ÿWPC  …# VUNa %¯ 0Ƶ4{  ž w@¦ 0Jæ 0T0 0^„ 0hâ 0rJ 0|¼ 0†8 0¾ 1uNU,à 0dïU,SU>U6½B)óDC AM_ B¬U*ÉÄóv~·vÓ5 D3 0@; AO{ÆÊ 0D D/Ô B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(žjÆ$¡¡Ñ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓ»{s 3|xŸ ‹DŒŽED‘’!e“Ó€Ÿ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d< Œ 9p`(Arial ºÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òMayÏ1,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€!Ô›Ñ7€&2XdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ќـ€ÙßL€$'#;+'h|Ý ` ´- `€€Lß›à@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌà@ àòòAT€JACKSONóóÌà@ àMARCH€1996€SESSIONÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#Ï02C01„9509„CC„00272Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà à*à àTIPTON€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€Joseph€H.ÏWalker,€JudgeÌÓÓKEITH€L.€BROWN,à àà à*à à(Possession€ofÏSchedule€IIÏà àà àà àà àà àà àà àControlled€Substance€withÏà àà àAppellant.à àà à*à àIntent€toÏDeliver€and€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àEvadingÏArrest)ÌÌÌÌÌòòÌÌFor€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àòòFor€Appellee:óóÌÌJames€V.€Ball€à àà àà àà àCharles€W.ÏBursonÌAttorney€à àà àà àà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€&€ReporterÌ217€Exchange€AvenueÌMemphis,€TN€€38105€à àà àà àRobin€L.ÏHarris€à àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistantÏAttorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminalÍJustice€Division€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWalt€Freeman€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à302€Market€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSomerville,€TN€€38068€ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇà@ àòòò òOPINIONó óóóÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€defendant,€Keith€L.€Brown,€was€convicted€forÏevading€arrest€and€possession€of€more€than€.5€grams€of€cocaineÏwith€intent€to€deliver.€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€sentence€ofÏll€months€and€29€days€for€the€misdemeanor€conviction€and€aÏconsecutive€sentence€of€nine€years€for€the€drug€conviction.€€TheÏsingle€issue€presented€for€review€is€whether€the€evidence€wasÏsufficient€to€convict.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt.€€ÌÌà àà àAt€approximately€7:30€P.M.€on€February€24,€1994,ÏOfficers€Terence€Craig€and€Cavat€Bass€observed€an€automobileÏaccident€at€the€intersection€of€Church€Street€and€South€CollegeÏin€Covington.€€Although€the€accident€occurred€after€dark,€thereÏwas€a€street€light€at€the€intersection.€€Sergeant€Bass,€who€wasÏten€to€twelve€feet€away€from€the€collision€site,€identified€theÏdefendant€as€the€driver€of€one€of€the€two€vehicles€involved.€ÏThe€second€vehicle€had€caused€the€accident€by€running€a€stopÏsign.€€Before€the€officers€could€intervene,€however,€theÏdefendant€sped€away€from€the€scene,€traveling€at€a€high€rate€ofÏspeed€and€running€several€stop€signs.€€The€two€officers€pursuedÏthe€vehicle€through€the€town€square€until€the€defendant€and€hisÍpassenger,€later€identified€as€Elton€Ruffin,€abandoned€theirÏvehicle€and€ran€away€on€foot.€€Officer€Bass€captured€Ruffin.€ÏOfficer€Craig€was€able€to€identify€the€defendant€as€he€fled€fromÏthe€moving€car,€but€was€unable€to€make€an€arrest€at€the€scene.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€officers€found€some€"white€chunky€substance"€inÏthe€rear€floorboard€of€the€defendantððs€car.€€A€laboratoryÏanalysis€established€that€the€substance€was€2.9€grams€ofÏcocaine.€€A€warrant€was€issued€and€the€defendant€was€arrested€atÏhis€motherððs€house€in€Shelby€County€about€a€week€later.€€ÌÌà àà àAt€trial,€Officer€Craig€testified€that€the€personÏdriving€the€car€was€the€defendant.€€Officer€Bass€testified€thatÏhe€knew€the€defendant€and€had€seen€him€in€the€same€car€aboutÏthree€days€before€this€offense;€he€specifically€recalled€havingÏseen€the€defendant€washing€the€car€at€the€residence€of€aÏrelative.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€denied€that€he€was€the€driver€of€theÏcar.€€He€claimed€that€he€was€in€Memphis€with€his€girlfriend€andÏseveral€others€at€the€time.€€Ruffin€testified€that€theÏdefendant,€his€nephew,€was€not€in€the€vehicle€at€the€time€of€theÍaccident€and€that€the€car€had€been€driven€by€Lamont€LeonardÏCurrie.€€Ruffin€claimed€that€he€had€purchased€the€vehicle€forÏ$200.00€from€Quentin€Booker,€to€whom€the€vehicle€was€registered,Ïon€the€day€of€the€accident.€€The€defendantððs€grandmother,€hisÏmother,€his€sister,€and€his€girlfriend,€all€testified€that€theÏdefendant€was€in€Memphis€at€the€time€of€the€accident.ÌÌà àà àIn€this€appeal,€the€defendant€complains€that€noÏrational€trier€of€fact€should€have€been€satisfied€with€theÏsufficiency€of€the€identification€evidence.€€Clearly,€theÏidentification€of€the€defendant€was€the€primary€issue€at€trial.€ÏIn€fact,€during€the€course€of€deliberations,€the€jurors€askedÏthe€trial€judge€why€Currie€had€not€been€subpoenaed€to€appear€andÏwhat€testimony€he€had€given€at€the€preliminary€hearing.€€OfÏcourse,€no€answers€were€given€to€either€of€the€questions.€€TheÏjury€was€instructed€to€disregard€those€issues.€€ÌÌà àà àRecently,€our€supreme€court€promulgated€a€new€juryÏinstruction€on€identification,€holding€that€the€value€of€suchÏevidence€may€depend€upon€several€factors:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)à àThe€witnessðð€capacity€and€opportunityÏto€observe€the€offender.€€This€includes,Ïamong€other€things,€the€length€of€timeÍavailable€for€observation,€the€distanceÏfrom€which€the€witness€observed,€theÏlighting,€and€whether€the€person€whoÏcommitted€the€crime€was€a€priorÏacquaintance€of€the€witness;€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)à àThe€degree€of€certainly€expressed€byÏthe€witness€regarding€the€identificationÏand€the€circumstances€under€which€it€wasÏmade,€including€whether€it€is€the€productÏof€the€witnessðð€own€recollection;€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)à àThe€occasions,€if€any,€on€which€theÏwitness€failed€to€make€an€identification€ofÏthe€defendant,€or€made€an€identificationÏthat€was€inconsistent€with€theÏidentification€at€trial;€and€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)à àThe€occasions,€if€any,€on€which€theÏwitness€made€an€identification€that€wasÏconsistent€with€the€identification€atÏtrial,€and€the€circumstances€surroundingÏsuch€identifications.€€ÌÌòòState€v.€Dyleóó,€899€S.W.2d€607,€612€(Tenn.€1995).€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àòòDyleóó€was€released€on€May€15,€1995,€before€the€noticeÏof€appeal€was€filed€in€this€case.€€Because€the€new€ruleÏspecifically€applied€to€those€cases€which€were€on€appeal€at€theÏtime€of€the€release€of€òòDyleóó,€it€applies€here.€€ÌÌà àà àUnder€this€ruling,€it€is€plain€error€not€to€give€theÏinstruction€when€witness€"identification€is€a€material€issue€andÏit€is€requested€by€defendantððs€counsel."€€òòIdóó.€€The€issue€ofÍidentity€is€a€material€issue€when€either€(1)€the€defendant€putsÏit€at€issue,€or€(2)€the€eyewitness€testimony€is€uncorroboratedÏby€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòIdóó.€at€612,€n.€4.€If€the€"defendantÏdoes€not€request€the€instructions,€failure€to€give€it€will€beÏreviewable€under€a€Rule€52€harmless€error€standard."€€òòIdóó.€ÏBecause€defense€counsel€did€not€request€any€special€instructionsÏon€eyewitness€identification€in€this€case,€our€review€must€beÏbased€upon€the€harmless€error€standard,€that€is,€there€shall€beÏno€reversal€"except€for€errors€which€affirmatively€appear€toÏhave€affected€the€result€of€the€trial€on€the€merits."€€Tenn.€R.ÏCrim.€P.€52(a).€€ÌÌà àà àThere€are€restrictions€upon€our€scope€of€review.€€InÏan€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€mightÏbe€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835Ï(Tenn.€1978).€€The€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€toÏbe€given€their€testimony,€and€the€reconciliation€of€conflicts€inÏthe€evidence€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€asÏthe€triers€of€fact.€€òòByrge€v.€Stateóó,€575€S.W.2d€292,€295€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1978).€€A€conviction€can€be€set€aside€only€when€thisÏcourt€finds€that€the€"evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€theÍfinding€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt."€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€A€jury€verdict,€approved€byÏthe€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€stateððsÏwitnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€stateððsÏtheory.€€òòState€v.€Hatchettóó,€560€S.W.2d€627,€630€(Tenn.€1978).€€ÌÌà àà àIn€our€view,€the€instruction€error€was€harmless€andÏthe€proof€was€sufficient.€€First,€there€was€corroboration€of€theÏidentification€by€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€WhenÏarrested,€Ruffin€initially€identified€the€defendant€as€theÏdriver€of€the€car.€€The€factors€outlined€in€òòDyleóó€support€theÏposition€of€the€state.€€First,€each€of€the€officers€whoÏidentified€the€defendant€knew€him€before€the€date€of€theÏaccident.€€Officer€Bass€was€within€ten€to€twelve€feet€of€theÏdefendant€in€a€well„lit€intersection.€€Officer€Craig€identifiedÏthe€driver€as€the€defendant€when€he€saw€the€defendant€leap€fromÏthe€moving€vehicle.€€Clearly,€each€officer€had€not€only€aÏreasonable€opportunity€to€identify€the€defendant€but€also€a€goodÏreason€to€do€so.€€Next,€each€of€the€officers€testifiedÏrepeatedly€that€they€were€certain€that€the€defendant€was€theÏdriver€of€the€car.€€That€would€have€satisfied€the€second€prongÏin€òòDyleóó.€€Thirdly,€neither€of€the€officers€hesitated€about€theirÍidentification.€€There€was€no€point€at€which€they€misidentifiedÏor€failed€to€identify€the€defendant.€€Finally,€the€officers€wereÏconsistent€in€making€the€identification,€from€the€issuance€ofÏthe€warrant€to€their€testimony€at€trial.€€In€our€view,€the€proofÏof€eyewitness€identification€was€sufficient.€€It€was€theÏprerogative€of€the€jury€to€assess€the€credibility€of€those€whoÏtestified.€€Any€error€by€the€failure€to€provide€the€òòDyleóóÏinstruction,€in€the€interest€of€the€entire€trial,€was€harmless.ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌJoe€B.€Jones,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