1 ... See T EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 07- 187- CR
I S AAC T R ANE I LM CD ADE AP P E L L ANT A/ K /A I S S AC M CB R I DE V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M CRI M I NA LDI STRI CT CO URT NO . 2 OF TARRA NTCO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I. I N T R OD U C T I ON A j ury c onvi ct ed A ppe l l ant I sa ac Tr ane i l M cDade a / k/a I sa acM cBr i de of t he fto fa m ot orv e hi c l e v a l ue d a tm or et ha n $20, 000 b utl e s s t ha n $100, 000, and t he t r i alco urts ent enc ed M cDade to tw e n ty ye ar s’ co nf i nem ent . I n f our i ss u e s, M c D a d e arg u e s th a t t h e e v i d e n c e i s l e g a l l yan d fac tu a l l yi n su ffi c i e n t t o2

suppo rthi s convi ct i on and t hathi s due pr ocess r i ghtsw er e vio lat ed by an i m per m i ss i bl y s ugge st i ve pr et r i alproc edu r e u se d t o i den t i f y hi m an d byt he S t a t e ’s f a ilu r e t o d is c lo s e m a t e r ia l, e x c u lp a t o rye v id e n c eb e f o r et r ia l. W e w ill
a f f i r m. II. F ACT UALAND P RO CEDU RA L B ACKGROUND Z a c h M c C o ya n d T h o m a sK e l l e yw e rere m o d e l i n g a m a te rn i tys to re l o c a ted i n F o rtW o rt h o n M a rch 1 3 , 2 0 0 7 . T h e yw e re l o c k i n g the en tr a n c e to t he st or e s om et i m e b et w ee n 4: 30 and 5: 00 p. m . w hen t heynot i ce d s om eon e dr i ve of f i n Kel l ey’ s t r uck , w hi ch Kel l ey had pa r ke d a boutf ort y ya r dsaw ay and l eftr unni ng. Kel l ey cha se d t he t r uckon f ootbr i ef l y bu tw asuna bl e t o c at ch up t o i t . M cC oy j um ped i nt o hi s vehi cl e, com m enced f o ll ow i ng K el l ey’ s t r uck,
ca l l ed 911 , an d e xpl ai ned t o t he 911 ope r at orw hatw asha ppe ni ng a s he pur su ed t he t r uck . Kel l ey r epo rt ed t he i nci den tt o t he pol i cet oo. M cC oy f ol l ow ed K el l ey’ s t r uck i nt o an A l bert son’ s par ki ng l ot l ocat ed near t he W es tFr ee w ay, pul l ed i n beh i nd t he t r uck , w hi ch t he dr i verha d j us tpa r ke d, exi t ed hi s vehi cl e, and confr onted t he dr i ver . M cC oy w as abl e t o geta l ook at t he dr i ver , w ho hei den t i f i ed att r i alas M cDade. M cCoy t ol d M cDade t hathe
w asgoi ng t o j ai l , b u tM cDade s t r uckM cCoy s eve r alt i m es , gi vi ng M cCoy a b u s t e d lip a n d f iv e o rs ixk n o t so n h i s h e a d . M c C o yw a s“ c o m p le t e ly di so r i ent ed”an d “ kno ck ed out ” “f ora m i nut e o rs o”be fo re he aw oket o t he3

911 ope r at orca l l i ng hi m ba ck . M cCoy obs erved M cDade r unni ng t ow ar dst he A l bert son’ s st or e; how ever , he di d not see M cD ade ent ert he st or e. O ffice r W h i te a rri v e d a t th eA l b e rts o n ’sp a rk i n g l o t s o o n a fte r M c C o y ’s
con f r ont at i on w i t h M cDade. O f f i ce r W hi t e o bs erved t hatM cCoy ha d c ut s on h i s b l o o d yfac e an d w a s o u t of b rea th a n d “e x c i ted ,” “p u m p e d u p ,” an d “p retty shook up . ” M cC oy gave O f f i cerW hi t e M cD ade’ s descr i pt i on, w hi ch w as a bl ac k m al e, ab out5' 9" t o 5' 11" t al l , an d w ea r i ng a bl ac k s hi rt , bl ac k p ant s, an d
w hi t e a t hl et i c s hoe s. O f f i ce rW hi t e adv i se d ot her of f i ce r s oft he des cr i pt i on a nd cal l ed an am bul ance. O f f i cerO choa ar r i ved att he scene abou t si x m i nutesaft erO f f i cerW hi t e. H e w e n t to the Al bert so n’ s t o l ookf orM cDade. O f f i ce rO cho a c hec ke d t he bat hr oom and saw a m al e i n a st al l m a tc h in g M cD ade’ s descr i pt i on. O f f i cer O choa exi t ed t he bat hr oom , cal l ed f orassi st ance, and w ai t ed w i t h t w o ot her of f i cer s out si de oft he bat hr oom . A ft erabout t en m i nutes , t he of f i cer s ent er ed t he bat hr oom , obs erv ed M cDade e xi t i ng t he st al l orw as hi ng hi s han ds , an d d e t a i n e d h i m. I n t he m ea nt i m e, of f i ce r s had de t ai ned an ot heri ndi vi dua l ata nea r by b us st op, butM cCoy, w h o w a s f ul l y c ons ci ousan d c ohe r ent , s ai d w i t hout hes i t at i on a ft ers ee i ng hi m t hatt he per so n w ast he w r ong i ndi vi du a l . About t w ent y m i nutesaft ert he am bul ance ar r i ved, of f i cer s show ed up w i t h M cD ade,4

w hom M cC oy i denti f i ed w i t hou thesi t at i on as t he i ndi vi dual w ho had t aken K el l ey’ s t r uck. M cD ade had f r esh- l ooki ng cutsand scr apes on hi s knuckl es. A f ew da ysaft erth e i n c i d ent , O f f i ce rBar r on s how ed M cCoy a p h o to g rap h i c sp rea d tha t i n c l u d e d M c D a d e ’s p h o to . M c C o yw a s u n a b l e to id e n t i f y M cD ad e i n a nyof t he ph otos . O f f i ce rB arr on di d n ot i nc l ud e th is i nf or m at i on i n t he pol i ce r eport . O f f i cer Barr on t est i f i ed t hatK el l ey’ s t r uck w as
w o rt h $ 2 5 ,5 0 0 at th e ti m e o f t h ei n c i d e n t. III. L EGAL AND F ACTU AL S UFFICI EN CY M cDade a r gue s i n t hi s f i r stt w o i ss uest hatt he evi den cei s l ega l l y a nd f a c t u a l l y i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o rt h i s c o n v i c t i o n . H o we v e r , h e c h a l l e n ges t he
su f f i ci enc y oft he evi de nceonl y a s i tr el at est o hi s i den t i f i ca t i on a s t he i n d i v i d u a l res p o n sibl e for the m o to r ve h i c l ethe ft. I n r evi ew i ng t he l ega l su f f i ci enc y oft he evi den cet o s upporta con vi ct i on,
w e vi ew al l t he evi dence i n t he l i ght m ost f avor abl e t o t he pr osecut i on i n or der t o det er m i ne w het her any r at i onal t r i eroff actcoul d have f oun d t he essent i al
e l e m e n tso f th e c ri m e b e y o n d a re a s o n a b l ed o u b t. Ja cks o nv. V ir ginia , 443 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 , 9 9 S . C t. 2 7 8 1 , 2 7 8 9 (1 9 7 9 ); Cl a y to nv. S tate , 235 S. W . 3d 772 , 778 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 20 0 7 ). Thi s st and ar d gi vesf ul l pl ay t o t he
r es pons i bi l i t y oft he t r i eroff ac tt o r es ol ve con f l i ct s i n t he t es t i m ony, t o w ei gh th e ev i d e n c e , a n d to d raw rea so n a b l ei n fere n c e s f r o m b a sic fac ts to u l ti m a te5

fa c ts . Jacks on , 4 4 3 U .S . a t 3 1 9 , 9 9 S . C t. a t 2 7 8 9 ; Cl ayton , 23 5 S . W . 3d at 778 . T h e tri e r o f fac ti s t he so l e j udgeoft he w ei ghtan d c r edi bi l i t y oft he
e v i d e n c e . See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . A NN . a rt. 3 8 .0 4(V e rn o n 1 9 7 9 ); Ma rgra ves v. S tate , 3 4S .W .3 d 9 1 2 , 9 1 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). W h e n rev i e w i n g the fac tu a l su ffi c i e n c yo f t h e e v id e n c eto s u p p o rta con vi ct i on, w e v i ew al l t he evi den cei n a ne ut r all i ght , f avo r i ng ne i t herpa rt y. W a tso nv. S tate , 2 0 4S .W .3 d 4 0 4 , 4 1 4(T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ); D r i cha s v. S tate , 17 5 S . W . 3d 79 5, 79 9 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 20 05 ) . W e t hen ask w het her t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o rt in g t h ec o n v ic t io n , a lt h o u g h le g a llys u f f ic ie n t , is
nev ert hel es s so w ea k t hat t he f ac t - f i nde r ’ s det er m i nat i on i s cl ea r l y w r ong a nd
m ani f es t l y un j us torw het herco nf l i ct i ng e vi den ce s o g rea t l y ou t w ei ghst he
e v id e n c e s u p p o rt in g t h e c o n v ic t io n t h a tt h ef a c t -f in d e r ’s d e t e r m in a t io n is
m a n i fe s tl y u n j u s t. W atson , 2 0 4 S .W .3 d a t 4 1 4

– 1 5 , 4 1 7 ; Jo hn so nv. S tate , 23 S. W . 3d 1, 11 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2000 ) . To r eve r seunde rt he se con d gr ound,
w e m ustdet er m i ne, w i t h som e obj ect i ve basi s i n t he r ecor d, th att he gr eat
w e i g h t an d p rep o n d e ran c e o f al l the ev i d e n c e , tho u g h l e g a l l ysu ffi c i e n t,
c o n tra d i c tsth e v e rd i c t. W atson , 204 S. W . 3d a t417. W e m ay not si m pl y subst i t ut e ourj udg m entf ort he f act - f i nder ’ s. Johnson , 2 3 S .W .3 d a t 1 2 ; Cai nv. S tate , 9 5 8 S . W . 2 d 4 0 4 , 4 0 7 ( T e x . C r i m. A p p . 1 9 9 7 ). U n le s st h e re c o r d c le a r lyre v e a lst h a ta d if f e r e n tre s u ltis6

appr opr i at e, w e m ustdef er t o t he j ur y’ s det er m i nat i on of t he w ei ght t o be gi ven contr adi ct or y t est i m oni al e v id e n ce because r esol ut i on of t he confl i ct“oft en t u r n s o n a n e v a lu a t io n o fc r e d ib ilit ya n d d e m e a n o r , a n d t h o s eju r o r sw e r e in att endan ce w hen t he t est i m ony w as del i ver ed. ” Johnson , 2 3 S. W . 3d a t8. Th us, w e m u stgi ve due defer ence t o t he f act - f i nder ’ s det er m i nat i ons, “p art i cul ar l y t hos e det er m i nat i ons con ce r ni ng t he w ei ght and cr edi bi l i t y oft he evi dence. ” Id . a t9. H er e, t he evi den ce dem ons t r at es t hat M cCoy f ol l ow ed Kel l ey’ s t r uckf r om th e l o c a ti o n w h e re i t w a s ta k e n allthe w a yto th eA l b e rt so n ’ s p a r k in g l o t. M cCoy pa r ke d hi s veh i cl e beh i nd Kel l ey’ s t r uckan d c onf r ont ed M cDade, w ho h a d ju s ts t a rt e d t o w a lk a w a y . M c C o y s p o k e b r ie f ly w it h M c D a d e , t e llin g h im t hathew asgoi ng t o j ai l a n d t hathes houl d j us t“ han g out . ” The p r os ec ut or as ke d M cCoy i ft hi s w as“ t he f i r stt i m e t hat[ he] ha d r ea l l y go tt o l ookatw ho itw a sd r iv in g y o u rf r ie n d ’s p ic k u p t r u c k ? ” M c C o y r e s p o n d e d , “ Y e s , s ir , it
w as. ” A bou tt w ent y m i nutesaft ert he am bul ance had ar r i ved, M cC oy i denti f i ed M cDade a s t he i ndi vi dua l r es pons i bl e f ort ak i ng Kel l ey’ s t r uck . M cCoy i denti f i ed M cD ade w i t hou thesi t at i on, st at i ng, “t hat ’ s hi m , ” f our orf i ve t i m es i n r api d s ucc es si on. M cCoy’ s unw ave r i ng a nd un equ i voc al , po si t i ve i denti fic a tio n ofM cD ade cam e aft erM cC oy had t ol d of f i cer s t hatanot her i ndi vi dua l t hatt heyha d de t ai ned w asnott he per so n r es pons i bl e f ort ak i ng7

Kel l ey’ s t r uck . M cCoy al so su f f er ed i nj ur i est o hi s hea d f r om hi s con f r ont at i on
w i t h M cD ade, and M cD ade had cutsand scr apes on hi s knuckl es. I n chal l engi ng t he evi dence suppo rt i ng M cC oy’ s i denti f i cat i on of hi m as t he per son r esponsi bl e f ort aki ng K el l ey’ s t r uck, M cD ade poi nt s t o evi dence t hat Mc C o y wa s “ c o mp l e t e l y d i s o r i e n t e d ” a n d “ k n o c k e d o u t ” b r i e f l y bef or e h e aw oke t o t he 9 11 oper at orcal l i ng hi m b a c k . H e a l so di r ect s us t o evi dence t h a tM c C o yw a su n a b le t o id e n t if yM c D a d ef r o m t h es ix -m a n p h o t o g r a p h ic sp r ea d he vi ew ed t w o day s l at er . M cCoy, how eve r , w asf ul l y c ons ci ousan d f u llyc o h e r e n tw h e n h e id e n t if ie d M c D a d e , a n d M c C o y w a s u n a b let o p o s it iv e ly i denti f y M cD ade i n t he pho t ogr aphi c spr ead— w hi ch i ncl uded photogr aphs t hat
a l l “l o o k e d p retty m u c h i d e n ti c a l ” to h i m — b e c a u se h ew a s u n su re w h i c h p h o to
w a sM c D a d e ’s , n o t b e c a u s e th ep h o to g ra p h o f th ep e rs o n w h o to o kK e l l e y ’s tru c k w a s n o t i n c l u d e d i n th e s p re a d . W ea rere q u i re d to d e fe r to th ej u ry ’s det er m i nat i on of t he w ei ght t o be gi ven con t r adi ct or y t est i m oni al evi dence
u n l e s sth e re c o rd c l e a rl yre v e a l sth a t a d i ffe re n t re s u l t i sa p p ro p ri a te . Johnson , 23 S. W .3 d a t 8 . Consi der i ng t he evi den ceab ove , t he r ec or d he r e d oesnot cl ea r l y r eve alt hata di f f er entr es ul ti s app ro p ri at e; w e t her ef or e d ef ert o t he j ury’ s i m pl i e d d e te r m i nat i on t hatM cCoy co r r ec t l y i den t i f i ed M cDade a s t he i n d i v i d u a l res p o n sibl e for the m o to r ve h i c l ethe ft.8

V ie w in g t h e e v id e n c e in t h e lig h tm o s tf a v o r a b let o t h ev e r d ic t , w eh o ld th a t t h e ev i d e n c e i s l e g a l l ysu ffi c i e n t t o su p p o rtM c D a d e ’s co n v i c ti o n for the ft
o f a m o to r v e h i c l e v a l u e d a t m o reth a n $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 b u t l e s sth a n $ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 . See Jacks on , 443 U . S. at319, 99 S. Ct . at278 9 ; Cla y ton , 235 S. W . 3d a t778. M o r e o v e r , v ie w in g t h e e v id e n c e in a n e u t r a l lig h t , w e h o ld t h a t t h ee v id e n c e is fa c tu a l l ys u fficie n t to s u p p o rt M c D a d e ’sc o n v i c ti o n . See W atson , 204 S. W . 3d
a t 4 1 4 ; D r

i chas , 17 5 S . W . 3d at79 9. A ccor di ngl y, w e over r ul e M cD ade’ s f i r st and second i ssues.

I V. I M PER M ISS IBLY S UG GES T I VE I D E N T I F I CAT I ON I n hi s t hi r d i ss ue, M cDade a r gue s thatt he pr oce dur e b y w hi ch M cCoy f i r sti den t i f i ed hi m ast he i ndi vi dua l w ho t ookKe l l ey’ s t r uck

— han dcu f f ed,
sur r oun ded bypol i ce of f i cer s, and pr esent ed t o M cC oy al one— w as so im p e r m is s ib ly s u g g e s t iv e a s t o g iv eris et o a s u b s t a n t ia l lik e lih o o d o firr e p a r a b le
m is id e n t if ic a t io n . C o n s e q u e n t ly , h e a r g u e st h a th isp r e t r ia l id e n t if ic a t io n s h o u ld have been excl uded because t he pr ocedu r e used deni ed hi m due pr ocess. T o p res e rve a c o m p l a i n t f o r ou r rev i e w , a p a rt ym u st h a v ep res e n ted to t h e t r ia l c o u rta t im e lyre q u e s t , o bje c t io n , o rm o t io n t h a ts t a t e st h es p e c if ic gr oundsf ort he des i r ed r ul i ng i ft heyar e n ot app ar ent f r om t he con t ext oft he
re q u e s t, o bj e c ti o n , o r m o ti o n . T EX . R. A PP . P . 3 3 .1 (a )(1 ); Mo sleyv. S tate , 983 S .W .2 d 2 4 9 , 2 6 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) (o p . o n re h ’g ), c ert. deni e d , 526 U. S.9

107 0 ( 199 9) . Fu rt her , t he t r i al cou rt m us t hav e r ul ed on t he r equ es t , obj ec t i on, orm ot i on, ei t he r e x p re s s l y ori m pl i ci t l y, ort he com pl ai ni ng pa rt y m us tha ve o bj e c te d to th e tri a l c o u rt’s re fu s a l to ru l e . T EX . R. A PP . P . 3 3 .1 (a )(2 ); Mendez
v. S tate , 1 3 8 S .W .3 d 3 3 4 , 3 4 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ). H er e, M cDade f ai l ed t o a ss ertan obj ec t i on or fi l e a m ot i on c hal l eng i ng bot h M cCoy’ s and O f f i ce r W hi t e’ s t es t i m ony t hatM cCoy i den t i f i ed M cDade o n M ar ch 1 3 , 2 0 07 , as t he i ndi vi dual r esponsi bl e f ort aki ng K el l ey’ s t r uck. M c D a d e h a st h u sf o r f e i t e d t h isc o m p la in tb e c a u s eh ed id n o tra is eita tt r ia l. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 3 3 .1 (a )(1 ); Mo sleyv. S tate , 983 S. W . 2d 249 a t265; Brownv. S tate , N o. 01- 02- 008 56- C R, 2003 W L 193720 7 , a t * 4 ( Tex. A pp. — H oust on [ 1stD i st . ] A pr . 24 , 20 03 , no pet . ) ( m em . op. ) ( not desi gnated f orpubl i ca t i on) ( hol di ng t hatap pel l antw ai ved i ss u e o f w h et heri den t i f i ca t i on p ro c e d u re su s e d b yp o l i c e w e re i m p e rm i s s i b l ys u g g e s ti v eo r w h e th e r i n -c o u rt i d e n ti fi c a ti o n o f a p p e l l a n t w a s t a i n te d b yo u t-o f-c o u rt p ro c e d u re s ); Cof f eev. S tate , N o . 0 3 -9 8 -0 0 3 3 7 -C R , 1 9 9 9 W L9 5 8 9 6 6 , a t * 2 ( T e x . A p p .— A u sti n O c t. 21 , 19 99 , no pet . ) ( not desi gnated f orpubl i cat i on) ( hol di ng t hatappel l antf ai l ed t o pr es erve f orap pel l at e r evi e w a r gum ent s r ega r di ng i n- cou rti den t i f i ca t i on s t e m m in g f r o m im p e r m is s ib ly s u g g e s t iv ep r e t r ia l s h o w -u p ). W eo v e r r u le M cD ade’ s t hi r d i ssue.10 V. E XC UL PAT O RY E VIDENCE M c D a d e arg u e s i n h i s fo u rt h an d fi n a l i ss u etha t his d u ep roc e ss ri g h ts
w e rev i o l a te d b e c a u s e th e S ta te c o m m i tte d a c l e a r Brady v i o l a ti o n b yfai l i n g to d is c l o se m a teri a l , e x c u l p a to ry e v i d e n c eb e fo re tri a l : M c C o y ’s i n a b i l i ty to i den t i f y hi m i n a phot ogr aph i c s pr ea d t w o da ysaft ert he i nci den toc cur r ed. Th e Stat e has an af f i r m at i ve duty t o di scl ose excul pat or y evi dence t hat i s m a te ri a l e i th e r to g u i l t o r p u n i s h m e n t. Brady v. Maryl and, 373 U. S. 83, 83 S . C t . 11 94 ( 19 63 ) . Th e S t at e’ s duty t o r eveal Br ady m at er i al att aches w hen t he i nf or m at i on c om esi nt o i t s pos se ss i on, not w hen i ti s r equ es t ed. Tho m as
v. S tate , 841 S . W .2 d 3 9 9 , 407 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1992 ) . To e st abl i sh a due pr oc e s sv i ol a t i on u nd e rBr a dy , a d e f e nd a ntm us ts ho w t he fo l l ow i ng : ( 1) evi den cew ass uppr es se d; ( 2) t he su ppr es se d e vi den cew asf avo ra b l e to t he def end ant ; an d ( 3) th e s u p p r es se d e vi den cew asm at er i alt o e i t hergui l tor p u n i s h m e n t. F

oxv. S tate , 1 7 5 S. W . 3d 475, 490 ( Tex. A pp. — Texa r ka na 2 0 0 5 , p e t. re f’d ). W hen t he Brady m a t e r ia l isd is c o v e r e d d u r in g t r i a l, t h ein it ia l in q u iryis
w h e th e r th e a p p e l l a n t w a sp r e j u d i c e d b yth ed e l a y e d d i s c l o s u re . Pal m er v. S tate , 9 0 2 S .W .2 d 5 6 1 , 5 6 5 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 1 9 9 5 , n o p e t.);
se ealsoLittlev. S tate , 991 S. W . 2d 8 6 4 , 8 67 ( Te x. Cr i m . App . 1999 ) ( r easoni ng t hat t o pr evai l on a Brady cl ai m , t he app el l antm us ts how t hatt he11

St at e’ s t ar dy d i sc l os ur e p r ej udi ce d t he app el l ant ) . T o s how pr ej udi ce , t he appel l ant m ust show a r easonabl e pr obab i l i t y t hat , had t he evi denc e b e en di scl osed t o t he def ense ear l i er , t he r esul toft he pr oceedi ng w oul d have been d i ffe re n t. L ittle, 9 9 1 S .W .2 d at 8 6 6 . T h e d i sc l o su re o f Brady m at er i aldur i ng t r i als at i sf i est he r equ i r em ent s of due pr oce ss “[ i ] ft he def end antr ec ei ved t he
m at er i al i n t i m e t o put i tt o ef f ect i ve use att r i al . ” Pal m er, 902 S. W . 2d a t565. A def e n d a n t’ s convi ct i on shou l d not be r ever sed si m pl y because t he Brady
m a te ri a l w a sn o t d i s c l o s e d a s e a rl y a s i t m i g h t h a v ea n d s h o u l d h a v eb e e n . Id . H er e, t he undi sc l os ed i nf or m at i on w as r eve al ed ea r l y i n t he t r i alw hen t he pr os ec ut or que st i one d M cCoy, w ho w as t he f i r st St at e’ s w i t nes s t o te s t i f y, a b o u t t h e p h o to g rap h i c s p rea d tha t he v i e w e d a fe w d a y s a fter t h ei n c i d e n t. M cD a d e ’ sa tt o r n e yc r o s s - e x a mi n e d M c Co ya b o u tt h ec i r c u ms t a n ces su rr o u n d i n g h i s v i e w i n g o f th e p h o to g rap h i c sp rea d . L a ter i n th etr i a l , th eS tate q u e s ti o n e d O ffice r B a rro n a b o u t th e p h o to g ra p h i c s p re a d to o . M c D a d e ’s att or neycr os s- exa m i ned O f f i ce rBar r on, w ho t es t i f i ed t hat he sh ow ed M cCoy t he pho t ogr aphi c spr ead and t hathe di d not i ncl ude t he f actt hatM cC oy w as una bl e t o i den t i f y M cDade’ s phot ogr aph i n t he pol i cer epo rtbe ca u seM cCoy h a d a l re a d yi d e n ti f i e d M c D a d eo n th es c e n ea fe w d a y se a rl i e r. M c D a d e ’s
a ttorn e yfurth e r uti l i ze d the S tate ’s fai l u re to d i sc l o se M c C o y ’s in a b il i ty to i d e n ti fy M c D a d e i n the p h o to g rap h i c sp rea d d u ri n g h i s c l o sing arg u m e n t.12

Th e r ecor d t hus show s t hatt he und i scl osed i nf or m at i on cam e t o l i ght at
s u c h a t im e t h a tM c D a d e w a s a b l e t o p u titt o e f f e c t iv eu s ea tt r ia l. C o n s id e r in g t h isa n d t h e f a c tt h a tM c C o yp o s it iv e lya n d u n e q u iv o c a lly i denti f i ed M cD ade on a pr evi ous occasi on, M c D a d e has f ai l ed t o show t hat th e rew a sa re a s o n a b l e p ro b a b i l i ty th a t, h a d th ee v i d e n c eb e e n d i s c l o s e d e a rl i e r, th e re s u l t o f th e tri a l w o u l d h a v eb e e n d i ffe re n t. Se eL ittle, 99 1 S . W . 2d at 86 6. M or eover , M cD ade f ai l ed t o r equesta cont i nuan ce w hen M cC oy t est i f i ed
a b o u t t h e p rev i o u sly u n d i sc l o se d i n fo rm a ti o n , w h i c h furth e r t e n d s to dem onst r at e t hatt he S t at e’ s del ay i n di scl osi ng t he p h o to gr aphi c spr ead i n fo rm a ti o n w a sn o t p rej u d i c i a l . Se eA p o l i n a r v. S tate , 106 S. W . 3d 407, 421 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 2 0 0 3 ), af f ’d on other

grounds , 155 S. W . 3d 1 8 4( T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) (stati n g tha t a d e fen d a n t’ s fa i l u re to req u e st a
con t i nua ncew hen Brady m at er i al i s di scl osed att r i al w ai ves er r orori ndi cat es t hatt he del ay i n r ecei vi ng t he evi dence w as nott r ul y pr ej udi ci al ) . W e hol d t hat M c D a d e ’s d u e p r o c e s s rig h t sw e r en o tv io la t e d b yt h eS t a t e ’s d e la yin di sc l os i ng M cCoy’ s i nab i l i t y t o i den t i f y M cDade i n a phot ogr aph i c s pr ea d. A ccor di ngl y, w e over r ul e M cD ade’ s f ourt h i ssue.13 V I. C ON C L U S I ON H a v i n g o v e rru l e d a l l o f M c D a d e ’si s s u e s , w ea ffir m th etri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.

DI XON W . HOL M AN J U S T I C E PA N EL B: L I V I N G STO N , H O LM A N , an d GA RD N ER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH T EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: J un e 5, 2008