In o rder t o pro t ect t he i d ent i t y of m i no r v ic tim s o f s exual ab use, i t i s t he p o l i cy o f t hi s co urt t o ref

er t o t he 1

v ic tim s b y the ir initials. St at e v. Sc hi m pf , 7 8 2 S .W .2 d 1 8 6 , 1 8 8 n.1 (T e n n . C rim . A p p . 1 9 8 9 ). 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jun e 2, 200 4
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. MA RC US VA SHA WN N IXON

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Laud erdale County

No. 7364 Joseph H. Walk er, Judge

No. W2003-01909-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Septem ber 15, 2004

The Appe llant, Marcus V ashaw n Nix on, appea ls his juryconviction for r ape of a child in the L a ud e rd a le Cou nty

Cir c uit Cou rt . A s g ro un ds , he asserts that th e tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d in de nying his motion to s uppress pre -trial photo identification e vidence based upon a Rule 16 discovery

violation. After revie w of the r ecor d, we f ind no reve rsible er

ror a nd aff

irm the dec ision of the trial court.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.

Didi Christi e, B rownsville, Tenne ssee (on appe al); Ga ry F. Antrican, District Public Def ender ; and J ulie K. Pillow, Assis tant Public Defe nder ( at trial), f or the Appe llant, Marcus V ashaw n Nix on.

P a u l G

. S u m m e r s , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l a n d R e p o r t e r ; M i c h a e l M o o r e , S o l i c i t o r G e n e r a l ; J e n n i f

e r L. Ble dsoe, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; Elizabeth T. Rice, District Attorney Gene ral; and Tr ace y

A. Br ewe r, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.
OP IN ION

F ac tu al B ac kgr ound

I n the early morning hours of July7, 2002, the Appellant e ntere d the home of B renda Allen in Ripl ey , afte r Allen had fallen aslee p in he r car listening to the radio. Af ter e ntering , the Appellant approa ched the nine-y ear -old victim, L .T., who was a sleep on the couch. The victim testified that 1 sh e wo ke up a ndsa w the Ap pe lla nt s ta nd ing ov e r h e r, he re mov e d h e r s ho rt s, a ndthe n p la c e d h is

“ private pa

rt ” in h e r “ private pa

rt .” Al le n aw ok e a ft e r h e ari ng the vic tim ’s sc re a ms a ndc a me int o the house. She testified that she immediately rec o gnized the Appellant and c alled out to him, but-2-

he ra n out the back door. Allen called the police to re port the ra pe, and of fice rs re sponding to the
scene spotted the Ap p el lant in the surrounding are a, we aring clothes matching the desc ription furnished by Allen. The Appellant was subsequently arr ested at the home of his sister. He late r g ave a stateme nt to police admitting that he ha d had interc ourse with a g irl in Allen’s home, but he stated that the g irl had initiated the sexual encounter and told him that she was fifte en y ear s old.

On Octobe r 7, 2002, a L aud er d al e C ountry g rand jury

returne d an indictment ag ainst the Appellant cha

rg ing him with one c ount of rape of a c hild. On October 30, 2002, the Appellant f iled
se ve ra l pr e -t

ri a l mo tio ns , in c lud ing a

Te nn e sse e Rul e of Cr imi na l Pr oc e du re 16 dis c ov e ry re qu e st. On F e br ua ry 18 , 2 00 3, the mornin g of tr ia l, the Sta te inf

orme d th e Ap pe lla nt t hat the y ha d ju st learned of a

photo ide ntification made by the victim of the Appellant. At that time, the trial c ourt conducte d a hea

ring on the motion to suppress the identification, which w as denie d.

Af te r a jury tr ia l, the Ap pe lla nt w a s conv ict e d o f the of fe ns e a s c ha

rg e d a ndsu bs e qu e ntl y sentenc ed to a term of t wenty -one y ear s in the Depa rtment of Corre ction. His motion for new trial was late r denie d, with this appeal following

. Ana lys is The Appe llant contends that the trial c ourt err ed in deny i n g h i s motion to s uppress the victim’s photo identification beca use the State violated Rule 16 of the T ennesse e Rules of Criminal Procedur e. Specif

ically , he conte nds that the State violated the discove ry rule be cause he wa s not g ive n n oti c e of

the e xiste nc e of

the ph oto ide nti fi c a tio n u nti l th e mornin g of tr ia l de sp ite his Rul e 16 reque st for discovery . Further, the A ppellant asserts that the S tate’s failure to comply with the dis c ov e ry re qu e st h ind e re d h is t

ri a l pr e pa ratio n a ndde fe ns e a t tria l by de nying him

the op po rtun ity to adequately

investi gat e the c ircumstance s surrounding the identification and arg ue that it was impermissiblysug g estive. He asserts that his conviction should t here fore be re verse d.
Up on re qu e st, theSta te mus t pe rm it a de fe nd a nt t o in sp e c t, c op y , o r p ho tog ra ph ta ng ibl e ob je c ts w ith in i ts pos se ssi on , cu sto dy , or co ntr ol w hic h a re ma te ri a l to the pr e pa

ratio n o f the de fe ns e or are int e nd e d f

or us e by the Sta te a s e vid e nc e in c hie f at tria l. T e nn . R. Cr im. P. 1 6( a )( 1) (C ). B oth the State and the de fense have a continuing duty

to disclose evide n ce p re v i o u sly reque sted and subject to disc overy under Rule 16. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 16( c). When a rg uing that the Stat e has vio la te d Ru le 16 , a

de fe nd a nt be ars the bu rd e n of sh ow ing “ the de g re e to w hic h th e imp e dim e nts to discovery hindere d trial prepa

ration and de fense at trial.” State v. T homas Dee Huskey , No. E1999- 0 0 4 3 8 -C C A- R 3 -C D ( T en n

. C ri m

. Ap p

. at Kn o x v i l l e, J u n e 2 8 , 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o t i n g Sta te v . B ro wn , 836 S.W .2d 530, 548 (Tenn. 1992) ).

Fa ilure by either party to c omply with the discovery rule authorizes the court to fa shion an
app ro pria te re me dy

wh ic h “ it d e e ms j us t un de r the c ir c ums ta nc e s. ” Te nn . R. Cr im. P. 1 6( d) (2 ); see als o Stat e v . S

mi th , 926 S.W .2d 267, 270 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) . The sanc tion to be applied for non-complianc e must fit the c ircumstance s of the individual case

. Sta te v . Ca dle , 634 S.W .2d 623, 6 2 5 ( T e n n

. C r i m

. A p p

. 1 9 8 2 )

. T h u s , i n s o m e i n s t a n c e s m e r e i n s p e c t i o n m a y s e r v e t o p r o te c t aT h e S ta te m a d e no a ttem p t at tria l t o intro d u c e the vic tim ’s p h o to id e n tif ic a tio n o f t h e A p p e llan t. 2

-3- defe ndant’s intere st. I n other situations, a continuanc e may be required to g ive t he accuse d a chance to review the State’s previously undisclosed evidenc e, or the court may be re quired to exclude the
e vid e nc e a lto g e the r. Te nn

. R. Cr im. P. 16 (d )( 2)

. Ho we ve r, e vid e nc e sh ou ld no t be e xclu de d u nle ss 2 a party is actually

prejudice d by

the fa ilure to comply

with the d i s co v er yorder , and the pr ejudice
ca n n o t b e o therwise e radic ated. State v. Jam es , 688 S.W .2d 463, 466 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984) ; Sta te v. Garland , 6 17 S.W. 2d17 6, 18 5- 86 (T e nn . Crim . App . 1 98 1) . A dmi ssi bil ity of e vid e nc e is within the rea lm of the sound discre tion of the trial court. State v. McLeod , 937 S.W .2d 867, 871 (Tenn. 1996)

. Th e tr ia l c ou rt

fo un d th a t th e Sta te did ha ve a n obli g a tio n u nd e r R ule 16 to d isc los e the ph oto
arr ay from which the Appellant wa s identified by the victim. Howeve r, i n deny ing the Appellant’s motion to suppress, the trial court found that the Appellant’s late acc ess to the identification did not result in prejudice . The re cord r efle cts that the A ppellant was notified of the identification immediately

afte r the State lea

rned of its ex istence.

Th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s fi nd ing s a re a s f oll ow s: The Court finds that, as f ar a s I ’ve be en pre sented unde r the sta tement of what the State intends to present at trial, that the witness; that is, the child, would have a n oppor tu n it y to v ie w th e c r im in a l a t th e ti me o f th e c r im e

. T h e ju r y w il l ma ke a determination about t he degr ee of attention and that kind of thing . But the f act that an adult observe d who s he believed t o be the de fendant and provided that name is the
rea son that the defe ndant’s photo was included to the photo ID, plus the fac t that the defe ndant was discove red shortly there afte r in the same clothes that wer e desc ribed by the victim, all would go to we ight towa rd the photo I D.
We ag ree with the trial court that the A ppellant has failed to d em o nstrate that he was prejudice d by

the State’s late disc losure of the identification evide nce. At trial, Allen testified that she imm ed i at el y

rec og nized the eig hteen- y ear -old Appellant, whom she ha d known for approximately

twelve or

thirteen y ear s. Additionally , Allen de s cr ibed the clothing worn by the pe rs on in h e r ho us e , wh ic h ma tc he d the c lothin g wo rnby the Ap pe lla nt w he n h e wa s a rr e ste d s ho rt ly there afte r. F inally , the victim positi vely identified the Appe llant at trial as the per son who rape d her. The Appe llant arg ues that had the St at e d i s clos ed the photog raphic lineup prior to trial, “more investigation into t he cir cumstance s surrounding the identification by the victim” could have been made. The Appellant does not sug g est what c ould have been developed or how further investigation would have ne g ated the positive identifications of A llen and the victim or the Appellant’ s statement that he wa s prese nt at the house a nd had interc ourse with a gi rl inside the home. B eca use we conclude that the Appellant wa s not prejudiced by the St at e’ s fa i l ure to timely comply with the discovery reque st, this i ssue is without merit.-4- CO NC LU SION

Ba sed upon the for eg oing, w e af firm the L auder dale Co u n t y C ircuit Court’s denial of the Appellant’s motion to suppress the photo identification.

___________________________________ DAVID G. HAY ES, J UDGE