ÿWPC ³¾ë2e‰=‰;ˆwÒÌÝ7›´ÞªV91Œ^…çÎZ鳇C_uw3ϵÚ¤ [b x¤¶‡p “à.çâ$ò¿r,q­Bˆ?†€lUÒ‰³ô~Y[6ûÌë7F(Zsvd`DU˜/Ýg%Ñ=ð>šè>Šê+ϯàé³ ü·²XT¸Ây¸äñçsU2Éqø‡ÿž7A2‰š!:?¥“ÕLÓ›y»jdé~h…*:mT‡ÁR1Úg¯ãñ]Íú\üÍšV¸Húá»L+^-Ö~™ïR¾9@æY©(Š”iÐjÌñ`h–4};„CHÛMâ “ºóFvƒK§M‹â¦j<„Xdp"¬ =eý‹”—*©î ¦[(ëX²meÀØf`gØ–~±o?;ý«Ì»I³Óöõ½/†SÙHL†ƒò¬ ïIvGGž¦Ò}Éèúe¸Z$–íPšjëEtWI`ÃÊp?CäêÚpq$ªŒ{AýË£¾ûͱÂ"-ßÞôH[`ÖSip@‰Éª4pBF€²ø²ò>ŸV/…±‚=KûÒ b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w@ 4E zY ÒÓ ¥ ´ m¶ UNÍ Æ Æá Ƨ Æm3N;; 0D=E'ƒNª z¬Ò&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&bøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøø 0ë Bëë 0¤ D5¬ D-á 0K ASYƬ 0¤r 0D A«Z˜HP LaserJet 5Ü,,,,Ü0»ýx{+ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular åæçDèDéDêDëìUíUîDêsL*˜Cbk1нœ ˜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.wpt3|xîÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒRa$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÐì ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThese€factors€are€non„exclusive€and€may€not€be€pertinent€in€every€case.€€òòWilliam€Ô_ÔDotsonÔ_Ôóó,€slip€op.€at€9;€òòseeÐ ° ÐState€v.€Ô_ÔMounceÔ_Ôóó,€859€S.W.2d€319,€322€(Tenn.€1993)€(determination€of€propriety€of€mistrial€is€not€subject€to€mechanisticÐ xÈ Ðdetermination€and€should€be€made€on€the€facts€of€each€individual€case).˜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.wpt- ù-(|G2a$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€ t»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÍÌ ò»»Ô d(|3$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€ t»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€ t»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¿»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼¿»»»ÔÑ8€¢“XXdð»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îõ·î»¼¿ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼¿»îîõ· #ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJune€26,€2001€SessionÐ X ÐÌò òòòSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEóó€v.€òòóóDEMETRIUS€HOLMESó óÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌÔ€X¢“X»¼¿Ôò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ h ¸ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€67734€€€€€€Richard€R.€Baumgartner,€JudgeÐ X ¨ Ðó óÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<'` AßÐ (x  ÐÌà@@TTìàò òNo.€E2000„02263„CCA„R3„CD€ó óÐ 'w  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ W  ÐÌÓ  ÓA€Knox€County€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€aggravated€robbery,€and€the€trial€court€sentencedÐ V Ðhim€as€a€Range€I€offender€to€eleven€years€incarceration.€€The€defendant€now€appeals€and€raises€theÐ öF Ðfollowing€issues:€(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€granting€a€mistrial€when€a€detectiveÐ æ6 Ðimproperly€testified€that€the€Defendant€was€ð ðwell€known€for€home€invasions,ðð€(2)€whether€the€stateÐ Ö& Ðfailed€to€disclose€fingerprint€evidence€in€a€timely€fashion,€and€(3)€whether€sufficient€evidence€Ð Æ Ðsupported€the€defendantððs€conviction€for€aggravated€robbery.€€Finding€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ ¶ Ðdenying€the€motion€to€declare€a€mistrial,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€remand€forÐ ¦ö Ða€new€trial.€€Ð –æ ÐÓ.ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Reversed.ó óÐ vÆ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓJames€Curwood€Witt,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Tipton,€J.,€Ð V¦ Ðóójoined.€€òòRobert€W.€Wedemeyer,€J.,€óófiled€a€dissenting€opinion.Ð F– ÐÌKeith€E.€Haas,€Sevierville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Demetrius€Holmes.