ÿWPCI …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ 0d- U>‘ U*Ï B)ù DC" AMe² BÃv~àvÓ^ D31 0@d AO¤Æó 0D¹ D/ý B,˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- Í Î Ï Ð Ñ Ò Ó Ô Õ Ö Ó€Ô¡¨ 3|xß 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌDecember€30,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€–wXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€#$"A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€œNASHVILLE›ÌÌœAUGUST›€SESSION,€œ1996›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,›à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€œ01C01„9510„CC„00351›Ìà àà àà àà àœà à)›Ìà àó óAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœRUTHERFORD›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œJAMES€H.€CLAYTON,€JR.ó ó›Ìœò òMONOLETO€DELSHONE€›à à)à àJUDGEó óÌœò òGREEN,ó ó›à àà àà àà àœò ò)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó ó›Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àœó ó(Aggravated€Robbery)ò ò›Ìó óÌÌò òÓ  ÓON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌœCIRCUIT›€COURT€OF€œRUTHERFORD€COUNTY›ó óÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœGERALD€MELTON›à àà àà àœCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌPublic€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌJEANNIE€KAESSà àà àà àà àMICHAEL€E.€MOOREÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àSolicitor€GeneralÌ201€W.€Main€St.€Ste€101ÌMurfreesboro,€TN€37129à àà àGORDON€W.€SMITHÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssociate€Solicitor€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à500€Charlotte€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0497ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€WHITESELLÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à3rd€Floor€Judicial€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMurfreesboro,€TN€37130à àà à›ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€ °ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€ ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Defendant,€Monoleto€Delshone€Green,€appeals€as€of€right€pursuantÏto€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€He€was€convictedÏon€a€Rutherford€County€jury€verdict€of€Aggravated€Robbery.€€He€appeals€hisÏconviction€presenting€eight€issues€for€review:€(1)€That€the€trial€court€erred€byÏfailing€to€suppress€the€Defendantððs€confession;€(2)€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÏfailing€to€suppress€an€identification€made€of€the€Defendant€at€the€pretrial€hearing;Ï(3)€that€it€was€prejudicial€error€to€admit€evidence€that€the€Defendant€possessedÏa€handgun;€(4)€that€the€judicial€process€was€prejudiced€when€a€witness€wasÏdetained€in€order€to€secure€his€presence€at€the€Defendantððs€trial;€(5)€that€it€wasÏerror€to€admit€a€photographic€lineup€at€trial€which€was€not€provided€by€the€StateÏpursuant€to€a€discovery€request;€(6)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€hearsayÏtestimony;€(7)€€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€evidence€of€flight€andÏinstructing€the€jury€on€flight;€(8)€that€the€Assistant€District€Attorney€madeÏprejudicial€and€improper€remarks€at€trial.€€We€have€examined€the€DefendantððsÏissues€on€appeal€and€conclude€œthat€there€is€no€reversible€error.›€€Therefore,€weÏaffirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àWe€begin€with€a€brief€summary€of€the€facts.€€On€March€1,€1994,€atÏapproximately€11:28€p.m.,€the€victim€was€at€work,€alone,€at€the€Kountry€KornerÏconvenience€store€and€gas€station€in€Murfreesboro,€Tennessee.€€There€were€noÏcustomers€in€the€store.€€The€victim€was€standing€by€the€cash€register€when€aÏlight„skinned€black€male€entered€the€store.€€œThe€victim›€did€not€see€a€vehicleÏparked€in€the€available€spaces€in€front€of€the€store.€€The€individual€who€enteredÏthe€store€wore€a€black€jacket€that€had€the€word€ð ðSoxðð€on€the€back.€€The€victimÏdescribed€him€as€wearing€blue€jeans,€a€black€belt,€white€underwear,€black€andÏwhite€athletic€shoes,€with€a€white€envelope€hanging€from€the€back€pocket.€€TheÏman€was€wearing€a€bandana€that€covered€his€face€over€the€bridge€of€his€nose,Ïso€that€only€his€eyes€were€visible.€€He€had€the€hood€of€the€jacket€pulled€overÏhis€head.ÌÌà àThe€man€had€a€shiny€silver€or€black€automatic€handgun,€like€a€9mm,€withÏa€long€barrel.€€He€announced€that€ð ðThis€is€a€robbery.ðð€€€€At€first,€the€victimÏbelieved€it€was€only€a€joke€by€one€of€his€customers€and€told€him€to€get€out.€€ÏHis€assailant€walked€to€within€three€or€four€feet€of€the€victim.€€The€victim€was€onÏa€platform€slightly€higher€than€the€subject,€but€described€him€as€approximatelyÏfive€feet,€eight€inches€tall€and€weighing€approximately€one€hundred€forty€pounds.