was favorable to the defendant; and (3) the suppressed evidence was material to either guilt or punishment. Fox v. State, 175 S.W.3d 475, 490 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2005, pet. ref'd). When the Brady material is discovered during trial, the initial inquiry is whether the defendant was prejudiced by the delayed disclosure. Palmer v. State, 902 S.W.2d 561, 565 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no pet.); see also Little v. State, 991 S.W.2d 864, 867 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (reasoning that to prevail on a Brady claim, defendant must show that State’s tardy disclosure prejudiced defendant). To show prejudice, the defendant must show a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense earlier, the result of the proceeding would have been d ex.App.-Texarkana 2010, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); Jones v. State, 234 S.W.3d 151, 158
holding that an appellate court cannot address on appeal an issue never ruled upon by the trial court holding issues not ruled upon by the trial judge are not preserved for appellate review holding brady challenge not preserved because trial court never ruled on complaint holding as applied challenges preserved because motion for new trial was filed and the trial court ruled holding issues not raised to and ruled upon by the trial court are not preserved for appellate review