ÿWPC ÉüßW,{䥮åy(eÚ+\n ‹+¡¹IqŸ˜ÚÙ³ÒBgŸß°?¸ó¢–Ùôr'ù®b&Ýœu‚ÍŸñ»zÙâx3¾ú)¬-æÀ¼:r-…/“˜Iÿ±ÔzÏ–•8Ž.Þ2éíÆ”1Z¯krY˜>&ÿt´…!,WÉÄJäGñzpbä!~_¹õ5×äfÉDš“pyž>4‰ØÜ¡d9¨H¥Á4F-™˜œíÐï½kË_aשhpÓ£¤Ù£sf²ïΨtËÓÄï.,V²Î*´ŒôUºýFÕCÛü;<{{} piÊbœ’% #¡ø)c¾Ÿq›ìžá-¥,žþµ¹ žñ`jGZÊøú¹…wû%‡”ÐUqbã‹—‰Ë„¦2šy³6:’K.?°èÊogÏ51˜JÊÒļÂ2h<WRêyA A=~ç1#™çôÓ,ø[`‚ÿû×®îrßx¡BÑnx*’¤w G)ÜÑ41…ôö-Ow‹Ñzvu²Ä©dˆ/éÉÒŠ¢“S#Ô€Ô‡XÙöXXXÙöÔwith€the€above€strictures€in€mind.€€Defendant€wasÐ Ì&"% Ðcharged€with€14€counts€of€rape€of€a€child,€and€the€indictment€alleged€that€Defendant€committed€oneÐ ¸'#& Ðact€of€child€rape€per€week€from€September€1995€until€January€of€1996,€except€no€offenses€wereÐ ¤(ô#' Ðalleged€to€have€occurred€during€one€week€in€October.€€With€the€exception€of€the€date€of€each€offenseÐ )à$( Ðthe€language€used€for€each€count€in€the€indictment€was€identical,€and€read€in€part€ð ðon€or€about€[date]Ð |*Ì%) Ðand€[date]€.€.€.€did€unlawfully,€intentionally,€knowingly,€and€feloniously€have€sexual€penetration€ofÐ h+¸&* Ð[SKJ].ðð€€Defendant€filed€a€ð ðmotion€for€discovery,ðð€Ô#†XÙöXXXÙö¬S#Ôand€requested,€inter€alia,€information€regardingÐ ° Ðð ðthe€exact€date,€time€and€place€of€the€alleged€offense.ðð€€The€Stateððs€response€was€brief,€stating€in€partÐ œì Ðthat€the€ð ðdates€of€the€offenses€are€contained€in€the€Presentment.€€The€State€cannot€be€more€specific.€Ð ˆØ ÐThese€offenses€occurred€at€the€victimððs€residence€at€1382€Waverly€Road,€Kingsport,€Tennessee€inÐ tÄ Ðthe€evening€hours€while€her€mother€was€at€work€at€the€Waffle€House€in€Kingsport.ðð€€Defendant€thenÐ `° Ðfiled€a€ð ðmotion€to€compel€adequate€response€to€motion€for€bill€of€particulars,ðð€and€the€StateÐ L œ Ðresponded€that€the€ð ðState€cannot€be€more€specific€as€to€the€dates€of€the€offenses€due€to€the€fact€that€Ð 8 ˆ Ðthe€allegations€were€made€by€a€child,ðð€and€the€ð ðState€would€specifically€state€that€the€penetration€wasÐ $ t Ðby€the€Defendant€orally€penetrating€the€victimððs€vagina€and€by€the€Defendant€penetrating€theÐ  ` Ðvictimððs€mouth€with€his€penis,€and€by€placing€his€penis€into€the€victimððs€vagina€and€the€DefendantÐ ü L  Ðplacing€his€fingers€and€hands€into€the€victimððs€vagina.ðð€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àAs€previously€discussed,€at€trial€SKJ€testified€that€Ô‡XÙöXXXÙöÔDefendant€placed€his€mouth€on€andÐ À  Ðmanually€touched€SKJððs€genitals,€required€SKJ€to€touch€his€penis€and€perform€fellatio,€touched€Ð ¬ü  ÐSKJððs€genitals€with€his€penis,€and€penetrated€SKJððs€vagina€with€his€penis.€€SKJ€testified€that€sheÐ ˜è  Ðcould€not€remember€the€exact€number€of€times€that€Defendant€abused€her,€but€that€it€was€ð ða€lot,ðð€andÐ „Ô  Ðthat€the€abuse€occurred€every€day€except€Friday,€Saturday,€and€Sunday.Ô#†XÙöXXXÙö\#Ô€€Detective€Anderson€alsoÐ pÀ Ðtestified€about€an€interview€with€SKJ,€during€which€SKJ€told€Anderson€essentially€the€same€detailsÐ \¬ Ðthat€SKJ€testified€to,€but€during€which€SKJ€also€said€that€Defendant€ð ðÔ‡XÙöXXXÙöÔnever€touched€my€private€withÐ H˜ Ðhis€private.