WPC 5# UN %O 0(U 0D}bUHw@4Qet 0J| 0T 0^ 0hx 0r 0|R 0 0T 1u 0dY AQ  0D 0@ 0DX D/ B B D3 U>8 Vv U6 U* B), DCU AM U* 5v~DvHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($(3$ !  - -G0Courier (WT) Regular  U  D D DDӀFt#B3|x2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X !"#%C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ("$    ($$   1  ''' dxd dP Pd&&&&'dxd<  9p`(&Times New Roman L !*  )  <  9p`(Courier New<  9p`(Times% Line 7 d....7Border 1dd "/C << G<  9p`(Arial + !  #d#*  !"  11   YYY FILED1X December22,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.1AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva ! . *  +  \RA'\ћ7fXXdd7,  &--Xd&Ӝ R02/A1-j|`  `@Rߛ          FORPUBLICATION @ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@ ATJACKSONSTATEOFTENNESSEE,   (      ( PlaintiffAppellee,  (HenryCounty      (      (Hon.C.CreedMcGinley,Judge      (v.      (S.Ct.No.02S019607CC00068      (      (      (DAVIDWILLARDPHIPPS,JR., (      ( DefendantAppellant. (@ CONCURRINGOPINION ` .hX Iconcurinthedecisiontoremandthecasetothetrialcourtwithinstructions;however,Iwouldimposeamoreprecisestandardfordeterminingifthepresumptionofvindictivenesshasbeenovercome. Themajoritystatesthatthepresumptionofvindictiveness maybeovercomebyclearandconvincingevidencewhichdemonstratesthattheprosecutorsdecisionwasmotivatedbylegitimatepurpose,andfurther, theStatemustprofferfactspecific,legitimate,ontherecordexplanationsforitsconductwhichdispeltheappearanceofvindictiveness.Majorityopinion,p.20.Consequently,theproofpresentedbytheStatemustshowalegitimate,asopposedtospecious,purposefortheincreasedpunishmentwhichwilldispeltheappearance,asopposedtothereality,ofvindictiveness.Thisstandardwouldnotbemetwithproofwhichshowedonlythattheprosecutoractedingoodfaith.ϜItisthe fearofvindictivenesswhichmaychilladefendantsexerciseoftherighttoappealorcollaterallyattackthefirstconviction.Blackledgev.Perry,417U.S.21,94S.Ct.2098,2102(1974).AsstatedinInReBower,700P.2d1269,1277(Cal.1985), [t]hepresumptionisnotbasedonthesubjectivestateofmindoftheindividualprosecutoranddoesnotimplythatheorsheindividuallyharborsanimpropermotive. Inmyview,thishighstandardcannotbemetwithevidenceoffactsorinformationwhichwasreasonablyavailabletotheprosecutorwhentheoriginalchargewasmade.IwouldapplytheruleadoptedbytheCaliforniaSupremeCourtinInReBower:8 Inordertorebutthepresumptionofvindictiveness,theprosecutionmustdemonstratethat(1)theincreaseinchargewasjustifiedbysomeobjectivechangeincircumstancesorinthestateoftheevidencewhichlegitimatelyinfluencedthechargingprocessand(2)thatthenewinformationcouldnotreasonablyhavebeendiscoveredatthetimetheprosecutionexerciseditsdiscretiontobringtheoriginalcharge.̜Id.󛀜 IamauthorizedtostatethatJusticeBirchjoinsinthisConcurringOpinion.     ____________________________     Reid,J.