Ð & v ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Elizabeth€B.€Marney,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð "V  ÐRandall€E.€Nichols,€District€Attorney€General;€and€G.€Scott€Green,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ ö"F! ÐGeneral,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð æ#6" ÐÓ!ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÐ Æ%!$ ÐñêñÌñêñÓ  Óñéñà@  &ìà€ñéñ€€€€€€€€Ð ¶&"% ÐñëñÓÓñëñà  àà ` àThe€defendant,€Demetrius€Holmes,€was€charged€with€the€aggravated€robbery€of€SamÐ ¦'ö"& ÐLove.€€Prior€to€trial,€the€trial€court€granted€the€defendantððs€motion€òòin€limineóó€and€instructed€the€stateÐ –(æ#' Ðto€refrain€from€mentioning€or€using€in€evidence€any€prior€bad€acts€that€the€defendant€may€haveÐ †)Ö$( Ðcommitted€and€any€convictions€that€the€defendant€obtained€prior€to€the€charge€in€this€case.€€òòSeeóóÐ v*Æ%) ÐTenn.€R.€Evid.€404(a),€(b).€€The€defendant€also€filed€a€pretrial€motion€to€dismiss€in€which€he€allegedÐ f+¶&* Ðthat€the€state€failed€to€disclose€exculpatory€evidence€in€a€timely€manner.€€The€trial€court€denied€thisÐ V,¦'+ Ðmotion.Ð F-–(,ý Їà  àà ` àThe€victim,€Sam€Love,€testified€at€trial€that€on€July€28,€1998€at€around€1:00€or€1:30Ð ° Ðp.m.,€€a€black€male€came€to€his€apartment€door.€€The€inner€door€was€open,€but€the€glass€storm€doorÐ  ð Ðwas€closed.€€The€victimððs€visiting€friend,€Kathy€Williams,€asked€Love€to€go€to€the€door€because€sheÐ à Ðdid€not€recognize€the€man€standing€outside€the€door.€€The€man€at€the€door€asked€for€directions,€andÐ €Ð Ðwhen€Love€opened€the€door€slightly,€the€man€ð ðsnatched€the€door€openðð€and€pulled€out€a€silver„Ð pÀ Ðcolored€gun.€€Love€grabbed€the€intruder€and€struggled€with€him.€€After€the€intruder€yelled€for€help,Ð ` ° Ða€second€person,€who€had€been€outside€until€this€point,€took€the€gun,€and€both€men€made€Love€lieÐ P   Ðface„down€on€the€floor.€€One€of€the€men€held€the€gun€to€his€head€and€demanded€money,€althoughÐ @  ÐLove€was€unsure€which€man€told€him€to€do€so.€€Love€gave€the€men€approximately€$52.€€After€theÐ 0 € Ðmen€left,€Love€got€up€as€soon€as€he€heard€the€door€close€and€saw€the€two€men€heading€east€in€a€blackÐ  p  ÐJeep.€€The€next€day,€in€a€photo€lineup€at€the€police€station,€Love€identified€the€defendant€as€the€manÐ `  Ðwho€knocked€on€his€door€and€robbed€him.€€Ð P  ÐÌà  àà ` àKathy€Williams€testified€that€she€was€at€Loveððs€apartment€on€the€afternoon€of€JulyÐ à0  Ð28,€1998.€When€there€was€a€knock€at€the€door,€she€told€Love€that€someone€was€there€to€see€him.€€AtÐ Ð  Ðthe€police€station€on€the€following€day,€she€identified€the€defendant€as€the€man€who€was€at€LoveððsÐ À Ðdoor.€€Williams€testified€that€as€Love€was€talking€with€the€defendant€at€the€door,€the€defendant€heldÐ ° Ða€silver„looking€gun.€€Williams€yelled€for€the€man€not€to€hurt€Love€and€then€ran€out€the€back€door.€Ð  ð ÐWhile€outside,€Williams€saw€a€black€Jeep€Cherokee€with€the€driverððs€side€door€open.€€WilliamsÐ à Ðtestified€that€she€saw€the€defendant€and€another€man€come€out€of€Loveððs€apartment,€get€into€the€Jeep,Ð €Ð Ðand€drive€away.€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€day€after€the€robbery,€James€Quick€of€the€Knoxville€Police€Department€wasÐ P  Ðdispatched€to€Blount€County€to€locate€the€defendant.€€Quick€found€the€defendant€driving€a€black€JeepÐ @ ÐCherokee.€€Quick€searched€the€vehicle€and€found€a€Lorcin€.380€handgun€under€the€driverððs€seat.€Ð 0€ ÐÌà  àà ` àTerry€Clowers,€a€detective€in€the€Major€Crimes€Unit€of€the€Knoxville€PoliceÐ ` ÐDepartment,€testified€that€he€investigated€the€robbery€and€interviewed€the€defendant€on€July€29,Ð P Ð1998.€€The€defendant€said€that€he€could€not€have€committed€the€robbery€because€he€was€ð ðhiding€outððÐ ð@ Ðwith€a€girl€named€ð ðMistyðð€at€the€Comfort€Inn€in€Strawberry€Plains.€€In€the€beginning€of€theÐ à0 Ðinterview,€the€defendant€stated€that€his€Jeep€had€been€stolen;€however,€the€defendant€later€toldÐ Ð  ÐClowers€that€he€had€loaned€the€vehicle€and€his€gun€to€Mike€Tumblin.€€According€to€police€records,Ð À! Ðthe€car€was€reported€stolen€at€4:45€p.m.€on€the€day€of€the€robbery.€€Clowers€stated€that€he€let€LoveÐ °"  Ðand€Williams€see€the€ñäñDñäññåñdñåñefendant€in€the€police€station,€and€they€both€identified€him€as€the€man€thatÐ  #ð! Ðrobbed€Love.€€Ð $à" ÐÌà  àà ` àGerald€Smith,€a€technician€in€the€Investigative€Support€Unit€of€the€Knoxville€PoliceÐ p&À!$ ÐDepartment,€testified€that€none€of€the€fingerprints€obtained€from€Loveððs€storm€door€belonged€to€theÐ `'°"% Ðdefendant.€€Daniel€Crenshaw,€Senior€Evidence€Technician€for€the€Knoxville€Police€Department,Ð P( #& Ðtestified€that€none€of€the€prints€found€matched€those€of€the€defendant€or€Mike€Tumblin.€€CrenshawÐ @)$' Ðalso€testified€that€Love€and€Williams€refused€to€be€fingerprinted.€€Ð 0*€%( Ðâ âà  àÐ  +p&) Ðà  àà ` àThe€state€and€the€defense€stipulated€that€Misty€Moore€rented€a€hotel€room€inÐ ° Ðâ âStrawberry€Plains€from€July€27,€1998€until€July€29,€1998€and€that€Moore€would€have€testified€thatÐ  ð Ðon€July€28,€1998,€she€went€to€work€sometime€between€9:00€and€11:00€in€the€morning€and€returnedÐ à Ðthat€evening€around€8:00.€€Moore€also€would€have€testified€that€the€defendant€was€in€the€room€whenÐ €Ð Ðshe€left€that€morning€and€when€she€returned€that€evening.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àBased€on€the€evidence€as€summarized€above,€the€jury€convicted€the€defendant€ofÐ P   Ðaggravated€robbery.Ð @  Ðà@ìì*ìàˆÌà  àà ` àà@ïïìà1.€Denial€of€Motion€for€MistrialˆÐ  p  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendantððs€first€issue€pertains€to€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€a€motion€for€mistrialÐ P  Ðafter€Detective€Clowers,€a€stateððs€witness,€testified€that€the€defendant€had€a€reputation€for€homeÐ ð@  Ðinvasion€crimes.Ð à0  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€order€to€understand€this€issue,€some€background€information€is€helpful.€€Prior€toÐ À Ðjury€selection,€on€the€first€day€of€trial,€the€trial€court€heard€argument€on€several€defense€motions,Ð ° Ðincluding€ð ða€standard€motion€in€limine€about€prior€bad€acts€and/or€convictions€that€Mr.€Holmes€mayÐ  ð Ðhave.ðð€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€state,€ð ðApproach€the€bench€before€you€raise€any€prior€bad€acts.€Ð à ÐGet€permission,€Mr.€Green.€€The€rule€requires€that.ðð€€The€record€indicates€that€Detective€TerryÐ €Ð ÐClowers€was€present€in€the€court€room€when€the€trial€court€made€this€ruling.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àLater,€during€cross„examination€of€Ô_Ôñîñ€ñîñDetectiveÔ_Ô€Clowers,€defense€counsel€askedÐ P  ÐClowers,€ð ðWhy€did€you€put€a€BOLO€out€on€Kamikas€Cates?ðð€€Clowers€responded,€ð ðKamikas€CatesÐ @ Ðis€well€known€for€home€invasions,€just€as€Meechi€is.ðð€€ð ðMeechiðð€is€a€nickname€for€the€defendant€thatÐ 0€ Ðwas€used€numerous€times€during€the€trial.€€The€defense€moved€for€a€mistrial,€alleging€that€thisÐ  p Ðcomment€by€Detective€Clowers€violated€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€the€motion€òòin€limineóó€pertainingÐ ` Ðto€€prior€bad€acts.€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€the€statement€did€not€refer€to€a€specific€prior€bad€act€butÐ P Ðwas€an€expression€of€the€officerððs€opinion€of€the€defendant.