€ÏThe€robber€pointed€the€gun€at€the€victimððs€head€and€demanded€the€money€fromÏthe€cash€register.€€The€victim€told€the€robber€that€what€he€was€doing€was€stupidÍbecause€he€had€less€than€one€hundred€dollars.€€He€removed€the€cash€drawerÏand€put€it€on€the€counter€and€asked€whether€the€robber€also€wanted€theÏchange.€€The€victim€then€handed€the€paper€money€to€the€assailant.€€In€theÏexchange,€a€dollar€bill€was€left€on€the€counter.ÌÌà àThe€man€exited€the€store€and€the€victim€called€911.€€As€the€robber€walkedÏpast€the€window,€he€removed€the€bandana€and€his€face€was€visible.€€TheÏvictim€did€not€see€how€or€where€the€robber€left€œthe€store,›€nor€were€there€anyÏwitnesses€to€the€robbery.€€However,€shortly€before€the€robbery,€a€neighbor€hadÏnoticed€a€car€parked€at€the€side€of€the€Kountry€Korner€Market.€€He€noted€this€asÏunusual€because€all€of€the€parking€spaces€in€front€of€the€store€were€vacant.€ÏThe€witness€described€the€vehicle€as€an€early€nineteen„seventies€model€NovaÏwith€ð ðmoonðð€style€hubcaps.ÌÌà àIn€the€early€morning€hours€on€April€6,€1994,€an€officer€from€the€SmyrnaÏPolice€Department€was€conducting€a€routine€patrol€of€the€David€Youree€SchoolÏin€Smyrna.€€He€noticed€a€car€parked€behind€the€school€and€approached€it€in€hisÏcruiser.€€Another€officer€driving€a€second€vehicle€was€also€present.€€The€firstÏofficer€directed€his€spotlight€on€the€car,€and€the€Defendant€ð ðpoppedðð€up€in€theÏfront€seat,€as€if€he€had€been€lying€down€on€the€passenger€side.€€The€subjectÏslid€to€the€driverððs€side€and€began€to€drive€the€vehicle€away€from€the€officers.€ÍHe€rammed€a€police€cruiser€in€his€attempt€to€maneuver€around€them.€€TheÏofficers€called€for€backup€units€and€pursued€the€Defendant€on€a€high„speedÏchase€through€the€Smyrna€area€and€on€the€interstate€highway.€€The€officersÏwere€joined€by€units€from€the€Rutherford€County€Sheriffððs€Department€and€theÏTennessee€Highway€Patrol.€€They€chased€the€Defendant€€for€several€miles,€asÏthe€Defendant€€weaved€through€other€traffic€and€drove€on€the€wrong€side€of€theÏroadway€in€order€to€elude€the€officers.€€He€rammed€a€civilian€car€as€well€as€aÏpolice€vehicle€before€he€ran€off€the€roadway.€€Several€officers€extracted€theÏDefendant€€from€the€car€by€breaking€a€window.€€One€officerððs€service€revolverÏdischarged€through€the€driverððs€side€window€and€the€front€windshield.€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€had€light„toned€skin,€was€wearing€a€black€ð ðSoxðð€jacketÏand€had€an€envelope€in€his€back€pocket.€€Several€marijuana€cigarettes€andÏrolling€papers€were€found€in€the€car.€The€officers€ran€a€driverððs€license€check€onÏhim,€which€listed€him€as€five€feet€seven€inches€in€height€and€weighing€oneÏhundred€thirty„five€pounds.€€Because€his€description€was€similar€to€that€of€theÏrobber€of€the€Kountry€Korner€Market,€he€became€a€suspect€for€that€crime.€€TheÏDefendant€was€also€charged€with€drug€possession,€reckless€endangermentÏand€evading€arrest.ÌÌà àThe€police€took€a€photograph€of€him€and€assembled€a€photo€array€of€sixÏsubjects.€€The€victim€did€not€identify€the€Defendant,€nor€did€he€make€a€positiveÏidentification€of€another€subject.€€The€victim€later€testified€that€the€DefendantððsÏskin€tone€appeared€much€darker€in€the€photograph.ÌÌà àWhile€the€Defendant€was€being€held€in€the€county€jail,€a€detective€fromÏthe€Rutherford€County€Sheriffððs€Department€interviewed€him€on€severalÏoccasions.€€At€8:05€a.m.€on€April€7,€1994,€the€Defendant€was€òòMirandizedóó€andÏmade€a€taped€statement,€denying€involvement€in€the€robbery.€€The€detectiveÏmade€two€additional€attempts€on€April€7,€and€one€attempt€on€April€8€to€elicit€aÏstatement€from€the€Defendant,€but€the€Defendant€refused.€€The€detective€wasÏoff€work€on€the€weekend€of€April€9€and€10,€1994,€but€upon€returning€to€work€onÏApril€11,€he€received€a€note€from€the€Defendant,€œrequesting€to›€speak€with€him.€ÏThe€Defendant€submitted€a€letter€for€the€District€Attorney€that€included€aÏconfession€to€the€robbery.€€After€seeing€the€letter,€the€detective€presented€theÏDefendant€with€a€waiver€form,€but€the€Defendant€refused€to€make€a€statementÏand€wanted€the€letter€back.€€The€detective€retained€the€original€letter€and€made€aÏcopy€for€the€Defendant.ÌÌà àAt€the€hearing€to€suppress€the€confession,€the€victim€positively€identifiedÏthe€Defendant€as€the€robber.€€He€noted€that€the€complexion€of€the€Defendant€Íwas€a€distinctively€light€skin€tone€like€the€robberððs.€€The€Defendantððs€fatherÏtestified€at€trial€that€he€had€seen€him€prior€to€the€robbery€with€a€shiny,€automaticÏ.38€caliber€pistol.€€His€father€also€stated€he€took€the€weapon€and€gave€it€to€theÏDefendantððs€grandfather.€€The€Defendantððs€uncle€testified€at€trial€that€he€hadÏloaned€the€Defendant€his€car,€a€blue,€1970's€Nova€with€ð ðmoonðð€hubcaps,€aboutÏthe€time€of€the€robbery.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€was€convicted€œon›€a€jury€verdict€of€aggravated€robberyÏand€he€now€brings€this€appeal.ÌÌÓ  ÓI.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àFirst,€the€Defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€toÏsuppress€his€confession.€€He€asserts€that€his€confession€was€involuntarilyÏinduced€by€the€investigating€detectiveððs€interrogation€technique€and€that€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€confession€wasÏvoluntary€and€admissible€at€trial.ÌÌà àThe€Fifth€Amendment€to€the€œUnited€States€Constitution›€as€applied€to€theÏStates€through€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€insures€that€the€accused€may€not€beÏcompelled€to€be€a€witness€against€himself.€€The€Tennessee€Constitution€alsoÍprovides€that€a€defendant€cannot€be€compelled€to€give€evidence€againstÏhimself.€€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€9.€€The€accused€may€waive€these€rights,€but€theÏwaiver€must€be€made€ð ðvoluntarily,€knowingly,€and€intelligentlyðð€and€ð ðthe€accusedÏmust€be€adequately€and€effectively€apprised€of€his€rights€and€the€exercise€ofÏthose€rights€must€be€fully€honored.ðð€€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384,€U.S.€436,€444,Ï467,€86€S.Ct.€1602,€1612,€1624€16€L.Ed.2d€694,706,€719€œ(1966).€€ð ðIn›€determiningÏwhether€a€confession€is€voluntary,€courts€must€look€to€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances€to€determine€whether€the€conduct€of€the€law€enforcement€officersÏwas€such€as€to€undermine€the€accusedððs€will€and€bring€about€an€involuntaryÏconfession.ðð€òòState€v.€Burtisóó,€664€S.W.2d€305,€309€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€òòSeeóóÏòòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Bentonóó,€759€S.W.2d€427,€431„32€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1988).€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€does€not€contest€that€he€made€a€knowing,€intelligent€andÏvoluntary€waiver€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€The€investigating€officer€advised€theÏDefendant€of€his€rights€before€the€initial€taped€interview€on€April€7,€1994.€€TheÏofficer€spoke€with€the€Defendant€on€three€other€occasions€without€obtaining€anyÏfurther€statement€from€him.€€The€Defendant€also€signed€a€written€waiver€of€hisÏrights€before€the€fourth€conversation€on€April€8,€1994.€€There€is€no€evidence€thatÏthe€Defendant€invoked€his€òòMirandaóó€rights,€nor€did€he€request€representation€fromÏcounsel€before€he€submitted€his€written€confession.€€Only€after€the€officerÍreceived€the€Defendantððs€confession€did€he€refuse€to€make€a€statement€andÏrequest€counsel.€€No€interrogation€took€place€after€that.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€contests€the€voluntariness€of€his€confession.€€The€relevantÏportion€of€the€confession€reads€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒI€give€you€my€deepest€regrets€on€the€Kountry€Korner€incident,€itÏwasnððt€a€violent€act.€€My€father€is€Richard€Green.€€He€feels€theÏsame€way€I€do€about€this.€€I€feel€there€is€no€want€for€a€lawyer,Ïmaybe€a€public€defender.€€I€will€pay€the€$136€back€and€Mr.ÏDotson€you€give€me€probation€again.ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÌà àÌÓÓà àHe€asserts€that€the€investigating€officer€threatened€him€with€the€ð ðmaximumÏsentenceðð€if€he€did€not€confess,€that€the€officer€suggested€that€he€would€ask€theÏDistrict€Attorney€for€probation€if€he€confessed,€and€that€the€officer€misstated€theÏnature€of€the€Stateððs€evidence€against€him.ÌÌ€€à àRegarding€the€misstatement€of€the€evidence,€the€investigator€told€theÏDefendant€that€a€dollar€bill€was€left€at€the€scene€on€which€his€fingerprints€wereÏfound.€€Yet€the€dollar€bill€was€still€undergoing€a€fingerprint€test.€€The€detectiveÏalso€stated€that€the€car€license€had€been€recorded€and€that€the€victim€identifiedÏthe€Defendant€in€a€photo€array,€when€in€fact,€there€was€only€a€description€ofÏthe€vehicle€and€the€victim€did€not€make€a€positive€identification€of€the€Defendant.ÌÌà àThe€detectiveððs€misrepresentation€of€the€evidence€is€relevant€whenÏconsidering€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€but€will€not€necessarily€invalidate€aÏconfession.€òòSeeóó€òòFrazier€v.€Cuppóó,€394€U.S.€€731,€739,€89€S.Ct.€1420,€1424„25,Ï22€L.Ed.2d€684€(1969);€òòMcGee€v.€Stateóó,€2€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€100,€106,€451ÏS.W.2d€709€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1969),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.€œ1970).›€€€TheÏDefendant€admitted€he€was€aware€that€these€were€misrepresentations€andÏthat€the€detective€was€trying€to€ð ðrun€a€gameðð€on€him.€€Although€he€claims€heÏwrote€the€letter€because€he€was€scared,€he€stated€that€ð ðI€know€he€canððt€useÏthat€evidence€he€so„called€had€to€convict€me.ðð€The€Defendantððs€testimonyÏsuggests€that€he€did€not€rely€on€the€misstatements€of€evidence€and€that€heÏvoluntarily€submitted€his€confession.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€also€claims€that€the€detective€threatened€him€with€theÏmaximum€sentence€and€misstated€the€law€when€he€referred€to€probation,€whichÏis€not€available€for€aggravated€robbery.€He€contends€that€his€fear€of€theÏpossible€sentence€induced€him€to€involuntarily€confess€to€the€crime.€€However,Ïthe€Defendant€cites€no€Tennessee€authority€for€the€proposition€that€aÏmisstatement€of€the€law€invalidates€a€confession.€€The€€Defendant€testified€atÏthe€suppression€hearing€that€he€was€threatened€by€the€alleged€misstatementsÏregarding€the€sentence€and€probation.€There€is€testimony€from€the€investigatingÏofficer€who€made€no€acknowledgment€€that€he€made€any€reference€to€theÍsentence,€probation€or€that€he€threatened€the€Defendant.€€€The€State€correctlyÏnotes€that€the€determination€of€the€Defendantððs€ability€to€voluntarily€andÏunderstandingly€confess€as€an€effect€of€the€statements€made€by€theÏinvestigating€officer€was€a€contested€issue€of€fact€at€the€suppression€hearing.€€ÌÌà àDeference€is€given€to€the€trial€court€to€assess€the€credibility€of€theÏœwitnesses,€weigh€and€value€the€evidence,€resolve€conflicts€in€the€evidence,›€andÏdetermine€issues€of€fact.€€At€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€a€motion€to€suppressÏevidence,€œthe›€œfactual€findings›€of€the€trial€judge€œwill›€not€be€disturbed€on€appealÏunless€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€œthem.€€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,Ï928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).ÌÌà àIn€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€theÏfindings€of€the€trial€court.€€There€is€substantial€evidence€that€the€waiver€was€Ïmade€voluntarily,€knowingly€and€intelligently.€€There€was€a€three„day€time€periodÏbetween€the€last€contact€made€by€the€detective€and€the€Defendantððs€request€toÏsee€him€and€his€proffer€of€the€letter€for€the€District€Attorney.€€Although€theÏDefendant€asked€for€the€letter€back€after€he€had€tendered€it€to€the€detective€andÏrefused€to›€sign€another€waiver€form,€this€suggests€that€he€was€aware€of€theÏconsequences€of€his€action.€€The€wisdom€of€the€defendant€deciding€to€make€aÏstatement€and€his€or€her€failure€to€foresee€the€effects€of€that€statement€are€notÍrelevant€to€the€determination€of€a€valid€waiver.€€€òòSeeóó€€òòHarris€v.€Riddleóó,€551€F.2dÏ936,€939€(4th€Cir.1977),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€€434€U.S.€849,€98€S.Ct.€160,€54€L.Ed.2dÏ118€(1977).€€Because€we€find€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€againstÏthe€trial€courtððs€ruling€that€the€confession€was€voluntary,€€the€trial€court€properlyÏoverruled€the€Defendantððs€motion€to€suppress.Ìà àÌà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ì̜ǛÓ  ÓII.ÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant€asserts€that€the€identification€made€of€him€by€the€victim€atÏthe€pretrial€hearing€was€akin€to€a€showup€that€was€unduly€œsuggestive,›€andÏœtherefore›€the€œin„court›€identification€should€have€been€suppressed€as€violative€ofÏhis€due€process€rights.ÌÌà àAn€identification€procedure€that€is€so€impermissibly€suggestive€ð ðas€to€giveÏrise€to€a€very€substantial€likelihood€of€irreparable€misidentificationðð€violates€dueÏprocess.€€òòSimmons€v.€United€Statesóó,€390€U.S.€377,€384,€88€S.Ct.€967,€971,€19ÏL.Ed.2d€1247€(1968).€€A€showup€is€a€form€of€identification€of€a€defendant€that€isÏinherently€suggestive.€€Yet,€the€identification€at€a€preliminary€hearing€differs€fromÏa€showup€arranged€by€the€police€because€the€identification€is€not€induced€byÏan€inherently€suggestive€confrontation€arranged€by€the€police.€€òòState€v.€Dixonóó,Ï656€S.W.2d€49,€51€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appealóó€òòdeniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.€1983).€ÏThis,€however,€does€not€eliminate€the€possibility€that€the€pretrial€confrontationÏwas€suggestive.€€€Although€it€may€be€suggestive,€an€identification€may€satisfyÏdue€process€as€reliable€and€admissible€when€considering€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€795€S.W.2d€689,€694€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1990);€òòDixonóó,€656€S.W.2d€at€51.€€Five€factors€are€to€be€considered€whenÏevaluating€the€propriety€of€the€identification€process.€€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó,€409€U.S.Í188,€199,€93€S.Ct.€375,€382,€34€L.Ed.2d€401€(1972);€òòBennett€v.€Stateóó,€530ÏS.W.2d€511,€514€(Tenn.),€òòrehððg.€deniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.€1975).€€These€are€theÏopportunity€the€witness€had€to€view€the€criminal€at€the€time€of€the€crime,€theÏwitnessðð€degree€of€attention,€the€accuracy€of€the€witnessðð€prior€description€of€theÏcriminal,€the€level€of€certainty€of€the€witness€at€the€confrontation€(pretrial€hearing)Ïand€the€time€between€the€crime€and€the€confrontation.€€òòBrownóó,€795€S.W.2d€atÏ694;€òòDixonóó,€656€S.W.2d€at€51.ÌÌà àWe€have€evaluated€the€pretrial€confrontation€in€light€of€the€precedingÏfactors.€€We€note€that€there€was€a€six„month€period€between€the€crime€and€theÏconfrontation,€which€increases€the€suggestive€nature€of€an€identification€that€isÏremote€from€the€crime.€€Also,€the€victim€was€not€able€to€identify€the€DefendantÏfrom€a€photo€array.€€Yet,€the€victim€was€within€a€few€feet€of€the€Defendant€atÏthe€time€of€the€crime€and€had€a€clear€view€of€his€eyes€and€skin€color.€€He€notedÏthat€the€Defendantððs€light€skin€tone€was€a€distinguishing€feature.€The€victim€alsoÏstated€that€the€skin€color€in€the€photograph€of€the€Defendant€was€much€darkerÏand€not€representative€of€his€actual€appearance.€€He€also€saw€theÏDefendantððs€face€after€he€removed€the€bandana€while€outside€the€market.€€TheÏdescription€of€the€robber€and€the€Defendant€were€strikingly€œsimilar,›€and€the€victimÏidentified€the€Defendant€at€the€pretrial€hearing€with€certainty.€€In€considering€theÏtotality€of€the€circumstances,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€properly€admittedÍevidence€of€the€pretrial€identification€and€the€in„court€identification€of€theÏDefendant.ÌÌÓ  ÓIII.ÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€he€was€deprived€of€a€fair€trial€because€theÏDistrict€Attorney€œreferred€to€irrelevant›€evidence€that€the€Defendant€possessed€aÏgun€before€the€robbery€and€that€this€was€unduly€prejudicial.€€The€DefendantÏargues€that€it€was€improper€for€the€State€to€œrefer›€to€this€gun€in€its€opening€andÏclosing€statements.€€The€Defendantððs€father€testified€that€he€had€seen€him€withÏa€handgun€prior€to€the€robbery.€€He€described€a€shiny,€automatic€pistol,€like€aÏ.38€caliber€and€stated€that€he€had€taken€the€weapon€away€from€theÏDefendant.€€The€victim€also€described€the€gun€used€by€the€Defendant€in€theÏarmed€robbery€as€a€shiny,€automatic€pistol,€like€a€9mm€similar€to€the€weaponÏthe€Defendant€possessed€prior€to€the€crime.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€asserts€that€testimony€regarding€the€gun€in€hisÏpossession€was€irrelevant€because€the€prosecutor€admitted€in€his€closingÏargument€€that€the€gun€the€Defendant€had€in€his€possession€was€not€the€oneÏused€in€the€robbery.€€€He€claims€the€prosecutor€used€this€evidence€to€impugn€hisÏcharacter€by€a€prior€bad€act.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid€404(b).€€However,€evidence€ofÍprior€bad€acts€may€be€used€for€a€purpose€other€than€to€show€a€defendantððsÏpropensity€to€commit€the€crime€for€which€he€is€charged,€such€as€to€demonstrateÏintent,€motive€or€a€common€scheme€or€plan,€or€opportunity.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï404(b);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Goadóó,€707€S.W.2d€846,€850€(Tenn.€1986).ÌœÌà àWe€are€not€convinced€that€the€fact€the€Defendant€once€possessed€a€gunÏnecessarily€constitutes€a€prior€bad€ð ðactðð.€€Because€the€gun€in€his€possessionÏwas€similar€to€the€one€used€in€the€robbery,€evidence€of€his€possession€isÏprobative€of€his€access€to€and€use€of€automatic€weapons.€€This€does€notÏindicate€a€propensity€to€act€from€previous€behavior,€but€rather€the€DefendantððsÏknowledge€of€and€opportunity€to€use€such€a€gun€to€commit€the€robbery.Ì›Ìà àœMoreover,€the›€Defendant€did€not€object€to€œhis›€fatherððs€testimony€regardingÏthe€gun.€€Pursuant€to€Rule€404(b)€of€the€œTennessee€Rules›€of€Evidence,€ifÏdefense€counsel€was€suspicious€of€the€purpose€for€which€the€State€wasÏadmitting€the€evidence,€she€was€entitled€to€request€a€jury„out€hearing.€€In€aÏ404(b)€hearing,€a€trial€court€is€required€to€determine€and€state€œon›€the€recordÏwhether€a€material€issue€exists€other€than€conduct€conforming€with€a€characterÏtrait.€€òòId.óó€€If€a€material€issue€exists,€the€trial€court€must€exclude€the€evidence€if€itsÏprobative€value€is€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€òòIdóó.;€œòòseeóó›€òòStateÏv.€Partonóó,€694€S.W.2d€299€(Tenn.€1985).€€€However,€failure€to€make€aÍcontemporaneous€objection€waives€consideration€by€this€court€of€the€issue€onÏappeal.€€òòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.€36(a);€òòTeague€v.€Stateóó,€772€S.W.2d€915,€926€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1988),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.€1989);€òòState€v.€Killebrewóó,Ï760€S.W.2d€228,€235€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.Ï1988).€€€Because€the€Defendant€made€no€objection,€this€issue€is€waived.ÌÌÓ  ÓIV.ÌÌÓ  Óà àNext,€the€Defendant€contends€that€the€judicial€process€was€prejudicedÏbecause€a€witness€was€unlawfully€detained€to€testify€at€trial.€€He€hasÏconstructed€an€extensive€argument€to€illustrate€the€injustice€of€the€procedure€byÏwhich€one€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses,€Dwight€Gregory,€was€illegally€arrested€toÏsecure€his€testimony€at€trial.€€He€cites€Rule€36(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏAppellate€Procedure€which€provides€that€a€judgment€may€be€set€aside€if€anÏerror€ð ðwould€result€in€prejudice€to€the€judicial€process.ðð€€Examples€noted€in€theÏComment€to€Rule€36(b)€include€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€an€obviouslyÏbiased€decision€maker€or€improper€discrimination€in€jury€selection.ÌÌà àThe€Defendantððs€argument€is€misplaced.€€First,€if€the€witnessðð€presenceÏwas€secured€by€an€illegal€arrest,€it€is€œthe€witnessðð›€right€to€pursue€any€availableÏremedies.€€The€Defendant€does€not€have€standing€to€assert€the€claims€ofÍanother€person.€€Second,€the€Defendant€has€not€submitted€any€evidence€ofÏhow€the€alleged€illegal€procedure€has€prejudiced€the€outcome€of€his€trial.€€In€fact,Ïthe€witness€in€question€testified€at€the€Defendantððs€hearing€on€his€Motion€forÏNew€Trial€and€stated€that€he€told€the€truth€at€trial€and€that€his€arrest€did€not€affectÏthe€content€of€his€testimony.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓV.ÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€permitted€the€StateÏto€introduce€a€photographic€lineup€that€œthe€State›€had€not€provided€to€defenseÏcounsel€pursuant€to€a€request€for€discovery€under€Rule€16(a)(1)(C)€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€On€August€22,€1994,€defense€counselÏfiled€a€motion€for€discovery.€Defense€counsel€also€requested€the€photo€arrayÏpresented€to€the€victim€for€identification.€€The€investigating€detective€informedÏdefense€counsel€that€the€State€did€not€intend€to€use€the€photo€array€in€its€caseÏin€chief€and€did€not€produce€the€photographs.€€Defense€counsel€did€not€furtherÏpursue€acquiring€or€inspecting€the€photo€array.€At€trial€in€her€opening€statement,Ïdefense€counsel€raised€the€issue€that€the€victim€misidentified€another€personÏwhen€viewing€the€photo€array.€€The€state€introduced€the€photo€array€duringÏdirect€examination€of€the€œvictim,›€and€defense€counsel€objected€and€moved€thatÏthe€photos€be€excluded.€€The€trial€court€denied€this€motion,€but€allowed€defenseÍcounsel€to€view€the€photo€array.€€The€Defendant€asserts€that€it€was€prejudicialÏerror€to€admit€the€photo€array.ÌÌà àRule€16(a)(1)(C)€provides€that€upon€the€defendantððs€request,€the€StateÏshall€allow€inspection€and€copying€of€photographs€ð ðwhich€are€material€to€theÏpreparation€of€the€defendantððs€defense€or€are€intended€for€use€by€the€State€asÏevidence€in€chief€at€the€trial.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(a)(1)(C).€€Clearly,€the€StateÏhad€not€intended€to€use€the€photo€array€in€its€case€in€chief€when€defenseÏcounsel€made€the€request.€€Because€the€State€did€not€intend€to€use€the€photoÏarray,€it€was€not€compelled€under€Rule€16(a)(1)(C)€to€provide€it€to€the€DefendantÏunless€it€was€ð ðmaterial€to€the€preparation€of€the€defendantððs€defense.ðð€€AlthoughÏwe€note€defense€counselððs€failure€to€pursue€obtaining€the€photo€array€from€theÏDistrict€Attorney€after€the€detective€denied€inspection,€we€conclude€that€the€useÏof€the€photos€was€material€to€the€Defendantððs€defense.€€The€photo€arrayÏincluded€a€picture€of€the€Defendant€that€the€victim€did€not€identify€as€the€robber.€ÏCertainly,€this€has€€potential€to€support€the€Defendantððs€assertion€that€he€wasÏnot€the€robber€of€the€Kountry€Korner€Market.€€Therefore,€we€find€that€the€failure€toÏproduce€the€photo€array€was€a€Rule€16€violation.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€asserts€that€exclusion€of€the€evidence€was€the€properÏremedy€for€failure€to€comply€with€a€discovery€request€as€per€Rule€16(d)(2).€ÍHowever,€prohibiting€the€introduction€of€evidence€is€not€the€exclusive€means€toÏremedy€failure€to€comply€with€the€rule.€€Considering€that€the€refusal€to€produceÏthe€photo€array€was€a€violation€of€Rule€16,€the€trial€court€had€the€discretion€toÏpermit€inspection€of€the€photos€or€œprovide€whatever›€remedy€œthat€was›€just€underÏthe€circumstances.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P€16(d)(2).€€The€Defendant€has€assertedÏthat€the€Stateððs€failure€to€provide€the€photos€was€prejudicial€to€his€case,€but€hasÏnot€presented€this€court€with€any€reason€for€which€the€photo€array€was€to€beÏused.€€In€order€to€support€exclusion€of€the€photographs,€the€Defendant€mustÏdemonstrate€actual€prejudice€from€the€failure€to€provide€them.€€òòState€v.€WayneÏHymes€Richardsóó,€No.€03C01„9503„CR„00102,€Cumberland€County,€slip.€op.€atÏœ8,›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€July€8,€1996);€òòState€v.€Garlandóó,€617€S.W.2dÏ176,€185€(Tenn.€Crim€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.€1981);€òòState€v.ÏBrileyóó,€619€S.W.2d€149,€152€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€The€Defendant€has€failedÏto€show€how€he€was€prejudiced€because€he€did€not€have€access€to€a€photoÏarray€in€which€he€was€not€identified.€€Also,€the€victim€did€not€positively€identifyÏanother€subject€in€the€photo€array€that€could€exculpate€the€Defendant.€€The€trialÏcourt€provided€defense€counsel€an€opportunity€to€inspect€the€photo€array€duringÏthe€trial€and€to€cross„examine€the€victim€regarding€his€failure€to€identify€theÏDefendant.€€Because€no€prejudice€has€been€shown,€we€conclude€that€the€trialÏcourt€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€ordering€that€remedy.€Ìà àÌÓ  ÓVI.ÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€the€testimonyÏof€the€investigating€detective€of€the€description€of€the€robber€he€received€from€theÏvictim.€€The€officer€testified€as€to€œthe›€description€the€victim€provided€and€referred€toÏthe€report€of€his€investigation.ÌÌà àThe€rules€of€evidence€provide€that€"[h]earsay€is€not€admissible€except€asÏprovided€by€these€rules€or€otherwise€by€law."€€€Tenn.R.Evid.€802.€€€Hearsay€isÏdefined€as€"a€statement,€other€than€one€made€by€the€declarant€while€testifyingÏat€the€trial€or€hearing,€offered€in€evidence€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matterÏasserted."€€€Tenn.R.Evid.€801(c).€€There€are,€of€course,€numerous€exceptions€toÏthe€general€rule€of€exclusion€of€hearsay.€€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.R.Evid.€803(1.1)€throughÏ(25),€804,€and€805.ÌÌà àThe€prosecutor€elicited€testimony€from€the€investigating€officer€about€theÏdescription€of€the€robber€he€received€from€the€victim€at€the€scene€of€the€crime.€ÏœThe›€purpose€of€this€testimony€was€to€compare€the€œvictimððs€description›€of€theÏrobber€to€the€œcharacteristics€of€the€Defendant,€such›€as€weight€and€height,€œthat›Ïwere€obtained€when€he€was€apprehended€after€the€car€chase.€€DefenseÏcounsel€objected€to€the€testimony€as€hearsay,€stating€that€the€proper€means€toÍelicit€the€description€was€directly€from€the€victim.€€The€victim€had€already€testifiedÏand€described€the€robber.€€The€officer€testified€to€the€description€of€the€robberÏwhile€reading€from€the€report.€œÌÌà àThe€Advisory€Commission€Comments€to€Rule€612€suggest€guidelines€byÏwhich€a€witness€may€refresh€her€memory:€€"The€direct€examiner€should€lay€aÏfoundation€for€necessity,€show€the€witness€the€writing,€take€back€the€writing,Ïand€ask€the€witness€to€testify€from€refreshed€memory."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€612.€€ÌÌà àThe›€witnessðð€reading€the€description€œmay€have€been€an€error›€œbecause€itÏwas€not€used€to›€refresh€recollection€œbut€rather€approaches›€admitting€a€policeÏreport.€€€However,€the€victim€had€previously€testified€to€the€description€of€theÏrobber.€€Assuming€the€statement€was€hearsay,€any€error€in€admitting€theÏrobberððs€description€as€reported€œto›€the€police€officer€was€merely€cumulative€andÏclearly€harmless.€€T.R.A.P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).ÌÌÓ  ÓVII.ÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€next€issue€raised€by€the€Defendant€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€byÏadmitting€evidence€of€and€instructing€the€jury€on€flight.€€He€contends€that,Íalthough€relevant,€proof€of€the€Defendantððs€flight€would€be€overly€prejudicial€andÏoutweigh€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence.€€œòòSeeóó€Tenn.›€R.€Evid.€403.ÌÌà àEvidence€of€a€defendantððs€flight€is€relevant€and€admissible,€whenÏconsidering€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€crime,€it€has€probative€value€inÏestablishing€guilt.€€€€òòState€v.€Zagorskióó,€701€S.W.2d€808,€813€(Tenn.€1985),€òòcert.Ïdeniedóó,€478€U.S.€1010,€106€S.Ct.€œ3309,€92€L.Ed.2d€722€(1986).›€€RelevantÏevidence€includes€the€circumstances€surrounding€a€defendantððs€arrest€even€ifÏthey€reveal€the€commission€of€another€crime.€€òòId.óó€€€€The€length€of€time€betweenÏthe€crime€and€the€evidence€of€flight€does€not€negate€its€probative€value.€€Any€exÏpost€facto€indication€by€the€accused€of€a€desire€to€evade€prosecution€may€beÏshown€as€one€of€a€series€of€circumstances€from€which€guilt€may€be€inferred.ÏòòState€v.€Braggsóó,€604€S.W.2d€883,€886€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.);€òòperm€to€appealÏdeniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.€1980).€òòShockley€v.€Stateóó,€€585€S.W.2d€645€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.1978);€òòMarable€v.€Stateóó,€€203€Tenn.€440,€313€S.W.2d€451€(1958).€ÏEvidence€of€other€crimes€may€be€relevant€to€prove€the€identity€or€flight€of€aÏdefendant€and€is€admissible€as€long€as€the€probative€value€outweighs€theÏprejudicial€effect.€€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€254€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcertÏdenied.óó,€114€S.Ct.€1339,€127€L.Ed.2d€œ687€(1994).›ÌÌà àIn€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€the€Defendant€engaged€in€a€high€speed€chase€toÏavoid€an€encounter€with€police€officers.€€Upon€his€capture,€the€police€discoveredÏthat€the€Defendant€resembled€the€Kountry€Korner€Market€robber€and€wasÏwearing€the€same€type€jacket.€€The€circumstances€of€the€chase€and€his€arrestÏare€probative€of€both€flight€and€the€identity€of€the€robber.€€The€court€did€not€err€byÏadmitting€the€evidence€of€flight.€€Any€evidence€regarding€the€possession€ofÏmarijuana,€a€crime€not€relevant€to€the€robbery,€was€excluded€pursuant€to€aÏpretrial€order.€€The€Defendant,€not€the€State,€chose€to€introduce€the€drugÏevidence€on€cross„examination,€therefore€error€cannot€be€assigned€to€the€trialÏcourt.€€ÌÌà àFinally,€it€was€not€error€for€the€trial€court€to€instruct€the€jury€on€flight€whenÏevidence€of€the€Defendantððs€arrest€was€properly€admitted.€€There€was€evidenceÏfrom€which€the€jury€could€determine€that€the€appellant€fled.€€Therefore,€theÏinstruction€concerning€flight€was€proper.€€€Moreover,€the€trial€court€€instructed€theÏjury€in€conformity€with€T.P.I.„„€Crim.€37.16€that€:€ð ðwhether€there€was€flight€by€theÏDefendant,€the€reasons€for€it,€and€the€weight€to€be€given€it,€are€questions€forÏyou€to€determine.ðð€€This€instruction€correctly€sets€forth€the€jury's€responsibilityÏconcerning€the€flight€issue.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓœÇVIII.›ÌÌÓ  Óà àIn€the€Defendantððs€final€issue,€he€asserts€that€the€Assistant€DistrictÏAttorney€made€unprofessional€and€improper€remarks€during€his€closingÏargument.€€€The€Defendant€takes€issue€with€several€statements€made€by€theÏprosecutor.€€He€alluded€to€the€lack€of€strength€of€the€Defendantððs€theories€thatÏanother€person€had€committed€the€robbery,€asserting€that€the€State€had€provedÏthe€elements€of€the€case.€€Second,€the€Defendant€takes€issue€with€theÏprosecutorððs€misstatement€of€evidence,€which€was€cured€by€the€prosecutorÏwhen€he€corrected€the€facts.€€Finally,€the€Defendant€claims€that€it€was€improperÏfor€the€prosecutor€to€mention€that€the€letter€had€not€been€suppressed€becauseÏthis€would€suggest€that€the€trial€court€found€the€confession€to€be€credible.€€WeÏfind€that,€taken€in€the€context€of€the€entire€trial€and€the€length€of€the€closingÏargument,€there€was€no€prosecutorial€misconduct.€€ÌÌà àAssuming€that€the€Assistant€District€Attorneyððs€statements€were€improper,Ïthey€must€be€such€that€they€prejudice€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€€Our€reviewÏconsists€of€considering€five€factors€to€determine€whether€the€prosecutorððsÏstatements€affected€the€verdict.€€òòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1976);€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€872€S.W.2d€950,€953„54€(Tenn.€Crim.€App),Ïòòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,òò€id.óó€(Tenn.€1993).€€These€are€(1)€the€conduct€complainedÍof€viewed€in€the€context€and€in€light€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case;Ï(2)€any€curative€measures€undertaken€by€the€court€and€the€prosecution;€(3)€theÏintent€of€the€prosecutor€in€making€the€improper€statement;€(4)€the€cumulativeÏeffect€of€the€improper€conduct€and€any€other€errors€in€the€record;€and€(5)€theÏrelative€strength€and€weakness€of€the€case.€€òòJudgeóó,€539€S.W.2d€at€344.€€ÌÌà àWe€have€considered€the€preceding€factors€in€the€context€of€this€case.€ÏWe€find€that€the€misstatements€made€by€the€prosecutor€appear€unintentionalÏand€had€only€a€harmless€effect,€if€any.€€In€light€of€the€overwhelming€evidence€inÏthis€case,€we€find€that€the€statements€could€not€have€prejudiced€the€Defendant.€ÏFurthermore,€the€court€properly€instructed€the€jury€that€the€arguments€of€counselÏwere€not€to€be€considered€as€evidence€in€the€case.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àAfter€œa€thorough€review›€of€the€issues€presented€for€review,€we€concludeÏthat€they€are€without€merit.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGE›ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGE›