ÿWPCµ) sî–f§ï%·N(Î 2ºU¾)Õ‘ÃÊúyô?qõ­¸$ÇÎ-1áÕؾ.® Ð þí(¨ØzÏjóh«^œ‡/fZèöT!’) dá®Zø|…ŸØKÂhp”¦U,¥æÃ}îÎÒµ¾¤ëó( ÐJ=Ñ2¥:ê醓کY‘û° ‹HÆ>o脞ß{Eì,\N%³k–iÃ<¼IŒÒÖ§EH§÷¦#Ñ%Æ Âª.¾k߸`S)|$íU\<Ñöº(kþDIÂtWRO¨\*<ÝÅ{mttz앾O¯Œ°Dô&óãJ.Áx]®ÅCu­â¶B¬Šºr%ÛŸ§&EÌUYujx4mÚizÓ*.ÅS¥#ýZ[@EĹÇ$ÆsÚ¬\¹ÔÆ ÖÄX±7 ÅÓÔh3ÆH³q@ÿƺHiê€QÀÖO™%^%±8>“åø:h÷™«±V–1>ÂècÂHißÁPÝ™w,ƒð.»Ù¡f3§pÐÙ²œ_ywŸ ‡>Zï,´„kËI W§1™¢óóH»3lôfÝ‚v1V:•á´¡k2Nà¨íDV_ö$*Ãð…,²"Ž5®lšò+¥w2 êËã÷6ëôÿ¶Î~þFD\÷!B†ú!b %\­b 0ˆU%N—§åU@Œ ÃÌ z Ò šÛ 4u —©]@ÆÆcÆ)Æï&µNÛÝRíE? µA UNö ^ D!wP!P!4T!h!w! my!#Á!!Q#Q#Q#Q#Q#Q#Q#Q# 0 Df$f$f$f$bª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ª$ 0 ë²$²$²$²$ B%% 0¤º% D3^& D-‘& 0K¾&¾& AS 'Æ\' 0¤"( 0DÆ( A« )» £Ý ƒR¹S$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô»%ò»»ÔÝ  ÝòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„1„301,€„302€(1982).(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular Ý ƒR¹S$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô»%ò»»ÔÝ  ÝòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„1„604€(1982).(ƒð Z‹(Times New Roman  ¹Ý ƒR¹S$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô»%ò»»ÔÝ  ÝAt€trial,€Nelson€admitted€that€he€cut€his€hair€after€committing€the€murder. ˜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 Ý ƒR¹S$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô»%ò»»ÔÝ  ÝThe€Defendant€claimed€on€direct€appeal€that€the€State€had€failed€to€disclose€a€witness€ð ðwho€had€observed€aÐ ° Ðbearded€man€stab€the€victim.ðð€€òòKinnairdóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€574.€€Rozasðð€statement€makes€no€reference€to€the€assailant€beingÐ tÄ Ðbearded. *Ý ƒR¹S$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô»%ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€This€Court€has€subsequently€held€that€this€list€of€exclusions€includes€matters€which€could€have€been€litigatedÐ ° Ðin€post„conviction€proceedings.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Doyle€Hartóó,€No.€02C01„9612„CC„00451,€1997€WL€563613,€at€*6€(Tenn.Ð tÄ ÐCrim.€App.,€Jackson,€Sept.€10,€1997);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòKenneth€C.€Ô_ÔStommÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9110„CR„00342,€1992€WLÐ 8ˆ Ð97081,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€May€12,€1992)€(ð ðThe€[coram€Ô_ÔnobisÔ_Ô]€proceeding€is€confined€to€errors€outsideÐ üL Ðthe€record€and€to€matters€which€were€not€and€could€not€have€been€litigated€at€trial,€the€motion€for€new€trial,€appeal,€orÐ À Ðupon€post„conviction€petition.ðð);€òòState€v.€James€D.€ð ðSonnyðð€Ô_ÔYarbroughÔ_Ôóó,€No.€01C01„9001„CC„00012,€1990€WL€109107,Ð „Ô Ðat€*2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Aug.€3,€1990)€(noting€that€the€remedy€of€error€coram€Ô_ÔnobisÔ_Ô€is€also€not€available€onÐ H ˜ Ðmatters€that€were€or€could€have€been€litigated€in€a€post„conviction€proceeding).€€ Ý ƒR¹S$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô»%ò»»ÔÝ  ÝThe€State€was€unable€to€locate€Rozas€after€he€gave€his€statement.€€The€Defendant€argues€that,€had€the€StateÐ ° Ðdisclosed€Rozasðð€existence€to€him€prior€to€trial,€he€might€have€succeeded€where€the€State€failed.€€Under€òòBradyóó,€it€remainsÐ tÄ Ðthe€Defendantððs€burden€to€prove€the€materiality€of€the€evidence€he€claims€was€withheld.€€Without€some€additional€proofÐ 8ˆ Ðthat€Rozas€would€have€identified€someone€other€than€Nelson€as€the€murderer,€the€Defendant€has€simply€failed€in€this€task. SÝ ƒR¹S$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô»%ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIt€remains€highly€speculative€whether€the€Defendant€could€have€even€used€the€Ô_ÔRozasÔ_Ô€statement€at€trial.€€Ô_ÔRozasÔ_ÔÐ ° Ðwas€apparently€a€ð ðfugitive€from€justiceðð€and€became€unavailable€after€he€gave€his€statement.€€The€statement€itself€isÐ tÄ Ðclearly€hearsay.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€801.€€Hearsay€is€generally€inadmissible.€€òòId.óó€802.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 Ý ƒR¹S$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô»%ò»»ÔÝ  ÝThe€Defendant€makes€the€same€argument€regarding€Martinððs€co„worker,€Derrick€Bilbrey,€who€also€witnessedÐ ° Ðthe€attack€and€identified€the€assailant€as€number€two€in€the€photographic€line„up.€€This€witness€did€not€testify€at€trial,€andÐ tÄ Ðour€holding€is€the€same€with€respect€to€the€exculpatory€nature€of€this€witnessððs€misidentification€of€the€assailant€fromÐ 8ˆ Ðthe€line„up. Ý ƒR¹S$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô»%ò»»ÔÝ  ÝNelson€testified€at€trial€that€the€Defendant€gave€him€a€pistol€in€conjunction€with€his€attempts€to€solicit€NelsonÐ ° Ðto€murder€Pamela. HÝ ƒR¹S$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô»%ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Defendant€has€also€failed€to€prove€that€it€was€favorable.€€Detective€Lynchððs€notes€also€contain€theÐ ° Ðfollowing€narrative:€€ð ð[Ô_ÔHershellÔ_Ô]€told€Nelson€he€wanted€W€killed,€he€had€hired€a€pro€„„€who€had€agreed€to€kill€„„€butÐ tÄ Ðdelayed.€€[Ô_ÔHershellÔ_Ô]€asked€Nelson€to€do€it€for€$3000€„„€offered€$5000€if€done€w/Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô€2€days.ðð «Ý ƒR¹S$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô»%ò»»ÔÝ  ÝThe€record€before€us€contains€no€support€for€this€assertion.(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular]+â Jr†*<é4 §3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 Ý ƒR¹S$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô»%ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€current€post„conviction€statute€contains€substantially€the€same€language.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„Ð ° Ð203.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2¹S$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€-»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô»%ò»»Ô d(|3e$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€-»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3e$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€-»»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€SáXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î\-ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼-»îî\ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àApril€24,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XSáX»¼-ÔÌò òÔ#†¼-»XXSá#ÔÔ_ÔHERSHELLÔ_Ô€LEE€Ô_ÔKINNAIRDÔ_Ô€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡XSáX»¼-Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Putnam€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€88„0572€€€€€€Leon€Burns,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„00037„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€August€7,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€Defendant,€Hershell€Lee€Kinnaird,€was€convicted€by€a€jury€in€1989€of€accessory€before€the€factÐ xÈ  Ðto€first€degree€murder׃×Ý ƒ*#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€conspiracy€to€commit€first€degree€murder.׃T×Ý ƒ*#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€He€was€sentenced€to€lifeÐ d´ Ðimprisonment€for€the€former€conviction€and€to€a€concurrent€ten€year€term€for€the€latter€conviction.€Ð P  ÐThe€Defendantððs€convictions€were€affirmed€on€direct€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Kinnairdóó,€823€S.W.2d€571,Ð <Œ Ð572€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€In€this€post„conviction€proceeding€the€Defendant€contends€that€theÐ (x ÐState€violated€his€constitutional€rights€by€withholding€exculpatory€evidence;€that€the€post„convictionÐ d Ðcourt€erred€by€not€granting€his€motion€for€state„funded€experts;€that€he€received€ineffective€assistanceÐ P Ðof€counsel€at€trial;Ô#†¼-»XXSáÅ#ÔÔ‡XSáX»¼-Ô€and€that€the€trial€court€committed€several€instances€of€plain€error€violating€hisÐ ì< Ðright€to€a€fair€trial€and/or€due€process.€€Finding€the€Defendantððs€allegations€to€be€without€merit,€weÐ Ø( Ðaffirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court.Ð Ä ÐÓãÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ œì ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼-»àXSá# #ÔÔ‡XSáX.¼-ÔDavid€H.€Welles,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòNorma€McGee€Ogleóó€and€òòAlanÐ tÄ ÐE.€Glenn,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð `° ÐÌHenry€D.€Ô_ÔFincherÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔCookevilleÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Ô_ÔHerschellÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔKinnairdÔ_Ô.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Glen€C.€Watson,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€BillÐ #`" ÐGibson,€District€Attorney€General;€and€David€Patterson,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€theÐ ü#L# Ðappellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð è$8 $ ÐÓë ÓÌÐ  À&"&ý Ðà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼-»XXSá #ÔÔ‡XSáX»¼-ÔÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÔ#†¼-»XXSáU#ÔÔ€XSáX»¼-ÔÔ‡XSáXXXSáÔÌà  àThis€case€presents€us€with€an€interesting€procedural€history.€€Following€this€CourtððsÐ ˆØ Ðaffirmance€of€his€convictions€on€direct€appeal,€the€Defendant€filed€in€1992€a€petition€for€writ€of€errorÐ tÄ Ðcoram€nobis€on€two€grounds:€€that€newly€discovered€evidence€demonstrated€that€one€of€the€StateððsÐ `° Ðkey€witnesses€testified€falsely€at€trial€and€that€the€State€withheld€exculpatory€evidence€prior€to€trialÐ L œ Ðin€violation€of€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83€(1963).€€After€an€evidentiary€hearing€the€trial€courtÐ 8 ˆ Ðdenied€relief.€€Upon€the€Defendantððs€appeal€this€Court€affirmed€the€lower€courtððs€denial€of€relief.€Ð $ t ÐòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hershell€Kinnairdóó,€No.€01C01„9404„CC„00149,€1995€WL€382612,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð  ` ÐApp.,€Nashville,€June€28,€1995).€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àIn€1994€the€Defendant€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€alleging,€òòinteróó€òòaliaóó,€that€heÐ Ô$  Ðhad€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial.€€Upon€counsel€being€appointed€to€representÐ À  Ðthe€Defendant€in€his€post„conviction€proceeding,€an€amended€petition€was€filed,€adding€as€groundsÐ ¬ü  Ðfor€relief€that€the€State€withheld€exculpatory€evidence€at€trial€in€violation€of€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó€andÐ ˜è  Ðthat€the€trial€court€committed€several€instances€of€plain€error€entitling€him€to€a€new€trial.€€After€anÐ „Ô  Ðevidentiary€hearing€at€which€the€Defendant,€one€of€the€Stateððs€prosecutors€at€trial,€and€theÐ pÀ ÐDefendantððs€defense€lawyer€testified,€the€post„conviction€court€denied€relief.€€This€matter€is€nowÐ \¬ Ðproperly€before€us.€€However,€before€we€address€the€issues€before€us,€a€brief€review€of€the€factsÐ H˜ Ðadduced€at€trial€will€be€helpful.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àOn€July€13,€1988,€the€Defendantððs€wife€and€the€victim€in€this€case,€Pamela€Kinnaird,€wasÐ  \ Ðstabbed€to€death€as€she€sat€in€her€car€at€the€parking€lot€of€the€Cookeville€Mall.€€The€policeÐ øH Ðsubsequently€arrested€Donnie€Ray€Nelson,€the€Defendantððs€uncle,€and€Nelson€confessed€to€theÐ ä4 Ðmurder.€€At€the€time€of€his€arrest,€Nelson€had€a€deep€cut€on€one€of€his€hands.€€In€a€July€16,€1988Ð Ð  Ðstatement€he€gave€to€Detective€Robert€Lynch,€Nelson€explained€his€actions:€€Ð ¼  Ðà8  àI€went€to€the€Cookeville€Mall.€€I€saw€Pamððs€car€and€pulled€in€behind€her.€€I€got€outÐ ¨ø Ðof€my€car€and€walked€up€to€the€driverððs€side€of€her€car.€€I€started€talking€to€her.€€IÐ ”ä Ðgave€her€my€earring€and€told€her€ð ðI€loved€her.ðð€€She€told€me€I€was€a€fool€and€threwÐ €Ð Ðthe€earring€away€and€said€she€didnððt€love€me.€€I€went€back€to€my€car€and€got€myÐ l¼ Ðknife.€€I€went€back€to€her€car€and€started€stabbing€her€and€telling€her€I€loved€her.€€ÐX ¨Ð Ð  ÐÌAt€trial€Nelson€contradicted€this€statement€and€claimed€that€he€murdered€the€victim€at€theÐ 0"€  ÐDefendantððs€request.€€The€Defendant,€he€testified,€had€agreed€to€pay€him€$3,000€for€the€murder.€Ð #l! ÐNelson€admitted€that€the€State€had€agreed€not€to€seek€the€death€penalty€against€him€if€he€pled€guiltyÐ $X" Ðto€the€murder€and€testified€against€the€Defendant.€€He€claimed€not€to€remember€how€he€cut€his€hand.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àThe€State€established€that,€a€few€months€prior€to€her€murder,€the€victim€had€requested€aÐ Ì&"% Ðlawyer€to€prepare€a€divorce€complaint.€€A€few€weeks€before€her€murder,€the€victim€applied€for€aÐ ¸'#& Ð$100,000€life€insurance€policy€naming€the€Defendant€as€beneficiary;€this€policy€was€in€effect€at€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðtime€she€was€killed.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àKelly€Averitt€testified€that€he€started€working€with€the€Defendantððs€brother,€Earl€Kinnaird,Ð ° Ðâ âin€March€1988.€€Averitt€and€Earl€became€friends.€€In€May,€Averitt€testified,€Earl€asked€him€if€heÐ œì Ðð ðknew€of€anyone€who€could€make€a€hit€on€somebodyðð€because€his€brother€(the€Defendant)€wasÐ ˆØ Ðinterested.€€Averitt€replied€that€he€did€not€know€anyone€in€that€line€of€work.€€Later€that€month,Ð tÄ ÐAveritt€met€the€Defendant,€and€the€Defendant€asked€him€if€he€ð ðknew€of€anybody€who€could€pull€aÐ `° Ðhit€off€on€somebody€and€make€it€look€like€an€accident.ðð€€Averitt€testified€that€the€Defendant€askedÐ L œ Ðhim€to€find€someone,€and€Averitt€said€he€ð ðcould€call€somebody.ðð€€According€to€Averitt,€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐDefendant€kept€asking€if€he€had€found€anyone€to€make€the€hit.€€When€Averitt€explained€that€he€andÐ $ t ÐEarl€had€not€found€anyone,€the€Defendant€asked€Averitt€if€he€would€murder€the€victim.€€AverittÐ  ` Ðreplied€that€the€Defendant€ð ðwas€nutsðð€and€had€no€further€discussions€with€the€Defendant€until€afterÐ ü L  Ðthe€murder.Ð è 8  ÐÌÔ#†XSáXXXSá×#Ôà  àPrior€to€the€murder,€Ô_ÔAverittÔ_Ô€testified,€the€Defendant€told€him€that€Pamelaððs€death€needed€toÐ À  Ðlook€like€an€accident€for€the€insurance€to€pay€off€and€that€ð ðif€everything€worked€out€that€we€all€couldÐ ¬ü  Ðbe€doing€pretty€good€because€of€the€insurance€policy.ðð€€After€the€murder,€according€to€Averitt,€theÐ ˜è  ÐDefendant€demanded€that€Averitt€drive€Nelson€out€of€town€to€Nashville,€threatening€Averitt€if€heÐ „Ô  Ðdid€not€do€so.€€The€Defendant€told€Averitt€to€tell€Nelson€to€leave€ð ða€confession€note€apologizing€toÐ pÀ Ðme€for€what€he€did.€€So€it€will€throw€all€the€blame€off€of€me.ðð€€The€note,€Averitt€testified,€wasÐ \¬ Ðsupposed€to€say€that€Nelson€loved€the€victim€and€that€if€he€could€not€have€her,€no€one€else€could.€Ð H˜ ÐAveritt€testified€that€he€did€as€requested,€and€Nelson€left€the€note.€€On€their€way€to€Nashville,€NelsonÐ 4„ Ðdemanded€to€be€let€out€at€the€Buffalo€Valley€exit,€which€Averitt€did.€€Nelson€told€Averitt€that€theÐ  p ÐDefendant€or€Earl€needed€to€come€find€him€there€that€night€and€deliver€the€money€that€the€DefendantÐ  \ Ðhad€promised€him€for€killing€Pamela.€€This€was€the€last€time€Averitt€saw€Nelson.Ð øH ÐÌà  àTanya€Valentine,€who€dated€Earl€for€a€few€weeks,€testified€that€she€met€the€DefendantÐ Ð  Ðthrough€Earl.€€She€stated€that€in€May,€the€Defendant€asked€her€to€kill€Pamela,€offering€her€$3,000Ð ¼  Ðto€$4,000.€€He€wanted€it€done€with€a€knife,€she€said,€and€wanted€Pamela€killed€because€she€wouldÐ ¨ø Ðget€everything€he€had€if€she€divorced€him.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àJonathan€Kaye€met€the€Defendant€in€early€July€while€the€Defendant€and€Earl€were€installingÐ l¼ Ðsiding€on€Kayeððs€house.€€After€the€Defendant€and€Earl€had€been€at€the€house€several€days,€KayeÐ X ¨ Ðtestified,€the€Defendant€asked€him€if€he€knew€anyone€who€would€kill€someone€for€money,€explainingÐ D!” Ðthat€he€had€a€friend€who€needed€someone€killed.€€Kaye€testified€that€he€was€ð ðstunnedðð€by€theÐ 0"€  Ðquestion€and€ð ðemphaticallyðð€told€the€Defendant,€ð ðno.ðð€€Kaye€said€that€the€Defendant€then€made€aÐ #l! Ðcomment€like,€ð ðI€think€a€guy€has€the€right€to€kill€somebody€if€they€want€to.ðð€€Kayeððs€wife,€BarbaraÐ $X" ÐAnn€Kaye,€testified€that€on€one€occasion€when€she€told€her€husband€in€front€of€the€Defendant€thatÐ ô$D # Ðlunch€was€ready,€the€Defendant€said€that€ð ðthe€next€time€he€got€married€he€wanted€to€make€sure€thatÐ à%0!$ Ðhis€wife€could€cook.ððÐ Ì&"% ÐÌà  àDavid€Barlow,€who€supervised€the€Defendantððs€work€at€the€Kayesðð€house,€testified€that€theÐ ¤(ô#' ÐDefendant€asked€him€if€he€knew€anyone€who€would€kill€someone,€stating€that€he€was€asking€for€aÐ )à$( Ðfriend.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  à€Earl€Kinnaird€testified€that,€beginning€in€May,€the€Defendant€repeatedly€asked€him€if€heÐ ° Ðknew€anyone€who€would€kill€Pamela.€€According€to€Earl,€the€Defendant€suspected€his€wife€of€havingÐ œì Ðan€affair€and€thought€that€she€was€not€a€good€mother.€€Earl€explained€that€the€Defendant€wantedÐ ˆØ Ðsomeone€else€to€kill€Pamela€and€that€he€wanted€it€to€look€like€a€robbery€or€an€accident,€so€that€heÐ tÄ Ðwould€have€an€ð ðalibi.ððÐ `° ÐÌà  àEarl€explained€that€Nelson€arrived€in€town€a€few€days€before€the€murder.€€Nelson€asked€EarlÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€buy€him€a€hunting€knife,€which€Earl€did.€€On€the€evening€of€the€murder,€Earl€found€Nelson€sittingÐ $ t Ðin€his€car€at€Earlððs€apartment€and€noticed€that€Nelsonððs€hand€was€cut.€€Nelson€told€Earl€that€he€hadÐ  ` Ðkilled€Pamela€with€the€knife€Earl€had€bought.€€Nelson€wanted€to€ditch€his€car€because€he€thought€heÐ ü L  Ðhad€been€seen.€€Accordingly,€Earl€followed€Nelson€to€an€area€where€Nelson€abandoned€his€car.€€TheÐ è 8  Ðtwo€men€then€went€to€Center€Hill€Dam€where€Nelson€threw€the€knife€and€the€clothes€he€had€wornÐ Ô$  Ðinto€the€lake.Ð À  ÐÌà  àMatthew€Wayne€Martin€testified€that€he€was€working€at€a€restaurant€near€the€mall€when€heÐ ˜è  Ðheard€a€woman€scream.€€When€he€looked€over€at€the€parking€lot,€he€saw€a€man€outside€the€driverððsÐ „Ô  Ðdoor€of€the€womanððs€car.€€He€testified€that€ð ðit€looked€like€they€was€[sic]€scrambling,€or€somethingÐ pÀ Ðwith€each€other,€and€I€seen€her€arms€go€up€like€this€and€stuff,€and€I€seen€him€run€to€his€car.ðð€€MartinÐ \¬ Ðtook€down€the€license€plate€number€of€the€car€the€man€got€into.€€The€car€belonged€to€Nelson.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àDebra€Griffey€testified€on€behalf€of€the€Defendant,€explaining€that€she€had€been€in€jail€withÐ  p ÐNelson.€€She€testified€that€Nelson€told€her€he€had€not€killed€Pamela,€but€had€been€present€during€theÐ  \ Ðmurder€and€tried€to€stop€it.€€He€did€not€tell€her€who€the€murderer€was.€€Nelson€told€Griffey€that€heÐ øH Ðhad€agreed€to€take€the€blame€for€the€crime€because€ð ðthere€had€been€too€many€people€hurt€throughoutÐ ä4 Ðhis€family,€and€that€.€.€.€he€could€go€to€the€penitentiary€and€do€easy€time.ððÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àThomas€Ralph€also€testified€on€behalf€of€the€Defendant.€€He€had€also€been€in€jail€withÐ ¨ø ÐNelson.€€Ralph€testified€that€Nelson€told€him€he€had€not€killed€Pamela,€that€Earl€had.€€According€toÐ ”ä ÐRalph,€Nelson€explained€that€the€Defendant,€Pamela€and€Earl€had€gone€to€Atlanta€together.€€WhileÐ €Ð Ðthere,€Earl€ð ðripped€offðð€three€kilos€of€cocaine€from€some€drug€dealers.€€When€Pamela€discoveredÐ l¼ Ðthis,€she€decided€to€turn€the€drugs€over€to€the€authorities.€€Earl€told€Nelson€that€Nelson€could€haveÐ X ¨ Ðone„half€of€the€cocaine€if€he€would€kill€Pamela.€€Nelson€and€Earl€met€Pamela€at€the€mall,€on€her€wayÐ D!” Ðto€turn€in€the€cocaine.€€They€tried€to€talk€her€out€of€her€plan€to€turn€the€cocaine€in,€to€no€avail.€Ð 0"€  ÐNelson€was€supposed€to€kill€her€but€became€scared.€€Nelson€told€Ralph€that€Earl€finally€took€theÐ #l! Ðknife€and€killed€Pamela.€€The€two€then€left€in€Nelsonððs€car€and€hid€the€cocaine.€€Earl€told€Nelson€thatÐ $X" Ðthey€could€make€the€murder€look€as€though€the€Defendant€had€planned€it.€€Ralph€testified€that€NelsonÐ ô$D # Ðdid€not€tell€him€where€the€cocaine€was€hidden.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà@ ìàEXCULPATORY€EVIDENCEˆÐ ¸'#& Ðà  àIn€this€post„conviction€proceeding,€the€Defendant€alleges€that€the€State€violated€hisÐ ¤(ô#' Ðconstitutional€rights€under€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó€when€it€withheld€the€following€evidence€from€himÐ )à$( Ðprior€to€trial:Ð |*Ì%) Ðà  àà8 ` à1.€€The€existence€of,€and€statement€from,€eyewitness€Beau€Rozas;Ðh+¸&*` x` x Їà  àà8 ` à2.€€Two€other€eyewitnessesðð€initial€identification€of€someone€otherÐ ° Ðthan€Nelson€as€the€murderer;Мì` x` x Ðà  àà8 ` àÐ ` x` x Ðà  àà8 ` à3.€€Blood€tests€and€fingerprint€analyses€of€the€car€in€which€the€victimÐ tÄ Ðwas€murdered;€andÐ`°` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` à4.€€A€pretrial€statement€made€by€Nelson€which€was€inconsistent€withÐ 8 ˆ Ðhis€trial€testimony.à h àà À àà  àÐ$ t` x` x ÐÌThe€Defendant€argues€that€all€of€this€evidence€is€exculpatory€because€it€casts€doubt€on€Nelson€as€theÐ ü L  Ðassailant€and€thus€on€his€role€in€soliciting€Nelson€to€commit€the€murder.€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àUnder€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€ð ðsuppression€by€the€prosecution€of€evidence€favorable€to€anÐ À  Ðaccused€upon€request€violates€due€process€where€the€evidence€is€material€either€to€guilt€or€toÐ ¬ü  Ðpunishment.ðð€€373€U.S.€at€87.€€Evidence€which€is€favorable€to€an€accused€includes€proof€which€mayÐ ˜è  Ðbe€used€to€impeach€the€prosecutionððs€witnesses.€€òòState€v.€Copelandóó,€983€S.W.2d€703,€706€(Tenn.Ð „Ô  ÐCrim.€App.€1998)€(citing€òòÔ_ÔGiglioÔ_Ô€v.€United€Statesóó,€405€U.S.€150€(1972)).€€However,€ð ð[t]he€evidenceÐ pÀ Ðis€material€only€if€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€had€the€evidence€been€disclosed€to€theÐ \¬ Ðdefense,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€A€ððreasonable€probabilityðð€is€aÐ H˜ Ðprobability€sufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòUnited€States€v.€Bagleyóó,€473€U.S.Ð 4„ Ð667,€682€(1985).Ð  p ÐÌà  àThus,€a€defendant€must€satisfy€the€following€four€prerequisites€in€order€to€demonstrate€a€dueÐ øH Ðprocess€violation€under€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó:€Ð ä4 Ðà8  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 ¼  Ðwhether€requested€or€not);ШøÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à2.€€The€State€must€have€suppressed€the€information;ЀÐÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à3.€€The€information€must€have€been€favorable€to€the€accused;€andÐX ¨Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à4.€€The€information€must€have€been€material.Ð0"€ Ð Ð  ÐÌòòState€v.€Edginóó,€902€S.W.2d€387,€389€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€defendant€has€the€burden€of€proving€a€òòBradyóóÐ $X" Ðviolation€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòId.óó€€ð ðThe€key€to€proving€a€constitutional€violation€isÐ ô$D # Ðto€show€that€the€omission€is€of€such€significance€as€to€deny€the€defendant€the€right€to€a€fair€trial.ðð€Ð à%0!$ ÐòòId.óóÐ Ì&"% ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€initially€raised€the€issue€regarding€Beau€Rozas€and€his€statement€in€his€motionÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfor€new€trial.€The€record€before€us€contains€a€transcript€of€the€hearing€on€that€motion,€and€a€copy€ofÐ )à$( Ðthe€Rozas€statement€was€made€an€exhibit€to€the€hearing.€€€In€pertinent€part,€the€statement€reads€asÐ |*Ì%) Ðfollows:Ð h+¸&* Ðà8  àI€heard€a€lady€screaming.€€I€looked€over€to€my€left,€then€back€to€the€blue€or€black€carÐ ° Ðin€front€of€me.€€I€saw€a€male,€white,€about€5ðð9ðð€with€light€brown,€straight€shoulderÐ œì Ðlength€hair,€struggling€with€a€female€in€the€blue€or€black€IROC.€€I€stepped€up€a€fewÐ ˆØ Ðfeet.€€Then€I€saw€the€male€with€his€right€hand€behind€the€femaleððs€head€with€his€leftÐ tÄ Ðhand€he€was€stabbing€the€female€with€what€looked€like€a€kitchen€butcher€knife.€€HeÐ `° Ðstabbed€her€several€times€before€I€ran€into€the€mall€to€get€help.ÐL œÐ Ð  ÐÌDefense€counsel€argued€at€the€new€trial€hearing€that,€ð ðNelson€is€smaller€than€five€foot€nine€and€.€.Ð $ t Ð.€the€hair,€.€.€.€the€shoulder€length€brown€hair€is€consistent€with€Earl€Kinnaird€rather€than€DonnieÐ  ` ÐNelson.ðð€€After€hearing€considerable€argument€from€defense€counsel€and€the€State,€the€trial€courtÐ ü L  Ðruled,€Ð è 8  Ðà8  à[Ô_ÔT]heÔ_Ô€statement€from€Mr.€Rozas€doesnððt€appear€to€me€[to€be]€sufficiently€exculpatoryÐ Ô$  Ðto€justify€a€new€trial.€€In€the€first€place,€.€.€.€the€statement€indicates€that€[Rozas]€sawÐ À  Ðthe€assailant€in€the€car€and€then€undertook€to€tell€how€tall€he€was.€€I€donððt€think€youÐ ¬ü  Ðcould€very€successfully€estimate€height€under€those€circumstances,€but€Iððm€not€sureÐ ˜è  Ðthe€discrepancy€in€height€between€Earl€Kinnaird€and€Donnie€Nelson€is€substantialÐ „Ô  Ðanyhow.ÐpÀÐ Ð  Ðà  à€.€.€.€Ð \¬ Ðà8  àà ` à[W]eððve€had€both€Donnie€Nelson€and€Earl€Kinnaird€in€the€courtroom.€Ð H˜ ÐThereððs€not€more€than€an€inch€or€inch„and„a„half€difference€in€their€heights€anyhow,Ð 4„ Ðand€their€build€is€similar.€€Moreover,€[the€prosecutor]€has€stated€that€itððs€hisÐ  p Ðinformation€that€Donnie€Nelson€is€the€one€who€had€long€hair,[׃×Ý ƒ*#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×]€all€of€which€suggestsÐ  \ Ðthe€description€could€very€well€be€Donnie€Nelson,€not€Earl€Kinnaird.ÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÌThus,€the€original€trial€court€in€this€case€made€specific€findings€with€respect€to€the€exculpatory€natureÐ Ð  Ðof€the€Ô_ÔRozasÔ_Ô€statement€and€ruled€that€the€Stateððs€withholding€of€the€statement€did€not€justify€a€newÐ ¼  Ðtrial€under€òòBradyóó.€€The€Defendant€did€not€pursue€this€issue€on€direct€appeal.׃ T×Ý ƒ*#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àDespite€his€prior€unsuccessful€attempt€to€obtain€relief€on€this€issue,€the€Defendant€againÐ €Ð Ðcomplained€about€the€Stateððs€failure€to€disclose€either€Rozasðð€existence€or€his€statement€in€hisÐ l¼ Ðpetition€for€writ€of€error€coram€nobis.€€The€coram€nobis€court€properly€found€that€this€issue€had€beenÐ X ¨ Ðpreviously€raised€in€the€motion€for€new€trial€and€that€relief€under€the€coram€nobis€statute€wasÐ D!” Ðtherefore€not€available:€€ð ðThe€relief€obtainable€by€[a€writ€of€error€coram€nobis]€shall€be€confined€toÐ 0"€  Ðerrors€dehors€the€record€and€to€matters€that€òòwere€notóó€or€could€not€have€been€òòlitigatedóó€on€the€trial€ofÐ #l! Ðâ âthe€case,€òòon€a€motion€for€a€new€trialóó,€on€appeal€in€the€nature€of€a€writ€of€error,€on€writ€of€error,€orÐ $X" Ðin€a€habeas€corpus€proceeding.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„26„105€(emphasis€added).׃ ×Ý ƒ*#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€On€appeal€fromÐ ° Ðâ âthe€coram€nobis€courtððs€ruling,€this€Court€also€rejected€the€Defendantððs€òòBradyóó€claim€on€this€issue,Ð œì Ðholding€that€ð ð[c]oram€nobis€is€not€a€forum€for€the€determination€of€a€constitutional€issue.ðð€€òòKinnairdóó,Ð ˆØ Ð1995€WL€382612,€at€*4.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€now€argues€that€his€òòBradyóó€claim€regarding€the€Rozas€statement€was€notÐ L œ Ðpreviously€determined€in€the€error€coram€nobis€proceedings.€€We€agree.€€As€set€forth€above,€thisÐ 8 ˆ ÐCourt€has€already€held€that€a€petition€for€a€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€is€not€the€appropriate€remedyÐ $ t Ðby€which€to€seek€relief€from€constitutional€errors€such€as€that€asserted€under€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó.€€Ð  ` ÐòòSee€alsoóó€òòJeffrey€Scott€Miles€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9903„CR„00103,€2000€WL€2647,€at€*2€(Tenn.Ð ü L  ÐCrim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Jan.€4,€2000)€(noting€that€a€claim€alleging€constitutional€due€process€errorÐ è 8  Ðð ðdoes€not€qualify€for€relief€in€the€form€of€a€writ€of€error€coram€nobisðð).€€Rather,€a€petition€for€writÐ Ô$  Ðof€error€coram€Ô_ÔnobisÔ_Ô€is€appropriate€where,€for€instance,€a€convicted€defendant€learns€after€trial€ofÐ À  Ðevidence€not€previously€available,€such€as€trial€testimony€which€is€subsequently€recanted:Ð ¬ü  Ðà8  àUpon€a€showing€by€the€defendant€that€[he€or€she]€was€without€fault€in€failing€toÐ ˜è  Ðpresent€certain€evidence€at€the€proper€time,€a€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€will€lie€forÐ „Ô  Ðsubsequently€or€newly€discovered€evidence€relating€to€matters€which€were€litigatedÐ pÀ Ðat€the€trial€if€the€judge€determines€that€such€evidence€may€have€resulted€in€a€differentÐ \¬ Ðjudgment,€had€it€been€presented€at€the€trial.ÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„26„105.€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àThus,€the€purpose€of€the€error€coram€nobis€remedy€ð ðis€to€bring€to€the€attention€of€the€[trial]Ð øH Ðcourt€some€fact€unknown€to€the€court,€which€if€known€would€have€resulted€in€a€different€judgment.ðð€Ð ä4 ÐòòState€ex€rel.€Carlson€v.€Stateóó,€407€S.W.2d€165,€167€(Tenn.€1966).€€Examples€of€subsequently€orÐ Ð  Ðnewly€discovered€evidence€appropriate€for€a€coram€nobis€proceeding€would€therefore€includeÐ ¼  Ðrecanted€testimony€or€a€confession€by€the€actual€offender€made€after€the€defendantððs€trial.€€The€writÐ ¨ø Ðis€not€designed€to€address€òòBradyóó€violations:€€hence,€the€statute€contains€no€requirement€that€the€StateÐ ”ä Ðwithheld€or€suppressed€the€subsequently€or€newly€discovered€evidence.€€òòBradyóó€violations€areÐ €Ð Ðconstitutional€violations:€€the€appropriate€remedy€is€therefore€a€post„conviction€proceeding.€€òòSeeóóÐ l¼ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„105€(1990)€(repealed€1995)€(ð ðRelief€[by€post„conviction€procedure]€shallÐ X ¨ Ðbe€granted€when€the€conviction€or€sentence€is€void€or€voidable€because€of€the€abridgement€in€anyÐ D!” Ðâ âway€of€any€right€guaranteed€by€the€constitution€of€this€state€or€the€Constitution€of€the€UnitedÐ 0"€  ÐStatesðð).׃"×Ý ƒ*#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€As€previously€noted,€matters€appropriate€for€post„conviction€relief€„„€such€as€òòBradyóóÐ ° Ðâ âviolations€„„€are€not€appropriate€for€coram€nobis€proceedings.Ð œì ÐÌà  àThus,€we€agree€with€the€Defendant€that€his€claim€of€a€òòBradyóó€violation€arising€from€the€StateððsÐ tÄ Ðwithholding€of€the€Rozas€statement€(and€Rozasðð€very€existence)€was€not€previously€determined€inÐ `° Ðthe€coram€nobis€proceeding.€€That€is€not€to€say,€however,€that€the€claim€has€not€been€otherwiseÐ L œ Ðpreviously€determined.€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€withÐ 8 ˆ Ðrespect€to€the€Rozas€statement€renders€this€issue€ð ðpreviously€determinedðð€within€the€context€of€thisÐ $ t Ðpost„conviction€proceeding.€€ð ðA€ground€for€relief€[in€a€post„conviction€petition]€is€ððpreviouslyÐ  ` Ðdeterminedðð€if€a€court€of€competent€jurisdiction€has€ruled€on€the€merits€after€a€full€and€fair€hearing.ðð€Ð ü L  ÐòòId.óó€ðð€40„30„112(a)€(repealed€1995).€€A€ð ðfull€and€fair€hearingðð€which€is€sufficient€to€support€a€findingÐ è 8  Ðof€previous€determination€occurs€if€the€petitioner€was€given€the€opportunity€to€present€proof€andÐ Ô$  Ðargument€on€his€or€her€claim.€€òòSeeóó€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€705,€711€(Tenn.€1995).€€Clearly,€theÐ À  ÐDefendant€was€given€the€opportunity€to€present€both€proof€and€argument€concerning€the€RozasÐ ¬ü  Ðstatement€at€the€hearing€on€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€The€trial€court€then€ruled€on€the€merits€of€theÐ ˜è  ÐDefendantððs€claim,€finding€that€the€Rozas€statement€was€not€exculpatory€within€the€meaning€ofÐ „Ô  ÐòòBrady€v.€Marylandóó.€€The€Defendant€chose€not€to€raise€this€issue€on€direct€appeal,€thereby€renderingÐ pÀ Ðthe€trial€courtððs€ruling€final.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€this€issue€has€been€previously€determined€byÐ \¬ Ðthe€original€trial€court€and€is€not€subject€to€further€review€by€this€Court.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àEven€if€this€issue€was€properly€before€us,€we€would€find€it€to€be€without€merit.€€In€spite€ofÐ  p Ðthe€trial€courtððs€previous€determination€of€the€significance€of€the€Rozas€statement€at€the€hearing€onÐ  \ Ðthe€Defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial,€the€post„conviction€court€also€heard€proof€and€issued€a€rulingÐ øH Ðon€whether€the€Stateððs€failure€to€disclose€the€statement€prior€to€trial€constituted€a€òòBradyóó€violation.€Ð ä4 ÐThe€post„conviction€court€found€that€ð ðthe€Rozas€statement€would€not€have€made€that€muchÐ Ð  Ðdifference€in€the€case.€.€.€.€€Itððs€not€a€reasonable€probability€that€it€would€have€changed€the€results.ðð€Ð ¼  ÐWe€agree.€€Rozas€was€not€available€to€testify€at€either€the€trial,€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€newÐ ¨ø Ðtrial,€the€hearing€on€the€Defendantððs€petition€for€writ€of€error€coram€nobis,€or€the€post„convictionÐ ”ä Ðhearing.׃ ×Ý ƒ*#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€It€is€impossible€to€determine€the€identity€of€the€assailant€from€the€statement€alone,€but€itÐ €Ð Ðcertainly€does€not€rule€out€Donnie€Nelson€as€the€perpetrator.׃ ð×Ý ƒ*#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€Defendant€has€failed€to€prove€byÐ l¼ Ða€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€statement€was€both€favorable€and€material.€€Accordingly,Ð X ¨ Ðthe€State€was€not€required€to€disclose€the€statement€under€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€and€this€issue€isÐ D!” Ðtherefore€without€merit.Ð 0"€  Їà  àWe€turn€now€to€the€Defendantððs€remaining€òòBradyóó€claims.€€These€issues€were€not€raised€inÐ ° Ðprior€proceedings€and€are€therefore€ripe€for€our€review.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€asserts€that€Matthew€Martin€identified€someone€other€than€Nelson€from€aÐ tÄ Ðphotographic€line„up€he€was€shown€by€the€police.€€A€police€report€admitted€at€the€post„convictionÐ `° Ðhearing€states,€Ð L œ Ðà8  àWhen€the€subject€(Matthew€Wayne€Martin)€was€shown€the€photos,€his€first€reactionÐ 8 ˆ Ðwas€to€put€his€finger€on€photo€number€three€[Nelson]€and€say,€ð ðThis€is€him.€€It€looksÐ $ t Ðjust€like€him.ðð€€The€subject€was€asked€to€have€a€seat€and€when€he€sat€down€he€askedÐ  ` Ðto€see€the€photo€spread€again.€€He€then€looked€at€it€and€said,€ð ðNo,€this€is€him,ððÐ ü L  Ðpointing€to€number€two.€€Subject€then€said,€ð ðNumber€two€and€number€three€look€justÐ è 8  Ðalike.ðð€€ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌThe€Defendant€contends€that€this€information€should€have€been€disclosed€and€that€it€would€haveÐ ¬ü  Ðgreatly€assisted€him€in€impeaching€Martinððs€testimony.€€€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  à€€€€We€respectfully€disagree€that€this€information€was€exculpatory€within€the€meaning€ofÐ pÀ ÐòòBradyóó.€€Martinððs€testimony€at€trial€was€limited€to€describing€the€struggle€he€witnessed€and€identifyingÐ \¬ Ðthe€license€plate€number€of€the€car€in€which€he€saw€the€assailant€leaving.€€Martin€did€not€describeÐ H˜ Ðthe€assailant€or€otherwise€identify€him€as€Donnie€Nelson.€€Moreover,€this€Court€has€examined€theÐ 4„ Ðphotographic€line„up,€and€the€men€in€photographs€numbered€two€and€three€resemble€each€other€veryÐ  p Ðclosely:€€the€two€photographs€could€easily€be€mistaken€as€being€of€the€same€man.€€Thus,€we€areÐ  \ Ðconfident€that,€even€had€this€information€been€disclosed€prior€to€trial,€it€would€not€have€made€anyÐ øH Ðdifference€in€the€eventual€verdict.€€Indeed,€defense€counsel€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearingÐ ä4 Ðthat€he€did€not€view€Martin€as€a€ð ðsuper„significant€Stateððs€witness.ðð׃×Ý ƒ*#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€also€complains€that€the€State€did€not€disclose€to€him€the€results€of€certain€testsÐ ¨ø Ðthe€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€(Ô_ÔTBIÔ_Ô)€conducted€on€the€car€in€which€the€victim€was€murdered.€Ð ”ä ÐThe€TBI€tested€the€car€for€fingerprints€and€the€presence€of€Nelsonððs€blood,€theorizing€that€he€cut€hisÐ €Ð Ðhand€during€the€attack.€€The€tests€revealed€neither€blood€nor€fingerprints€matching€Nelsonððs.€€Thus,Ð l¼ Ðthe€Defendant€argues,€this€information€was€exculpatory€and€should€have€been€disclosed.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àThe€post„conviction€court€found€with€respect€to€the€test€results,€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà8  à[Ô_ÔT]heÔ_Ô€fact€that€there€was€no€blood€there,€we€donððt€know€that€there€should€have€beenÐ $X" Ðblood€there.€€It€might€have€been€helpful€to€have€known€that€there€was€not€bloodÐ ô$D # Ðfound€but€it€would€not€have€made€any€difference€in€the€case€in€my€opinion.€€ThereððsÐ à%0!$ Ðnot€a€reasonable€probability€that€it€would€have€made€any€difference€based€on€theÐ Ì&"% Ðwhole,€the€entire€record.€€That€would€be€on€either€the€blood€or€the€fingerprints€orÐ ° Ðhandprints€or€whatever.МìÐ Ð  ÐÌWe€agree€with€the€post„conviction€court.€€Had€the€tests€revealed€blood€and/or€fingerprints€of€anotherÐ tÄ Ðsuspect,€the€results€would€certainly€have€been€exculpatory.€€However,€the€test€results€wereÐ `° Ðinconclusive:€€they€did€not€prove€that€Nelson€committed€the€murder,€but€certainly€did€not€rule€himÐ L œ Ðout€as€the€perpetrator.€€The€Defendant€has€thus€failed€to€carry€his€burden€of€proving€that€thisÐ 8 ˆ Ðevidence€was€material€under€òòBradyóó.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àThe€final€piece€of€evidence€which€the€Defendant€contends€the€State€wrongfully€withheld€isÐ ü L  Ðan€alleged€pre„trial€statement€made€by€Nelson€to€Detective€Lynch.€€The€ð ðstatementðð€consists€of€someÐ è 8  Ðnotes€handwritten€by€Detective€Lynch.€€However,€Detective€Lynch€did€not€testify€at€the€post„Ð Ô$  Ðconviction€hearing€about€the€circumstances€under€which€he€wrote€these€notes;€thus,€it€is€impossibleÐ À  Ðto€determine€when€the€notes€were€made€or€the€source€of€the€information€contained€in€them.€€TheseÐ ¬ü  Ðnotes€state,€in€pertinent€part,€ð ðDefendant€Nelson€did€not€do€it€„„€does€not€know€who€did€it€but€he€sawÐ ˜è  Ðthe€man.ðð€€The€notes€continue€as€if€recording€what€Nelson€said:€€ð ð[He]€park[ed]€near€her€car€[at€theÐ „Ô  Ðmall]€.€.€.€and€was€fiddling€with€radio€„„€heard€a€woman€scream€„„€€went€to€help€„„€saw€a€man€„„Ð pÀ Ðwrestled€with€man€„„€man€dropped€the€knife[.]€€Donnie€bends€over€to€pick€up€knife€„„€the€man€runs€„„Ð \¬ ÐDonnie€is€standing€there€holding€knife€„„€people€see€him€„„€Donnie€runs.ðð€€The€notes€also€contain€aÐ H˜ Ðquote€attributed€to€Nelson,€ð ð[Ô_ÔI]fÔ_Ô€Iððd€done€it€Iððd€use€the€gun.ðð׃×Ý ƒ*#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€Defendant€contends€that€theseÐ 4„ Ðnotes€would€have€greatly€assisted€him€in€cross„examining€Nelson€and€establishing€that€Nelson€wasÐ  p Ðnot€the€murderer€and,€hence,€that€he€did€not€hire€Nelson€to€kill€his€wife.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€post„conviction€court€ruled,€Ð ä4 Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àSome€detective€writes€Nelson€did€not€do€it,€and€I€donððt€see€how€thatÐ Ð  Ðcould€have€made€any€difference€in€the€case€to€cross„examine€himÐ ¼  Ðabout€it.€€We€donððt€know€when€that€was€written.€€We€donððt€know€howÐ ¨ø Ðit€was€written€or€why€it€was€written.€€We€donððt€know€that€it€isÐ ”ä Ðattributable€to€a€statement€by€.€.€.€Nelson€.€.€.€or€how€it€got€there.€€SoÐ €Ð Ðin€my€opinion€it€is€not€exculpatory€information€that€should€have€beenÐ l¼ Ðdisclosed.ÐX ¨` x` x Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà  à€€We€agree.€€Defense€counsel€vigorously€cross„examined€Nelson€about€whether€he€in€factÐ 0"€  Ðmurdered€the€victim€and€put€on€two€witnesses€who€testified€that€Nelson€had€told€them€that€he€didÐ #l! Ðnot€commit€the€crime.€€Nelson€was€thoroughly€impeached€with€another€prior€inconsistent€statement.€Ð $X" ÐWhile€defense€counsel€might€have€used€this€information€to€advantage€during€the€cross„examinationÐ ô$D # Ðâ âof€Detective€Lynch,€we€can€only€speculate€as€to€how€helpful€this€information€might€have€beenÐ à%0!$ Ðbecause€Detective€Lynch€did€not€testify€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€In€short,€the€Defendant€hasÐ ° Ðfailed€to€establish€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€this€alleged€ð ðstatementðð€was€material.׃×Ý ƒ*#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àIn€summary,€the€Defendant€has€failed€to€establish€that€the€State€violated€his€constitutionalÐ tÄ Ðrights€under€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€and€this€issue€is€therefore€without€merit.Ð `° ÐÌà@d d ìàDENIAL€OF€REQUEST€FOR€EXPERTSˆÐ 8 ˆ Ðà  àThe€Defendant€moved€the€post„conviction€court€to€appoint€a€psychologist€or€psychiatricÐ $ t Ðexpert;€a€private€investigator;€and€a€criminal€defense€expert.€€The€Defendant€argued€that€he€neededÐ  ` Ðthese€experts€to€assist€him€in€establishing€his€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€The€post„Ð ü L  Ðconviction€court€denied€the€Defendantððs€motion,€and€the€Defendant€now€claims€that€ruling€was€inÐ è 8  Ðerror.€€We€respectfully€disagree.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àOur€supreme€court€has€made€clear€that€ð ðthe€state€is€not€required€to€provide€expert€assistanceÐ ¬ü  Ðto€indigent€non„capital€post„conviction€petitioners.ðð€€òòDavis€v.€Stateóó,€912€S.W.2d€689,€696„97€(Tenn.Ð ˜è  Ð1995).€€The€Defendant€tries€to€circumvent€the€impact€of€this€decision€by€arguing€that€we€shouldÐ „Ô  Ðconsider€his€case€a€ð ðcapital€caseðð€because€the€State€allegedly€announced€its€intention€to€seek€theÐ pÀ Ðdeath€penalty€at€some€time€prior€to€the€original€trial.€€Whether€or€not€the€State€did€so,׃Ü×Ý ƒ*#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€at€the€timeÐ \¬ Ðthe€Defendant€was€actually€tried,€the€State€was€not€seeking€the€death€penalty.€€The€Defendantððs€trialÐ H˜ Ðwas€not€a€ð ðcapital€case,ðð€and€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ð 4„ ÐÌà@ˆ ˆ ìàINEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELˆÐ  \ Ðà  àThe€Defendant€contends€that€his€trial€lawyers€were€ineffective€because€they€failed€to€requestÐ øH Ða€psychological€evaluation;€failed€to€request€a€change€in€venue;€failed€to€file€motions€in€limine€onÐ ä4 Ðcertain€evidence;€performed€inadequately€on€jury€voir€dire;€failed€to€object€to€certain€evidence;€failedÐ Ð  Ðto€adequately€cross„examine€the€Stateððs€witnesses;€failed€to€allow€the€Defendant€to€testify;€failed€toÐ ¼  Ðobject€to€the€jury€taking€an€overnight€break€between€closing€argument€and€jury€deliberations;€failedÐ ¨ø Ðto€request€certain€jury€instructions;€and€failed€to€request€that€the€jury€be€polled.€€The€DefendantÐ ”ä Ðcontends€that€his€lawyersðð€errors€were€so€profound€as€to€entitle€him€to€a€new€trial.€€We€disagree.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àÔ‡XSáXXXSáÔBoth€the€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€ðð€9€of€theÐ X ¨ ÐTennessee€Constitution€guarantee€a€defendant€the€right€to€representation€by€counsel.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð D!” ÐBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999);€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€ThisÐ 0"€  Ðright€to€counsel€includes€the€right€to€effective€counsel.€€€€òòSeeóó€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€461;€òòBaxteróó,€523Ð #l! ÐS.W.2d€at€936Ô#†XSáXXXSᜡ#ÔÔ‡XSáXXXSáÔ;€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€686€(1984).Ð $X" ÐÌà  àTo€determine€whether€counsel€provided€effective€assistance€at€trial,€the€court€must€decideÐ à%0!$ Ðwhether€counselððs€performance€was€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€inÐ Ì&"% Ðcriminal€cases.€€òòBaxteróó,€523€S.W.2d€at€936;€òòHicks€v.€Stateóó,€983€S.W.2d€240,€245€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ° Ð1998).€€To€succeed€on€a€claim€that€his€or€her€counsel€was€ineffective€at€trial,€a€defendant€bears€theÐ œì Ðburden€of€showing€that€counsel€made€errors€so€serious€that€he€or€she€was€not€functioning€as€counselÐ ˆØ Ðas€guaranteed€under€the€Sixth€Amendment€and€that€the€deficient€representation€prejudiced€theÐ tÄ Ðdefendant€resulting€in€a€failure€to€produce€a€reliable€result.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€687;€òòBurnsóó,€6Ð `° ÐS.W.3d€at€461;€òòHicksóó,€983€S.W.2d€at€245.€€To€satisfy€the€second€prong,€the€defendant€must€showÐ L œ Ða€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unreasonable€error,€the€fact€finder€would€have€hadÐ 8 ˆ Ðreasonable€doubt€regarding€the€defendantððs€guilt.€€òòSeeóó€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€694„95.€€ThisÐ $ t Ðreasonable€probability€must€be€ð ðsufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€694;€òòseeÐ  ` Ðalsoóó€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€875€S.W.2d€662,€665€(Tenn.€1994);€òòOwens€v.€Stateóó,€13€S.W.3d€742,€750€(Tenn.Ð ü L  ÐCrim.€App.€1999).Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àWhen€reviewing€trial€counselððs€actions,€this€Court€should€not€use€the€benefit€of€hindsight€toÐ À  Ðsecond„guess€trial€strategy€and€criticize€counselððs€tactics.€€òòSeeóó€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9Ð ¬ü  Ð(Tenn.€1982);€òòOwensóó,€13€S.W.3d€at€749.€€Counselððs€alleged€errors€should€be€judged€at€the€time€theyÐ ˜è  Ðwere€made€in€light€of€all€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòSeeóó€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690;€òòHicksóó,€983Ð „Ô  ÐS.W.2d€at€246.Ð pÀ ÐÔ#†XSáXXXSáÞ£#ÔÌà  àThe€post„conviction€court€made€extensive€findings€with€respect€to€each€of€the€DefendantððsÐ H˜ Ðallegations€regarding€his€lawyersðð€trial€performance€and€found€no€unreasonable€errors.€€We€agreeÐ 4„ Ðwith€the€post„conviction€courtððs€findings.€€Our€careful€review€of€the€trial€transcript€reveals€competentÐ  p Ðdefense€representation€and€valid€strategy€decisions.€€The€Defendant€wishes€to€retry€his€case€becauseÐ  \ Ðhe€was€found€guilty,€not€because€his€lawyers€failed€to€adequately€represent€him.€€The€DefendantÐ øH Ðhaving€failed€to€carry€his€burden€of€proving€that€his€lawyers€committed€unreasonable€errors€thatÐ ä4 Ðprejudiced€him€to€the€extent€required€for€relief€under€òòÔ_ÔStricklandÔ_Ôóó,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ð Ð  ÐÌà@ÅÅ!ìàOTHER€TRIAL€ERRORSˆÐ ¨ø Ðà  àThe€Defendant€contends€that€the€original€trial€court€committed€the€following€plain€errorsÐ ”ä Ðentitling€him€to€a€new€trial:Ð €Ð Ðà8  à1.€€Refusing€to€admit€proof€explaining€the€Defendantððs€escape€from€jail€andÐ l¼ Ðsubsequent€€voluntary€surrender;ÐX ¨Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à2.€€Admitting€proof€of€Thomas€Ralphððs€juvenile€adjudications;Ð0"€ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à3.€€Refusing€to€admit€certain€of€the€Defendantððs€hearsay€statements;Ð$X"Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à4.€€Holding€that€tape€recordings€of€telephone€conversations€between€Earl€KinnairdÐ à%0!$ Ðand€Renee€Valentine€were€not€discoverable;€andÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à5.€€Refusing€to€grant€a€mistrial€upon€a€Stateððs€witnessððs€reference€to€the€DefendantððsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðescape€from€jail.Ð)à$(Ð Ð  Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) ÐThe€Defendant€additionally€complains€that€the€Stateððs€failure€to€disclose€that€the€jury€foreman€hadÐ ° Ðâ âpreviously€testified€in€a€criminal€case€against€Thomas€Ralph€constituted€plain€error.Ð œì ÐÌà  àThe€Defendantððs€allegations€concerning€the€trial€courtððs€rulings€on€his€motion€for€mistrialÐ tÄ Ðand€on€the€tape€recorded€conversations€were€submitted€to€this€Court€on€direct€appeal€and€determinedÐ `° Ðto€be€without€merit.€€òòSeeóó€òòKinnairdóó,€823€S.W.€2d€at€574„76.€€These€issues€have€therefore€beenÐ L œ Ðpreviously€determined€and€are€not€cognizable€in€this€proceeding.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„Ð 8 ˆ Ð112(a)€(1990)€(repealed€1995).€€The€Defendant€also€raised€in€his€motion€for€new€trial€and€his€directÐ $ t Ðappeal€the€issue€concerning€the€jury€foremanððs€prior€testimony€against€Thomas€Ralph.€€The€foreman,Ð  ` ÐDavid€Bowman,€had€been€the€manager€of€a€market€that€Thomas€Ralph€was€prosecuted€for€robbing.€Ð ü L  ÐMr.€Bowman€testified€about€the€amount€of€money€stolen;€he€was€apparently€not€present€in€the€storeÐ è 8  Ðat€the€time€of€the€robbery.€€At€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial,€defense€counsel€stated€hisÐ Ô$  Ðconcern€that€Mr.€Bowmanððs€personal€judgment€of€the€Defendantððs€case€was€adversely€affected€byÐ À  Ðhis€prior€involvement€in€Mr.€Ralphððs€case.€€Defense€counsel€did€not€argue€that€Bowmanððs€priorÐ ¬ü  Ðhistory€prejudiced€the€other€jurors.€€During€a€recess€at€the€hearing,€defense€counsel€was€given€theÐ ˜è  Ðopportunity€to€speak€with€Mr.€Bowman€about€the€effect,€if€any,€his€prior€testimony€had€on€hisÐ „Ô  Ðdeliberations€in€the€Defendantððs€case.€€Defense€counsel€subsequently€stated€to€the€trial€court,Ð pÀ Ðð ð[Bowman]€indicated€that€his€verdict€was€not€at€all€influenced€by€the€fact€that€he€had€testified€as€toÐ \¬ Ðan€amount€of€money€and€that€[neither]€his€verdict€nor€anyone€elseððs€verdict€was€influenced€by€theÐ H˜ Ðfact€that€he€had€testified€to€that€limited€extent.ðð€€The€trial€court€accordingly€refused€to€grant€a€newÐ 4„ Ðtrial€on€this€basis.€€On€direct€appeal,€this€Court€was€unable€to€reach€this€issue€on€the€merits€becauseÐ  p Ðof€an€inadequate€record.€€òòSeeóó€òòKinnairdóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€574.€€It€is€the€Defendantððs€responsibility€toÐ  \ Ðprovide€a€complete€record€on€appeal,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(a),(b),€and€the€Defendant€certainlyÐ øH Ðcould€have€provided€in€his€direct€appeal€to€this€Court€a€transcript€of€the€hearing€on€the€motion€forÐ ä4 Ðnew€trial,€as€he€has€done€in€this€proceeding.€€The€Defendantððs€failure€to€do€so€permits€the€trial€courtððsÐ Ð  Ðruling€to€stand€as€final,€and€this€issue€has€therefore€been€previously€determined.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ ¼  ÐAnn.€ðð€40„30„112(a)€(1990)€(repealed€1995).€€Moreover,€we€find€it€to€be€without€merit.€€There€isÐ ¨ø Ðabsolutely€no€proof€in€the€record€that€the€Defendant€was€prejudiced€by€Bowmanððs€testimony€againstÐ ”ä ÐRalph,€and€we€will€not€presume€such.€€The€Defendant€is€not€entitled€to€post„conviction€relief€on€thisÐ €Ð Ðground.Ð l¼ Ðà  àÌà  àThe€remaining€issues€which€the€Defendant€contends€were€ð ðplain€errorðð€could€have€beenÐ D!” Ðraised€on€direct€appeal€but€were€not.€€They€have€therefore€been€waived€and€we€need€not€addressÐ 0"€  Ðthem.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„30„112(b).Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court€is€affirmed.€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð )à$( Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x à