ÿWPCÉ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ H 0lH 0D´ 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ 0|Î 0†J 0Ð 1u` 0dÕ B9U>VB)”DC½U* AM* D3wéªv~“ 0@vÓQ AO$Æs 0D9 D/} B¬˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ¦D§¨D© EªD«¬­E®D¯Ó€R¦"?Ž3|xº((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd< Œ 9p`(Arial€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ""""'ÿÿdxd ßÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òJune€24,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  Ý›Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ 8 ÒÑ\R AØ'\ќـ€ÙÓ  ÓÔ€(ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€)+'A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌà@ àAPRIL€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€No.€œ03C01›„9610„CR„00383Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellee,à àà àà à)à àMONROE€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òVS.ó óà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àò òHON.€MAYO€œMASHBURN›,ÏJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òMATTHEW€L.€œMOATES›,ó óà àà àà à)à à(Agg.€Robbery)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÒ  ÒÒ À Òà àà àAppellant.à àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌò òW.€œHOLT›€SMITHà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPó óÌ209€œTellico›€Street€Northà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌœMadisonville›,€TN€37354à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òMICHAEL€J.€œFAHEY›,€IIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óNashville,€TN€37243„0493ò òÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€N.€œESTES›ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òRICHARD€NEWMANÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€647Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAthens,€TN€37303ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌóóAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌCHRIS€CRAFT,€ÌSPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÑ7€ÌÝXdðXXdð7ÑÌó óà@ àò òòòOPINIONóóÌÌÌÓÓà àó óDefendant,€Matthew€L.€œMoates›,€appeals€as€of€right€from€a€jury€conviction€forÏaggravated€robbery.€€Moates€presents€four€issues€for€our€review:€1)€whether€theÏevidence€was€sufficient€to€sustain€the€conviction;€2)€whether€the€trial€judge€erred€inÏfailing€to€institute€procedures€mandated€by€òòBatson€v.€Kentuckyóó€œand›€improperlyÏallowed€the€State€to€exclude€the€only€black€member€of€the€jury€venire;€3)€whetherÏthe€State€improperly€withheld€œfrom€Defendant€a›€plea€bargain€agreement€with€aÏstate€œwitness;›€and€4)€whether€a€photo€line„up€was€unduly€suggestive€and€shouldÏhave€been€suppressed.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€ÌÌò òÓ  ÓFACTSó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€facts€of€this€case€involve€the€armed€robbery€of€a€Phillips€66Ïconvenience€store€in€Sweetwater,€Monroe€County,€Tennessee.€€Kay€Lowe€testifiedÍat€trial€that€she€was€working€at€the€store€the€night€of€the€robbery,€and€her€nephew,ÏTim€West,€was€staying€with€her.€€At€around€5:00€am,€a€man€entered€the€€storeÏostensibly€to€buy€a€carton€of€cigarettes.€€As€Ms.€Lowe€rang€up€the€sale,€heÏproduced€a€gun€and€said,€ð ðNow€I€want€all€your€money.ðð€€After€she€gave€him€theÏcigarettes€and€cash€drawer€he€ordered€them€both€to€lie€face€down€on€the€floor.€€AtÏfirst,€Tim€West€thought€he€was€joking,€but€he€told€him,€ð ðGet€over€here.€€This€is€noÏjoke,ðð€and€both€obeyed.€€œThey›€waited€on€the€floor€until€another€customer€came€in,Ïand€then€called€the€police.€€Both€victims€described€the€robber€to€the€police€as€aÏwhite€male€with€long€dark€hair€and€a€moustache,€a€red€checkered€shirt€andÏpossibly€blue€jeans.€€They€both€identified€the€defendant€as€the€robber€in€a€photoÏline„up€shown€them€three€months€later,€and€also€in€court€at€trial.€€Ms.€Lowe€alsoÏtestified€that€œsome€time€later€she›€œsaw›€someone€that€looked€like€the€robber€œat›€theÏlocal€Krystal€drive„in€window,€and€called€the€police,€but€that€nothing€came€of€it.Ìà àMary€Ann€Clingan€testified€that€during€the€time€of€the€robbery,€while€herÏhusband€was€serving€time€in€jail,€the€defendant€was€staying€with€her.€€The€morningÏof€the€robbery€she€and€the€defendant€were€returning€to€Bradley€County€fromÏSevierville€when€she€pulled€off€the€highway€onto€the€Phillips€66€store€lot,€and€gaveÏthe€defendant€two€dollars€to€get€her€some€cigarettes.€€She€parked€around€the€sideÏof€the€store€and€could€not€see€into€the€store.€€The€defendant€was€wearing€a€red,Ïmulticolored€flannel€shirt€and€blue€jeans.€€After€about€five€minutes,€he€cameÏrunning€out€of€the€store€with€a€black€gun€in€his€hand,€and€later€showed€her€aboutÏ$150€which€he€said€he€got€at€the€store.€€They€then€continued€on€to€her€house.€€SheÏclaimed€she€did€not€call€the€police€because€she€was€afraid€for€her€children.€€At€theÍtime€of€the€trial,€she€was€under€house€arrest,€charged€with€being€an€accessoryÏafter€the€fact€to€the€robbery.Ìà àThe€defense€called€two€witnesses.€€One€testified€that€Ms.€Lowe€told€her€theÏrobber€was€six€feet€tall,€had€long€black€hair,€was€tan,€and€that€she€had€seen€him€atÏa€local€restaurant€some€time€after€the€robbery.€€The€other€witness€testified€that€theÏmorning€of€the€robbery€the€police€asked€him€to€go€down€to€the€station,€took€hisÏpicture,€and€questioned€him€about€the€robbery,€stating€they€were€looking€for€ð ðaÏlocal€guy.ðð€ÌÌò òÓ  ÓSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant€contends€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€prove€guilt€beyondÏa€reasonable€doubt.€€In€Tennessee,€great€weight€is€given€to€the€result€reached€byÏthe€jury€in€a€criminal€trial.€€A€jury€verdict€accredits€the€stateððs€witnesses€andÏresolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€state.òò€€State€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€803Ï(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).€€On€appeal,€theÏstate€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonableÏinferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòIdóó.;€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832Ï(Tenn.€1978).€€Moreover,€a€guilty€verdict€removes€the€presumption€of€innocenceÏwhich€the€appellant€enjoyed€at€trial€and€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt€on€appeal.€ÏòòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474€(Tenn.€1973).€€The€appellant€has€the€burden€ofÏovercoming€this€presumption€of€guilt.€€€òòIdóó.Ìà àWhere€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged,€the€relevant€question€forÏan€appellate€court€is€whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostÍfavorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÏessential€elements€of€the€crime€or€crimes€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€œ13(e);€òòJackson›€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307(1979);€òòState€v.€Abramsóó,€935ÏS.W.2d€399,€401€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€weight€and€credibility€of€the€witnessesððÏtestimony€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€the€triers€of€fact.€€òòState€v.ÏSheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€932€S.W.2d€1,€19€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1996).€Ìà àBoth€victims€in€this€case€identified€the€defendant€twice€as€the€man€whoÏrobbed€them€at€gunpoint€of€money€and€cigarettes,€first€in€a€photo€line„up€and€thenÏin€court€during€the€trial.€€The€officer€who€conducted€the€line„up€testified€theÏdefendantððs€picture€was€identified€ð ðalmost€immediately.ðð€€A€witness€who€was€livingÏwith€the€defendant€at€the€time€testified€she€drove€the€defendant€to€and€from€theÏstore€the€morning€of€the€robbery,€that€he€was€dressed€in€clothes€matching€theÏdescription€of€the€robber,€came€running€out€of€the€store€with€a€gun€in€his€hand,€andÏhad€$150€that€he€later€told€her€he€had€taken€from€the€store.€€Defense€proof€tendingÏto€suggest€that€the€robber€may€have€been€a€local€resident€was€obviously€rejectedÏby€the€jury€in€the€face€of€the€stateððs€proof.€€The€evidence€is€more€than€sufficient€toÏsupport€the€conviction€for€aggravated€robbery.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓTHE€òòBATSONóó€ISSUEÌÓ  Óœà àNext,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€permitting€the€state€toÏexercise€a€peremptory€challenge€to€dismiss€a€female€black€juror€in€violation€of€theÏrule€in€òòBatson€v.€Kentuckyóó,€476€U.S.€79,€106€S.Ct.€1712€(1986).€€In€òòBatsonóó,€theÍUnited€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€prosecutor's€use€of€peremptoryÏchallenges€to€intentionally€exclude€jurors€of€the€defendant's€race€violated€his€rightÏto€equal€protection€under€the€fourteenth€amendment€to€the€U.S.€Constitution.€€InÏòòPowers€v.€Ohioóó,€499€U.S.€400,€111€S.€Ct.€1364€(1991),€the€Supreme€Court€upheldÏthe€principles€in€òòBatsonóó€but€eliminated€the€requirement€that€the€defendant€and€theÏwrongfully€excluded€juror€be€of€the€same€race€in€order€for€there€to€be€an€equalÏprotection€claim.€Therefore€even€though€the€Defendant€is€a€white€male,€he€can€stillÏchallenge€the€exclusion€of€a€black€female€from€the€jury€venire,€if€he€can€show€sheÏis€excluded€on€the€basis€of€race.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ellisonóó,€841€S.W.2d€824,€826€(Tenn.Ï1992).€Ì›à àDuring€jury€selection,€a€female€black€juror€was€peremptorily€challenged€byÏthe€State,€without€objection.€€The€jury€was€sworn,€opening€statements€were€madeÏby€the€State€and€the€Defendant,€and€then€outside€the€presence€of€the€jury€theÏDefendantððs€attorney€asked€the€State€to€show€a€ð ðnon„discriminatory€reason€forÏhaving€excused€this€juror.ðð€€The€prosecutor€responded:€ÌÓÓà0 àThe€reason€that€she€was€excused,€your€Honor,€was€because€of€herÏaddress.€€Itððs€a€known€drug€area.€€I€asked€the€police€officer.€€He€said€thatÏbecause€of€the€area€that€she€lived€in,€that€it€was€a€drug€area,€and€heÏrecommended€that€we€excuse€her.€€I€concurred€in€that.ÌÌÓÓThe€trial€judge€noted€the€defense€objection€for€the€record,€without€ruling€onÏwhether€or€not€he€found€the€reason€was€ð ðnon„discriminatory,ðð€and€the€first€witnessÏwas€called.Ìà àThe€Defendant€now€objects€to€the€excusal€of€the€black€juror.€€This€issue€wasÏwaived€by€Defendant€when€he€failed€to€object€at€the€time€of€the€exercise€of€theÍperemptory€challenge,€or€at€least€prior€to€the€swearing€of€the€jury.€€€ð ðTheÏappropriate€time€for€[a€òòBatsonóó€objection]€is€prior€to€the€acceptance€and€swearing€inÏof€the€jury.€After€a€party€has€assured€the€court€that€the€jury€as€impaneled€isÏacceptable,€that€party€will€not€be€heard€to€complain€of€the€makeup€of€the€juryÏpanel.€This€issue,€based€upon€a€motion€not€timely€made,€is€overruled.ðð€€òòState€v.ÏPeckóó,€719€S.W.2d€553,€555€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€òòSee€alsoóó€T.R.A.P.€36(a).€ÏFurthermore,€even€if€this€issue€had€not€been€œwaived,›€this€Court€finds€it€to€beÏwithout€merit.€€The€trial€judge,€in€his€written€order€overruling€the€Motion€for€NewÏTrial,€found€thatÌÓÓà0 à[the€juror]€was€peremptorily€challenged€by€the€state.€€Following€[the€jurorððs]Ïchallenge€and€excusal,€another€juror€was€seated€and€accepted€by€the€StateÏand€Defendant.€€Following€this,€two€alternate€jurors€were€accepted€by€theÏState€and€Defendant.€€Thereafter,€the€indictment€was€read€and€both€counselÏmade€opening€statements,€following€which€a€recess€was€declared.Ìà0 àà àDuring€the€recess,€Defendantððs€attorney,€for€the€first€time,€raised€anÏobjection€to€the€Stateððs€peremptory€challenge€of€[the€juror].€€Stateððs€counselÏresponded€that€his€challenge€of€[the€juror]€was€based€upon€the€prosecutingÏofficer€advising€him€that€[the€jurorððs]€address€was€in€a€known€drug€area€ofÏthe€city.€€No€mention€was€made€as€to€whether€said€area€was€predominatelyÏblack.Ìà0 àà àBased€on€the€Stateððs€representation,€it€is€the€Courtððs€finding€that€theÏStateððs€explanation€did€not€raise€the€specter€of€being€racially€based€orÏmotivated,€but€instead€was€racially€neutral.ÌÌÓÓThe€trial€judge€accepted€the€explanation€of€the€State.€€We€cannot€substitute€ourÏjudgment€for€that€of€the€trial€court€or€declare€error€absent€a€finding€that€the€trialÏjudge€abused€his€discretion.€€òòState€v.€œMelsonóó›,€638€S.W.2d€342,€œ347€(Tenn.1982).›€ÏThe€reason€given€by€the€State€was€sufficient,€and€we€find€no€abuse€of€discretion.€€ÌÓÓà0 àThe€explanation€need€not€be€persuasive€nor€plausible.€So€long€asÏdiscrimination€was€not€inherent€in€the€explanation,€the€reason€will€beÏaccepted€as€race€neutral.€What€is€meant€[in€òòBatsonóó]€by€a€'legitimate€reason'Ïis€not€a€reason€that€makes€sense,€but€a€reason€that€does€not€deny€equalÍprotection.ÌÌÓÓòòWoodson€v.€Porter€Brown€Limestone€Co.óó,€916€S.W.2d€896€(Tenn.€1996)€,€òòcitingóóÏòòœPurkett›€v.€œElem›óó,€œ514€U.S.›€at€òò€€€œ€›€óó,€115€S.€Ct.€at€œ1771(1995),›€œand›€òòœHernandez›€v.€NewÏYorkóó,€500€U.S.€352,€359,€œ111›€S.€Ct.€1859€(1991).€€Ìò òÓ  ÓÌFAILURE€TO€DISCLOSE€PLEA€BARGAIN€AGREEMENTó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€defendant€next€complains€that€the€State€had€reached€a€plea€bargainÏagreement€with€Mary€Ann€Clingan,€offering€her€a€deal€in€exchange€for€herÏtestimony,€but€did€not€disclose€the€terms€of€the€agreement€to€Defendant€so€it€couldÏbe€used€against€her€in€cross„examination€to€show€bias.€€At€a€pretrial€hearing,ÏDefendantððs€attorney€produced€an€affidavit€filed€by€Wayne€Carter,€œMs.€Clinganððs›Ïassistant€Public€Defender€on€œcharges›€in€Bradley€County,€which€stated€that€ð ð[œa]s›Ïpart€of€the€consideration€for€the€agreement€the€government€has€offered€MaryÏClingan€(and€to€which€she€has€tentatively€accepted),€Mary€Clingan€has€agreed€toÏtestify€truthfully€in€open€court€concerning€several€matters€to€which€she€may€haveÏbeen€involved....€€One€of€the€matters€to€which€she€may€be€called€to€testify€concernsÏthe€alleged€robbery€of€a€gas€station€in€Monroe€County,€Tennessee.ðð€€AnotherÏaffidavit€from€the€Defendantððs€former€assistant€Public€Defender,€Thomas€œKimball›,Ïin€support€of€his€motion€to€withdraw,€stated€that€Ms.€Clinganððs€attorney€told€him€thatÏshe€was€never€charged€in€Defendantððs€case€because€of€the€plea€bargain.€€TheÏState€insisted€at€the€hearing€that€it€knew€of€no€such€bargain.€€The€trial€judge€ruledÏthat€he€had€no€reason€to€question€the€Stateððs€integrity,€and€refused€to€order€themÏto€furnish€the€Defendant€something€they€didnððt€know€anything€about.Ìà àOur€Supreme€Court€œhas€held›€in€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908,€œ924›€(Tenn.Ï1994)€that€an€accused€has€a€right€to€explore€on€cross„examination€promises€ofÏleniency€to€a€prosecution€witness€to€show€a€motive€for€testifying€falsely€for€theÏœState,€and€that€undue›€restriction€of€this€right€may€sometimes€violate€a€defendant'sÏright€to€confrontation.€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòDelaware€v.€œVanArsdall›óó,€475€U.S.€673,€106€S.Ct.Ïœ1431›€œ(1986),€and›€Cohen,€Paine€and€œSheppeard›,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€ððÏ616.3€(2nd€ed.€1990).€However,€there€is€no€proof€in€the€record,€other€than€theÏaffidavits,€that€there€ever€was€such€a€plea€bargain.€€œMs.€Clinganððs€attorney›€was€notÏcalled€as€a€witness€at€the€hearing€or€at€the€trial.€€€The€duty€of€the€State€to€discloseÏunder€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83,€83€S.Ct.€1194€(1963),€does€not€extend€toÏinformation€that€the€defense€already€possesses€or€is€able€to€obtain,€or€toÏinformation€not€in€the€possession€or€control€of€the€prosecution.€€òòState€v.€Woodenóó,Ï898€S.W.2d€œ752,€755›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€œFurthermore,›€the€trial€judge€did€notÏrestrict€the€defense€in€any€way€from€exploring€the€bias€of€Ms.€Clingan.€€She€wasÏthoroughly€cross„examined€by€Defendantððs€attorney€about€a€possible€plea€bargainÏagreement,€and€was€confronted€with€the€above„mentioned€affidavits,€which€wereÏread€to€her€in€front€of€the€jury.€€She€denied€under€oath€the€existence€of€anyÏagreement,€and€insisted€that€she€had€been€charged€with€Accessory€after€the€FactÏto€the€Defendantððs€robbery,€which€charge€was€still€pending€at€the€time€of€the€trial.€ÏIn€support€of€her€testimony€is€a€copy€in€the€record€of€Ms.€Clinganððs€judgment€ofÏconviction€for€Accessory€after€the€Fact,€offered€as€an€exhibit€at€DefendantððsÏsentencing€hearing,€for€which€Ms.€Clingan€received€a€one€year€suspendedÏsentence.€€There€being€no€proof€the€State€has€done€anything€improper,€or€that€theÍDefendant€was€at€all€prejudiced€in€its€cross„examination€of€this€witness,€this€issueÏhas€no€merit.ÌÌœò òÓ  ÓSUGGESTIVENESS›€OF€THE€PHOTOGRAPHIC€LINE„UPó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant€moved€to€suppress€the€photographic€line„up€given€the€twoÏvictims€of€the€robbery€by€Officer€Long,€on€the€basis€that€in€his€opinion€theÏDefendantððs€face€appeared€larger€in€his€photo€than€in€the€other€five€photos,€whichÏmight€have€been€unduly€suggestive.€€After€a€pretrial€hearing€on€the€motion,€the€trialÏjudge€found€ð ðabsolutely€nothing€suggestive€about€that€photographic€line„up,ðð€andÏdenied€the€motion€to€suppress.€€€This€Court€has€likewise€examined€the€photo€line„up,€and€finds€that€although€two€photos,€one€being€that€of€Defendant,€wereÏapparently€taken€at€a€closer€distance€than€the€other€four,€making€the€faces€of€thoseÏtwo€subjects€appear€slightly€larger,€all€six€photos,€showing€white€males€withÏmoustaches€and€long€dark€hair,€are€remarkably€similar€in€appearance.€€The€line„up€does€not€appear€to€suggest€any€one€photo€over€another.€€The€difference€inÏœfacial€size›€was€explained€by€Officer€Long€in€the€suppression€hearing€as€œa›Ïconsequence€of€his€department€œnow€having›€to€œuse›€a€new€hand„held€camera,Ïinstead€of€the€old€one€that€was€mounted€on€a€stand.€€Ìà àA€trial€court's€finding€that€the€identification€procedure€was€not€suggestive€isÏconclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.€ÏòòState€v.€Davisóó,€872€S.W.2d€950,€955€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Due€process€isÏviolated€only€if,€under€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€òòœStovall›€v.€œDenno›óó,€388€U.S.Ï293,€87€S.Ct.€1967€(1967),€the€identification€procedure€is€found€to€be€soÍsuggestive€as€to€give€rise€to€"a€very€substantial€likelihood€of€irreparableÏmisidentification,"€òòœSimmons›€v.€United€Statesóó,€390€U.S.€377,€88€S.Ct.€967€(1968),Ïwhich€was€not€the€case€with€the€line„up€used€here.€€The€trial€court€did€not€err€inÏdenying€the€motion€to€suppress.€ÌÌà àFor€the€above€reasons€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àóóCHRIS€CRAFT,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÌœÌÌÌÌÌ›