ÿWPCQ 9UN. %| 0 (‚w@ª4êþ 0†  0D“ 0J× 0@!a 0Ti 0^½ 0h 0rƒ 0|õ 0†q 0÷ 1u‡ 0dü AQ` Ʊ 0Dw B» 0DØ D/ BK D3h U>› U*Ù B) DC, AMo ¼ l 4.Cb[¥v~vÓ~(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ¼D½U¾ae¿DÀÁDÂÃÄÓ€Ðn~<$‰­¹3|xÐ(6(2Ä:$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ !#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý d($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd""""'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd 0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ üÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€-ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌò òJanuary€30,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€.ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó bÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Smith€had€married€between€the€time€of€the€crime€and€the€trial.€€Her€married€nameÏwas€ð ðMorgan.ðð€€For€purposes€of€clarity,€we€will€refer€to€the€victim€as€ð ðSmith.ððÌ *Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Smith€had€a€childððs€car€seat€in€the€back€seat€of€her€car.€€Fortunately,€her€child€wasÏnot€in€the€car€at€the€time.Ì 9Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Pinnow€testified€at€trial€that€he€questioned€defendant€after€he€noticed€thatÏdefendant€resembled€the€sketch€drawing€of€the€suspect.Ì QÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Furthermore,€in€òòState€v.€Abraham€Galmoreóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01›„9607„CR„00230,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€September€9,€1997,€at€Jackson),€this€CourtÏheld€that€in€order€for€a€defendant€to€be€successful€on€appeal€based€upon€a€trial€courtððsÏruling€on€the€admission€of€prior€convictions,€two€prerequisites€must€be€met:€(1)€defendantÏmust€establish€that€he€did€not€testify€because€of€an€unfavorable€ruling€on€admissibility€of€aÏprior€conviction,€and€(2)€defendant€must€make€an€offer€of€proof€as€to€the€proposed€trialÏtestimony€so€that€the€appellate€court€can€assess€the€impact€of€the€trial€courtððs€ruling.€ÏDefendant€has€established€neither€requirement.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿáùEG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{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  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€-ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÙ€ ÙÓ  ÓÔ€.ÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›œßR€120A1-j|¦` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌà@ àJANUARY€1998€SESSIONÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òNO.€œ02C01›„9610„CR„00350ó óÌà àAppellee,à@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òSHELBY€COUNTYó óÌò òœVS›.ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òHON.€JOSEPH€B.€DAILEY,ÌTORRANCE€JOHNSON,ó óà@ à)à àò òJUDGEó óÌà@ à)Ìà àAppellant.à@ à)à à(Aggravated€Robbery)ÌÌÌÌÒ†„èyÒò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:ÌÌA.C.€WHARTON,€JR.€(OfÏCounsel)ó óÌShelby€County€Public€DefenderÌÌò òRONALD€S.€JOHNSON€(Trial)ó óÌAssistant€Public€DefenderÌ201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€201ÌMemphis,€TN€€38103„1947ÌÌò òEDWARD€G.€THOMPSONÏ(Appeal)ó óÌAssistant€Public€DefenderÌ212€Adams€AvenueÌMemphis,€TN€€38103Éò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPó óÌAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌò òKENNETH€W.€RUCKERó óÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌCordell€Hull€Building,€2nd€FloorÌ425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌò òWILLIAM€L.€GIBBONSó óÌDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌò òPHILLIP€GERALD€HARRISÌTERRELL€L.€HARRISÌDAVID€C.€HENRYó óÌœAsst›.€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌ201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€301ÌMemphis,€TN€€38103„1947ÉÒÒÌÌÌÌÌò òOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌJOE€G.€RILEY,ÌJUDGEÇÓÓó óÑ7€Ö!XXdìXXdì7Ñà@ àò òòòOPINIONó óóóÌÌà àThe€defendant,€Torrance€Johnson,€appeals€as€of€right€his€conviction€forÏaggravated€robbery.€€He€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€I,€Standard€Offender,€toÏtwelve€(12)€years€incarceration.€€On€appeal,€he€presents€five€(5)€issues€for€ourÏconsideration:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€whether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€verdict;ÌÌà8 à(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€that,€if€defendant€chose€toÏtestify,€the€state€could€impeach€him€by€inquiring€on€cross„examination€if€he€had€been€convicted€of€an€unnamed€felony;ÌÌà8 à(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€into€evidence€a€sketchÏof€the€suspect€made€in€the€course€of€investigating€the€robbery;ÌÌà8 à(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€charge€the€jury€onÏvoice€identification;€andÌÌà8 à(5)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€charging€the€jury€that€the€lawÏpresumes€that€every€witness€is€ð ðsworn€to€the€truth.ððÌÌÓÓAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€we€find€no€error.€€Therefore,€the€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌà@ àò òòòFACTSó óóóÌÌà àAt€approximately€8:20€p.m.€on€January€20,€1994,€Nedra€Smith× ƒ3 ××  ×€pulledÏher€car€into€the€parking€lot€of€Boatmanððs€Bank€on€Elvis€Presley€Boulevard€inÍMemphis.€€She€left€her€car€running€while€she€went€inside€the€ATM€building.€€AsÏshe€was€approaching€the€ATM,€she€saw€two€men€running.€€One€man€told€theÏother€one€to€get€in€the€car,€and€Smith€turned€to€see€what€car€they€were€referringÏto.€€When€she€turned,€she€saw€one€man€getting€into€her€car€and€the€otherÏapproaching€her€in€the€ATM€building.€€The€man€in€the€ATM€was€wearing€jeans,Ïa€black€jacket€and€a€sweatshirt€with€the€hood€pulled€over€his€head.€€His€faceÏwas€not€covered.€€Smith€identified€this€man€at€trial€as€the€defendant.Ìà àDefendant€brandished€a€weapon€and€said,€ð ð[œg]ive›€me€two€hundredÏdollars,€or€Iððll€kill€the€baby.ðð× ƒ4 ××  ×€€Smith€attempted€to€retrieve€$200€from€the€machine,Ïbut€was€unsuccessful.€€She€then€turned€around€and€told€defendant€that€sheÏcould€not€get€that€much€out€of€her€account.€€Defendant€answered,€ð ð[œy]ou›€look€atÏme€again,€Iððll€kill€you.ðð€€Smith€was€ultimately€able€to€retrieve€$50,€which€sheÏgave€to€defendant.€€Defendant€then€jumped€in€the€backseat€of€Smithððs€car€andÏthe€two€men€drove€away.Ìà àSmithððs€car€was€located€the€next€day€approximately€one€and€one„halfÏmiles€from€the€Boatmanððs€Bank€ATM.€€Several€items€were€missing€from€her€carÏincluding€a€coat,€the€child€car€seat,€a€purse,€a€wallet,€shoes€and€credit€cards.€ÏThe€police€were€not€able€to€obtain€any€fingerprints€from€the€vehicle.Ìà àSubsequently,€Smith€assisted€the€police€in€drawing€a€sketch€of€the€manÏwho€robbed€her.€€She€was€also€asked€to€view€a€line„up€of€men€who€fit€theÏdescription€of€the€suspect.€€However,€she€was€not€able€to€identify€anyone€as€theÍperpetrator€of€the€crime.Ìà àOn€March€11,€Memphis€Police€Officer€Alan€J.€Pinnow€interviewed€theÏdefendant€in€connection€with€this€crime.× ƒ5 ××  ×€€When€asked€his€whereabouts€on€theÏdate€and€time€of€the€robbery,€defendant€responded€that€he€was€working€thatÏnight.€€Officer€Pinnow€called€to€confirm€this€information,€but€defendantððsÏemployer€had€no€record€of€him€working€on€January€20.€€Defendant€then€toldÏPinnow€that€he€was€at€a€clinic€being€treated€for€pneumonia.€€He€also€said€thatÏhe€was€at€home€during€the€time€in€question.Ìà àDefendant€was€asked€to€participate€in€a€line„up.€€Smith€initially€noticedÏthat€€two€men€resembled€the€man€who€robbed€her.€€The€defendant€was€one€ofÏthese€men.€€However,€when€all€of€the€men€in€the€line„up€were€asked€to€repeatÏthe€phrase,€ð ðgive€me€two€hundred€dollars,€or€Iððll€kill€the€baby,ðð€Smith€recognizedÏthe€defendantððs€voice.€€She€then€identified€defendant€as€the€perpetrator.ÌÌà àWhen€Pinnow€advised€defendant€that€he€was€picked€out€of€the€line„up,Ïdefendant€responded€that€he€knew€he€was€going€to€be€picked.Ìà àThe€jury€found€defendant€guilty€of€aggravated€robbery.€€The€trial€courtÏsentenced€him€to€twelve€(12)€years€incarceration€as€a€Range€I,€StandardÏOffender.€€From€his€conviction,€defendant€brings€this€appeal.ÌÌà@ àò òòòSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óóóÌÌà àIn€his€first€issue,€the€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€theÏconvicting€evidence.€€He€contends€that€the€victimððs€identification€of€defendant€isÏunreliable€in€that€she€had€little€time€to€see€defendantððs€face€during€the€robberyÏand€was€only€able€to€identify€him€after€hearing€his€voice.€€Therefore,€he€claimsÏthat€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€sustain€the€juryððs€finding€of€guilt.Ìà àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€does€not€reweighÏor€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1978).€€A€jury€verdict€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€state's€witnessesÏand€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,Ï803€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).€On€appeal,Ïthe€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€allÏlegitimate€or€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòIdóó.€ThisÏcourt€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€due€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidenceÏunless€the€defendant€demonstrates€that€the€facts€contained€in€the€record€andÏthe€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€ofÏlaw,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€accused€guilty€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€932€S.W.2d€1,€19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Accordingly,Ïit€is€the€appellate€court's€duty€to€affirm€the€conviction€if€the€evidence,€viewedÏunder€these€standards,€was€sufficient€for€any€rational€trier€of€fact€to€have€foundÏthe€essential€elements€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€Tenn.€R.€App.ÏP.€13(e);€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€317,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789,€61€L.ÏEd.2d€560€(1979);€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994).Ìà àIn€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€the€victim€positively€identified€defendant€not€onlyÏat€the€physical€line„up€but€also€at€trial.€€The€identification€of€a€defendant€as€theÏperson€who€committed€the€offense€is€a€question€of€fact€for€the€jury€to€determine.€ÏòòState€v.€Stricklandóó,€885€S.W.2d€85,€87€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€The€testimonyÏof€the€victim€identifying€the€defendant€as€the€perpetrator€of€the€crime€is€sufficient,Ïin€and€of€itself,€to€support€a€conviction.€€òòIdóó.€€Moreover,€the€defendant€gaveÏdiffering€versions€of€his€whereabouts€on€the€subject€night€in€an€attempt€toÏestablish€an€alibi.€€This€is€circumstantial€evidence€from€which€the€jury€could€inferÏdefendantððs€guilt.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòIMPEACHMENT€ON€UNNAMED€FELONYó óóóÌÌà àDefendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€that€the€stateÏcould€impeach€defendant,€if€he€chose€to€testify,€by€inquiring€on€crossÏexamination€if€he€had€ever€been€convicted€ð ðof€a€felony€without€the€nature€of€theÏfelony€being€revealed€to€the€jury.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Summerallóó,€926€S.W.2d€272Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€However,€our€review€of€the€record€reveals€no€suchÏruling.€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€the€state€could€impeach€defendant€with€priorÏfelony€convictions€for€selling€a€counterfeit€controlled€substance€and€criminallyÏnegligent€homicide.€€Therefore,€this€issue€is€without€merit.œ× ƒ6 ××  ×›ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòADMISSIBILITY€OF€SKETCHó óóóÌÌà àIn€his€next€issue,€defendant€asserts€that€he€was€denied€his€right€toÏconfrontation€by€the€introduction€of€a€police€sketch€drawing€of€the€robberyÏsuspect.€€He€argues€that€because€the€sketch€was€introduced€through€theÏtestimony€of€the€œvictim,€he›€was€denied€his€right€to€confront€the€sketch€artist.€€HeÏfurther€claims€that€the€state€did€not€lay€a€proper€foundation€for€its€introductionÏinto€evidence.Ìà àWe€initially€note€that€defendant€has€waived€this€issue€by€failing€to€objectÏto€the€introduction€of€the€sketch€at€trial.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€€The€issue€is€alsoÏwaived€due€to€defendantððs€failure€to€include€it€in€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€Tenn.ÏR.€App.€P.€3(e);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Walkeróó,€910€S.W.2d€381,€386€(Tenn.€1995).Ìà àFurthermore,€the€issue€has€no€merit.€€The€preparer€of€the€sketch€need€notÏtestify€at€trial€as€long€as€the€exhibit€is€identified€as€being€a€fair€and€accurateÏrepresentation.€€The€victim€assisted€the€artist€in€drawing€the€sketch€of€theÏsuspect.€€She€testified€at€trial€that€the€sketch€introduced€into€evidence€was€thatÏwhich€was€made€in€conjunction€with€her€description.€€We€find€this€situation€to€beÍclosely€analogous€to€a€witness€authenticating€a€photograph€even€though€he€orÏshe€was€not€the€photographer.€€òòSeeóó€N.€Cohen,€D.€Paine€&€Sheppeard,ÏòòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€ðð€401.11€(œ3d›€ed.€1995).€€Smith€had€personalÏknowledge€of€the€subject€matter€and€authenticated€the€drawing€as€the€sketch€ofÏthe€suspect€of€the€robbery.€€Furthermore,€defendant€was€afforded€theÏopportunity€to€cross„examine€Smith€on€the€accuracy€of€the€sketch.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏœMiklos›€œJusino›€œHolley›óó,€C.C.A.€No.€œ02C01›„9112„CR„00280,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€filed€February€3,€1993,€at€Jackson).Ìà àWe€find€no€violation€of€defendantððs€right€of€confrontation.ÌÌà@ àò òòòVOICE€IDENTIFICATION€JURY€INSTRUCTIONó óóóÌÌà àDefendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€instruct€theÏjury€on€voice€identification.€€He€contends€that€because€the€victim€was€able€toÏpositively€identify€the€defendant€only€after€she€heard€his€voice,€the€voiceÏidentification€was€crucial€to€the€juryððs€determination.€€Therefore,€he€insists€thatÏthe€trial€court€should€have€instructed€the€jury€on€factors€to€consider€inÏdetermining€if€the€victimððs€identification€of€the€defendantððs€voice€was€reliable.Ìà àHowever,€the€defendant€made€no€special€request€for€a€ð ðvoiceÏidentificationðð€charge€at€trial.€€€€Moreover,€defendant€did€not€object€to€theÏidentification€instructions€submitted€to€the€jury€and€failed€to€raise€this€issue€in€hisÏmotion€for€new€trial.€Thus,€the€issue€is€waived.€€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€144,Ï151€(Tenn.€1992);€òòState€v.€Kendricksóó,€947€S.W.2d€875,€885€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Í1996).€€Furthermore,€the€general€instructions€given€to€the€jury€were€œadequate.›€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Forbesóó,€918€S.W.2d€431€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòPRESUMPTION€OF€TRUTH€JURY€INSTRUCTIONó óóóÌÌà àIn€his€final€assignment€of€error,€defendant€urges€that€the€trial€court€erredÏin€instructing€the€jury€that€every€witness€is€presumed€to€tell€the€truth.€€HeÏcontends€that€this€instruction€deprived€him€of€his€constitutional€right€to€theÏpresumption€of€innocence.Ìà àThis€Court€has€previously€held€that€an€instruction€that€the€law€presumesÏthat€every€witness€is€sworn€to€the€truth€is€constitutionally€sound.€€òòLundy€v.€Stateóó,Ï752€S.W.2d€98,€104€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987);€òòState€v.€Glebockóó,€616€S.W.2dÏ897,€906€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòCONCLUSIONó óóóÌÌà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGEó ó