€€The€trial€court€did€not€declare€a€mistrialÐ ð@ Ðbut€instructed€the€jury€that€Detective€Clowersðð€comment€was€to€be€disregarded€as€ð ðunsubstantiatedÐ à0 Ðopinion.ðð€€The€defendant€argues€that€Detective€Clowersðð€comment€was€so€prejudicial€to€theÐ Ð  Ðdefendant€that€the€curative€instruction€failed€to€ensure€that€the€defendant€would€receive€a€fair€trial.Ð À! ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€order€to€resolve€this€issue€we€must€first€determine€whether€the€evidence€of€theÐ  #ð! Ðdefendantððs€reputation€for€committing€home€invasion€crimes€was€admissible,€and€if€not,€whether€itsÐ $à" Ðinjection€into€the€evidentiary€arena€necessitated€a€mistrial.Ð €%Ð # ÐÌà  àà ` àTennessee€law€provides€that€evidence€of€a€personððs€character€or€a€trait€of€characterÐ `'°"% Ðis€not€admissible€for€the€purpose€of€proving€action€in€conformity€with€the€character€or€trait€on€aÐ P( #& Ðparticular€occasion.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(a).€€Evidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs,€or€prior€bad€acts€isÐ @)$' Ðnot€admissible€to€prove€the€character€of€a€person€in€order€to€show€action€in€conformity€with€theÐ 0*€%( Ðcharacter€trait.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€€Because€prior€bad€acts€may€be€admissible€for€other€purposesÐ  +p&) Ðand€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€404(b)€requires€a€hearing€outside€the€juryððs€presence,€the€trialÐ ,`'* Ðcourtððs€ruling€that€the€prosecutor€must€first€seek€permission€before€eliciting€evidence€of€prior€badÐ ° Ðacts€was€proper.€€Ð  ð ÐÌà  àà ` àWhen€Detective€Clowers€informed€the€jury€that€the€defendant€had€a€reputation€forÐ €Ð Ðburglarizing€homes€or€robbing€the€occupants,€he€injected€inadmissible€evidence€into€the€trial.€€ThisÐ pÀ Ðevidence€was€particularly€damaging€because€it€informed€the€jury€that€the€defendant€had€a€reputationÐ ` ° Ðfor€committing€crimes€similar€to€the€offense€on€trial.€€òòState€v.€Rickmanóó,€876€S.W.2d€824,€828€(Tenn.Ð P   Ð1994)€(The€use€of€evidence€of€prior€crimes€similar€to€the€offense€on€trial€is€particularly€hazardousÐ @  Ðbecause€it€carries€with€it€the€risk€that€the€jury€will€convict€the€defendant€based€upon€his€propensityÐ 0 € Ðto€commit€the€crime,€rather€than€upon€the€strength€of€the€stateððs€evidence.).€€Prohibiting€the€use€ofÐ  p  Ðhis€sort€of€evidence€is€at€the€very€heart€of€Rule€404(b).€€òòSee,€e.g.,€State€v.€Mooreóó,€6€S.W.3d€235,€237Ð `  Ð(Tenn.€1999).€€Moreover,€the€state€offers€no€rationale€that€a€ð ðmaterial€issue€exists€other€than€conductÐ P  Ðconforming€with€a€character€traitðð€that€would€justify€the€use€of€the€information€pursuant€to€RuleÐ ð@  Ð404(b)(2),€and€we€discern€no€such€issue.€€òòSee€generally€State€v.€McCaryóó,€922€S.W.2d€511,€514Ð à0  Ð(Tenn.€1996)€(evidence€of€a€criminal€defendant's€character€may€become€admissible€when€it€logicallyÐ Ð  Ðtends€to€prove€material€issues€which€have€been€divided€into€three€categories:€(1)€the€use€of€"motiveÐ À Ðand€common€scheme€or€plan"€to€establish€identity,€(2)€to€establish€the€defendant's€intent€inÐ ° Ðcommitting€the€offense€on€trial,€and€(3)€to€"rebut€a€claim€of€mistake€or€accident€if€asserted€as€aÐ  ð Ðdefense");€òòState€v.€Luellenóó,€867€S.W.2d€736,€740€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)€(ð ðOnly€in€an€exceptionalÐ à Ðcase€will€another€crime,€wrong,€or€bad€act€be€relevant€to€an€issue€other€than€the€accused'sÐ €Ð Ðcharacterñæñ.ñæñððñçñ.ñçñ).€€Furthermore,€filtering€the€information€via€characterizing€it€as€the€officerððs€opinion€doesÐ pÀ Ðnot€sanitize€the€otherwise€inadmissible€information€and€is,€therefore,€unavailing.€€The€bottom€lineÐ `° Ðis€that€the€information€has€no€legitimate€probative€value€and€was€extremely€prejudicial.€€òòóóHad€theÐ P  Ðdefendant€the€opportunity€to€obtain€a€pre„admission€Rule€404(b)(1)€hearing,€the€trial€court€wouldÐ @ Ðhave€been€constrained€to€exclude€the€evidence.€Ð 0€ ÐÌà  àà ` àHaving€determined€that€the€evidence€offered€by€Detective€Clowers€was€inadmissable,Ð ` Ðwe€therefore€consider€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€the€defendantððs€motion€for€a€mistrial.€Ð P ЀThe€granting€or€denial€of€a€mistrial€is€a€matter€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€òòStateÐ ð@ Ðv.€McKinneyóó,€929€S.W.2d€404,€405€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€This€court€will€not€disturb€such€aÐ à0 Ðdecision€absent€a€finding€of€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€929€S.W.2d€385,€388€(Tenn.Ð Ð  ÐCrim.€App.€1996).€"The€purpose€for€declaring€a€mistrial€is€to€correct€damage€done€to€the€judicialÐ À! Ðprocess€when€some€event€has€occurred€which€precludes€an€impartial€verdict."€€òòId.óó€€A€trial€courtÐ °"  Ðshould€grant€a€mistrial€only€when€it€is€of€"manifest€necessity."€€òòId.óó;€òòArnold€v.€Stateóó,€563€S.W.2d€792,Ð  #ð! Ð794€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977).€Ð $à" ÐÌà  àà ` àAlthough€Tennessee€courts€do€not€apply€any€exacting€standard€for€determining€whenÐ p&À!$ Ða€mistrial€is€necessary€after€a€witness€has€injected€improper€testimony,€we€have€often€considered€(1)Ð `'°"% Ðwhether€the€improper€testimony€resulted€from€questioning€by€the€state,€rather€than€having€been€aÐ P( #& Ðâ âgratuitous€declaration,€(2)€the€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€stateððs€proof,€and€(3)€whether€theÐ @)$' Ðtrial€court€promptly€gave€a€curative€instruction.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSee€State€v.€William€Dotsonóó,€No.€03C01„9803„CC„Ð ° Ðâ â00105,€slip€op.€at€9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€June€4,€1999).€€That€analytical€framework€isÐ  ð Ðhelpful€in€the€case€at€bar.Ð à ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€prosecution€was€not€at€fault€in€eliciting€the€evidence€in€this€case,€as€DetectiveÐ pÀ ÐClowers€made€his€improper€declaration€during€cross„examination€by€the€defense.€€However,€as€a€lawÐ ` ° Ðenforcement€officer€testifying€for€the€prosecution,€Detective€Clowers€is€an€agent€of€the€state.€€TheÐ P   Ðrecord€reflects€that€he€was€in€the€courtroom€when€the€judge€ruled€that€the€prosecutor€must€obtainÐ @  Ðpermission€before€introducing€bad€act€evidence€about€the€defendant.€€Through€his€spontaneousÐ 0 € Ðdeclaration,€Detective€Clowers€circumvented€the€courtððs€ruling€as€well€as€the€rules€of€evidence.€€Ð  p  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€strength€of€the€stateððs€case€was€not€great,€particularly€as€compared€with€theÐ P  Ðmagnitude€of€this€error.€€The€defendantððs€trial€strategy€was€that€he€was€not€the€offender.€€TheÐ ð@  Ðsoundness€of€the€stateððs€case€rested€upon€credibility€of€the€victim€and€his€female€friend.€€TheÐ à0  Ðdefendant€challenged€their€identifications€of€him.€€The€absence€of€the€defendantððs€fingerprints€on€theÐ Ð  Ðvictimððs€door€arguably€€belies€Loveððs€and€Williamsðð€identifications€of€the€defendant€as€the€offender.€Ð À ЀThus,€the€stateððs€case€is€not€so€overwhelming€as€to€render€ineffectual€the€egregious€violation€of€RuleÐ ° Ð404(b).€€òòSee€State€v.€Mooreóó,€6€S.W.3d€235,€239€(Tenn.€1999)€(ð ðthe€line€between€harmless€andÐ  ð Ðprejudicial€error€is€in€direct€proportion€to€the€degree€.€.€.€by€which€proof€exceeds€the€standardÐ à Ðrequired€to€convictðð)€(citation€omitted).€€In€our€view,€the€evidentiary€error€may€well€have€been€theÐ €Ð Ðdeciding€factor€for€the€jury,€allowing€them€to€conclude€that€ð ðbecause€òòhe€did€it€once,€more€than€likelyÐ pÀ Ðhe€did€it€againóó.ðð€€òòState€v.€Robertsóó,€703€S.W.2d€146,€147€(Tenn.€1986)€(emphasis€in€original).Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àFinally,€we€consider€whether€the€evidentiary€error€was€abated€by€the€judgeððsÐ @ Ðcautionary€instruction.€€The€judge€declined€to€give€the€instruction€contemporaneously€to€theÐ 0€ Ðobjection€to€the€testimony€but€waited€until€the€conclusion€of€the€cross„examination€and€redirectÐ  p Ðexamination€of€the€witness€(which€incidentally€closed€the€stateððs€proof€in€the€case).€€òòCompareÐ ` ÐWilliam€Dotsonóó,€slip€op.€at€11„12€(manifest€necessity€for€mistrial€existed€because€jury€was€not€givenÐ P Ðcurative€instruction€regarding€improper€evidence€until€the€following€day)€òòwith€State€v.€Hallóó,€976Ð ð@ ÐS.W.2d€121,€147„48€(Tenn.€1998)€(appendix)€(improper€evidence€of€defendantððs€prior€crime€did€notÐ à0 Ðrequire€granting€of€mistrial€because€trial€court€immediately€gave€a€curative€instruction).€€òòMoreÐ Ð  Ðimportantly,€the€instruction€given€was€not€curative.óó€€While€instructing€the€jury€to€disregard€theÐ À! Ðremark€about€the€defendant€having€a€reputation€for€home€invasions,€the€trial€court€premised€itsÐ °"  Ðdirective€upon€the€remark€being€ð ðOffice€Clowersðð€unsubstantiated€opinion.ðð€€A€reasonable€juror€mayÐ  #ð! Ðwell€have€concluded€that€had€the€opinion€been€substantiated€„„€or€that€if€it€were€in€fact€based€uponÐ $à" Ðsubstantiated€facts€„„òò€óó€the€information€it€imparted€to€the€jury€would€be€justiciable.€€The€trial€courtÐ €%Ð # Ðfailed€to€indicate€disapproval€of€the€information,€except€in€the€form€in€which€it€was€delivered.€€TheÐ p&À!$ Ðjury€was€not€informed€of€the€impermissible€danger€of€propensity€evidence.€€It€was€not€told€that€theÐ `'°"% Ðremark€was€inadmissible€evidence€and€that€its€inadmissibility€formed€the€basis€for€the€requirementÐ P( #& Ðthat€they€disregard€the€remark.€€This€particular€instruction€failed€to€abate€the€prejudicial€impact€ofÐ ° Ðthe€testimony.€€Ð  ð ÐÌà  àà ` àWhen€the€foregoing€factors€are€considered,€the€prejudicial€effect€of€the€improperÐ €Ð Ðevidence€is€palpable.€€We€conclude€that€the€opportunity€for€an€impartial€verdict€was€lost,€therebyÐ pÀ Ðcreating€manifest€necessity€for€a€mistrial.€€òòSeeóó€òòWilliamsóó,€929€S.W.2d€at€388.€€The€trial€court€shouldÐ ` ° Ðhave€granted€the€defendantððs€motion€for€a€mistrial.òòóó€€òòSee,€e.g.,€State€v.€Blankenshipóó,€214€Tenn.€355,Ð P   Ð410€S.W.2d€159€(1966)€(trial€court€should€have€granted€mistrial€after€stateððs€witness€testified€thatÐ @  Ðdefendants€had€at€first€pleaded€guilty€but€later€withdrew€their€pleas);òò€State€v.€David€Johnsonóó,€No.Ð 0 € ÐW1998-00687-CCA-R3-CD,€slip€op.€at€10„15€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Mar.€14,€2001)€(inÐ  p  Ðcontext€of€defendantððs€double€jeopardy€challenge,€appellate€court€held€that€trial€court€had€properlyÐ `  Ðgranted€mistrial€after€prosecutorððs€improper€questioning€of€witness€resulted€in€testimony€that€theÐ P  Ðdefendant€ð ðjust€got€out€of€jailðð€and€ð ðalways€goes€around€robbing€peopleðð).€Accordingly,€we€mustÐ ð@  Ðreverse€the€conviction€and€remand€the€case€for€a€new€trial€in€which€the€improper,€inflammatoryÐ à0  Ðevidence€of€the€defendantððs€reputation€for€committing€home€invasion€crimes€is€not€injected.Ð Ð  Ðà  àòòóóÌà@ââìà2.€€Exculpatory€Evidence.ˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€state€failed€to€disclose€fingerprint€evidence€in€a€timelyÐ à Ðfashion.€€Pursuant€to€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83€(1963),€defense€counsel€requested€the€resultsÐ €Ð Ðof€ð ðany€scientific€tests€or€experimentsðð€performed€by€or€known€to€the€state€and€ð ð[a]ll€informationÐ pÀ Ðof€whatever€form,€source€or€nature€which€tends€to€exculpate€the€defendant.ðð€€However,€the€state€didÐ `° Ðnot€provide€the€results€of€fingerprint€analyses€conducted€on€Loveððs€storm€door€€until€the€week€beforeÐ P  Ðtrial.€€Ð @ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€order€to€establish€a€due€process€òòBradyóó€violation,€the€defendant€must€establish€theÐ  p Ðfollowing:ñìñÐ ` ÐñìñÌñëñÓÓñëñà8  à1.€€The€defendant€must€have€requested€the€information€(unless€the€evidence€isÐ ð@ Ðobviously€exculpatory,€in€which€case€the€state€is€bound€to€release€the€informationÐ à0 Ðwhether€requested€or€not);ÐÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à2.€€The€state€must€have€suppressed€the€information;ÐÀ!Ð Ð  Ðà8  à3.€€The€information€must€have€been€favorable€to€the€accused;€€andа" Ð Ð  Ðà8  à4.€€The€information€must€have€been€material.Р#ð!Ð Ð  ÐñëñÓØ[ÓñëñÌòòState€v.€Edginóó,€902€S.W.2d€387,€389€(Tenn.€1995).€€However,€òòóóa€delayed€disclosure€of€exculpatoryÐ €%Ð # Ðinformation,€as€opposed€to€a€complete€failure€to€disclose,€òòóómay€not€be€a€òòBradyóó€violation€unless€theÐ p&À!$ Ðdelay€causes€prejudice.€€òòState€v.€Joan€Elizabeth€Hallóó,€No.€01C01„9710„CC„00503€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð `'°"% ÐApp.,€Nashville,€Jan.€28,€1999).€€In€cases€of€delayed€disclosure,€the€inquiry€is€whether€the€delayÐ P( #& Ðprevented€the€defense€from€effectively€preparing€for€and€presenting€the€defendantððs€case.€€òòState€v.Ð @)$' ÐCaughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€526,€548€(Tenn.€1993);€òòseeóó€òòUnited€States€v,€Bagleyóó,€473€U.S.€667,€682,€105Ð 0*€%( Ðâ âS.€Ct.€3375,€3384€(1985)€(failure€to€respond€to€òòBradyóó€request€may€impair€adversary€process€becauseÐ  +p&) Ðdefense€ð ðmight€abandon€lines€of€independent€investigation,€defenses,€or€trial€strategies€that€itÐ ° Ðotherwise€would€have€pursuedðð).€Ð  ð Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àIn€this€case,€the€defendant€failed€to€show€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€delay.€€TheÐ €Ð Ðinformation€was€provided€to€him€the€week€before€trial,€and€he€was€able€to€use€it€at€trial.€€DefenseÐ pÀ Ðcounsel€thoroughly€cross„examined€Detective€Clowers€at€trial€and€established€that€none€of€theÐ ` ° Ðfingerprints€taken€from€the€door€matched€those€of€the€defendant.€€We€find€no€error€in€the€òòBradyóóÐ P   Ðclaim.€€At€any€rate,€the€disclosure€was€made€well€in€advance€of€the€retrial€that€we€have€now€orderedÐ @  Ðon€remand.€€€€€à ` àà ¸ àÐ 0 € ÐÌà  àà ` àà@ÿÿìà3.€€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidence.ˆÐ `  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€argues€that€insufficient€evidence€was€presented€at€trial€to€convict€himÐ ð@  Ðof€aggravated€robbery.€€In€particular,€he€claims€that€the€only€direct€evidence€regarding€theÐ à0  Ðidentification€of€the€perpetrator€was€the€testimony€of€Sam€Love€and€Kathy€Williams,€and€heÐ Ð  Ðcontends€that€their€statements€were€contradictory.€€Ô‡ X9³ XXX©SÔÐ À ÐÌà  àà ` àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€an€appellate€courtððsÐ œì Ðstandard€of€review€is€whether,€after€considering€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÐ ˆØ Ðprosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyondÐ tÄ Ða€reasonable€doubt.