Ô#†XÙöXXXÙö$_#Ôðð€€Following€the€conclusion€of€the€Stateððs€proof,€the€trial€court€required€the€state€to€electÐ 4„ Ðwhat€dates€the€offenses€occurred€on.€€The€State€picked€one€week€day€within€each€week„long€period:Ð  p Ð9/25/95;€10/2/95;€10/10/95;€10/24/95;€11/1/95;€11/8/95;€11/13/95;€11/21/95;€11/28/95;€12/6/95;Ð  \ Ð12/12/95;€12/20/95;€12/27/95;€1/1/96.Ð øH ÐÌà  àDefendant€argues€that€the€proof€at€trial€establishes€that€the€State€possessed€additionalÐ Ð  Ðinformation€regarding€the€alleged€crimes€that€should€have€been€disclosed€to€Defendant.€€Specifically,Ð ¼  ÐDefendant€contends€that€the€State€knew€that€the€victim€was€touched€sexually€by€Defendant€withÐ ¨ø Ðconsiderable€frequency,€with€the€total€number€of€assaults€per€week€vastly€exceeding€the€one€offenseÐ ”ä Ðper€week€alleged€in€the€indictment.€€Defendant€contends€that€the€victimððs€and€Detective€AndersonððsÐ €Ð Ðtestimony€shows€that€the€State€knew€the€exact€nature€of€the€sexual€touching.€€Defendant€also€pointsÐ l¼ Ðout€that€the€victimððs€testimony€established€that€the€victim€was€not€raped€by€Defendant€on€Friday,Ð X ¨ ÐSaturday,€and€Sunday€of€each€week.€€Defendant€argues€that€this€proof€shows€that€informationÐ D!” Ðregarding€the€specifics€of€the€alleged€crimes€was€within€the€prosecutionððs€possession€pre„trial,€andÐ 0"€  Ðthat€it€should€have€been€disclosed€to€Defendant€because€it€would€have€helped€Defendant€pinpointÐ #l! Ðthe€nature,€time€and€place€of€each€alleged€offense.€€As€a€result,€Defendant€argues€that€òòByrdóó€requiresÐ $X" Ðreversal.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àWe€do€not€agree€with€Defendantððs€contention.€€The€disclosure€requirement€set€forth€in€òòByrdóóÐ Ì&"% Ðis€not€independent€of€the€fundamental€purposes€served€by€a€bill€of€particulars.€€The€disclosureÐ ¸'#& Ðrequirement€is€designed€to€ensure€that€the€bill€of€particulars€will€enable€Defendant€to€prepare€aÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdefense,€avoid€prejudicial€surprise€at€trial,€and€preserve€a€Defendantððs€ability€to€raise€a€claim€ofÐ )à$( Ðdouble€jeopardy.€€òòByrdóó,€820€S.W.2d€at€741.€€Accordingly,€the€prosecution€must€disclose€informationÐ |*Ì%) Ðsufficient€to€protect€these€constitutional€rights.€€This€does€not€mean,€however,€that€the€prosecutionÐ h+¸&* Ðmust€disclose€all€of€the€information€in€its€possession€regarding€the€time,€place,€and€nature€of€theÐ ° Ðalleged€crimes.€The€bill€is€not€to€be€used€by€a€defendant€as€a€broad€discovery€device.€Ð œì ÐTenn.R.Crim.P.€7(c),€Advisory€Commððn€Comments.€€ð ðA€defendant€should€be€given€enoughÐ ˆØ Ðinformation€about€the€events€charged€so€that€he€may,€with€diligence,€adequately€prepare€for€trial€.Ð tÄ Ð.€.€.€€A€bill€of€particulars€is€not€intended€to€be€a€means€of€learning€the€Stateððs€evidence€and€theoriesÐ `° Ð.€.€.€.ðð€€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€539€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€òòByrdóó€requirements€are€simplyÐ L œ Ða€threshold€that€must€be€crossed.