ÿWPC žÚõam0ÇŒìå îæ,]·#ì7²Jç© _ê™Î·óͰǛS—}ú&íªvIÏæÙÐd÷ç ÿuµ­Í'í¸’òJÞ.„½Û”¨@®U²¹Á?9æ^œ+ÀžÈù·ýR+­q¦©rhÓÏxèöþ¤s 2ô˜÷_Àå=Œ˜\â+5CÝÇ×k™L¡»×}ÉlSñ¹qËL7çÁÂÎ?¿mRÍ œýÑZà²'ÿ…q”v¡Í|¹ô$µ²¶ªðñ¬DŠ9@X¨§Iä?JEdÉ-a>yq4Ò)"³ôÁÊÔ;èO#k <áÁ¨fýaÃf…k þAä/ò.UUù&gÀ4ì"Cô|JѼ_ÓÜZF«œ efl<ÇÈÌaÆtc¸öD¤„ƒN4#«He Êý½WÕ¯¿Op,P×¡á–ØÆ»â2pb"åzMÏ+¤Ö&ýh­1M²ƒ£ª( àÿ!Gß÷ !¬Ev}ü“èF} ü°-½JΡÞºy™Î‹œUçÇ+ÑŠÙ.-»tRöœŠy´„1þìù{ƒÿ“·àäaÙv³5å> »`2[z¡Õ¶öC§™!.Tå2SÝ$¦.Ã’ÝÒ#ò݃RuHñáB©>îÁžP{Á]Ñ…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ U:Í b w@ 4O c 0Ær 0D8 | aš ?ûy:%³U :ØU:LLLLLL BTTTTTTTTTTT D3qqq 0D¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ AOèÆ77 0Dý D/A Bp˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLàÏ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- wExEyz{|}E~€Ó€ýhµ&3|x‹(v(2°h$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X‰ÐXXXÔÔ€ôvôXX‰ÐÔà è àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ô€X‰ÐXXXÔÔ€îs® îXX‰ÐÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€Mœ  îîs®ÔÐ  ÐÌò òJuly€13,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôvô MœÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó WÝ ƒ =¸$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XI˜XXXÔÔ€ô6§ôXXI˜Ôà è àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€instruction€is€identical€to€the€instruction€on€flight€contained€in€the€Tennessee€Pattern€JuryÐ `  ÐInstructions.€€òòSeeóó€T.P.I.ð"ðCrim.€ðð€42.18€(4th€ed.€1995). 5Ý ƒ =¸$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XI˜XXXÔÔ€ô6§ôXXI˜Ôà è àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€Appellant€does€not€claim€that€his€statement€to€Officer€Samples€about€being€at€theÐ `  ÐWestside€Inn€was€inadmissible€hearsay.€€Indeed,€the€statement€is€clearly€admissible€under€Rule€803(1.2)€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€as€an€admission€by€a€party.€€Rather,€Appellant€merely€contends€that€theÏjury€instruction€about€admissions€against€interest€was€not€warranted€in€this€case. oÝ ƒ =¸$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XI˜XXXÔÔ€ô6§ôXXI˜Ôà è àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€instruction€is€identical€to€the€instruction€on€admissions€against€interest€contained€in€theÐ `  ÐTennessee€Pattern€Jury€Instructions.€€òòSeeóó€T.P.I.ð"ðCrim.€ðð€42.11(a)€(4th€ed.€1995). Ý ƒ =¸$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XI˜XXXÔÔ€ô6§ôXXI˜Ôà è àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€in€order€to€be€considered€an€admission€against€interest€under€the€òòHeltonóó€standard,Ð `  Ðthe€statement€must€only€contain€an€ð ðacknowledgement€by€the€accused€of€certain€facts€which€tend€togetherÏwith€other€facts,€to€establish€his€guilt.ðð€€547€S.W.2d€at€567.€€There€is€no€requirement,€such€as€there€is€for€theÏð ðstatement€against€interestðð€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule,€that€the€statement€must€be€against€theÏdeclarantððs€pecuniary€or€propriety€interest€or€must€tend€to€subject€the€declarant€to€civil€or€criminal€liability€atÏthe€time€the€statement€is€made.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€804(b)(3).,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñ€ñ›ñ€ñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ŠRÒŠXXÔÔ€Š³QŠŠŠRÒÔÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€f,XXdìXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñ€ñßr€ *<,(j 8 `€€@E<f  tt0"t` ¨Ørß›ñ€ñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌDECEMBER€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9712„CR„00524Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó ó)Ð ` Ðà ` àAppellee,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àSULLIVAN€COUNTYÐ Xø  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€PHYLLIS€H.€MILLERó óÐ Xø  Ðò òROGER€MORRIS€GARDNER,ó óà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ Xø Ðà ` àAppellant.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  à(Direct€Appeal€„€Range€II€Multiple€à (# àÐ Xø Ðà ` àà ¸ àœà  à›à h àà À à)à  àOffender)Ð Xø Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð 0 Ð ÐÌGALE€K.€FLANARYà h àà À àà  àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ  "À ÐAssistant€Public€Defenderà À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ #¸ Ð2nd€Judicial€DistrictÌP.€O.€Box€839à  àà h àà À àà  àTODD€R.€KELLEYÐ %¨ ÐBlountville,€TN€€37617à h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ &  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGREELEY€WELLSÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àBARRY€STAUBUSÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àLISA€CROCKETTÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àP.€O.€Box€526Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àBlountville,€TN€€37617ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ  h8/0S ÐÓ  Óò òòòÔ‡„ Ô„ŠŠ³QÔOPINIONóóó óÔ#†Š³QŠ„„ ÔA #ÔÐ `  ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓÌÌà ` àOn€September€30,€1997,€a€Sullivan€County€jury€convicted€Appellant€RogerÏMorris€Gardner€of€one€count€of€attempted€aggravated€kidnapping.€€After€aÏsentencing€hearing€on€November€18,€1997,€the€trial€court€sentenced€AppellantÏas€a€Range€II€multiple€offender€to€eight€years€in€the€Tennessee€Department€ofÏCorrection.€€Appellant€challenges€his€conviction,€raising€the€following€issues:ÌÓÓà0 ` à1)€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€his€conviction;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à2)€whether€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€a€mistrial€because€the€jurorsÏmay€have€seen€Appellant€in€the€custody€of€some€bailiffs€during€a€recessÏin€the€trial;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à3)€whether€the€trial€court€properly€instructed€the€jury€on€flight;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à4)€whether€the€trial€court€properly€instructed€the€jury€on€admissions€againstÏinterest;€andÐ ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à5)€whether€Appellantððs€right€to€a€speedy€trial€was€violated.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÌÓNÓAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ÑÑ*®àò òI.€€FACTSó óˆÐ ä%„ ÐÌà ` àBeth€Davidson€testified€that€on€December€5,€1996,€she€was€working€as€aÏdesk€clerk€at€the€Westside€Inn€in€Kingsport,€Tennessee.€€Shortly€after€12:30€a.m.,ÏAppellant€came€in€the€front€door€and€asked€to€use€the€telephone€to€call€for€a€rideÏhome.€€Appellant€then€used€the€telephone€and€sat€down€on€a€couch€when€he€wasÏfinished.€ÌÌà ` àDavidson€testified€that€after€Appellant€sat€down€on€the€couch,€she€went€intoÏthe€bathroom€to€hang€up€a€broom.€€When€Davidson€attempted€to€leave€theÏbathroom,€Appellant€approached€the€doorway€and€put€up€his€hands€to€blockÐ T9ô/1 ÐDavidsonððs€way€out.€€When€Davidson€tried€to€go€past€Appellant,€he€grabbed€bothÏof€her€arms€and€held€them€in€a€tight€grip.€€After€a€brief€struggle,€Davidson€fell€toÏher€œknees,›€and€Appellant€fell€on€top€of€her.€€Appellant€then€grabbed€one€ofÏDavidsonððs€arms€and€placed€one€of€his€hands€over€Davidsonððs€mouth€andÏpressed€ð ðvery€hard.ðð€€Davidson€then€ð ðkicked€and€foughtðð€and€managed€to€crawlÏout€from€under€Appellant€after€a€struggle€which€lasted€between€three€and€fourÏminutes.€€Davidson€testified€that€during€this€struggle€in€the€bathroom,€sheÏsustained€a€cut€to€her€hand,€bruises€to€her€knees,€and€muscle€sprains€in€her€neckÏand€back.€ÌÌà ` àDavidson€testified€that€after€she€crawled€out€from€under€Appellant,€sheÏwent€to€the€telephone€by€the€front€counter€and€called€9„1„1.€€Appellant€thenÏpicked€up€his€hat€and€jacket€from€off€the€couch€and€left€through€a€side€door.€ÌÌà ` àDavidson€testified€that€sometime€later€that€night,€the€police€broughtÏAppellant€to€the€œscene,›€and€she€identified€him€as€the€man€who€had€attacked€her.€ÌÌà ` àOfficer€Joe€Graham€of€the€Kingsport€Police€Department€testified€that€atÏapproximately€1:44€a.m.€on€December€5,€1996,€he€responded€to€a€call€at€theÏWestside€Inn.€€After€Davidson€related€the€events€that€had€just€occurred,€GrahamÏwent€to€the€phone€registry€that€recorded€outgoing€calls€in€order€to€determine€whoÏDavidsonððs€assailant€had€called.€€Graham€then€called€the€last€recorded€phoneÏnumber€and€received€information€that€Appellant€had€dialed€that€number.€€GrahamÏthen€put€out€a€BOLO€(be€on€the€lookout)€for€Appellant.€€Graham€testified€thatÏâ âshortly€thereafter,€he€showed€Davidson€a€photographic€œline„up,›€and€sheÐ à7€.0 Ðimmediately€identified€the€photograph€of€Appellant€as€the€man€who€had€attackedÏher.€Ìâ âÌà ` àGraham€testified€that€Appellant€was€subsequently€apprehended€andÏbrought€to€the€Westside€Inn.€€The€police€officers€then€asked€Appellant€to€get€outÏand€stand€by€the€side€of€the€police€car.€€Davidson€then€identified€Appellant€as€herÏattacker.€€€ÌÌà ` àOfficer€David€Samples€of€the€Kingsport€Police€Department€testified€thatÏafter€receiving€information€from€Officer€Graham€on€December€5,€1996,€he€locatedÏAppellant€at€a€house€in€Kingsport.€€When€Samples€asked€Appellant€if€he€hadÏbeen€to€the€Westside€Inn€on€that€date,€Appellant€initially€denied€being€there.€ÏWhen€Samples€told€Appellant€that€he€matched€the€description€of€a€subject€whoÏhad€been€at€that€location,€Appellant€admitted€that€he€had€been€œat›€the€WestsideÏInn€to€use€the€telephone.€ÌÌà@XX®àò òII.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óˆÐ `(  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€hisÏconviction.€€When€an€appellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€thisÏCourt€is€obliged€to€review€that€challenge€according€to€certain€well-settledÏprinciples.€€A€verdict€of€guilty€by€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€theÏtestimony€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€inÏfavor€of€the€State.€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994).€€AlthoughÐ 6 ,. Ðan€accused€is€originally€cloaked€with€a€presumption€of€innocence,€a€jury€verdictÏremoves€this€presumption€and€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639Ð à9€02 ÐS.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€Hence,€on€appeal,€the€burden€of€proof€rests€withÏAppellant€to€demonstrate€the€insufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€òòId.óó€€OnÐ P ð Ðappeal,€ð ðthe€[S]tate€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€asÏwell€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€therefrom.ðð€ÏòòId.óó€€Where€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€contested€on€appeal,€the€relevantÐ  À Ðquestion€for€the€reviewing€court€is€whether€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€haveÏfound€the€accused€guilty€of€every€element€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789,€61€L.€Ed.Ð ð  Ð2d€560€(1979).€€In€conducting€our€evaluation€of€the€convicting€evidence,€thisÏCourt€is€precluded€from€reweighing€or€reconsidering€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.Ð Ðp ÐMorganóó,€929€S.W.2d€380,€383€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Moreover,€this€CourtÐ À` Ðmay€not€substitute€its€own€inferences€ð ðfor€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€fromÏcircumstantial€evidence.ðð€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð   @ ÐApp.€1990).€€Finally,€Rule€13(e)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€ProcedureÏprovides,€ð ðfindings€of€guilt€in€criminal€actions€whether€by€the€trial€court€or€juryÏshall€be€set€aside€if€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€findings€by€the€trierÏof€fact€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ððÌÌà ` àUnder€Tennessee€law,€false€imprisonment€occurs€when€one€personÏð ðknowingly€removes€or€confines€another€unlawfully€so€as€to€interfere€substantiallyÏwith€the€otherððs€liberty.ðð€€Tenn€Code€Ann.€ðð€39-13-302(a)€(1997).€€FalseÏimprisonment€becomes€aggravated€kidnapping€when,€among€other€things,€theÏvictim€suffers€bodily€injury.€€Tenn€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„304(a)(4)€(1997).€€ð ðA€personÏcommits€criminal€attempt€who,€acting€with€the€kind€of€culpability€otherwiseÏâ ârequired€for€the€offense€.€.€.€[a]cts€with€intent€to€œñzñto€cause€a€result€that€is€anÐ à7€.0 Ðelement€of€the€offense,€and€believes€the€conduct€will€cause€the€result€withoutÏfurther€conduct€on€the€personððs€partñzññzñ›.€.€.€cause€a€result€that€wouldÐ à7€.0 Ðconstitute€the€offense€.€.€.€and€the€conduct€constitutes€a€substantial€step€towardÏthe€commission€of€the€offenseñzñ.ð𛀀Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39-12-101(a)(ñxñ3ñxññyñ2ñyñ)›€(1997).Ìâ âÌà ` àInitially,€Appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€becauseÏthere€was€no€proof€that€Davidson€sustained€bodily€injury€during€the€incident€in€theÏbathroom.€€However,€the€cut,€bruises,€and€muscle€sprains€sustained€by€DavidsonÏduring€her€struggle€with€Appellant€in€the€bathroom€clearly€fit€the€definition€ofÏð ðbodily€injury.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(2)€(1997)€(ð ðððBodily€injuryððÐ ð  Ðincludes€a€cut,€abrasion,€bruise,€burn€or€disfigurement;€physical€pain€or€temporaryÏillness€or€impairment€of€the€function€of€a€bodily€member,€organ,€or€mentalÏfaculty.ðð).€€Contrary€to€Appellantððs€assertions,€there€is€absolutely€nothing€in€theÏstatutory€definition€that€requires€the€bruising€to€be€ð ðextensiveðð€in€order€to€qualifyÏas€bodily€injury.€€Further,€Appellantððs€claim€that€Davidson€cut€her€hand€on€a€pieceÏof€œwood,›€by€the€front€desk€rather€than€in€the€bathroom€is€not€supported€by€theÏrecord.€€Appellant€is€correct€that€the€record€indicates€that€there€was€no€blood€inÏthe€bathroom€itself€and€that€there€was€a€piece€of€broken€wood€by€the€front€desk.€ÏHowever,€there€is€no€proof€in€the€record€that€Davidson€actually€cut€her€hand€onÏthe€piece€of€wood€and€in€fact,€Davidson€specifically€testified€that€her€hand€wasÏcut€while€she€was€in€the€bathroom.€ÌÌà ` àSecond,€Appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€becauseÏthere€was€no€proof€that€he€confined€Davidson€ð ðunlawfullyðð€as€defined€by€statute.€ÏThe€definition€of€ð ðunlawfulðð€as€used€in€the€kidnapping€and€false€imprisonmentÏstatutes€means€ð ðaccomplished€by€force,€threat€or€fraud.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„¼13„301(2)€(1997).€€Here,€the€State€introduced€proof€that€when€DavidsonÏattempted€to€leave€the€bathroom,€Appellant€put€up€his€hands€so€that€DavidsonÐ Ð9p02 Ðcould€not€get€out,€that€Appellant€grabbed€both€of€Davidsonððs€arms€when€she€triedÏto€leave,€and€that€Appellant€grabbed€one€of€Davidsonððs€arms€and€placed€one€ofÏhis€hands€over€Davidsonððs€mouth€and€pressed€ð ðvery€hardðð€while€they€were€on€theÏfloor.€€This€conduct€by€Appellant€clearly€qualifies€as€force.ÌÌœññà ` àThird,€Appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€because€itÏfailed€to€establish€that€he€ð ðsubstantially€interferedðð€with€Davidsonððs€liberty.€ÏAssuming€arguendo€that€the€facts€of€this€case€did€not€constitute€a€ð ðsubstantialÏinterferenceðð€with€Davidsonððs€liberty,€the€evidence€was€still€sufficient€to€supportÏa€conviction€for€attempted€aggravated€kidnapping.€€Essentially,€AppellantððsÏargument€amounts€to€an€assertion€that€because€Appellant€did€not€actuallyÏcomplete€the€offense€of€aggravated€kidnapping€by€substantially€interfering€withÏDavidsonððs€liberty,€he€cannot€be€guilty€of€attempted€aggravated€kidnapping.€ÏHowever,€as€previously€œnoted,ñ|ñ€ñ|ññññ{ñ€ð ð[a]€person€commits€criminal€attempt€who,€actingÏwith€the€kind€of€culpability€otherwise€required€for€the€offense€.€.€.€[a]cts€with€intentÏto€.€.€.€cause€a€result€that€would€constitute€the€offense€.€.€.€and€the€conductÏconstitutes€a€substantial€step€toward€the€commission€of€the€offense.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39-12-101(a)(3)€(1997).€ñ{ññ|ñ›ñ|ññññ{ñð ðñ{ññññ}ññ{ñAñ{ññ}ññññ~ñ[a]ñ~ññ{ñ€person€commits€criminal€attempt€who,€actingÏwith€the€kind€of€culpability€otherwise€required€for€the€offense€.€.€.€[a]cts€with€intentÏto€to€cause€a€result€that€is€an€element€of€the€offense,€and€believes€the€conductÏwill€cause€the€result€without€further€conduct€on€the€personððs€part.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39-12-101(a)(2)€(1997).ñ{ñ›€Thus,€the€State€was€required€to€prove€thatÏAppellant€intentionally€took€a€substantial€step€toward€confining€Davidson€in€a€wayÏthat€substantially€interfered€with€her€liberty,€not€that€he€actually€œsucceeded›€inÏsubstantially€interfering€with€her€liberty.€€The€evidence€that€Appellant€held€out€hisÏhands€to€block€Davidsonððs€exit€from€the€bathroom,€that€Appellant€initially€grabbedÏboth€of€Davidsonððs€arms,€and€that€Appellant€subsequently€grabbed€one€ofÏDavidsonððs€arms€and€covered€her€mouth€clearly€supports€the€juryððs€conclusionÏthat€Appellantððs€entire€course€of€action€was€corroborative€of€an€intent€to€commitÏthe€offense€of€aggravated€kidnapping.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„101(b)Ð Ð9p02 Ð(1997)€(stating€that€conduct€is€a€ð ðsubstantial€stepðð€if€the€entire€course€of€action€isÏcorroborative€of€intent€to€commit€the€offense).ññññà ` àThird,€Appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€because€itÏfailed€to€establish€that€he€ð ðsubstantially€interferedðð€with€Davidsonððs€liberty.€ÏAssuming€arguendo€that€the€facts€of€this€case€did€not€constitute€a€ð ðsubstantialÏinterferenceðð€with€Davidsonððs€liberty,€the€evidence€was€still€sufficient€to€supportÏa€conviction€for€attempted€aggravated€kidnapping.€€Essentially,€AppellantððsÏargument€amounts€to€an€assertion€that€because€Appellant€did€not€actuallyÏcomplete€the€offense€of€aggravated€kidnapping€by€substantially€interfering€withÏDavidsonððs€liberty,€he€cannot€be€guilty€of€attempted€aggravated€kidnapping.€ÏHowever,€as€previously€noted,€ð ð[a]€person€commits€criminal€attempt€who,€actingÏwith€the€kind€of€culpability€otherwise€required€for€the€offense€.€.€.€[a]cts€with€intentÏto€cause€a€result€that€is€an€element€of€the€offense,€and€believes€the€conduct€willÏcause€the€result€without€further€conduct€on€the€personððs€part.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€39-12-101(a)(2)€(1997).€Thus,€the€State€was€required€to€prove€that€AppellantÏacted€with€intent€to€knowingly€confine€Davidson€unlawfully€so€as€to€substantiallyÏinterfere€with€her€liberty,€believing€that€his€conduct€would€cause€the€result€withoutÏfurther€conduct€on€his€part.€€The€evidence€that€Appellant€held€out€his€hands€toÏblock€Davidsonððs€exit€from€the€bathroom,€that€Appellant€initially€grabbed€both€ofÏDavidsonððs€arms,€and€that€Appellant€subsequently€grabbed€one€of€DavidsonððsÏarms€and€covered€her€mouth€clearly€supports€the€juryððs€conclusion€that€AppellantÏâ âgrabbed€and€held€Davidson€with€the€intent€of€confining€her€unlawfully€in€a€wayÐ à7€.0 Ðthat€substantially€interfered€with€her€liberty€and€that€Appellant€believed€that€heÏwould€accomplish€his€objective€without€further€conduct€on€his€part.ññ›Ìâ âÌà ` àFinally,€Appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€because€theÏfacts€indicate€that€the€incident€in€question€was€an€accident€caused€by€DavidsonððsÏunreasonable€panicked€reaction€to€Appellantððs€drunken€attempt€to€use€theÏbathroom.€€Essentially,€Appellant€is€asking€this€Court€to€reconsider€the€evidenceÏand€substitute€a€verdict€of€not€guilty€in€place€of€the€verdict€found€by€the€jury.€€ThatÏis€not€our€function.€€Instead,€we€conclude€that€when€the€evidence€in€this€case€isÏviewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€a€rational€jury€could€find€beyondÏa€reasonable€doubt€that€Appellant€attempted€to€commit€the€offense€of€aggravatedÏkidnapping.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@ÄÄ!®àò òIII.€€MOTION€FOR€A€MISTRIALó óˆÐ "0 ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€denied€his€motion€forÏa€mistrial.€€Specifically,€Appellant€claims€that€the€trial€court€should€have€declaredÏa€mistrial€because€one€or€more€jurors€may€have€seen€him€in€the€custody€of€someÏbailiffs€during€a€recess€in€the€trial.ÌÌà ` àDuring€a€hearing€on€his€motion,€Appellant€testified€that€while€he€was€beingÏbrought€down€a€hallway€by€three€bailiffs€during€a€recess,€a€constable€opened€theÏdoor€to€the€jury€room€from€the€inside.€€Appellant€testified€that€although€he€did€notÏknow€whether€any€of€the€jurors€saw€him,€they€might€have€been€able€to€get€a€ð ðbriefÏglimpseðð€of€him.€€Appellant€also€testified€that€during€this€occurrence,€he€wasÏwearing€street€clothes,€he€was€not€shackled€or€handcuffed,€and€he€was€notÐ à9€02 Ðphysically€touched€by€the€bailiffs.€€The€trial€court€then€gave€Appellant€theÏopportunity€to€change€shirts€so€that€any€jurors€who€only€saw€his€clothing€wouldÏnot€be€able€to€identify€him€as€the€man€who€had€been€with€the€bailiffs.€€AppellantÏthen€changed€into€a€shirt€made€out€of€different€material.€€The€trial€courtÏsubsequently€denied€the€motion€for€a€mistrial€because€there€was€no€evidenceÏthat€any€of€the€jurors€had€actually€seen€Appellant€and€because€Appellant€wouldÏnot€have€been€prejudiced€even€if€the€jury€had€seen€him.€ÌÌà ` àThe€decision€of€whether€to€grant€a€mistrial€is€within€the€sound€discretion€ofÏthe€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€McKinneyóó,€929€S.W.2d€404,€405€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€Ð Ðp ÐThis€Court€will€not€disturb€that€decision€absent€a€finding€of€abuse€of€discretion.€ÏòòState€v.€Adkinsóó,€786€S.W.2d€642,€644€(Tenn.€1990).€€ð ðGenerally,€a€mistrial€will€beÐ °P Ðdeclared€in€a€criminal€case€only€when€there€is€a€ððmanifest€necessityðð€requiringÏsuch€action€by€the€trial€judge.ðð€€òòState€v.€Millbrooksóó,€819€S.W.2d€441,€443€(Tenn.Ð "0 ÐCrim.€App.€1991).€€There€was€no€ð ðmanifest€necessityðð€for€a€mistrial€in€this€case.€ÏThere€was€absolutely€no€evidence€that€any€member€of€the€jury€actually€sawÏAppellant€during€the€occurrence€in€question.€€Further,€the€fact€that€Appellant€wasÏdressed€in€street€clothes€and€was€not€handcuffed,€shackled,€or€physicallyÏtouched€by€the€bailiffs€supports€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€even€if€AppellantÏhad€been€seen€by€the€jury,€he€would€not€have€been€prejudiced€by€it.€€Under€theseÏcircumstances,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€when€itÏdenied€the€motion€for€a€mistrial.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌÌÌÐ Ð9p02 Ðà@ÍÍ ®àò òIV.€€INSTRUCTION€ABOUT€FLIGHTó óˆÐ `  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€instructed€the€jury€onÏflight.€€The€State€concedes€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€gave€this€œinstructionñwñ›ñwñ;›Ïhowever,€the€State€contends€that€the€error€was€harmless.ÌÌà ` àThe€record€indicates€that€during€its€charge€to€the€jury,€the€trial€court€gaveÏthe€following€instruction€on€flight:ÌÓÓà0 ` àà ¸ àThe€flight€of€a€person€accused€of€a€crime€is€a€circumstance€which,Ïwhen€considered€together€with€all€of€the€facts€of€the€case,€may€justify€anÏinference€of€guilt.€€Flight€is€the€voluntary€withdrawal€of€oneððs€self€for€theÏpurpose€of€evading€arrest€or€prosecution€for€the€crimes€charged.€€WhetherÏthe€evidence€presented€proves€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€theÏdefendant€fled€is€a€question€for€your€determination.€€Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà ¸ àThe€law€makes€no€nice€or€refined€distinction€as€to€the€manner€orÏmethod€of€a€flight;€it€may€be€open,€or€it€may€be€a€hurried€or€concealedÏdeparture,€or€it€may€be€a€concealment€within€the€jurisdiction.€€However,€itÏtakes€both€a€leaving€the€scene€of€the€difficulty€and€a€subsequent€hidingÏout,€evasion,€or€concealment€in€the€community,€or€a€leaving€of€theÏcommunity€for€parts€unknown,€to€constitute€flight.€€Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà ¸ àIf€flight€is€proved,€the€fact€of€flight€alone€does€not€allow€you€to€findÏthat€the€defendant€is€guilty€of€the€crime€alleged.€€However,€since€flight€byÏa€defendant€may€be€caused€by€a€consciousness€of€guilt,€you€may€considerÏthe€fact€of€flight,€if€flight€is€so€proven,€together€with€all€of€the€other€evidenceÏwhen€you€decide€the€guilt€or€innocence€of€the€defendant.€€On€the€otherÏhand,€an€entirely€innocent€person€may€take€flight€and€such€flight€may€beÏexplained€by€proof€offered,€or€by€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case.Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà ¸ àWhether€there€was€flight€by€the€defendant,€the€reasons€for€it,€and€theÏweight€to€be€given€to€it,€are€questions€for€you€to€determine.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€ÐP,ð"$` T$` T$ ÐÓÀRÓÌà ` àIn€òòRogers€v.€Stateóó,€2€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€491,€502,€455€S.W.2d€182,€187Ð 8/Ø%' Ð(1970),€this€Court€set€out€a€two-prong€test€for€determining€whether€the€facts€of€aÏcase€were€indicative€of€flight:ÌÓÓà0 ` àThe€law€makes€no€nice€or€refined€distinction€as€to€the€manner€or€methodÏof€a€flight;€€it€may€be€open,€or€it€may€be€a€hurried€or€concealed€departure,Ïor€it€may€be€concealment€within€the€jurisdiction.€€However,€it€takes€both€aÐ ø6˜-/ Ðleaving€the€scene€of€the€difficulty€and€a€subsequent€hiding€out,€evasion,€orÏconcealment€in€the€community,€or€a€leaving€of€the€community€for€partsÏunknown,€to€constitute€flight.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÓ¤ZÓÌà ` àWe€agree€with€Appellant€that€under€this€test,€an€instruction€on€flight€wasÏnot€warranted.€€While€there€was€evidence€that€Appellant€left€the€Westside€InnÏimmediately€after€the€events€in€question,€there€was€no€evidence€of€anyÏð ðsubsequent€hiding€out,€evasion,€or€concealment€in€the€community,€or€a€leavingÏof€the€community€for€parts€unknown.ðð€€Thus,€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€gave€thisÏinstruction.€€However,€we€agree€with€the€State€that€this€was€harmless€error.€€TheÏtrial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€whether€Appellant€fled€was€a€question€solely€forÏtheir€decision,€that€they€need€not€infer€flight,€and€that€flight€alone€was€insufficientÏto€prove€guilt.€€This,€together€with€the€overwhelming€proof€of€Appellantððs€guilt,Ïrenders€any€error€as€to€the€flight€instruction€harmless.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893Ð ¨H ÐS.W.2d€908,€918€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Whittenmeiróó,€725€S.W.2d€686,€688ð!ð89Ð ˜!8 Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€œ1986)›€€œòòsee›€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€This€issue€has€noÐ ˆ#( Ðmerit.ÌÌà@p p ®àò òV.€€INSTRUCTION€ON€ADMISSIONS€AGAINST€INTERESTó óˆÐ X)ø! ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€gave€the€jury€anÏinstruction€about€admissions€against€interest.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€instruction€was€as€follows:Ð 8/Ø%' ÐÓÓà0 ` àà ¸ àEvidence€has€been€introduced€in€this€trial€of€a€statement€orÏstatements€by€the€defendant€made€outside€the€trial,€to€show€an€admissionÏagainst€interest.€€An€admission€against€interest€is€a€statement€by€theÏdefendant€which€acknowledges€the€existence€or€truth€of€some€factÏâ ânecessary€to€be€proven€to€establish€the€guilt€of€the€defendant€or€whichÐ 5¨+- Ðtends€to€show€guilt€of€the€defendant€or€is€evidence€of€some€material€fact,Ïbut€not€amounting€to€a€confession.€€Ð ` T$` T$ Ðâ âà0 ` àà ¸ àWhile€this€evidence€has€been€received,€it€remains€your€duty€toÏdecide€if€in€fact€such€statement€was€ever€made.€€If€you€believe€a€statementÏwas€not€made€by€the€defendant,€you€should€not€consider€it.€€If€you€decideÏthe€statement€was€made€by€the€defendant,€you€must€judge€the€truth€of€theÏfact€stated.€€In€so€determining,€consider€the€circumstances€under€which€theÏstatement€was€made.€€Also€consider€whether€any€of€the€other€evidenceÏbefore€you€tends€to€contradict€the€statement€in€whole€or€in€part.€€You€mustÏnot,€however,€arbitrarily€disregard€any€part€of€any€statement,€but€ratherÏshould€consider€all€of€any€statement€you€believe€was€made€and€is€true.€ÏYou€are€the€sole€judge€of€what€weight€should€be€given€such€statement.€€IfÏyou€decide€a€statement€was€made€you€should€consider€it€with€all€the€otherÏevidence€in€the€case€in€determining€the€defendantððs€guilt€or€innocence.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Ðø˜ ` T$` T$ ÐÓ5bÓÌà ` àIn€òòHelton€v.€Stateóó,€547€S.W.2d€564€(Tenn.€1977),€the€Tennessee€SupremeÐ à€ ÐCourt€set€forth€a€definition€for€admissions€against€interest.€€The€œSupreme›€œCourt›Ïstated:ÌÓÓà0 ` àThe€distinction€between€an€admission€and€a€confession€is€blurred.€ÏGenerally,€however,€a€confession€is€a€statement€by€the€accused€that€heÏengaged€in€conduct€which€constitutes€a€crime.€.€.€.€€An€admission€is€anÏacknowledgment€by€the€accused€of€certain€facts€which€tend€together€withÏother€facts,€to€establish€his€guilt;€while€a€confession€is€anÏœacknowledgement›€of€guilt€itself.€€An€admission,€then,€is€something€lessÏthan€a€confession€and,€unlike€a€confession,€.€.€.€an€admission€is€notÏsufficient€in€itself€to€support€a€conviction.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÌÓ:iÓòòId.óó€at€567€(citation€œand›€internal€quotations€œomitted)ñwñ›ñwñ;›€€œòòsee›€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Kygeróó,€787Ð h' ÐS.W.2d€13,€23€n.2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€ÌÌà ` àOfficer€Samples€testified€that€when€he€located€Appellant€on€December€5,Ï1996,€he€told€Appellant€that€he€wanted€to€talk€to€him€about€the€incident€thatÏoccurred€at€the€Westside€Inn.€€Appellant€then€denied€being€at€the€Westside€InnÏand€said€that€he€did€not€have€any€reason€to€be€at€that€location.€€When€SamplesÏthen€confronted€Appellant€with€the€fact€that€he€matched€the€description€of€aÏsubject€who€had€used€the€telephone€at€the€Westside€Inn,€Appellant€admitted€thatÐ è6ˆ-/ Ðhe€had€been€œat›€that€location€and€had€used€the€telephone.€€We€conclude€thatÏAppellantððs€statement€that€he€had€used€the€telephone€at€the€Westside€Inn,Ïconsidered€together€with€Davidsonððs€testimony€that€her€assailant€had€used€theÏtelephone€shortly€before€attacking€her€and€Appellantððs€initial€denial€that€he€hadÏbeen€to€the€Westside€Inn,€is€evidence€that€tends€to€establish€guilt.€€Thus,€theÏstatement€was€an€admission€against€interest.œ×ƒ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€€òòSee€generallyóó€òòState€v.€AntonioÐ °  ÐGeorge€Whiteóó,€No.€775,€1987€WL€25166,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Dec.Ð    Ð1,€1987)€(stating€that€defendantððs€statement€denying€involvement€in€the€crime€butÏadmitting€being€at€the€crime€scene€with€another€perpetrator€was€an€admissionÏunder€òòHeltonóó).€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€properly€gave€theÐ Ðp Ðinstruction€on€admissions€against€interest.€€Further,€the€trial€courtððs€instructionÏclearly€stated€that€it€was€the€juryððs€responsibility€to€determine€whether€AppellantÏhad€made€any€admission€and€if€he€had,€to€determine€whether€the€statementsÏwere€entitled€to€any€weight.€€€This,€together€with€the€overwhelming€proof€ofÏAppellantððs€guilt,€convinces€us€that€any€error€in€giving€the€instruction€onÏadmissions€against€interest€was,€at€worst,€harmless.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€Ð p& Ѐ€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@rr!®àò òV.€€RIGHT€TO€A€SPEEDY€TRIALó óˆÐ @,à"$ ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€failed€to€dismiss€theÏindictment€on€the€basis€that€Appellantððs€right€to€a€speedy€trial€had€been€violated.ÌÐ 4°*, Ðà ` àThe€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions€guarantee€the€criminalÏdefendant€the€right€to€a€speedy€trial.€€U.S.€Const.€amend.€VI;€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,Ïðð€9;€òòState€v.€Utleyóó,€956€S.W.2d€489,€492€(Tenn.€1997).€€The€right€to€a€speedy€trialÐ @ à Ðis€also€statutory€in€Tennessee.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-14-101€(1997).€€InÐ 0Ð Ðaddition,€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provide€for€the€dismissalÏof€an€indictment,€presentment,€information€or€criminal€complaint€ð ð[i]f€there€isÏunnecessary€delay€in€presenting€the€charge€to€a€grand€jury€against€a€defendantÏwho€œhas›€been€held€to€answer€to€the€trial€court,€or€if€there€is€unnecessary€delayÏin€bringing€a€defendant€to€trial€.€.€.€.ðð€Tenn.€€R.€Crim.€P.€48(b).ÌÌà ` àWhen€an€accused€seeks€the€dismissal€of€a€prosecution€based€upon€theÏdenial€of€the€constitutional€right€to€a€speedy€trial,€the€accused€must€establish€aÏperiod€of€delay€that€is€ð ðpresumptively€prejudicial.ðð€€òòState€v.€Jeffersonóó,€938€S.W.2dÐ   @ Ð1,€12€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)€(citing€òòDoggett€v.€United€Statesóó,€505€U.S.€647,Ð "0 Ð651,€112€S.Ct.€2686,€2690,€120€L.Ed.2d€520€(1992));€òòBarker€v.€Wingoóó,€407€U.S.Ð €$  Ð514,€530,€92€S.Ct.€2182,€2192,€33€L.Ed.2d€101€(1972).€€The€length€of€the€delayÏis€dependent€upon€the€peculiar€circumstances€of€each€case,€and€the€delay€thatÏcan€be€tolerated€for€ð ðan€ordinary€street€crimeðð€is€generally€much€less€than€for€aÏserious,€complex€felony€charge.€€òòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€530ð!ð31,€92€S.Ct.€at€2193.€Ð @,à"$ ÐA€delay€of€one€year€or€longer€marks€the€point€at€which€courts€deem€the€delayÏunreasonable€enough€to€trigger€further€inquiry.€€òòUtleyóó,€956€S.W.2d€at€494;Ð  0À&( ÐòòDoggettóó,€505€U.S.€at€652,€n.1,€112€S.Ct.€at€2691,€n.1.€€If€this€threshold€is€crossed,Ð 2°(* Ða€balancing€test€determines€the€merits€of€the€speedy€trial€issue.€€In€òòState€v.Ð 4 *, ÐBishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€81,€83ð!ð85€(Tenn.€1973),€our€œSupreme›€œCourt›€recognized€andÐ ð5,. Ðadopted€the€balancing€test€set€forth€in€òòBarkeróó€in€which€four€factors€must€beÐ à7€.0 Ðbalanced.€€The€factors€are€(1)€the€length€of€the€delay,€(2)€the€reasons€for€theÐ Ð9p02 Ðdelay,€(3)€the€accusedððs€assertion€of€the€right€to€speedy€trial,€and€(4)€theÏprejudice€resulting€from€the€delay.€€òòBarkeróó,€407€œU.S.ñwñ›ñwñ€at›€531,€92€S.Ct.€œñvñatñvñ›€2192;€Ð P ð ÐòòBishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€83ð!ð84.Ð @ à ÐÌà ` à€In€this€case,€Appellant€was€arrested€and€charged€on€December€5,€1996,Ïwas€œindictedñwñ€ñwññwñinñwñ›€on€January€30,€1997,€asserted€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial€on€July€25,Ï1997,€and€was€tried€on€September€29ð!ð30,€1997.€€Because€the€ten€month€periodÏof€delay€between€Appellantððs€arrest/charge€and€trial€was€less€than€one€year,€theÏdelay€was€not€ð ðpresumptively€prejudicialðð€within€the€meaning€of€òòBarkeróó.€Ð à€ ÐTherefore,€we€need€not€address€the€remaining€factors€of€the€òòBarkeróó€test.€€òòSeeóóÐ Ðp ÐòòUtleyóó,€956€S.W.2d€at€494.€€However,€it€is€worth€noting€that€in€addition€to€failing€toÐ À` Ðshow€that€the€period€of€delay€in€bringing€him€to€trial€was€ð ðpresumptivelyÏprejudicial,ðð€Appellant€has€failed€to€identify€any€prejudice€that€he€sufferedÏbecause€of€the€delay.€€Under€these€circumstances,€we€hold€that€Appellantððs€rightÏto€a€speedy€trial€was€not€violated€under€the€United€States€and€TennesseeÏConstitutions.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà ` àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.ÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGE