferentanalysisthana 4 completenondisclosureofevidence.#XXV#XXThiscourthaspreviouslyheldthat ifthereisonlyadelayed   disclosureofinformation,incontrasttoacompletefailuretodiscloseexculpatoryinformation,   Bradynormallydoesnotapply,unlessthedelayitselfcausesprejudice.Statev.Hall,No.01C01  9710CC00503,1999WL34782,at*9(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,January28,1999),perm.  toappealdenied(Tenn.1999).     ` Accordingly,delayeddisclosurerequiresaninquiryintowhetherthedelayprevented X  thedefensefromusingthedisclosedmaterialeffectivelyinpreparingandpresentingtheappellants D! case.Statev.Caughron,855S.W.2d526,548(Tenn.1993)(citingUnitedStatesv.Ingraldi,793F.2d 0"  408(1stCir.1986)).Moreover,apotentialBradyviolationcanbecuredbytheappellantsfailure #l! tomoveforacontinuanceafterreceivingtheinformation,theappellantsthoroughcross $X" examinationofthewitnessregardingtheevidence,orbytheappellantsfailuretocallorrecallan $D # availablewitnessconcerningtheexculpatorystatements#XXsW#XX.See#XX\#XXId.#XX7]#XX,Statev.Ewing,No.01C019612 %0!$ CR00531,1998WL321932,at*9(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,June19,1998). &"%   '#&    ` #XX]#XXInthepresentcase,theappellantreceivedthetapedinterviewsonthefirstdayoftrial   asJencksmaterial.Uponreceivingthetapes,theappellantfailedtomoveforacontinuancetoreview  thematerial.Thewitnesseshadbeenavailablefortheappellanttointerviewpriortotrial.#XX^#XXԀMoreover,  whenMasseytookthestand,theappellanthadanopportunitytocrossexaminehimregardinghis t earlierstatements.Harriswasincustodyandwasavailablefortheappellanttocallattrialinorder ` toexamineheraboutthetapedstatements.Furthermore,thetrialcourtpermittedtheappellantto L  recallMeliaGribble,whohadearliertestified,toallowtheappellanttoattempttobringout 8  informationcontainedonthetape.TheappellantalsohadtheopportunitytointroduceGribbles $ t statementasevidence.However,theappellantfailedtolayaproperfoundationfortheintroduction  ` ofthestatement,eventhoughhewasinstructedonhowtodosobythetrialcourt.Regardless,there  L  wasnoexculpatorymaterialcontainedinthetapes.Basedupontheforegoing,weconcludethatthe  8  appellantwasnotprejudicedbythedelayeddisclosureofthisinformation. $  #XX9`#XX@8 8 C.CrossExaminationRegardingPoliceTraining      ` Theappellantalsoarguesthatheshouldhavebeenallowedtocrossexaminethe   policeofficerswhotestifiedathistrialregardingthetrainingtheyhadreceivedconcerningself   defenseandtheuseofdeadlyforce.Theappellantcontendsthatthisevidenceshouldhavebeen p admittedbecausethetestimonywasrelevanttotheappellantsclaimofselfdefense.Theappellant \ allegesthatpolicearetrainedtoshootat centermassforselfdefense.Theappellantarguesthat H becauseheshotat centermass,testimonythatpoliceweretrainedtodothesameinselfdefense 4 situationswouldhavebolsteredhisclaimofselfdefense.Thetrialcourtdisagreedandruledthis  p testimonynotrelevant.Weagreewiththetrialcourt.  \    ` XXXX#XXd#XXInTennessee,thedefinitionofselfdefenseissetoutinTenn.CodeAnn.3911 4 611(a)(1997)#XX8i#XX#XXXXh#XXXX:   8  Apersonisjustifiedinthreateningorusingforceagainstanotherpersonwhenand   tothedegreethepersonreasonablybelievestheforceisimmediatelynecessaryto  protectagainsttheother'suseorattempteduseofunlawfulforce.Thepersonmust  haveareasonablebeliefthatthereisanimminentdangerofdeathorseriousbodily  injury.Thedangercreatingthebeliefofimminentdeathorseriousbodilyinjury l mustbereal,orhonestlybelievedtoberealatthetime,andmustbefoundedupon X  reasonablegrounds.Thereisnodutytoretreatbeforeapersonthreatensoruses D! force.#XXXX3j##XXi#XX0"    Moreover,Tenn.R.Evid.401definesrelevantevidenceas#XXXXm#XXXX#XXm#XXԀ evidencehavinganytendencytomake #l! theexistenceofanyfactthatisofconsequencetothedeterminationoftheactionmoreprobableor $X" lessprobablethanitwouldbewithouttheevidence.#XXXXUn#XXXX#XXn#XXԀPolicetrainingconcerningtheproperresponse $D # toselfdefensesituationsisirrelevanttotheappellantsbeliefsoractionsonthenightofthe %0!$ shooting,unless,perhaps,theappellanthadundergonesuchtraininghimself.#XXXXo##XX p#XXԀCf.Statev.Cole,No. &"% 98CAC01001,1998WL429712,at*12(OhioApp.5Dist.,July2,1998)(trainingthedefendants '#& fathergavethedefendantconcerningselfdefensewas toovagueandunconnectedtotheincident (#' atissuetobeconsideredmaterial).Therewasnoevidenceadducedattrialtosuggestthatthe )$(  appellanthadbeenapoliceofficerwhowastrainedinselfdefenseortheuseofdeadlyforce.#XX{q#XXNor |*%) wasthereevidencethattheappellanthadanyotherselfdefensetraining.Thisissueiswithout  merit.   @ff# III.Conclusion  t    ` Basedupontheforegoing,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. `    ` #XXs#XX    h     ___________________________________ $ t    `     h     NORMAMcGEEOGLE,JUDGE