€€òòóóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e)Ô#†X©SX X X9³Êf#ÔÔ‡ X9³ XXX©SÔòò;€Jackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€324,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,Ð `° Ð2791€(1979);€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€63,€67€(Tenn.€1985).€€This€rule€applies€to€findings€of€guiltÐ Lœ Ðbased€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€both€direct€andÐ 8ˆ Ðcircumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€253€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990),€òòoverruledÐ $t Ðon€other€grounds€by€State€v.€Hooperóó,€29€S.W.3d€1€(Tenn.€2000).€€Ð ` ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€should€not€re„weigh€or€re„Ð è8 Ðevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Nor€mayÐ Ô$ Ðthis€court€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.Ð À ÐBuggsóó,€995€S.W.2d€102,€105€(Tenn.€1999);€Ô#†X©SX X X9³Àh#ÔÔ‡ X9³ XXX©SÔòòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859€(Tenn.€1956).òòóóÐ ¬ü ÐQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€as€wellÐ ˜ è Ðas€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòLiakasóó,€286€S.W.2d€atÐ „!Ô Ð859.òòóó€€òòóóThis€Court€must€afford€the€State€of€Tennessee€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidenceÐ p"À  Ðcontained€in€the€record,€as€well€as€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€Ð \#¬! ÐòòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€191€(Tenn.€1992).€€Because€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€theÐ H$˜" Ðpresumption€of€innocence€and€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€convicted€defendant€bears€theÐ 4%„ # Ðburden€of€showing€that€the€evidence€was€legally€insufficient€to€sustain€a€guilty€verdict.€€òòId.óó€Ô#†X©SX X X9³Ál#ÔÐ  &p!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àEven€though€issues€of€credibility€were€raised€at€trial,€the€evidence€was€clearlyÐ ü'L#& Ðsufficient€to€support€the€defendantððs€conviction€for€aggravated€robbery.€€Both€Love€and€WilliamsÐ ì(<$' Ðidentified€the€defendant€in€a€photo€lineup€and€in€court€as€the€man€who€robbed€Love.€€Love€testifiedÐ Ü),%( Ðthat€when€the€robbers€left€his€apartment,€he€looked€outside€and€saw€the€men€drive€away€in€a€blackÐ Ì*&) ÐJeep.€€Williams,€who€was€already€outside€when€the€robbers€fled,€testified€that€she€also€saw€two€menÐ ¼+ '* Ðcome€from€Loveððs€apartment€and€get€into€a€black€Jeep€Cherokee.€€Love€and€Williams€also€bothÐ ° Ðtestified€that€the€man€who€knocked€on€the€door€had€a€silver„colored€gun.€€When€the€defendant€wasÐ  ð Ðfound€by€police,€he€was€driving€a€black€Jeep€Cherokee,€and€in€it€police€found€a€silver„colored€gunÐ à Ðsimilar€to€the€one€described€by€Love€and€Williams.€€€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€jury€obviously€accredited€the€testimony€of€the€stateððs€witnesses.€€Although€thereÐ ` ° Ðis€some€discrepancy€in€the€witnesses'€descriptions€of€the€defendant,€it€is€within€the€jury's€provinceÐ P   Ðto€determine€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses€and€to€resolve€the€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence.€Ð @  ÐòòState€v.€Williamsóó,€920€S.W.2d€247,€254€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).à È àÐ 0 € ÐÌà  àà ` àBecause€the€trial€court€should€have€declared€a€mistrial,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÐ `  Ðis€reversed,€and€the€case€is€remanded€for€a€new€trial.Ð P  Ðòòóóà  àÌñíñÌÌñíñà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð À Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMESñèñ,ñèñ€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGE