ÿWPC rQÑÌn9ã»ð@QJ÷ÎeyÓ»´ºÈÎ4ˆ1û —²Ï«l=Rúÿs>ç"\mgŒ±·žø¦’^§ŠÇùú…åQÄ,hèÜÍOWxµ5g=¢9œÁt€Ð­(2¤±ÙÉÂ.XvÇRãð.‘¾ÈƒêZîÍ ôMý2n?)¥œsÕHÔ·Ø™ÍÇ4 Ô"èÇJGÁ‹Øú™<.åûl";CSE³C¥…ëä¿á,œ2ÖÀ…µa¥ÑG1d¶Êj3öa.@®~šu ¼ƒèõ Ô‘(x>{½~,÷ \±òvÏß~¦\Þü¨y“¤‘ÐöR·«M_ó¶Ñ^ÊHµ ›—´,ùURÃê]v}…×$¡u’R.æ ¥)úc*»ðácëãƒ_;UX^G¸W–áj »Ü”O\êXz ¦„â~ÊÔÐ1-#ðb#Á\ % # 0ˆ+ UN³ ^  w z Ò‹ 4] q € m‚ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë ë N±±±E³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³bµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµ 0ë½½½½ B¨¨ 0¤Å D5i D-ž 0KËË ASÆi 0¤/ 0DÓ A«˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0» (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular™†-s  ˜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.wpt3j1,ê:i¢×+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G2Š»$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@½»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâõò»»Ô d(|3LJ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@½»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3LJ$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@½»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@½»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼@½»»»ÔÑ8€1XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îC@½ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼@½»îîC #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAugust€20,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X1X»¼@½ÔÌò òÔ#†¼@½»XX1#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€COLIN€REED€WELLSòòóóÔ‡X1X»¼@½Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€70048A€€€€€€Mary€Beth€Ô_ÔLeibowitzÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„02612„CCA„R3„CDÐ ¥õ  ÐDecember€6,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÌÔ#†¼@½»XX1#ÔÔ‡X1X»¼@½ÔThe€defendant,€Colin€Reed€Wells,€was€convicted€by€a€Knox€County€Criminal€Court€jury€ofÐ d´ ÐÔ_ÔcarjackingÔ_Ô€(Class€B€felony),€robbery€(Class€C€felony),€aggravated€assault€(Class€C€felony),€resistingÐ P  Ðarrest€(Class€B€misdemeanor),€violation€of€driverððs€license€law€(Class€B€misdemeanor),€evadingÐ <Œ Ðarrest€(Class€A€misdemeanor),€evading€arrest€(Class€D€felony),€and€assault€(Class€A€misdemeanor).€Ð (x ÐFollowing€his€convictions,€the€trial€court€merged€some€convictions€and€imposed€an€effectiveÐ d Ðsentence€of€32€years€as€a€multiple€offender€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€On€appeal,€he€claimsÐ P Ðhis€Ô_ÔcarjackingÔ_Ô€conviction€is€infirm€because€the€prosecution€failed€to€disclose€exculpatory€evidence.€Ð ì< ÐDiscerning€no€error,€we€affirm.Ô#†¼@½»XX1#ÔÔ‡X1X»¼@½ÔÐ Ø( ÐÓØÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ ° ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼@½»àX1Ü#ÔÔ‡X1X.¼@½ÔJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,óóÐ ˆØ Ðand€òòRobert€W.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€joined.Ð tÄ ÐÌRichard€Clark€and€Russell€Greene,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Colin€Reed€Wells.Ð L œ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Elizabeth€B.€Ô_ÔMarneyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð $"t! ÐRandall€E.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Marsha€Mitchell,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ #`" ÐGeneral,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ü#L# ÐÓ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼@½»XX1® #ÔÔ‡X1X»¼@½ÔÐ Ô%$!% ÐòòóóÔ#†¼@½»XX17 #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X1X»¼@½Ôà0  àÐ (#(# Ðà  àà ` àThe€defendantððs€convictions€resulted€from€his€actions€on€October€17,€1999.€€TheÐ ¬'ü"' Ðstateððs€evidence€showed€that€the€female€victim€of€the€Ô_ÔcarjackingÔ_Ô€and€robbery€was€sitting€in€herÐ ˜(è#( Ðautomobile€in€the€parking€lot€of€a€supermarket€on€Clinton€Highway€in€Knoxville.€€She€was€waitingÐ „)Ô$) Ðfor€her€male€companion€who€was€shopping€in€the€store,€and€she€sat€in€the€driverððs€seat€and€had€herÐ p*À%* Ðcar€engine€idling.€€The€defendant€opened€the€passenger„side€door,€entered€the€vehicle,€and€orderedÐ \+¬&+ Ðthe€victim€to€exit€the€car€and€to€leave€her€purse€on€the€seat.€€As€she€complied,€she€saw€a€female,€whoÐ H,˜', Ðwas€the€defendantððs€sister€and€co„defendant,€standing€beside€the€driverððs€door.€Ð 4-„(-ý  ÐÔ_Ô‡à  àà ` àThe€defendant€drove€away€in€the€victimððs€car,€and€at€some€point,€police€officersÐ ° Ðpursued€the€defendant.€€The€assaultive€and€evading€and€resisting€arrest€offenses€occurred€during€theÐ œì Ðchase€and€ultimate€apprehension€of€the€defendant.€€After€the€defendant€was€apprehended,€theÐ ˆØ Ðarresting€officers€handed€over€the€defendant€to€Knoxville€Police€Officer€J.D.€Brown,€who€transportedÐ tÄ Ðthe€defendant€back€to€the€supermarket€for€a€show„up€identification€by€the€victim.€€Afterward,€OfficerÐ `° ÐBrown€transported€the€defendant€as€well€as€the€co„defendant€to€jail.€€During€both€trips€when€theÐ L œ Ðdefendant€was€confined€in€the€rear€compartment€of€Officer€Brownððs€cruiser,€the€cruiserððs€videoÐ 8 ˆ Ðcamera€was€operating€and€recording€the€defendantððs€conversation€in€which€he€asserted€that€he€hadÐ $ t Ðbeen€involved€in€a€drug€transaction€with€the€victim€and€her€boyfriend.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€prosecutor€did€not€discover€the€existence€of€the€videotape€until€a€few€days€beforeÐ è 8  Ðtrial.€€The€defense€reviewed€the€tape€on€Friday€before€the€trial€began€on€the€following€Wednesday.€Ð Ô$  ÐThe€defendant€believed€that€the€recorded€conversation€supported€the€defendantððs€claim€at€trial€that,Ð À  Ðalthough€he€took€the€victimððs€car,€he€did€not€do€so€by€carjacking.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€state€moved€the€court€to€exclude€the€videotape€from€evidence.€€Initially,€becauseÐ „Ô  Ðthe€trial€court€determined€that€the€content€of€the€tape€was€hearsay€and€self„served€the€defendant,€itÐ pÀ Ðsustained€the€motion€to€exclude€the€tape€from€evidence.€€However,€during€the€defendantððs€case„in„Ð \¬ Ðchief,€the€trial€judge€relented€and€allowed€the€defendant€and€the€co„defendant€to€introduce€pertinentÐ H˜ Ðportions€of€the€videotape.€€Thus,€neither€the€exclusion€nor€the€somewhat€belated€disclosure€of€theÐ 4„ Ðtape€is€an€issue€on€appeal;€rather,€the€defendant€is€aggrieved€that€the€state€obstructed€him€in€his€bidÐ  p Ðto€locate€and€interview€Officer€Brown.€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àPrior€to€trial,€the€defendant€had€moved€to€discover€any€written€or€recorded€statementsÐ ä4 Ðof€the€defendant,€ð ða€list€of€the€names€and€current€addresses€of€all€witnesses€who€the€state€intends€toÐ Ð  Ðcall€to€testify,ðð€statements€of€witnesses€who€are€not€to€be€called€to€testify,€and€any€exculpatoryÐ ¼  Ðevidence,€including€ð ðthe€names€and€addresses€of€any€witness€whom€the€State€believes€would€giveÐ ¨ø Ðtestimony€favorable€to€the€defendant€.€€.€€.€regardless€whether€the€State€intends€to€call€the€witness.ððÐ ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€trial,€the€defendantððs€counsel€asserted€in€an€affidavit€filed€with€the€motion€forÐ l¼ Ðnew€trial€that€during€the€trial,€he€asked€the€prosecutor€where€he€could€find€Officer€Brown,€who€asÐ X ¨ Ðof€the€time€of€trial,€was€no€longer€employed€in€the€police€department.€€Counselððs€affidavit€furtherÐ D!” Ðasserts€that€the€prosecutor€replied€ð ðthat€she€did€not€know€where€[Brown]€was,€that€she€assumed€heÐ 0"€  Ðwas€still€at€the€police€department.ðð€€The€defendant€also€appended€to€his€new€trial€motion€theÐ #l! Ðaffidavits€of€€Knox€County€Sheriffððs€Department€officers€who,€during€the€defendantððs€trial,€discussedÐ $X" ÐBrownððs€whereabouts€with€the€prosecutor.€€She€told€them€that€she€had€been€unable€to€locate€Brown.€Ð ô$D # ÐThe€defendant€also€presented€the€affidavit€of€Brown€himself,€who€averred€that€on€the€eve€of€theÐ à%0!$ Ðdefendantððs€trial,€the€prosecutor€called€him€at€the€Jefferson€City€Walmart,€where€he€was€employedÐ Ì&"% Ðas€an€assistant€manager.€€Brown€further€averred€that€he€told€the€prosecutor€that€his€entire€encounterÐ ¸'#& Ðwith€the€defendant€on€October€17,€1999€was€recorded€on€the€videotape€and€that€ð ðit€had€been€someÐ ¤(ô#' Ðtime€since€the€events€took€place€and€that€she€should€rely€on€the€videotape.ðð€€Brown€averred€that€heÐ )à$( Ðhad€declined€to€answer€the€prosecutorððs€questions€in€the€absence€of€an€opportunity€to€review€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðtape.€Ð h+¸&* Їà  àà ` àIn€his€motion€for€new€trial,€the€defendant€claimed€that€Brown€would€haveÐ ° Ðcorroborated€the€defendantððs€trial€testimony€that€the€defendantððs€possession€of€the€victimððs€car€wasÐ œì Ðthe€result€of€a€ð ðdrug€deal€gone€badðð€and€not€a€carjacking.€The€trial€court€overruled€the€motion€forÐ ˆØ Ðnew€trial,€finding€that€the€state€was€not€required€to€supply€addresses€of€witnesses€and€that,€in€anyÐ tÄ Ðevent,€former€officer€Brown€said€in€his€affidavit€that€he€ð ðtold€her€to€rely€on€the€videotape.ðð€€The€trialÐ `° Ðcourt€found€that€the€ð ðtape€came€[in]€so€Iððm€not€sure€thereððs€been€any€major€prejudice€to€[theÐ L œ Ðdefendant].ðð€€The€trial€judge€commented,€ð ðIððm€not€sure€that€what€we€have€here€was€exculpatoryÐ 8 ˆ Ðevidence,€and€even€if€it€was,€it€came€in€anyway€[through€the€videotape€and€through€the€defendantððsÐ $ t Ðtestimony].ðð€€Furthermore,€the€trial€court€relied€upon€the€defendantððs€failure€to€move€for€aÐ  ` Ðcontinuance€when€counsel€was€unable€to€locate€Officer€Brown.€€The€court€correctly€recalled€that,Ð ü L  Ðafter€the€defendant€had€reviewed€the€videotape€and€after€the€courtððs€initial€ruling€on€the€stateððsÐ è 8  Ðmotion€òòin€limineóó,€the€defendant€announced€that€he€was€ready€to€proceed€to€trial.€€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€appeal,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€prosecutor€violated€her€obligations€set€forthÐ ¬ü  Ðin€òòBrady€v€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83,€83€S.€Ct.€1194€(1963),€by€failing€to€disclose€to€the€defense€theÐ ˜è  Ðaddress€or€whereabouts€of€J.D.€Brown.€€The€defendant€argues€in€his€brief€that€Brown€could€haveÐ „Ô  Ðcorroborated€that€the€defendant€asserted€facts€during€the€defendantððs€conversation€in€Brownððs€policeÐ pÀ Ðcruiser€that€would€have€contradicted€the€theory€of€carjacking.€€The€defendant€also€claims€that€BrownÐ \¬ Ðcould€have€affirmed€that€the€defendant€was€the€only€one€who€would€have€known€ð ðcertain€factsðð€andÐ H˜ Ðthat€ð ð[t]here€was€not€enough€time€for€the€Defendant€to€fabricate€and/or€know€certain€facts€had€theyÐ 4„ Ðnot€occurred€as€defense€counselððs€theory€supposed.ðð€€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€òòBradyóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€prosecution€has€the€duty€toÐ øH Ðfurnish€exculpatory€evidence€to€the€accused€upon€request.€€ð ðAny€suppression€by€the€prosecution€ofÐ ä4 Ðevidence€favorable€to€an€accused€upon€request€violates€due€process€where€the€evidence€is€materialÐ Ð  Ðeither€to€guilt€or€to€punishment,€irrespective€of€the€good€faith€or€bad€faith€of€the€prosecution.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ ¼  Ðat€87,€83€S.€Ct.€at€1196„97.€€The€duty€to€disclose€extends€to€all€ð ðfavorable€informationðð€regardless€Ð ¨ø Ðwhether€the€evidence€is€admissible€at€trial.€€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€845€S.W.2d€228,€232„33€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ”ä ÐApp.€1992).€€Both€exculpatory€and€impeachment€evidence€fall€under€the€òòBradyóó€rule.€€òòUnited€StatesÐ €Ð Ðv.€Bagleyóó,€473€U.S.€667,€676,€105€S.€Ct.€3375,€3380€(1985).Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àà ` àBefore€an€accused€is€entitled€to€relief€via€òòBradyóó,€he€must€establish€severalÐ D!” Ðprerequisites:€(a)€the€prosecution€must€have€suppressed€the€evidence;€(b)€the€evidence€suppressedÐ 0"€  Ðmust€have€been€favorable€to€the€accused;€and€(c)€the€evidence€must€have€been€material.€€òòSee€id.€óóatÐ #l! Ð674„75,€105€S.€Ct.€at€3379„80;€òòBradyóó,€373€U.S.€at€87,€83€S.€Ct.€at€1196„97;€òòMarshallóó,€845€S.W.2dÐ $X" Ðat€232.€€Evidence€is€material€under€the€òòBrady€óórule€only€if€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that€hadÐ ô$D # Ðthe€evidence€been€disclosed€to€the€defense,€the€results€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€Ð à%0!$ ÐòòKyles€v.€Whitleyóó,€514€U.S.€419,€433,€115€S.€Ct.€1555,€1556€(1995).€€In€òòState€v.€Spurlockóó,€874€S.W.2dÐ Ì&"% Ð602€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€this€court€recognized€a€fourth€prerequisite€to€relief,€that€ð ðthe€accusedÐ ¸'#& Ðmust€make€a€proper€request€for€the€production€of€the€evidence,€unless€the€evidence,€when€viewedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðby€the€prosecution,€is€obviously€exculpatory€in€nature€and€will€be€helpful€to€the€accused.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€609.€Ð )à$( Ðâ âThe€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€proving€a€òòBrady€óóviolation€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐòòId.óó€at€610;€òòState€v.€Joan€Elizabeth€Hallóó,€No.€01C01„9710„CC„00503,€slip€op.€at€19€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ° ÐApp.,€Nashville,€Jan.€28,€1999).Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àApplying€these€principles,€we€hold€that,€although€the€defendant€requestedÐ tÄ ÐJ.D.Brownððs€address€or€whereabouts,€the€defendant€has€failed€to€establish€by€a€preponderance€of€theÐ `° Ðevidence€that€due€process€principles,€via€òòBradyóó,€compelled€disclosure€of€Brownððs€address€orÐ L œ Ðwhereabouts.€€The€trial€judge€did€not€believe€that€the€prosecutor€suppressed€this€information,€butÐ 8 ˆ Ðeven€if€she€had€determined€that€the€state€suppressed€the€information,€the€record€is€devoid€of€anyÐ $ t Ðshowing€that€the€information€was€material.€€Indeed,€Mr.€Brownððs€affidavit,€advanced€by€theÐ  ` Ðdefendant,€reveals€that€the€affiant€recalled€nothing€about€the€October€17,€1999€encounter€with€theÐ ü L  Ðdefendant€other€than€what€was€revealed€on€the€videotape.€€Although€the€tape€contains€self„servingÐ è 8  Ðstatements€of€the€defendant,€there€has€been€no€showing€that€Mr.€Brown€could€have€impartedÐ Ô$  Ðadditional€information€that€would€have€been€favorable€to€the€defendant€or€that€probably€could€haveÐ À  Ðproduced€a€different€result.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€overruling€the€òòBradyóó€claim€presentedÐ ¬ü  Ðin€the€defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial.€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àHaving€addressed€the€issue€raised€on€appeal,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð pÀ Ðà0  àÐ (#(# Ðà  àà ` àÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð øH Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGE