ÿWPCu tJã¶Õ™–LŸVÔžóœ¬_/¢«!¥ÞÅK4»OJsÑVTsSDéàl±J–8J;ÅÚª¸âøQëw'eiÐ ¬ú]õãÐḉVê+÷ó¡fÝÅ:û,m”s{|á¤Ä6-—ô¼_¬º×3|S 3"Ó* Y½»n‡™ù=щÍñp³Hxܬ­J?¥œzÁ2ßʦŽFÙÚx–Þbcôïä’íÛz옖[þøBW·0š¶é”Ç#Ä"A¤ÁqKo1ýÜ“>0»Õm§VE¤°%TRÂ9c«Ù“ü„È•gI½i ШԟþÃóŠ$1ý§½êœí¾¢'Œ¬ú\µdæÂ~–çØ¾süU¢tå& “˜Szþô¢9eOèQ íNœÍçv¶|öM›§Ï3(~¶H±<¸€jøQ)>O›{ªr:ÍÈŠÔœõ¨é}ôjÊÅŽgÌQTz¼²îLa¿²9—Êm’ásVwWH (Ò­›#R?ü¨jKyŸ}Os Caø:¡MÅ{—ö…ñÌ 3Më4µ yåÏ^àÄaº½ÌÃ`Ñ2cFqJ;ggÙ˜ã…^:£kñm`þWåâu_¾U’Š˜k$ÄgU.¢ %ÐbÖåÚ®¿öm cn­s  0((U:Pw¸Š4BV 0™å$ 0D~%U:Â%Tü%)P)Ûy*U:T+JŽ+U:Ø;–<U:¨L 0DâL D/&M BUM)rM D3›N AQÎNÆO 0DåO B)P 0DFP׊PaRUNiRñ·R‘¨T9W 0DRX 0[–XñXôùXGíYU:4jU:njnjnjþ¨j\¦mWobYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpYpT»q<þ6X9`(CourierX ù ÛÝ ƒD$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X ÂXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝOur€discussion€of€the€issues€is€ordered€differently€than€as€presented€byÐ `  Ðthe€defendant. ¤Ý ƒÿó$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XâEXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAt€one€time,€there€was€a€third€requirement,€that€the€evidence€not€beÐ `  Ðcrucial€or€devastating.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hendersonóó,€554€S.W.2d€117,€119€(Tenn.Ð P ð Ð1977).€€More€recent€caselaw€seems€to€have€disposed€of€this€third€requirement.€ÏòòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Grover€Jesse€Campbellóó,€No.€1113,€slip€op.€at€6,€n.2€(Tenn.Ð 0 Ð ÐCrim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Dec.€20,€1989)€(noting€supreme€court's€denial€ofÏpermissive€appeal€in€two€cases€in€which€court€of€criminal€appeals€had€dispensedÏwith€"crucial€and€devastating"€rule);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòArnoldóó,€719€S.W.2d€at€548€("crucialÐ   Ðand€devastating"€rule€inapplicable€where€right€of€confrontation€has€beenÏsatisfied).€€However,€the€rules€of€evidence€make€no€mention€of€this€additionalÏrequirement.€ ìÝ ƒÿó$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XâEXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ XâEXXXâEÔThe€record€reflects€that€a€brief€hearing€was€conducted€to€determine€theÐ `  Ðadmissibility€of€Ms.€Champion's€former€testimony.€€No€evidence€was€presented;Ïthe€state€relied€entirely€on€the€assertions€of€the€assistant€district€attorney€aboutÏlaw€enforcement's€efforts€to€locate€the€witness.€€As€we€observed€in€òòState€v.Ð 0 Ð ÐArmesóó,€607€S.W.2d€234,€237€(Tenn.€1980),€"The€prosecuting€attorney'sÐ  À Ðstatement€to€the€Court€concerning€the€efforts€of€the€State's€investigator€to€locateÏthe€witness€cannot€be€considered€as€evidence€of€proof€on€the€issue€of€theÏState's€good€faith€effort."€€Notwithstanding,€the€trial€court€allowed€admission€ofÏthe€witness's€former€testimony.Ô#†XâEXX XâEq#Ô€€Although€the€state€should€have€been€held€to€itsÐ à€ Ðburden€of€production,€we€are€able€to€determine€from€other€information€in€theÏrecord€that€the€error€was€harmless.€€Specifically,€the€record€reveals€that€theÏwitnesses€with€relevant€information€about€the€state's€efforts€to€locate€Ms.ÏChampion€were€questioned€outside€the€presence€of€the€jury€in€a€hearing€toÏdetermine€the€admissibility€of€hearsay€statements€allegedly€made€by€ChampionÏto€her€mother.€€The€testimony€adduced€at€this€hearing,€which€is€discussed€in€theÏbody€of€this€opinion,€establishes€that€the€previous€testimony€was€properlyÏadmitted.3|x:«<þ6X9`(CourierXôxþ6X@ɹ`7ûX@($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial Regular×9DØ9UÙ9UÚ9DÛ9DÜ9DÝ9£Þ9ß9£à9Dá9Dâ9Uã9Uä9å9Eæ9ç9è9é9Dê9ë9ì9Dí9î9ï9Eð9ó9Uô9Eeõ9Ó€:n~<$þ6 …Ý ƒÿó$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XâEXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€have€mentioned€above€that€T.B.I.€Agent€Byrd,€a€state€witness,€readÐ `  Ðto€the€jury€the€written€pretrial€statements€wherein€Blackwell€described€her€early„¼morning€encounters€with€the€defendant.€€This€account€helped€to€establish€theÏdefendantððs€presence€in€Brownsville€at€the€time€of€the€murder.€€The€evidentiaryÏrationale€for€admitting€these€statements€was€not€clear,€but€the€defendant€has€notÏclaimed€that€the€use€of€the€statements€was€error.€€Out€of€curiosity,€we€haveÏexamined€the€admission€into€evidence€of€Blackwellððs€extrajudicial€statements.ÌÌà ` àThe€method€of€presenting€this€evidence„„via€a€second€state€witness„„¼suggested€that€the€state€may€have€been€trying€to€impeach€Blackwellððs€testimonyÏthrough€the€use€of€a€prior€inconsistent€statement.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€613.€Ð À`  ÐHowever,€if€this€was€the€strategy,€the€state€did€not€explain€it€as€such€to€the€court.€ÏNor€did€the€court€instruct€the€jury€that€the€evidence€could€be€used€only€forÏimpeachment€purposes.€€Therefore,€the€statements€in€fact€came€in€asÏsubstantive€evidence€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted,€that€is,€that€theÏdefendant€was€in€the€locality€in€the€early€morning€hours€of€April€20,€1995,€andÏthat€he€knew€of€the€victimððs€death€before€the€discovery€of€the€body.ÌÌà ` àAs€such,€we€have€reviewed€our€rules€of€evidence€to€determine€whetherÏthe€statements€are€admissible€under€some€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule.€€òòSeeóóÐ 0Ð ÐTenn.€R.€Evid.€802,€803.€€The€only€exception€which€conceivably€applies€is€theÏexception€for€the€use€of€a€recorded€recollection.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(5);Ð ° ÐòòState€v.€Basil€Mathisóó,€No.€01C01„9605„CC„00186,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð   ÐApp.,€Nashville,€May€30,€1997),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1998).€€Under€ruleÐ ð Ð803(5),€ð ð[a]€memorandum€or€record€concerning€a€matter€about€which€a€witnessÏonce€had€knowledge€but€now€has€insufficient€recollection€to€enable€the€witnessÏto€testify€fully€and€accuratelyðð€is€admissible€as€substantive€evidence€if€theÏmemorandum€can€be€ð ðshown€to€have€been€made€or€adopted€by€the€witnessÏwhen€the€matter€was€fresh€in€the€witnessððs€memory€and€to€reflect€that€knowledgeÏcorrectly.ðð€€If€admitted,€such€a€memorandum€may€be€ð ðread€into€evidence€but€may€Ïnot€itself€be€received€as€an€exhibit€unless€offered€by€an€adverse€party.ðð€€TheÏAdvisory€Commission€Comments€to€rule€803(5)€say,€ð ðThe€safeguard€is€theÏrequirement€of€adoption€òòatóó€òòtheóó€òòtimeóó€when€the€witness€could€vouch€for€theÐ `'  Ðdocumentððs€correctness.ðð€€(Emphasis€added.)€€There€is€some€basis€in€the€recordÏfor€applying€the€exception.€€In€her€testimony€Blackwell€admitted€that€she€gave€aÏstatement€to€the€T.B.I.€and€that,€at€the€time€such€a€statement€was€given,€sheÏwould€have€told€the€truth.€€Blackwell€testified€that€she€did€not€remember€many€ofÏthe€events€that€were€described€in€the€pretrial€statements.€€The€officerððs€testimonyÏestablished€the€statement€was€made€or€adopted€by€the€witness€at€the€time€theÏstatements€were€put€in€writing,€a€time€when€the€events€were€fresher€in€theÏwitnessððs€memory.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€witness€did€not€acknowledge€at€trialÏthat€the€written€statements€possessed€by€Byrd€were€her€statements.€€Had€theÏissue€been€raised,€we€cannot€be€certain€the€admission€of€the€statements€asÏsubstantive€evidence€would€have€been€approved€on€appeal.ÌÌà ` àNevertheless,€we€are€not€constrained€in€this€case€to€consider€the€matterÏfurther.€€We€have€concluded€that€the€conviction€should€be€reversed€because€ofÏthe€treatment€and€use€of€the€witness€Blackwell.€€Assuming€that€her€pretrialÐ p5,/  Ðstatements€were€properly€before€the€jury€as€substantive€evidence,€the€errorÏcommitted€by€incarcerating€and€then€recalling€her€as€a€witness€is€still€egregiousÏenough€to€warrant€reversal€and€a€new€trial.€€Such€an€error€would€only€beÏexacerbated€were€we€to€find€that€the€witnessððs€story€should€not€have€beenÏpresented€to€the€jury€prior€to€her€second€appearance€on€the€stand.(I(2D$¤¤Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X9ÇXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular JÝ ƒÿó$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XâEXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝTo€the€extent€that€the€defendant€failed€to€make€a€contemporaneousÐ `  Ðobjection€to€the€trial€court's€having€Blackwell€held€in€custody€and€to€her€testimonyÏthat€she€had€been€beaten€up€after€talking€to€the€T.B.I.,€we€find€that€the€errorÏaffected€the€integrity€of€the€trial€to€such€a€degree€that€the€failure€to€object€shouldÏnot€operate€as€a€waiver€of€the€issue.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(b)€(plain€error);Ð  À Ðòòaccordóó€òòState€v.€Eavesóó,€959€S.W.2d€601,€604„05€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)€(trialÐ ° Ðcourt's€remarks€to€witness€in€presence€of€jury€which€amounted€to€questioning€ofÏwitness's€credibility€formed€basis€for€reversal€even€in€absence€ofÏcontemporaneous€objection). Ý ƒÿó$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XâEXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€murder€took€place€in€the€early€morning€hours€of€April€20,€1995.€€ThisÐ `  Ðcourt€judicially€knows€that€the€Sunday€night€preceding€trial€was€August€4,€1996. ÑÝ ƒÿó$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XâEXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝHarris€also€testified€he€heard€the€defendant€speak€and€recognized€hisÐ `  Ðvoice.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular @Ý ƒÿó$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XâEXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€have€mentioned€above€that€T.B.I.€Agent€Byrd,€a€state€witness,€readÐ `  Ðto€the€jury€the€written€pretrial€statements€wherein€Blackwell€described€her€early„¼morning€encounters€with€the€defendant.€€This€account€helped€to€establish€theÏdefendantððs€presence€in€Brownsville€at€the€time€of€the€murder.€€The€evidentiaryÏrationale€for€admitting€these€statements€was€not€clear,€but€the€defendant€has€notÏclaimed€that€the€use€of€the€statements€was€error.