ÿWPCƒ* ºÇw½#¯í;8êv³ð®K·ì†À–²dÜz†Ðìð2‡,q7Eâî|ºï<3,n4TàqŸˆÒjÏ1&ºÇÚœ¢VhØVÏ!j~ uÕñèñè­ž¥x~ímœãLÐpBï ±rI^mžÜ —j8¤ª 7˜éçèø…öC?õú#\Ï4¤|6’ªp9§\þ.¬ÞQ2ddâæœkˆ…§1WâéÈØÛ­V‰¥Åü»<ÉQšåa§M¨©w¨Ë™ãWNØ’zí4Ç çVøh¨ËïØ\3ß@%s·Ë4àZ,sò©£<Üô7ÑÛà‰Jü£3£nî¡=fÝœ½²$ˆ-OÜŒt¦Ú× Ds]µï­&ô÷ˆ€g\=ñó+έ²†?>å•ù»s(š~×–þ~ú:)æe®Z·4Ï~C!‘rmËÝnP{‹Y |ÞZéU“›Ç­XÅà‚³sïåÝ é ËMË&û|M=Zu-¥ÛIi<"X²ù¥¤¾¹if[jX£©B±OÚ‹6G-#º[ª,|ì~ÁNeR4\"‡”™²ÈG PnÀž…‚ëÄPqâf"´ ÒÀííqÙ…9Ùøžéˆ«Žj·g‚¼ÌGâºäšfbU$N\ %ª 0ˆ°#É8 Œ Ú ^ g zs Òí ð¿ ¯ m±wÈÆÌÆ’ÆXÆ4äNø ú &E&(†7 b½ ^{}} ø       ( 0  8  B  LUNVg¤ 0D O <e ¡#b©#ä±#ë•$•$•$•$•$•$•$•$•$•$•$•$•$•$•$•$•$•$•$•$•$•$•$•$•$•$•$•$•$•$•$•$•$•$ 0ë€%€%€%€% Bk&k& 0¤ˆ& D3,' D-_' 0KŒ'Œ' AS×'Æ*( 0¤ð( 0D”) A«Ø)(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK3ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\CUSTOM~1\OPINION3.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\Custom WP Templates\opinion3.wptY¤j1Þ  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt æÝ ƒR`F$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæDò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_Ôð ðIn€an€appeal€as€of€right€to€theÔ_Ô.€.€.Ô_Ô€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€the€notice€of€appeal€required€by€Rule€3€shall€beÐ ° Ðfiled€with€and€received€by€the€clerk€of€the€trial€court€within€30€days€after€the€date€of€entry€of€the€judgment€appealedÐ tÄ Ðfrom.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€4(a).€€ ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5óbï.´¥¡H\Opinion Summary3|x Ô   ' AOCUSER0AOCUSER .   ?\Appellants Attorney Name & Appellant's Name.?\Appellees Attorney Name & Appellee's Name. qÝ ƒR`F$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæDò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔThese€motions€were€truly€ð ðboiler€plateðð€motions€in€that€they€Ô_Ôwere€two€of€seven€ð ðstandardðð€motions€in€theÐ ° Ðð ðMaster€Motionðð€the€Public€Defenderððs€OfficeÔ_Ô€routinely€filed€in€every€case€it€handled.€€In€an€effort€to€aid€the€TennesseeÐ tÄ ÐState€Governmentððs€goal€of€paper€reduction,€the€Circuit€Court€for€the€Fourth€Judicial€District€issued€an€order€datedÐ 8ˆ ÐDecember€18,€1993,€granting€the€Public€Defenderððs€Office€permission€to€file€one€ð ðmasterðð€set€of€motions€with€the€courtÐ üL Ðclerk€ð ðin€lieu€of€filing€separate€motions€with€each€case.ðð€€The€Public€Defenderððs€Office€filed€a€motion€in€December€ofÐ À Ð2002€to€request€the€ð ðstandard€motionsðð€be€filed€on€behalf€of€forty„two€indigent€defendants€it€was€representing€at€the€time,Ð „Ô Ðincluding€the€Defendant€in€this€case.€€€Nonetheless,€these€ð ðstandardðð€motions€did€clearly€request€exculpatory€informationÐ H ˜ Ðpertaining€to€the€Defendantððs€case,€citing€to€both€òòBradyóó€and€òòÔ_ÔGiglioÔ_Ôóó.€€€Moreover,€these€motions€specifically€requestedÐ  \ Ðevidence€that€could€be€used€to€impeach€a€Stateððs€witness,€and€information€pertaining€to€witnesses€that€had€been€awardedÐ Ð  Ðð ðimmunity,€leniencyðð€or€ð ðany€other€Ô_ÔawardÔ_Ô€or€promise€by€the€State€of€Tennessee.ðð€€23456789101112(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ]Ý ƒR`F$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæDò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔWhile€the€Defendant€listed€two€separate€issues€under€the€heading€ð ðIssues€Presented€for€Review,ðð€his€argumentÐ ° Ðcombined€the€two€and€focused€exclusively€on€the€òòBradyóó€issue.€€In€contrast,€the€Stateððs€response€brief€combined€bothÐ tÄ Ðissues€into€one,€but€argued€in€the€context€of€whether€or€not€the€trial€court€ð ðabused€its€discretion€in€denying€theÐ 8ˆ ÐDefendantððs€motion€for€a€new€trial.ðð€€€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ñ ° Ñ 2Ý ƒR`F$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæDò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔWe€do€note€that€in€the€unpublished€opinions€of€òòBilly€Joe€Ô_ÔBourffÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9705„CR„00189,€1998Ð ° ÐWL€381970,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.,€Knoxville,€July€9,€1998)€and€òòAlvin€Ô_ÔSeagrovesÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9711„CC„Ð tÄ  Ð00553,€1999€WL€233543,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.,€Nashville,€April€22,€1999)€this€Court€quoted€the€old€òòÔ_ÔAgursÔ_ÔóóÐ ° Ðð ðreasonable€doubt€that€did€not€otherwise€existðð€standard€of€materiality€for€a€general€òòBradyóó€request.€ - ù- ÚÝ ƒR`F$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæDò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔòòBrady€Ô_Ôv.Ô_Ô€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83€(1963). áÝ ƒR`F$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæDò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔòòUnited€States€v.€Ô_ÔGiglioÔ_Ôóó,€405€U.S.€150€(1972).(|G2`F$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F¤»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæDò»»Ô d(|3t$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F¤»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3t$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F¤»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F¤»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼F¤»»»ÔÑ8€ XXdì»»d8ÑÞ ÞÑ€+OYÑà@ttìàÔ‡î@]F¤ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@‡‡$ìàAT€Þd  Þ1€€ENTER€COURT€LOCATION€IN€ALL€CAPSŽÞe  ÞÔ#†¼F¤»îî@]'#ÔKNOXVILLEÞ ÞˆÐ Ö& ÐÌÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€July€27,€2004Ð ^ ÐÔ‡X X»¼F¤ÔÌò òÔ#†¼F¤»XX e#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€Ô% ‡ ÔÞd  Þ4€€ENTER€DEFENDANT'S€NAME€IN€ALL€CAPSŽÞe  ÞÔ%†ÁÔÔ_ÔTERRELLÔ_Ô€THOMASÔ‡X X»¼F¤Ôó óÐ  \ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òÞd  Þ5€€Type€of€AppealŽÞe  ÞÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%†¼Ô€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Ô% ‡ ÔÞd  Þ5€€Trial€Court€TypeŽÞe  ÞCriminal€Court€Ô%†òÔfor€Ô_ÔCockeÔ_ÔÔ% ‡ ÔÞd  Þ5€€Trial€Court€CountyŽÞe  ÞÔ%† qÔ€CountyÐ  \ Ðà@@øøìàNos.€Ô% ‡! ÔÞd  Þ6€€Trial€Court€NumberŽÞe  ÞÔ%†!íÔ8975,€8976€€€€€€Ô% ‡" ÔÞd  Þ7€€Trial€Judge's€NameŽÞe  ÞBen€W.€Hooper,€II,€Þd  Þ8€€Trial€Judge€OfficeŽÞe  ÞJudgeÔ%†"FÔÐ ø H ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<»` AßÐ ¼  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€Ô% ‡# ÔÞd  Þ9€€Appeal€NumberŽÞe  ÞÔ%†#hÔE2003„02658„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€November€10,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ·  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Ž` AßÐ ß  Ðó óÌÔ% ‡ ÔÓ  ÓÔ%†kÔÔ‡(X XXX ÔThis€is€a€direct€appeal€as€of€right€from€two€jury€verdict€drug€convictions€of€the€sale€of€less€than€0.5Ð ŠÚ Ðgrams€of€cocaine.€€Ô#†X XX(X •#ÔÔ‡(X XXX ÔÔ#†(¼F¤»X(X H#ÔÔ‡(X X»(¼F¤ÔThe€trial€court€sentenced€the€Defendant,€Ô_ÔTerrellÔ_Ô€Thomas,€to€concurrent€terms€ofÐ vÆ Ðsix€years€for€each€offense.€€Ô#†X XX(X f#ÔÔ#†¼F¤»XX ¨#ÔÔ‡X X»¼F¤ÔÔ‡(X XXX ÔOn€appeal,€the€Defendant€argues€two€issues:€(1)€the€State€failed€toÐ b² Ðprovide€exculpatory€information€to€the€defense€in€violation€of€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€65Ð Nž Ð(1963);€and,€(2)€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€granting€the€Defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial€based€onÐ :Š Ðnewly€discovered€evidence.€€Ô#†X XX(X Í #ÔÔ#†¼F¤»XX ® #ÔÔ‡X X»¼F¤ÔÔ‡(X XXX ÔWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ô#†X XX(X ¹ #ÔÔ#†¼F¤»XX š #ÔÔ‡X X»¼F¤ÔÐ &v ÐÓxÓÌò òÔ% ‡$ ÔÞd  Þ11€€Legal€Basis€for€AppealŽÞe  ÞÔ%†$ ÔTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Ô% ‡% ÔÞd  Þ12€€JudgmentŽÞe  ÞÔ%†% ÔCriminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ þN ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÞd  Þ13ŽÞe  ÞÔ#†¼F¤»àX H #ÔÔ‡X X.¼F¤ÔDavid€H.€Welles,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJerry€L.€SmithÔ% ‡& ÔÞd  ÞÐ œì Ð14€€Other€JudgesŽÞe  ÞÔ%†&1Ôóó€and€òòÔ% ‡' ÔÞd  Þ14€€Other€JudgesŽòòóóÞe  ÞÔ%†'•ÔJamesÐ Ö& ÐÔ_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð Â ÐÌÔ% ‡ ÔÞd  Þ15€€Enter€Appellant's€Lawyer(s)ŽÞe  ÞÔ%†qÔEdward€C.€Miller,€Public€Defender,€Ô_ÔDandridgeÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Ô_ÔTerrellÔ_Ô€Thomas.Ð šê ÐÌÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%†uÔÞd  Þ16€€Enter€Appellee's€Lawyer(s)ŽÞe  ÞPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michelle€Chapman€Ô_ÔMcIntireÔ_Ô,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ r  ÐGeneral;€Al€C.€Ô_ÔShmutzerÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€James€B.€Dunn,€Assistant€DistrictÐ ^!®  ÐAttorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð J"š! ÐÓu ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼F¤»XX ¼ #ÔòòóóÔ‡X X»¼F¤ÔÐ "$r# ÐÌÓ  ÓÓÓÔ% € ÔÔ#†¼F¤»XX ‘#ÔÔ€X X»¼F¤ÔÓ  ÓFACTSà @` àÐ ú%J!% ÐÓ3ÓÓÓà  àIn€February€of€2002,€Detective€Maurice€Ô_ÔShultsÔ_Ô€of€the€Newport€City€Police€Department€DrugÐ Ò'"#' ÐTask€Force€conducted€an€undercover€drug€operation€that€ultimately€led€to€the€Defendantððs€arrest€andÐ ¾($( Ðconvictions€for€the€sale€of€cocaine.€€For€several€years€Detective€Ô_ÔShultsÔ_Ô€had€been€using€wiredÐ ª)ú$) Ðinformants,€often€former€drug€users€familiar€with€the€drug€culture,€to€make€drug€purchases€inÐ –*æ%* ÐNewport€and€Ô_ÔCockeÔ_Ô€County.€€Ð ‚+Ò&+ Ðâ âÐ n,¾',ý± ÐÔ_Ôà  àOn€February€7,€2002,€Detective€Shultz€used€a€confidential€informant€named€Jerry€ThomasÐ ° Ðâ âto€purchase€drugs€at€a€downtown€Newport€establishment€known€as€Freddyððs€Lounge.€€Mr.€Thomas,Ð œì Ðequipped€with€a€wire€transmitter,€entered€Freddyððs€wherein€he€purchased€five€ð ðrocks,ðð€or€0.2€gramsÐ ˆØ Ðof€crack€cocaine€from€the€Defendant.€€Detective€Shultz€monitored€and€taped€the€audio€transmissionÐ tÄ Ðof€this€transaction.€€Mr.€Thomas€was€not€paid€for€his€services€as€an€informant.€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àOn€February€26,€2002,€Detective€Shults€coordinated€a€similar€drug€purchase€at€FreddyððsÐ 8 ˆ ÐLounge€using€a€different€informant,€Mr.€Patrick€Carr.€€Prior€to€the€transaction,€Detective€ShultsÐ $ t Ðsearched€Mr.€Carr,€gave€him€$100€purchase€money,€and€fitted€him€with€a€wire€transmitter.€€Mr.€CarrÐ  ` Ðentered€Freddyððs€and€purchased€three€rocks,€or€0.1€grams€of€crack€cocaine€from€the€Defendant.€Ð ü L  ÐDetective€Shults€monitored€and€taped€the€audio€transmission€of€this€transaction.€€After€theÐ è 8  Ðtransaction,€Mr.€Carr€met€Detective€Shultz€at€a€predetermined€location€and€returned€the€remainingÐ Ô$  Ðpurchase€money,€the€drugs,€and€the€transmitter.€Mr.€Carr€was€paid€$100€for€his€services€as€aÐ À  Ðconfidential€informant€that€evening.€€Ð ¬ü  Ðà  àÌà  àA€Cocke€County€Grand€Jury€indicted€the€Defendant€on€two€counts€of€selling€less€than€0.5Ð „Ô  Ðgrams€of€cocaine€and€two€counts€of€delivering€less€than€0.5€grams€of€cocaine.€€At€trial€the€StateððsÐ pÀ Ðprimary€witnesses€to€the€February€26th,€2002,€drug€sale€were€Detective€Shults€and€the€confidentialÐ \¬ Ðinformant,€Mr.€Carr.€€€The€tape€of€the€drug€transaction€was€played€for€the€jury€and€both€DetectiveÐ H˜ ÐShults€and€Mr.€Carr€identified€the€voices€as€those€of€the€Defendant€and€Mr.€Carr.€€€Detective€ShultsÐ 4„ Ðtestified€that€Mr.€Carr€was€a€reliable€informant€whom€he€had€utilized€on€multiple€occasions€forÐ  p Ðsimilar€operations.€€The€Detective€further€testified€that€Mr.€Carrððs€qualifications€to€be€a€confidentialÐ  \ Ðinformant€in€undercover€drug€operations€were€his€knowledge€of€the€streets,€the€ð ðlingo,ðð€and€theÐ øH Ðprices,€shapes€and€quantities€of€the€types€of€drugs€the€Task€Force€was€targeting.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€defense€established€at€trial€that€Detective€Shults€knew€Mr.€Carr€was€a€former€drug€userÐ ¼  Ðand€that€he€did€not€administer€a€drug€test€to€Mr.€Carr€the€evening€of€the€operation.€€Detective€ShultsÐ ¨ø Ðtestified€that€he€was€aware€Mr.€Carr€had€ð ðmisdemeanor€problems,ðð€specifically€a€recent€shopliftingÐ ”ä Ðcharge,€and€ð ðchild€supportðð€problems.€€At€trial,€Mr.€Carr€acknowledged€his€recent€conviction€forÐ €Ð Ðshoplifting,€that€he€had€used€cocaine€in€the€past,€and€that€he€was€supposed€to€be€paying€child€supportÐ l¼ Ðbut€was€approximately€six€months€behind.€€€The€Defendant€waived€his€right€to€testify€and€the€defenseÐ X ¨ Ðoffered€no€proof.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àFollowing€his€convictions,€the€Defendant€filed€a€motion€for€new€trial€and€an€amended€motionÐ #l! Ðfor€new€trial€based€on€newly€found€evidence€alleging,€òòinteróó€òòaliaóó,€a€òòóóviolation€pursuant€to€òòBrady€v.Ð $X" ÐMarylandóó,€373€U.S.€65€(1963),€because€the€State€failed€to€disclose€that€the€relationship€between€Mr.Ð ô$D # ÐCarr€and€the€Drug€Task€Force€was€ð ðdirectly€relatedðð€to€Mr.€Carrððs€child€support€arrearages.€€At€theÐ à%0!$ Ðfirst€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€the€Defendant€claimed€that€the€State€withheld€exculpatoryÐ Ì&"% Ðinformation,€specifically€that€Mr.€Carr€received€ð ðleniencyðð€for€his€cooperation€with€the€Drug€TaskÐ ¸'#& ÐForce.€€The€trial€judge€overruled€the€other€issues€alleged€in€the€Defendantððs€motion€but€left€the€òòBradyóóÐ ¤(ô#' Ðissue€open€for€the€production€of€further€evidence.€€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àAt€a€second€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial,€Mr.€Carr€testified€that€Detective€Shults€oftenÐ ° Ðâ âsent€payments€for€his€services€directly€to€the€court€administering€his€child€support€payments.€€He€alsoÐ œì Ðtestified€that€Detective€Shults€promised€to€keep€him€out€of€jail€if€he€continued€to€assist€in€undercoverÐ ˆØ Ðdrug€operations.€€Detective€Shults€testified€that€when€a€capias€was€issued€for€Mr.€Carrððs€failure€toÐ tÄ Ðpay€child€support,€he€asked€the€child€support€referee€to€temporarily€suspend€the€capias€until€the€DrugÐ `° ÐTask€Force€was€finished€using€Mr.€Carrððs€services.€€The€referee€agreed€to€this€proposal.€€At€theÐ L œ Ðconclusion€of€this€hearing€the€trial€judge€overruled€the€Defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial.€€TheÐ 8 ˆ ÐDefendant€filed€a€motion€to€reconsider,€alleging€the€trial€judge€applied€the€wrong€standard€whenÐ $ t Ðdenying€relief€based€on€a€òòBradyóó€violation.€€A€hearing€on€the€motion€to€reconsider€was€conducted€onÐ  ` ÐSeptember€30,€2003,€at€the€conclusion€of€which€the€trial€judge€again€denied€the€Defendant€reliefÐ ü L  Ðbased€on€òòBradyóó.€€This€appeal€followed.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌÓ  ÓANALYSISÐ À  ÐÓ&,Óò òI.€€Procedural€Issuesó óÐ ¬ü  Ðà  àAt€the€outset€we€note€that€the€Defendant,€through€counsel,€has€failed€to€properly€adhere€to€Ð ˜è  Ðthe€rules€of€appellate€procedure€on€more€than€one€occasion€in€this€appeal.€€First,€the€Defendant€filedÐ „Ô  Ðhis€Notice€of€Appeal€late.€€In€order€to€be€timely€filed,€a€Notice€of€Appeal€must€be€filed€within€30Ð pÀ Ðdays€of€the€entry€of€the€trial€court€judgment.€€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€4(a).׃ ×Ý ƒ*#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€However,Ð \¬ Ðð ð[n]otwithstanding€any€other€provision€of€law€or€rule€of€court€to€the€contrary,€in€all€criminal€casesÐ H˜ Ðthe€ððnotice€of€appealðð€document€is€not€jurisdictional€and€the€filing€of€such€document€may€be€waivedÐ 4„ Ðin€the€interests€of€justice.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€27„1„123;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€4.€€In€the€interestÐ  p Ðof€justice,€we€will€consider€Defendantððs€appeal.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àSecond,€this€Court€will€only€review€evidence€properly€included€in€the€appellate€record.€Ð ä4 ÐApparently,€defense€counsel€intended€to€file€fact„specific€òòBrady׃/Ü×Ý ƒ*#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×óó€and€òòGiglioóó׃0h×Ý ƒ*#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€motions€in€the€case€atÐ Ð  Ðhand€but€inadvertently€filed€them€in€a€different€case.€€The€Defendant,€through€counsel,€filed€a€motionÐ ¼  Ðwith€this€Court€to€supplement€the€record€on€appeal€to€include€these€late„filed€motions.€€This€Court,Ð ¨ø Ðin€an€order€dated€April€21,€2004,€denied€this€motion,€stating:€ð ð[T]he€motion€is€not€well€taken.€Ð ”ä ÐPleadings€filed€in€another€case€of€the€defendant€are€not€a€part€of€the€record€of€the€proceedings€belowÐ €Ð Ðin€the€cases€pending€on€appeal€and€may€not€be€added€to€the€record.€€òòSeeóó€Rule€24(a),€(g),€T.R.A.P.€Ð l¼ ЀAccordingly,€it€is€ORDERED€that€the€motion€to€supplement€the€record€is€DENIED.ðð€€€Despite€theÐ X ¨ Ðclarity€of€our€order,€the€Defendant€has€submitted€a€brief€which€makes€multiple€substantive€argumentsÐ D!” Ðbased€directly€on€the€two€motions€not€in€the€record€and€has€attached€to€his€appellate€brief€twoÐ 0"€  Ðmotions€which€are€purportedly€the€same€motions€he€intended€to€include€in€the€record€butÐ #l! Ðinadvertently€filed€in€the€wrong€case.€Ð $X" ÐÐ ô$D # Ðà  àDocuments€attached€to€appellate€briefs€but€not€included€in€the€record€on€appeal€cannot€beÐ ° Ðconsidered€as€part€of€the€record€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòJamie€Lee€Pittman€v.€Stateóó,€No.€E2001„00546„CCA„Ð œì ÐR3„PC,€2002€WL€407226,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€March€15,€2002)€(citing€òòState€v.Ð ˆØ ÐRobertsóó,€755€S.W.2d€833,€836€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988)€(ð ðWhen€an€accused€seeks€appellate€reviewÐ tÄ Ðof€an€issue€in€this€court,€it€is€the€duty€of€the€accused€to€prepare€a€record€which€conveys€a€fair,Ð `° Ðaccurate,€and€complete€account€of€what€transpired€with€respect€to€the€issues€which€form€the€basisÐ L œ Ðof€the€appeal.ðð));€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€28(a);€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€783€(Tenn.Ð 8 ˆ ÐCrim.€App.€1990)€(transcripts€attached€to€appellantððs€brief€were€not€considered€by€the€court€becauseÐ $ t Ðthey€were€not€made€part€of€the€record).€€€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àAdditionally,€evidence€recounted€in€the€text€of€the€appellantððs€brief€that€is€not€properlyÐ è 8  Ðincluded€in€the€record€on€appeal€also€will€not€be€considered€by€this€Court.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Seyleróó,€No.Ð Ô$  Ð01C01„9801„CR„00050,€1999€WL€357348,€at€*3€n.3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€June€4,€1999)Ð À  Ð(ð ðFacts€recited€in€a€partyððs€brief,€but€not€included€in€the€record€on€appeal,€are€not€evidence.ðð);€òòseeóóÐ ¬ü  Ðòòalsoóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b).€€€Accordingly,€the€fact„specific€òòBradyóó€and€òòGiglioóó€motions€appended€toÐ ˜è  Ðthe€Defendantððs€brief€as€well€as€those€portions€of€his€appellate€brief€argument€referring€to€theseÐ „Ô  Ðmotions€have€not€been€considered€by€this€Court€in€the€adjudication€of€this€appeal.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌò òII.€€Issues€on€Appealó óÐ H˜ Ðà  àIn€his€appellate€brief€the€Defendant€lists€two€separate€issues.׃)×Ý ƒ*#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€Defendant€alleges€that:Ð 4„ Ð(1)€he€was€ð ðprejudiced€by€the€Stateððs€failure€to€disclose€certain€exculpatory€informationðð;€and€(2)€thatÐ  p Ðthe€trial€court€erred€in€not€granting€a€new€trial€based€on€newly€discovered€evidence.€€We€recognizeÐ  \ Ðthat€the€exculpatory€òòBradyóó€information€the€Defendant€alleges€the€State€withheld€is€in€fact€the€sameÐ øH Ðinformation€the€Defendant€also€terms€ð ðnewly€discovered€evidenceðð€for€purposes€of€his€motion€forÐ ä4 Ða€new€trial.€€Nevertheless,€because€the€constitutional€claim€of€a€òòBradyóó€violation€is€indeed€a€separateÐ Ð  Ðand€distinct€issue€from€a€review€of€an€order€denying€a€new€trial€based€on€ð ðnewly€discoveredÐ ¼  Ðevidence,ðð€we€will€address€each€claim€separately.€€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌò òà  àA.€€òòBradyóó€Violationó óÐ €Ð Ðà  àThe€Defendant€claims€that€the€State€withheld€exculpatory€impeachment€information€fromÐ l¼ Ðthe€Defendant€that€was€not€discovered€until€after€the€trial€and€resulted€in€a€violation€of€theÐ X ¨ ÐDefendantððs€due€process€rights€pursuant€to€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83€(1963),€and€òòUnitedÐ D!” ÐStates€v.€Giglioóó,€405€U.S.€150€(1972).€€We€disagree.€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€declared€in€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€at€87,€that€theÐ $X" ÐState€has€the€constitutional€duty€to€furnish€an€accused€with€any€exculpatory€evidence€pertaining€toÐ ô$D # Ðeither€the€accusedððs€guilt€or€potential€punishment.€€It€further€held€that€the€Stateððs€failure€to€revealÐ à%0!$ Ðexculpatory€evidence€violates€the€accusedððs€right€to€due€process€where€the€evidence€is€found€to€beÐ Ì&"% Ðð ðmaterial€either€to€guilt€or€to€punishment,€irrespective€of€the€good€faith€or€bad€faith€of€theÐ ° Ðprosecution.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€also€ruled€that€the€prosecution€must€disclose€evidenceÐ tÄ Ðwhich€could€be€used€by€an€accused€to€impeach€a€witness.€€òòSeeóó€òòGiglio€v.€United€Statesóó,€405€U.S.€atÐ `° Ð150;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€38€S.W.3d€52,€56„57€(Tenn.€2001)€(evidence€favorable€to€theÐ L œ Ðaccused,€for€the€purposes€of€a€òòBradyóó€violation,€includes€evidence€deemed€exculpatory€in€nature€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðevidence€that€could€be€used€to€impeach€the€Stateððs€witnesses).€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àTennessee€has€adopted€a€four„prong€test€to€evaluate€an€alleged€òòBradyóó€violation.€€In€order€toÐ ü L  Ðestablish€a€due€process€violation€under€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€the€Defendant€must€establish€all€four€ofÐ è 8  Ðthe€following€criteria:€(1)€the€Defendant€made€a€proper€request€for€the€production€of€the€evidence,Ð Ô$  Ðunless€the€evidence€was€obviously€exculpatory€in€nature€and€helpful€to€the€accused,€in€which€caseÐ À  Ðthe€State€is€required€to€produce€the€information€whether€requested€or€not;€(2)€the€information€mustÐ ¬ü  Ðhave€been€favorable€to€the€Defendant;€(3)€the€State€must€have€suppressed€the€information;€and,€(4)Ð ˜è  Ðthe€information€must€have€been€material.€€òòState€v.€Edginóó,€902€S.W.2d€387,€389€(Tenn.€1995);€òòseeóóÐ „Ô  Ðòòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€932€S.W.2d€1,€26€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àWhen€the€accused€alleges€a€violation€of€a€constitutional€right,€such€as€a€due€process€òòBradyóóÐ H˜ Ðviolation,€the€accused€bears€the€burden€of€establishing€the€constitutional€deprivation€by€aÐ 4„ Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Spurlockóó,€874€S.W.2d€602,€610€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð  p Ð1993);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòEdginóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€389.€€€It€has€been€said€that€the€ð ðkeyðð€to€proving€a€constitutionalÐ  \ Ðviolation€under€òòBradyóó€is€to€show€that€the€omission€of€the€exculpatory€evidence€ð ðis€of€suchÐ øH Ðsignificance€as€to€deny€the€defendant€the€right€to€a€fair€trial.ðð€€òòEdginóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€389.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€claims€the€State€failed€to€reveal€the€agreement€between€Detective€Shults,€theÐ ¼  Ðchild€support€referee,€and€confidential€informant€Mr.€Carr€to€keep€Mr.€Carr€out€of€jail€in€exchangeÐ ¨ø Ðfor€his€working€with€the€Drug€Task€Force.€€€The€Defense€claims€the€jury€never€enjoyed€theÐ ”ä Ðopportunity€to€hear€about€the€Stateððs€ð ðagreement€with€a€judge€to€keep€this€guy€out€of€jail€because€heÐ €Ð Ðwouldnððt€pay€his€child€support,ðð€nor€did€they€hear€the€defenseððs€theory€that€ð ðthatððs€awful€strongÐ l¼ Ðmotivation€to€create€cases€against€Terrell€Thomas.ðð€€The€Defendant€asserts€this€evidence€could€andÐ X ¨ Ðshould€have€been€used€to€impeach€the€Stateððs€witness,€Mr.€Carr,€and€was€most€certainly€ð ðmaterialððÐ D!” Ðto€his€case.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àThe€State€admits€that€the€evidence€concerning€Mr.€Carrððs€agreement€with€the€Drug€TaskÐ $X" ÐForce€pertaining€to€his€child€support€problems€had€ð ðimpeachment€valueðð€but€maintains€that€the€StateÐ ô$D # Ðdid€disclose€the€fact€that€Mr.€Carr€failed€to€make€child€support€payments€prior€to€trial,€and€the€factÐ à%0!$ Ðthat€the€Drug€Task€Force€made€payments€directly€to€the€child€support€court€was€established€at€trial.€Ð Ì&"% ÐThe€State€further€argues€that€the€agreement€between€Detective€Shults€and€the€child€support€refereeÐ ¸'#& Ðto€keep€Mr.€Carr€out€of€jail€while€he€cooperated€with€the€police€was€immaterial,€and€therefore€notÐ ¤(ô#' Ða€òòBradyóó€violation.€€Ð )à$( Ðâ âà  àÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àThe€trial€court€found€no€òòBradyóó€violation€of€the€Defendantððs€due€process€rights€on€twoÐ ° Ðâ âseparate€occasions.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€second€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€the€judgeÐ œì Ðruled:€Ð ˆØ Ðà8  àà0` Ð Ð àà  àà ` àà ¸ à[I]n€this€particular€case€even€though€it€may€appear€that€full€andÐ tÄ Ðcomplete€disclosure€à h àof€certain€facts€may€not€have€been€made,€thereððsÐ `° Ðnothing€to€lead€the€Court€to€set€aside€these€à p àconvictions€because€the€proofÐ L œ Ðwas€just€abundant.€.€.€.€€The€Court€is€aware€of€the€fact€of€course€that,€youÐ 8 ˆ Ðknow,€[defense€counsel]€could€have€made€an€argument€at€the€time€about,€youÐ $ t Ðknow€à ¸ à[Mr.€Carr]€was€released€from€custody€by€a€referee€and€put€all€of€thisÐ  ` Ðin€front€of€a€jury€just€exactly€like€it€happened.€Ðü L ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àà0` Ð Ð àà  àà ` àà ¸ àBut€that€evidence€really€just€doesnððt€have€that€much€bearing.€€HisÐ è 8  Ðcredibility,€even€if€it€had€been€totally€destroyed,€wouldnððt€have€changed€theÐ Ô$  Ðoutcome€of€this€trial€in€the€Courtððs€opinion.€ÐÀ ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€subsequently€filed€a€motion€to€reconsider,€alleging€the€trial€court€used€theÐ ˜è  Ðwrong€standard€in€denying€òòBradyóó€relief.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing€on€the€motion€toÐ „Ô  Ðreconsider,€the€trial€judge€again€found€no€òòBradyóó€violation,€but€in€his€ruling€from€the€benchÐ pÀ Ðspecifically€addressed€the€four€òòBradyóó€prerequisites,€citing€to€òòState€v.€Edginóó.€€The€trial€judge€held€that:Ð \¬ Ð(1)€the€Defendant€had€adequately€requested€the€information;€(2)€the€court€was€unsure€whether€or€not€Ð H˜ Ðthe€State€ð ðsuppressedðð€the€information,€as€it€ð ðvery€easily€could€have€been€an€oversightðð;€and€(3)€theÐ 4„ Ðinformation€was€favorable€to€the€Defendant.€€However,€the€court€based€its€ruling€on€the€fourthÐ  p Ðelement€of€materiality,€declaring€that€both€òòEdginóó€and€the€Supreme€Court€case€of€òòUnited€States€v.Ð  \ ÐAgurs,óó€427€U.S.€97€(1976),€held€that€when€there€was€only€a€general€request€for€òòBradyóó€informationÐ øH Ðthe€undisclosed€information€was€ð ðmaterialðð€if€it€ð ðcreates€a€reasonable€doubt€that€did€not€otherwiseÐ ä4 Ðexist.ðð€€The€trial€judge€concluded€that€the€undisclosed€impeachment€evidence€concerning€the€StateððsÐ Ð  Ðarrangement€to€suspend€Mr.€Carrððs€capias€was€not€material,€thus€finding€no€òòBradyóó€violation.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àWe€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€that€the€Defendant€failed€to€prove€a€due€process€violationÐ ”ä Ðunder€òòBradyóó,€but€we€note€that€the€trial€court€applied€the€incorrect€standard€for€determiningÐ €Ð Ðmateriality.€€First,€we€find€that€the€Defendant€did€properly€request€the€impeachment€evidence€throughÐ l¼ Ðgeneral€ð ðboiler€plateðð€Motions€for€Discovery€and€Motion€to€Produce€Exculpatory€Material.׃×Ý ƒ*#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Ð X ¨ ÐSecond,€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€impeachment€evidence€in€question€is€favorable€to€theÐ D!” ÐDefendant,€noting€that€even€the€State€conceded€this€point.€€òòSeeóó€òòGiglioóó,€405€U.S.€at€154€(ð ðwhen€theÐ 0"€  ÐÑ+OYÑâ +âѰ°Ñâ +âÑ  Ñreliability€of€a€given€witness€may€be€determinative€of€guilt€or€innocence,€non„disclosure€of€evidenceÐ ° Ðeffecting€credibility€falls€within€[the€òòBradyóó]€ruleðð).€€€Third,€we€find€that€the€Defendant€has€provedÐ œì Ðby€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€State€suppressed€the€impeachment€evidence.€€While€theÐ ˆØ Ðtrial€judgeððs€speculation€that€the€Stateððs€failure€to€disclose€the€impeachment€evidence€may€have€beenÐ tÄ Ðnothing€more€than€an€ð ðoversight,ðð€we€note€that€the€State€bears€the€burden€of€disclosing€all€materialÐ `° Ðevidence€irrespective€of€the€ð ðgood€faithðð€intentions€of€the€prosecution.€€òòSeeóó€òòBradyóó,€737€U.S.€at€87.€Ð L œ ÐHowever,€it€is€the€fourth€requirement,€that€the€undisclosed€evidence€must€be€ð ðmaterial,ðð€which€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐDefendant€has€failed€to€establish€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àIn€òòBradyóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€ruled€that€ð ðsuppression€by€the€prosecution€ofÐ ü L  Ðevidence€favorable€to€the€accused€upon€request€violates€due€process€where€the€evidence€is€òòmaterialóóÐ è 8  Ðeither€to€guilt€or€to€punishment.€.€.€.ðð€òòBradyóó,€737€U.S.€at€87€(emphasis€added).€€However,€the€òòBradyóóÐ Ô$  ÐCourt€did€not€define€ð ðmateriality.ðð€€In€òòEdginóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court,€relying€on€the€UnitedÐ À  ÐStates€Supreme€Court€case€of€òòUnited€States€v.€Agursóó,€427€U.S.€97,€103„07€(1976),€noted€that€thereÐ ¬ü  Ðwere€three€different€situations€involving€òòBradyóó€information€and€each€had€its€own€different€standardÐ ˜è  Ðof€materiality.€€òòEdginóó,€902€S.W2d€at€389.€€The€three€situations€were:€(1)€undisclosed€use€of€perjuredÐ „Ô  Ðtestimony€by€the€prosecution;€(2)€undisclosed€information€following€a€specific€request€by€theÐ pÀ Ðdefense;€and€(3)€undisclosed€information€following€a€general€request€or€no€request€by€the€defense.€Ð \¬ ÐòòSeeóó€òòidóó.€€€The€court€declared€that,€pursuant€to€òòAgursóó,€when€only€a€general€request€was€made€for€òòBradyóóÐ H˜ Ðinformation,€the€ð ðundisclosed€information€is€ððmaterialðð€if€it€ððcreates€a€reasonable€doubt€that€did€notÐ 4„ Ðotherwise€exist.ðððð€òòIdóó.€(citing€òòAugursóó,€427€U.S.€at€112).€€The€òòEdginóó€court€observed€in€a€footnote€thatÐ  p Ðthis€standard€for€materiality€for€general€òòBradyóó€requests€was€ð ðeasier€for€the€defendant€to€meetðð€thanÐ  \ Ðthe€standard€for€the€other€situations€involving€òòBradyóó€information.€€òòIdóó.€at€389€n.9.€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àHowever,€in€òòEdginóó€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€granted€a€motion€for€rehearing€based€onÐ Ð  Ðnew€case€law€just€released€by€the€United€State€Supreme€Court,€òòKyles€v.€Whitleyóó,€514€U.S.€419Ð ¼  Ð(1995),€and€subsequently€issued€an€ð ðOpinion€on€Petition€for€Rehearing,ðð€in€which€it€amended€theÐ ¨ø Ðstandard€of€materiality€for€general€òòBradyóó€information€requests.€€The€court€then€declared:€ð ð[W]e€findÐ ”ä Ðthat€the€standard€of€ððmaterialityðð€used€in€òòEdginóó€is€incorrect€under€òòKylesóó.ðð€€òòEdginóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€390Ð €Ð Ð(opinion€on€rehearing).€€The€court€then€held:Ð l¼ ÐÌà8  à[R]egardless€of€whether€the€defendant€makes€a€general€request,€a€specific€request,€orÐ D!” Ðno€request€whatsoever€for€òòBradyóó€material,€the€standard€for€ð ðmaterialityðð€is€the€same:Ð 0"€  Ði.e.,€there€is€constitutional€error€ð ðif€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€had€theÐ #l! Ðevidence€been€disclosed€to€the€defense,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€beenÐ $X" Ðdifferent.ðð€Ðô$D #Ð Ð  ÐÌòòIdóó.€(citing€òòKylesóó,€514€U.S.€at€434).€€€We€believe€this€standard€for€materiality€to€be€the€current€ruleÐ Ì&"% Ðof€law€governing€òòBradyóó€violation€claims€in€Tennessee.׃,×Ý ƒ*#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р¸'#& Їà  àWhile€the€impeachment€evidence€the€Defendant€claims€to€be€a€òòBradyóó€violation€may€haveÐ ° Ðserved€to€further€weaken€the€credibility€of€one€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses,€it€is€cumulative€impeachmentÐ œì Ðevidence€and€relatively€insignificant€in€comparison€to€the€evidence€that€was€presented€to€the€jury€atÐ ˆØ Ðtrial.€€The€jury€did€hear€that€Mr.€Carr€was€a€former€drug€user,€that€he€had€recently€been€convicted€forÐ tÄ Ðshoplifting„„a€crime€of€dishonesty,€that€he€had€child€support€problems,€and€that€the€Drug€Task€ForceÐ `° Ðdid€have€a€working€relationship€with€him€whereby€he€was€paid€for€his€services.€€The€fact€that€theÐ L œ ÐTask€Force€also€temporarily€suspended€a€capias€for€Mr.€Carr€while€he€helped€them€pursue€drugÐ 8 ˆ Ðdealers€cannot€be€construed€to€be€so€significantly€damaging€to€Mr.€Carrððs€credibility€so€as€to€alterÐ $ t Ðthe€result€of€the€Defendantððs€conviction.€€Additionally,€the€drug€sale€was€audio€taped,€played€for€theÐ  ` Ðjury,€and€Detective€Shults€as€well€as€Mr.€Carr€both€identified€the€Defendantððs€voice€on€the€tape.€Ð ü L  ÐThus,€we€conclude€there€is€no€reasonable€probability€that€had€the€impeachment€evidence€beenÐ è 8  Ðdisclosed€to€the€Defendant€earlier€the€result€of€the€Defendantððs€proceeding€would€have€beenÐ Ô$  Ðdifferent.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.Ð À  ÐÌà  àò òB.€€New€Trial€Based€on€New€Evidenceó óÐ ˜è  Ðà  àThe€Defendant€claims€that€the€agreement€between€Detective€Shults,€the€child€support€refereeÐ „Ô  Ðand€Mr.€Carr€to€keep€Mr.€Carr€out€of€jail€in€exchange€for€his€cooperation€with€the€Drug€Task€Force„„Ð pÀ Ðof€which€the€Defendant€did€not€learn€until€after€his€trial„„amounted€to€newly€discovered€evidenceÐ \¬ Ðwhich€demanded€a€new€trial.€€Therefore,€the€Defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€hisÐ H˜ Ðmotion€for€new€trial€was€in€error.€€We€disagree.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àWe€begin€by€noting€that€the€decision€to€ð ðgrant€or€deny€a€new€trial€on€the€basis€of€ððnewlyÐ  \ Ðdiscoveredðð€evidence€rests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.ðð€€òòState€v.€Arnoldóó,€719Ð øH ÐS.W.2d€543,€550€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€€With€respect€to€the€Defendantððs€claim€that€the€courtÐ ä4 Ðbelow€erred€in€denying€a€motion€for€new€trial€based€on€newly€discovered€evidence,€our€standard€ofÐ Ð  Ðreview€is€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Meadeóó,€942€S.W.2d€561,€565€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àIn€seeking€a€new€trial€based€on€newly€discovered€evidence,€a€defendant€must€establish€threeÐ ”ä Ðelements:€(1)€that€he€or€she€used€ð ðreasonable€diligenceðð€in€attempting€to€discover€the€evidence;€(2)Ð €Ð Ðthe€evidence€is€material;€and€(3)€the€evidence€would€have€likely€changed€the€result€of€the€trial.€€òòSeeóóÐ l¼ ÐòòState€v.€Caldwellóó,€977€S.W.2d€110,€116€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)€(òòcitingóó€òòState€v.€Goswickóó,€656Ð X ¨ ÐS.W.2d€355,€358„60€(Tenn.€1983)).€€In€order€to€meet€ð ðreasonable€diligenceðð€a€defendant€mustÐ D!” Ðdemonstrate€that€neither€the€defendant€nor€defense€counsel€had€knowledge€of€the€alleged€newlyÐ 0"€  Ðdiscovered€evidence€prior€to€trial.€€òòCaldwellóó,€977€S.W.2d€at€117€(òòcitingóó€òòJones€v.€Stateóó,€452€S.W.2dÐ #l! Ð365,€367€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1970)).€€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€when€it€appears€that€the€newly€discovered€evidence€ð ðcan€have€no€other€effectÐ à%0!$ Ðother€than€to€ððdiscredit€the€testimony€of€a€witness€at€the€original€trial,€contradict€a€witnessððÐ Ì&"% Ðstatements€or€impeach€a€witness,ðððð€the€trial€court€generally€should€not€order€a€new€trial.€€òòCaldwellóó,Ð ¸'#& Ð977€S.W.2d€at€117€(òòquotingóó€òòState€v.€Rogersóó,€703€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985)).€€OnlyÐ ° Ðif€the€ð ðimpeaching€evidence€is€so€crucial€to€the€defendantððs€guilt€or€innocence€that€its€admission€willÐ œì Ðprobably€result€in€an€acquittalðð€should€a€new€trial€be€ordered.€€òòState€v.€Singletonóó,€853€S.W.2d€490,Ð ˆØ Ð496€(Tenn.€1993)€(òòcitingóó€òòRogersóó,€703€S.W.2d€at€169).€€€However,€when€a€verdict€is€already€one€ofÐ tÄ Ðð ðquestionable€validity,ðð€newly€discovered€evidence€of€relatively€minor€importance€may€be€sufficientÐ `° Ðto€create€a€probability€of€acquittal.€€òòSeeóó€òòidóó.€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àIn€the€case€before€us€the€trial€court€determined€that,€even€considering€the€fact€that€someÐ $ t Ðimpeachment€evidence€was€not€known€at€the€time€of€the€trial,€the€ð ðproof€was€just€abundant.ðð€€The€Ð  ` Ðcourt€further€declared€that€the€evidence€of€the€arrangement€between€Mr.€Carr,€Detective€Shults€andÐ ü L  Ðthe€child€support€referee€ð ðreally€just€[didnððt]€have€much€bearingðð€in€the€Defendantððs€case.€€The€trialÐ è 8  Ðcourt€concluded€that€even€if€the€evidence€had€been€discovered€by€the€Defendant€before€trial€and€usedÐ Ô$  Ðto€attack€the€credibility€of€Mr.€Carr,€it€ð ðwouldnððt€have€changed€the€outcome€of€this€trial€in€theÐ À  ÐCourtððs€opinion.ðð€€Because€we€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€on€the€part€of€the€trial€court,€this€issue€isÐ ¬ü  Ðwithout€merit.€Ð ˜è  ÐÌÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONÐ pÀ ÐÓšŒÓà  àFor€the€forgoing€reasons,€we€conclude€that€the€Defendant€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€heÐ \¬ Ðhas€suffered€a€òòBradyóó€violation.€€We€further€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretionÐ H˜ Ðin€denying€the€defendantððs€motion€for€a€new€trial€based€on€newly€discovered€evidence.€€Therefore,Ð 4„ Ðwe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Ð  p ÐÌ€Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ä4 Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE