WPC yZL%<0#vaǫ)J d葑YK@(+&"C罒G 7g$QJ>X]GwX-2%0h}YpVyPbKNTÛ0EtX ! 8>o@XMlBAn*/yÒZ5nM!%a8 R8I%M]*NðAE2?I47*&? ]T[݌^froCj Ir,#a (Ž2:eMn}z^ g{K,qxE%Oif{jKEAv"~q3|9xpb`[BzSؗKF,<]ͻq>@7 ~ة (#J XJD϶Dx:639 @* Analysis    ` Inhissoleissueonappeal,theappellantcontendsthat,whentestedagainst   thereasonabledoubtstandard,theevidenceisinsufficienttosupportthe l d convictionsreturnedbythejury.Specifically,theappellantcontendsthatallofthe 80 evidenceagainsthimiscircumstantialandthatnovictimcouldidentifyhimasthe   perpetratorpriortohisbeingplacedinpolicecustody.Moreover,theappellant   assertsthatthetestimonyofOfficerCook,thesolewitnesswhocouldidentifythe   appellantastheperpetratorwieldingthepistol,isinherentlyuntrustworthy.In h` supportofthisallegation,heassertsthat,ifthesuspectwassquattingdownbehind 4, athreefootpartitionasOfficerCooktestified,Cookwouldnothavebeenableto  clearlyidentifywhohadthemaskandgun.Accordingly,hearguesthatthephysical  obstructionstoOfficerCooksidentificationoftheappellantmaketheidentification  inherentlysuspect. d\  ` Althoughadefendantisinitiallycloakedwiththepresumptionofinnocence, ! Statev.Tuggle,639S.W.2d913,914(Tenn.1982),ajuryconvictionremovesthis #  presumptionofinnocenceandreplacesitwithoneofguilt,sothatonappeala %" convicteddefendanthastheburdenofdemonstratingthattheevidenceis `'X $ insufficient.Id.Indeterminingthesufficiencyoftheevidence,thiscourtdoesnot ,)$"& reweighorreevaluatetheevidence.Statev.Cabbage,571S.W.2d832,835(Tenn. *#( 1978).Onappeal,theStateisentitledtothestrongestlegitimateviewofthe ,%* evidenceandalllegitimateorreasonableinferenceswhichmaybedrawntherefrom. .', Statev.Harris,839S.W.2d54,75(Tenn.1992).Itistheappellatecourt'sdutyto \0T). affirmtheconvictioniftheevidenceviewedunderthesestandardswassufficientfor (2 +0 anyrationaltrieroffacttohavefoundtheessentialelementsoftheoffensebeyond 3,2 areasonabledoubt.Jacksonv.Virginia,443U.S.307,317,99S.Ct.2781,2789 5.4 (1979);Statev.Cazes,875S.W.2d253,259(Tenn.1994);Tenn.R.App.P.13(e). 706 Thisruleisapplicabletofindingsofguiltpredicatedupondirectevidence, X9P28 circumstantialevidence,oracombinationofbothdirectandcircumstantialevidence.  Statev.Matthews,805S.W.2d776,779(Tenn.Crim.App.1990).   ` Initially,weagreewiththeStatespositionthatthepresentcasedoesnotrely l d solelyuponcircumstantialevidencetosupporttheconvictions.Indeed,Officer 80 Cookstestimonythatheobservedtheappellantwiththemaskandtheweaponis   directevidenceoftheappellantsinvolvementinthepresentoffenses.Accordingly,   thisargumentiswithoutmerit.    ` Finally,theappellantattacksthereliabilityofOfficerCooksidentificationof 4, theappellant.Thethrustoftheappellantsargumentfocusesuponthe proverbially  untrustworthyidentificationofstrangers.SeeUnitedStatesv.Wade,388U.S.  218,87S.Ct.1926(1967).Oursupremecourtspecificallyaddressedthese  concernsinStatev.Dyle,899S.W.2d607,609(Tenn.1995).Thecourt d\ acknowledgedthatthe accuracyofeyewitnesstestimonyisaffectedbytheusual 0 ( universalfallibilitiesofhumansenseperceptionandmemory.Dyle,899S.W.2dat ! 612. Thisphenomenon,whichcouldobviouslyaffectotherformsofevidencealso, #  ispotentializedbythefactthatthistestimonyispronetomanyoutsideinfluences %" (policeinterrogations,lineups,etc.)andisoftendecisive.Id.(citationomitted). `'X $ Thus,toaccountfortheseprejudicialinfluencesonaneyewitnessidentification,the ,)$"& courtpromulgatedapatternjuryinstructiononidentityinstructingthejuryto *#( considerseveralfactorsbeforeassessingtheweighttobegiventoawitnesss ,%* identificationofadefendant.SeeDyle,899S.W.2dat612(factorstobe .', consideredinclude:witnessscapacityandopportunitytoobservetheoffender;the \0T). degreeofcertaintyexpressedbythewitnessregardingtheidentification;the (2 +0 occasionsonwhichthewitnessfailedtomakeanidentificationofthewitness;and 3,2 theoccasionsonwhichthewitnessmadeanidentificationthatwasconsistentwith 5.4 theidentificationattrial).TheDyleinstructionwasprovidedinthepresentcase. 706  X9P28  ` OfficerCookhadareasonableopportunitytoidentifytheappellantasthe  perpetratorwhenheenteredthediningareaoftherestaurant.OfficerCook  discoveredapistolintheappellantspants,askimask,andapairofglovesinthe   appellantspossessionuponapproachinghimattherestauranttable.OfficerCook l d neverhesitatedinhisidentificationoftheappellantandatnopointdidOfficerCook 80 misidentifyorfailtoidentifytheappellantastheperpetrator.Thecredibletestimony   ofoneidentificationwitnessissufficienttosupportaconvictionifthewitnesses   viewedtheaccusedundersuchcircumstancesaswouldpermitapositive   identificationtobemade.SeeStatev.Strickland,885S.W.2d85,8788(Tenn. h` Crim.App.1993).Moreover,itwaswithintheprerogativeofthejurytoassessthe 4, credibilityofOfficerCook.SeeStatev.Adkins,786S.W.2d642,646(Tenn.1990);  Statev.Burlison,868S.W.2d713,718-19(Tenn.Crim.App.1993);Matthews,805  S.W.2dat779.   ` ViewingtheevidenceinalightmostfavorabletotheState,weconcludethat 0 ( theevidenceismorethansufficienttosupporttheappellantsconvictions.Tenn.R. ! App.P.13(e).Theproofisundisputedthattheappellant,throughtheuseofa #  deadlyweapon,orderedJesseHoltandJulianWilliamsontothefloorwhilehisco %" defendant,armedwithaweapon,forciblyobtainedfromMablineThompsonasum `'X $ ofmoneybeingthecontentsofbothacashregisterandthestoresafe.SeeTenn. ,)$"& CodeAnn.3913402(a)(1)(1997);Tenn.CodeAnn.3911402(2)(1997); *#( Tenn.CodeAnn.3913102(a)(1)(B)(1997).Thisissueiswithoutmerit. ,%*  ` Accordingly,thejudgmentsofconvictionenteredbythetrialcourtare \0T). affirmed. (2 +0  X9P28 Ї `     h   ____________________________________ 80  `     h   DAVIDG.HAYES,Judge   CONCUR:   ____________________________________________ 4, JOEG.RILEY,Judge  ____________________________________________  THOMAST.WOODALL,Judge     p      x