WPC;- ua/߯hӊ*ۘw6ia 9UtOU7ç>3R4z/ZK|>HutI=B=CݛR= 缦ַ@*Djp - #TcdKk7AT@2'T 8kVt1tJj{G̚hj-UxB(yՉ`p#nZ&-ti{T4Wi U*oM{Ppڹv"k%X4/0X>5O`䮠.yrto'y^,T}ШmKQ&#h$4˜B,RUr LT~Βx3Xd#!x %P 0\U5FK w 4   0 0 D` U1F -  B- B 0J 0x 0x AM IU4QJ"QYB C AM B 0K D300ck 0D1 D+uue=NB 0xD^  m<u#####$$$$$$$$$%Cc*U:+++++++++++++++++++++++++++ AQ+1,1, 0D,HP LaserJet 8000 DN PS0 Xc:\office\wpwin\template\memo\memo1.wpt(4C $X    <09Z .Courier New Regular{Z='03|x(P(3$ C !X      `   0  (#$  0  <4 9Z .Courier New Regular ##Xd#  $X   `   4    _Foramorecompletedescriptionofthistest,seeStatev.   Murphy,953S.W.2d200(Tenn.1997).)Hairline dF>> 4_HeadingsHeadingsXzXXXXXzXzXXXXXz(P2$ C !X     (P2$ C !X     $%&A<< C0]AArial Bold @  $X   `   7    TheAlaskaSupremeCourtadoptedasimilarapproachwhich   requiresthecourttofirstdeterminewhetherthestatehasadutyto preserveandmakeavailabletoacriminaldefendantmaterialevidencewhichmayproveimportantinthepreparationoftheaccusedsdefense.Thornev.DepartmentofPub.Safety,774P.2d  X at1330.Ifthedutytopreservewasbreached,thecourtmustthenascertaintheconsequencesthatflowfromthisbreach,whichisdeterminedbythedegreeofculpabilityonthepartofthestate,theimportanceoftheevidencelost,theprejudicesufferedbytheaccused,andtheevidenceofguiltadducedatthetrialorhearing.Id.at1331. Youngblood G  $X   `   5    Murraycouldnotrememberconductinganysobrietytestsother   thanthoseinthefield,althoughheadmittedthatitwasnormaldepartmentalproceduretoconductadditionaltestsatthepolicestation. O  $X   `   1    UnderArizonav.Youngblood,unlessacriminaldefendantcan   showbadfaithonthepartofthepolice,failuretopreservepotentiallyusefulevidencedoesnotconstituteadenialofdueprocessoflaw.dd !A<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 d( $ Figure  1  'dxdLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  'dxd [  $X   `   10    Thisfactorpresumesnegligenceinthelossordestruction   oftheevidence.Shouldtheproofshowbadfaith,thetrialjudgemayconsidersuchactionasmaybenecessarytoprotectthedefendantsfairtrialrights. 3  $X   `   6    _Fergusonsmedicalexpertdescribedscotomaasbeingatype   ofvisualdisturbancefollowedbydizziness,hesitantspeech,nausea,andathrobbingheadache.(P3$ C !X     ݇f4'L U   $X   `   8    _Tenn.Const.art.I,8,provides [_t]hat_Ԁnomanshallbe   takenorimprisoned,or_disseized_Ԁofhisfreehold,libertiesorprivileges,oroutlawed,orexiled,orinanymannerdestroyedordeprivedofhislife,libertyorproperty,butbythejudgmentofhispeersorthelawoftheland.   $X   `   9    See,e.g.,Bradyv.Maryland,373U.S.at87,83S.Ct.at   1196,10L.Ed.2dat,218(1963);UnitedStatesv._Agurs_,427U.S. b  at11011,96S.Ct.at2401,49L.Ed.2dat35354(1976). 2  $X   `   11    _Suchaninstructionmaycontainthefollowinglanguage:   8 `  TheStatehasadutytogather,preserve,andproduceattrialevidencewhichmaypossessexculpatoryvalue.Suchevidencemustbeofanaturethatthedefendantwouldbeunabletoobtaincomparableevidencethroughreasonablyavailablemeans.TheStatehasnodutytogatherorindefinitelypreserveevidenceconsideredbyaqualifiedpersontohavenoexculpatoryvalue,sothatanasyetunknowndefendantmaylaterexaminetheevidence. ` (#` (# 8 `  ` (#` (# 8 `  If,afterconsideringalloftheproof,youfindthattheStatefailedtogatherorpreserveevidence,thecontentsorqualitiesofwhichareinissueandtheproductionofwhichwouldmoreprobablythannotbeofbenefittothedefendant,youmayinferthattheabsentevidencewouldbefavorabletothedefendant. ` (#` (# SeeStatev.Willis,393P.2d274,276;SeealsoCaliforniav. D _Trombetta_,467U.S.479,489,104S.Ct.2528,2534,81L.Ed.2d  413,422(1984).   $X   `   12    _Thetrialjudgefoundthatthetape eithercouldhavehelped   [Ferguson]orpossiblycouldhavehelpedtheState.  $X   `   2    Destroyedincludeslostevidenceaswellasevidencewhich   wasnotpreserved.   $X   `   3    Fundamentalfairnessisaconceptwhich,bynecessity,   defiesexactdefinition.Asageneralrule,however,atriallacksfundamentalfairnesswherethereareerrorswhichcallintoquestionthereliabilityoftheoutcome.SeeLoftonv.State,898   S.W.2d246,248(Tenn.Crim.App.1994);seealsoWatkinsv.State,  X 216Tenn.545,55253,393S.W.2d141,144(1965)( AfundamentalprincipleofAngloAmericanlawisthatapersonaccusedofacrimeisentitledtoafairandimpartialtrialbyhispeers.);Bettsv. f Brady,316U.S.455,462,62S.Ct.1252,1256,86L.Ed.1595, < 1602(1942)( Asserteddenial[sofdueprocessare]tobetestedbyanappraisalofthetotalityoffactsinagivencase.Thatwhichmay,inonesetting,constituteadenialoffundamentalfairness,shockingtotheuniversalsenseofjustice,may,inother    circumstances,andinthelightofotherconsiderations,fallshortofsuchdenial.). 9 "   _EXOXX XE?YXEXO   Ad FILEDEXOXE?Y  September20,1999Cecil_Crowson_,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdA ,cAZ"Arial Regularac!C<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  C !X     _ X5XX X 85XXdd8$XX XX$ X5XXX5  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'Tx`D!B2.jzS`  `@E ` 8ttxP ( S x_@DINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@tt)DATKNOXVILLESTATEOFTENNESSEE,)FORPUBLICATIOǸ   h     )    Appellee, h     )FILED:September20,1999 \      h     )v.    h     )WASHINGTONCOUNTY       h     )MARVINK.FERGUSON, h     )HON.LYNNW.BROWN,JUDGE @      h     )̀ Appellant.  )NO.03S019803CR00029#X5XX X5# X5XXX5 `      h     ForAppellant:   h      p ForAppellee: : DENNISL.TOMLIN h      p JOHNKNOXWALKUP r Hendersonville,TN   p AttorneyGeneralandReporter H      h      p MICHAELE.MOORE    h      p SolicitorGeneral    h      p MICHAELW.CATALANO    h      p AssistantAttorneyGeneral    h      p Nashville,TN    h      p JOEC.CRUMLEY,JR.    h      p DistrictAttorneyGeneral    h      p JohnsonCity,TN    h      p   @,DOPINIONAFFIRMED    h      p      x  BIRCH,J.#X5XX X5z#KXX5  6N,5 8#X5XK5 # Thequestionpresentedforourdeterminationis:What   arethefactorswhichshouldguidethedeterminationoftheconsequencesthatflowfromtheStateslossordestructionofevidencewhichtheaccusedcontendswouldbeexculpatory?TheStateurgesthatweadoptthebadfaithanalysisannouncedinArizonav.Youngblood,488U.S.51,109S.Ct.333,102L.Ed.2d \  281(1988).  #  1      ׀Tworeasonspromptustorejectthisanalysis:(1)   wefind,underthecircumstances,thatthedueprocessprinciplesoftheTennesseeConstitutionarebroaderthanthoseenunciatedintheUnitedStatesConstitution;and(2)fundamentalfairness,asanelementofdueprocess,requiresthattheStatesfailuretopreserveevidencethatcouldbefavorabletothedefendantbeevaluatedinthecontextoftheentirerecord. Accordingly,wepromulgatetodayananalysisinwhichthecriticalinquiryis:Whetheratrial,conductedwithoutthedestroyed:  #  2      ׀evidence,wouldbefundamentallyfair?C\  #  3      ׀Usingthis L%     8DXXdXXd8    analysis,wefindthattheappellantstrialwasafundamentally   faironedespitethelossofthevideotapedevidence.Accordingly,andforthereasonshereinstated,thejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsisaffirmed.@/DI AtornearfouroclockonthemorningofNovember18,1992,OfficerEdwinA.MurrayoftheJohnsonCityPoliceDepartmentobservedavanparkedonanI181rampwithitsenginerunning.MurrayapproachedthevehicleandobservedMarvinK.Ferguson,theappellant, slumpedoverthesteeringwheel.UponopeningthedoorandawakeningFerguson,MurraysmelledastrongodorofalcoholandnoticedthatFergusonsspeechwasslurred.Murrayadministeredtwofieldsobrietytests:namely,heeltotoeandhorizontalgazenystagmus.<  #  4      ׀Concludingfromthesetestsandfrom # hisotherobservationsthatFergusonwasundertheinfluenceofanintoxicant,Murrayarrestedhimandtransportedhimtothepolicestationwhereadditionalfieldsobrietytestswereapparentlyconducted.  #  5      ׀Theseadditionaltestswererecordedonavideotape P*& whichwasinadvertently tapedoverbeforeanyonecouldviewit. -#*  Attrial,Fergusonstheorywasthatheoccasionallysufferedfromvascularormigrainetypeheadachesthatincludedscotoma,*  #  6      ׀whichaffectedhisvisionandcoordination.Hetestified  X thathehadsufferedjustsuchaheadachepriortohisarrest.Tosupporthistheory,Fergusonpresentedexpertmedicaltestimonydescribingthisconditionandexplainingthatduringa spellFergusonsconductcouldbeperceivedbyalaypersonastheresultofalcoholintoxication.@.DII TheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitutionprovidesforeverydefendanttherighttoafairtrial.Tofacilitatethisright,adefendanthasaconstitutionallyprotectedprivilegetorequestandobtainfromtheprosecutionevidencethatiseithermaterialtoguiltorrelevanttopunishment.Bradyv.Maryland,373U.S.83,87,83S.Ct.1194, X%  1196,10L.Ed.2d215,218(1963).Evenintheabsenceofaspecificrequest,theprosecutionhasaconstitutionaldutytoturnoverexculpatoryevidencethatwouldraiseareasonabledoubtaboutadefendantsguilt.UnitedStatesv.Agurs,427U.S.97,11011, ,|!( 96S.Ct.2392,2401,49L.Ed.2d342,35354(1976).  -(#*  TheanalysisofbothBradyandAgursconcernsthe  1&. prosecutionssuppressionof plainlyexculpatoryevidence.Thisstrikesasharpcontrasttothecaseunderreviewwhereinthe d4)2 existenceofthedestroyedvideotapewasknowntothedefensebutwhereitstruenature(exculpatory,inculpatory,orneutral)canneverbedetermined. ThequestionthatweaddresstodayiswhatconsequencesflowfromtheStateslossordestructionofevidenceallegedtohavebeenexculpatory.Fergusonallegesthathisdueprocessrightswereviolatedbythedestructionofthevideotapeofthefieldsobrietytestsadministeredatthepolicestation.Ontheotherhand,theStatescontentionisthatbecausetheevidentiarynatureofthevideotapecanneverbeknown,theappropriateanalysisshouldinquireintotheStatesbadfaith(orlackofit)inthedestructionoftheevidence.SeeArizonav.Youngblood,488  U.S.at5758,109S.Ct.at337,102L.Ed.2dat289. Youngbloodistheleadingfederalcaseregardingtheloss # ordestructionofevidence.InYoungblood,thepolicesfailureto L%  refrigerateasodomyvictimssemenstainedclothingprecludedtesting,theresultofwhichmighthaveexoneratedtheaccused.The XDXXXDUnitedStatesSupreme#XDXX XD##kJXXDԀ#XDXkJo##Courtheldthat unlessacriminal P*& defendantcanshowbadfaithonthepartofthepolice,failuretopreservepotentiallyusefulevidencedoesnotconstituteadenialofdueprocessoflaw.Id.at58,109S.Ct.at337,102L.Ed. /%, 2dat289.ThustheCourtconcludedthattheStatehadnoconstitutionalduty XDXXXDtopreservetheclothingeventhoughtesting 2h(0 mayhavebeenusefultotheaccused.#XDXX XD%# 4*2   L6+4  Severalstateshaveembracedthebadfaithanalysisof Youngbloodandfoundthatasimilarshowingofbadfaithis 8  requiredundertheirrespectiveconstitutions.See,e.g., XDXXXDCollins  X v.Commonwealth,951S.W.2d569(Ky.1997);#XDXX XD&#Statev.Drdak,411  S.E.2d604(N.C.1992); XDXXXDStatev.Ortiz,831P.2d1060(Wash.1992) < (holdingthatnoanalyticbasisexistedtointerpretWashingtonsdueprocessclausemorebroadlythanthefederalprovisions#XDXX XD'# XDXXXD);   accordStatev.Copeland,922P.2d1304(Wash.1996).#XDXX XD(#TheGeorgia @  SupremeCourthasagreedthattoestablishadueprocessviolationadefendantmustprovebadfaith,butthecourtalsorequiredthetrialcourttoconsiderthematerialityofthelostordestroyedevidence.Walkerv.State,449S.E.2d845,848(Ga.1994). d  XDXXXD Otherstateshaverecognizedthat [t]heremaywellbe H  casesinwhichthedefendantisunabletoprovethattheStateactedinbadfaithbutinwhichthelossordestructionofevidenceisnonethelesssocriticaltothedefendantastomakeacriminaltrialfundamentallyunfair.Youngblood,488U.S.at61,109S. &l" Ct.at339,102L.Ed.2dat291(Stevens,J.,concurringintheresult).Thesestates#XDXX XD*# XDXXXDԀhave#XDXX XD,# XDXXXDrejectedapureYoungbloodanalysis#XDXX XD,# XDXXXD, P*& focusinginsteadonthematerialityoftheunavailableevidenceindeterminingwhetheradueprocessviolationhasoccurred.See, -#* e.g.,#XDXX XDf-# XDXXXDExparteGingo,605So.2d1237(Ala.1992)#XDXX XDg.# XDXXXD;Thornev. T/$, DepartmentofPub.Safety,774P.2d1326(Alaska1989);#XDXX XD.# XDXXXDStatev. 1t&. Matafeo,737P.2d671(Haw.1990);#XDXX XD}/# XDXXXDԀCommonwealthv.Henderson,532 2 (0 N.E.2d496(Mass.1991);Statev.Osakalumi,461S.E.2d504(W. X4)2 Va.1995). 7$-6  Severalofthesestateshavedeterminedthatdueprocessclaimsarisingoutoflostordestroyedevidencemustbeevaluatedusinga balancingapproach.Asanexample,#XDXX XD0# XDXXXDtheDelawareSupreme  X Court,afterhavingdeterminedthatthestatebreachedadutytopreserveevidence,employedabalancingapproachwhichfocusesonthefollowingthreefactors:(1)thedegreeofnegligenceorbadfaithinvolved;(2)theimportanceofthemissingevidence,consideringtheprobativevalueandreliabilityofsecondaryorsubstituteevidencethatremainsavailable;and(3)thesufficiencyoftheotherevidenceusedattrialtosustaintheconviction.#XDXX XD1# XDXXXDHammondv.State,569A.2d81,87(Del.1989).  #  7      ׀#XDXX XD3# XDXXXD D #XDXX XD4# XDXXXD#XDXX XD 5# XDXXXD Wenowmustdeterminewhetherthebadfaithanalysis#XDXX XDL5# XDXXXDԀof  Youngbloodadequatelyprotectstherighttoafairtrialunderthe H  dueprocessclauseoftheTennesseeConstitution.#XDXX XD5# XDXXXDSeeTenn.Const. !h art.I,82   #  8      .AlthoughthisCourthaspreviouslyconstruedTenn. # Const.art.I,8#XDXX XD6# XDXXXD,as synonymouswiththedueprocessoflaw L%  provisionsofthefederalconstitution,#XDXX XD7# XDXXXDStateexrel.Anglinv. &l" Mitchell,#XDXX XD8# XDXXXDԀ596S.W.2d779,786(Tenn.1980),wehavealsorecognized ($ that#XDXX XD9# XDXXXD thisCourt,asthefinalarbiteroftheTennessee   Constitution,isalwaysfreetoexpandtheminimumlevelofprotectionmandatedbythefederalconstitution.#XDXX XD9# XDXXXDBurfordv.  X State,845S.W.2d204,207(Tenn.1992).Thus,wewillexamine#XDXX XD:# XDXXXD  Youngblood#XDXX XDV;# XDXXXDand#XDXX XD;# XDXXXDexplainwhywe#XDXX XD<# XDXXXDrejectitsanalysis.#XDXX XDU<# XDXXXD <  AccordingtoYoungblood,unlessacriminaldefendantcan   showbadfaithonthepartofthepolice,failuretopreservepotentiallyusefulevidencedoesnotconstituteadenialofdueprocessoflaw.Inthisregard,provingbadfaithonthepartofthepolicewouldbe,intheleast,extremelydifficult.#XDXX XD<# XDXXXDIn D addition,theYoungbloodanalysisapparentlypermitsno d considerationofthematerialityofthemissingevidenceoritseffectonthedefendantscase.Theconclusionisthatthisanalysissubstantiallyincreasesthedefendantsburden#XDXX XD]># XDXXXDԀwhile !h reducingtheprosecutionsburdenattheexpenseofthedefendantsfundamentalrighttoafairtrial. Becausewe#XDXX XD?# XDXXXDdeemthepreservationof#XDXX XD@# XDXXXDԀ#XDXX XDA# XDXXXDthedefendants ($ fundamentalrighttoafairtrialtobeaparamountconsiderationhere,wejointodaythosejurisdictionswhichhaverejectedtheYoungbloodanalysisinitspureform.Insodoing,weadoptfor -#* TennesseeabalancingapproachsimilartotheoneespousedbytheSupremeCourtofDelawareinHammondv.State,569A.2d81,87 1t&. (Del.1989). ThefirststepinthisanalysisistodeterminewhethertheStatehadadutytopreservetheevidence.Generallyspeaking, 7$-6 theStatehasadutytopreserveallevidencesubjecttodiscoveryandinspectionunderTenn.R.Crim.P.16,orotherapplicablelaw.3  #  9      ׀Itis,however,difficulttodefinetheboundariesofthe  X Statesdutytopreserveevidence.Thisdifficultyis#XDXX XDCA# XDXXXDrecognized  inCaliforniav.Trombetta,467U.S.479,48889,104S.Ct.2528, < 253334,81L.Ed.2d413(1984)#XDXX XD1E# XDXXXD.Itheld: \  8 8 WhateverdutytheConstitutionimposesontheStatestopreserveevidence,thatdutymustbelimitedtoevidencethatmightbeexpectedtoplayasignificantroleinthesuspectsdefense.Tomeetthisstandardofconstitutionalmateriality,evidencemustbothpossessanexculpatoryvaluethatwasapparentbeforetheevidencewasdestroyed,andbeofsuchanaturethatthedefendantwouldbeunabletoobtaincomparableevidencebyotherreasonablyavailablemeans. xx KF#XDXX XD F# XDXXXD Iftheproofdemonstratestheexistenceofadutyto "> preserveandfurthershowsthattheStatehasfailedinthatduty,theanalysismovestoaconsiderationofseveralfactorswhichshouldguidethedecisionregardingtheconsequencesofthebreach.Thosefactorsinclude:8 8 1. h Thedegreeofnegligence +p!( involved;(  #  10      ,F")xx 8 8 2. h Thesignificanceofthe ~.#+  destroyedevidence,consideredinT/$,xx 8 8 lightoftheprobativevalueand reliabilityofsecondaryorsubstituteevidencethatremainsavailable;and xx 8 8 3. h Thesufficiencyoftheother . evidenceusedattrialtosupporttheconviction. xx I#XDXX XDH# XDXXXD Ofcourse,aspreviouslystated,thecentralobjectiveis \  toprotectthedefendantsrighttoafundamentallyfairtrial.If,afterconsideringallthefactors,thetrialjudgeconcludesthatatrialwithoutthemissingevidencewouldnotbefundamentallyfair,thenthetrialcourtmaydismissthecharges.Dismissalis,however,butoneofthetrialjudgesoptions.Thetrialjudgemaycraftsuchordersasmaybeappropriatetoprotectthedefendantsfairtrialrights.Asanexample,thetrialjudgemaydetermine,underthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,thatthedefendantsrightswouldbestbeprotectedbyajuryinstruction.#XDXX XDM# XDXXXD4  #  11      #XDXX XD P# XDXXXD #   IIIP#XDXX XDP# XDXXXD Wenowexaminethecaseundersubmissioninlightofthe  X considerationsmentionedabove.Initially,thequestioniswhethertheStatehadadutytopreservethevideotape.Theexculpatorynatureoftheevidencehasconsiderablesignificanceinresolvingthatquestion.Theexculpatoryvalueofthevideotapeis,inourview,tenuous.IfthevideotapeshowedFergusonperformingpoorlyonthesobrietytestsatthepolicestation,thenthecauseofthepoorperformancecouldeitherbeintoxication,asurgedbytheState,oramedicalcondition,asurgedbyFerguson.If,ontheotherhand,thevideotapeshowedFergusonperformingsatisfactorilyonthesobrietytests,thenFergusonstheorythatmedicalproblemscausedhimtoappearintoxicatedwouldbeofquestionablevalidity.5  #  12      #XDXX XDQ# XDXXXDԀThoughthevideotapewasprobablyofmarginal !h exculpatoryvalue,itwasatleast materialtothepreparationofthedefendantsdefenseandmighthaveledthejurytoentertainareasonabledoubtaboutFergusonsguilt.Becausethevideotapemayhaveshedlightonhisappearanceandconditiononthemorninginquestion,theStatehadadutytopreservethevideotapeaspotentiallyexculpatoryevidence.Inerasingthetapebeforethedefendanthadanopportunitytoviewit,theStatebreachedthisduty.Therefore,wemustdeterminewhatconsequencesshouldflowfromthisbreachofduty.  2 (0  Thefirstfactortoconsiderindeterminingconsequences isthedegreeofnegligenceinvolved.Unquestionably,FergusonhasfailedtoprovetheStateactedinbadfaithinthedestructionoftheevidence.Theonlyconclusionremainingisthattheevidencewasnegligentlydestroyed,andwethinktheconductwassimplenegligence,asdistinguishedfromgrossnegligence. Thesecondfactoraddressesthesignificanceofthemissingevidence.Giventhedefendantscontentionthathismedicalconditioncausedhimtoappearintoxicated,thevideotapemaynothavebeenprobativeofintoxication.Astotheavailabilityofsecondaryevidenceprobativeoftheintoxicationissue,Fergusonadducedexpertmedicaltestimony.Hisexpertwitnessexplainedwhythephysicaleffectsofhisconditionwouldhavelookedlikeintoxicationtotheofficer.Fergusontestifiedabouthowhisconditionaffectedhisbalanceandcoordination,andherelatedlongtermproblemswithhislowerextremities.Inspiteoftheunavailabilityofthevideotape,Fergusonpresentedhisdefenseinascompleteamanneraswaspossiblewithoutthevideotape.#XDXX XDT# XDXXXD P*&  #XDXX XDW\# XDXXXDThethirdfactortoconsideristhesufficiencyofthe -#* convictingevidence.ThearrestingofficersmelledalcoholonFergusonsbreathandconcludedfromhisobservationthatFergusonsphysicalappearanceandspeechwereindicativeofintoxication.Additionally,thearrestingofficertestifiedabout failedonscenefieldsobrietyteststhatwerenotvideotaped. 6x+4 Thus,theevidenceadducedwassufficient,asamatteroflaw,forconviction.  Thus,itisabundantlycleartousthatFergusonwasnothinderedinthefullandcompleteexpositionofhistheorytothejury.Weconcludethathereceivedafundamentallyfairtrialandthatheexperiencednomeasurabledisadvantagebecauseoftheunavailabilityofthevideotapedevidence. #XDXX XD\# XDXXXDAccordingly,thejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminal   Appealsisaffirmed,andthecostsaretaxedagainsttheappellant.    h      p ______________________________    h      p ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.,JusticeCONCUR:Anderson,C.J.Holder,Barker,JJ.Drowota,J.,notparticipating#XDXX XD?`#