ÿWPC¼ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ U,- 0dY U,½ U>é U *'B)Q BzDC— AMÚ,'v~S D3ÑvÓ 0@× AOÆf 0D, D/p BŸ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- 6[7[89:;<e=Ó€IJ»{s 3|xL2 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`(Arial% Line 7 d d$$$$7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ "Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òJuly€26,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`%%%%'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€æ7XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò ò›IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙœßL€'(&;+'h|¤w` Å `€€Lß›ÌAT€JACKSONÌÌFEBRUARY€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.ÏNO.€02C01„9504„CR„00100Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JON€K.€BLACKWOODÌPRESTON€CARTER,à àà à)à àPRESIDING€SPECIAL€JUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Direct€Appeal)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌGLENN€WRIGHTà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌ200€Jefferson€Avenueà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌSuite€800ÌMemphis,€TN€€38103à àà àà àCHARLETTE€REED€CHAMBERSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€PIEROTTIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPHILLIP€GERALD€HARRISÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Avenue€„€3rd€FloorÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38103ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇÓ  Óòòò òÔ€#„ÔOPINIONÔ€#ŠÔó óóóÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÔ€#XÔAppellant€Preston€Carter€was€convicted€of€aggravated€robbery€by€a€jury€in€theÏShelby€County€Criminal€Court€and€sentenced€to€eight€years€in€the€Department€ofÏCorrection.€€In€this€direct€appeal,€Appellant€presents€the€following€issues:ÌÓÓà8 àI.€€Whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€show€that€Appellant€wasÏguilty€of€aggravated€robbery;ÌÌà8 àII.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€an€amendment€to€theÏindictment€on€the€morning€that€the€trial€began;ÌÌà8 àIII.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€charging€the€jury€with€the€lesserÏincluded€offense€of€theft;€and,€ÌÌà8 àIV.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€grant€a€mistrial€basedÏon€a€police€officerððs€reference€to€the€fact€that€homicide€officers€wereÏinvolved€in€Appellant's€investigation.ÌÌÓÓAfter€a€review€of€each€of€these€issues,€we€find€no€reversible€error€and€affirm€theÏdecision€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àThis€case€involves€a€March€9,€1993€robbery€of€a€Mapco€Express€inÏMemphis,€Tennessee.€€Alice€Wilkins,€the€Mapco€employee€who€was€working€as€aÏcashier€at€the€time€of€the€robbery,€testified€that€she€had€just€relieved€anotherÏemployee€around€5:00€a.m.€when€two€males€came€into€the€store.€€One€of€the€menÏapproached€Ms.€Wilkins€and€laid€a€double„barrel€shotgun€on€the€counter€facingÍher.€€After€the€man€told€Ms.€Wilkins€not€to€be€afraid€because€he€just€wanted€theÏmoney,€he€told€her€to€get€on€her€knees€on€the€floor.€€During€this€encounter,€theÏother€man€went€to€the€back€of€the€store€to€remove€the€video€tapes€from€theÏsurveillance€camera.ÌÌà àThough€Ms.€Wilkins€could€describe€her€assailant€as€a€black€male€in€a€darkÏblue€jogging€suit,€she€did€not€recognize€Appellant€as€the€robber.€€However,€sheÏwas€able€to€recognize€with€certainty€Appellant's€double„barrel€gun€as€the€sameÏgun€used€by€the€Mapco€robber€to€threaten€her.ÌÌà àMary€Richard,€who€was€the€Mapco€cashier€on€shift€before€Ms.€Wilkins,€alsoÏtestified€on€behalf€of€the€State.€€As€she€was€warming€up€her€car€to€leave€the€MapcoÏparking€lot,€she€saw€two€men€inside€the€store,€one€of€whom€pulled€out€what€lookedÏlike€a€double„barrel€shotgun€and€laid€it€on€the€counter.€€Ms.€Richard€testified€thatÏAppellant's€gun€appeared€to€be€the€same€gun€that€she€had€seen€that€morning.ÌÌà àAppellant€gave€a€statement€to€a€police€officer€who€interviewed€him€in€May,Ï1993.€Confessing€to€the€robbery,€he€stated€that€he,€along€with€another€male€CedricÏParker,€had€robbed€the€Mapco€Express€on€March€9,€1993€around€5:26€a.m.€€TheyÏwaited€until€after€the€employees€had€changed€shifts€before€entering€the€store.€ÍAppellant€had€a€sawed„off€double„barrel€12„gauge€shotgun€which€he€laid€on€theÏcounter.€€According€to€Appellant,€while€the€cashier€gave€his€accomplice€the€money,ÏAppellant€removed€the€surveillance€tapes€from€the€video€recorder.€€AppellantÏtestified€that€he€had€on€jeans€and€a€t„shirt€and€that€the€other€male€had€on€blackÏjeans€and€a€black€t„shirt.€€Appellant€owned€the€shotgun€used€in€the€robbery€whichÏhad€been€sold€to€him€by€a€cousin.ÌÌÓ  ÓI.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àAppellant€first€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€show€that€heÏwas€the€person€who€robbed€the€Mapco€Express€on€the€morning€of€March€9,€1993.€ÏThis€court€must€review€the€record€to€determine€if€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial€wasÏsufficient€"to€support€the€finding€of€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt."€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€On€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawnÏtherefrom.€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Furthermore,€theÏcredibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€theÏreconciliation€of€conflicts€in€that€testimony€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€theÏjury€as€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€ÏòòByrge€v.€Stateóó,€575€S.W.2d€292,€295€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€The€relevantÍquestion€is€whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏState,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€determined€that€the€essential€elements€ofÏthe€crime€were€established€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443ÏU.S.€307,€314„24€(1979).ÌÌà àAppellantððs€claim€is€based€upon€the€fact€that€there€were€no€eyewitnessesÏwho€positively€identified€him€and€that€this€conviction€is€based€upon€circumstantialÏevidence.€€However,€what€Appellant€omits€from€his€recitation€of€the€evidence€is€thatÏhe€gave€a€statement€to€the€police€admitting€his€guilt€to€this€crime.€€A€convictionÏresting€primarily€on€a€defendant's€inculpatory€statements€must€be€affirmed€whereÏthe€record€contains€"substantial€independent€evidence€tending€to€establish€theÏtrustworthiness€of€the€defendant's€statements."€€€òòState€v.€Ervinóó,€731€S.W.2d€70,€72Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986)€(citing€€òòOpper€v.€United€Statesóó,€348€U.S.€84,€93€(1954));Ïòòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Buckóó,€670€S.W.2d€600,€609„10€(Tenn.€1984).€€Although€Ms.ÏWilkins€and€Ms.€Richard€could€not€specifically€identify€Appellant,€their€account€ofÏthe€robbery€was€consistent€with€Appellantððs€account€as€detailed€in€his€confession.€ÏFurthermore,€both€witnesses€recognized€Appellantððs€somewhat€unusual€gun€as€theÏone€used€in€the€Mapco€robbery.€€In€light€of€the€fact€that€Appellantððs€confession€wasÏcorroborated€by€the€testimony€of€these€other€witnesses,€a€rational€trier€of€fact€couldÏcertainly€have€found€Appellant€guilty€of€this€robbery€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ÌÌÓ  ÓII.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àIn€his€second€issue,€Appellant€argues€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€trialÏcourtððs€decision€allowing€the€State€to€amend€the€indictment€on€the€day€of€the€trial.€€ItÏis€true€that€on€September€12,€1994,€prior€to€trial,€the€court€granted€the€StateððsÏmotion€to€amend€the€indictment€by€correcting€the€name€of€the€victim€to€read€ð ðAliceÏWilkinsðð€whereas€it€previously€had€read€ð ðAlice€C.€Watkins.ðð€€In€so€doing,€the€courtÏreasoned€that€amending€the€indictment€ð ðdoes€not€create€a€new€crime€so€as€toÏprejudice€the€defendant€and€so€pursuant€to€Rule€7(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏCriminal€Procedure,€the€amendment€should€be€allowed.ðð€€We€agree.€ÌÌà àRule€7(b)€provides€that€an€indictment€may€be€amended€without€theÏdefendantððs€consent€if€it€is€done€before€jeopardy€attaches€and€€ð ð[i]f€no€additional€orÏdifferent€offense€is€thereby€charged€and€no€substantial€rights€of€the€defendant€areÏthereby€prejudiced.ðð€€In€this€case,€the€amendment€was€allowed€before€the€jury€wasÏsworn€and,€therefore,€jeopardy€had€not€attached.€€€òòState€v.€Knightóó,€616€S.W.2d€593Ï(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€454€U.S.€1097€(1981).€€No€ð ðadditional€or€different€offenseððÏwas€charged€in€the€amended€indictment.€€But€for€the€victimððs€name,€both€the€pre„amendment€and€the€post„amendment€indictment€were€identical€charging,€with€theÏsame€language,€the€offense€of€aggravated€robbery.€€ÌÌà àFurthermore,€no€substantial€rights€of€Appellant€were€prejudiced€by€thisÏamendment.€€Our€Court€has€stated€that€the€general€rule€is€that€amendments€toÏcorrect€errors€in€the€victims'€names€are€permissible.€€€òòState€v.€Hensleyóó,€656€S.W.2dÏ410,€413€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983)€(citing€Wharton's€Criminal€Procedure€ðð€364€(12thÏEd.€1975));€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€McClennonóó,€669€S.W.2d€705,€706€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1984).€€Here,€it€is€indisputable€that€Appellant€was€on€notice€of€the€offense€and€theÏparticular€misconduct€for€which€he€was€charged.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Burkleyóó,€804€S.W.2dÏ458,€460€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€We€therefore€find€that€the€trial€courtððs€decision€toÏallow€the€amendment€to€Appellantððs€indictment€was€proper.ÌÓ  ÓÌIII.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àNext,€Appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€failure€to€charge€theÏjury€with€the€lesser€included€offense€of€theft.€€It€is€true€that€theft€is€a€lesser€includedÏoffense€of€aggravated€robbery.€€òòState€v.€Kingóó,€905€S.W.2d€207,€214€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1995).€€Appellant's€aggravated€robbery€conviction€required€a€finding€by€theÏjury€that€the€elements€of€theft€were€present€and,€in€addition,€the€following€elements:€Í(1)€€that€the€property€was€taken€from€the€person€of€another€by€violence€or€by€puttingÏthe€person€in€fear,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€39„13„401(a)€(1991);€and€(2)€€that€this€actÏwas€accomplished€with€a€deadly€weapon€or€by€display€of€any€article€used€orÏfashioned€to€lead€the€victim€to€reasonably€believe€it€to€be€a€deadly€weapon.€€òòId.óó€€ððÏ39„13„402(1).€€ÌÌà àA€trial€judge€must€charge€the€jury€with€a€lesser€included€offense€ð ðwhere€ððanyÏfacts€.€.€.€are€susceptible€of€inferring€guilt.ðððð€€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€305,€310Ï(Tenn.€1996)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Wrightóó,€618€S.W.2d€310€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981));€Ïòòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„110€(1990)€(requiring€judges€to€include€lesserÏgrades€of€offenses€in€jury€instructions).€€However,€ð ð[w]here€the€evidence€in€a€recordÏclearly€shows€that€the€defendant€was€guilty€of€the€greater€offense€and€is€devoid€ofÏany€evidence€permitting€an€inference€of€guilt€of€the€lesser€offense,€the€trial€courtððsÏfailure€to€charge€on€a€lesser€offense€is€not€error.ðð€€€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878ÏS.W.2d€530,€550€(Tenn.€1994)€(citing€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€797€S.W.2d€589,€593€(Tenn.Ï1990)).€€This€court€has€held€that€no€instruction€is€required€where€the€evidenceÏshows€that€the€crime€was€committed€and€the€only€issue€is€whether€this€particularÏdefendant€was€the€one€who€committed€the€crime.€€òòPrice€v.€Stateóó,€589€S.W.2d€929,Ï932€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Barkeróó,€642€S.W.2d€735,€738€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1982)€(ð ðWhere€the€State's€evidence€establishes€that€the€crime€specifiedÍin€the€indictment€was€committed€and€the€defendant€seeks€only€to€establish€an€alibi,Ïleaving€the€State's€evidence€as€to€the€degree€of€crime€uncontradicted,€noÏinstructions€on€lesser€included€offenses€are€required.ðð)€€€ÌÌà àHere,€the€uncontroverted€proof€showed€that€the€Mapco€Express€was€robbedÏby€a€man€with€a€gun€who€forced€the€cashier€down€on€her€knees„„the€only€questionÏat€issue€was€the€identity€of€this€perpetrator.€€We€therefore€hold€that€the€record€isÏdevoid€of€any€evidence€that€a€mere€theft€occurred,€and,€under€these€circumstances,Ïthe€trial€court€did€not€err€in€failing€to€charge€the€jury€with€the€lesser€includedÏoffense.€ÌÌÓ  ÓIV.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àIn€his€final€issue,€Appellant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€him€aÏmistrial€based€upon€a€reference€by€one€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses€to€the€presence€ofÏhomicide€officers€at€Appellant's€apartment.€€When€asked€by€the€defense€attorneyÏon€cross„examination€how€many€people€were€present€at€Appellant's€apartment€onÏthe€night€of€May€29th€when€Appellant€was€first€investigated,€the€record€reflects€thatÏthe€police€officer€witness€responded€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àThere€were€four€homici.€.€.€officers€went€out€there,€two€uniform€officersÏgoing€out€there;€and€three€investigators€went€inside€and€two€uniformÏguys€went€inside.ÌÓÓÌThough€no€objection€was€made€at€this€time,€the€defense€attorney€later€in€a€benchÏtrial€requested€a€mistrial€ð ðbased€on€the€fact€that€this€jury€has€to€wonder€whyÏHomicide€officers€came€to€the€scene.ðð€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion€for€aÏmistrial€and€we€affirm€that€decision.ÌÌà àThe€decision€to€grant€or€deny€a€mistrial€is€reviewed€for€an€abuse€ofÏdiscretion.€€òòState€v.€Comptonóó,€642€S.W.2d€745,€746€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€ÏGenerally,€the€trial€court€should€use€this€discretion€ð ðwith€the€greatest€caution€andÏonly€in€the€most€urgent€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Wittóó,€572€S.W.2d€913,€917€(Tenn.Ï1978).€€€Initially,€we€note€that€Appellant€failed€to€make€a€contemporaneousÏobjection€which€is€alone€a€ground€for€waiver€of€this€issue.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ï36(a);€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908,€922€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€116€S.€Ct.Ï99€(1995).€€However,€it€is€apparent€that,€in€this€case,€the€trial€judge€did€not€abuseÏhis€discretion.€€It€is€difficult€to€believe€that€jurors€hearing€only€the€officerððs€partialÏreference€to€the€presence€of€homicide€officers€would€infer€that€Appellant€was€underÏinvestigation€for€a€homicide.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€733€S.W.2d€517,€522€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1987)€(detective€witnessðð€statement€that€he€had€taken€photographs€ofÏdefendant€ð ðon€a€different€caseðð€did€not€necessarily€imply€a€previous€record).€ÍFurthermore,€it€appears€that€this€was€an€entirely€inadvertent€statement€and€that€theÏState€had€even€taken€precautions€to€prevent€any€such€reference.ÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€stated€herein,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ô€#ŠÔÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGE