ÿWPC …#†VUNÜ %* 0(04Xl 0J{ 0TÅ 0^ 0hw 0rß 0|Q 0†Í 0S 1uã U,X 0d„ U,è U> B)R DC{ AM¾ U* 5v~FvÓÄ B— D3´ 0@ç AO'Æv 0D< 0D€ D/Ä Bó˜HP LaserJet 4/4MHPPCL5E,,,,0®ØP 4vGPê^ æP(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡o„p3|xó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌJanuary€26,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò d%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑßL€!;+'h|` ç `€€LßIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEà àà àà à)à àNO.€01C01„9503„CR„00061Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)à àDAVIDSONÏCOUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHONORABLE€THOMAS€H.€SHRIVERÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àCIRCUIT€COURT€JUDGEÌMICHAEL€L.€KINDALL€andà àà à)ÌROBERT€L.€PARHAMà àà àà à)à à(AGGRAVATED€ROBBERY)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellantsà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT,à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌMICHAEL€KINDALL:óóà àÌÌTerry€J.€Canadyà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ211€Printer's€Alley€Bldg.à àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌSuite€400à àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€Tennessee€€€37065„1361à àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€€€37243„0493ÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT,à àà àà àà àóóEllen€H.€PollackòòÌROBERT€L.€PARHAM:à àà àà àà àóóJames€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€€37243„0485ÌPaula€Ogle€BlairÌ176€Second€Avenue€NorthÌSuite€406ÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37201ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóÌAFFIRMEDÌRobert€E.€Corlew,€III,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  Óòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÑ7€ÕbXXdìXXdì7ÑÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓóóó óà àThis€is€an€appeal€by€defendants€Michael€Kindall€and€Robert€Parham€from€a€judgment€of€theÏDavidson€County€Criminal€Court,€in€which€both€defendants€were€convicted€of€aggravated€robberyÏon€June€28,€1994.€€The€robbery€in€question€occurred€at€approximately€1:30€a.m.€on€July€2,€1993,Ïas€the€victim,€Charles€Mosely,€Jr.,€a€diabetic,€was€returning€to€his€father's€home€from€aÏconvenience€store€where€he€had€purchased€candy€with€which€to€raise€his€blood€sugar€level.€€€TwoÏmen€approached€Mosely€as€he€walked€to€the€store€and€again€as€he€returned.€€€As€they€spoke€toÏMosely€the€second€time,€one€of€the€men€revealed€a€handgun.€€€After€leading€Mosely€to€the€side€of€aÏnearby€house,€they€robbed€him€of€his€jewelry€and€a€small€amount€of€cash.€€€The€victim€was€thenÏtold€to€leave.€€A€shot€was€fired€which€the€victim€testified€he€heard€pass€by€his€ear,€at€which€pointÏhe€ran€to€his€father's€house.Ìà àOn€August€5,€1993,€Mosely€identified€the€two€appellants€from€separate,€six„personÏphotographic€lineups.€€€He€also€identified€them€in€court.€€€After€a€jury€found€the€appellants€guilty,ÏKindall€was€sentenced€to€ten€years€in€prison,€and€Parham€was€sentenced€to€eight€years€with€sevenÏyears€to€be€served€on€probation.Ìà àAppellant€Kindall€puts€forth€three€assignments€of€error.€€€First,€he€contends€that€the€TrialÏCourt€erred€in€allowing€a€photographic€lineup€to€be€entered€into€evidence€and€shown€to€the€jury,Ïbecause€he€alleges€his€appearance€was€sufficiently€different€so€as€to€make€it€impermissiblyÏsuggestive.€€€Second,€Kindall€contends€that€the€Trial€Court€committed€reversible€error€in€allowingÏthe€victim's€father€to€testify€to€hearsay.€€€Finally,€Kindall€asserts€that€the€evidence€was€insufficientÏfor€a€conviction.Ìà àAppellant€Parham€similarly€asserts€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€admitting€and€publishing€to€theÏjury€an€unduly€suggestive€photographic€lineup,€his€objection€being€based€on€the€contention€that€aÏpolice€officer€told€Mosely€one€of€the€pictures€was,€in€fact,€of€one€of€the€men€who€robbed€him.€ÏParham€also€assigns€error€to€the€fact€that€the€Trial€Court€refused€to€exclude€the€lineup€or€grant€aÏcontinuance€based€on€the€State's€failure€to€comply€fully€with€Rule€16€of€the€òòTennessee€Rules€of€ÏCriminal€Procedureóó.Ìà àWe€find€no€reversible€error,€after€considering€each€of€these€issues,€and€we€therefore€affirmÏthe€convictions.€€Ìà àThere€is€always€the€danger€of€misidentification€in€using€a€photographic€identificationÏprocedure.€€That€danger€is€increased€if€the€police€indicate€to€the€witness€that€the€person€whoÏcommitted€the€crime€is€included€in€the€array€of€pictures€or€when€the€photograph€of€the€individual€isÏin€some€way€emphasized.€€€òòSimmons€v.€United€Statesóó,€390€U.S.€377,€383€(1968).€€AppellantsÏParham€and€Kindall,€respectively,€claim€that€these€dangers€were€realized€in€the€lineups€used€in€thisÏcase.€€€On€cross€examination€Charles€Mosely,€Jr.,€and€Detective€Roll,€who€investigated€the€crimeÏand€conducted€the€photographic€lineups,€were€asked€if€Mosely€had€been€told€by€any€officers€thatÏone€of€the€men€who€robbed€him€was€pictured€in€the€lineup.€€Both€witnesses€testified€that€thisÏdefinitely€did€not€happen.€€Parham's€attorney€suggests€Mosely€answered€otherwise€at€theÏpreliminary€hearing.€€€Kindall€contends€that€his€photograph€was€emphasized€because€he€was€theÏonly€light„skinned€person€included€in€the€lineup.Ìà àA€due€process€violation€in€the€conduct€of€such€a€procedure€depends€on€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances€surrounding€it,€and€to€be€excluded€from€trial€the€photographic€identificationÏprocedure€must€have€been€"so€impermissibly€suggestive€as€to€give€rise€to€a€very€substantialÏlikelihood€of€irreparable€misidentification."€€òòNeil€v.€Biggers,óó€409€U.S.€188,€198€(1972);€ÏòòSimmons,óó€390€U.€S.€at€384;€€òòStovall€v.Dennoóó,€388€U.S.€293,€302€(1967).€€Under€this€totality€ofÏthe€circumstances€standard€there€are€five€factors€to€be€considered€in€evaluating€the€likelihood€ofÏmisidentification.€€€They€are:€€(1)€the€opportunity€of€the€witnesses€to€view€the€criminal€at€the€timeÍof€the€crime;€€(2)€€€the€witness'€degree€of€attention;€€(3)€€the€accuracy€of€the€witness'€priorÏdescription€of€the€criminal;€€(4)€€the€level€of€certainty€demonstrated€by€the€witness€at€theÏconfrontation;€€and€(5)€€the€length€of€time€between€the€crime€and€the€confrontation.€€òòNeilóó,€409€U.S.Ïat€199.€€€Therefore,€a€determination€is€first€made€as€to€whether€the€identification€was€suggestive.€€IfÏso,€it€is€excluded€unless€found€to€be€reliable€under€the€òòNeilóó€analysis.€€€This€standard€has€beenÏadopted€and€applied€in€Tennessee.€€òòForbes€v.€Stateóó,€559€S.W.2d€318,€322€(Tenn.€1977);€òòBennettÏv.€Stateóó,€530€S.W.2d€511,€514„515€(Tenn.€1975).€€€Appellants€claim€the€standard€is€met€in€thisÏcause.Ìà àWe€hold€that€the€record€does€not€support€a€finding€that€the€police€made€the€statementsÏalleged€by€Parham.€€Therefore,€no€suggestiveness€was€shown,€and€Parham's€assignment€of€errorÏis€meritless.€€We€find€that€Kindall's€picture€does€stand€out€somewhat€from€the€other€fiveÏphotographs€in€that€lineup,€partly€due€to€his€skin€tone€and€partly€due€to€the€quality€of€theÏphotograph.€€€It€draws€attention€to€itself€and€therefore€must€be€considered€suggestive€to€someÏextent.€€€That€is,€however,€only€the€first€step€in€the€inquiry.€€€We€hold€that€the€identification€wasÏreliable,€despite€some€suggestiveness,€when€analyzed€under€the€factors€set€out€in€òòNeil€v.€Biggers,Ïsupra.Ìà àóóThe€record€indicates€that€Mosely€had€ample€opportunity€to€view€the€criminals€at€the€time€ofÏthe€crime.€€€They€met€in€the€street,€spoke€to€one€another€under€the€street€lights,€and€walked€someÏdistance€together€as€they€spoke.€€€This€occurred€twice,€first€as€Mosely€walked€to€the€convenienceÏstore€and€again€as€he€returned.€€€€Mosely's€degree€of€attention€undoubtedly€was€piqued€when€a€gunÏwas€drawn€on€him,€which€happened€while€still€in€the€street€under€the€lights.€€€Certainly€hisÏattention€remained€high€as€they€led€him€from€the€street€to€the€side€of€the€house€where€he€wasÏrobbed€of€his€possessions.€€€The€victim's€prior€description,€while€somewhat€general,€wasÏconsistent€with€his€later€identifications€of€the€defendants.€€Mosely€identified€both€appellants€fromÏtheir€respective€photographic€lineups€with€certainty€and€without€hesitation,€stating€"That's€himÏright€there,"€indicating€the€picture€of€Kindall,€and€"That's€him,"€as€he€pointed€at€Parham'sÍphotograph.€€Finally,€approximately€one€month€passed€between€the€crime€and€the€confrontation.€€ÏThis€is€not€so€long€as€to€bring€the€reliability€of€the€identification€into€doubt€in€light€of€the€otherÏfactors€noted€here.Ìà àThe€Supreme€Court€of€the€United€States€has€held€it€is€clear€from€its€òòStovall„Simmons„NeilóóÏline€of€cases€that€"reliability€is€the€linchpin€in€determining€the€admissibility€of€identificationÏtestimony."€òòManson€v.€Brathwaiteóó,€432€U.S.€98,€114€(1977).€€If€the€challenged€photographicÏidentification€is€reliable,€then€testimony€as€to€it€and€any€identification€in€its€wake€is€admissible.€€òòIdóó.€Ïat€110€n.10.€€In€this€case€there€was€no€substantial€likelihood€of€misidentification.€€€TheÏidentification€was€reliable€and€was€properly€admitted.€€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àTurning€to€Parham's€remaining€issue,€it€appears€that€Detective€Roll€retained€the€originalÏlineup€and€supplied€photocopies€of€it€to€the€District€Attorney€and€to€defense€counsel.€€However,ÏParham's€attorney€asserts€the€quality€of€the€photocopy€was€so€poor€as€to€be€unusable.€€The€DistrictÏAttorney€attempted,€unsuccessfully,€to€retrieve€the€original€from€Detective€Roll€prior€to€trial.€€ÏDetective€Roll€did€bring€the€original€to€court€on€the€day€of€the€trial.€€€Parham's€position€is€that€RuleÏ16€of€the€òòTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedureóó€was€violated,€and€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€notÏexcluding€the€lineup€or€granting€a€continuance€so€defense€counsel€could€examine€it€and€prepare€anyÏobjections.Ìà àRule€16(a)(a)(C)€clearly€required€the€prosecution€to€make€available€the€photographic€lineupÏit€planned€to€use€at€trial.€€€The€rule€states:ÌÓÓà8 àUpon€request€of€the€defendant,€the€state€shall€permit€the€defendant€to€inspect€andÏcopy€or€photograph€books,€papers,€documents,€photographs,€tangible€object,€...€orÏcopies€or€portions€thereof,€which€are€within€the€possession,€custody€or€control€ofÏthe€state,€and€which€are€material€to€the€preparation€of€his€defense€or€are€intended€forÏuse€by€the€state€as€evidence€in€chief€at€the€trial....ÌÌÌÓÓRule€16(a)(1)(C),€òòTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedureóó.€€Because€the€discovery€request€is€to€theÏState,€the€duty€to€disclose€extends€not€only€to€material€in€the€immediate€custody€of€the€prosecution,Ïbut€also€to€statements€in€the€possession€of€the€police€which€are€normally€obtainable€by€exercise€ofÍdue€diligence,€that€is,€a€request€to€all€officers€participating€in€the€investigation€or€preparation€of€theÏcase.€€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€823€S.W.2d€217,€219€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991);€€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,€618ÏS.W.2d€510,€514€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).Ìà àThe€Trial€Court€recognized€there€was€a€Rule€16€violation€at€the€beginning€of€the€trial€whenÏit€was€established€that€defense€counsel€had€not€seen€the€original€photographic€lineup.€€Notably,€thisÏwas€the€first€time€this€problem€was€brought€to€the€attention€of€the€Trial€Court.€€€The€transcriptÏshows€counsel€for€the€appellant€Parham€did€not€file€a€pretrial€motion€because€€she€believed€sheÏwould€soon€receive€the€lineup,€something€that€never€happened.€€€Nevertheless,€it€remainsÏimportant€that€the€Trial€Court€was€not€asked€to€address€the€problem€until€moments€before€the€juryÏwas€to€be€impaneled€and€proof€presented.€€€Rule€16(d)(2)€states:ÌÓÓà8 àIf€at€any€time€during€the€course€of€the€proceedings€it€is€brought€to€the€attention€ofÏthe€court€that€a€party€has€failed€to€comply€with€this€rule,€the€court€may€order€suchÏparty€to€permit€the€discovery€or€inspection,€grant€a€continuance,€or€prohibit€theÏparty€from€introducing€evidence€not€disclosed,€or€it€may€enter€such€other€order€as€itÏdeems€just€under€the€circumstances.€€€The€court€may€specify€the€time,€place,€andÏmanner€of€making€the€discovery€and€inspection€and€may€prescribe€such€terms€orÏconditions€as€are€just.ÌÌÌÓÓRule€16(d)(2),€òòTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedureóó.€€The€sanction€to€be€applied€for€non„compliance€must€fit€the€circumstances€of€the€individual€case.€€òòState€v.€Cadleóó,€634€S.W.2d€623,Ï625€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€In€some€instances€mere€inspection,€even€if€just€prior€to€trial,€mayÏserve€to€protect€the€defendant's€interest.€€òòId.Ìà àóóIn€his€brief,€Parham€cites€òòCadleóó€in€support€of€his€contention€that€the€Trial€Court's€remedyÏwas€inadequate.€€€The€present€case€is€distinguishable€from€òòCadleóó€however.€€In€òòCadleóó€defenseÏcounsel€was€completely€unaware€of€the€existence€of€the€State's€evidence€which€was€not€disclosedÏuntil€after€the€jury€was€selected.€€òòIdóó.€€at€624.€€Furthermore,€we€found€in€that€case€theÏtruthworthiness€of€the€evidence,€a€taped€phone€conversation,€was€very€much€in€question€and€theÏdefense€was€entitled€to€have€it€analyzed.€€òòIdóó.€€at€625„626.€€In€the€case€at€bar,€by€contrast,€theÏdefense€knew€the€nature€of€the€State's€evidence€for€some€time,€knew€how€the€evidence€would€beÍused€at€trial,€and€knew€the€possible€objections€which€might€be€raised.€€€There€was€nothing€to€beÏdone€with€the€lineup€in€the€nature€of€having€it€tested€as€you€would€a€controlled€substance€orÏanalyzed€as€you€would€a€tape€recording.Ìà àEvidence€should€not€be€excluded€except€when€it€is€shown€that€a€party€is€actually€prejudicedÏby€the€failure€to€comply€with€Rule€16€and€that€the€prejudice€cannot€be€otherwise€eradicated.€€òòStateÏv.€Garlandóó,€617€S.W.2d€176,€185€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981)€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó.€€The€Trial€CourtÏcompelled€the€State€to€produce€the€original€lineup€as€soon€as€it€learned€of€the€Rule€16€violation,€andÏthen€it€gave€the€defense€time€to€examine€the€photographs€and€raise€any€objections.€€€The€Trial€CourtÏfelt€this€was€sufficient€to€remedy€the€situation,€and€we€agree.€€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àIn€Kindall's€next€assignment€of€error,€he€claims€that€the€Trial€Court€committed€reversibleÏerror€in€allowing€the€victim's€father,€Charles€Mosely,€Sr.,€to€testify,€over€defense€counsel'sÏobjection,€to€what€Charles€Mosely,€Jr.,€said€moments€after€the€robbery€took€place.€€Upon€enteringÏhis€father's€house,€the€victim€immediately€said,€"Daddy,€I've€been€robbed.€€I've€been€robbed."€€ÏRule€801(c)€of€the€òòTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedureóó€defines€hearsay€as€"a€statement,€otherÏthan€one€made€by€the€declarant€while€testifying€at€the€trial€or€hearing,€offered€in€evidence€to€proveÏthe€truth€of€the€matter€asserted."€€Not€every€statement€made€to€a€witness€by€a€third€person€isÏexcluded.€€òòRichter€v.€Stateóó,€438€S.W.2d€362,€365€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1968).€€In€òòState€v.€Milleróó,Ï737€S.W.2d€556€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987),€we€held€that€the€Trial€Court€properly€admitted€theÏstatements€of€an€out„of„court€declarant€which€prompted€the€police€officer€to€investigate€a€car€lot€forÏa€possible€burglary.€€òòMilleróó,€737€S.W.2d€at€559.€€€We€said€it€was€"clearly€not€hearsay"€because€itÏonly€showed€the€officer's€reason€for€going€to€the€car€lot,€not€to€prove€the€matter€asserted.€€òòIdóó.Ìà àSimilarly,€in€the€case€at€bar,€the€Trial€Court€allowed€this€statement€only€for€the€purpose€ofÏletting€the€witness€explain€what€he€did€next,€visit€the€scene€of€the€robbery,€and€not€for€the€truth€thatÏthe€victim€was€robbed.€€€The€Trial€Court€instructed€the€jury€to€consider€the€statement€for€thatÏpurpose€only.€€€However,€the€statement€in€this€case,€"Daddy,€I've€been€robbed,"€is€moreÏprejudicial€than€the€out„of„court€statement€at€issue€in€òòMilleróó.€€The€statement€here€goes€directly€toÍone€of€the€elements€which€must€be€proved€by€the€State.€€If€the€occurrence€of€the€robbery€was€not€inÏdispute€and€that€element€of€the€crime€had€been€stipulated€to€exist,€then€the€statement€might€properlyÏbe€admitted€as€non„hearsay.€€Under€the€circumstances,€we€must€hold€that€the€testimony€of€Mr.ÏMosely,€Sr.,€was€hearsay.Ìà àHaving€found€it€to€be€hearsay,€we€now€turn€to€the€question€of€whether€it€was€admissibleÏunder€an€exception€to€the€rule.€€The€State€asserts€the€statement€was€properly€admissible€under€theÏexcited€utterance€exception.€€€Rule€803(2),€òòTennessee€Rules€of€Evidenceóó.€€In€order€to€qualify€underÏthis€exception,€the€declarant€must€have€made€the€statement€in€an€excited€state€due€to€a€startlingÏevent,€and€the€statement€must€have€been€a€spontaneous€reaction€to€the€occurrence,€not€the€result€ofÏreflective€thought,€so€as€to€minimize€the€opportunity€for€conscious€fabrication.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€857ÏS.W.2d€1,€9€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òò€€€€€€€€€òòóó€óóU.S.€òò€€€€€€€€€óó,€114€S.€Ct.€561,€126€L.€Ed.€2d€461Ï(1993);€€òòState€v.€Payton,€óó782€S.W.2d€490,€494€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989)€òòperm.€app.€denied;€ÏState€v.€Meadows,óó€635€S.W.2d€400,€404€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).Ìà àCertainly,€being€robbed€at€gunpoint€and€shot€at€is€a€startling€event,€and€there€is€no€reason€toÏbelieve€that€Mosely€was€in€anything€but€an€excited€state€as€he€ran€from€the€scene.€€The€recordÏshows€that€it€was€only€a€short€distance€to€his€father's€home,€and€it€appears€to€have€taken€only€aÏcouple€of€minutes,€probably€less,€to€run€that€distance.€€€Further,€Mr.€Mosely,€Sr.,€testified€that€hisÏson€was€"all€pale€and€scary€looking"€when€he€entered€the€front€door€and€made€the€statement€that€heÏhad€been€robbed.€€€It€is€clear€that€the€statement€was€a€spontaneous€reaction€to€a€violent€crime€andÏnot€the€result€of€reflective€thought.€€€Therefore,€it€was€admissible€as€an€excited€utterance.Ìà àAppellant€Kindall€further€asserts€there€was€insufficient€evidence€to€support€a€conviction.€€ÏHe€bases€his€contention€on€some€apparent€inconsistences€between€Mosely's€testimony€at€theÏpreliminary€hearing€and€his€testimony€at€trial€which€allegedly€should€have€created€reasonable€doubtÏin€the€minds€of€the€jury.Ìà àRule€13(e)€of€the€òòTennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedureóó€states€that€"findings€of€guilt€inÏcriminal€actions€...€shall€be€set€aside€if€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€findings€by€theÍtrier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€€More€importantly,€due€process€under€theÏFourteenth€Amendment€requires€this€standard.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€317„318Ï(1979).€€€However,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€allÏreasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€proof.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571ÏS.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978);€€òòState€v.€Oodyóó,€823€S.W.2d€554,€558€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€ÏWhen€the€jury€returns€a€guilty€verdict,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€it€accredits€the€testimony€of€theÏState's€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€testimony€in€favor€of€the€theory€of€the€State.€€òòState€v.ÏHatchettóó,€560€S.W.2d€627,€630€(Tenn.€1978);€€òòOodyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€558.€€It€is€not€the€function€ofÏthis€Court€to€reweigh€evidence€adduced€at€trial.€€òòHatchettóó,€560€S.W.2d€at€630;€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493ÏS.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).Ìà àThe€inconsistencies€cited€by€the€appellant€are€relatively€minor.€€€Did€the€victim€speak€to€aÏyoung€lady€on€his€way€to€the€store?€€€Did€the€victim€or€the€assailant€remove€the€necklaces€from€theÏvictim's€neck?€€Were€the€two€men€who€robbed€him€standing€in€the€street€or€in€the€yard€when€theyÏspoke€to€him?€€No€additional€evidence€was€offered€by€the€defense.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€victimÏidentified€the€appellants€consistently€and€without€any€doubt,€both€in€the€photographic€lineups€andÏin€court,€as€the€men€who€robbed€him.€€€The€jury€approved€all€testimony€of€Mr.€Mosely,€Jr.,€whenÏit€returned€a€guilty€verdict.€€€We€find€that€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theseÏdefendants€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àTherefore,€the€decision€of€the€Trial€Court€is€hereby€affirmed.Ìà àAFFIRMED.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àROBERT€E.€CORLEW,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEà àà àà à)à àNO.€01C01„9503„CR„00061Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)à àDAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHONORABLE€THOMAS€H.€SHRIVERÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àCIRCUIT€COURT€JUDGEÌMICHAEL€L.€KINDALL€andà àà à)ÌROBERT€L.€PARHAMà àà àà à)à à(AGGRAVATED€ROBBERY)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellantsà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  Óòòò òJUDGMENTÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓó óóóà àCame€the€Appellants,€Michael€Kindall€and€Robert€Parham,€by€counsel,€and€also€theÏAttorney€General€on€behalf€of€the€State,€who€submitted€this€cause€to€the€Court€upon€briefs€and€theÏentire€record€on€appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€of€Davidson€County;€and€upon€considerationÏthereof,€this€Court€finds€that€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€should€be€affirmed.ÌÌà àIn€accordance€with€the€opinion€filed€herein,€it€is€ordered€and€adjudged€by€this€Court€that€theÏjudgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€hereby€affirmed.€€€This€cause€is€remanded€to€the€Circuit€Court€ofÏDavidson€County€for€collection€of€costs€accrued€below.ÌÌà àCosts€of€appeal€will€be€paid€by€the€Appellants,€Michael€Kindall€and€Robert€Parham,€forÏwhich€let€execution€issue.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àROBERT€E.€CORLEW,€III,€SPECIALÏJUDGEÌ