ÿWPC :y·ÈPo 2á*H»ÔO~Í°ãÝöù†smDOóî Un…6Ô·Ã{œãª7qóä¥ÄS]ðæ² Éž(¬ßúÓF»HqÓ‹vŽy°6þ!cmœ£Ÿ3LçÕ–šûÚ"qú5•8Òµž.¡ É1‹šÂ  ÿ¼s¼þ›2äòt%ë¬ §Û/¼éóÒ0sî¤H“útyïÒm—8þ•Æh²éʃpÜ >ÌÌ£Z–y0HrèÕÔ3nü\í´1^G\\ÖÐÍŒ´Ð]^øá´ñ?–aÂrÿv~OTéüäß ((´Í|âÀr”¿ÈfRHfò ‘Pƒn’ÉEªÿuÖ–ëF67PóqÝ°Ë=öÖOÇÖÇy.]ý@§_søW¿Çû sA”&$pÄéÚîÀéRïåf‘õž"®¥ÚЇÅßmÜN5òü y¿*ö èHˆ§A< Žq)w—ÛB¤»7w?ÈÁ¦n7.Û\#ÀÔ¦("•S¢Y—kö­ K«r=^¬´Þ9níÄÙr]µ0®ŽØï±Á ÌÄMåùÇZí`Xˆ“)[}5–óNqr_Ö­çl=À¡Y/>~ÎØÝM±Åª4ž é#U.ê %b‘"""³n­Ãp 0(x U:  w¸Ú 4’ ’ 0™¦ 0D? U:ƒ ƒ U:½ /÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ð& & & J.``ÔŽŽŽ Bb<þ6X9`(CourierX ù ‡Ý ƒD$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XRdXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€victim€testified€at€the€suppression€hearing€and€at€trial€that€he€initiallyÐ `  Ðdescribed€the€perpetrator's€hair€as€dark€brown€or€black,€which€is€consistent€withÏthe€defendant's€photograph€from€the€lineup.€€Other€physical€characteristicsÏdescribed€by€the€victim€match€the€defendant's€photograph.€€However,€asÏdiscussed€in€section€II.B.€below,€the€police€report€completed€by€the€first€officer€toÏrespond€to€the€crime€scene€recounted€that€the€perpetrator€had€"BL"€hair,€whichÏthe€reporting€officer€testified€stood€for€"blond."€€The€information€from€the€policeÏreport€was€not€introduced€until€trial,€and€according€to€the€defense,€neverÏrevealed€during€pre„trial€discovery.€€òòSeeóó€section€II.B.,€òòinfraóó.€€Even€if€the€evidenceÐ à€ Ðfrom€the€police€report€had€been€available€to€the€defense€at€the€time€of€theÏsuppression€hearing,€the€victim€was€positive€in€his€lineup€identification.€€Further,Ïuse€of€the€abbreviation€"BL"€could€be€ambiguous,€as€it€represents€the€first€twoÏletters€of€both€"blond"€and€"black."3|x­<«<þ6X9`(CourierXôxþ6X@ɹ`7ûX@($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial Regular<E‘<[’<“<”<E•<–<—<E˜<™<Eš<›<Eœ<<Ež<Ÿ<{ <E¡<¢<D£<D¤<¥<D¦<[§<[¨<[©<[ª<D«<U¬<U­<UÍnr&(I(2D$¤¤Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XsXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular %Ý ƒD$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XRdXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡XRdXXXRdÔThe€tape€was€not€received€as€evidence€at€that€hearing€nor€is€it€a€part€ofÐ `  Ðthe€record€on€appeal.Ô#†XRdXXXRdp#Ô æÝ ƒD$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XRdXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝFurthermore,€the€verdict€may€be€viewed€as€signifying€that€its€veracity€wasÐ `  Ðdiscounted€by€the€jury. @Ý ƒD$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XRdXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€acknowledge€our€supreme€court's€recent€ruling€that€the€appellateÐ `  Ðcourts€may€consider€evidence€presented€at€trial,€as€well€as€at€the€suppressionÏhearing,€in€evaluating€the€propriety€of€a€trial€court's€ruling€that€a€search€warrantÏwas€validly€executed.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Henningóó,€975€S.W.2d€290€(Tenn.€1998).€€WeÐ 0 Ð Ðdecline,€however,€to€apply€that€case€to€the€situation€at€bar.€€First,€the€defendantÏdoes€not€seek€the€benefit€of€the€òòHenningóó€ruling;€he€has€wholly€ignored€the€factÐ ° Ðthat€the€evidence€of€the€alleged€vendetta€was€not€presented€until€trial.€€Second,ÏòòHenningóó€dealt€with€a€search€warrant,€not€pretrial€identification.€€Third,€the€trialÐ ð Ðevidence€considered€in€òòHenningóó€was€used€by€the€appellate€court€to€support€theÐ à€ Ðcorrectness€of€the€trial€court's€ruling,€not€to€give€the€non„prevailing€party€aÏsecond€chance€to€make€his€case€for€suppression.€ $Ý ƒD$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XRdXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSims›óó€is€cited€in€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court's€òòœHenning›óó€decisionÐ `  Ðdiscussed€òòsupraóó€at€note€3.€€òòSeeóó€òòœHenning›óó,€975€œS.W.2d›€at€298. ÊÝ ƒD$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XRdXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€state's€argument,€consisting€of€lengthy€quotation€from€the€trial€court'sÐ `  Ðorder,€a€cursory€statement€that€"the€trial€court€is€correct,"€and€lacking€citation€toÏauthority€other€than€that€contained€in€the€quoted€material€from€the€trial€court'sÏorder,€is€of€little€assistance€to€this€court€in€probing€the€merits€of€this€issue. dÝ ƒ !ÝÝ  Ý›Ñ` °ÑÒ°ÒÓ  ÓÑTR[¤ AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€ XRdXXXÔÑ7€ Rd XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÌÑ€Ñò òà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ P ð ÐÌ€à@@@'àAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ 0 Ð ÐÌà@#àFEBRUARY€1999€SESSIONó óˆÐ ° ÐÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€à À àà  àó ó)Ð Ðp  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ À`  Ðà ` àà ¸ àAppellee,à h àà À àà  à)à p àC.C.A.€No.€01C01„9712„CR„00561Ð °P  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìvs.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àDavidson€Countyà x àÐ 0  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìò òDENNY€JAMES€McABEE,à À àó óà  à)à p àHon.€J.€Randall€Wyatt,€Judge€ò òÐ p Ðó óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àAppellant.à h àà À àà  à)à p à(Aggravated€Robbery)Ð Pð Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à h àà À àà  àà p àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:Ð ° ÐÌò òS.€RAY€WHITE€(on€appeal)à À àà  àà p àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ ð Ðó óAttorney€at€Lawà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ à€ Ð9856€S.€Windrow€Rd.ÌRockvale,€TN€€37153à h àà À àà  àà p àò òTIMOTHY€F.€€BEHANó óÐ À!` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌò òRAY€CULP€(at€motion€for€new€trial)à  àà p àó ó425€Fifth€Ave.€N.,€2d€Floorò òÐ  #@ Ðó óAttorney€at€Lawà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ð $0 Ð439€Battle€Ave.ÌFranklin,€TN€€37064à h àà À àà  àà p àò òVICTOR€S.€JOHNSON,€IIIó óÐ p& Ðò òà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÐ `'  Ðò òPAUL€BRUNO€(at€trial)ó óà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àÐ P(ð! ÐAttorney€at€Lawà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àò òLILA€STATOMÐ @)à" Ðó ó222€Second€Ave.€North,€Ste.€350ò òà À àà  àà p àó óAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ 0*Ð # ÐNashville,€TN€€37201à h àà À àà  àà p à222€Second€Ave€North,€Ste.€500Ð  +À!$ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TN€€37201Ìò òRAYBURN€McGOWAN,€JR.ó ó€ò ò(at€trial)ó óÐ - #& ÐAttorney€at€LawÌ222€Second€Ave.€North,€Ste.€416ÌNashville,€TN€€37201ÌÌò òÌOPINION€FILED:________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEó óÐ `6-0 ÐÐ  P7ð-1 Ðà@qq*àò òòòOPINIONó óóóˆÐ `  ÐÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant,€Denny€James€McAbee,€stands€convicted€ofÏaggravated€robbery€for€the€carjacking€of€Earl€Glen€"Bubba"€Lackey,€Jr.€on€April€19,Ï1996.€€McAbee€received€his€conviction€at€the€conclusion€of€a€jury€trial€in€theÏDavidson€County€Criminal€Court.€€He€was€subsequently€sentenced€to€serveÏfourteen€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction€consecutively€to€a€previouslyÏimposed€sentence€of€six€years€and€one€day€for€an€aggravated€burglary€conviction.€ÏIn€this€direct€appeal,€McAbee€raises€two€issues€of€alleged€error.€€First,€he€claims€theÏphotographic€lineup€conducted€was€improper.€€Second,€he€claims€prosecutorialÏmisconduct€in€witness€intimidation€and€in€failing€to€disclose€exculpatory€informationÏduring€discovery.€€Following€a€review€of€the€record,€the€briefs€and€oral€argumentsÏof€the€parties,€and€the€law,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@üü-àò òIó óˆÐ À!` Ðà ` àà ¸ àIn€his€first€issue,€McAbee€alleges€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€toÏsuppress€evidence€regarding€a€photographic€lineup€from€which€the€victim€selectedÏhim€as€the€perpetrator€of€the€crime.€€The€essence€of€his€complaint€is€that€the€lineupÏwas€"a€result€of€the€efforts€of€an€officer€with€a€personal€score€to€settle"€whoÏmanipulated€the€photographs€to€the€defendant's€prejudice.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àA€patrol€officer€assigned€to€the€area€in€which€the€crime€took€placeÏconducted€an€investigation€which€led€him€to€suspect€the€defendant€as€theÏperpetrator.€€With€the€assistance€of€a€detective,€the€patrol€officer€assembled€aÏphotographic€lineup€consisting€of€pictures€of€the€defendant€and€five€other€individualsÏwho€shared€similar€characteristics€with€the€defendant.€€This€was€approximately€theÏseventh€photographic€lineup€the€patrol€officer€had€assembled.€€The€officer€took€theÏlineup€to€the€victim's€home€and€asked€the€victim€whether€anyone€in€it€looked€familiarÐ  :À04 Ðfrom€the€robbery.€€The€victim€immediately€selected€the€defendant's€photograph.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAt€the€suppression€hearing,€the€defendant€claimed€that€his€photographÏwas€much€more€recent€than€those€of€the€other€individuals€represented.€€He€arguedÏthat€the€officer€put€the€lineup€together€himself,€rather€than€leaving€that€to€theÏdetective€assigned€to€the€case,€to€ensure€that€the€victim€made€an€identification€ofÏthe€defendant.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ à"To€be€admissible€as€evidence,€an€identification€must€not€have€beenÏconducted€in€such€an€impermissibly€suggestive€manner€as€to€create€a€substantialÏlikelihood€of€irreparable€misidentification."€€òòState€v.€Cribbsóó,€967€S.W.2d€773,€794Ð  À Ð(Tenn.)€(citing€œòòSimmons›€v.€United€Statesóó,€390€U.S.€377,€88€S.€Ct.€967€(1968)),€òòcertÐ   Ðdeniedóó,€„„„€U.S.€„„„,€119€S.€Ct.€343€(1998).€€In€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó,€409€U.S.€188,€93€S.Ð à€ ÐCt.€375€(1972),€the€Supreme€Court€identified€œfive›€factors€for€assessing€reliability€ofÏan€identification.€€They€are:€€(1)€the€opportunity€of€the€witness€to€view€theÏperpetrator€at€the€time€of€the€offense,€(2)€the€witness'€degree€of€attention,€(3)€theÏaccuracy€of€the€witness'€prior€description€of€the€perpetrator,€(4)€the€level€of€certaintyÏdemonstrated€by€the€witness€at€the€confrontation,€and€(5)€the€time€between€theÏcrime€and€the€identification.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€victim's€identification€of€the€defendant€via€photographic€lineupÏeasily€passes€the€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó€assessment.€€The€victim€had€an€opportunity€toÐ À0`'* Ðobserve€the€defendant€for€a€period€of€time€at€close€range.€€The€crime€took€placeÏduring€daylight€hours.€€The€victim's€testimony€indicates€he€paid€attention€to€theÏperpetrator,€who€was€making€him€nervous€and€ultimately€threatened€him€with€a€gun.€Ïâ âThe€initial€description€the€victim€gave€of€the€perpetrator€supports€the€identificationÐ @8à.2 Ðhe€made€of€the€defendant€from€the€lineup.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€By€all€accounts,€the€victim€chose€theÐ `  Ðâ âdefendant€from€the€lineup€quickly€and€was€confident€in€his€identification.€€The€lineupÏwas€conducted€on€May€7,€1996,€a€brief€time€after€the€April€19,€1996€crime.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€this€appeal,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€officer€who€prepared€andÏconducted€the€photo€lineup€had€a€vendetta€œagainst›€the€œdefendant€that›€should€beÏconsidered€in€assessing€the€fairness€of€the€procedure.€€The€problem€with€thisÏargument€is€that€the€defendant€offered€no€proof€whatsoever€at€the€suppressionÏhearing€of€any€vendetta.€€It€was€not€until€trial€that€the€defendant€presented€thisÏevidence€through€an€admitted€drug„abusing€witness€who€claimed€she€had€beenÏintimate€with€the€officer.€€She€testified€that€the€officer€frequently€denigrated€theÏdefendant€and€the€witness'€friendship€with€him.€€She€claimed€the€officer€asked€herÏquestions€about€the€defendant€and€made€statements€that€he€was€going€to€see€theÏdefendant€put€in€jail.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThis€evidence€came€too€late€to€benefit€the€defendant€in€his€quest€forÏsuppression.׃À ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€If€the€defendant€desired€to€have€the€trial€court€consider€the€officer'sÐ `'  Ðalleged€vendetta€against€the€defendant€in€conjunction€with€the€motion€to€suppress,Ð @)à" Ðhe€should€have€presented€this€evidence€at€the€suppression€hearing.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€fact,€theÐ `  Ðevidence€was€not€presented€until€the€defendant's€case„in„chief,€òòafteróó€the€evidenceÐ @ à Ðof€the€victim's€identification€of€the€defendant€from€the€photo€lineup€had€already€beenÏadmitted.€€òòCfóó.€òòState€v.€Simsóó,€952€S.W.2d€286,€290€(Mo.€App.€1997)€(in€determiningÐ   Ðpropriety€of€trial€court's€ruling€on€suppression€motion,€appellate€court€may€considerÏevidence€presented€at€hearing€on€motion€to€suppress€and€introduced€at€trial€òòpriorÐ À`  Ðtoóó€introduction€of€evidence€of€pretrial€identification€sought€to€be€suppressed).œ×ƒà ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  כР @  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àNotwithstanding€the€defendant's€failure€to€present€the€evidence€of€theÏalleged€vendetta€in€time€for€it€to€be€considered€in€conjunction€with€the€motion€toÏsuppress,€the€evidence€adds€nothing€to€the€defendant's€argument€for€suppression.€ÏEven€assuming€the€officer€may€have€been€unusually€zealous€in€preparing€a€photoÏlineup€and€presenting€it€to€the€victim,€there€is€no€indication€the€officer€suggested€thatÏthe€victim€should€pick€the€defendant€from€the€lineup.€€Moreover,€we€disagree€withÏthe€defendant's€characterization€that€the€officer€otherwise€manipulated€the€processÏthrough€the€selection€of€photographs.€€Contrary€to€the€defendant's€arguments,€hisÏpicture€is€not€distinctive€as€compared€with€the€others€in€the€lineup€due€to€age€of€theÏphotographs,€presence€of€acne,€and€hair€color.ÌÐ  +À!$ Ðà ` àà ¸ àAccordingly,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€denying€the€defendant'sÏmotion€to€suppress€the€pretrial€lineup.ÌÌà@àà,àò òIIó óˆÐ   Ðà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€raises€two€claims€of€prosecutorial€misconduct.€€The€firstÏis€an€appropriate€issue€to€be€viewed€through€the€framework€for€prosecutorialÏmisconduct€claims.€€The€second€is€more€properly€considered€as€a€potential€violationÏof€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó.Ð €  ÐÌà@ÐÐ-àò òAó óˆÐ @à Ðà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€prosecutorial€misconduct€occurred€whenÏa€potential€defense€witness€was€intimidated€and€ultimately€changed€her€prospectiveÏtrial€testimony€after€she€was€visited€in€jail€by€the€investigating€police€officer.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð à€ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àWhen€an€issue€of€prosecutorial€misconduct€is€presented,€the€properÏinquiry€is€"whether€the€improper€conduct€could€have€affected€the€verdict€to€theÏprejudice€of€the€defendant."€€òòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€215€Tenn.€338,€340,€385€S.W.2dÐ `'  Ð758,€759€(1965).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAt€the€motion€for€new€trial,€the€defendant's€lead€trial€attorney€testifiedÏthat€he€had€met€with€the€incarcerated€witness€prior€to€trial,€and€she€hadÏcorroborated€another€defense€witness'€report€of€having€had€an€affair€with€the€policeÏofficer€in€question.€€Further,€counsel€testified€that€the€incarcerated€witness€told€himÏthe€officer€had€pulled€her€over€on€many€occasions€to€inquire€about€the€defendant'sÐ €4 +. Ðwhereabouts.€€Defendant's€lead€counsel€visited€the€incarcerated€witness€a€few€daysÏlater,€at€which€time€she€said€the€officer€had€been€to€see€her€since€counsel's€lastÏvisit.€€Counsel€testified€that€the€witness€said€she€would€not€give€testimonyÏunfavorable€to€the€officer€because€she€had€pending€charges€and€thought€he€hadÏinfluence€over€the€disposition€of€these€charges.€€Because€he€was€uncertain€afterÏthis€meeting€how€this€witness€would€testify,€lead€counsel€elected€not€to€call€thisÏwitness€at€trial.€€Counsel€also€testified€that€the€witness€told€him€the€officer€had€tapedÏtheir€conversation.€€Despite€counsel's€requests€to€the€state€for€a€copy€of€the€tape,Ïhe€had€never€received€one.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant's€trial€co„counsel€testified€that€he€was€present€duringÏlead€counsel's€latter€conversation€with€the€incarcerated€witness.€€He€testified€thatÏalthough€the€incarcerated€witness€did€not€òòper€se€óórecant€what€he€understood€herÐ à€ Ðprospective€testimony€would€be,€she€minimized€her€knowledge€of€relevantÏinformation.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€incarcerated€witness€testified€at€the€motion€for€new€trial.€€SheÏacknowledged€having€told€the€defendant's€trial€counsel€that€the€defense€witness€hadÏconfided€that€she€and€the€investigating€officer€had€a€sexual€relationship.€€However,Ïthe€incarcerated€witness€testified€that€she€never€believed€anything€the€defenseÏwitness€told€her.€€The€incarcerated€witness€testified€that€she€had€seen€a€police€carÏat€the€defense€witness'€house€only€two€times,€and€one€of€those€times€she€wasÏcertain€that€the€officer€present€was€not€the€investigating€officer.€€She€denied€that€theÏinvestigating€officer€had€ever€stopped€her€to€inquire€about€the€defendant'sÏwhereabouts.€€She€admitted€that€the€investigating€officer€visited€her€in€jail;€however,Ïshe€denied€that€she€felt€threatened€by€him.€€To€the€contrary,€she€claimed€she€didÏnot€want€to€testify€because€she€knew€the€defendant€was€guilty€and€did€not€want€toÐ  :À04 Ðassist€his€defense.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€officer€in€question€testified€that€he€met€with€the€incarceratedÏwitness€in€keeping€with€his€normal€practice€of€interviewing€all€witnesses.€€He€talkedÏwith€the€witness€about€her€prospective€testimony;€however,€he€denied€threateningÏher.€€He€testified€he€told€the€witness€to€tell€the€truth.€€Ô‡XRdXX XRdÔThe€officer€testified€that€a€tapeÐ À`  Ðrecording€was€made€of€his€conversation€with€this€witness.€€He€gave€the€tape€to€theÏassistant€district€attorney€assigned€to€the€case€but€had€no€knowledge€of€its€Ïwhereabouts€at€the€time€the€motion€for€new€trial€was€heard.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р` ÐÔ#† XRdXXXRdý9#ÔÌà ` àà ¸ àFrom€this€evidence,€the€trial€court€found€"no€credible€evidence€ofÏcoercion€or€intimidation€by€the€investigating€officer€.€.€.€and€no€evidence€ofÏmisconduct€by€the€district€attorney."€€Specifically,€the€court€found€no€evidence€thatÏthe€officer€threatened€the€incarcerated€witness€or€coerced€her€into€changing€herÏtestimony.€€Furthermore,€the€court€found€that€the€defendant€had€failed€toÏdemonstrate€any€prejudice€from€any€of€the€foregoing€allegations.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àOn€appellate€review,€the€defendant€has€not€convinced€us€of€the€errorÏof€the€trial€court's€ruling.€€The€evidence€presented€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion€forÏnew€trial,€while€unusual,€fails€to€demonstrate€any€wrongdoing€by€the€state.€ÌÌà@ÐÐ-àò òBó óˆÐ À0`'* Ðà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€also€claims€the€prosecution€withheld€exculpatoryÏevidence€in€the€form€of€a€police€report€indicating€the€perpetrator's€hair€was€blond,Ïrather€than€the€dark€brown€color€of€the€defendant's€hair.Ð `6-0 Їà ` àà ¸ àIn€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83,€83€S.€Ct.€1194€(1963),€the€UnitedÐ `  ÐStates€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€prosecution€has€the€duty€to€furnish€exculpatoryÏevidence€to€the€accused€upon€request.€€Any€"suppression€by€the€prosecution€ofÏevidence€favorable€to€an€accused€upon€request€violates€due€process€where€theÏevidence€is€material€either€to€guilt€or€to€punishment,€irrespective€of€the€good€faithÏor€bad€faith€of€the€prosecution."€€òòBradyóó,€373€U.S.€at€87,€83€S.€Ct.€at€1196„97.€€TheÐ À`  Ðduty€to€disclose€extends€to€all€"favorable€information"€regardless€of€whether€theÏevidence€is€admissible€at€trial.€€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€845€S.W.2d€228,€232-33€(Tenn.Ð €  ÐCrim.€App.€1992);€òòBranch€v.€Stateóó,€4€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€164,€168,€469€S.W.2d€533,Ð ` Ð536€(1969).€€In€òòUnited€States€v.€Bagleyóó,€473€U.S.€667,€676,€105€S.€Ct.€3375,€3380Ð @à Ð(1985),€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€both€exculpatory€and€impeachment€evidenceÏfall€under€the€òòBradyóó€rule.€€òòCfóó.€òòGiglio€v.€United€Statesóó,€405€U.S.€150,€92€S.€Ct.€763Ð   Ð(1972)€(nondisclosure€of€state's€deal€with€witness€violated€defendant's€due€processÏrights).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àBefore€an€accused€is€entitled€to€relief€under€òòBradyóó,€he€must€establishÐ €%  Ðseveral€prerequisites:€(a)€the€prosecution€must€have€suppressed€the€evidence;€(b)Ïthe€evidence€suppressed€must€have€been€favorable€to€the€accused;€and€(c)€theÏevidence€must€have€been€material.€€òòSeeóó€òòBagleyóó,€473€U.S.€at€674-75,€105€S.€Ct.€atÐ  +À!$ Ð3379-80;€òòBradyóó,€373€U.S.€at€87,€83€S.€Ct.€at€1196-97;€òòWorkman€v.€Stateóó,€868Ð - #& ÐS.W.2d€705,€709€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€845€S.W.2d€228,€232;Ð à.€%( ÐòòStrouth€v.€Stateóó,€755€S.W.2d€819,€828€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€In€òòState€v.Ð À0`'* ÐSpurlockóó,€this€court€recognized€a€fourth€prerequisite€to€relief,€that€"the€accused€mustÐ  2@), Ðmake€a€proper€request€for€the€production€of€the€evidence,€unless€the€evidence,Ïwhen€viewed€by€the€prosecution,€is€obviously€exculpatory€in€nature€and€will€beÏhelpful€to€the€accused."€€òòState€v.€Spurlockóó,€€874€S.W.2d€602,€609€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð @8à.2 Ð1993)€(citations€omitted).€€The€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€proving€a€òòBradyóóÐ  :À04 Ðviolation€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Edginóó,€902€S.W.2d€387,€389Ð `  Ð(Tenn.€1995).€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€initial€police€report€indicated€the€suspect's€hairÏwas€"BL."€€The€officer€who€prepared€the€report€testified€"BL"€stood€for€blond€and€thatÏthe€victim€had€described€the€perpetrator's€hair€as€"blondish."€€On€the€other€hand,€theÏvictim€testified€that€he€had€initially€described€the€perpetrator's€hair€as€dark€brown€orÏblack.€€The€defendant's€hair€is€dark€brown.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àDuring€the€investigation,€the€victim€identified€two€individuals€whom€heÏsuspected€may€have€been€involved.€€Both€of€these€individuals€have€blond€hair.€ÏFurther,€an€officer€testified€that€he€had€arrested€these€individuals€for€stealing€aÏvehicle€and€burning€it€prior€to€the€victim's€car€being€stolen€and€burned.€€The€victimÏtestified,€however,€that€he€grew€up€with€one€of€these€individuals€and€was€sure€thatÏthis€person€had€not€been€the€carjacker,€although€he€thought€this€person€might€haveÏhad€someone€else€commit€the€crime.€€An€officer€interviewed€the€individualsÏidentified€by€the€victim€as€potential€suspects,€and€he€received€informationÏimplicating€the€defendant€from€one€of€these€individuals.€€Based€upon€thisÏinformation,€the€officer€prepared€the€photo€lineup,€choosing€a€photograph€of€theÏdefendant€and€five€individuals€who€shared€similar€characteristics€with€the€defendant.€ÏEach€of€the€individuals€depicted€in€the€lineup€had€brown€hair.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAt€the€motion€for€new€trial,€McAbee's€trial€counsel€testified€that€he€didÏnot€learn€about€the€police€report€describing€the€suspect's€hair€with€the€abbreviationÏ"BL"€until€the€trial€was€underway.€€As€a€result€of€the€belated€disclosure,€he€claimedÏhe€was€unable€to€investigate.ÌÐ  :À04 Ðà ` àà ¸ àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€defense€failed€to€carry€its€burden€ofÏproving€a€òòBradyóó€violation.Ð @ à ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àWe€begin€our€analysis€with€the€fourth€prerequisite€for€relief.€€It€appearsÏthat€discovery€was€conducted€in€this€case;€however,€if€"a€proper€request€for€theÏproduction€of€the€evidence"€was€made€by€the€defense,€it€has€not€been€included€inÏthe€record€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòSpurlockóó,€€874€S.W.2d€at€609.€€Thus,€we€direct€ourÐ  @  Ðinquiry€to€whether€"the€evidence,€when€viewed€by€the€prosecution,€is€obviouslyÏexculpatory€in€nature€and€will€be€helpful€to€the€accused."€€òòIdóó.€€The€evidence€in€theÐ ` Ðcase€at€bar€does€not€fulfill€this€criteria.€€The€victim's€hair€color€was€only€one€ofÏseveral€physical€characteristics€described€by€the€victim€on€the€day€of€the€crime.€€TheÏdescription€he€recounted€at€trial€that€he€had€given€on€the€day€of€the€crime€isÏremarkably€similar€to€the€defendant's€photograph€in€the€lineup.€€The€victim'sÏtestimony€that€he€described€the€perpetrator€as€having€dark€brown€or€black€hair€wasÏat€odds€with€the€officer's€òòtestimonyóó€that€the€victim€had€said€the€perpetrator€hadÐ  #@ Ðblond€hair;€however,€the€victimððs€testimony€that€he€described€the€perpetrator€œasÏhaving›€possibly€black€œhair€was›€not€contradicted€òòperóó€œòòse›byóó€the€report,€which€depictedÐ `'  Ðthe€perpetratorððs€hair€as€ð ðBLðð.€€The€inconsistent€evidence€of€the€perpetrator's€hairÏcolor€was€fully€probed€by€the€defense€at€trial.€€The€defendant€claims€on€appeal€thatÏhe€was€"denied€.€.€.€the€possibility€of€developing€other€credible€suspects"€at€trial€byÏthe€non„disclosure€of€this€evidence.€€Although€he€had€the€opportunity€at€the€hearingÏon€the€motion€for€new€trial€to€prove€that€such€evidence€could€have€been€developed,Ïhe€failed€to€carry€that€burden.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àœFurthermore,€although›€the€evidence€was€suppressed,€the€informationÏin€the€report€is€not€œmaterialñ£<ñ.ñ£<ññ¤<ñ.€€ñ¤<ññ¥<ññŒ<ñ€€ñŒ<ññ¥<ñòòSeeñ<ññ<ñuñ<ññ<ññ‘<ñóóñ‘<ññ’<ñ€òòñ’<ññ“<ñBagleñ“<ññ”<ññ“<ñuñ“<ññ”<ññ•<ñyóóñ•<ññ—<ññ–<ñ.€ñ–<ññ—<ññ˜<ñ,€473€U.S.€añ˜<ññ™<ññ˜<ñ=ñ˜<ññ™<ññ›<ññš<ñañš<ññ›<ññœ<ñt€ñœ<ññ<ññœ<ñ7ñœ<ññ<ññž<ñ674„75,€105€S.€Ct.€ñž<ññŸ<ññž<ñañž<ññŸ<ññ <ññŸ<ñAñŸ<ññ <ññ¡<ñat€3379„80.€Ð @8à.2 Ðñ¡<ññ•<ññ’<ñóóñ’<ññ•<ññ‘<ññŒ<ñóóñŒ<ññ‘<ññ¢<ñ›€›€ñ¢<ñIn›€that€regard,€"the€question€is€not€whether€the€defendant€would€more€likely€than€notÐ  :À04 Ðhave€received€a€different€verdict€with€the€evidence,€but€whether€in€its€absence€heÏreceived€a€fair€trial,€understood€as€a€trial€resulting€in€a€verdict€worthy€of€confidence."€Ïñ¦<ñòòñ¦<ñœKyles›€v.€Whitleñ¦<ñóóñ¦<ñy,€514€U.S.€419,€434,€115€S.€Ct.€1555,€1566€(1995).€€In€this€case,€theÐ  À Ðjury€had€before€it€evidence€of€the€inconsistency€between€the€police€report€and€theÏvictim's€account€of€a€suspect€with€dark€brown€or€black€hair,€as€well€as€evidence€thatÏthe€possible€suspects€named€by€the€victim€had€blond€hair.€€Notwithstanding,€the€juryÏconvicted€the€defendant.€€At€the€motion€for€new€trial,€the€defendant€had€theÏopportunity€to€prove€any€matter€which€the€state's€failure€to€disclose€the€police€reportÏdeprived€him€of€proving€at€trial,€yet€he€offered€no€evidence€supporting€a€finding€ofÏmateriality€and€undermining€confidence€in€the€verdict.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIt€bears€repeating€that€the€evidence€of€hair€color€was€but€a€portion€ofÏthe€victim's€physical€description€of€the€perpetrator.€€In€addition,€the€victim€chose€theÏdefendant€from€a€photographic€lineup.€€Viewed€in€context€of€all€of€the€evidenceÏpresented,€the€report€indicating€the€perpetrator€had€"BL"€hair€was€not€material€underÏthe€standard€of€œñ§<ñòòñ§<ñKylesñ§<ñóóñ§<ñ›.€€œCf›.€ñ¨<ñòòñ¨<ñState€v.€œBealñ¨<ñóóñ¨<ñ›,€614€œS.W.2d›€77,€80„81€(Tenn.€œCrim›.€œApp›.Ð €%  Ð1981)€(due€process€rule€of€ñ©<ñòòñ©<ñBradyñ©<ñóóñ©<ñ€not€violated€where€minor€inconsistencies€in€initialÐ `'  Ðdescription€of€perpetrator€not€disclosed€during€discovery€but€revealed€during€pretrialÏsuppression€hearing€and€exposed€by€defense€counsel€at€trial).€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€trial€court€correctly€determined€that€no€òòBradyóó€violation€had€beenÐ à.€%( Ðdemonstrated.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àFinding€no€error€requiring€reversal,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt.Ìœñª<ñÌñª<ñÓÓñ«<ñÌñ«<ññ«<ñÌñ«<ññ«<ñÐ  :À04 Ðñ«<ñ›à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌœñ¬<ñÌñ¬<ñ›Ì_______________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÌÌœñ­<ñÌñ­<ñ›Ì_______________________________ÌJOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,€JUDGEÌÌ