is supported by the fact that the only evidence received during the suppression hearing was offered by the State, consisting only of the testimony of Officer Nathan Smith. Williams, 195 N.C. App. at 555-56, 673 S.E.2d at 395. See also Toney, 187 N.C. App. 465, 653 S.E.2d 187 (concluding no material conflict in the evidence existed when a police officer was the only witness to testify in connection with the defendant’s motion to suppress such that the trial court’s failure to make findings of fact was not reversible error). It previously has been determined that a material conflict in the evidence does not arise when the record on appeal demonstrates that defense counsel cross-examined the State’s witnesses at the suppression hearing. See Jacobs, 174 N.C. App. at 8-9, 620 S.E.2d at 209 (<HOLDING>). These cases therefore, are distinguishable
holding that suppression by prosecution of evidence favorable to the accused upon request by the defense violates due process where evidence is material either to guilt or punishment irre spective of the good faith of the prosecution holding no evidentiary hearing was required where the affidavits of the defendant and his wife were directly contradicted by the defendants sworn testimony during the plea hearing holding that suppression of evidence by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the defendant upon request violates the defendants right to due process where the evidence is material holding no material conflict in the evidence existed where the evidence presented during the suppression hearing consisted of the testimony of law enforcement officers who were crossexamined by defense counsel holding that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment