ÿWPCì ¸gÏ’1XÕ ÇoâDUlðŒåñ%®®†|1d;â—cš1XW>$¸~"2ã̬îÌxh Ó˜¤É}¥;¶ê®ØŽLñ±Ç߉’üG®éäDäš½ åeÃ\N}_䎱š.l^9/‘ím}Ó¿•®ü <Éq¦t—Sî_ ôVhni4ÜY±W èöomŠ&{ÿ—nÔ®0rÙì‚^Þý!ìæQfD¸Éü/ëI›!8|µ‡SÏŽ=VlKs–ÞªÿàÞP¼ ì H¿‚®h—¾ógJ¶îâ÷ÛîpK¨¢wßá8ÂB0æ îˆ8VGËÀè¼û6“çßþe¹,,J…×Ä#ƒS´ÀÜ cœïÒ¸•‰Ö+Ô0gRRE7õ?ÅhëÿÈëœÃÔû©]7„P@ õY«\©L 3åÑ!ÀfÒ!,y±Gæ‹-ÛÊ›\‹|"‘‡Ðàjÿ=þ<í}ÿ`¾ïéÉòæ2$Û±çT^Â0º7i@YW†÷ŽvI&”£el±k2)˜¯7S˜)k»üEÉA1Œ9ì¨Ñó·׉ã:€]¥"ªÜO±'°làMm!Ô.Å! å öghüùÙßzùÁ‰Ÿ¦(„u{´# ³ÉÉ`#!@UNa %¯ 0(µLÝU:) bc wk 4o ƒ 0Æ’ 0DX )œ <Å N U: W= ^ ”  m¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ B¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹ AQÖÆ' 0Dí 0D1 0Duu D3¹˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù-{Z='3|x(v(2$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X˜·XXXÔÔ€ô³´õXX˜·Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒ Žç$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XK¦XXXÔÔ€ôCÕòXXK¦Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€record€does€not€contain€either€the€videotape€of€Appellantððs€statement€or€a€transcript€of€theÐ `  Ðstatement. 2Ý ƒ Žç$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XK¦XXXÔÔ€ôCÕòXXK¦Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellant€has€not€specifically€challenged€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€as€to€his€conviction€forÐ `  Ðthe€aggravated€robbery€of€Lee.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular MÝ ƒ[¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X˜·XXXÔÔ€ÚXX˜·ÔÓ  ÓÔ_Ôò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X˜·XÚÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€10,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€Ô_ÔClerkÔdAxÔó óÔ_ÔЦ*' ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ dZ[\]_Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ŠbÛ‹XXÔÔ€ŠŒ<‹‹ŠbÛÔÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ8€F<XXdìdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÔ_Ôßv€Y_@0,j:ûÿ`  `€€@ÿEïa ` 8ttxP'` ð  vßÔ_ÔÔ_ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌMAY€SESSION,€1999ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9805„CR„00198Ð n Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó ó)Ð p Ðà ` àAppellee,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð l  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àDAVIDSON€COUNTYÐ p  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ r  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€SETH€NORMANó óÐ t  Ðò òERIC€BERNARD€HOWARD,ó óà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ v Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ x Ðà ` àAppellant.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  à(Direct€Appeal€„€Aggravated€Robbery)Ð z Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à À àà  àà p àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð l  ÐÌTHOMAS€H.€POTTERà h àà À àà  àPAUL€G.€SUMMERSÐ d  Ð100€Thompson€Laneà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ `! ÐNashville,€TN€€37211Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àLUCIAN€D.€GEISEÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` 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  àVICTOR€S.€JOHNSONÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOHN€ZIMMERMANNÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWashington€Sq.,€Ste.€500Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37201ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ   6¬,-ø ÐÓ  Óò òòòÔ‡„óå „‹ŠŒ<ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ#†ŠŒ<‹ „„óåœ #ÔÐ `  ÐÓ  ÓÓÓà@®®.®àˆÌà ` àOn€October€26,€1995,€the€Davidson€County€Grand€Jury€indicted€AppellantÐ ª J ÐEric€B.€Howard€for€two€counts€of€aggravated€robbery.€€After€a€jury€trial€onÐ š: ÐNovember€17ð!ð18,€1997,€Appellant€was€convicted€of€two€counts€of€aggravatedÐ Š* Ðrobbery.€€After€a€sentencing€hearing€on€December€17,€1997,€the€trial€courtÐ z  Ðsentenced€Appellant€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender€to€consecutive€terms€ofÐ j  Ðseventeen€years€for€each€conviction.€€Appellant€challenges€his€convictions,Ð Zú  Ðraising€the€following€issues:Ð Jê ÐÓÓà0 ` à1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€ruled€that€certain€evidence€wasÐ :Ú Ðirrelevant€and€inadmissible;Ð2Ò` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à2)€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€one€of€the€aggravatedÐ *Ê Ðrobbery€convictions;€andÐ"Â` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à3)€whether€incompetency€by€reason€of€addiction€to€a€narcotic€drug€is€aÐ º Ðdefense€to€aggravated€robbery.в` T$` T$ ÐÓÓÌAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð ú!š ÐÌà@ÎÎ*®àò òI.€€FACTSó óˆÐ Ú%z ÐÌà ` àJianwei€Cao€testified€that€while€he€was€walking€to€his€office€on€theÐ º)Z ! ÐVanderbilt€University€campus€at€10:00€a.m.€on€August€15,€1995,€he€wasÐ ª+J"# Ðapproached€by€Appellant.€€When€Appellant€asked€Cao€where€the€admissionsÐ š-:$% Ðoffice€was€located,€Cao€stated€that€he€would€show€him€the€way.€€ShortlyÐ Š/*&' Ðthereafter,€Cao€and€Appellant€entered€a€narrow€path€between€two€buildings.€Ð z1() ÐAppellant€then€made€a€motion€with€his€hand€and€said€ð ðGive€me€your€wallet€.€.€.Ð j3 *+ ÐThere€is€a€gun€.€.€.€I€show€you.ðð€€Although€Cao€did€not€actually€see€a€gun,€heÐ Z5ú+- Ðlooked€at€where€Appellant€had€indicated€he€had€a€gun€and€saw€ð ðsomething€popÐ J7ê-/ Ðout,ðð€or€ð ðbump[]€up.ðð€€Cao€then€gave€Appellant€his€watch,€his€card€case,€andÐ :9Ú/1 Ðtwelve€dollars€in€cash€from€his€pocket.ò ò€ó ó€Cao€subsequently€followed€Appellant€forÐ `  Ða€short€distance€and€asked€Appellant€to€return€his€card€case€because€Cao€wasÐ P ð Ðafraid€that€Appellant€would€look€at€his€identification€and€learn€his€name€andÐ @ à Ðaddress.€€Appellant€returned€the€card€case,€but€he€kept€the€watch€and€the€cash.€Ð 0Ð ÐÌà ` àHoseung€Lee€testified€that€while€he€was€walking€to€his€office€on€theÐ °  ÐVanderbilt€University€campus€at€approximately€10:15€a.m.€on€August€15,€1995,Ð    ÐAppellant€approached€him€and€asked€for€directions€to€the€admissions€office.€Ð ð  ÐWhen€Lee€pretended€that€he€did€not€understand€English,€Appellant€said€ð ðGive€meÐ à€ Ðthe€moneyðð€and€pulled€up€his€shirt€so€that€Lee€could€see€the€gun€that€was€tuckedÐ Ðp Ðin€his€waistband.€€Lee€then€gave€Appellant€his€wallet€and€three€dollars.€€Appellant€Ð À` Ðlooked€through€the€wallet€and€gave€it€back€to€Lee.€Ð °P ÐÌà ` àLee€testified€that€after€Appellant€left,€Lee€ran€to€his€office€and€contactedÐ "0 Ðsecurity.€€Approximately€fifteen€minutes€later,€Lee€went€to€the€security€office€andÐ €$  Ðidentified€Appellant€as€the€person€who€had€robbed€him.€Ð p& ÐÌà ` àJennifer€West€testified€that€while€she€was€working€as€a€security€officer€forÐ P*ð " ÐVanderbilt€University€at€10:20€a.m.€on€August€15,€1995,€she€received€a€report€ofÐ @,à"$ Ðan€armed€robbery.€€Shortly€thereafter,€West€saw€Appellant€and€noticed€that€heÐ 0.Ð$& Ðmatched€the€description€of€the€suspect.€€West€and€Officer€Robert€Young€thenÐ  0À&( Ðapproached€Appellant€and€informed€him€that€he€matched€the€description€of€aÐ 2°(* Ðsuspect€in€an€armed€robbery.€Ð 4 *, ÐÌà ` àWest€testified€that€Appellant€was€fairly€calm€at€first,€but€he€appeared€toÐ à7€.0 Ðbecome€nervous€when€the€officers€questioned€him.€€Officer€Young€friskedÐ Ð9p02 ÐAppellant€for€weapons€and€discovered€that€Appellant€had€a€gun€tucked€in€hisÐ `  Ðwaistband.€€The€gun€had€the€appearance€of€a€nine€millimeter€handgun,€but€theÐ P ð Ðofficers€subsequently€determined€that€it€was€a€BB€gun.€€West€testified€thatÐ @ à ÐAppellant€did€not€appear€to€be€intoxicated€or€high€on€any€drugs.€€Officer€RobertÐ 0Ð ÐYoung€also€testified€that€Appellant€did€not€appear€to€be€intoxicated€or€high€onÐ  À Ðdrugs.€Ð °  ÐÌà ` àDetective€Larry€Reese€of€the€Vanderbilt€University€Police€DepartmentÐ ð  Ðtestified€that€when€Appellant€was€taken€into€custody,€he€initially€provided€theÐ à€ Ðofficers€with€a€false€name.€€However,€Appellant€subsequently€gave€his€correctÐ Ðp Ðname€and€apologized€to€the€officers€for€being€untruthful.€€Reese€subsequentlyÐ À` Ðobserved€Appellant€for€two€to€four€hours,€and€it€did€not€appear€that€Appellant€wasÐ °P Ðunder€the€influence€of€alcohol€or€drugs.€Ð   @ ÐÌà ` àDetective€Harold€Haney€of€the€Metropolitan€Nashville€Police€DepartmentÐ €$  Ðtestified€that€he€interviewed€Appellant€on€August€15,€1995,€and€the€interview€wasÐ p& Ðrecorded€on€videotape.€€Haney€also€testified€that€before€the€interview,€heÐ `(  Ðinformed€Appellant€of€his€constitutional€rights,€and€Appellant€signed€a€waiver€ofÐ P*ð " Ðrights€form.€€At€this€point,€the€videotape€of€Appellantððs€statement€was€played€forÐ @,à"$ Ðthe€jury.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð 0.Ð$& ÐÌà ` àHaney€testified€that€during€the€interview,€Appellant€did€not€appear€to€haveÐ 2°(* Ðbeen€under€the€influence€of€drugs€and€did€not€indicate€that€he€was€under€theÐ 4 *, Ðinfluence€of€alcohol€or€drugs.€€Ð ð5,. Їà@¨¨!®àò òII.€€EXCLUSION€OF€EVIDENCEó óˆÐ `  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€ruled€that€certainÐ @ à Ðdocuments€created€by€the€United€States€Social€Security€Administration€wereÐ 0Ð Ðirrelevant€and€inadmissible.€€We€conclude€that€this€issue€is€waived.Ð  À ÐÌà ` àThe€record€indicates€that€after€the€close€of€the€Stateððs€proof,€AppellantÐ    Ðsought€to€introduce€certain€documents€prepared€by€the€Social€SecurityÐ ð  ÐAdministration€that€apparently€related€to€a€ð ðrecommendation€of€disabilityðð€forÐ à€ ÐAppellant.€€Although€it€is€not€clear,€these€documents€were€apparently€created€inÐ Ðp Ð1993€or€earlier.€€After€viewing€the€documents,€the€trial€court€found€that€they€wereÐ À` Ðinadmissible€because€the€ð ðmedical€records€that€are€three,€and€four,€and€fiveÐ °P Ðyears€prior€to€this€particular€time€have€no€effect€on€this€matter.ðð€€Appellant€thenÐ   @ Ðfailed€to€make€a€proffer€of€the€documents€for€the€record.Ð "0 ÐÌà ` àBecause€Appellant€failed€to€make€a€proffer€of€€the€documents,€it€is€notÐ p& Ðpossible€for€us€to€review€them€to€determine€whether€the€trial€court€abused€itsÐ `(  Ðdiscretion€when€it€found€that€they€were€inadmissible€because€they€wereÐ P*ð " Ðirrelevant.€€Appellant€has€waived€this€issue,€and€appellate€review€is€precluded.€Ð @,à"$ ÐòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€958€S.W.2d€679,€691€n.10€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Cokeróó,€746Ð 0.Ð$& ÐS.W.2d€167,€171€(Tenn.€1987);€òòState€v.€Goadóó,€707€S.W.2d€846,€853€(Tenn.Ð  0À&( Ð1986).Ð 2°(* ÐÌÌÌÐ Ð9p02 Ðà@::®àò òIII.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óˆÐ `  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€hisÐ @ à Ðconviction€for€the€aggravated€robbery€of€Cao.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Specifically,€Appellant€claims€thatÐ 0Ð Ðthe€evidence€was€insufficient€because€there€was€no€proof€that€Appellantððs€actionsÐ  À Ðever€put€Cao€in€fear.€€We€disagree.Ð °  ÐÌà ` àWhen€an€appellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€CourtÐ ð  Ðis€obliged€to€review€that€challenge€according€to€certain€well-settled€principles.€€AÐ à€ Ðverdict€of€guilty€by€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimonyÐ Ðp Ðof€the€Stateððs€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€in€favor€of€theÐ À` ÐState.€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994).€€Although€an€accusedÐ °P Ðis€originally€cloaked€with€a€presumption€of€innocence,€a€jury€verdict€removes€thisÐ   @ Ðpresumption€and€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,Ð "0 Ð914€(Tenn.€1982).€€Hence,€on€appeal,€the€burden€of€proof€rests€with€Appellant€toÐ €$  Ðdemonstrate€the€insufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€òòId.óó€€On€appeal,€ð ðtheÐ p& Ð[S]tate€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€as€well€as€allÐ `(  Ðreasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€therefrom.ðð€€òòId.óó€€WhereÐ P*ð " Ðthe€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€contested€on€appeal,€the€relevant€question€forÐ @,à"$ Ðthe€reviewing€court€is€whether€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÐ 0.Ð$& Ðaccused€guilty€of€every€element€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€Ð  0À&( ÐòòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789,€61€L.Ed.2d€560Ð 2°(* Ð(1979).€€In€conducting€our€evaluation€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€Court€isÐ 4 *, Ðprecluded€from€reweighing€or€reconsidering€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Morganóó,€929Ð ð5,. ÐS.W.2d€380,€383€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Moreover,€this€Court€may€notÐ `  Ðsubstitute€its€own€inferences€ð ðfor€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€fromÐ P ð Ðcircumstantial€evidence.ðð€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð @ à ÐApp.€1990).€€Finally,€Rule€13(e)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€ProcedureÐ 0Ð Ðprovides,€ð ðfindings€of€guilt€in€criminal€actions€whether€by€the€trial€court€or€juryÐ  À Ðshall€be€set€aside€if€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€findings€by€the€trierÐ °  Ðof€fact€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ððÐ    ÐÌà ` àIn€order€to€establish€that€Appellant€was€guilty€of€the€alleged€aggravatedÐ à€ Ðrobbery€of€Cao,€the€State€had€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€AppellantÐ Ðp Ðintentionally€or€knowingly€took€property€from€Cao€by€violence€or€putting€Cao€inÐ À` Ðfear€by€using€a€deadly€weapon€or€display€of€an€article€used€or€fashioned€to€leadÐ °P ÐCao€to€reasonably€believe€it€was€a€deadly€weapon.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„Ð   @ Ð13„401(a),€„402(a)(1)€(1997).€€We€conclude€that€when€the€evidence€is€viewed€inÐ "0 Ðthe€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€as€it€must€be,€the€evidence€was€clearlyÐ €$  Ðsufficient€for€a€rational€jury€to€find€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€Appellant€hadÐ p& Ðcommitted€the€offense€of€aggravated€robbery€of€Cao.Ð `(  ÐÌà ` à€Cao€testified€that€after€he€and€Appellant€entered€a€narrow€path€betweenÐ @,à"$ Ðtwo€buildings,€Appellant€made€a€motion€with€his€hand€and€said€ð ðGive€me€yourÐ 0.Ð$& Ðwallet€.€.€.€There€is€a€gun€.€.€.€I€show€you.ðð€€Cao€testified€that€although€he€did€notÐ  0À&( Ðactually€see€a€gun,€he€looked€at€where€Appellant€had€indicated€that€he€had€a€gunÐ 2°(* Ðand€saw€ð ðsomething€pop€outðð€or€ð ðbump[]€up.ðð€€When€the€prosecutor€asked€CaoÐ 4 *, Ðhow€he€felt€at€this€point,€Cao€testified,€ð ðIððm€scared.€€I€fear.ðð€€Cao€testified€that€heÐ ð5,. Ðthen€gave€Appellant€his€watch,€his€card€case,€and€twelve€dollars.€€Ð à7€.0 ÐÐ Ð9p02 Ðà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€above€evidence€was€insufficient€becauseÐ `  ÐCaoððs€testimony€that€he€was€afraid€was€not€credible.€€Specifically,€AppellantÐ P ð Ðcontends€that€Caoððs€testimony€that€he€subsequently€followed€Appellant€andÐ @ à Ðasked€for€the€return€of€his€card€case€indicates€that€he€never€really€felt€any€fear€ofÐ 0Ð ÐAppellant.€However,€ð ð[t]he€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€to€be€given€theirÐ  À Ðtestimony,€and€the€reconciliation€of€conflicts€in€the€evidence€are€matters€entrustedÐ °  Ðexclusively€to€the€jury€as€the€triers€of€fact.ðð€€òòState€v.€Cribbsóó,€967€S.W.2d€773,€793Ð    Ð(Tenn.€1998).€€The€jury€obviously€believed€Caoððs€testimony€that€he€gaveÐ ð  ÐAppellant€his€property€because€he€was€afraid.€€In€addition,€although€the€StateÐ à€ Ðmust€show€that€a€defendant€took€property€from€another€person€by€use€of€violenceÐ Ðp Ðor€by€putting€the€victim€in€fear€to€prove€that€the€defendant€committed€robbery,Ð À` Ðnothing€in€the€robbery€statutes€requires€the€State€to€prove€that€the€victimÐ °P Ðremained€in€fear€for€some€period€of€time€after€the€defendant€took€the€victimððsÐ   @ Ðproperty.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.Ð "0 ÐÌà@b b ®àò òIV.€€INCOMPETENCY€BY€REASON€OF€DRUG€ADDICTIONó óˆÐ p& ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€we€should€adopt€a€rule€that€incompetency€byÐ P*ð " Ðreason€of€addiction€to€a€narcotic€drug€relieves€a€person€of€all€responsibility€for€hisÐ @,à"$ Ðor€her€criminal€conduct.€€We€decline€Appellantððs€invitation€to€do€so.Ð 0.Ð$& ÐÌà ` àThis€Court€has€previously€rejected€the€argument€that€addiction€to€drugs,Ð 2°(* Ðstanding€alone,€relieves€a€person€of€responsibility€for€criminal€conduct.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ 4 *, Ðv.€James€Bailey€Meadoróó,€No.€01C01„9011„CR„00291,€1992€WL€9521,€at€*4Ð ð5,. Ðâ â(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Jan.€24,€1992).€€This€Court€stated€that€Ð à7€.0 ÐÓÓà0 ` àThe€compulsion€or€urge€inherently€attendant€to€chemical€substanceÐ `  Ðâ âaddiction€or€dependency€may€not€be€used€as€an€excuse€for€criminalÐ X ø Ðactivity.€.€.€.€€It€is€only€if€the€mental€state€of€the€defendant€rises€to€the€levelÐ P ð Ðof€legal€insanity€may€his€responsibility€for€crime€be€excused.€€€ÐH è` T$` T$ ÐÌÓ°HÓòòId.óó,€1992€WL€9521,€at€*4.Ð 8Ø ÐÌà ` àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€ordered€a€mental€evaluation€of€Appellant€toÐ ¸  Ðdetermine€his€competency€to€stand€trial€and€to€determine€whether€a€mentalÐ ¨  Ðdisease€or€defect€prevented€Appellant€from€knowing€the€wrongfulness€of€hisÐ ø˜  Ðconduct€at€the€time€of€the€offenses.€€The€Vanderbilt€University€Mental€HealthÐ èˆ ÐCenter€subsequently€evaluated€Appellant€and€made€the€following€findings:Ð Øx ÐÓÓà0 ` àà ¸ àAfter€completion€of€the€competency€evaluation€by€Mitchell€Parks,Ð Èh ÐM.D.,€we€have€concluded€that€[Appellantððs]€condition€is€such€that€he€isÐ À` Ðcapable€of€defending€himself€in€a€court€of€law.€€In€making€thatÐ ¸X Ðdetermination,€we€found€that€[Appellant]€understands€the€nature€of€theÐ °P Ðlegal€process;€that€he€understands€the€charges€pending€against€him€andÐ ¨H Ðthe€consequences€that€can€follow;€and€can€advise€counsel€and€participateÐ   @ Ðin€his€own€defense.И!8` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà ¸ àUpon€completion€of€the€mental€condition€evaluation€pursuant€toÐ "0 ÐT.C.A.€33„7„301(a),€it€is€our€opinion€that€at€the€time€of€the€alleged€offenses,Ð ˆ#( Ð[Appellant]€was€not€exhibiting€a€mental€illness€or€defect€which€would€resultÐ €$  Ðin€substantial€impairment€of€his€capacity€to€conform€his€conduct€to€theÐ x% Ðrequirement€of€the€law.€Ðp&` T$` T$ ÐÓÓÌIn€addition,€the€defense€expert,€Dr.€Debra€Doineau,€testified€that€ð ðdrug€usage€orÐ X)ø! Ðno€drug€usage,ðð€it€was€possible€that€Appellant€knew€what€he€was€doing€when€heÐ H+è!# Ðrobbed€Cao€and€Lee.€€Further,€Dr.€Doineau€testified€that€it€was€possible€for€aÐ 8-Ø#% Ðperson€who€had€experienced€the€drug„related€problems€and€other€difficulties€thatÐ (/È%' ÐAppellant€had€experienced€to€form€the€intent€to€rob€and€then€knowingly€robÐ 1¸') Ðanother€person.€Ð 3¨)+ ÐÌà ` àThe€defense€of€insanity€is€an€affirmative€defense€that€the€defendant€mustÐ è6ˆ-/ Ðestablish€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„501(a)Ð Ø8x/1 Ð(1997).€€Appellant€failed€to€meet€his€burden€of€proving€that€he€was€insane€at€theÐ `  Ðtime€of€the€offenses.€€Indeed,€rather€than€arguing€that€he€did€meet€the€burden,Ð P ð ÐAppellant€simply€urges€us€to€adopt€a€rule€that€anyone€who€is€addicted€to€narcoticÐ @ à Ðdrugs€is€automatically€insane€and€is€therefore€not€responsible€for€his€or€herÐ 0Ð Ðcriminal€conduct.€€This€Court€has€previously€rejected€this€proposed€rule,€and€weÐ  À Ðsee€absolutely€no€reason€to€adopt€it€now.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.Ð °  ÐÌà ` àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.Ð ð  ÐÌÓ  ÓÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ð Ðp Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ Èh ÐÌÌÌCONCUR:Ð ¨H ÐÌÌÌ___________________________________Ð ˆ#( ÐDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÐ €$  ÐÌÌ___________________________________Ð h' ÐNORMA€MCGEE€OGLE,€JUDGE