ÿWPCR! …#†VU:Ü % 0(4DXg 0lo 0DÛ 1m 0dŒ 0Jð 0T: 0^Ž 0hì 0rT 0|Æ 0†B 0È 1uX U,Í 0dù U,]U *‰ B³B)ÐDCù AM<4‰U>½ D3û¬.v~Ú 0@XvÓ˜ 0k 0Šú 0 „ 0´$ 0ÇØ 0ÛŸ 0ïz AOiƸ 0D~ 0D D/! B5!˜IBM Proprinter X24ePROPRN24ÈÈ0®ØP ÿ=®—LRƒ P,@ ÐAZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡U_A 3|xE((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóótuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(<1$´´Ô2Ô6.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0  à2 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`(Arial d% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ *Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òFebruary€8,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman$$$$'ÿÿdxd ¢Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€#&Ô€€The€appellant€raised€the€argument€that€the€photo€array€and€the€physical€lineup€wereÏà àunduly€suggestive€in€his€Motion€for€New€Trial.€€We€assume€that€the€appellant€has€à àchosenÏto€abandon€this€argument€on€appeal.€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò(gfi$µµà0  àÔ2(ÆÔ6.Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0` (#(#à(bÕä$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xâr$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒU$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿ@Æ$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³ýt$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Çñû$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÑ7€ØàXdæXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÙ€€ÙßL€'(&;+'h|` Å `€€Lßà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌà@ àSEPTEMBER€1995€SESSIONÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àNO.€03C01„9501„CR„00008Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppelleeà àà àà à)à àKNOX€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Mary€Beth€Leibowitz,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌMICHAEL€EUGENE€DUFF,à àà à)à à(Aggravated€Rape€„€2€CountsÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€Especially€Aggravated€Kidnapping)Ìà àà àAppellantà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÌÌLeslie€M.€Jeffressà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ1776€Riverview€Towerà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ900€South€Gay€Streetà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌKnoxville,€Tennessee€37902à àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493Ì(Appeal€only)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àChristina€S.€ShevalierÌWilliam€Talmanà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ3105€Alcoa€Avenueà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌKnoxville,€Tennessee€37920à àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493Ì(Trial€Only)à àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àRandall€E.€NicholsÌMartha€Weemsà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌ3105€Alcoa€Highwayà àà àÌKnoxville,€Tennessee€37920à àà àà àGreg€HarrisonÌ(Trial€only)à àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àLeon€FranksÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCity„County€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€Tennessee€37902Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌOPINION€FILED:€_________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌWilliam€M.€BarkerÌÌÌÇÓÓà@ àòòOPINIONóóÌÓ Ð ÓThe€appellant,€Michael€Eugene€Duff,€was€indicted€by€a€Knox€County€GrandÏJury€for€five€counts€of€aggravated€rape,€one€count€of€especially€aggravatedÏkidnapping,€€and€four€counts€of€aggravated€kidnapping.€€He€was€found€guilty€by€aÏKnox€County€jury€of€two€counts€of€aggravated€rape€and€one€count€of€especiallyÏaggravated€kidnapping.€€He€was€acquitted€of€the€remaining€counts€of€the€indictment.€ÏThe€trial€court€sentenced€the€appellant€to€twenty„five€years€on€each€conviction€as€aÏRange€Ô€)ÔIÔ€#Ô€offender.€€The€sentences€were€ordered€to€be€served€consecutively€for€anÏaggregate€term€of€seventy„five€years.€€ÌOn€appeal,€the€appellant€has€raised€the€following€issues€for€our€review.€€€HeÏargues€that:ÌÓÓ(1)à8 àThe€evidence€adduced€at€trial€does€not€support€the€guiltyÏverdicts€returned€by€the€jury€in€this€case.ÌÌ(2)à8 àThe€trial€court€failed€to€comply€with€the€Supreme€Court'sÏruling€in€òòBatson€v.€Kentuckyóó,€thus€denying€appellant€theÏopportunity€to€select€a€fair€and€impartial€jury.ÌÌ(3)à8 àThe€trial€court€erred€when€it€refused€to€grant€theÏappellant's€motion€for€a€mistrial.ÌÌ(4)à8 àThe€actions,€comments,€and€demeanor€of€the€trial€courtÏtoward€the€appellant's€counsel€and€toward€the€victim€inÏthe€case€during€the€trial€and€in€the€presence€of€the€juryÏdeprived€the€defendant€of€a€fair€trial.ÌÌ(5)à8 àThe€sentences€imposed€by€the€trial€court€following€theÏconvictions€were€excessive€and€unlawful€given€the€factsÏand€circumstances€of€the€case.€€ÌÌÓÓAfter€a€careful€review€of€the€record€on€appeal,€briefs,€and€argument€ofÏcounsel,€we€conclude€that€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€should€be€affirmed.€€ÌÌà@ àI.€FACTUAL€BACKGROUNDÌDuring€the€early€morning€hours€of€July31,€1992,€the€victim€in€this€case€wasÏdriving€on€Oak€Ridge€Highway€in€Knox€County€on€her€way€home.€€A€car€travellingÏbehind€her€activated€a€blue€emergency€light.€€The€victim€assumed€that€the€car€behindÏher€was€a€police€officer€signalling€her€to€stop.€€Therefore,€she€pulled€off€to€the€side€ofÏthe€highway€in€front€of€Shuckerððs€Restaurant.€€While€she€sat€in€her€car€waiting€for€whoÏshe€thought€was€an€officer€of€the€law,€the€victim€reached€in€her€purse€to€produce€herÏdriver's€license.€€As€she€was€searching€for€her€driver's€license,€the€car€door€flew€openÏand€a€man€later€identified€as€the€appellant€hit€her€in€the€face€and€pushed€her€in€theÏfloor.€€Someone€else€got€into€the€passenger€side€of€her€car€and€held€her€down.€€TheÏappellant€drove€the€victim's€car€a€short€distance€behind€the€closed€restaurant€whereÏshe€had€originally€stopped€her€car.€€The€victim€struggled€with€her€attackers€and€wasÏeventually€able€to€fight€her€way€out€of€her€car.€€She€ran€toward€a€hill€behind€theÏrestaurant.€€€Under€a€violent€attack€of€nightmarish€proportions,€the€victim€had€theÏpresence€of€mind€to€dial€ðð911"€on€the€cellular€phone€which€she€had€in€her€purse.€ÍShe€told€the€911€dispatcher€€that€three€men€were€trying€to€rape€or€kill€her.€€AtÏapproximately€ten€seconds€into€the€emergency€call,€the€appellant€and€the€otherÏattackers€caught€up€with€her,€threw€her€down,€and€proceeded€to€rape€her.€€The€victimÏtestified€that€the€appellant€got€directly€on€top€of€her€and€inserted€his€penis€inside€her.€ÏAnother€one€of€the€assailants€also€raped€her€while€the€defendant€held€her€down.€ÏThe€victim€testified€that€the€twigs€of€a€tree€branch€were€placed€in€her€vagina.€€ÌIn€response€to€the€911€call,€officers€of€the€Knoxville€Police€DepartmentÏarrived€on€the€scene€and€found€the€victim€in€the€wooded€area€on€top€of€anÏembankment€behind€the€restaurant.€€The€victim€was€taken€to€the€emergency€roomÏwhere€she€was€examined€by€Dr.€Roger€Millwood.€€Dr.€Millwood€removed€the€twigsÏfrom€the€victim's€vagina€and€observed€that€the€victim€had€suffered€various€scratches,Ïbruises,€and€lacerations€on€her€body.€€There€was€no€vaginal€bleeding.€€Although€aÏrape€kit€was€completed,€Dr.€Millwood€saw€no€sperm€on€the€swab€that€he€obtained.€€ÌThe€victim€gave€a€description€of€one€of€her€attackers€to€Officer€ThomasÏMichael€Presley,€a€criminal€investigator€with€the€Knoxville€Police€Department.€€BasedÏon€the€description€given€by€the€victim,€Officer€Presley€compiled€a€photo€array€andÏshowed€it€to€the€victim€on€August€7,€1992,€in€his€office.€€The€appellant's€picture€wasÏone€of€six€shown€to€the€victim€at€that€time.€€The€victim€identified€the€appellant'sÏphotograph€as€being€that€of€one€of€her€attackers.€€The€victim€told€Officer€Presley€thatÏthe€appellant's€photograph€looked€like€the€attacker€in€that€his€nose,€face,€and€eyesÍwere€the€same.€€However,€she€said€that€her€attacker's€hair€was€shorter€than€that€inÏthe€picture€and€that€her€attacker€did€not€have€a€mustache.€€At€that€time€she€requestedÏto€hear€his€voice.€€ÌBased€upon€the€victim's€identification€of€the€appellant€in€the€photo€array,€theÏKnoxville€Police€Department€determined€to€bring€the€appellant€in€for€questioning.€€OnÏAugust€25,€1992,€at€approximately€10:30€p.m.,€Officer€Rodney€Patten€of€the€KnoxvilleÏPolice€Department€and€another€police€officer€were€on€a€routine€patrol€when€they€sawÏthe€appellant€standing€next€to€a€dumpster.€€They€pulled€the€car€over€and€as€they€wereÏgetting€out€of€their€car,€the€appellant€ran.€€The€officers€pursued€the€appellant€on€foot,Ïand€the€appellant€eventually€stopped€running.€€Officer€Patten€told€the€appellant€thatÏthey€needed€to€speak€with€him,€but€did€not€say€why.€€The€appellant€immediately€said,Ï"I€don't€know€nothing€about€no€rape."€€The€testimony€at€trial€was€that€up€to€that€pointÏno€officer€had€indicated€why€they€were€taking€the€appellant€into€custody.€€As€theÏofficers€brought€the€defendant€to€the€police€department,€the€appellant€ð ðseveralðð€€timesÏsaid,€€"Man,€I€don't€know€nothing€about€no€rape."€€The€appellant€was€not€questionedÏwhile€he€was€in€the€company€of€Officer€Patten€and€his€partner.€€Officer€Presley€metÏwith€the€appellant€after€he€was€brought€to€the€police€station.€€The€appellant€askedÏwhy€he€was€there,€and€Officer€Presley€told€him€that€he€would€tell€him€at€a€later€timeÏthe€reason€for€his€being€brought€to€the€station.€€At€that€point€the€appellant€said€onceÏagain,€"If€this€is€about€a€rape,€I€didn't€have€anything€to€do€with€it."€€Again,€theÍtestimony€at€trial€was€that€no€one€of€the€Knoxville€Police€Department€had€told€theÏappellant€the€reason€he€had€been€brought€in.€€ÌSubsequently,€the€appellant€was€placed€in€a€six€(6)€man€lineup€and€theÏvictim€was€called€in€to€see€if€she€could€identify€her€attacker€from€the€lineup.€€TheÏvictim€requested€to€hear€each€man€speak€the€words€that€one€of€her€attackers€hadÏused€during€the€rape.€€€The€appellant€was€standing€in€the€number€three€position,€andÏthe€victim€identified€him€as€being€one€of€the€men€who€raped€her€on€July€31,€1992.€€ÌThe€appellant€presented€no€proof€on€his€behalf€at€trial.€€ÌÌà@ àII.€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEÌThe€appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€theÏconvictions€returned€against€him€in€this€case.€€Our€standard€of€review€when€theÏsufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€questioned€on€appeal€is€"whether,€after€viewing€theÏevidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€couldÏhave€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€ÏòòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979).€€This€means€thatÏwe€may€not€reweigh€the€evidence,€but€must€presume€that€the€jury€has€resolved€allÏconflicts€in€the€testimony€and€drawn€all€reasonable€inferences€from€the€evidence€inÏfavor€of€the€State.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòStateÏv.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€A€defendant€challenging€theÍsufficiency€of€the€evidence€has€the€burden€of€illustrating€to€this€Court€why€theÏevidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact€in€his€or€herÏcase.€€This€Court€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€for€lack€of€sufficient€evidence€unlessÏthe€facts€contained€in€the€record€and€any€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€theÏfacts€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€defendantÏguilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.Ï1982).€€€Based€upon€our€careful€review€of€the€evidence€in€this€case€and€in€light€of€theÏabove„cited€authority,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€more€than€sufficiently€supportsÏeach€verdict€of€guilt.€ÌÌà@ àA.€€AGGRAVATED€RAPE€„€COUNT€THREE€(3)ÌCount€three€(3)€of€the€indictment€charged€the€appellant€with€aggravated€rapeÏin€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„502(a)(3)(A)€whichÏprovides€that:ÌÓÓà8 àAggravated€rape€is€unlawful€sexual€penetration€of€a€victimÏby€the€defendant€or€the€defendant€by€a€victimÏaccompanied€by€...€the€following€circumstances;€ÌÌà8 à(3)€The€defendant€is€aided€or€abetted€by€one€(1)€or€moreÏother€persons;€and€(A)€force€or€coercion€is€used€toÏaccomplish€the€act.ÌÌÓÓThe€appellant€contends€that€the€victim€in€this€case€offered€contradictoryÏtestimony€and€therefore€the€jury€should€not€have€accredited€her€testimony.€€On€theÍcritical€issue€of€whether€there€was€sufficient€proof€to€support€the€jury's€finding€that€theÏappellant€was€aided€and€abetted€by€one€or€more€other€persons€in€the€penileÏpenetration€of€the€victim€in€this€case,€there€was€testimony€from€the€victim€that€theÏappellant€ordered€his€co„assailants€to€hold€the€victim€down€and€that€he€did€insert€hisÏpenis€into€her€vagina.€€The€appellant€correctly€notes€that€some€of€the€victim'sÏtestimony€was€confused€and€at€times€contradictory€on€such€issues€as€whether€theÏsame€person€who€had€disrobed€her€also€raped€her,€or€whether€the€vehicle€whichÏultimately€"pulled€her€over"€had€been€behind€her€for€a€long€period€of€time€or€a€shortÏperiod€of€time.€€Additionally,€a€thorough€cross€examination€of€the€victim€revealed€thatÏthe€victim's€statements€to€the€emergency€room€physician€were€in€conflict€with€theÏstatements€she€made€at€trial.€€It€is€well€settled€that€"a€guilty€verdict€approved€by€theÏtrial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€State's€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflictsÏin€testimony€in€favor€of€the€theory€of€the€State."€€òòState€v.€Hatchettóó,€560€S.W.2d€627,Ï630€(Tenn.€1978);€òòState€v.€Townsendóó,€525€S.W.2d€842,€843€(Tenn.€1975).€€QuestionsÏconcerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€theÏevidence,€as€well€as€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€ofÏfact,€not€this€Court.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€jury€was€wellÏwithin€reason€to€accredit€the€victim's€testimony€on€the€crucial€issue€of€whether€theÏappellant€was€the€man€who,€€with€the€help€of€others,€€forced€penile€penetration€uponÏthe€victim€in€this€case.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌ€à@ àB.€€AGGRAVATED€RAPE€„€COUNT€FIVE€(5)ÌFor€his€next€issue€the€appellant€asserts€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€asÏa€matter€of€law€to€support€his€conviction€for€the€aggravated€rape€charged€in€count€fiveÏ(5)€of€the€indictment.€€€This€count€of€the€indictment€was€that€the€appellant€didÏunlawfully€and€forcibly€aid€and€abet€the€sexual€penetration€of€the€victim€by€anotherÏindividual€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„502€(2)€whichÏprovides€that:ÌÓÓà8 àAggravated€rape€is€unlawful€sexual€penetration€of€a€victimÏby€the€defendant€or€the€defendant€by€a€victimÏaccompanied€by€...€the€following€circumstances;€ÌÌÓÓà à(2)€The€defendant€causes€bodily€injury€to€the€victim.Ì€The€appellant€does€not€contend€that€the€elements€of€the€offense€were€notÏmet,€only€that€the€victim's€identification€of€the€appellant€as€the€man€who€aided€andÏabetted€another€in€the€rape€was€insufficient.€€The€appellant€argues€that€theÏidentification€of€him€as€the€rapist€was€based€solely€on€the€testimony€of€the€victim€€andÏthat€this€identification€was€unreliable.€€ÌWe€disagree€with€the€appellant's€contention€that€the€eyewitness€identificationÏof€him€was€the€sole€evidence€introduced€to€prove€identity€in€this€case.€€As€the€StateÏcorrectly€points€out€in€its€brief,€the€State€was€also€able€to€introduce€evidence€ofÏidentity€through€the€testimony€of€Officers€Rodney€Patten€and€Thomas€Presley.€€AsÍstated€earlier,€both€officers€testified€that€the€appellant€denied€responsibility€for€theÏrape€before€he€was€ever€informed€that€he€was€to€be€questioned€about€the€incident.€ÏThe€appellantððs€premature€statements€that€he€ð ð€...didn't€have€anything€to€do€withðð€theÏrape€could€have€been€construed€reasonably€by€the€jury€as€strong€indications€of€theÏappellantððs€involvement€in€the€crimes.€ÌThe€appellant€filed€a€motion€seeking€to€have€the€results€of€both€the€photoÏarray€lineup€and€the€physical€lineup€suppressed€because€the€identification€by€theÏvictim€of€the€appellant€was€unreliable.€€The€appellant€relies€upon€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó,€409ÏU.S.€188,€93€S.€Ct.€375,€34€L.€Ed.€2d€401€(1972),€to€support€his€argument€that€theÏidentification€of€the€appellant€in€this€case€was€too€unreliable€to€be€admitted€intoÏevidence.€€At€the€outset€we€note€that€the€appellant€has€not€argued€in€his€brief€thatÏeither€the€photo€array€or€the€physical€lineup€were€conducted€in€an€unduly€andÏimpermissibly€suggestive€fashion.€× ƒ+ ××  ×€Accordingly,€we€will€not€review€the€proceduresÏemployed€by€the€Knoxville€Police€Department€in€this€case.€€ÌThe€identification€of€the€appellant€by€the€victim€as€one€of€the€men€who€rapedÏher€was€found€to€be€reliable€by€the€trial€court.€€We€agree€with€the€trial€court€and€affirmÏthe€trial€court's€decision€to€allow€the€victim's€testimony€as€to€the€identity€of€herÏattacker.€€Under€the€standard€announced€in€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó,€òòsupraóó,€the€followingÍfactors€are€to€be€taken€into€consideration€when€determining€whether€an€identificationÏis€too€unreliable€to€be€admitted€into€evidence;€(1)€the€opportunity€of€the€witness€toÏview€the€criminal€at€the€time€of€the€crime;€(2)€the€witness'€degree€of€attention€at€theÏtime€of€the€crime;€(3)€the€accuracy€of€the€witness'€prior€description;€(4)€the€level€ofÏcertainty€demonstrated€at€confrontation;€(5)€the€time€elapsed€between€the€crime€andÏthe€confrontation.€€òòId.óó€at€199.€€ÌThe€victim€in€this€case€testified€that€she€clearly€saw€the€appellant's€faceÏilluminated€by€her€interior€car€light€when€he€forced€his€way€into€her€vehicle€at€theÏbeginning€of€the€attack.€€Additionally,€the€victim€testified€that€the€appellant's€face€wasÏdirectly€in€front€of€her€as€he€lay€on€top€of€her€and€raped€her.€€The€victim€was€notÏknocked€unconscious,€nor€was€she€intoxicated€at€the€time€of€the€rape,€and€herÏdescription€of€one€of€her€attackers€led€the€police€to€the€appellant.€€Based€upon€theÏforegoing€the€trial€judge€concluded€as€a€matter€of€law€that€the€victimððs€identificationÏwas€reliable€and€therefore€admissible.€€We€agree.€The€victim€in€this€case€neverÏwavered€in€her€identification€of€the€appellant€as€one€of€the€men€who€raped€her.€€SheÏpicked€him€out€of€a€six„photo€array€and€was€able€to€articulate€which€features€on€theÏsuspect€in€the€photograph€led€her€to€believe€that€it€was€a€photograph€of€one€of€theÏmen€who€had€attacked€her€while€pointing€out€that€the€suspectððs€hair€was€shorter€atÏthe€time€he€raped€her€than€it€was€at€the€time€the€photograph€was€taken.€€Additionally,Ïwhen€the€appellant€was€presented€in€a€six€(6)€man€physical€lineup,€the€victimÍimmediately€picked€him€out€of€the€lineup€and€was€further€"absolutely€sure"€that€theÏappellant€was€the€same€man€who€raped€her€when,€during€the€lineup,€€he€spoke€theÏwords€that€he€had€spoken€during€the€rape.€€Officer€Presley€testified€that€the€photoÏarray€took€place€only€seven€days€after€the€rape€occurred.€€Further,€he€testified€that€theÏphysical€lineup€took€place€€twenty„six€days€after€the€rape€occurred.€€We€conclude€thatÏthis€lapse€in€time€between€the€crime€and€the€confrontation€was€insignificant€in€thisÏcase.€€òòSeeóó€òòForbes€v.€Stateóó,€559€S.W.2d€318,€323€(Tenn.€1977)€(ninety„eight€daysÏfound€to€be€close€enough€in€proximity).€€Accordingly,€we€find€this€issue€to€be€withoutÏmerit.€€ÌÌà@ àC.€ESPECIALLY€AGGRAVATED€KIDNAPPING€„€COUNT€SIX€(6)ÌFinally,€with€regard€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€the€appellant€claimsÏthat€the€jury's€verdict€of€guilty€of€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€should€beÏreversed.€€The€appellant€argues€first€that€based€on€our€Supreme€Court's€holding€inÏòòState€v.€Anthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€299€(Tenn.€1991),€the€evidence€did€not€support€aÏseparate€conviction€for€this€offense.€€Second,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€evidenceÏfailed€to€establish€that€the€victim€suffered€serious€bodily€injury€as€required€by€theÏespecially€aggravated€Kidnapping€statute.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€)ÔððÔ€#Ô€39„13„305€(1991ÏRepl.).€€We€disagree€as€to€both€arguments.€ÌIn€òòAnthonyóó,€our€Supreme€Court€recognized€that€in€certain€circumstances€dueÏprocess€of€law€will€not€permit€a€kidnapping€conviction€where€the€detention€of€theÏvictim€is€merely€incidental€to€the€commission€of€another€felony,€such€as€robbery€orÏrape.€òòIdóó.€at€306.€In€analyzing€the€question€of€whether€the€appellant's€conduct€inÏgetting€into€the€victim's€car,€ordering€her€held€down,€and€driving€the€vehicle€around€toÏthe€back€of€the€restaurant€where€the€victim€had€originally€stopped€her€car€is€sufficientÏto€support€the€separate€conviction€of€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,€we€turn€toÏthe€question€posed€by€the€Supreme€Court€in€òòAnthonyóó.€€That€is,€"whether€theÏconfinement,€movement€or€detention€is€essentially€incidental€to€the€accompanyingÏfelony.ðð€òòIdóó.€€As€the€Court€noted,€one€way€to€answer€this€question€is€to€determineÏwhether€the€defendantððs€conduct€ð ðòòmakes€the€other€crime€substantially€easier€ofÏcommission€or€substantially€lessens€the€risk€of€detectionóó.€òòIdóó.€(emphasis€added).€€ÌIn€this€case€there€is€no€question€but€that€the€victim€was€confined,€moved,€andÏdetained€by€her€attackers€in€order€for€them€to€commit€the€crime€of€rape€upon€her.€€TheÏmovement€of€the€victim€in€this€case€was€not€slight€or€inconsequential.€€After€the€victimÏwas€tricked€into€pulling€off€the€side€of€the€road€by€the€appellant€and€his€companions,Ïshe€was€forced€into€the€floorboard€of€her€car€while€the€appellant€took€control€of€herÏcar€€and€drove€it€around€to€the€back€of€a€restaurant.€€We€conclude€that€in€this€case€theÏdetention€and€movement€of€the€victim€was€not€an€inherent€part€of€the€rape.€€WhileÏconfinement€and€detention€are€necessarily€part€of€rape,€the€movement€of€the€victimÍbehind€the€restaurant€where€she€had€originally€stopped€her€car€was€not€necessaryÏfor€the€appellant€to€carry€out€the€rape.€€Finally,€it€is€clear€that€in€this€case€the€appellantÏand€his€companions€sought€to€"substantially€lessen€the€risk€of€detection"€of€theirÏcrime€by€a€passerby€when€they€drove€the€victim€off€of€the€main€highway€to€an€isolatedÏarea€behind€the€restaurant.€€€As€we€stated€in€òòThomas€Ray€Tarpley€v.€Stateóó,€No.Ï03C01„9303„CR„00067€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€December€20,€1993),€€òòpermóó.Ïòòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994),€when€a€rapist€moves€his€victim€to€an€isolated€locationÏhe€"substantially€increas[es]€the€risk€of€harm€to€the€victim€by€making€the€offense€ofÏrape€easier€to€commit."€€Accordingly,€the€appellant's€contention€that€his€rights€to€dueÏprocess€were€violated€by€being€convicted€of€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€andÏrape€is€without€merit.€€ÌThe€second€portion€of€the€appellant's€attack€on€the€especially€aggravatedÏkidnapping€conviction€is€that€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€requires€that€theÏvictim€suffer€serious€bodily€injury€and€that€no€such€showing€was€made€by€theÏprosecution€at€trial.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„11„106(33)€definesÏserious€bodily€injury€as€injury€which€involves;€ÌÓÓ(a)à8 àA€substantial€risk€of€death;€ÌÌ(b)à8 àProtracted€unconsciousness;ÌÌ(c)à8 àExtreme€physical€pain;ÌÌ(d)à8 àProtracted€or€obvious€disfigurement;€orÌÌ(e)à8 àProtracted€loss€or€substantial€impairment€of€a€function€of€aÏbodily€member,€organ€or€mental€faculty.ÌÌÓÓThe€appellant€argues€that€because€the€treating€emergency€room€physicianÏtestified€that€the€victim's€injuries€consisted€of€superficial€scratches€and€bruises€theÏevidence€failed€to€establish€serious€bodily€injury.€€However,€the€appellant€fails€to€takeÏnote€of€the€victim's€testimony€on€this€issue€which€was€that,€ÌÓÓà8 à€...my€face€was€beaten€real€bad.€€You€couldn't€even€seeÏmy€face.€€It€was,€the€bruises€and€cuts,€I€had€all€over€myÏface.€€I€had€deep€cuts€on€my€thighs,€and€then€bruises€withÏhand€prints€all€over€my€breasts€and€all€over€my€buttocks,Ïand€then€they,€had€to€pull€a€twig,€or€a€piece€of€tree€limb€outÏof€me,€and€I€was€all€cut€up€from€that,€and€then,€I€got€someÏkind€of€sexual€disease€from€them.ÌÌÓÓThe€victim€also€testified€that€she€was€kicked€in€the€ribs€and€was€repeatedlyÏtold€that€she€was€going€to€be€killed.€€We€find€that€there€is€more€than€sufficientÏevidence€from€which€the€jury€could€have€concluded€that€the€appellant€inflictedÏserious€bodily€injury€upon€the€victim.€€ÌBased€upon€all€of€the€foregoing€discussion,€€we€conclude€that€the€evidenceÏestablished€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€€that€the€appellant€committed€the€crimes€ofÏaggravated€rape€and€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€for€which€he€was€convicted.€ÏAccordingly,€we€decline€to€reverse€the€convictions€on€grounds€that€the€evidence€wasÏinsufficient.€ÌÌà@ àII.€€€JUROR€CHALLENGE€ÌThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€State€improperly€exercised€aÏpreemptory€challenge€to€strike€a€potential€juror€who€was€black,€and€thereby€violatedÏthe€rule€announced€in€òòBatson€v.€Kentuckyóó,€476€U.S.€79,€106€S.€Ct.€1712,€90€L.€Ed.€2dÏ69€(1986).€€ÌIn€òòBatsonóó,€the€Supreme€Court€of€the€United€States€held€that;ÌÓÓà8 àThe€equal€protection€clause€forbids€the€prosecutor€to€Ïchallenge€potential€jurors€solely€on€account€of€their€raceÏor€on€the€assumption€that€black€jurors€as€a€group€will€beÏunable€impartially€to€consider€the€State's€case€against€aÏblack€defendant.€€ÌÌà àà àòòId.óó€at€476€U.S.€89,€106€S.Ct.€at€1719.ÌÌÓÓ€During€voir€dire,€the€prosecutor€inquired€of€the€jury€panel€€whether,€€asÏmembers€of€the€jury,€€they€would€require€the€state€to€produce€any€medical€evidenceÏbefore€they€could€find€the€defendant€guilty€of€rape.€€One€juror€initially€answered€thatÏshe€would€require€medical€evidence€of€rape€before€she€could€convict.€€This€juror€alsoÏstated€that€she€would€require€the€appellant€to€take€the€stand€and€tell€his€side.€€TheÏState€attempted€to€challenge€this€juror€for€cause€which€was€denied€by€the€trial€court.€ÏThe€trial€court€had€attempted€a€rehabilitation€of€this€juror€by€further€exploring€herÏviews€and€examining€whether€or€not€she€had€understood€the€questions€posed€to€herÏwhen€she€gave€the€two€objectionable€responses.€€The€trial€court€satisfied€itself€thatÏthe€juror€should€not€be€challenged€for€cause.€€Ultimately,€the€State€used€one€of€itsÍpreemptory€challenges€to€strike€the€juror€from€the€panel.€€The€appellant's€attorneyÏobjected€to€the€challenge€on€grounds€that€the€State€was€striking€the€juror€becauseÏshe€was€black€and€the€defendant€was€black€in€violation€of€òòBatson€v.€Kentuckyóó.€€At€thatÏpoint€the€State€gave€a€nondiscriminatory€reason€for€exercising€the€preemptory€strike.€ÏThe€prosecutor€stated,€ÌÓÓà8 àYour€Honor,€we€originally,€as€we€informed€the€court,Ïwanted€to€challenge€her€for€cause.€€It€was€ourÏunderstanding€from€[sic]€she€said,€at€least€from€the€lastÏdirect€response€that€she€gave,€that€she€was€going€toÏrequire€the€State€to€put€on€medical€proof.€€And€herÏresponse€at€that€time€indicated€that€she€would€not€followÏthe€law,€basically,€if€we€didn't€put€on€some€type€of€proofÏthat€was€satisfactory€to€her,€and€that€was€never€any€wayÏwe€were€going€to€get€a€verdict€for€the€State.€€I€am€not€sureÏthat€this€question€is€still€cleared,€still€has€cleared€that€up,€atÏleast,€€in€our€minds€as€to€what€she's€going€to€require€onÏmedical€proof.€€For€that€reason€we€are€still€challenging€herÏfor€cause.€€ÌÌÓÓAdditionally,€when€pushed€further€for€a€nondiscriminatory€reason€forÏchallenging€the€juror,€the€State€said,ÌÓÓà8 àWe€have€stated€our€reason€previously,€for€cause,€Judge.€ÏWe€don't€feel€like€she€will€follow€the€law€in€this€case.€€TheÏthing€is,€when,€her€answers€were€so€inconsistent€when€weÏwere€questioning€her€earlier.€€She€said€that€she€was€goingÏto€require€the€State€to€put€on€medical€proof.€€That€she€wasÏgoing€to€require€the€defendant€to€testify.€€And€she€seemedÏtotally€confused,€ah,€we€challenged€her€for€cause.€€TheÏcourt€would€not€let€us€challenge€her€for€cause.€€So,€we€areÏexercising€a€preemptory€strike€based€upon€the€sameÏreasons€that€we€gave€in€the€challenges€for€cause.€€Is,€thatÍwe€don't€feel€like€she€can€follow€the€law€in€this€case,€andÏfollow€the€court's€instructions.€€ÌÌÓÓThe€Supreme€Court€held€that€in€order€to€establish€a€prima€facie€òòBatsonóó€claim,Ïthe€defendant€must€raise€an€inference€that€the€prosecutor€excluded€certainÏveniremen€from€the€petty€jury€on€account€of€their€race.€€In€order€to€raise€such€anÏinference€the€defendant€must€show€that€he€is€a€member€of€a€cognizable€racial€group,Ïand€that€the€prosecutor€has€exercised€preemptory€challenges€to€remove€from€theÏvenire€members€of€the€defendant's€race.€€€ð ðThe€defendant€is€entitled€to€rely€on€the€factÏ...€that€preemptory€challenges€constitute€a€jury€selection€that€permits€those€toÏdiscriminate€who€are€of€a€mind€to€discriminate."€€Id.€€€The€trial€court€did€not€make€aÏfinding€on€the€record€that€the€appellant€made€out€a€prima€facie€case€of€discrimination.€ÏThis€court€is€not€at€all€certain€after€a€thorough€review€of€the€record€that€the€appellantÏdid€make€the€required€showing€under€òòBatsonóó.€€However,€even€€assuming€theÏappellant€did€make€out€a€prima€facie€showing€under€òòBatsonóó,€we€hold€that€there€wasÏno€racial€discrimination€on€the€part€of€the€State€in€the€selection€of€the€jury€in€this€case.ÏThe€State€provided€a€neutral€and€acceptable€reason€"related€to€the€particular€case€toÏbe€tried"€for€striking€the€potential€juror.€€òòIdóó.at€98.€€Although€the€reason€given€by€theÏState€may€not€have€been€sufficient€to€justify€a€challenge€for€cause,€in€òòBatsonóó,€theÏSupreme€Court€held€that€"the€prosecutor's€explanation€need€not€rise€to€the€levelÏjustifying€exercise€of€a€challenge€for€cause.€€òòId.óó€at€97.€€ÌWe€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€State's€reason€for€exercising€aÏpreemptory€strike€of€this€juror€was€unrelated€to€her€race.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌà@ àIII.€€MISTRIALÌNext€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€grant€hisÏmotion€for€a€mistrial€following€the€revelation€that€a€female€court€officer€had€held€theÏvictim's€hand€in€court€in€front€of€the€jury€during€cross„examination.€€Although€theÏrecord€is€silent€in€that€regard,€the€parties€and€the€court€agreed€on€the€record€that€theÏincident€did€in€fact€occur.€€Surprisingly,€at€the€time€the€hand„holding€occurred,€noneÏof€the€attorneys€for€the€parties€noticed€that€this€conduct€was€occurring€even€thoughÏthe€victim€apparently€was€testifying€at€the€time.€€We€are€able€to€discern€from€aÏdiscussion€which€occurred€on€the€record€the€day€after€the€hand„holding€incident,€€thatÏwhen€the€trial€judge€saw€the€court€officer€holding€the€victim's€hand€she€immediatelyÏcalled€for€a€recess€in€the€proceedings€and€sent€the€jury€from€the€courtroom.€€In€theÏabsence€of€the€jury,€and€off€the€record,€the€trial€judge€alerted€both€counsel€for€theÏState€and€appellant's€counsel€of€the€occurrence€and€directed€the€court€officer€toÏrefrain€from€such€conduct.€€Additionally,€the€trial€court€advised€counsel€for€the€partiesÏthat€if€either€desired,€the€female€court€officer€would€be€removed€from€all€duties€inÍconnection€with€the€case.€€Apparently,€counsel€for€the€appellant€and€the€State€agreedÏthat€the€court€officer's€removal€from€the€case€was€unnecessary.€€ÌThe€following€day,€however,€appellant's€counsel€moved€for€a€mistrial€basedÏupon€the€conduct€of€the€court€officer€in€holding€the€victim's€hand€during€herÏtestimony.€€After€hearing€argument€of€counsel,€the€trial€court€determined€that€aÏmistrial€was€not€required,€but€that€a€general€curative€instruction€should€be€given€toÏthe€jury.€€ÌThe€decision€to€grant€or€deny€a€motion€for€mistrial€rests€within€the€soundÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€871€S.W.2d€667,€672€(Tenn.€1994).€ÏCounsel€for€the€appellant€candidly€admits€in€appellant's€brief€that€there€is€noÏevidence€in€the€record€that€any€of€the€jurors€even€observed€the€court€officer€holdingÏthe€victim's€hand€while€testifying.€€Therefore,€because€there€has€been€no€showing€ofÏprejudice€to€the€appellant,€we€must€concur€with€the€trial€court's€judgment€that€aÏmistrial€was€not€warranted.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€McPhersonóó,€882€S.W.2d€365,€370€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1994).€ÌÌà@ àIV.€€TRIAL€COURT€BIASÌAppellant€next€argues€that€€the€actions,€comments€and€demeanor€of€the€trialÏjudge€toward€defense€counsel€and€toward€the€alleged€victim€during€the€trial€and€inÏthe€presence€of€the€jury€revealed€prejudice€against€the€appellant,€denied€appellantÍthe€opportunity€to€effectively€cross„examine€the€alleged€victim,€and€generallyÏprevented€appellant€from€receiving€a€fair€trial.€€€The€only€specific€allegation€made€byÏthe€appellant€in€his€brief€to€support€this€contention€is€that€during€cross€examination€ofÏthe€victim,€and€in€response€to€an€objection€by€the€state,€the€trial€judge€said€that€herÏrecollection€of€a€specific€portion€of€the€direct€examination€to€which€appellantððsÏattorney€made€a€reference€was€different€from€his.€€Directly€thereafter,€the€trial€judgeÏadmonished€the€jury€that€regardless€of€what€the€attorneys€or€the€court€said,€the€onlyÏstatements€which€were€to€be€considered€by€the€jury€as€evidence€were€thoseÏstatements€made€by€€witnesses.€€While€we€believe€the€better€practice€is€for€trialÏjudges€to€refrain€from€making€statements€which€could€be€construed€as€comments€onÏthe€evidence,€we€do€not€believe€that€the€judgeððs€comments€in€this€case€wereÏanything€but€an€honest€attempt€by€the€court€to€keep€the€trial€proceeding€smoothly.€€InÏany€event,€our€thorough€review€of€the€record€in€this€case€reveals€no€bias€or€prejudiceÏagainst€the€appellant€by€the€trial€judge.€€We€therefore€conclude€that€nothingÏcontained€within€the€record€demonstrates€that€the€appellant€had€anything€but€a€fairÏtrial.€€Accordingly,€we€decline€to€reverse€on€this€ground.ÌÌÌÌà@ àV.€SENTENCING€ÌFinally,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€sentences€imposed€by€the€trial€courtÏfollowing€conviction€were€excessive€and€unlawful.€€€When€there€is€a€challenge€to€theÏlength,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conductÏa€òòde€novoóó€review€with€the€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€courtÏare€correct.€€Tenn€€Code€Ann.€Ô€)ÔððÔ€#Ô€40„35„401€(d)€(1990€Repl.).€€This€presumption€isÏ"conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€consideredÏthe€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ï823€S.W.€2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€ÌIn€sentencing€a€person€convicted€of€a€criminal€offense€the€trial€court€is€to€takeÏinto€consideration€€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€at€the€sentencingÏhearing;€(2)€the€pre„sentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€argumentsÏas€to€sentencing€alternatives;€€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminalÏconduct€involved;€(5)€evidence€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€theÏenhancement€and€mitigating€factors€in€sections€40„35„113€and€40„35„114;€and€(6)Ïany€statement€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€his€own€behalf€about€sentencing.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„210(b)€(1995€Supp.).€€ÌThe€appellant€first€contends€that€the€number€of€years€ordered€to€be€served€onÏeach€conviction€is€excessive.€€€The€court€ordered€the€appellant€to€serve€twenty„five€Ïyears€(25)€on€each€conviction.€€These€sentences€represented€the€maximum€sentenceÍwithin€the€range.€€Further€the€court€ordered€that€the€sentences€be€servedÏconsecutively.€ÌIt€is€undisputed€that€no€mitigating€factors€applied€in€this€case€and€that€there€isÏat€least€one€undisputed€enhancement€factor.€€Therefore,€the€court€was€authorized€toÏset€the€sentence€above€the€minimum€but€still€within€Range€I.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„210€(d)€(1995€Supp.).€ÌThe€record€clearly€shows€that€trial€court€applied€the€following€enhancementÏfactors€found€at€Tennessee€Code€annotated€section€40„35„114€to€each€conviction.ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€The€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminalÏconvictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€thoseÏnecessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range;.Ìà8 àÌà8 à(2)€The€defendant€was€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€anÏoffense€involving€two€(2)€or€more€criminal€actors;Ìà8 àÌà8 à(5)€The€defendant€treated€or€allowed€a€victim€to€be€treatedÏwith€exceptional€cruelty€during€the€commission€of€theÏoffense;Ìà8 àÌà8 à(6)€The€personal€injuries€inflicted€upon€...the€victim€[were]Ïparticularly€great;ÌÌà8 à(8)€The€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€unwillingnessÏto€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involvingÏrelease€into€the€community;ÌÌÓÓThe€record€is€unclear€whether€the€trial€court€also€applied€two€additionalÏenhancement€factors.€€€The€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€did€apply€twoÏadditional€enhancement€factors.€€It€is€the€State's€position€that€the€trial€court€did€notÍapply€those€two€additional€factors.€€The€enhancement€factors€which€are€in€disputeÏare:€€€ÓÓà8 àà8 à(7)€the€offense€involved€a€victim€and€was€committed€toÏgratify€that€defendantððs€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement;Ìà8 àÌà8 à(11)€the€felony€resulted€in€death€or€bodily€injury€orÏinvolved€the€threat€of€death€or€bodily€injury€to€anotherÏperson€and€the€defendant€has€previously€been€convictedÏof€a€felony€that€resulted€in€death€or€bodily€injury.€ÌÌÓÓAs€we€review€this€record€upon€appeal,€we€conclude€that€the€record€is€simplyÏunclear€whether€the€trial€court€applied€enhancement€factor€(7)€and€(11).€€Ïà àNotwithstanding€the€somewhat€confusing€remarks€of€the€trial€court€duringÏsentencing,€our€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€leads€us€to€agree€that€the€length€of€sentencesÏimposed€by€the€trial€court€is€well€supported€by€the€evidence.€The€enhancementÏfactors€which€are€apparent€from€the€record€€justify€the€sentences€given.€€€€ÌEven€the€appellant€does€not€contest€the€applicability€of€factor€(1)€to€this€case.€ÏThe€criminal€history€of€the€appellant€was€well€established€by€the€state.€€ÌFactor€(2)€applies€because€the€appellant€was€a€leader€in€the€commission€ofÏthe€offenses.€€It€was€the€appellant€who€drove€the€victimððs€car€around€to€the€back€of€theÏrestaurant.€It€was€the€appellant€who€barked€out€orders€to€his€cohorts€to€hold€the€victimÏdown€so€that€he€could€rape€her.€€It€was€the€appellant€who€threatened€to€kill€the€victimÏand€held€her€down€while€another€man€raped€her.€€€€ÌThe€trial€court€found€that€based€upon€the€appellantððs€allowing€the€brokenÏtwigs€of€a€tree€branch€to€be€shoved€inside€the€victimððs€vagina€he€allowed€the€victim€toÍbe€treated€with€exceptional€cruelty.€€The€appellant€contends€that€because€the€juryÏacquitted€him€of€all€charges€resulting€from€this€incident€he€cannot€be€heldÏaccountable€for€this€extreme€act€of€cruelty.€€We€disagree.€€The€appellant€was€presentÏwhen€the€act€occurred.€€That€is€sufficient€to€establish€that€he€allowed€the€victim€to€beÏtreated€with€exceptional€cruelty.€The€trial€court€properly€applied€factor€(5).Ì€€€€à àAdditionally,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€correctly€appliedÏenhancement€factor€(6)€to€the€aggravated€rape€convictions€but€erred€by€applying€it€toÏthe€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€conviction.€€Factor€(6)€allows€for€an€enhancedÏsentence€where€€the€personal€injuries€of€the€victim€are€ð ðparticularly€great.ðð€€During€theÏcommission€of€these€crimes€the€victim€was€beaten€in€the€head€and€face,€kicked€in€theÏribs,€sustained€deep€cuts€to€her€thighs,€had€her€clothing€ripped€from€her€body,€heldÏdown,€and€told€that€she€was€going€to€be€killed.€€The€evidence€supported€the€trialÏcourtððs€finding€that€the€personal€injuries€suffered€by€the€victim€were€particularly€great.€€€ÏThe€conviction€on€count€three€(3)€of€the€indictment€did€not€require€proof€of€bodilyÏinjury€to€the€victim.€€While€count€five€(5)€required€proof€of€bodily€injury€we€agree€withÏthe€trial€court€that€the€proof€established€that€she€sustained€particularly€great€personalÏinjuries€over€and€above€those€injuries€necessary€to€support€the€count€five€(5)Ïaggravated€rape€conviction.€€In€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€891€S.W.2d€922€930,€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1994),€€this€court€held€that€enhancement€factor€(6)€may€be€applied€in€a€case€ofÏaggravated€rape.€€We€reasoned€that€ð ðthe€clear€intent€of€the€General€Assembly€was€toÍmake€this€enhancement€factor€broad€enough€to€include€injuries€which€are€notÏpresently€embraced€in€the€statutory€definition€of€€ððbodily€injury.ðð€ð ð€òòIdóó.€€Accordingly,€thisÏfactor€was€properly€applied€to€both€aggravated€rape€convictions.ÌHowever,€with€regard€to€the€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€conviction,€Ïwe€conclude€that€the€of€proof€of€ð ðserious€bodily€injury€ð ð€required€to€support€theÏconviction,€is€essentially€the€same€as€proof€of€ð ðparticularly€greatðð€personal€injuries.€ÏTherefore,€€€factor€(6)€cannot€be€used€to€further€enhance€the€sentence€for€thisÏconviction.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Jonesóó€883€S.W.2d€597,€602€(Tenn.€1994)(€proof€of€ð ðseriousÏbodily€injuryðð€will€always€satisfy€definition€of€ð ðparticularly€great€personal€injuriesðð).€ÏHowever,€€because€three€(3)€enhancement€factors€do€apply€to€this€conviction€we€holdÏthat€the€maximum€sentence€ordered€by€the€trial€court€is€justified.€ÌThe€state€concedes€that€factor€(8)€was€inapplicable€to€this€case.€€There€wasÏsimply€no€evidence€that€the€appellant€ever€refused€to€comply€with€€the€terms€of€aÏsentence€involving€community€release.€€The€trial€court€gave€this€factor€little€weight.€ÏHowever€it€was€error€to€apply€factor€(8)€at€all.€ÌSimilarly,€there€was€no€evidence€introduced€by€the€state€that€the€appellantÏcommitted€any€of€these€crimes€for€pleasure€or€excitement.€€Accordingly,€if€factor€(7)€Ïwas€applied€by€the€trial€court,€€it€was€error.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€31,€35Ï(Tenn.€1993).ÌFinally,€with€regard€to€factor€(11)€there€was€no€proof€that€the€robberyÏconviction€which€the€trial€court€believed€triggered€the€application€of€this€factorÏresulted€in€death€or€bodily€injury€or€the€threat€of€death€or€bodily€injury€to€anotherÏperson.€€Accordingly,€if€this€factor€was€applied,€it€was€error.€ÌNotwithstanding€the€errors€committed€by€the€trial€court€in€applying€certainÏenhancement€factors€to€the€convictions,€€we€conclude€that€the€application€of€factors€Ï(1),€(2),€(5)€and€(6)€are€clearly€sufficient€to€support€the€imposition€of€maximumÏsentences€for€each€aggravated€rape€conviction€and€that€factors€(1),(2)€and€(5)€justifyÏthe€maximum€sentence€for€the€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€conviction.€€ÌNext€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€ordered€theÏsentences€to€be€served€consecutively€rather€than€concurrently.€€In€determiningÏwhether€to€impose€consecutive€sentences€for€multiple€counts€in€a€single€trial,€theÏcriminal€courts€of€Tennessee€are€guided€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÏ40„35„115.€€Section€115€provides€that€consecutive€sentences€are€not€to€be€routinelyÏimposed.€€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€739€S.W.2d€227,€230€(Tenn.€1987);€see€also€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„115,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€However,€€a€sentencingÏcourt€may€order€consecutive€sentences€if€it€finds€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidenceÏthat:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€[t]hat€defendant€is€a€professional€criminal€who€hasÏknowingly€devoted€himself€to€criminal€acts€as€a€majorÏsource€of€livelihood;€Ìà à€€Ìà8 à€(2)€[t]he€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€of€criminalÏactivity€is€extensive;€ÌÌà à€€€€€€*€*€*ÌÌà8 à(4)€[t]he€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whoseÏbehavior€indicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life,€and€noÏhesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€toÏhuman€life€is€high...€.€ÌÌ€€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115.€(1990€Repl.).ÌÌÓÓOnce€again€the€record€of€the€trial€courtððs€findings€is€unclear.€€The€trial€courtÏappears€to€have€found€that€the€appellant€has€an€extensive€criminal€history.€€It€isÏunclear€whether€the€court€also€found€the€appellant€to€be€a€professional€criminal.€€TheÏtrial€court€did€find€the€appellant€to€be€a€dangerous€offender€based€apparently€uponÏthe€nature€of€the€crimes€committed.€€ÌThe€factors€enumerated€in€section€115€are€listed€in€the€alternative.€€TheÏstatute€plainly€allows€a€trial€court€to€impose€consecutive€sentences€when€any€one€ofÏthe€factors€enumerated€are€present.€€€Because€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€theÏappellant€has€an€extensive€history€of€criminal€activity,€€we€need€not€reach€the€issue€ofÏwhether€either€of€the€other€two€criteria€also€would€have€justified€the€imposition€ofÏconsecutive€sentences€in€this€case.€€€The€appellant€has€been€convicted€of€four€(4)Ïprior€felonies,€and€at€least€€three€(3)€misdemeanor€convictions€€as€an€adult.€€HisÏjuvenile€record€is€even€more€extensive€with€adjudications€beginning€in€1979€andÍcontinuing€every€year€through€1983.€€€Accordingly,€we€agree€with€the€trial€courtððsÏjudgment€that€the€appellant€should€be€ordered€to€serve€his€sentences€consecutively.€ÌHaving€found€no€reversible€error€in€the€record,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÏis€affirmed.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌà àà àCONCUR€BY:ÌÌÌà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àJOHN€K.€BYERS,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌÌÌÌà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àF.€LEE€RUSSELL,€SPECIAL€JUDGE