€€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àHere,€when€the€prosecutionððs€bill€of€particulars€and€additional€response€are€viewed€in€thisÐ  ` Ðlight€it€is€clear€that€Defendant€was€appraised€of€the€charges€in€such€a€manner€that€enabled€him€toÐ ü L  Ðprepare€a€Defense€and€avoid€unfair€surprise€at€trial.€€€Defendant€knew€where€the€offenses€wereÐ è 8  Ðalleged€to€have€occurred,€the€time€of€day,€the€span€of€time€in€which€they€allegedly€occurred,€and€theÐ Ô$  Ðnature€of€the€sexual€contact€alleged€by€the€victim.€€Defendant€has€simply€not€shown€that€his€pre„trialÐ À  Ðpreparation€or€method€of€defense€would€have€been€different€had€Defendant€been€appraised€of€exactÐ ¬ü  Ðdetails€of€the€alleged€offenses,€the€frequency€of€the€offenses,€and€the€fact€that€the€offenses€did€notÐ ˜è  Ðoccur€on€Friday,€Saturday,€and€Sunday.€€Phrased€differently,€Defendant€has€not€shown€that€heÐ „Ô  Ðsuffered€prejudice€because€the€of€the€lack€of€disclosure.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àTo€begin,€pre„trial€preparation€by€Defendant€would€have€uncovered€Martha€Lawsonððs€workÐ H˜ Ðschedule€at€Waffle€House,€and€thus€Defendant€would€have€known€that€the€offenses€were€not€allegedÐ 4„ Ðto€have€occurred€on€weekends€or€during€days€when€Lawson€did€not€work.€€Thus€Defendantððs€claimÐ  p Ðthat€he€was€prejudiced€because€he€did€not€know€that€the€alleged€offenses€did€not€occur€on€Friday,Ð  \ ÐSaturday,€or€Sunday€is€without€merit.€€Second,€Defendant€was€informed€of€all€the€types€of€offensesÐ øH Ðalleged€by€€the€victim:€the€ð ðState€would€specifically€state€that€the€penetration€was€by€the€DefendantÐ ä4 Ðorally€penetrating€the€victimððs€vagina€and€by€the€Defendant€penetrating€the€victimððs€mouth€with€hisÐ Ð  Ðpenis,€and€by€placing€his€penis€into€the€victimððs€vagina€and€the€Defendant€placing€his€fingers€andÐ ¼  Ðhands€into€the€victimððs€vagina.ðð€€Although€the€prosecution€knew€that€the€victim€would€testify€inÐ ¨ø Ðslightly€more€detail,€Defendant€knew€what€conduct€he€was€being€accused€of.€Finally,€althoughÐ ”ä ÐDefendant€claims€that€had€he€known€the€alleged€frequency€of€the€offenses€he€would€have€hadÐ €Ð Ðprepared€differently€for€trial,€we€cannot€see€how€this€argument€has€merit.€€Ð l¼ Ðà  àÌà  àDefendant€argues€that€had€he€known€of€the€increased€number€of€alleged€offenses€he€wouldÐ D!” Ðhave€had€greater€incentive€to€locate€and€interview€adult€relatives€and€friends€who€either€lived€in€theÐ 0"€  Ðhome€or€stayed€as€overnight€guests€in€order€to€watch€the€children.€€Defendantððs€brief€states€that€Ð #l! ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒThis€change€in€the€nature€of€the€accusation€had€an€effect€on€the€investigation€of€theÐ ô$D # Ðcase.€€As€the€offenses€were€alleged€to€have€occurred€in€his€own€home,€it€was€highlyÐ à%0!$ Ðunlikely€that€he€could€establish€an€alibi.€€However,€there€was€evidence€that€otherÐ Ì&"% Ðadults,€such€as€the€victimððs€aunt,€either€lived€or€stayed€overnight€at€the€appellantððsÐ ¸'#& Ðhome€during€the€period€included€in€the€presentment.€€Prior€to€trial,€the€defense€didÐ ¤(ô#' Ðnot€investigate€evidence€that€would€have€established€a€date€that€another€adult€wouldÐ )à$( Ðhave€been€in€the€household€overnight.€€During€the€trial,€witnesses€for€both€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðprosecution€and€the€defense€all€agreed€that€there€were€occasions€in€which€other€adultsÐ h+¸&* Ðwere€present€in€the€house€on€weekday€nights.€€However,€establishing€a€date€wouldÐ ° Ðbe€of€little€value€to€the€defense€as€the€prosecution€could€simply€claim€the€offenseÐ œì Ðoccurred€on€another€day€that€week.€€If,€however,€the€accusation€is€that€the€offenseÐ ˆØ Ðoccurred€four€to€five€times€a€week€excluding€weekends,€evidence€proving€theÐ tÄ Ðpresence€of€another€adult€in€the€house€on€a€date€certain€is€much€more€likely€to€beÐ `° Ðexculpatory.€€Had€the€defense€known€that€Keagan€Jennings€had€told€police€officersÐ L œ Ðthat€the€offenses€€happened€ð ðall€the€timeðð,€they€would€have€had€an€incentive€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðinvestigate€evidence€establishing€the€dates€of€visits€by€other€adults.Ð $ t ÐÒ°wÒÒ°‚wÒÌ€We€fail€to€see€how€an€allegation€of€five€offenses€per€week€in€the€indictment€would€have€increasedÐ ü L  ÐDefendantððs€incentive€to€locate€these€witnesses.€€Whether€Defendant€is€accused€of€one€offense€orÐ è 8  Ðfive€offenses€per€week,€the€crucial€ingredient€is€the€fact€that€the€indictment€is€not€date„specific.€€InÐ Ô$  Ðboth€instances€any€adult€who€stayed€or€lived€in€the€home€would€be€a€primary€source€of€informationÐ À  Ðfor€what€life€in€the€home€was€like€and€what€kind€of€interaction€Defendant€had€with€the€victim.€€IfÐ ¬ü  ÐDefendant€had€known€that€the€victim€was€alleging€multiple€offenses€per€week€his€incentive€wouldÐ ˜è  Ðhave€been€to€get€information€regarding€as€many€of€the€days€within€the€scope€of€the€indictment€as€wasÐ „Ô  Ðpossible.€€€However,€given€that€the€prosecution€did€not€allege€specific€dates€in€the€indictment,Ð pÀ ÐDefendantððs€incentive€regarding€the€allegation€of€one€offense€per€week€was€the€same.€€DefendantÐ \¬ Ðstill€needed€to€get€information€regarding€as€many€of€the€dates€within€the€indictment€becauseÐ H˜ ÐDefendant€would€need€evidence€to€rebut€any€date€the€prosecution€set€forth€as€the€exact€date€of€theÐ 4„ Ðoffense.Ð  p ÐÌà  àAssuming,€arguendo,€that€the€bill€of€particulars€is€insufficient€under€òòByrdóó,€we€note€that€theÐ øH Ðprosecution€had€no€additional€information€regarding€the€time,€place,€or€nature€of€the€offenses€thatÐ ä4 Ðit€could€have€disclosed€to€defendant.€€As€discussed€above,€Defendant€knew€everything€theÐ Ð  Ðprosecution€knewð!ðalbeit€in€lesser€detail.€€The€non„disclosed€evidence€here€contained€no€descriptiveÐ ¼  Ðreferences€that€would€have€furthered€Defendantððs€ability€to€prepare€a€defense.€€Accordingly,€underÐ ¨ø ÐòòByrdóó,€if€ð ðthe€state€is€truly€unable€to€give€even€an€approximate€time€of€the€alleged€offenses€by€meansÐ ”ä Ðof€descriptive€reference,€a€conviction€may€nevertheless€be€affirmed€if€in€the€course€of€the€trial€it€doesÐ €Ð Ðnot€appear€that€the€defendantððs€defense€has€been€hampered€by€the€lack€of€specificity.ðð€820€S.W.2dÐ l¼ Ðat€742.€€As€our€prior€discussion€evidences,€Defendant€has€not€shown€how€his€defense€was€prejudicedÐ X ¨ Ðby€the€billððs€lack€of€specificity.€€Defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.Ð D!” ÐÌÓ  Óò òB.€€òòBradyóó€violationó óÐ #l! ÐÓ.ˆÓÌà  àDefendant€alleges€that€the€prosecution€violated€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó€when€it€failed€to€turn€overÐ ô$D # Ðinterview€notes€from€a€March€4,€1996,€interview€of€the€victim€by€Detective€Darla€Anderson€of€theÐ à%0!$ ÐKingsport€Police€Department.€€Defendant€contends€that€the€interview€notes€are€potentiallyÐ Ì&"% Ðexculpatory,€and€thus€the€failure€of€the€prosecution€to€produce€the€notes€during€pre„trial€disclosureÐ ¸'#& Ðviolated€Defendantððs€due€process€rights.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àIn€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€ð ðsuppression€by€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðprosecution€of€evidence€favorable€to€an€accused€upon€request€violates€due€process€where€theÐ h+¸&* Ðevidence€is€material€either€to€guilt€or€punishment.ðð€€373€U.S.€83,€87€(1963).€€When€such€evidenceÐ ° Ðis€suppressed€a€€due€process€violation€occurs€irrespective€of€the€good€or€bad€faith€of€the€prosecution.€Ð œì ÐòòId.óó€€Evidence€that€is€favorable€to€the€accused€includes€that€which€may€be€used€to€impeach€theÐ ˆØ Ðprosecutionððs€witnesses.€€òòGiglio€v.€United€Statesóó,€405€U.S.€150,€154„55€(1972).€€A€defendant€mustÐ tÄ Ðprove€four€criteria€in€order€to€establish€a€due€process€violation€under€òòBradyóó:Ð `° ÐÌÓ0”À4œ È ˜X°œX0ÓÓ€ (Eh83ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÔ‡XÙöXXXÙöÔà0   àà Ì àà04 (# (#àà Ì àÝ‚3£•ŽÝÔ2EhÔÚ  Ú1Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà044(#4(#àÝ  ÝThe€defendant€must€have€requested€the€information€(unless€the€evidence€is€obviouslyÐ 8 ˆ Ðexculpatory,€in€which€case€the€state€is€bound€to€release€the€information€whetherÐ $ t Ðrequested€or€not);݃3£•ŽÝŒÐ `4(#4(# ÐŒÝ  Ýà0   àà Ì àà04 (# (#àà Ì àÐ 4(#4(# ÐÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà0   àà Ì àà04 (# (#àà Ì àÝ‚3£ëÝÔ2EhÔÚ  Ú2Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà044(#4(#àÝ  ÝThe€state€must€have€suppressed€the€information;Ô#†XÙöXXXÙöÂŽ#ÔÔ‡XÙöXXXÙöÔ݃3£ëP‘ÝŒÐè 8 4(#4(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà0   àà Ì àà04 (# (#àà Ì àÝ‚3£f’ÝÔ2EhÔÚ  Ú3Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà044(#4(#àÝ  ÝThe€information€must€have€been€favorable€to€the€accused;€andÔ#†XÙöXXXÙö’#ÔÔ‡XÙöXXXÙöÔ݃3£f’Ë’ÝŒÐÀ 4(#4(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà0   àà Ì àà04 (# (#àà Ì àÝ‚3£î“ÝÔ2EhÔÚ  Ú4Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà044(#4(#àÝ  ÝThe€information€must€have€been€material.Ô#†XÙöXXXÙö‹“#ÔÔ‡XÙöXXXÙöÔ݃3£î“S”݌Иè 4(#4(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÓ€ (5h88ÓØ! !ØÌÓ hÓÌÓ hÓòòState€v.€Edginóó,€902€S.W.2d€387,€390€(Tenn.),òò€òòóóamended€on€reh'góó€(Tenn.1995)€(citations€omitted).Ô#†XÙöXXXÙöÿ”#ÔÐ \¬ ЀÌÓB°,X° ‚,¸ —X”À4œ È ˜XBÓà   àà  àThe€Defendant€has€the€burden€of€proving€a€constitutional€violation€by€a€preponderance€of€theÐ 4„ Ðevidence.€€òòId.óó€at€389òòóó€(citing€òòState€v.€Spurlockóó,€€874€S.W.2d€602,€610€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€InÐ  p ÐòòKyles€v.€Whitleyóó€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€materiality€of€the€undisclosedÐ  \ Ðevidence€is€determined€by€asking€if€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€had€the€evidence€beenÐ øH Ðdisclosed€to€the€defense,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€514€U.S.€419,€434€Ð ä4 Ð(1995).€€The€Court€elaborated€by€stating€that€ð ðthe€question€is€not€whether€the€defendant€would€moreÐ Ð  Ðlikely€than€not€have€received€a€different€verdict€with€the€evidence,€but€whether€in€its€absence€heÐ ¼  Ðreceived€a€fair€trial,€understood€as€a€trial€resulting€in€a€verdict€worthy€of€confidence.ðð€€òòId.óó€€If€thereÐ ¨ø Ðis€a€delayed€disclosure€of€information,€in€contrast€to€a€complete€failure€to€disclose€exculpatoryÐ ”ä Ðinformation,€òòBradyóó€does€not€normally€apply€unless€the€delay€itself€causes€prejudice.€€òòState€v.Ð €Ð ÐDanielle€Jordanóó,€No.€01C01„9801„CR„00021,€2000€WL€85364,€at€*10,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.Ð l¼ ÐCrim.€App.,€Nashville,€Jan.€27,€2000)òòperm.€app.€pendingóó;€òòState€v.€Joan€Elizabeth€Hallóó,€No.€01C01„Ð X ¨ Ð9710„CC„00503,€1999€WL€34782,€at€*9,€Lincoln€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Jan.€28,Ð D!” Ð1999)€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1999)€(citations€omitted).€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà   àà  àDefendant€argues€that€òòBradyóó€applies€to€interview€notes€from€a€March€4,€1996,€interview€ofÐ $X" Ðthe€victim€by€Detective€Darla€Anderson€of€the€Kingsport€Police€Department.€€Defendant€contendsÐ ô$D # Ðthat€the€notes€are€exculpatory€because€they€do€not€support€the€prosecutionððs€allegation€that€theÐ à%0!$ ÐDefendant€forced€SKJ€to€perform€fellatio,€and€because€the€notes€contain€a€statement€by€SKJ€that€Ð Ì&"% ÐDefendant€ð ðÔ‡XÙöXXXÙöÔnever€touched€my€private€with€his€private.Ô#†XÙöXXXÙö¨Ÿ#Ôðð€€Defendant€points€out€that€exculpatoryÐ ¸'#& Ðinformation€was€specifically€requested€by€Defendant€in€a€ð ðMotion€for€Discoveryðð€filed€pre„trial,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðwhich€asked€forÐ )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) ÐÒ°ÒÒ°Òany€and€all€evidence€in€possession€of€the€state€or€in€the€possession€of€anyÐ ° Ðâ âgovernmental€agency€that€might€fairly€be€termed€ððfavorable,ðð€whether€that€evidenceÐ œì Ðeither€be€completely€exculpatory€in€nature€or€simply€tends€to€reduce€the€degree€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðoffense€or€punishment€therefore,€or€whether€that€evidence€might€be€termedÐ tÄ Ðð ðfavorable,ðð€in€the€sense€that€it€might€be€fairly€used€by€the€defendant€to€impeach€theÐ `° Ðcredibility€of€any€witness€the€government€intends€to€call€in€this€matter€.€.€.€.Ð L œ ÐÒ° ¡ÒÒ°¡ÒÌThe€prosecution€did€not€turn€Andersonððs€notes€over€pre„trial,€but€did€disclose€the€notes€to€DefendantÐ $ t Ðfollowing€the€victimððs€testimony€during€the€prosecutionððs€proof„in„chief.€€After€the€Stateððs€proofÐ  ` ÐDefendant€moved€to€dismiss€the€case€based€on€the€prosecutionððs€failure€to€disclose€the€notes,€but€theÐ ü L  Ðtrial€court€overruled€the€motion,€holding€that€Defendant€failed€to€prove€the€materiality€requirementÐ è 8  Ðset€forth€in€òòBradyóó.€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà   àà  àWe€first€examine€Defendantððs€contention€that€Andersonððs€notes€are€potentially€exculpatory.€Ð ¬ü  ÐAs€regards€the€statement€Defendant€ð ðÔ‡XÙöXXXÙöÔnever€touched€my€private€with€his€privateÔ#†XÙöXXXÙö¡¦#Ôðð€we€agree€withÐ ˜è  ÐDefendant.€€However,€we€do€not€agree€with€Defendantððs€assertion€that€the€notes€are€exculpatory€inÐ „Ô  Ðgeneral€because€they€do€not€support€the€allegations€that€Defendant€required€the€victim€to€performÐ pÀ Ðfellatio.€€The€notes€were€entered€into€evidence€and€published€to€the€jury,€and€the€last€paragraph€readsÐ \¬ Ðin€part€€ð ð[SKJ]€said€Tommy€would€put€his€private€in€her€mouth€until€white€stuff€would€come€out.ðð€Ð H˜ ÐÌà   àà  àAlthough€we€agree€that€the€statement€regarding€penile€penetration€is€potentially€exculpatory,Ð  p ÐDefendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€because€we€conclude€that€Defendant€has€failed€to€establish€theÐ  \ Ðmateriality€criterion€of€òòBradyóó€€€We€base€our€holding€on€different€grounds€than€the€trial€court.€Ð øH ÐBecause€the€interview€notes€were€disclosed€to€the€defense€during€trial,€Defendant€must€show€thatÐ ä4 Ðthe€òòdelayóó€in€disclosure€caused€prejudice€to€Defendant.€òò€Jordanóó,€2000€WL€85364,€at€*10;€òòHallóó,€1999Ð Ð  ÐWL€34782,€at€*9.€€Defendant€has€not€shown€any€such€prejudice.€€The€notes€were€disclosed€beforeÐ ¼  Ðthe€victim€was€excused€as€a€witness,€and€as€a€result€Defendant€was€able€to€cross„examine€the€victimÐ ¨ø Ðregarding€the€content€of€the€notes.€€Defendant€was€also€able€to€call€Detective€Anderson€to€the€standÐ ”ä Ðas€part€of€Defendantððs€proof€and€the€statement€that€Defendant€ð ðÔ‡XÙöXXXÙöÔnever€touched€my€private€with€hisÐ €Ð ÐprivateÔ#†XÙöXXXÙö=­#Ôðð€was€read€into€the€record.€€The€notes€themselves€were€made€an€exhibit€and€published€to€theÐ l¼ Ðjury.€€Finally,€Defendant€presented€a€very€strong€defense€regarding€penile€penetration,€includingÐ X ¨ Ðmedical€proof€that€contradicted€the€victimððs€assertion€that€Defendant€penetrated€her€with€his€penis.€Ð D!” ЀWe€do€not€think€that€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€had€the€evidence€been€disclosed€to€theÐ 0"€  Ðdefense€pre„trial,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€Defendant€received€a€fairÐ #l! Ðtrial,€and€thus€is€not€entitled€to€relief.Ð $X" Ðà   àÌÓ  Óò òIII.€€Conclusionó óÐ à%0!$ ÐÓa°ÓÌà   àà  àFor€the€above€reasons€we€AFFIRM€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà   àà  àà 4 àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð )à$( Ðà   àà  àà 4 àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGE