ÿWPCâ( …# VU>a %Ÿ 0 ¥UB® 4ð  n­ 0JÀ w@ J 0MR 0DŸ 0Tã 0^7 0h• 0rý 0|o 0†ë 0q 1uU,v 0d¢ BU,#U6O D3…U.¸U *æ 0@B)PDCy AM¼Œ f•fûCa¥¤‹IÔv~ìvÓj! AO='ÆŒ' 0DR( D/–( BÅ(˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(á’ø$¡¡Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÑ  ÑÑ7€oðXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiÔ¡¨ 3|x#>«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô >Ó€>Ó€>Ó€>Ó€>Ó€>Ó€>>D>>Ó€(ý(2B·$¤¤Ý ƒ’ø!ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑ  ÑÑ7€žXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ¸ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò% Line 7 d....7Border 1dd€-/Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ‚Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€,XÔÌÌMayÏ24,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ 9Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔWe€note€that€the€defendant€also€argues€that€Officer€Covingtonððs€testimony€was€improperÏrebuttal€evidence€in€that€it€did€not€tend€ð ðto€explain€or€controvert€evidence€produced€by€an€adverse€party.ðð€ÏòòCozzolino€v.€Stateóó,€584€S.W.2d€765,€768€(Tenn.€1979).€€However,€to€the€extent€that€Officer€CovingtonÏtestified€about€a€defense€witnessðð€prior€inconsistent€statements€material€to€the€defendantððs€claimed€alibi,Ïhe€was€a€proper€rebuttal€witness€in€controverting€the€defendantððs€defense€proof.Ì ›Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔòòQueen€Carolineððs€Caseóó,€2€Br.€&€B.€284,€313,€129€Eng.€Rep.€976€(1820):€ð ðIf€it€beÏintended€to€bring€the€credit€of€a€witness€into€question€by€proof€of€anything€he€may€have€said€or€declaredÏtouching€the€cause,€the€witness€is€first€asked,€upon€cross„examination,€whether€or€not€he€has€said€orÏdeclared€that€which€is€intended€to€be€proved.ðð€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔThis€does€not€mean€that€the€witness€actually€had€to€be€shown€the€statement,€if€it€wereÏwritten,€òòseeóó€òòTitus€v.€Stateóó,€66€Tenn.€132,€137€(1874),€but€the€contents€of€this€statement€had€to€beÏdisclosed€along€with€the€ð ðtime,€place€and€person,€involved€in€the€supposed€contradiction.ðð€€òòMooreóó,€30ÏTenn.€at€70.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÔ€,ÔFor€Class€A€felonies€committed€on€or€after€July€1,€1995,€the€presumptive€sentence€is€theÏmidpoint€of€the€range.€€òòSeeóó€1995€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts,€ch.€493€(amending€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210(c)).Ô€)ÔÌPtPtHHÚ(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 Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€((X„d&ÓÑ#€((Xd#ÑÔ€)ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€++Xd#ÑÑ#€++Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÙ€€ÙÑ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÓÓÔ€,ÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›œßL€01/;+'h|` ´- `€€Lß›à8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€MARCH€SESSION,€1995ÌÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,à àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9411„CR„00397Ìà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àœHon.€›Seth€Norman,ÏJudgeÌà àà àà àà à)ÌHENRY€LEE€MARTIN,€€€€€€€à à)à à(Especially€aggravatedÏrobbery)Ìà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àòòà àFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌJeffrey€A.€DeVasherà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌSenior€Assistant€Public€Defenderà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€of€TennesseeÌ1202€Stahlman€Bldg.à àà àà àà àandÌNashville,€TN€37201€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àCharlotte€H.ÏRappuhnÌ€€€(ON€APPEAL)à àà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneral€of€TennesseeÌà àà àà àà àà à450€JamesÏRobertson€ParkwayÌKathryn€E.€Barnettà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌAssistant€Public€DefenderÌ€€€andà àà àà àà àà àVictor€S.€Johnson,€III€ÌRoss€Aldermanà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€Generalà àÌDeputy€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àandÌ1202€Stahlman€Bldg.à àà àà àRon€MillerÌNashville,€TN€37201à àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌ€€€(AT€TRIAL)à àà àà àà à222€2nd€Avenue€North€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201„1649Ìà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€General€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà à102€MetroÏCourthouseà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:_______________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÓÓòòò òà àà àà àà àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óà àÌÌà àThe€defendant,€Henry€Lee€Martin,€appeals€as€of€right€from€his€convictionÏby€a€jury€in€the€Davidson€County€Criminal€Court€for€especially€aggravated€robbery,€aÏClass€A€felony.€€He€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€to€twenty„two€yearsÏin€the€custody€of€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction€and€fined€five€thousandÏdollars.€€The€defendant€contends€that:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓœà8 à(1)›€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€œhis€motion›€to€suppressÏthe€identification€testimony€of€the€eyewitnesses€due€toÏunnecessarily€suggestive€pretrial€identification€procedures;ÌÌœà8 à(2)›€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€his€€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery€conviction;à8 àœÌ›Ìœà8 à(3)›€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€state€to€presentÏtestimony€in€rebuttal€concerning€a€defense€witness'€priorÏinconsistent€statements€€because€€the€defense€witness€wasÏnot€afforded€an€opportunity€to€explain€or€deny€the€allegedÏstatements;ÌÌœà8 à(4)›€the€trial€court€imposed€an€excessive€sentence.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓœWe›€hold€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€and€that€reversible€error€does€not€exist.ÌÌà àThis€case€relates€to€a€robbery€of€the€One€Price€Clothing€store€inÏNashville.€€At€trial,€the€store's€manager,€Jo€Ann€Hollingsworth,€testified€that€she€met€theÏdefendant€for€the€first€time€on€February€24,€œ1993,›€when€he€came€into€the€store€andÏasked€for€help€choosing€an€outfit€for€his€wife.€€She€said€that€she€spoke€to€the€defendantÏfor€about€ten€minutes€and€showed€him€several€items.€€When€she€got€frustrated€at€theÏdefendant's€indecisiveness,€she€walked€away€from€him€and€told€him€to€let€her€know€ifÏhe€needed€any€more€assistance.€€A€short€time€later€the€defendant€again€asked€for€herÏassistance.€€She€said€that€she€helped€him€for€another€five€or€ten€minutes€and€went€intoÏthe€store's€stockroom€to€search€for€an€item€he€requested.€€While€she€was€in€theÏstockroom,€she€had€a€short€conversation€with€another€store€employee,€Angela€Blakely,Ïand€noticed€that€the€defendant€was€looking€into€the€stockroom.€€She€left€the€stockroomÍand€told€the€defendant€that€she€did€not€have€the€item€he€wanted€but€to€let€her€know€ifÏthere€was€anything€else€she€could€show€him.€€ÌÌà àMs.€Hollingsworth€recalled€that€the€defendant€requested€her€assistance€aÏthird€time.€€This€time,€he€had€something€in€his€hand€and€asked€her€to€go€to€the€cornerÏof€the€store€to€help€him.€€She€said€that€she€complied€and€that€as€she€turned€to€pullÏsomething€off€the€rack€on€the€wall,€the€defendant€put€his€arm€around€her€neck,€stabbedÏher€in€the€back€and€threw€her€to€the€floor.€€She€testified€that€he€then€pulled€her€to€herÏfeet€and€stood€behind€her€holding€a€knife€to€her€throat.€€She€said€that€he€ordered€herÏand€Angela€Blakely€to€go€back€into€the€stockroom€and€then€used€duct€tape€to€tie€herÏhands€behind€her€back€and€to€tie€Ms.€Blakely's€hands€and€feet€together.€€She€said€thatÏthe€defendant€forced€her€to€walk€to€the€cash€register€and€that€she€told€him€how€to€openÏit.€€œHe›€then€walked€with€her€back€to€the€stockroom€for€Ms.€Blakely€to€confirm€theÏprocedure€for€opening€the€register€without€setting€off€an€alarm.ÌÌà àMs.€Hollingsworth€testified€that€the€defendant€made€her€walk€to€theÏregister€again.€€She€said€that€he€opened€the€register€and€placed€the€money€from€theÏregister€into€a€bag.€€She€recalled€that€he€then€forced€her€to€lie€on€the€floor€next€to€Ms.ÏBlakely€and€placed€boxes€and€chairs€on€top€of€them.€€She€explained€that€she€was€ableÏto€crawl€out€of€the€stockroom€to€get€help€from€a€customer€who€had€entered€the€store.€ÏShe€said€that€she€suffered€a€collapsed€lung€from€the€attack€and€that€she€spent€thirty„sixÍhours€in€the€intensive€care€unit€and€another€three€days€in€a€different€room€in€theÏhospital€before€being€released.ÌÌà àMs.€Hollingsworth€also€recalled€the€description€of€her€assailant€that€sheÏgave€to€police.€€She€said€that€he€was€five€feet€and€seven€inches€tall€and€weighed€one„hundred€and€forty„five€pounds€and€was€wearing€a€baseball€cap,€jeans,€a€denim€jacket,Ïand€gloves.€€She€told€police€that€her€assailant€had€œð ðsalt€and€pepperðð›€hair€œat›€his€templeÏand€that€he€had€blue€eyes.€€She€said€that€Officer€Klotzback€came€to€her€home€with€sixÏphotographs€several€days€after€the€robbery€and€that€she€identified€the€defendant€fromÏone€of€the€photographs€as€the€man€who€robbed€the€store€and€stabbed€her€in€the€back.€ÏShe€testified€that€she€has€no€doubt€about€her€identification€of€the€defendant.Ì€Ìà àAngela€Blakely€corroborated€Ms.€Hollingsworth's€testimony.€€She€saidÏthat€she€was€working€at€the€One€Price€Clothing€store€on€February€24,€œ1993,›€and€thatÏshe€arrived€at€the€store€at€around€6:00€p.m.€that€night.€€She€then€left€the€store€forÏapproximately€five€minutes,€and€when€she€returned€she€saw€the€defendant€talking€toÏMs.€Hollingsworth.€€She€said€that€she€got€a€good€look€at€the€defendant€that€night€andÏrecalled€telling€the€police€that€the€man€who€robbed€the€store€had€blondish€brown€hairÏand€a€light€mustache.€€She€also€recalled€estimating€the€robber's€height€at€five€feetÏseven€inches€and€his€weight€at€one„hundred€and€forty€pounds.€€She€testified€that€theÏdefendant€is€undoubtedly€the€man€who€robbed€the€store.Ì€Ìà àLennie€Covington,€an€officer€with€the€Metropolitan€Police€Department,Ïtestified€that€the€apartment€where€the€defendant€was€living€in€February€1993€was€on€aÏhill€overlooking€the€shopping€center€where€the€One€Price€Clothing€store€is€located.€€HeÏdrew€a€rough€map€of€the€area€and€identified€photographs€of€a€path€leading€from€theÏapartment€complex€where€the€defendant€lived€to€the€shopping€center.€€OfficerÏCovington€also€recalled€putting€together€a€œphotograph›€œarray€that€he€showed€to€AngelaÏBlakely.€€He€said€that€he€chose€photographs€for€the€array€based€upon€the€descriptionsÏof€the€assailant€he€received€from€police€reports€and€from€the€One€Price€ClothingÏstore's€loss€prevention€manager€who€had€received€information€from€Ms.€HollingsworthÏand€Ms.€Blakely.€€He€said€that€all€the€reports€he€used€to€construct€the€array€listed€theÏrobber's€height€as€five€feet€and€seven€inches€and€his€weight€as€one„hundred€and€fortyÏpounds,€and€he€admitted€that€the€description€on€the€defendant's€photograph›€listed€theÏdefendant€as€being€five€feet€and€eleven€inches€tall€and€weighing€one€hundred€andÏeighty€pounds.€€He€said€that€he€used€the€description€from€the€œphotograph›€in€the€arrestÏwarrant€and€estimated€that€the€defendant€was€five€feet€ten€inches€tall€and€weighed€oneÏhundred€and€forty€pounds€at€the€time€of€his€arrest.€€He€explained€that€he€reported€theÏdefendant's€weight€as€one„hundred€and€sixty„five€pounds€in€his€arrest€report€becauseÏthat€was€what€the€defendant€said€he€weighed.€€Officer€Covington€also€explained€thatÏwhen€he€showed€Ms.€Blakely€the€œphotographs,›€he€told€Ms.€Blakely€that€there€was€aÏpossibility€that€œone€of€the€men€depicted€in€the€photographs€robbed€the€store.›€ÌÌà à€Wilford€Klotzback€of€the€Metropolitan€Police€Department€testified€that€heÏshowed€Ms.€Hollingsworth€a€œphotograph›€œarray€containing€the€defendant's€picture.€€HeÏrecalled€telling€her€that€he€believed€one€of€the€photographs€belonged€to€the€personÏwho€committed€the€robbery.€€He€said€that€Ms.€Hollingsworth€had€some€difficulty€pickingÏthe€defendant€out€of€the€array€at€first,€because€he€wore€a€hat€during€the€robbery.€€HeÏsaid€that€he€suggested€that€Ms.€Hollingsworth€place€her€thumb€over€the€head€of€eachÏindividual€in€the€array€in€order€that€she€could€focus€on€the€part€of€the€face€that€wasÏvisible€during€the€robbery.€€He€said€that€when€she€placed€her€thumb€over€the€top€of€theÏphotograph€of€the€defendant,€she€identified€him€as€the€man€who€robbed€her.€€€ÌÌà àPatricia€Berry,€the€defendant's€girlfriend,€testified€that€the€defendant€wasÏliving€with€her€in€February€of€1993.€€She€said€that€she€remembered€February€24,€1993,Ïbecause€she€and€the€defendant€had€fought€the€previous€night€and€the€defendant€hadÏstayed€at€a€motel.€€She€testified€that€on€February€24,€1993,€the€defendant€was€at€herÏapartment€when€she€arrived€home€from€work€at€around€3:00€p.m.€€She€said€that€sheÏand€the€defendant€used€cocaine€that€afternoon.€€She€recalled€that€they€wentÏshoplifting,€bought€more€cocaine,€and€then€returned€to€the€apartment€between€five„thirty€and€six€that€evening.€€She€said€that€her€apartment€was€hot€that€night€and€that€sheÏand€the€defendant€went€out€on€the€balcony€to€get€some€air.€€She€remembered€seeingÏan€ambulance€and€police€cars€along€side€the€One€Price€Clothing€store€while€she€wasÍstanding€on€the€balcony.€€She€said€that€the€defendant€was€with€her€from€five„thirty€untilÏthe€time€she€saw€the€ambulance€and€police€cars€and€that€he€did€not€commit€theÏrobbery.€€She€admitted€that€she€and€the€defendant€made€their€living€stealing€and€alsoÏsaid€that€at€the€time€of€her€arrest€she€did€not€tell€Officer€Covington€that€the€defendantÏcould€not€have€committed€the€robbery€because€he€was€with€her.€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€testified€that€he€has€never€been€in€the€One€Price€ClothingÏstore.€€He€said€that€he€had€a€job€at€Shoney's€for€a€couple€of€months€at€the€end€of€1992Ïbut€that€on€and€off€for€the€past€six€years€and€in€February€1993,€he€made€a€living€byÏshoplifting.€€He€said€that€he€stayed€in€a€motel€on€the€night€of€February€23,€1993,Ïbecause€he€and€Ms.€Berry€had€been€fighting.€€He€testified€that€on€February€24,€1993,€Ïhe€checked€out€of€the€motel,€shoplifted,€returned€the€merchandise,€bought€cocaine€andÏthen€went€to€Ms.€Berry's€apartment€where€he€used€the€cocaine.€€He€recalled€that€Ms.ÏBerry€arrived€at€the€apartment€approximately€an€hour€and€a€half€later€than€he€did.€€HeÏsaid€that€he€noticed€fire€trucks€and€ambulances€in€the€parking€lot€in€front€of€the€OneÏPrice€Clothing€store€and€that€he€did€not€leave€the€apartment€until€around€seven€orÏeight€o'clock€that€night€when€he€ran€out€of€cocaine€and€went€shoplifting€to€buy€someÏmore.€€He€said€that€he€has€used€the€path€leading€from€the€apartment€complex€to€theÏshopping€center€before€but€denied€robbing€the€One€Price€Clothing€store.€€He€said€thatÏhe€is€five€feet€and€eleven€inches€tall€and€weighed€approximately€one„hundred€andÏeighty€pounds€in€February€1993,€fifty„six€pounds€less€than€he€weighed€at€trial.ÌÑ€2ÑÇà àJackie€Brandon€testified€that€he€and€his€wife€entered€the€One€PriceÏClothing€store€at€dusk€on€February€24,€1993.€€On€his€way€into€the€store,€a€man€leavingÏthe€store€quickly€brushed€by€him.€€He€said€that€the€man€was€about€five€feet€and€eightÏinches€tall,€had€a€light€mustache,€and€was€wearing€a€dark€leather€jacket€and€jeans.€€HeÏadmitted€that€he€was€guessing€at€the€man's€height€because€the€man€had€his€headÏdown€as€he€was€leaving€the€store€and€said€that€the€man€was€wearing€a€knit€cap,€not€aÏbaseball€hat.€€He€testified€that€he€was€certain€that€the€defendant€was€not€the€man€heÏsaw€leaving€the€One€Price€Clothing€store.€€ÌÌà àDuring€the€state's€rebuttal,€Officer€Covington€testified€that€when€heÏarrested€the€defendant,€the€defendant€asked€him€the€date€of€the€alleged€offense.€ÏOfficer€Covington€said€that€he€told€the€defendant€€that€the€robbery€took€place€onÏFebruary€24,€1993,€and€that€the€defendant€then€turned€to€Ms.€Berry€and€asked€herÏwhere€she€was€on€that€date€or€whether€she€knew€where€they€were€that€night.€€OfficerÏCovington€explained€that€Ms.€Berry€responded€to€the€defendant's€questions€by€sayingÏthat€she€did€not€know€where€he€was€but€that€she€was€at€the€motel.€€Officer€CovingtonÏalso€recalled€that€a€week€before€trial€Ms.€Berry€told€him€that€she€and€the€defendantÏwere€in€the€bedroom€doing€drugs€between€six€and€seven€o'clock€on€February€24th.€ÏHe€said€that€he€asked€Ms.€Berry€her€whereabouts€between€six€and€seven€o'clock€onÏFebruary€24th€at€least€six€times€and€that€she€never€said€anything€about€being€on€theÏbalcony€that€day€or€anything€about€seeing€an€ambulance€or€police€cars.€ÌÌà àJo€Ann€Hollingsworth€and€Angela€Blakely€also€testified€during€the€state'sÏrebuttal.€€Both€said€that€they€heard€the€defendant€testify€and€that€his€voice€sounded€likeÏthe€voice€of€the€man€who€robbed€the€One€Price€Clothing€store.€€In€addition,€Ms.ÏHollingsworth€testified€that€the€weather€in€Nashville€was€cold€on€the€day€of€theÏrobbery.€ÌÑ€3ÑÇà@ àò òIó óÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€suppressedÏevidence€of€Jo€Ann€Hollingsworth's€and€Angela€Blakely's€identifications€of€him.€€HeÏasserts€that€the€photograph›€œarray€was€impermissibly€suggestive€so€as€to€violate€dueÏprocess€and€to€render€the€identification€testimony€unreliable€and€inadmissible.€€òòSeeóóÏòòSloan€v.€Stateóó,€584€S.W.2d€461€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978);€òòSimmons€v.€United€Statesóó,Ï390€U.S.€377,€88€S.Ct.€967(1968).€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àAt€the€suppression€hearing,€Ms.€Hollingsworth€testified€that€she€spentÏabout€thirty€minutes€trying€to€help€the€defendant€before€he€stabbed€her€in€the€back.€ÏShe€said€that€the€store€was€well„lit€and€that€she€was€sure€that€the€defendant€was€theÏman€who€robbed€her.€€She€recalled€picking€the€defendant€out€of€a€photograph›€œarrayÏbetween€five€and€seven€days€after€the€robbery€and€said€that€she€recognized€hisÏpicture€immediately.€€She€admitted€that€the€photograph›€of€the€defendant€that€was€usedÏin€the€œphotograph›€array€was€not€as€centered€as€the€other€œphotographs›€but€said€that€itÏdid€not€factor€into€her€identification€of€him.€€She€also€acknowledged€that€theÏœphotograph›€beneath€the€defendant's€in€the€œarray€had€a€yellow€tint€to€it€but€said€that€theÏdefendant's€photograph›€did€not€look€any€brighter€than€others€in€the€œarray.›Ì€Ìà àMs.€Blakely€testified€that€the€store€was€well„lit€and€that€she€got€a€goodÏlook€at€the€defendant€on€the€day€of€the€robbery.€€She€recalled€that€it€took€herÍapproximately€ten€minutes€to€pick€the€defendant€out€of€the€œphotograph›€œarray.›€€SheÏadmitted€that€the€œphotograph›€of€the€defendant€was€œoff„center›€and€that€it€had€more€colorÏin€it€than€the€other€œphotographs›€but€said€that€neither€the€brightness€nor€the€fact€that€theÏœphotograph›€was€œoff„center›€affected€her€identification€of€the€defendant.ÌÌà àOfficers€Covington€and€Klotzback€also€testified€at€the€suppressionÏhearing.€€Officer€Covington€said€that€when€he€presented€Ms.€Blakely€with€theÏœphotographs›€he€said,€"Now,€I€have€a€person€here€who€I€think€may€be€the€person€whoÏdid€this."€€œLikewise,›€Officer€Klotzback€testified€that€when€he€gave€Ms.€Hollingsworth€theÏœphotographs›€he€told€her€that€police€believed€that€the€œarray›€contained€a€œphotograph›€ofÏthe€man€who€robbed€the€store.ÌÌà àIn€òòSimmons€v.€United€Statesóó,€390€U.S.€377,€88€œS.€Ct.›€967€(1968),€theÏSupreme€Court€discussed€potential€hazards€of€an€identification€procedure€involvingÏœphotographs›€as€opposed€to€a€lineup.€€œHowever,›€the€court€also€recognized€the€use€ofÏœphotographs›€as€an€effective€procedure€"from€the€standpoint€both€of€apprehendingÏoffenders€and€of€sparing€innocent€suspects€the€ignominy€of€arrest€by€allowingÏeyewitnesses€to€exonerate€them€through€scrutiny€of€œphotographs."›€390€U.S.€at€384,€88ÏœS.€Ct.›€at€971.€€It€concluded€that€"convictions€based€on€eyewitness€identification€at€trialÏfollowing€a€pretrial€identification€by€œphotograph›€will€be€set€aside€on€that€ground€only€ifÏthe€œphotographic›€identification€procedure€was€so€impermissibly€suggestive€as€to€giveÍrise€to€a€very€substantial€likelihood€of€irreparable€misidentification."€òòIdóó;€œòòseeóó,›€œòòe.g.óó,›€òòSloanÏv.€Stateóó,€584€S.W.2d€461€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).ÌÌà àThe€Supreme€Court€in€€òòSimmonsóó€€noted€that€the€potential€forÏmisidentification€is€increased€when€one€œphotograph›€is€"in€some€way€emphasized"€or€"ifÏthe€police€indicate€to€the€witness€that€they€have€other€evidence€that€one€of€the€personsÏpictured€committed€the€crime."€òòSimmonsóó,€390€U.S.€at€383,€88€œS.€Ct.›€at€970.€€In€thisÏcase,€the€defendant€argues€that€his€œphotograph›€is€emphasized€in€the€array€because€itÏis€off„center€and€does€not€have€a€yellow€tint€to€it.€€We€note€that€the€defendant'sÏœphotograph›€is€remarkably€similar€to€others€in€the€array.€€It€is€only€slightly€off„center€andÏa€couple€of€the€other€œphotographs›€in€the€array€have€only€a€slight€tint€to€them.€ÏNevertheless,€we€recognize€that€the€œphotograph›€identification€procedure€may€haveÏbeen€suggestive€given€the€officers'€improper€suggestions€that€one€of€the€men€œpictured›Ïwas€the€robber.€€Ì€Ìà àDue€process€requires€exclusion€of€identifications€resulting€fromÏsuggestive€identification€procedures€when€there€is€a€"likelihood€of€misidentification".€ÏòòNeil€v.€Biggersóó,€409€U.S.€188,€198,€93€œS.€Ct.›€375,€381„82€(1972);€òòState€v.€Philpottóó,€882ÏS.W.2d€394,€400€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.)€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994).€€In€òòNeilóó,€the€SupremeÏCourt€identified€the€following€factors€to€be€considered€when€determining€whether€anÏidentification€is€reliable€and€thus€admissible:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓœà8 à(1)›€the€opportunity€of€the€witness€to€view€the€criminal€at€theÏtime€of€the€crime,ÌÌœà8 à(2)›€the€witness'€degree€of€attention,ÌÌœà8 à(3)›€the€accuracy€of€the€witness'€prior€description€of€theÏcriminal,ÌÌœà8 à(4)›€the€level€of€certainty€demonstrated€by€the€witness€at€theÏconfrontation,€andÌÌœà8 à(5)›€the€length€of€time€between€the€crime€and€theÏconfrontation.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓ€409€U.S.€at€199,€93€œS.€Ct.›€at€382.€€In€the€present€case,€our€consideration€of€theseÏfactors€leads€us€to€conclude€that€both€Ms.€Hollingsworth's€and€Ms.€Blakely'sÏidentifications€of€the€defendant€are€reliable.ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€the€first€factor,€œboth›€victims€had€ample€opportunity€to€viewÏthe€man€who€robbed€them.€€Ms.€Hollingsworth€testified€that€the€man€was€in€the€store€forÏthirty€minutes€and€requested€her€assistance€three€times€before€he€stabbed€her.€ÏAlthough€Ms.€Blakely€was€in€the€stockroom€part€of€the€time,€she€testified€that€sheÏnoticed€the€robber€when€he€kept€asking€Ms.€Hollingsworth€for€help.€€She€said€that€theÏstore€was€well„lit€€and€that€she€got€a€good€look€at€the€defendant€from€a€distance€of€fiveÏfeet.€ÌÌà àThe€second€factor,€œthe›€witness'€degree€of€attention€at€the€time€of€theÏcrime,€also€weighs€in€favor€of€admitting€the€identifications.€€The€robber€drew€attentionÍto€himself€by€his€repeated€requests€for€assistance.€€Both€women€also€testified€that€theyÏfocused€their€attention€on€the€robber€after€he€stabbed€Ms.€Hollingsworth€in€the€back.€ÌÌà àRegarding€the€third€factor,€we€recognize€that€neither€of€the€witnessesÏgave€police€a€perfect€description€of€the€defendant€immediately€after€the€crime.€€œThey›Ïboth€estimated€that€the€robber€was€five€feet€and€seven€inches€tall,€while€the€evidenceÏat€trial€established€that€the€defendant€is€between€five€feet€ten€inches€and€five€feetÏeleven€inches€tall.€€Ms.€Hollingsworth's€description€of€the€robber€immediately€after€theÏcrime€also€varied€from€the€description€given€by€Ms.€Blakely.€€Although€Ms.ÏHollingsworth€told€police€that€the€robber€wore€a€denim€jacket€and€a€baseball€cap,€Ms.ÏBlakely€described€the€hat€as€a€motorcycle€hat€with€snaps€on€the€side€and€a€small€billÏand€said€that€the€jacket€was€black.€€Despite€these€apparent€inconsistencies,€weÏconclude€that€the€witness'€descriptions€of€the€robber€are€"accurate€enough€to€beÏconsistent€with€the€proposition€that€the€man€[they]€saw€and€described€at€the€time€of€theÏcrime€was€the€defendant."€€òòSeeóó€òòProctor€v.€Stateóó,€565€S.W.2d€909,€913€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1978).€€Ms.€Hollingsworth€told€police€that€the€robber€had€blue€eyes€and€"salt€andÏpepper"€hair€around€his€temples.€€Ms.€Blakely€told€police€that€the€robber€had€blondish„brown€hair.€€The€œphotograph›€of€the€defendant€that€was€œused›€shows€that€the€defendantÏhas€blondish„brown€hair€and€blue€eyes.€Both€women€estimated€that€the€robber'sÏweight€was€around€one„hundred€and€forty€pounds,€and€at€trial,€Officer€CovingtonÏtestified€that€the€defendant€weighed€approximately€one„hundred€and€forty€pounds€atÍthe€time€of€his€arrest.€€Although€imperfect,€the€descriptions€the€witnesses€gave€policeÏare€sufficiently€consistent€with€the€defendant.€ÌÌà àThe€fourth€factor,€the€certainty€of€the€witnesses€at€the€confrontation,€alsoÏweighs€in€favor€of€admission€of€the€identifications.€€œMs.›€Hollingsworth€took€less€than€aÏminute€to€pick€the€defendant's€œphotograph›€out€of€the€array,€and€she€testified€that€whenÏshe€chose€the€defendant's€œphotograph,›€she€had€no€question€whatsoever€that€theÏdefendant€was€the€person€who€robbed€her.€€ÌÌà àMs.€Blakely€testified€that€she€studied€the€array€for€around€ten€minutesÏbefore€she€chose€the€defendant's€œphotograph.›€€She€noted€that€she€œchose›€theÏdefendant's€œphotograph›€œbecause›€he€had€the€same€face€and€the€same€eyes€as€theÏrobber.€€She€testified€at€trial€that€she€was€certain€that€the€defendant€was€the€personÏwho€robbed€the€One€Price€Clothing€store.€€œThe›€defendant€argues€that€Ms.€Blakely€onlyÏchose€his€œphotograph›€because€she€felt€obligated€to€pick€someone€out€of€the€œarray€afterÏOfficer€Covington€suggested€that€the€array€contained€a€photograph›€of€the€person€heÏthought€robbed€the€store.€€He€contends€that€the€amount€of€time€that€it€took€for€Ms.ÏBlakely€to€pick€him€out€of€the€œphotograph›€array€indicates€uncertainty€in€herÏidentification.€€Conversely,€the€state€argues€that€the€fact€that€it€took€Ms.€Blakely€tenÏminutes€to€identify€the€defendant€demonstrates€that€she€carefully€examined€theÏœphotographs›€and€only€identified€him€when€she€was€absolutely€certain.€We€refuse€toÍspeculate€about€why€Ms.€Blakely€took€ten€minutes€to€œidentify€the€defendantððsÏphotograph.›€€Nothing€in€the€record€indicates€that€Ms.€Blakely€had€any€doubts€about€herÏidentification€of€the€œdefendant€from€the€array€of€photographs.›€œÌ›Ìà àWith€respect€to€the€fifth€factor,€we€note€that€both€witnesses€viewed€theÏœphotograph›€œarrays›€within€only€five€to€seven€days€after€the€robbery.€€After€examining€theÏtotality€of€circumstances€surrounding€both€Ms.€Hollingsworth's€and€Ms.€Blakely'sÏpretrial€identifications€of€the€defendant,€we€conclude€that€both€identifications€areÏreliable€and€admissible.à àÌà àÌà@ àò òIIÌó óà àIn€his€second€issue,€the€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€theÏconvicting€evidence.€€He€asserts€that€the€state€failed€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt€that€he€was€the€person€who€robbed€the€One€Price€Clothing€store€and€also€failedÏto€present€sufficient€evidence€of€serious€bodily€injury.€ÌÌà àOur€standard€of€review€when€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€isÏquestioned€on€appeal€is€"whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€prosecution,€òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,Ï319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979).€€This€means€that€we€may€not€reweigh€the€evidence,Íbut€must€presume€that€the€jury€has€resolved€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€and€drawn€allÏreasonable€inferences€from€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,Ï676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1978).€ÌÌà à€First,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€prove€thatÏhe€was€the€person€who€committed€the€robbery.€€In€support,€he€asserts€that€the€trialÏcourt€should€have€excluded€Angela€Blakely's€and€Jo€Ann€Hollingsworth's€identificationÏof€him€and€that€the€testimony€of€Patricia€Berry€and€Jackie€Brandon€proved€that€he€wasÏnot€the€man€who€robbed€the€One€Price€Clothing€store.€€As€previously€noted,€the€trialÏcourt€properly€admitted€the€identification€testimony€of€Angela€Blakely€and€Jo€AnnÏHollingsworth.€€Questions€of€credibility€are€for€the€jury€to€decide.€€òòSheffieldóó,€676ÏS.W.2d€at€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòByrge€v.€Stateóó,€575€S.W.2d€292,€295€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1978).€€The€jury€obviously€chose€to€believe€Ms.€Blakely€and€Ms.€Hollingsworth,€andÏthis€court's€function€is€not€to€reweigh€the€evidence.ÌÌà àSecond,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€supportÏa€conviction€for€especially€aggravated€robbery€because€the€state€failed€to€prove€thatÏMs.€Hollingsworth€sustained€serious€bodily€injury€as€required€by€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„403.€ÏWe€disagree.€€Under€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„106,€"serious€bodily€injury"€is€bodily€injuryÏinvolving:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓœà8 à(A)›€A€substantial€risk€of€death;ÌÌœà8 à(B)›€Protracted€unconsciousness;ÌÌœà8 à(C)›€Extreme€physical€pain;ÌÌœà8 à(D)›€Protracted€or€obvious€disfigurement;€orÌÌœà8 à(E)›€Protracted€loss€or€substantial€impairment€of€a€function€ofÏa€bodily€member,€organ€or€mental€œfaculty.›ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓMs.€Hollingsworth€testified€that€she€suffered€a€collapsed€lung€as€a€result€of€theÏdefendant's€attack.€€She€said€that€after€the€defendant€stabbed€her€and€took€the€moneyÏfrom€the€cash€register,€he€threw€her€down€on€the€ground€and€put€cardboard€boxes€andÏchairs€on€top€of€her.€€She€said€that€she€had€problems€breathing€and€that€she€felt€a€lotÏof€pain€in€her€back.€€She€recalled€spending€thirty„six€hours€in€the€intensive€care€unitÏand€having€a€tube€inserted€to€remove€fluid€from€her€collapsed€lung.€€This€undisputedÏtestimony€is€sufficient€to€establish€that€the€defendant€created€a€substantial€risk€of€deathÏand€that€the€victim€suffered€extreme€pain€and€substantial€impairment€of€her€lung.€€TheÏevidence€is€sufficient€to€establish€serious€bodily€injury.€ÌÌà@ àò òIIIó óÌà àNext,€the€defendant€complains€about€Officer€Covington's€rebuttalÏtestimony€about€Patricia€Berryððs€prior€statements.€€He€contends€that€the€trial€court€erredÏby€allowing€Officer€Covington€to€testify€that€:€(1)€he€heard€Ms.€Berry€tell€the€defendantÏthat€she€did€not€know€where€he€was€on€the€day€of€the€robbery,€but€that€she€was€at€aÍmotel,€and€(2)€when€he€questioned€Ms.€Berry,€she€did€not€tell€him€about€seeing€anÏambulance€and€police€cars€from€her€balcony€on€the€day€of€the€robbery.€€Primarily,€theÏdefendant€claims€that€this€testimony€was€inadmissible€extrinsic€impeachment€evidenceÏbecause€Ms.€Berry€was€not€afforded€the€opportunity€during€her€testimony€to€explain€orÏdeny€the€statements,€which€the€defendant€asserts€is€required€under€Rule€613(b),€Tenn.ÏR.€Evid.ÌÌà àAs€previously€shown,€Ms.€Berryððs€testimony€at€the€trial€provided€an€alibiÏfor€the€defendant.€€She€testified€that€he€was€with€her€on€the€night€of€the€robbery,Ïestablishing€it€to€be€that€night€because€she€saw€police€cars€and€an€ambulance€nearÏthe€One€Price€Clothing€store.€€In€the€stateððs€rebuttal€evidence,€Officer€CovingtonÏtestified€that€he€heard€Ms.€Berry€tell€the€defendant€that€she€did€not€know€where€he€wasÏon€the€night€of€the€robbery€and€that€she€was€at€a€motel.€€Thus,€he€directly€contradictedÏher€trial€testimony€on€this€point.€€Also,€Officer€Covington€testified€that€in€the€face€ofÏrepeated€questioning€in€a€pretrial€interview€about€how€she€remembered€the€particularÏnight,€Ms.€Berry€made€no€mention€about€being€on€the€balcony€or€seeing€anyÏemergency€vehicles€at€the€One€Price€Clothing€store.€€In€this€sense,€the€state€wasÏseeking€to€prove€a€prior€statement€that€was€inconsistent€by€its€omission€of€materialÍfacts.€€òòSeeóó€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€596€S.W.2d€97,€103„04€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979),€òòappóó.Ïòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1980).× ƒ4 ××  ×€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€objected€to€Officer€Covington€testifying€in€rebuttal,Ïasserting€that€the€state€had€not€afforded€Ms.€Berry€an€opportunity€to€explain€or€denyÏthe€statements€during€her€cross„examination.€€The€trial€court€overruled€the€objectionÏupon€its€recollection€that€the€state€had,€in€fact,€sufficiently€questioned€Ms.€Berry€aboutÏher€previous€statements.€€Unfortunately,€the€record€does€not€support€the€trial€courtððsÏrecollection.€€The€state€did€not€confront€Ms.€Berry€during€her€cross„examination€withÏher€previous€statements.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€argues€that€this€failure€should€have€barred€OfficerÏCovingtonððs€rebuttal€testimony€under€Rule€613(b),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€which€states:à àÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àò òà àExtrinsic€Evidence€of€Prior€InconsistentÏStatement€of€Witness.ó ó€€Extrinsic€evidence€of€a€priorÏinconsistent€statement€by€a€witness€is€not€admissible€unlessÏthe€witness€is€afforded€an€opportunity€to€explain€or€deny€theÏsame€and€the€opposite€party€is€afforded€an€opportunity€toÏinterrogate€the€witness€thereon,€or€the€interests€of€justiceÏotherwise€require.€€This€provision€does€not€apply€toÏadmissions€of€a€party„opponent€as€defined€in€Rule€803(1.2).ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓThe€state€responds€that€Rule€613(b)€does€not€require€the€proponent€of€the€inconsistentÏstatement€to€afford€the€impeached€witness€an€opportunity€to€explain€or€deny€theÏstatement€before€it€is€introduced.€€It€relies€upon€federal€cases€interpreting€the€similarlyÏworded€federal€Rule€613(b).€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòUnited€States€v.€Hudsonóó,€970€F.2d€948,€955„56Ï(1st€Cir.€1992).€€Thus,€we€must€determine€whether€Rule€613(b),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€requiresÏthat€a€witness€be€confronted€with€a€prior€inconsistent€statement€before€extrinsicÏevidence€of€that€statement€is€admissible€for€impeachment€purposes.€€ÌÌà àInitially,€we€note€that€there€are€no€published€Tennessee€casesÏinterpreting€Rule€613(b).€€Although€this€court€has€twice€disclosed€a€view€that€RuleÏ613(b)€requires€that€the€impeached€witness€be€confronted€with€the€prior€inconsistentÏstatements€or€otherwise€given€the€opportunity€to€explain€or€deny€them€òòbeforeóó€extrinsicÏevidence€will€be€allowed,€our€supreme€court€has€concurred€in€results€only€in€bothÏcases.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ronald€D.€Mooreóó,€No.€02C01„9412„CR„00296,€Shelby€Co.€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€Sept.€20,€1995),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€Mar.€4,€1996)€(concurring€in€resultsÏonly);€òòState€v.€Donald€Wayne€Holtóó,€No.€01C01„9503„CC„00053,€Rutherford€Co.€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€Sept.€27,€1995),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€Mar.€4,€1996)€(concurring€in€resultsÏonly).€€On€the€other€hand,€one€member€of€the€court€of€appeals€has€interpreted€RuleÏ613(b)€as€not€requiring€the€impeached€witness€to€be€confronted€before€extrinsicÏevidence€is€admissible,€so€long€as€the€opportunity€remains€for€the€opposing€party€toÏinterrogate€the€impeached€witness.€€òòSeeóó€òòBillie€Jean€Belew,€et€al.€v.€Ronald€K.€Gilmer,Íet€al.óó,€No.€01A01„9010„CV„00365,€Davidson€Co.€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991)€(Koch,Ïconcurring).€€In€any€event,€unpublished€opinions€are€not€to€be€taken€as€general,Ïprecedential€authority.€€òòSeeóó€òòFisher€v.€Stateóó,€197€Tenn.€594,€277€S.W.2d€340„41Ï(1955);€òòCook€v.€Stateóó,€506€S.W.2d€955,€958€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).€€ÌÌà àAt€common€law,€Tennessee€courts€followed€the€Rule€in€the€QueenððsÏCase× ƒ5 ××  ×€under€which€impeachment€of€a€witness€by€extrinsic€evidence€of€a€priorÏinconsistent€statement€was€not€permitted€unless€the€witness€was€òòfirstóó€confronted€withÏand€questioned€about€the€inconsistent€statement.€òòSeeóó€òòMoore€v.€Bettisóó,€30€Tenn.€(11ÏHum.)€67,€69„70€(1850);€òòNelson€v.€Stateóó,€32€Tenn.€(2€Swan)€237,€258„59€(1852);ÏòòHardin€v.€Stateóó,€210€Tenn.€116,€135,€355€S.W.2d€105,€113,€(1962);€òòState€v.€McDougleóó,Ï681€S.W.2d€578,€583€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€€1984).× ƒ6 ××  ×€€The€purposes€of€these€foundation€Ïrequirements€have€been€stated€to€be€ð ð(1)€to€avoid€unfair€surprise€to€the€adversary,€(2)Ïto€save€time,€as€an€admission€by€the€witness€may€make€extrinsic€proof€unnecessary,Ïand€(3)€to€give€the€witness€in€fairness€a€chance€to€explain€the€discrepancy.ðð€€1€John€W.ÏStrong,€òòMcCormick€on€Evidenceóó€ðð€37,€at€120€(4th€ed.1992).ÌÌà àAlso,€it€is€important€to€recognize€that€traditionally,€a€prior€inconsistentÏstatement€proffered€solely€for€the€purpose€of€impeachment€of€a€nonparty€witness€hasÏnot€been€admissible€in€Tennessee€as€substantive€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòKing€v.€Stateóó,€187ÏTenn.€431,€215€S.W.2d€813,€815€(1948).€€Instead,€its€relevance€is€directed€solelyÏtoward€affecting€the€credibility€of€the€witness€proven€to€have€given€conflictingÏstatements.€€In€this€respect,€requiring€the€impeached€witness€to€be€confronted€with€theÏinconsistency€tends€to€focus€the€juryððs€attention€on€the€issue€of€the€witnessðð€credibility.€ÏConversely,€allowing€extrinsic€evidence€of€the€inconsistent€statement€when€theÏwitness€has€not€been€confronted€with€it€increases€the€likelihood€that€the€extrinsicÏevidence€will€be€considered€substantively.€€òòMcCormickóó€at€123.€€œAt€some€point,€the€riskÏof€prejudice€resulting€from€a€jury€considering€ð ðimpeachingðð€statement€contentsÏsubstantively€might€outweigh€the€statementððs€probative€value€so€as€to€bar€admissionÏinto€evidence.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòMays€v.€Stateóó,€495€S.W.2d€833,€836„37€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1972).›ÌÌà àIt€is€significant€that€the€similar€federal€Rule€613(b)€was€contemplated€toÏdo€away€with€the€traditional€foundation€requirement€of€confronting€the€impeachedÏwitness€during€cross„examination€with€the€prior€inconsistent€statement.€€ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àThe€traditional€insistence€that€the€attendance€of€the€witnessÏbe€directed€to€the€statement€on€cross„examination€isÏrelaxed€in€favor€of€simply€providing€the€€witness€anÍopportunity€to€explain€and€the€opposite€party€€anÏopportunity€to€examine€on€the€statement,€with€noÏspecification€of€any€particular€time€or€sequence.€€Under€thisÏprocedure,€several€collusive€witnesses€can€be€examinedÏbefore€disclosure€of€a€joint€prior€inconsistent€€statement.€ÏAlso,€dangers€of€oversight€are€reduced.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓNotes€of€Advisory€Committee€on€Proposed€Rules,€Fed.€R.€Evid.€613€(citations€omitted);Ïòòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Barrettóó,€539€F.2d€244,€255€(1st€Cir.€1976)€(recountingÏlegislative€history€reflecting€that€the€Advisory€œCommittee€believed›€that€œthe›€goals€ofÏimpeachment€through€prior€inconsistent€statements€ð ðcould€better€be€achieved€byÏallowing€the€opportunity€to€deny€or€explain€to€occur€at€any€time€during€the€trial,€ratherÏthan€limiting€it€to€œcross„„examinationðð).›€€€€€€œòòÌÌóó›à àMost€federal€cases€have€held€that€Rule€613(b)€does€not€require€that€aÏwitness€be€confronted€with€an€inconsistent€statement€before€extrinsic€evidence€of€it€isÏadmissible.€€Rather,€the€continuing€availability€of€the€impeached€witness€to€be€recalledÏbecomes€the€important€factor€in€determining€the€admissibility€of€extrinsic€evidence€ofÏan€inconsistent€statement€when€a€party€has€failed€to€confront€the€witness€with€theÏinconsistency.€€òòSeeóó€òòBarrettóó,€539€F.2d€at€254„56;€òòHudsonóó,€970€F.2d€at€955„56;€òòUnitedÏStates€v.€Praetoriusóó,€622€F.2d€1054,€1065€(2nd€Cir.€1979),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€òòsubóó€òònom.óó€òòLebelÏv.€United€Statesóó,€449€U.S.€860€(1980);€òòUnited€States€v.€McLaughlinóó,€663€F.2d€949,€953Ï(9th€Cir.€1981);€òòWammock€v.€Celotex€Corp.óó,€793€F.2d€1518,€1521„23€(11th€Cir.€œ1986);Ïòòbut›óó€òòcf.óó€òòUnited€States€v.€Bonnettóó,€877€F.2d€1450,€1462€(10th€Cir.€1989)€(failure€toÍconfront€impeached€witness€with€inconsistent€statement€ð ðdenies€the€trier€of€fact€theÏopportunity€to€observe€his€demeanor€and€the€nature€of€his€testimony€as€he€denies€orÏexplains€his€prior€testimonyðð).ÌÌà àWe€note,€though,€that€Rule€613(b)€can€be€read€to€provide€a€conditionÏprecedent€to€admissibility€of€the€extrinsic€evidence,€i.e.,€the€evidence€is€ð ðòònotóó€admissibleÏòòunlessóóðð€the€witness€is€afforded€the€opportunity€to€explain€or€deny€the€inconsistentÏstatement€and€the€opposing€party€is€afforded€the€opportunity€to€question€theÏimpeached€witness€or€the€interests€of€justice€so€require.€€In€this€vein,€in€òòUnited€StatesÏv.€Riceóó,€550€F.2d€1364,€1374€(5th€Cir.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€434€U.S.€954€(1977),€the€courtÏstated€that€affording€such€opportunities€to€the€witness€and€the€opposing€party€wereÏcriteria€to€be€met€òòbeforeóó€the€statement€is€admissible.€€One€treatise€suggests€thatÏsufficient€compliance€with€the€federal€rule€would€occur€if€the€impeaching€party€ð ðinformsÏthe€court€and€opposing€counsel€at€the€time€the€witness€testifies€that€he€intends€toÏintroduce€an€impeaching€statement€and€that€his€opponent€may€therefore€prefer€to€keepÏthe€witness€available€to€be€called€to€explain€it€if€he€desires€to€do€so.ðð€€3€J.€Weinstein,€etÏal.,€òòWeinsteinððs€Evidenceóó,€613„33€œ(1995);›€œòòaccordóó›€òòState€v.€Emeryóó,€642€P.2d€838,€849Ï(Ariz.€1982)€(òòenóó€òòbancóó).ÌÌà àHowever,€we€do€not€believe€that€we€should€impose€upon€the€impeachingÏparty€œany›€particular€duty€to€œinsure›€that€the€criteria€are€met€before€the€statement€isÍdeemed€admissible.€€œThe€rule€assigns€no€special€obligation€to€any€party€and€we€willÏnot€create€one.›€€On€the€other€hand,€if€the€impeached€witness€is€not€confronted€with€theÏstatement€during€his€or€her€testimony€before€the€extrinsic€evidence€is€presented€andÏthe€impeaching€party€does€not€provide€sufficient€notice€to€the€opposing€party€of€theÏneed€to€keep€the€impeached€witness€available,€the€risk€of€exclusion€will€fall€upon€theÏimpeaching€party€if€the€witness€is€then€unavailable€for€questioning.€€ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€the€focus€of€the€defendantððs€objection€in€the€trialÏcourt€was€on€the€failure€of€the€state€to€confront€Ms.€Berry€with€the€inconsistentÏstatements€during€her€cross„examination.€€Under€our€analysis€of€Rule€613(b),€weÏconclude€that€such€a€confrontation€was€not€required€in€advance€of€the€admission€of€theÏinconsistent€statements.€€Furthermore,€nothing€in€the€record€indicates€that€theÏdefendant€was€unable€to€recall€Ms.€Berry,€who€claimed€to€be€his€girlfriend,€in€order€forÏher€to€explain€or€deny€the€inconsistent€statements.€€Absent€the€record€reflecting€herÏbeing€unavailable€as€a€witness,€the€extrinsic€evidence€was€admissible€and€any€failureÏof€the€defendant€to€have€her€respond€to€such€evidence€effectively€constitutes€a€waiverÏof€the€opportunity€provided€under€Rule€613(b).€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòWilmington€Trust€Co.€v.ÏManufacturers€Life€Ins.€Co.óó,€749€F.2d€694,€699€(11th€Cir.€1985).€€œThus,€there€was€noÏevidentiary€bar€to€the€state€introducing€extrinisic€evidence€of€Ms.€Berryððs€priorÏinconsistent€statements€for€the€purpose€of€impeachment.›ÌÌà@ àò òIVó óÌà àFinally,€the€defendant€contends€that€his€sentence€is€excessive€becauseÏthe€trial€court€improperly€applied€enhancement€factor€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(5),€regardingÏexceptionally€cruel€treatment€to€the€victim,€and€failed€to€apply€any€mitigating€factors.€ÏThe€defendant€does€not€challenge€the€trial€courtððs€enhancement€of€his€sentence€basedÏupon€the€offense€involving€more€than€one€victim.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A€ðð€40„35„114(3).€ÌÌà àAppellate€review€of€sentencing€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€on€the€record€with€aÏpresumption€that€the€trial€court's€determinations€are€correct.€€T.C.A.€ðððð€40„35„401(d)Ïand€„402(d).€€As€the€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€to€these€sections€note,€theÏburden€is€now€on€the€appealing€party€to€show€that€the€sentencing€is€improper.€€ThisÏmeans€that€if€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€made€findingsÏof€fact€that€are€adequately€supported€in€the€record,€and€gave€due€consideration€andÏproper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principles€that€are€relevant€to€sentencing€under€theÏ1989€Sentencing€Act,€we€may€not€disturb€the€sentence€even€if€a€different€result€wereÏpreferred.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€ÌÌà àHowever,€"the€presumption€of€correctness€which€accompanies€the€trialÏcourt's€action€is€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trialÏcourt€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€ÍòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€this€respect,€for€the€purpose€ofÏmeaningful€appellate€review,ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àthe€trial€court€must€place€on€the€record€its€reasons€forÏarriving€at€the€final€sentencing€decision,€identify€theÏmitigating€and€enhancement€factors€found,€state€the€specificÏfacts€supporting€each€enhancement€factor€found,€andÏarticulate€how€the€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors€haveÏbeen€evaluated€and€balanced€in€determining€the€sentence.ÏT.C.A.€ðððð€40„35„210(f)€(1990).€€ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€599€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà àAlso,€in€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review,€we€must€consider€(1)€the€evidence,Ïif€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing,€(2)€the€presentence€report,€(3)€theÏprinciples€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives,€(4)€the€natureÏand€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct,€(5)€any€mitigating€or€statutory€enhancementÏfactors,€(6)€any€statement€that€the€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf€and€(7)€theÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€T.C.A.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103€and€„210;€òòseeóóÏòòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€168;€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229€(Tenn.€1986).€ÌÌà àThe€sentence€to€be€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€presumptively€theÏminimum€in€the€range€unless€there€are€enhancement€factors€present.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210(c).× ƒ7 ××  ×€€Procedurally,€the€trial€court€is€to€increase€the€sentence€within€the€rangeÍbased€upon€the€existence€of€enhancement€factors€and,€then,€reduce€the€sentence€asÏappropriate€for€any€mitigating€factors.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210(d)€and€(e).€€The€weight€to€beÏafforded€an€existing€factor€is€left€to€the€trial€court's€discretion€so€long€as€it€complies€withÏthe€purposes€and€principles€of€the€1989€Sentencing€Act€and€its€findings€areÏadequately€supported€by€the€record.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210,€Sentencing€CommissionÏComments;€òòMossóó,€727€S.W.2d€at€237;€òòseeóó€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€enhanced€the€defendantððs€sentence€from€the€presumptiveÏfifteen€years€to€twenty„two€years€based€upon€the€crime€involving€more€than€one€victimÏand€because€it€found€that€the€defendant€treated€the€victim€with€exceptional€cruelty.€€€ÏòòSeeóó€T.C.A€ðð€40„35„114€(3)€and€(5).€€The€defendant€does€not€challenge€the€trial€courtððsÏapplication€of€enhancement€factor€(3)€but€contends€that€the€record€does€not€supportÏthe€application€of€factor€(5).ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€the€application€of€enhancement€factor€(5),€the€trial€courtÏnoted:€ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àI€believe€the€court€can€take€into€consideration€enhancementÏfactor€five.€€The€defendant€treated,€or€allowed€a€victim€to€beÏtreated,€with€exceptional€cruelty€during€the€robbery.€€IÏunderstand€that€the€injury€is€a€portion€of€the€„„€an€element€ofÏthe€crime.€€But€to€stab€someone€in€the€back,€and€then€haveÏMs.€Hollingsworth€lie€there€for€the€period€of€time€that€sheÏhad€to,€with€this€injury,€to€me,€I€think,€qualifies€under€SectionÏFive.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓThe€trial€courtððs€reliance€on€the€amount€of€time€that€passed€before€Ms.€HollingsworthÏwas€discovered€is€not€supported€by€the€record.€€To€the€contrary,€Ms.€HollingsworthÏtestified€that€after€the€defendant€left€the€store€she€crawled€out€of€the€stock€room,€and€aÏcouple€of€minutes€had€passed€before€she€saw€people€shopping€in€the€store.€€ÌÌà àAlthough€the€defendant€undoubtedly€treated€Ms.€Hollingsworth€cruelly€byÏstabbing€her€once€in€the€back,€€the€facts€of€this€case€do€not€support€a€finding€ofÏòòexceptionalóó€cruelty€beyond€that€present€in€any€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€òòSeeóóÏòòManning€v.€Stateóó,€883€S.W.2d€635,€639€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€(refusing€to€applyÏenhancement€factor€(5)€when€ð ðmost€of€the€facts€relied€upon€in€applying€thisÏenhancement€factor€to€the€[defendant]€are€the€very€facts€which€made€[his]€crimesÏaggravated€under€the€lawðð).€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€enhancement€factor€(5)Ïshould€not€apply.€ÌÌà àHowever,€the€trial€court€properly€enhanced€the€defendantððs€sentenceÏbecause€the€crime€involved€more€than€one€victim,€òòseeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(3),€and€weÏconclude€that€the€record€also€supports€two€enhancement€factors€that€were€not€appliedÏby€the€trial€court,€the€defendantððs€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€and€criminalÏbehavior€and€his€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€conditions€of€aÏsentence€involving€release€into€the€community.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(1)€and€(8).€€ÏApplication€of€enhancement€factor€(1)€is€supported€by€the€defendantððs€testimony€thatÍfor€Ñ7€OåXXdðXXdð7Ñthe€last€six€years€he€has€supported€himself€by€shoplifting.€€In€addition,€theÏpresentence€report€shows€that€the€defendant€has€several€misdemeanor€convictions,Ïincluding€nine€convictions€for€theft€under€five„hundred€dollars,€a€conviction€for€cocaineÏpossession,€and€an€assault€conviction.€€With€respect€to€the€application€ofÏenhancement€factor€(8),€the€presentence€report€reflects€that€the€defendant€wasÏsentenced€to€six€months€probation€for€one€of€the€theft€convictions€and€that€hisÏprobation€was€revoked.ÌÌà àRegarding€mitigation,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€shouldÏhave€mitigated€his€sentence€based€upon€his€lack€of€felony€convictions€and€hisÏsuccessful€completion€of€a€drug€and€alcohol€rehabilitation€program.€€Although€in€òòStateÏv.€Keelóó,€882€S.W.2d€410,€422„23€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994),€thisÏcourt€indicated€that€the€lack€of€a€felony€record€should€not€be€used€in€mitigation,€weÏnote€that€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€considered€such€a€circumstance€to€mitigateÏthe€sentence€in€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€240€(Tenn.€1986).€€Essentially,€whatÏremains€significant€is€the€extent€of€past€criminal€behavior€in€terms€of€both€numbers€andÏseriousness.ÌÌà àIn€òòMossóó,€the€defendantððs€criminal€record€related€to€ð ðan€extremely€poorÏhistory€of€irresponsible€and€reckless€drivingðð€that€resulted€in€his€license€beingÏindefinitely€revoked.€€727€S.W.2d€at€232„33.€€In€òòKeelóó,€the€defendantððs€record€showed€aÍsubstantial€pattern€of€possessing€cocaine€for€personal€use,€two€convictions€for€drivingÏunder€the€influence,€convictions€for€harassment€and€reckless€driving,€and€reflected€thatÏhe€was€on€probation€when€he€committed€the€several€drug€felonies€for€which€he€wasÏbeing€sentenced.€€Obviously,€the€history€of€criminal€behavior€in€òòKeelóó€was€substantiallyÏmore€extensive€and€more€serious€than€that€existing€in€òòMossóó.€€We€view€the€extensiveÏhistory€of€criminal€behavior€in€the€present€case€to€be€similar€to€that€in€òòKeelóó€and€we€doÏnot€fault€the€trial€court€in€refusing€to€afford€mitigating€weight€to€the€defendantððs€lack€ofÏprior€felony€convictions.€€On€the€other€hand,€we€conclude€that€the€defendantððsÏsuccessful€completion€of€a€drug€and€alcohol€rehabilitation€program€since€hisÏconfinement€for€this€offense€has€some€mitigation€value€in€terms€of€showing€someÏpotential€for€rehabilitation.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðððð€40„35„103(5)€and€„113(13).ÌÌà àHowever,€even€considering€the€defendantððs€successful€completion€of€the€Ïrehabilitation€program,€a€twenty„two„year€œsentence›€remains€justified€because€of€theÏthree€applicable€enhancement€factors:€the€defendantððs€history€of€criminal€behavior,€theÏcrime€involving€more€than€one€victim,€and€the€defendantððs€history€of€unwillingness€toÏcomply€with€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€into€the€community.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.Ïðð€40„35„114€(1),€(3),€and€(8).€€In€affirming€the€defendantððs€twenty„two„year€sentence,Ïwe€place€the€most€significant€weight€on€his€extensive€history€of€criminal€behavior,Ïbehavior€that€has€now€escalated€into€the€violent€offense€in€this€case.ÌÌà àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€the€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò(Not€Participating)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóJerry€Scott,€JudgeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó€€ÌDavid€G.€Hayes,€Judge€Ì