€€Out€of€curiosity,€we€haveÏexamined€the€admission€into€evidence€of€Blackwellððs€extrajudicial€statements.ÌÌà ` àThe€method€of€presenting€this€evidence„„via€a€second€state€witness„„¼suggested€that€the€state€may€have€been€trying€to€impeach€Blackwellððs€testimonyÏthrough€the€use€of€a€prior€inconsistent€statement.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€613.€Ð À`  ÐHowever,€if€this€was€the€strategy,€the€state€did€not€explain€it€as€such€to€the€court.€ÏNor€did€the€court€instruct€the€jury€that€the€evidence€could€be€used€only€forÏimpeachment€purposes.€€Therefore,€the€statements€in€fact€came€in€asÏsubstantive€evidence€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted,€that€is,€that€theÏdefendant€was€in€the€locality€in€the€early€morning€hours€of€April€20,€1995.ÌÌà ` àAs€such,€we€have€reviewed€our€rules€of€evidence€to€determine€whetherÏthe€statements€are€admissible€under€some€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule.€€òòSeeóóÐ @à ÐTenn.€R.€Evid.€802,€803.€€The€only€exception€which€conceivably€applies€is€theÏexception€for€the€use€of€a€recorded€recollection.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(5);Ð  À ÐòòState€v.€Basil€Mathis›óó,€No.€01C01„9605„CC„00186,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ° ÐApp.,€Nashville,€May€30,€1997),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1998).€€Under€ruleÐ   Ð803(5),€ð ð[a]€memorandum€or€record€concerning€a€matter€about€which€a€witnessÏonce€had€knowledge€but€now€has€insufficient€recollection€to€enable€the€witnessÏto€testify€fully€and€accuratelyðð€is€admissible€as€substantive€evidence€if€theÏmemorandum€can€be€ð ðshown€to€have€been€made€or€adopted€by€the€witnessÏwhen€the€matter€was€fresh€in€the€witnessððs€memory€and€to€reflect€that€knowledgeÏcorrectly.ðð€€If€admitted,€such€a€memorandum€may€be€ð ðread€into€evidence€but€may€Ïnot€itself€be€received€as€an€exhibit€unless€offered€by€an€adverse€party.ðð€€TheÏAdvisory€Commission€Comments€to€rule€803(5)€say,€ð ðThe€safeguard€is€theÏrequirement€of€adoption€òòatóó€òòtheóó€òòtimeóó€when€the€witness€could€vouch€for€theÐ p& Ðdocumentððs€correctness.ðð€€(Emphasis€added.)€€There€is€some€basis€in€the€recordÏfor€applying€the€exception.€€In€her€testimony€Blackwell€admitted€that€she€gave€aÏstatement€to€the€T.B.I.€and€that,€at€the€time€such€a€statement€was€given,€sheÏwould€have€told€the€truth.€€Blackwell€testified€that€she€did€not€remember€many€ofÏthe€events€that€were€described€in€the€pretrial€statements.€€The€officerððs€testimonyÏestablished€the€statement€was€made€or€adopted€by€the€witness€at€the€time€theÏstatements€were€put€in€writing,€a€time€when€the€events€were€fresher€in€theÏwitnessððs€memory.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€witness€did€not€acknowledge€at€trialÏthat€the€written€statements€possessed€by€Byrd€were€her€statements.€€Had€theÏissue€been€raised,€we€cannot€be€certain€the€admission€of€the€statements€asÏsubstantive€evidence€would€have€been€approved€on€appeal.ÌÌà ` àNevertheless,€we€are€not€constrained€in€this€case€to€consider€the€matterÏfurther.€€We€have€concluded€œthat›€the€conviction€should€be€reversed€because€œofÏthe›€treatment€and€use€of€the€witness€Blackwell.€€Assuming€that€her€pretrialÏstatements€were€properly€before€the€jury€as€substantive€evidence,€the€errorÐ p5,/ ® Ðcommitted€by€incarcerating€and€then€recalling€her€as€a€witness€is€still€egregiousÏenough€to€warrant€reversal€and€a€new€trial.€€Such€an€error€would€only€beÏexacerbated€were€œwe›€to€find€that€the€witnessððs€story€should€not€have€beenÏpresented€to€the€jury€prior€to€her€second€appearance€on€the€stand.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ŒÝ ƒÿó$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XâEXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€have€mentioned€above€that€T.B.I.€Agent€Byrd,€a€state€witness,€readÐ `  Ðto€the€jury€the€written€pretrial€statements€wherein€Blackwell€described€her€early„¼morning€encounters€with€the€defendant.€€This€account€helped€to€establish€theÏdefendantððs€presence€in€Brownsville€at€the€time€of€the€murder.€€The€evidentiaryÏrationale€for€admitting€these€statements€was€not€clear,€but€the€defendant€has€notÏclaimed€that€the€use€of€the€statements€was€error.€€Out€of€curiosity,€we€haveÏexamined€the€admission€into€evidence€of€Blackwellððs€extrajudicial€statements.ÌÌà ` àThe€method€of€presenting€this€evidence„„via€a€second€state€witness„„¼suggested€that€the€state€may€have€been€trying€to€impeach€Blackwellððs€testimonyÏthrough€the€use€of€a€prior€inconsistent€statement.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€613.€Ð À`  ÐHowever,€if€this€was€the€strategy,€the€state€did€not€explain€it€as€such€to€the€court.€ÏNor€did€the€court€instruct€the€jury€that€the€evidence€could€be€used€only€forÏimpeachment€purposes.€€Therefore,€the€statements€in€fact€came€in€asÏsubstantive€evidence€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted,€that€is,€that€theÏdefendant€was€in€the€locality€in€the€early€morning€hours€of€April€20,€1995,€andÏthat€he€knew€of€the€victimððs€death€before€the€discovery€of€the€body.ÌÌà ` àAs€such,€we€have€reviewed€our€rules€of€evidence€to€determine€whetherÏthe€statements€are€admissible€under€some€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule.€€òòSeeóóÐ 0Ð ÐTenn.€R.€Evid.€802,€803.€€The€only€exception€which€conceivably€applies€is€theÏexception€for€the€use€of€a€recorded€recollection.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(5);Ð ° ÐòòState€v.€Basil€Mathis›óó,€No.€01C01„9605„CC„00186,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð   ÐApp.,€Nashville,€May€30,€1997),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1998).€€Under€ruleÐ ð Ð803(5),€ð ð[a]€memorandum€or€record€concerning€a€matter€about€which€a€witnessÏonce€had€knowledge€but€now€has€insufficient€recollection€to€enable€the€witnessÏto€testify€fully€and€accuratelyðð€is€admissible€as€substantive€evidence€if€theÏmemorandum€can€be€ð ðshown€to€have€been€made€or€adopted€by€the€witnessÏwhen€the€matter€was€fresh€in€the€witnessððs€memory€and€to€reflect€that€knowledgeÏcorrectly.ðð€€If€admitted,€such€a€memorandum€may€be€ð ðread€into€evidence€but€may€Ïnot€itself€be€received€as€an€exhibit€unless€offered€by€an€adverse€party.ðð€€TheÏAdvisory€Commission€Comments€to€rule€803(5)€say,€ð ðThe€safeguard€is€theÏrequirement€of€adoption€òòatóó€òòtheóó€òòtimeóó€when€the€witness€could€vouch€for€theÐ `'  Ðdocumentððs€correctness.ðð€€(Emphasis€added.)€€There€is€some€basis€in€the€recordÏfor€applying€the€exception.€€In€her€testimony€Blackwell€admitted€that€she€gave€aÏstatement€to€the€T.B.I.€and€that,€at€the€time€such€a€statement€was€given,€sheÏwould€have€told€the€truth.€€Blackwell€testified€that€she€did€not€remember€many€ofÏthe€events€that€were€described€in€the€pretrial€statements.€€The€officerððs€testimonyÏestablished€the€statement€was€made€or€adopted€by€the€witness€at€the€time€theÏstatements€were€put€in€writing,€a€time€when€the€events€were€fresher€in€theÏwitnessððs€memory.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€witness€did€not€acknowledge€at€trialÏthat€the€written€statements€possessed€by€Byrd€were€her€statements.€€Had€theÏissue€been€raised,€we€cannot€be€certain€the€admission€of€the€statements€asÏsubstantive€evidence€would€have€been€approved€on€appeal.ÌÌà ` àNevertheless,€we€are€not€constrained€in€this€case€to€consider€the€matterÏfurther.€€We€have€concluded€œthat›€the€conviction€should€be€reversed€because€œofÏthe›€treatment€and€use€of€the€witness€Blackwell.€€Assuming€that€her€pretrialÐ p5,/ P Ðstatements€were€properly€before€the€jury€as€substantive€evidence,€the€errorÏcommitted€by€incarcerating€and€then€recalling€her€as€a€witness€is€still€egregiousÏenough€to€warrant€reversal€and€a€new€trial.€€Such€an€error€would€only€beÏexacerbated€were€œwe›€to€find€that€the€witnessððs€story€should€not€have€beenÏpresented€to€the€jury€prior€to€her€second€appearance€on€the€stand.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(3¯$££Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  Ý'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd Ý ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€0X ÂXXXÔÔ€0H\X0X ÂÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€0X ÂX0H\ÔÐ  ÐÌò òDecember€29,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€0ôg”ôX0X ÂÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó""""'ÿÿdxd !#Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  Ý d($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó ÍÝ ƒÿó$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XâEXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝFailure€to€take€an€appeal€within€the€time€allowed€brings€finality€to€theÐ `  Ðruling,€which€generally€is€no€longer€subject€to€attack€on€its€merits.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.Ð P ð ÐApp.€P.€4(a)€(appeal€as€of€right€must€be€taken€within€30€days€of€entry€ofÏjudgment,€although€time€period€is€not€jurisdictional€in€criminal€cases).(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular çÝ ƒÿó$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XâEXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€trial€court€ordered€the€prosecution€to€contact€the€T.B.I.€and€requestÐ `  Ðthe€inquiry.€€When€the€court€learned€that€the€prosecution€had€not€done€so,€theÏcourt€stated€on€the€record€that€it€would€contact€the€director€of€the€T.B.I.€himself.€ÏHowever,€the€T.B.I.€report€indicates€the€investigation€was€commenced€uponÏrequest€of€the€District€Attorney€General.€ ‡Ý ƒÿó$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XâEXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThere€is€a€statement€by€the€investigating€agent€that€Bernil€had€not€beenÐ `  Ðcharged€because€Brownsville€Police€Department€officers€were€unable€to€obtainÏsufficient€evidence€of€Bernil's€involvement€after€conducting€witness€interviews.€ÏThe€report€contains€no€information€identifying€the€source€of€this€information€„„€noÏstatements€of€the€Brownsville€officers€who€conducted€these€interviews,€noÏidentification€of€the€witnesses€interviewed€by€the€Brownsville€officers,€and€noÏtranscription€of€the€interviews€themselves.€€ Ý ƒÿó$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XâEXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€cover€letter€from€the€district€attorney€general€to€the€trial€court€doesÐ `  Ðnot€reflect€that€the€defense€was€copied€with€the€communication.($Ó$‘‘òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(3®à$¥¥Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú. êÝ ƒÿó$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XâEXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€defense€claimed€the€report€might€contain€information€relevant€to€theÐ `  Ðdefendant's€upcoming€retrial. =Ý ƒÿó$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€/XdXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€have€mentioned€above€that€T.B.I.€Agent€Byrd,€a€state€witness,€readÐ `  Ðto€the€jury€the€written€pretrial€statements€wherein€Blackwell€described€her€early„¼morning€encounters€with€the€defendant.€€This€account€helped€to€establish€theÏdefendantððs€presence€in€Brownsville€at€the€time€of€the€murder.€€The€evidentiaryÏrationale€for€admitting€these€statements€was€not€clear,€but€the€defendant€has€notÏclaimed€that€the€use€of€the€statements€was€error.€€Out€of€curiosity,€we€haveÏexamined€the€admission€into€evidence€of€Blackwellððs€extrajudicial€statements.ÌÌà ` àThe€method€of€presenting€this€evidence„„via€a€second€state€witness„„¼suggested€that€the€state€may€have€been€trying€to€impeach€Blackwellððs€testimonyÏthrough€the€use€of€a€prior€inconsistent€statement.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€613.€Ð À`  ÐHowever,€if€this€was€the€strategy,€the€state€did€not€explain€it€as€such€to€the€court.€ÏNor€did€the€court€instruct€the€jury€that€the€evidence€could€be€used€only€forÏimpeachment€purposes.€€Therefore,€the€statements€in€fact€came€in€asÏsubstantive€evidence€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted,€that€is,€that€theÏdefendant€was€in€the€locality€in€the€early€morning€hours€of€April€20,€1995.ÌÌà ` àAs€such,€we€have€reviewed€our€rules€of€evidence€to€determine€whetherÏthe€statements€are€admissible€under€some€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule.€€òòSeeóóÐ @à ÐTenn.€R.€Evid.€802,€803.€€The€only€exception€which€conceivably€applies€is€theÏexception€for€the€use€of€a€recorded€recollection.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(5);Ð  À ÐòòState€v.€Basil€Mathis›óó,€No.€01C01„9605„CC„00186,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ° ÐApp.,€Nashville,€May€30,€1997),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1998).€€Under€ruleÐ   Ð803(5),€ð ð[a]€memorandum€or€record€concerning€a€matter€about€which€a€witnessÏonce€had€knowledge€but€now€has€insufficient€recollection€to€enable€the€witnessÏto€testify€fully€and€accuratelyðð€is€admissible€as€substantive€evidence€if€theÏmemorandum€can€be€ð ðshown€to€have€been€made€or€adopted€by€the€witnessÏwhen€the€matter€was€fresh€in€the€witnessððs€memory€and€to€reflect€that€knowledgeÏcorrectly.ðð€€If€admitted,€such€a€memorandum€may€be€ð ðread€into€evidence€but€may€Ïnot€itself€be€received€as€an€exhibit€unless€offered€by€an€adverse€party.ðð€€TheÏAdvisory€Commission€Comments€to€rule€803(5)€say,€ð ðThe€safeguard€is€theÏrequirement€of€adoption€òòatóó€òòtheóó€òòtimeóó€when€the€witness€could€vouch€for€theÐ p& Ðdocumentððs€correctness.ðð€€(Emphasis€added.)€€There€is€some€basis€in€the€recordÏfor€applying€the€exception.€€In€her€testimony€Blackwell€admitted€that€she€gave€aÏstatement€to€the€T.B.I.€and€that,€at€the€time€such€a€statement€was€given,€sheÏwould€have€told€the€truth.€€Blackwell€testified€that€she€did€not€remember€many€ofÏthe€events€that€were€described€in€the€pretrial€statements.€€The€officerððs€testimonyÏestablished€the€statement€was€made€or€adopted€by€the€witness€at€the€time€theÏstatements€were€put€in€writing,€a€time€when€the€events€were€fresher€in€theÏwitnessððs€memory.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€witness€did€not€acknowledge€at€trialÏthat€the€written€statements€possessed€by€Byrd€were€her€statements.€€Had€theÏissue€been€raised,€we€cannot€be€certain€the€admission€of€the€statements€asÏsubstantive€evidence€would€have€been€approved€on€appeal.ÌÌà ` àNevertheless,€we€are€not€constrained€in€this€case€to€consider€the€matterÏfurther.€€We€have€concluded€below€that€the€conviction€should€be€reversedÏbecause€the€treatment€and€use€of€the€witness€Blackwell.€€Assuming€that€herÏpretrial€statements€were€properly€before€the€jury€as€substantive€evidence,€theÐ p5,/ „ Ðerror€committed€by€incarcerating€and€then€recalling€her€as€a€witness€is€stillÏegregious€enough€to€warrant€reversal€and€a€new€trial.€€Such€an€error€would€onlyÏbe€exacerbated€were€it€to€find€that€the€witnessððs€story€should€not€have€beenÏpresented€to€the€jury€prior€to€her€second€appearance€on€the€stand.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ôÝ ƒÿó$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XâEXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ XâEXXXâEÔThe€defense€has€the€burden€of€proving€a€òòBradyóó€violation.€€However,€inÐ `  Ðthis€case,€the€trial€court's€actions€denied€the€defense€an€opportunity€to€carry€itsÐ P ð Á Ðburden.€€Furthermore,€the€materiality€of€the€information€in€the€T.B.I.€report€mayÏnot€be€readily€apparent€to€this€court,€as€the€defense€may€be€in€possession€ofÏadditional€evidence€which€was€not€placed€into€the€record€but€which€wouldÏdemonstrate€the€materiality€of€the€T.B.I.€report€information.€€The€defendantÏcannot€be€held€at€fault€for€failing€to€present€evidence€which€he€had€no€way€ofÏknowing€was€germane. RÝ ƒÿó$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XâEXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€do€not€consider€the€trial€court's€inclusion€of€the€sealed€report€in€theÐ `  Ðappellate€record€to€be€curative€of€òòHartóó's€prohibition€against€an€"off€the€record"Ð P ð Ðjudicial€investigation. MÝ ƒÿó$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XâEXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ XâEXXXâEÔAny€issues€which€present€themselves€based€upon€information€containedÐ `  Ðin€the€report€are€capable€of€being€addressed€in€pre„trial€motions.Ô#†XâEXX XâEp#Ô XÝ ƒÿó$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XâEXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€information€appears€to€have€been€disclosed€as€"pre„trial€discovery"Ð `  Ðin€preparation€for€the€new€trial€(that€new€trial€later€being€pretermitted€by€the€trialÏcourt's€ruling€reversing€the€grant€of€a€new€trial). JÝ ƒÿó$ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XâEXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝTo€the€extent€that€the€defendant€failed€to€make€a€contemporaneousÐ `  Ðobjection€to€the€trial€court's€having€Blackwell€held€in€custody€and€to€her€testimonyÏthat€she€had€been€beaten€up€after€talking€to€the€T.B.I.,€we€find€that€the€errorÏaffected€the€integrity€of€the€trial€to€such€a€degree€that€the€failure€to€object€shouldÏnot€operate€as€a€waiver€of€the€issue.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(b)€(plain€error);Ð  À Ðòòaccordóó€òòState€v.€Eavesóó,€959€S.W.2d€601,€604„05€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)€(trialÐ ° Ðcourt's€remarks€to€witness€in€presence€of€jury€which€amounted€to€questioning€ofÏwitness's€credibility€formed€basis€for€reversal€even€in€absence€ofÏcontemporaneous€objection).Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  Ýñô9ñ›ñô9ññô9ñ›ñô9ñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÓ  ÓÑTR[  AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€ XBeXXXÔÑ7€ Be XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñœñ:ññ:ññ:ññõ9ñœñõ9ñßr€<,(j 8` `€€@EÈf ` ttx$` ð Úrßñ:ññõ9ññõ9ñ›ÌÑ€Ñò òà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ P ð Ðñ:ñœßt€>.*jx‚ÿ` `€€@EJG ` ttx$‚@ ð Ûtß›ñ:ñÌ€à@ŽŽ(àAT€JACKSONˆÐ 0 Ð ÐÌà@BB%àJULY€1998€SESSIONó óˆÐ ° ÐÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h à€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.€02C01„9708„CC„00300Ð °P  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìvs.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àHaywood€Countyà x àÐ 0  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìò òDWIGHT€MILLER,à  àà h àà À àó óà  à)à p àHon.€Dick€Jerman,€Jr.,€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(First€Degree€Murder)Ð Pð Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à h àà À àà  àà p àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:Ð   ÐÌò òTHOMAS€W.€CRIDERà h àà À àà  àà p àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ à€ Ðó óDistrict€Public€Defenderà h àà À àà  àà p àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ Ð p ÐÌò òJ.€DIANE€STOOTSó óà0  àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àà0p(#(#àò òPETER€M.€COUGHLANó óа"Pp(#p(# Ðò òWILLIAM€D.€BOWENó óà h àà À àà  àà p àAsst.€Attorney€GeneralÐ  #@ ÐAsst.€District€Public€Defendersò òà À àà  àà p àó ó425€Fifth€Ave.€N.,€2d€Floorò òÐ $0 Ðó ó107€S.€Court€Squareà h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ð €%  ÐTrenton,€TN€€38382Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àò òCLAYBURN€L.€PEEPLESó óÐ `'  Ðò òà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÐ P(ð! ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àò òLARRY€HARDISTERÐ 0*Ð # Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àGARRY€BROWNÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àó óAsst.€District€Attorneys€GeneralÐ ,°"% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à110€College€St.,€Ste.€200Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àTrenton,€TN€€38382ÌÌÌò òÌOPINION€FILED:________________ÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEó óÐ p5,/ ÐÐ  `6-0 Ðà@qq*àò òòòOPINIONó óóóˆÐ `  ÐÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant,€Dwight€Miller,€appeals€from€the€conviction€of€firstÏdegree€murder€he€received€at€the€conclusion€of€a€jury€trial€in€the€Haywood€CountyÏCircuit€Court.€€Miller€is€presently€serving€a€life€sentence€in€the€Department€ofÏCorrection€for€his€crime.€€In€this€direct€appeal,€he€raises€numerous€issues€for€ourÏreview:ÌÓÓà0 ` à1.à8¸ ` (#` (#àWhether€the€state€violated€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó€by€failing€toÐ  @  Ðprovide€the€defense€with€information€about€uncharged€crimesÏallegedly€committed€by€two€prosecution€witnesses.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` à2.à8 ¸ àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€asking€defense€counsel€in€theÐ ` Ðpresence€of€the€jury€why€defense€counsel€kept€asking€theÏsame€question€of€the€state's€witnesses.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` à3.à8 ¸ àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€placing€one€of€the€state'sÐ  À Ðwitnesses€in€custody€as€a€means€ñô9ñœñô9ññé9ñforñé9ññê9ñofñê9ññô9ñ›ñô9ññô9ññô9ñ€improving€her€memoryÏafter€the€witness€testified€she€could€not€remember€eventsÏabout€which€she€had€previously€given€a€statement.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` à4.à8 ¸ àWhether€the€trial€court€properly€denied€the€defense€motion€toÐ Ð p Ðhave€the€jury€view€the€crime€scene,€or€alternatively,€aÏvideotape€of€the€crime€scene.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` à5.à8 ¸ àWhether€the€trial€court€properly€determined€that€a€witness€wasÐ $0 Ðunavailable€and€allowed€her€testimony€at€the€preliminaryÏhearing€to€be€admitted€as€evidence.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà0 ` à6.à8¸ ` (#` (#àWhether€the€trial€court€had€the€authority€to€reverse€its€previousÐ P(ð! Ðruling€granting€the€defendant's€motion€for€a€new€trial.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` à7.à8 ¸ àWhether€the€trial€court€properly€prevented€the€defense€fromÐ  +À!$ Ðviewing€a€full€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€report.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` à8.à8 ¸ àWhether€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€alleged€errors€hasÐ ð-$' Ðprejudiced€the€defendant€and€compromised€the€judicialÏprocess.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓÓAfter€conducting€a€thorough€review€of€the€parties'€briefs€and€the€applicable€law,€weÏfind€reversible€error€which€requires€that€we€remand€the€case€for€a€new€trial.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð 30*- ÐÐ p5,/ Ðà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€facts€of€this€case€asÏrelevant€to€this€appeal€are€as€follows.€€The€defendant€shot€and€killed€Donald€RiceÏin€the€early€morning€hours€of€April€20,€1995.€€Rice€and€the€defendant€were€bothÏsitting€in€their€cars,€which€were€parked€driver's€window€to€driver's€window,€outsideÏa€housing€project€in€Brownsville,€Tennessee€when€the€defendant€fired€the€fatal€shot.€ÏThe€next€day,€Rice's€body€and€car€were€discovered€in€separate€locations€by€lawÏenforcement€officers.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àEyewitness€testimony€of€Clement€Harris,€who€was€sitting€outside€theÏhousing€project€at€the€time€of€the€crime,€established€the€defendant€as€theÏperpetrator.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€preliminary€hearing€testimony€of€Nina€Champion,€who€the€courtÏdeclared€was€an€unavailable€witness,€was€read€into€the€record.€€It€established€thatÏChampion€saw€a€shotgun€in€the€trunk€of€the€defendant's€car€shortly€before€theÏmurder.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àA€law€enforcement€officer€testified€that€he€found€a€shotgun€whichÏsmelled€as€if€it€had€been€recently€fired€in€the€defendant's€home,€along€with€a€spentÏand€a€live€shotgun€shell.€€The€shells€were€of€the€same€type€shot€as€was€recoveredÏfrom€the€victim's€body.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€medical€examiner€testified€that€the€victim€died€from€a€shotgunÏwound€to€the€head.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àSheila€Bernil€and€Kathy€Blackwell,€who€were€roommates,€testified€that€Ïthe€defendant€came€to€their€home€around€the€time€of€the€murder€and€was€veryÐ  :À04 Ðinsistent€that€he€be€allowed€inside.€€They€did€not€allow€him€entry,€but€Blackwell€sawÏthe€defendant€a€few€hours€later.€€The€defendant€told€her€that€the€victim€was€dead.€ÏAt€this€time,€the€victim's€body€had€not€yet€been€discovered.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAfter€the€jury€returned€a€guilty€verdict€and€the€court€sentenced€theÏdefendant€to€life€imprisonment,€the€defense€filed€a€motion€for€new€trial.€€The€trialÏcourt€granted€the€motion€in€March€1997,€finding€that€the€state€had€not€beenÏforthcoming€with€the€defense€about€a€non„prosecution€"deal"€with€one€of€the€state'sÏwitnesses.€€However,€the€court€filed€an€"amended€order"€overruling€the€motion€forÏnew€trial€on€July€7,€1997€following€the€court's€receipt€and€review€of€a€TennesseeÏBureau€of€Investigation€("T.B.I.")€report€which€addressed€the€alleged€priorÏuncharged€misconduct€of€the€state's€witness€who€was€the€purported€beneficiary€ofÏthe€"deal."€€The€T.B.I.€prepared€the€report€as€a€result€of€the€trial€court's€order€thatÏthe€prosecution€request€the€agency€to€investigate€the€matter.€€The€trial€courtÏprovided€the€defense€with€some,€but€not€all€of,€the€documents€generated€by€theÏT.B.I.€€The€entire€report€was€filed€under€seal€by€the€trial€court€and€is€contained€in€theÏrecord€on€appeal.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAgainst€this€unusual€backdrop,€the€defendant€calls€upon€us€toÏconsider€his€several€allegations€of€ñô9ñœñô9ñerror.ñ×9ñÌ›ñ×9ññÖ9ñÌñÖ9ññÖ9ñ›Ó  Óò òñÖ9ññÕ9ñIñÕ9ññÖ9ñó óñÖ9ññÖ9ñ›ÌñÖ9ññ×9ñ›ñ×9ññÖ9ñÓ  Ó›ñÓ9ñà ` àà ` àñÓ9ññÔ9ñ›ñÔ9ññÔ9ñÐ à.€%( ÐñÔ9ññÖ9ññ×9ññÔ9ñ›ñÔ9ññ×9ññ×9ññÔ9ñÐ - #& ÐñÔ9ññ×9ññØ9ñÌñØ9ññÙ9ñÌñÙ9ññÙ9ññÔ9ñ›ñÔ9ññÙ9ññÚ9ññØ9ñÌñØ9ññÚ9ññÛ9ññÔ9ñ›ñÔ9ññÔ9ñÐ À0`'* ЛñÔ9ññÛ9ññÜ9ññÛ9ñÐ  À0`'* ÐñÛ9ññÜ9ññÝ9ñÓ  ÓñÝ9ññÛ9ñÐ À0`'* ÐñÔ9ñÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ'Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑ›ñÔ9ññÔ9ñà@üü-àñÔ9ññÛ9ñò òñà9ññÞ9ñ.ñÞ9ññà9ññô9ñIñô9ññô9ñIñô9ñó óñô9ñ›ñô9ñÐ À0`'* Ðñß9ñÓ  Óñß9ñà ` àà ¸ àFirst,€we€consider€whether€the€trial€court€properly€overruled€theÏdefendant's€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€Intertwined€in€this€issue€are€the€considerationsÏof€(1)€whether€the€trial€court€correctly€determined€there€was€no€òòBradyóó€violationÐ `6-0 Ðñô9ñœñô9ñrequiring€theñô9ñ›ñô9ññô9ññô9ñ€ñô9ñœñô9ñgrant€ofñô9ñ›ñô9ññô9ññô9ñ€a€new€trial,€(2)€whether€the€court€properly€consideredÏinformation€contained€in€a€report€from€the€T.B.I.€in€making€its€decision€withoutÐ  :À04 Ðproviding€the€entire€report€to€the€defense,€and€(3)€whether€the€court,€after€initiallyÏgranting€the€defendant's€motion€for€a€new€trial,€had€the€authority€months€later€toÏvacate€the€order€and€overrule€the€motion.€€We€begin€with€consideration€of€the€latterÏissue.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àA€judgment€in€a€criminal€case€becomes€final€30€days€after€its€entry€orÏoverruling€of€a€motion€for€new€trial,€and€thereafter,€a€trial€court€has€no€jurisdictionÏto€modify€it.€€òòState€v.€Charles€Alvin€Haneyóó,€No.€839€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,Ð €  ÐMar.€29,€1989)€(citations€omitted);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Jack€Lee€Thomas,€Jr.óó,€No.Ð ` Ð03C01„9504„CR„00109,€slip€op.€at€2„3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Nov.€15,€1995).€ÏWe€are€aware€of€no€rule,€however,€which€imposes€the€same€restrictions€on€rulingsÏof€the€trial€court€which€do€not€terminate€a€criminal€case.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€determining€whether€the€trial€court€retained€jurisdiction€to€reverseÏthe€order€beyond€30€days,€we€refer€to€the€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€As€aÏgeneral€proposition,€only€those€actions€of€a€trial€court€which€conclude€a€prosecutionÏform€the€proper€basis€for€an€appeal€as€of€right.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(b).€Ð `'  ÐInterlocutory€actions€of€the€trial€court€are€immediately€reviewable€by€the€appellateÏcourt€only€by€permission.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€9,€10;€òòaccordóó€òòState€v.€Joseph€D.Ð  +À!$ ÐBishopóó,€No.€01C01„9309„CR„00333€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Sept.€1,€1994)Ð - #& Ð(interlocutory€appeal€of€trial€court's€grant€of€a€new€trial);€òòState€v.€Johnny€Joe€Crass,Ð à.€%( ÐJr.óó,€No.€03C01„9211„CR„418€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Mar.€29,€1994);€òòState€v.Ð À0`'* ÐJohn€Edward€Colemanóó,€No.€88„302„III€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Mar.€21,€1989).€Ð  2@), ÐWith€respect€to€appeals€as€of€right,€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€4(c)€provides€forÏvarious€dispositions€from€which€a€party€to€a€criminal€action€may€take€an€appeal€asÏof€right€under€Rule€3€„„€òòdenialóó€of€a€motion€for€a€new€trial,€grant€or€denial€of€a€motionÐ @8à.2 Ðfor€judgment€of€acquittal,€grant€or€denial€of€a€motion€for€arrest€of€judgment,€or€grantÐ  :À04 Ðor€denial€of€a€motion€for€suspended€sentence.׃$×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Unlike€any€of€these€rulings,€whichÐ `  Ðcan€generally€be€characterized€as€ones€which€bring€a€prosecution€to€an€end€at€theÏtrial€level,€an€order€òògrantingóó€a€new€trial€has€the€singular€effect€of€ensuring€furtherÐ  À Ðproceedings€in€the€prosecution.€€In€other€words,€a€grant€of€a€new€trial€is€not€anÏaction€which€brings€finality€to€a€criminal€prosecution.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAccordingly,€we€believe€the€trial€court€acted€within€its€jurisdiction€whenÏit€reversed€its€previous€ruling€granting€the€defendant's€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€TheÏgrant€of€the€motion€did€not€have€the€effect€of€concluding€the€proceedings.€€òòSeeóóÐ ` ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(b).€€To€the€contrary,€the€trial€court's€grant€of€a€new€trial€ensuredÏthat€further€proceedings€would€follow.€€Because€the€order€was€one€of€this€type,€it€didÏnot€become€irrevocable€by€the€trial€court€after€the€expiration€of€30€days.€€òòBut€cfóó.Ð   ÐòòBenson€v.€Fowleróó,€43€Tenn.€App.€147,€306€S.W.2d€49€(1957)€(order€granting€motionÐ à€ Ðfor€new€trial€subject€to€alteration€or€recall€for€remainder€of€term€of€court€or€30€daysÏif€term€lasted€that€ñô9ñœñô9ñlong)ñà9ññÔ9ñÔ‡&X(ÔXX X"kÔÔ#† X"kXX&X(Ô²7#ÔÔ‡ Xë5XXXœ…ÔñÔ9ññà9ñ;ñô9ñ›ñô9ññô9ññô9ñ€òòTurney€v.€Lamontóó,€60€Tenn.€(1€Baxt.)€265€(1872)€(error€toÐ  #@ Ðreverse€ruling€granting€motion€for€new€trial€made€conditional€on€payment€of€costsÏbecause€costs€had€not€been€paid€two€years€after€motion€granted).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àHaving€established€the€trial€court's€jurisdiction€to€revisit€its€order,€weÏturn€to€the€question€of€whether€it€reached€the€correct€determination€when€it€did€so.€ÏThe€decision€whether€to€grant€a€new€trial€is€a€matter€for€the€sound€discretion€of€theÏtrial€court.€€Ô‡XâEXX XâEÔòòState€v.€Burnsóó,€777€S.W.2d€355,€360€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€ñô9ñœñô9ñ1989).Ô#† XâEXXXâE4:#Ôñà9ññÔ9ñÔ‡&X(ÔXX X"kÔÔ#† X"kXX&X(Ô;#ÔÔ‡ Xë5XXXœ…ÔñÔ9ññà9ññô9ñ›ñô9ññô9ññô9ñ€€Thus,€ourÐ À0`'* Ðinquiry€is€whether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion.ÌÐ €4 +. Ðà ` àà ¸ àIn€this€case,€the€basis€for€the€initial€grant€of€a€new€trial€was€the€court'sÏconcern€that€the€state€had€violated€the€requirements€of€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó.€€In€òòBradyÐ @ à Ðv.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83,€83€S.€Ct.€1194€(1963),€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÐ  À Ðheld€that€the€prosecution€has€the€duty€to€furnish€exculpatory€evidence€to€theÏaccused€upon€request.€€Any€"suppression€by€the€prosecution€of€evidence€favorableÏto€an€accused€upon€request€violates€due€process€where€the€evidence€is€materialÏeither€to€guilt€or€to€punishment,€irrespective€of€the€good€faith€or€bad€faith€of€theÏprosecution."€€òòBradyóó,€373€U.S.€at€87,€83€S.€Ct.€at€1196„97.€€The€duty€to€discloseÐ €  Ðextends€to€all€"favorable€information"€regardless€of€whether€the€evidence€isÏadmissible€at€trial.€€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€845€S.W.2d€228,€232-33€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð @à Ð1992);€òòBranch€v.€Stateóó,€4€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€164,€168,€469€S.W.2d€533,€536€(1969).€Ð  À ÐIn€òòUnited€States€v.€Bagleyóó,€473€U.S.€667,€676,€105€S.€Ct.€3375,€3380€(1985),€theÐ   ÐSupreme€Court€held€that€both€exculpatory€and€impeachment€evidence€fall€under€theÏòòBradyóó€rule.€€òòCfóó.€òòGiglio€v.€United€Statesóó,€405€U.S.€150,€92€S.€Ct.€763€(1972)Ð À!` Ð(nondisclosure€of€state's€deal€with€witness€violated€defendant's€due€process€rights).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 - #& Ð3379-80;€òòBradyóó,€373€U.S.€at€87,€83€S.€Ct.€at€1196-97;€òòWorkman€v.€Stateóó,€868Ð à.€%( ÐS.W.2d€705,€709€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€845€S.W.2d€228,€232;Ð À0`'* ÐòòStrouth€v.€Stateóó,€755€S.W.2d€819,€828€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€In€òòState€v.Ð  2@), ÐSpurlockóó,€this€court€recognized€a€fourth€prerequisite€to€relief,€that€"the€accused€mustÐ €4 +. 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  :À04 Ð1993)€(citations€omitted).€€The€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€proving€a€òòBradyóóÐ `  Ðviolation€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Edginóó,€902€S.W.2d€387,€389Ð @ à Ð(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€Sheila€Bernil,€a€prosecution€witness,€wasÐ à€ Ðalleged€to€have€been€involved€with€ñô9ñœñô9ñBarbara€Bladeñô9ñ›ñô9ññô9ññô9ñ€in€stealing,€forging€and€cashingÏchecks€that€belonged€to€another€individual.€€ñô9ñœñô9ñBladeñô9ñ›ñô9ññô9ññô9ñ€implicated€Bernil€and€wasÏultimately€convicted€for€the€scheme.€€Bernil€was€never€prosecuted,€and€the€defenseÏargued€that€no€information€about€ñô9ñœñô9ñBernil'sñô9ñ›ñô9ñ€alleged€wrongdoing€ñô9ñœñô9ñwasñô9ñ›ñô9ññô9ññô9ñ€ever€revealed.€ÏThe€defense€further€questioned€whether€some€sort€of€non„prosecution€agreementÏexisted€between€Bernil€and€the€state,€consideration€for€which€was€Bernil's€testimonyÏin€the€defendant's€murder€trial.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAt€the€first€of€four€hearings€on€the€motion€for€new€trial,€€InvestigatorÏJohnny€Blackburn€testified€that€he€was€aware€that€Bernil€had€been€implicated€byÏBarbara€Blade€in€a€forgery€scheme€when€Blade€was€arrested€thereon.€€InvestigatorÏBlackburn€had€investigated€this€information€but€had€not€been€able€to€developÏsufficient€evidence€to€charge€Bernil.€€Significantly,€he€had€been€unable€to€locate€aÏkey€witness.€€At€this€first€hearing,€the€trial€court€indicated€its€skepticism€of€theÏprosecution's€claim€there€was€no€deal€with€Bernil.€The€court€asked€the€prosecutionÏto€request€a€T.B.I.€investigation€of€whether€there€was€sufficient€evidence€to€chargeÏBernil,€whether€a€non„prosecution€deal€had€been€struck€with€Bernil,€and€whether€theÏprosecution€or€the€officers€knew€Bernil€might€be€charged€with€a€crime€at€the€time€ofÏher€testimony.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAt€the€second€hearing€held€seven€days€later,€the€trial€court€becameÏinflamed€and€ordered€a€new€trial€when€the€prosecution€announced€that€it€had€notÐ  :À04 Ðcontacted€the€T.B.I.€about€the€investigation.€€However,€the€court€insisted€on€theÏT.B.I.€inquiry,€even€after€making€his€ruling.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThereafter,€the€T.B.I.€investigation€took€place,׃'×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€although€its€scopeÐ   Ðappears€to€have€been€limited€to€the€facts€of€ñô9ñœñô9ñBernil'sñô9ñ›ñô9ññô9ññô9ñ€alleged€crimes.€€The€reportÏdoes€not€reflect€any€investigation€of€alleged€deal„making€between€ñô9ñœñô9ñBernilñô9ñ›ñô9ññô9ññô9ñ€and€theÏstate.׃(@×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€report€includes€Blade's€statement€implicating€Bernil€in€the€scheme.€€AÐ  @  Ðgrocery€store€manager€who€refused€to€cash€a€check€for€Blade€recalled€BernilÏattempting€to€cash€a€check€on€the€theft/forgery€victim's€account€the€same€day.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àA€letter€contained€in€the€sealed€portion€of€the€record€indicates€that€€theÏT.B.I.€investigation€report€was€sent€to€the€trial€court€òòex€parte€óóby€the€District€AttorneyÐ   ÐGeneral.׃)˜ ×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€defense€apparently€learned€that€the€report€had€been€completed€andÐ à€ Ðmoved€the€court€to€receive€access€to€the€report.׃-@×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€A€third€hearing€was€held,€at€whichÐ À!` Ðthe€trial€court€announced€that€it€had€reconsidered€its€previous€grant€of€a€new€trialÏin€light€of€the€information€contained€in€the€T.B.I.€report.€€The€court€went€on€to€vacateÏits€previous€order€granting€a€new€trial€and€substituted€in€its€place€an€order€denyingÐ `'  Ðthe€defendant's€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€The€court€acknowledged€that€it€was€catchingÏthe€defense€by€surprise€and€allowed,€"I'll€be€glad€for€[the€defense]€to€file€any€motionsÏ.€.€.€to€attack€[the€ruling]."€€The€court€also€granted€in€part€and€denied€in€part€theÏdefendant's€motion€for€access€to€the€T.B.I.€report,€physically€delivering€portions€ofÏthe€file€to€the€defense€in€open€court.€€He€ordered€the€complete€file€sealed€and€madeÏa€part€of€the€record.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThereafter,€the€defense€filed€an€amended€motion€for€new€trial€allegingÏthe€trial€court€erred€in€denying€complete€access€to€the€T.B.I.€file€and€in€reversing€itsÏprevious€order€on€the€motion€for€new€trial.€€An€affidavit€of€Jimmy€Johns,€who€wasÏthe€witness€ñô9ñœñô9ññë9ñthe€ñë9ññì9ññÔ9ñIñÔ9ññì9ññí9ñiñí9ñnvestigatorñô9ñ›ñô9ññô9ññô9ñ€ñô9ñœñô9ññï9ññî9ñ\ñî9ññÔ9ñBlackwell›ñÔ9ññÔ9ñ€ñÔ9ññï9ñclaimedñô9ñ›ñô9ññô9ññô9ñ€he€had€been€unable€to€locate,€was€attached€toÏthe€amended€motion.€€In€it,€Mr.€Johns€claimed€he€had€unwittingly€passed€a€checkÏat€Bernil's€request€which€was€ñô9ñœñô9ñdrawn€onñô9ñ›ñô9ññô9ññô9ñ€the€theft/forgery€victim's€account.€€€Mr.ÏJohns€further€averred€that€he€had€never€been€interviewed€by€the€Brownsville€PoliceÏor€the€T.B.I.€€A€fourth€and€final€hearing€was€held€at€which€the€court€upheld€its€rulingsÏfrom€the€third€hearing.ÌÌñô9ñœñô9ññá9ññÔ9ñà ` à›ñÔ9ññÔ9ñà ` àñÔ9ññÔ9ñÔ‡&X(ÔXX X"kÔÔ#† X"kXX&X(Ô«X#ÔñÔ9ññá9ññà9ññÔ9ñÔ‡ Xë5XXXœ…ÔñÔ9ññà9ñÔ‡&X¨óXX XâEÔñà9ññÔ9ñ›ñÔ9ññà9ñÔ#† XâEXX&X¨ótZ#Ôñà9ññÔ9ñÔ†ÿÿÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔñÔ9ññà9ññá9ññÒ9ñÌñÒ9ññÒ9ñÌñÒ9ññá9ññô9ñ›ñô9ññô9ññô9ñà ` àà ¸ àInitially,€we€find€ourselves€unable€to€address€the€defendant's€òòBradyóóÐ @)à" Ðconcern€òòvis„a„visóó€the€trial€court's€ultimate€ruling€on€the€new€trial€motion.€€AsÐ  +À!$ Ðdiscussed€above,€one€of€the€òòBradyóó€requirements€is€that€the€information€in€questionÐ - #& Ðbe€material.€€In€this€case,€the€information€relied€upon€by€the€trial€court€in€making€itsÏfinal€ruling€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€was€never€disclosed€to€the€defense.€€TheÏnondisclosure€had€the€effect€of€denying€the€defense€an€opportunity€to€demonstrateÏthe€materiality€of€some€or€all€of€the€information€in€the€T.B.I.€report,€and€we€areÏhesitant€to€speculate€in€that€regard.׃3×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р`6-0 Їà ` àà ¸ àNotwithstanding€our€inability€to€resolve€the€òòBradyóó€question€on€theÐ `  Ðrecord€before€us,€we€find€another€issue€determinative€of€the€outcome.€€This€courtÏis€concerned€ñô9ñœñô9ñwithñä9ñ€ñä9ññå9ññä9ñrtñä9ññå9ññæ9ñtheñæ9ññô9ñ›ñô9ñ€combined€activity€of€the€trial€court€ñô9ñœñô9ññç9ñin€ñç9ñprocuringñô9ñ›ñô9ññô9ññô9ñ€the€T.B.I.Ïinvestigation,€receiving€it€òòex€parte,óó€and€declining€to€disclose€all€of€the€report€to€theÐ   Ðdefense.€€In€effect,€the€trial€court€inquired€into€facts„in„issue€outside€the€record,€andÏeven€though€the€court€relied€on€the€results€of€its€inquiries,€it€kept€its€discoveries€fromÏthe€defense.€€Such€a€situation€deprives€the€defendant€of€his€opportunity€to€be€heardÏin€that€he€cannot€respond€to€unknown€information.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àWe€recently€addressed€a€similar€situation€in€òòState€v.€Hartóó,€911€ñô9ñœñô9ñS.W.2dñô9ñ›ñô9ñÐ @à Ð371,€376€(Tenn.€ñô9ñœñô9ñCrimñô9ñ›ñô9ñ.€App.€1995).€€In€that€case,€the€petitioner€sought€a€writ€of€errorÏcoram€nobis.€€He€claimed€that€the€child€whom€he€had€been€convicted€of€sexuallyÏabusing€had€recanted€her€inculpatory€trial€testimony.€€òòHartóó,€911€S.W.2d€at€372.€€€AÐ à€ Ðhearing€was€conducted,€and€the€child€recanted€her€trial€testimony.€€òòHartóó,€911Ð À!` ÐS.W.2d€at€373.€€After€the€hearing,€however,€the€child€apparently€recanted€herÏrecantation;€in€other€words,€she€reasserted€the€veracity€of€her€trial€testimony.€€òòHartóó,Ð €%  Ð911€S.W.2d€at€374.€€The€child's€reaffirmation€of€her€trial€testimony€came€to€theÏcourt's€attention€outside€the€record.€€òòHartóó,€911€S.W.2d€at€375„76.€€Further,€the€trialÐ @)à" Ðcourt€also€learned€from€sources€outside€the€record€that€the€petitioner€had€performedÏunfavorably€on€a€polygraph€examination.€€òòHartóó,€911€S.W.2d€at€375„76.€€In€its€orderÐ - #& Ðdenying€the€petition€for€writ€of€error€coram€nobis,€the€trial€court€recited€as€findingsÏof€fact€both€the€victim's€recantation€of€her€recantation€and€the€unfavorable€polygraphÏperformance.€€òòHartóó,€911€S.W.2d€at€375„76.Ð  2@), Їà ` àà ¸ àIn€finding€reversible€error€in€òòHartóó,€we€observed,€"It€is€a€well„establishedÐ `  Ðprinciple€of€law€that€a€'judge€is€not€permitted€to€make€an€investigation€of€a€case,Ïeven€an€inadvertent€one,€off€the€record,€and€then€base€a€holding€on€the€informationÏobtained€.€.€.'"׃4×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòHartóó,€911€S.W.2d€at€376€(citations€omitted).€€Such€is€contrary€to€theÐ   Ð"correct€ideals€of€judicial€procedure,"€violative€of€the€Code€of€Judicial€Conduct€andÏthe€Rules€of€Evidence,€and€is€incompatible€with€appellate€review.€€òòHartóó,€911€S.W.2dÐ À`  Ðat€376€(citations€omitted).€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€trial€court€sought€information€outside€the€recordÏand€used€it€as€the€basis€for€its€final€ruling€denying€the€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€TheseÏactions€were€amplified€by€the€trial€court's€failure€to€disclose€the€information€to€theÏdefense,€thereby€denying€the€defense€of€the€opportunity€to€evaluate€the€informationÏand€respond€to€it.€€Furthermore,€the€trial€court€received€this€information€in€aÏprohibited€òòex€parte€óócommunication.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€8,€DR€7„110(B)Ð À!` Ð(prosecutors);€Tenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€10,€Canon€3(B)(7)€(judges).€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àGiven€the€multiplicity€of€these€errors,€we€are€compelled€to€find,€inÏaccord€with€òòHartóó,€that€reversible€error€has€occurred.€€If€this€were€the€only€improprietyÐ @)à" Ðin€the€record,€we€would€remand€the€matter€with€instructions€that€the€T.B.I.€report€beÏdisclosed€to€the€defense€and€a€new€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€be€heldÏfollowing€that€disclosure.€€At€such€hearing,€the€defense€would€have€the€opportunityÏto€present€its€case€for€òòBradyóó€violations€in€light€of€the€information€contained€in€theÐ À0`'* ÐT.B.I.€report.€€However,€in€light€of€our€discussion€in€section€VI€below,€there€is€otherÏerror€of€record€which€warrants€the€grant€of€a€new€trial.€€Accordingly,€the€defendantÐ €4 +. Ðwill€receive€appropriate€relief€by€the€prosecution€providing€the€T.B.I.€report€duringÏpre„trial€discovery€in€the€proceedings€which€will€take€place€on€remand.׃5×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р@ à ÐÌà@àà,àò òIIó óˆÐ   Ðà ` àà ¸ àThere€is€a€second€component€to€the€defendant's€òòBradyóó€claim€whichÐ à€ Ðwe€did€not€discuss€above€because€it€was€not€raised€until€after€the€trial€court€hadÏreversed€its€order€granting€a€new€trial.€€The€defendant€asks€us€to€find€prejudicialÏerror€in€the€state's€failure€to€disclose€information€that€Clement€Harris€and€SheilaÏBernil€were€involved€in€a€forgery€scheme€which€is€apparently€unrelated€to€the€oneÏinvolving€Bernil€and€Blade.€€The€record€contains€Bernil's€written€confession€and€anÏofficer's€report€implicating€both€Bernil€and€Harris.׃6p×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Again,€we€find€ourselves€unableÐ  À Ðto€resolve€this€issue€on€the€record€before€us.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAs€stated€above,€one€of€the€òòBradyóó€considerations€is€materiality.€€InÐ À!` ÐòòKyles€v.€Whitleyóó,€€514€U.S.€419,€436,€115€S.€Ct.€1555,€1567€(1995),€the€SupremeÐ  #@ ÐCourt€observed€that€the€materiality€of€the€suppressed€evidence€should€beÏconsidered€"collectively,€not€item„by„item."€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€ñô9ñœñô9ñEdginñô9ñ›ñô9ñóó,€902€S.W.2dÐ `'  Ð387,€389€(Tenn.€1995).€€In€this€case,€we€are€unable€to€assess€the€materiality€of€theÏimpeachment€evidence€against€these€two€key€prosecution€witnesses€collectively,Ïper€òòKylesóó,€because€we€have€no€way€of€assessing€the€materiality€of€the€undisclosedÐ - #& Ðevidence€discussed€in€section€I.€above.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThat€said,€our€inability€to€assess€this€materiality€of€this€undisclosedÐ  2@), Ðevidence€is€of€no€consequence€in€light€of€our€grant€of€a€new€trial€discussed€inÏsection€VI€below.€€However,€had€we€not€found€reversible€error€elsewhere€in€theÏrecord,€we€would€be€constrained€to€remand€this€matter€to€the€trial€court€forÏconsideration€of€the€materiality€of€this€evidence€collectively€with€the€otherÏundisclosed€evidence€discussed€above,€as€mandated€by€òòKylesóó.Ð à€ ÐÌà@ÄÄ,àò òIIIó óˆÐ  @  Ðà ` àà ¸ àWe€move€next€to€the€question€of€whether€the€trial€court€properlyÏdetermined€that€Nina€Champion€was€unavailable€and€allowed€her€testimony€fromÏthe€preliminary€hearing€to€be€admitted€as€evidence.€€The€defendant€claims€hisÏconstitutional€right€of€confrontation€was€impermissibly€curtailed€by€the€admission€ofÏChampion's€former€testimony.€€On€appellate€review,€the€trial€court's€determinationÏof€admissibility€will€not€be€reversed€unless€the€court€abused€its€discretion€inÏadmitting€or€excluding€the€challenged€evidence.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885Ð À!` ÐS.W.2d€797,€806€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€Tennessee,€admission€of€former€testimony€is€governed€byÏTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€804,€which€provides€a€hearsay€exception€for€theÏformer€testimony€of€a€declarant€who€is€unavailable€as€a€witness€if€the€testimony€wasÌÓÓà8 ` à.€.€.€given€as€a€witness€at€another€hearing€of€the€same€or€a€differentÏproceeding€or€in€a€deposition€taken€in€compliance€with€the€law€in€theÏcourse€of€the€same€or€another€proceeding,€if€the€party€against€whomÏthe€testimony€is€now€offered€had€both€an€opportunity€and€a€similarÏmotive€to€develop€the€testimony€by€direct,€cross,€or€redirectÏexamination.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌÓÓTenn.€R.€Evid.€804(b)(1).€€Before€such€testimony€will€be€admitted,€however,€theÏproponent€must€establish€that€the€witness€"is€absent€from€the€hearing€and€theÏproponent€of€[the]€statement€has€been€unable€to€procure€the€declarant's€attendanceÏby€process."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€804(a)(5).Ð 09Ð/3 Їà ` àà ¸ àFurther,€in€cases€such€as€the€one€at€bar€in€which€the€prosecutionÏseeks€to€offer€the€former€testimony€of€an€unavailable€witness,€we€have€said€that€theÏstate€must€establish€two€prerequisites€in€order€to€satisfy€the€defendant'sÏconstitutional€right€of€confrontation.€€First,€the€state€must€show€that€the€declarant€isÏtruly€unavailable€after€good€faith€efforts€to€obtain€her€presence,€and€second,€that€theÏevidence€carries€its€own€indicia€of€reliability.׃×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòState€v.€Arnoldóó,€719€S.W.2d€543,€548Ð À`  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986)€(stating€the€rule€of€òòOhio€v.€Robertsóó,€448€U.S.€56,€100€S.€Ct.Ð  @  Ð2531€(1980)).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€case€at€bar,€both€prongs€of€the€prerequisite€test€are€satisfied.׃ð ×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р@à ÐFirst,€with€respect€to€the€prosecution's€good€faith€effort€to€secure€Nina€Champion'sÏpresence,€Officer€Johnny€Blackburn€testified€that€he€went€to€the€home€of€Sam€EthelÐ   ÐWilliams,€who€is€Ms.€Champion's€mother,€two€or€three€times€over€the€course€of€aÏyear€and€questioned€her€about€her€daughter's€whereabouts.€€Officer€BlackburnÏreasonably€followed€up€on€the€leads€that€Ms.€Williams€provided;€however,€it€wouldÏbe€an€understatement€to€say€that€she€was€less€than€forthcoming€with€OfficerÏBlackburn.€€òòSeeóó€òòRobertsóó,€448€U.S.€at€75„76,€100€S.€Ct.€at€2544€(great€improbabilityÐ à€ Ðthat€further€efforts€would€yield€favorable€results€removes€them€from€realm€ofÏreasonableness€required€of€prosecution).€€Process€had€been€issued.€€According€toÏMs.€Williams,€someone€had€been€at€her€home€attempting€to€serve€a€subpoena€onÏChampion.€€Second,€"the€indicia€of€reliability€requirement€is€met€by€those€hearsayÏexceptions€resting€upon€such€solid€foundations€that€admission€of€virtually€anyÏevidence€within€them€comports€with€the€right€of€confrontation."€€òòState€v.€Causbyóó,Ð  À Ð706€S.W.2d€628,€631€(Tenn.€1986);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòRobertsóó,€448€U.S.€at€66,€100€S.€Ct.€atÐ   Ð2539.€€The€former€testimony€exception€rests€upon€such€a€foundation.€€òòCausbyóó,€706Ð à€ ÐS.W.2d€at€631.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€admission€of€Nina€Champion's€former€testimony€did€not€abridgeÏthe€defendant's€right€of€confrontation.Ìà ` àà ¸ àÌà@¹¹,àò òIVó óˆÐ  +À!$ Ðà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€challenges€the€trial€court's€denial€of€his€motion€to€haveÏthe€jury€view€the€crime€scene,€or€alternatively,€view€a€videotape€of€the€crime€scene.€Ï€Whether€to€allow€a€jury€view€of€the€crime€scene€and€whether€to€admit€a€videotapeÏinto€evidence€are€both€questions€for€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€and€theÏtrial€court's€decisions€in€that€regard€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal€absent€a€clearÏshowing€of€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Cauthernóó,€967€S.W.2d€726,€743€(Tenn.Ð `6-0 Ð1998)€(videotape);€òòBoyd€v.€Stateóó,€4€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€687,€707„08,€475€S.W.2d€213,Ð @8à.2 Ð222€(1971)€(jury€view).Ð  :À04 Їà ` àà ¸ àIn€his€motion€to€allow€the€jury€view,€the€defendant€argued,€"it's€aÏphysical€impossibility€when€it's€dark€at€night€to€see€[where€the€defendant€allegedlyÏshot€the€victim]€from€where€[Clement€Harris,€the€eyewitness]€says€he€was.€€It€justÏcan't€be€done."€€It€appears€the€defendant€requested€that€the€jury€make€a€nighttimeÏtrip€to€the€crime€scene.€€The€trial€court€overruled€the€motion,€finding,€"I€just€don'tÏthink€it's€proper€to€load€up€a€jury€and€take€them€off€down€there.€€It's€a€different€timeÏof€the€year.€€I€don't€know€what€has€changed€about€it€or€it'd€be€too€speculative."€ÏDuring€the€course€of€the€trial,€the€public€defender's€investigator€testified€about€hisÏown€observations€at€the€scene,€including€lighting€and€distances.€€The€investigatorÏwas€unable€to€identify€individuals€standing€outside€some€parked€cars€while€standingÏat€less€of€a€distance€than€Harris€had€testified€he€was€from€the€location€of€theÏmurder.€€The€investigator€sketched€a€diagram,€which€was€admitted€as€evidence.€ÏPhotographs€of€the€scene€were€admitted.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àWe€fail€to€see€that€the€trial€court€abused€his€discretion€in€overruling€theÏdefendant's€motion€for€a€jury€view.€€The€defendant€does€not€challenge€the€accuracyÏof€the€photographs€or€the€diagram€which€were€admitted,€and€the€defenseÏinvestigator's€testimony€was€directly€contrary€to€Harris'€claim€that€he€saw€theÏdefendant€commit€the€crime.׃×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Indeed,€it€is€a€rare€occasion€on€which€a€jury€view€willÐ  +À!$ Ðbe€allowed.€€òòState€v.€Bargeróó,€874€S.W.2d€653,€655€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€WeÐ - #& Ðbelieve€the€location€of€the€crime€was€adequately€described,€and€Harris'€claim€thatÏhe€saw€the€defendant€kill€the€victim€was€a€credibility€determination€for€the€jury'sÏresolution.€€òòCfóó.€òòState€v.€Deanna€Staffordóó,€No.€87„95„III€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,Ð  2@), ÐMay€19,€1988)€(defendant€not€denied€fair€trial€by€court's€denial€of€jury€view€whereÏcrime€scene€was€adequately€described€to€the€jury),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1988).Ð `6-0 Ðà ` àà ¸ àÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant's€alternative€claim€is€that€the€trial€court€should€haveÏadmitted€a€videotape€of€the€crime€scene.€€The€defense€investigator€who€made€theÏtape€was€questioned€outside€the€jury's€presence€about€the€tape.€€He€said€heÏrecorded€it€at€9:30€to€9:45€p.m.€on€the€Sunday€night€prior€to€trial.׃×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€He€admitted€thatÐ à€ Ðthe€amount€of€light€recorded€by€a€camera€is€less€than€the€total€amount€of€light€seenÏby€the€human€eye.€€He€could€not€say€how€much€light€reduction€occurred€with€theÏcamera€used€to€tape€the€scene.€€He€also€testified€about€the€weather€conditions€onÏthe€night€he€was€at€the€scene,€which€were€different€than€the€conditions€on€the€nightÏof€the€crime€as€established€through€other€witnesses.€€The€trial€court€viewed€theÏvideotape,€then€ruled€that€"the€tape€can€in€no€way€approximate€what€the€eye€couldÏsee"€and€that€it€would€not€be€fair€to€allow€the€jury€to€see€the€tape.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àHaving€considered€these€facts€and€viewed€the€proffered€videotape,€weÏconclude€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€excluding€the€tape€fromÏevidence.€€The€camera€used€recorded€less€light€than€would€be€seen€by€the€humanÏeye.€€The€tape€was€filmed€under€different€conditions€than€those€which€existed€whenÏthe€crime€occurred.€€The€poor€quality€of€the€videotape€is€such€that€it€is€apparent€itÏdepicts€a€low„light€situation€differently€than€as€seen€by€the€human€eye.ÌÌà@ÕÕ-àò òVó óˆÐ à.€%( Ðà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€also€alleged€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€questioning€ofÏdefense€counsel€in€the€presence€of€the€jury€about€the€reason€defense€counsel€keptÏasking€the€same€question€of€the€state's€witnesses.€€More€specifically,€the€state's€firstÏthree€witnesses€were€an€investigator€from€the€Haywood€County€Sheriff'sÐ `6-0 ÐDepartment,€an€investigator€from€the€Brownsville€Police€Department,€and€theÏeyewitness€Clement€Harris.€€The€first€question€asked€of€each€of€these€threeÏwitnesses€on€cross€examination€was€whether€he€was€going€to€testify€about€gunshotÏresidue.€€When€the€question€was€asked€the€third€time€(during€cross„examination€ofÏHarris),€the€following€dialogue€occurred:ÌÓÓà8 ` àTHE€COURT:à h àMr.€Crider€[defense€counsel],€why€do€you€keepÐ À`  Ðasking€that€question?€€I€assume€you've€got€some€reason€for€askingÏthat.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àMR.€CRIDER:à h àYes,€sir.€€I€just€want€to€know€when€I€find€theÐ €  Ðwitness€„„Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àTHE€COURT:à h àDo€you€really€think€this€witness€is€going€to€testifyÐ Pð Ðabout€gunshot€residue?Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àMR.€CRIDER:à h àI'm€going€to€question€him€about€the€firing€of€theÐ  À Ðgun€in€the€car.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àTHE€COURT:à h àAll€right.€€If€you€do,€go€ahead€and€ask€theÐ ð Ðquestion.€€If€you€don't,€don't€ask€it.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àMR.€CRIDER:à h àYes,€sir.ÐÀ!`` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌÓÓWhereupon,€defense€counsel€undertook€cross„examination€of€the€witness€on€theÏsubject€of€drug€use€on€the€night€of€the€murder.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€his€brief,€the€defendant€argues€that€this€line€of€questioning€was€partÏof€his€strategy€to€demonstrate€that€none€of€the€state's€witnesses€would€be€able€toÏprovide€testimony€about€gunshot€residue€on€the€defendant€or€his€vehicle.€€He€claimsÏthat€the€court's€comments€(1)€questioned€his€strategies,€if€not€his€abilities,€in€frontÏof€the€jury€and€constituted€a€comment€on€the€evidence€contrary€to€article€VI,€sectionÏ9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€and€(2)€abridged€his€right€of€confrontation€becauseÏit€forced€him€to€curtail€cross„examination€of€state's€witnesses.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àArticle€VI,€section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€declares€that€trialÏjudges€"shall€not€charge€juries€with€respect€to€matters€of€fact,€but€may€state€theÐ  :À04 Ðtestimony€and€declare€the€law."€€We€disagree,€however,€that€the€above„quotedÏdialogue€amounted€to€constitutionally€impermissible€judicial€commentary€on€theÏevidence.€€Rather,€the€trial€court's€questions€and€ruling€were€brief€and€to€the€point.€ÏThe€trial€courts€of€this€state€are€afforded€wide€discretion€in€controlling€the€conductÏof€counsel.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Leachóó,€684€S.W.2d€655,€659€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð à€ Ð1984).€€We€believe€the€trial€court€was€acting€within€that€discretion€by€inquiring€ofÏcounsel's€motives€in€continuing€to€ask€the€question€of€each€witness.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€also€claims€the€trial€court's€questions€and€statementsÏdeprived€him€of€his€right€of€confrontation.€€The€Sixth€Amendment€of€the€UnitedÏStates€Constitution,€applicable€to€the€states€through€the€Fourteenth€Amendment,Ïprovides€that€an€accused€has€the€right€to€be€confronted€with€the€witnesses€againstÏhim.€€U.S.€Const.€amends.€VI,€XIV;€òòPointer€v.€Texasóó,€380€U.S.€400,€403,€85€S.€Ct.Ð à€ Ð1065,€1068€(1965).€€The€right€of€confrontation€provides€two€protections€„„€the€rightÏto€face€physically€the€state's€witnesses€and€the€right€to€cross„examine€them.€€òòSee,Ð  #@ Ðe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€332€(Tenn.€1992)€(citing€òòPennsylvaniaÐ €%  Ðv.€Ritchieóó,€480€U.S.€39,€51,€107€S.€Ct.€989,€998€(1987)).€€We€do€not€see€how€theÐ `'  Ðtrial€court's€inquiries€limited€the€defendant's€cross„examination€of€the€witness.€€TheÏcourt€ruled€that€defense€counsel€could€ask€whether€the€witness€was€going€to€testifyÏabout€gunshot€residue€if€defense€counsel€was€going€to€pursue€that€line€ofÏquestioning,€although€if€defense€counsel€did€not€intend€to€ask€questions€of€theÏwitness€in€this€vein,€he€should€move€on.€€Defense€counsel€said€that€he€asked€theÏquestion€because€he€wanted€to€question€the€witness€"about€the€firing€of€the€gun€inÏthe€car."€€Thus,€the€court's€ruling€would€have€allowed€defense€counsel€to€pursue€thisÏline€of€questioning,€yet€defense€counsel€abandoned€it€and€asked€the€witness€aboutÏhis€drug€use.ÌÐ  :À04 Ðà ` àà ¸ àWe€fail€to€see€merit€in€this€issue.ÌÌà@¹¹,àò òVIó óˆÐ  À Ðà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€also€takes€issue€with€the€unusual€procedure€employedÏby€the€trial€court€in€placing€one€of€the€state's€witnesses€in€custody€to€review€herÏprevious€statements€after€the€witness€testified€she€could€not€remember€the€eventsÏthat€were€the€subject€of€her€previous€statements.€€The€witness€in€question,ÏKatherine€Blackwell,€testified€first€as€a€state's€witness.€€She€essentially€claimed€totalÏmemory€loss€of€pertinent€events€as€she€had€previously€described€in€statementsÏgiven€to€the€T.B.I.€and€a€defense€investigator.€€The€court€allowed€the€prosecutionÏto€treat€Blackwell€as€a€hostile€witness.€€€After€Blackwell€completed€her€testimony,Ïthe€court€had€the€jury€removed€from€the€courtroom,€then€òòsua€sponteóó€advisedÐ   ÐBlackwell,€ÌÓÓà8 ` àI'm€going€to€let€you€go€into€the€custody€of€the€Sheriff€and€see€if€yourÏmemory€gets€any€better.€€For€purposes€of€this€record,€I€don't€find€theÏfact€that€you€say€you€don't€remember€to€be€credible.€.€.€.€€And€so,€youÏgo€with€the€Sheriff,€and€when€you€feel€like€that€you€can€remember€andÏyou€can€come€back€in€here€and€testify€truthfully€before€this€jury,€youÏcan€let€me€know.€€Until€then€you€can€remain€in€the€custody€of€theÏSheriff.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌÓÓÌà ` àà ¸ àThereafter,€Special€Agent€Bryan€Byrd€testified€for€the€state.€€DuringÏthe€course€of€his€investigation,€he€took€two€signed€statements€from€Blackwell.€€HeÏread€both€of€these€statements€to€the€jury.€€In€them,€Blackwell€claimed€that€she€sawÏthe€defendant€and€the€victim€together€around€1:00€on€the€morning€of€the€murder€atÏthe€location€where€the€murder€later€took€place.€€Around€2:00€that€morning,€theÏdefendant€and€another€man€came€to€the€house€where€Blackwell€and€Sheila€BernilÏwere€living.€€The€defendant€was€angry.€€Several€hours€later,€Blackwell€went€to€buyÏcrack€cocaine€from€the€defendant.€€He€was€driving€a€car€like€one€she€had€previouslyÏseen€the€victim€driving.€€The€defendant€told€her€that€the€victim€was€dead.€€Ð  :À04 Їà ` àà ¸ àAfter€the€state€rested,€the€court€allowed€the€state€to€reopen€its€proof,Ïand€the€court€called€Blackwell€as€its€own€witness.€€The€court€explained€to€the€jury,€Ï"I'm€calling€her€as€my€own€witness.€€Neither€side€will€have€to€vouch€for€herÏcredibility,€but€I€asked€her€to€take€her€statements€and€go€back€and€„„€and€try€toÏremember€what€happened€and€see€if€her€memory€improved€any."€€He€thenÏaddressed€the€witness,€"Now,€what€I€want€you€to€do€is€I€want€you€to€tell€these€ladiesÏand€gentlemen€in€your€own€words€what€happened€that€night,€and€.€.€.€I€want€you€toÏtell€them€the€truth,€whatever€that€is€.€.€.€."€€Blackwell€then€proceeded€to€testify€inÏaccord€with€her€previous€statements.€€She€said€her€memory€had€improved€in€theÏhours€since€her€first€appearance€on€the€witness€stand€because€she€did€not€want€toÏgo€to€jail.€€Blackwell€also€testified€that€she€had€been€beaten€by€three€unknownÏassailants€shortly€after€she€talked€to€the€T.B.I.€€She€said€she€did€not€know€why€theÏbeating€occurred,€but€she€could€think€of€no€reason€other€than€her€involvement€in€thisÏcase.€€She€admitted,€however,€that€she€had€not€received€any€threats€relative€to€thisÏcase.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAt€the€conclusion€of€Blackwell's€testimony,€the€defense€made€a€motionÏto€strike€the€testimony€because€the€witness€was€coerced€by€her€fear€of€incarcerationÏto€testify€in€accord€with€her€previous€statements.€€The€trial€court€overruled€theÏmotion.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€Tennessee,€a€trial€court€has€the€discretion€to€call€its€own€witnesses,Ïbut€that€discretion€must€be€exercised€carefully€and€cautiously€so€that€it€does€notÏamount€to€a€comment€on€the€evidence.€€òòMontesi€v.€Stateóó,€220€Tenn.€354,€370,€417Ð €4 +. ÐS.W.2d€554,€561€(1967);€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Const.€art.€VI,€ðð€9.€€The€trial€court€shouldÐ `6-0 Ðexercise€its€discretion€only€where€doing€so€will€further€the€interests€of€justice.€ÏòòMontesióó,€220€Tenn.€at€370,€417€S.W.2d€at€561.€€The€proper€procedure€in€such€aÐ  :À04 Ðcase€is€for€the€trial€court€to€examine€the€witness,€then€allow€the€parties€to€cross„¼examine€her.€€òòMontesióó,€220€Tenn.€at€370,€417€S.W.2d€at€561.Ð @ à ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€Rules€of€Evidence€provide€methods€for€addressing€situations€inÏwhich€a€witness€is€uncooperative.€€As€was€done€in€this€case,€the€court€may,€uponÏrequest€of€the€party€who€called€the€witness,€declare€the€witness€hostile,€therebyÏgiving€the€examining€party€the€ability€to€employ€leading€questions.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï611(c).€€In€the€event€a€witness€claims€memory€loss,€the€witness's€prior€inconsistentÏstatements€are€admissible€for€impeachment€purposes€under€Tennessee€Rule€ofÏEvidence€613(b).€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Kendricksóó,€947€S.W.2d€875,€882€(Tenn.€1996)Ð @à Ð(witness's€prior€statement€about€relevant€events€admissible€as€prior€inconsistentÏstatement€where€witness€at€trial€claimed€to€have€no€memory€of€events).€€Further,€aÏmemorandum€or€other€record€about€matters€of€which€a€witness€once€had€knowledgeÏbut€is€unable€to€recollect€sufficiently€to€testify€fully€and€accurately€at€trial€may€beÏadmitted€if€it€meets€certain€qualifications.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(5).Ìà ` àà ¸ àÌà ` àà ¸ àFurther,€a€trial€court€may€admonish€a€witness€suspected€ofÏuntruthfulness€of€the€significance€of€lying€under€oath.€€òòState€v.€Schaferóó,€973€S.W.2dÐ @)à" Ð269,€278€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€However,€a€trial€court€may€not€declare€its€beliefÏthe€witness€is€being€untruthful€and€threaten€the€witness€with€prosecution€for€perjuryÏto€such€a€degree€that€the€witness€changes€his€testimony€to€the€detriment€of€theÏdefendant.€€òòSchaferóó,€973€S.W.2d€at€278.€€When€the€trial€court's€actions€exceed€theÐ À0`'* Ðbounds€of€an€appropriate€warning,€"the€defendant's€right€to€a€fair€trial€isÏcompromised€and€the€outcome€of€the€trial€brought€into€question."€€òòSchaferóó,€973Ð €4 +. ÐS.W.2d€at€278.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€courtððs€unusual€procedure€€influenced€theÐ  :À04 Ðwitness's€testimony€to€the€defendant's€detriment.€€The€trial€court€told€the€witness,Ï"Until€[you€can€testify€truthfully]€you€can€remain€in€the€custody€of€the€sheriff."€€Later,Ïduring€her€second€visit€to€the€witness€stand,€the€witness€testified€her€memory€hadÏimproved€in€the€last€few€hours€"[b]ecause€I€didn't€want€to€go€to€jail."€€Furthermore,Ïthe€witness's€testimony€once€she€abandoned€her€claim€of€memory€loss€wasÏprobative€of€the€defendant's€guilt.€Her€testimony€placed€the€defendant€with€theÏvictim€around€1:00€a.m.€on€the€night€of€the€murder.€€About€an€hour€later,€theÏdefendant€and€another€man€came€to€the€house€where€the€witness€was€living€andÏargued€with€the€witness's€roommate€about€whether€the€men€could€come€inside.€ÏThis€evidence€is€significant€because€it€is€contrary€to€the€defendant's€statement€toÏthe€police€the€he€was€not€in€Brownsville€on€the€night€of€the€murder.€€Blackwell€alsoÏtestified€that€she€saw€the€defendant€several€hours€later,€and€he€told€her€about€theÏvictim's€death.€€This€was€prior€to€the€discovery€of€the€victim's€body.€€€Further,€theÏwitness€testified€she€had€been€assaulted€after€talking€to€the€T.B.I.€and€offered€theÏpossibility€of€a€causal€connection€between€the€two€events.€€Clearly,€the€trial€court'sÏactions€influenced€testimony€which€was€damaging€to€the€defense.€€We€areÏconstrained€to€find€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€actions€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àMoreover,€we€believe€this€error€mandates€reversal.ñð9ñ׃f×ñð9ññð9ñ׃×ñð9ñÝ ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.Ð  +À!$ ÐApp.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(b);€òòSchaferóó,€973€S.W.2d€at€278.€€€First,€the€trialÐ - #& Ðcourt's€actions€resulted€in€serious€prejudice€to€the€defendant.€€When€BlackwellÐ à.€%( Ðreturned€to€the€witness€stand,€her€testimony€was€not€merely€duplicative€of€evidenceÏalready€before€the€jury€via€Special€Agent€Byrd.ñô9ñœñô9ññè9ññð9ññô9ñ׃×ñô9ññô9ñ׃×ñô9ññð9ññð9ñ׃×ñð9ññè9ññè9ñ׃.×ñè9ñÝ ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ñô9ñ›ñô9ñ€€Rather,€she€made€an€additionalÐ @ à Ðextremely€damaging€claim€that€she€had€been€assaulted€and€that€the€assault€mightÏbe€attributable€to€the€defendant.€€Moreover,€her€initial€reluctance€to€testify€which€wasÏovercome€only€by€the€prospect€of€incarceration€was€played€out€before€the€jury.€ÏUnquestionably€in€these€circumstances€the€testimony€upon€the€witnessððs€second€tripÏto€the€stand€suggest€that€she€had€been€previously€coerced€not€to€testify€against€theÏdefendant.€€Second,€the€entire€procedure€was€prejudicial€to€the€judicial€process.€ÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b)€(judgment€shall€be€set€aside€if€it€"would€result€in€prejudiceÏto€the€judicial€process");€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€52(b)€(plain€error€may€be€noticed€"whereÏnecessary€to€do€substantial€justice").ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAs€a€result,€we€must€reverse€the€defendant's€conviction€and€remandÏfor€a€new€trial.ÌÌà@,àò òVIIó óˆÐ À!` Ðà ` àà ¸ àFinally,€the€defendant€advocates€that€the€cumulative€effect€of€theÏalleged€errors€has€prejudiced€him€and€compromised€the€judicial€process.€BecauseÏwe€have€found€that€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€a€new€trial,€consideration€of€thisÏissue€is€not€necessary.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed€and€the€case€is€remandedÏfor€a€new€trial€consistent€with€this€opinion.Ìñô9ñœñô9ññâ9ñÌñâ9ññô9ñ›ñô9ñÐ  2@), ЇÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEÌñô9ñœñô9ññã9ñÌñã9ññó9ñÌñó9ññó9ñÌñó9ñCONCUR:ñô9ñ›ñô9ñÌÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌROBERT€W.€WEDEMEYER,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