ÿWPCà@ …UBV %˜U.ž 0CÌ 0J 0TY 0^­ nX 04s 4§ 0¿» U:z 0h´ 0r 0|Ž 0† 0 1u U,• 0dÁU,%U6QB)‡°DC° Bów AM ÿmýl i D3‰$¼¹à 0@™ Ùù!!¥6"Û#é$ø%7'<?(û{)Av*ü·+³,ûÃ-d¾.]"0|1ïû5v~ê7vÓh9 AO;?ÆŠ? 0DP@ D/”@ BÃ@<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô#|xq«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP( ¤T$¡¡Ó  ÓS‚k `ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿ(o(2¡$¤¤Ý ƒ ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  ÓÔ€XŠŸXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular26 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`(Courier New% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd deÓ€q€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ õÝ ƒ !ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òMarch€13,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó óÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€bank€deposit€totaled€approximately€$4,700.Ì Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóRandolph€testified€that€her€motor€vehicle€was€worth€between€$12,000€and€Ï$13,000.Ì$$$$'ÿÿdxd Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€deposit€consisted€of€cash,€checks,€and€food€stamps€totaling€approximatelyÏ$2,600.Ì ¯Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„105(4)€provides€that€the€theft€of€property€is€"[a]€ClassÏC€felony€if€the€value€of€the€property€or€services€obtained€is€ten€thousand€dollarsÏ($10,000)€or€more€but€less€than€sixty€thousand€dollars€($60,000)."€Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò  Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝSeveral€cases€have€dealt€with€compelling€a€suspect€or€an€accused€to€give€anÏexemplar€or€sample€during€the€investigative€process:€€òòUnited€States€v.€Maraóó,€410€U.S.Ï19,€93€S.Ct.€774,€35€L.Ed.2d€774€(1973)€(handwriting€exemplar);€òòUnited€States€v.ÏDionisioóó,€410€U.S.€1,€93€S.Ct.€764,€35€L.Ed.2d€67€(1973)€(voice€exemplar);€òòBiggers€v.ÏTennesseeóó,€390€U.S.€404,€88€S.Ct.€979,€19€L.Ed.2d€1267€(1968)€(voice€exemplar);ÏòòUnited€States€v.€Wadeóó,€388€U.S.€218,€87€S.Ct.€1926,€18€L.Ed.2d€1149€(1967)Ï(appearance€in€a€lineup€and€voice€exemplar);€òòSchmerber€v.€Californiaóó,€384€U.S.€757,Ï86€S.Ct.€1826,€16€L.Ed.2d€908€(1966)€(blood€sample);€òòHolt€v.€United€Statesóó,€218€U.S.Ï245,€31€S.Ct.€2,€54€L.Ed.€102€(1910)€(required€to€wear€clothing);€òòLucero€v.€Gunteróó,€17ÏF.3d€1347€(10th€Cir.€1994)€(urine€sample);€òòState€v.€Jacksonóó,€889€S.W.2d€€219,€222Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994)€(hair€sample);€€òòState€v.€Meeksóó,Ï867€S.W.2d€361,€376€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€òò€€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€114€S.Ct.€1200,Ï127€L.Ed.2d€548€(1994)€(voice€exemplar);€òòState€v.€Gilbertóó,€751€S.W.2d€454,€458„59Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1988)€(performance€of€field€sobriety€tests);ÏòòState€v.€McAlisteróó,€751€S.W.2d€436,€440€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1988)€(samples€of€hair€and€body€fluids);€òòState€v.€Mabonóó,€648€S.W.2d€271,€275Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1983)€(submit€to€x„ray);€òòTrail€v.€Stateóó,Ï526€S.W.2d€127,€129€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1975)€(performance€ofÏfield€sobriety€tests);€òòPowell€v.€Stateóó,€489€S.W.2d€538,€540„41€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1972),Ïòòcertóó.€òòdenied,óó€(Tenn.€1973)€(appearance€in€a€lineup);€òòBarrett€v.€Stateóó,€190€Tenn.€366,Ï229€S.W.2d€516€(1950)€(required€to€wear€hat);€and€òòState€v.€Stanley€Richard€Walkeróó,ÏBenton€County€No.€02„C„01„9411„CC„00258€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€May€10,Ï1995)€(performance€of€field€sobriety€tests).€Ì Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý384€U.S.€757,€86€S.Ct.€1826,€16€L.Ed.2d€908€(1966).Ì Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý384€U.S.€at€763„64,€86€S.Ct.€at€1832,€16€L.Ed.2d€at€916.Ì ›Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý3€Wharton's€òòCriminal€Evidenceóó€ðð585,€at€426„29€(14th€ed.€1987)€(An€earlierÏversion€is€cited€with€approval€in€òòState€v.€Rodriguezóó,€752€S.W.2d€108,€112€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1988)).Ì Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý191€Tenn.€259,€231€S.W.2d€707€(1950).Ì Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý191€Tenn.€at€273,€231€S.W.2d€at€713.€€Ì Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý191€Tenn.€at€273„74,€231€S.W.2d€at€713.Ì -Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý479€S.W.2d€656,€658€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1972).Ì 2Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý623€S.W.2d€638€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1981).Ì ñÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý623€S.W.2d€at€641.Ì 7Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý691€S.W.2d€566€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1985).Ì òÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý691€S.W.2d€at€569.€Ì Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý752€S.W.2d€108€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).Ì ñÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý752€S.W.2d€at€113.Ì ZÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Milleróó,€737€S.W.2d€556,€560€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1987).€€Ì SÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Farmeróó,€841€S.W.2d€837€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1992).Ì rÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Goadóó,€692€S.W.2d€32,€37€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1985)€(prior€conviction€for€armed€robbery€admissible€to€impeach€the€accused€inÏa€prosecution€for€armed€robbery);€òòState€v.€Norrisóó,€684€S.W.2d€650,€654€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1984),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1985)€(prior€conviction€for€armed€robberyÏadmissible€to€impeach€the€accused€in€a€prosecution€for€murder€first€degree€and€armedÏrobbery);€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€649€S.W.2d€12,€13„14€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.Ïòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1983)€(prior€conviction€for€bank€robbery€admissible€to€impeach€theÏaccused€in€a€prosecution€for€bank€robbery);€òòState€v.€Fluellenóó,€626€S.W.2d€299,€300Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1981)€(prior€conviction€for€armed€robbery€Ïadmissible€to€impeach€the€accused€in€a€prosecution€for€aggravated€rape).€Ì åÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòState€v.€Smithóó,€891€S.W.2d€922,€931€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1994);€€òòState€v.€Meeksóó,€867€S.W.2d€361,€377€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€òòcertóó.Ïòòdeniedóó,€_____€U.S.€_____,€114€S.Ct.€1200,€127€L.Ed.2d€548€(1994).ÌPtPtHHÚ(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€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÙ€€ÙßL€&'";+'h|gÿm` Å `€€LßAT€JACKSONÌÌOCTOBER€1995€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà à€€APPELLEE,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àNo.€02„C„01„9504„CR„00111Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àShelby€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àW.€Fred€Axley,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà à(Aggravated€Robbery)ÌBRUCE€C.€RELIFORD,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àAPPELLANT.à à)ÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌW.€Mark€Wardà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ147€Jefferson€Avenue,€Suite€900à àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌMemphis,€TN€38103à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0485Ì(Appeal€Only)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àEllen€H.€PollackÌCarolyn€S.€Watkinsà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€2„01à àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0485ÌMemphis,€TN€38103Ì(Trial€Only)à àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€W.€€PierottiÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌBertha€T.€Chingà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€300ÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38103Ì201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€2„01à àà àà àÌMemphis,€TN€38103à àà àà àà àJames€M.€Lammey,€Jr.Ì(Trial€Only)à àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€300ÌOF€COUNSEL:à àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38103ÌÌA€C€Wharton,€Jr.ÌShelby€County€Public€DefenderÌ201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€2„01ÌMemphis,€TN€38103ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:______________________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€IN€PART,€MODIFIED€IN€PART,€AND€REMANDED€FOR€RESENTENCINGÌÌJoe€B.€Jones,€JudgeÌÌÑ7€ŠŸXXdæXXdÈ7ÑÓ  Óò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Bruce€C.€Reliford,€was€convicted€of€three€(3)€counts€ofÏaggravated€robbery,€a€Class€B€felony,€by€a€jury€of€his€peers.€€The€trial€court€found€thatÏthe€appellant€was€a€standard€offender€and€imposed€the€following€Range€I€sentences:Ìà àa)€€Indictment€number€93„06435,€a€fine€of€$5,000€and€confinement€for€twelveÏ(12)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction;Ìà àb)€€Indictment€number€93„06436,€a€fine€of€$4,000€and€confinement€for€twelveÏ(12)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction;€andÌà àc)€€Indictment€number€94„02500,€a€fine€of€$4,000€and€confinement€for€twelveÏ(12)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.ÌThe€sentences€are€to€be€served€consecutively.€€Thus,€the€effective€sentence€imposedÏwas€fines€totaling€$13,000€and€confinement€for€thirty„six€(36)€years.Ìà àSeveral€issues€are€presented€for€review.€€The€appellant€contends€that€theÏevidence€contained€in€the€record€is€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€to€support€a€findingÍby€a€rational€trier€of€fact€that€he€was€guilty€of€three€counts€of€aggravated€robberyÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€He€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€committed€error€ofÏprejudicial€dimensions€by€(a)€denying€his€motion€to€suppress€identification€evidence,Ï(b)€forcibly€bringing€him€into€the€courtroom€during€the€course€of€the€trial,€(c)€ruling€thatÏhis€convictions€for€carjacking€and€€robbery€could€be€used€to€impeach€him€if€he€testifiedÏin€support€of€his€defense,€and€(d)€imposing€sentences€that€are€excessive.€€He€furtherÏcontends€this€his€constitutional€rights€to€due€process€and€equal€protection€wereÏviolated€because€the€state€failed€to€preserve€the€photographs€that€were€included€in€anÏarray€of€photographs€presented€to€the€witnesses.Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€part,€modified€in€part,€and€Ïremanded€to€the€trial€court€for€resentencing.€€The€conviction€in€indictment€93„06435€isÏaffirmed.€€The€conviction€for€aggravated€robbery€in€indictment€93„06436€is€modified€byÏreducing€the€conviction€to€robbery.€€The€conviction€for€aggravated€robbery€inÏindictment€94„02500€is€modified€by€reducing€the€conviction€to€theft€over€$10,000.Ìà àThe€victims€in€these€cases€were€employees€of€two€separate€Circle€KÏconvenience€stores€located€at€4673€Millbranch€Road€and€2006€Shelby€Drive,€both€inÏMemphis,€Tennessee.€€The€robberies€occurred€when€the€employees€went€to€a€nearbyÏbank€to€make€a€deposit.€€On€both€occasions€the€bank€was€closed.€€The€deposit€was€toÏbe€placed€in€the€"night€deposit"€slot€at€the€bank.Ìà àBarbara€Randolph€from€the€Millbranch€Road€store€attempted€to€make€a€deposit× ƒ( ××  ×€Ïon€the€afternoon€of€January€12,€1992.€€As€she€approached€the€bank,€the€appellantÏopened€his€jacket,€showed€Randolph€that€he€had€a€pistol,€and€stated:€€"Give€me€yourÍbag€and€give€me€your€[car]€keys."€€Randolph€complied€with€this€command.€€TheÏappellant€then€told€Randolph€to€get€into€her€car.€€Since€she€was€fearful€that€theÏappellant€would€hurt€her,€she€complied€with€this€command€as€well.€€The€appellantÏdrove€Randolph€to€a€residential€neighborhood,€told€her€to€exit€the€vehicle,€and€droveÏaway.× ƒ) ××  ×€€Her€motor€vehicle€was€subsequently€recovered€by€the€Memphis€PoliceÏDepartment.Ìà àMary€Adams€of€the€Shelby€Drive€store€attempted€to€make€a€deposit× ƒ+ ××  ×€on€theÏafternoon€of€April€12,€1992.€€Randolph€followed€Adams€to€the€bank€in€a€separateÏvehicle€for€safety€reasons.€€The€appellant€arrived€at€the€bank€moments€after€AdamsÏand€Randolph.€€When€he€exited€his€vehicle,€he€started€walking€towards€Adams.€€As€heÏpassed€Randolph,€he€said:€€"Hi."€€Randolph€immediately€recognized€the€appellant€asÏthe€person€who€had€robbed€her€in€January.€€She€told€the€appellant:€€"Don't€touch€me.€ÏDon't€do€anything€to€me."Ìà àThe€appellant€told€Adams€to€"[g]ive€me€the€money."€€Adams€told€the€appellantÏthat€she€did€not€have€any€money.€€He€then€told€Adams:€€"If€you€don't€give€me€theÏmoney,€I€will€blow€your€damn€head€off."€€Adams€took€the€deposit€from€under€her€shirtÏand€threw€it.€€The€deposit€bag€landed€in€Randolph's€vehicle.€€The€appellant€enteredÏthe€vehicle€and€drove€away.Ìà àBoth€Randolph€and€Adams€identified€the€appellant€from€an€array€ofÍphotographs€on€two€separate€occasions.€€Randolph€also€made€a€courtroomÏidentification€of€the€appellant€during€her€testimony.€€The€appellant,€who€had€opted€toÏremain€outside€the€courtroom,€was€not€inside€the€courtroom€when€Adams€testified.€ÏAlthough€the€state€requested€that€the€court€require€the€appellant€to€come€into€theÏcourtroom€so€that€Adams€could€view€him,€the€court€denied€the€request.ÌÌÓ  Óò òI.ÌÓ  Óó óÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€is€insufficientÏto€sustain€his€convictions.€€He€argues€that€the€evidence€of€his€identity€as€the€personÏwho€committed€these€crimes€was€insufficient.€€He€also€contends€that€the€state€failed€toÏestablish€that€he€possessed€a€pistol€or€other€dangerous€weapon€when€he€committedÏthe€April€12,€1992€robberies.€€€The€state€argues€that€the€identification€evidence€wasÏsufficient€to€support€the€convictions.€€However,€the€state€concedes€that€the€evidence€isÏinsufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€€to€support€two€of€the€appellant's€convictions€forÏaggravated€robbery€and€states€these€two€convictions€should€be€reduced€to€robbery.ÌÌÓ  Óò òA.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€thisÏCourt€must€review€the€record€to€determine€if€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial€is€sufficientÏ"to€support€the€finding€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€13(e).€€This€rule€is€applicable€to€findings€of€guilt€based€upon€direct€evidence,Ícircumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòStateÏv.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€253€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990).Ìà àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€Court€does€notÏreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990).€€Nor€may€this€Court€substitute€itsÏinferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.ÏStateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859,€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€352€U.S.€845,€77€S.Ct.Ï39,€1€L.Ed.2d€49€(1956).€€To€the€contrary,€this€Court€is€required€to€afford€the€State€ofÏTennessee€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€asÏwell€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€theÏevidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).Ìà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€toÏbe€given€to€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€Court.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€In€òòState€v.ÏGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973),€our€Supreme€Court€said:€€"A€guilty€verdictÏby€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€theÏState€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€theory€of€the€State."Ìà àSince€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€itÏwith€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused,€as€the€appellant,€has€the€burden€in€this€CourtÏof€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdicts€returned€by€theÏtrier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€This€Court€will€notÏdisturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€due€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€unless€the€factsÏcontained€in€the€record€and€any€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€facts€areÍinsufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€accused€is€guiltyÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914.ÌÌÓ  Óò òB.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€offense€of€"robbery"€is€defined€as€"the€intentional€or€knowing€theft€ofÏproperty€from€the€person€of€another€by€violence€or€putting€the€person€in€fear."€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€€ðð€39„13„401(a).€€The€offense€of€robbery€is€a€Class€C€felony.Ìà àThe€offense€of€"aggravated€robbery"€is€defined€as€a€robbery€"(1)€[a]ccomplishedÏwith€a€deadly€weapon€or€by€display€of€any€article€used€or€fashioned€to€lead€the€victimÏto€reasonably€believe€it€to€be€a€deadly€weapon;€or€(2)€[w]here€the€victim€suffers€seriousÏbodily€injury."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„402(a).€€Since€neither€Randolph€nor€AdamsÏsuffered€"serious€injury"€within€the€meaning€of€this€statute,€the€state's€case€must€rise€orÏfall€on€whether€the€offense€was€accomplished€by€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon,€theÏdisplay€of€an€article€that€could€be€used€as€a€deadly€weapon,€or€the€display€of€an€articleÏfashioned€to€lead€the€victim€to€believe€it€was€a€deadly€weapon.€€Aggravated€robbery€isÏa€Class€B€felony.Ìà àA€person€commits€the€offense€of€"theft"€"if,€with€intent€to€deprive€the€owner€ofÏproperty,€the€person€knowingly€obtains€or€exercises€control€over€the€property€withoutÏthe€owner's€effective€consent."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„103.€€In€other€words,€aÏperson€commits€theft€if€he€(a)€knowingly€obtains€the€property€of€another,€(b)€intends€toÏdeprive€the€owner€of€the€property,€and€(c)€the€property€is€obtained€without€theÏpermission€of€the€owner.€€A€person€also€commits€the€offense€of€theft€if€he€(a)€knowinglyÍexercises€control€over€the€property€of€another,€(b)€intends€to€deprive€the€owner€of€theÏproperty,€and€(c)€obtains€the€property€without€the€permission€of€the€owner.€€€ÌÌÓ  Óò ò(1)ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àIn€this€case,€the€evidence€of€the€appellant's€guilt€of€the€January€12,€1992Ïoffense€is€overwhelming.€€The€appellant€approached€Randolph,€opened€his€coat€soÏshe€could€see€that€he€was€armed€with€a€pistol,€and€took€the€bank€deposit€bag€and€herÏmotor€vehicle.€€On€three€separate€occasions,€Randolph€identified€the€appellant€as€theÏperson€who€robbed€her.€€In€other€words,€the€evidence€is€clearly€sufficient€to€support€theÏfinding€of€the€jury€that€the€appellant€was€guilty€of€aggravated€robbery€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99ÏS.Ct.€2781,€2789,€61€L.Ed.2d€560,€573€(1979).ÌÌÓ  Óò ò(2)ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€state€has€correctly€conceded€that€the€appellant€should€not€have€beenÏconvicted€of€two€counts€of€aggravated€robbery€for€the€offenses€committed€on€April€12,Ï1992.€€This€Court€agrees€that€the€offense€committed€against€Adams€should€be€reducedÏto€simple€robbery.€€However,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€the€offense€committedÏagainst€Randolph€on€this€date€constituted€theft€not€robbery.Ìà àNeither€Randolph€nor€Adams€testified€that€the€appellant€used€or€exhibited€aÏdangerous€weapon.€€The€appellant€simply€said€"Hi"€to€Randolph€as€he€walked€pastÍher.€€He€told€Adams€to€"give€me€the€money."€€When€she€stated€that€she€did€not€haveÏany€money,€the€appellant€told€Adams:€€"If€you€don't€give€me€the€money,€I€will€blow€yourÏdamn€head€off."€€However,€the€record€is€devoid€of€evidence€that€the€appellant€had€theÏcapability€of€harming€Adams€with€a€dangerous€weapon.€€The€appellant€"scuffled"€withÏAdams€before€Adams€threw€the€deposit€bag€into€Randolph's€motor€vehicle.€ÏFurthermore,€Adams€positively€identified€the€appellant€as€the€person€who€robbed€herÏon€April€12th.€€In€short,€these€facts€would€support€a€finding€by€a€rational€€trier€of€fact€thatÏthe€appellant€was€guilty€of€robbery€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ï13(e);€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€òòsupraóó.Ìà àRandolph€was€standing€outside€of€her€motor€vehicle€while€Adams€and€theÏappellant€scuffled.€€She€apparently€left€her€car€keys€in€the€ignition.€€When€Adams€threwÏthe€deposit€bag€into€Randolph's€vehicle,€the€appellant€got€inside€the€vehicle€and€droveÏaway.€€The€appellant€did€not€approach€Randolph€or€make€any€statement€to€her€otherÏthan€the€initial€"Hi."€€In€short,€the€record€is€devoid€of€evidence€that€the€appellant€stoleÏthe€vehicle€"by€violence€or€putting€[Randolph]€in€fear,"€an€essential€element€of€robbery.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„401.€€€However,€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€wouldÏsupport€a€conviction€of€theft€over€the€value€of€$10,000,€a€Class€C€felony.× ƒ, ××  ×€€TheÏappellant€knowingly€obtained€possession€of€Randolph's€vehicle,€he€intended€toÏdeprive€Randolph€of€her€vehicle,€and€he€took€the€vehicle€without€her€permission.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„103.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€òòsupraóó.Ìà àÌÓ  Óò òC.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àIn€summary,€the€appellant's€conviction€for€aggravated€robbery€in€indictmentÏnumber€93„06435€is€affirmed.€€The€evidence€is€clearly€sufficient€to€support€hisÏconviction€of€this€offense.Ìà àThe€appellant's€conviction€for€aggravated€robbery€in€indictment€number€93„06436€is€not€supported€by€the€evidence€for€the€reasons€hereinabove€stated.€€However,Ïthe€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€for€the€lesser€included€offense€ofÏrobbery.€€Therefore,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€in€this€case€is€modified€to€show€aÏconviction€for€robbery.Ìà àThe€appellant's€conviction€for€aggravated€robbery€in€indictment€number€94„02500€also€is€not€supported€by€the€evidence€for€the€reasons€hereinabove€stated.€ÏHowever,€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€for€the€lesser€includedÏoffense€of€theft.€€Therefore,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€in€this€case€is€modified€toÏshow€a€conviction€for€theft€over€the€value€of€$10,000.€ÌÌÓ  Óò òII.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€raises€two€contentions€concerning€the€identification€evidenceÏintroduced€through€Randolph€and€Adams.€€First,€he€contends€that€the€trial€court€shouldÏhave€granted€his€motion€to€suppress€this€evidence.€€He€argues€that€the€initialÏphotographs€viewed€by€Randolph€and€Adams€were€not€introduced€into€evidence.€ÍThus,€he€argues,€it€must€be€presumed€that€if€these€photographs€had€been€introduced,Ïthey€would€have€been€unfavorable€to€the€state€because€they€"would€have€indicatedÏsuggestiveness."€€He€cites€the€case€of€òòFord€v.€Stateóó,€184€Tenn.€443,€201€S.W.2d€€539Ï(1945)€in€support€of€his€argument.€€Second,€the€appellant€contends€that€his€right€to€dueÏprocess€of€law€and€his€equal€protection€rights€were€violated€because€the€lastÏphotographic€array,€which€was€introduced€into€evidence,€has€not€been€included€in€theÏrecord€transmitted€to€this€Court.€€He€argues€that€the€exhibit€was€lost€by€the€stateÏbetween€the€trial€and€the€preparation€of€the€record.ÌÓ  Óò òA.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àIn€the€appellant's€amended€motion€for€a€new€trial€it€is€alleged:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌThe€Court€erred€by€not€suppressing€the€in„court€and€out„of„court€identifications€of€the€defendant,€Bruce€Reliford.€€TheÏonly€recorded€identification€of€the€defendant€came€someÏnine€to€eleven€months€after€the€incidents.€€Because€of€theÏlength€[of]€time€between€the€incidents€and€the€identification,Ïthe€defendant€is€subject€to€prejudice€because€of€the€highÏpossibility€of€taint€during€the€identification€process.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓThis€Court€cannot€determine€what€the€word€"taint"€means€in€the€context€of€thisÏallegation.€€Does€it€mean€that€the€officers€suggested€who€the€victims€should€select€fromÏthe€photographic€array?€€Does€it€mean€that€the€taint€results€from€the€passage€of€timeÏbetween€the€robberies€in€question€and€the€date€the€identifications€were€made€from€theÏphotographic€array?€€Or€does€it€mean€that€the€photographic€array€itself€wasÏsuggestive?Ìà àWhen€an€issue€contained€in€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€lacks€specificity,€this€CourtÍwill€not€consider€the€issue.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Gauldinóó,€737€S.W.2d€795,€797„98€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1987);€€òòState€v.€Frazieróó,€683€S.W.2d€346,€351Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1984);€€òòState€v.€Kingóó,€622€S.W.2d€77,€79Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1981);€€òòState€v.€McKinneyóó,€603€S.W.2dÏ755,€759„60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€This€issue€has€been€waived.€€òòGauldinóó,€737ÏS.W.2d€at€798.Ìà àIn€addition,€the€appellant€did€not€include€in€the€motion€for€new€trial€the€issue€thatÏthe€first€photographic€array€must€be€presumed€to€have€been€unfavorable€to€the€stateÏbecause€"it€would€have€indicated€suggestiveness."€€Thus,€this€issue€has€also€beenÏwaived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e);€€òòState€v.€Rayóó,€880€S.W.2d€700,€705€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),Ïòòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1993);€€òòState€v.€Gilmoreóó,€823€S.W.2d€566,€570€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1991).Ìà àThis€Court€parenthetically€notes€that€both€witnesses€separately€made€positiveÏidentifications€of€the€appellant€from€the€photographic€array.€€Randolph€had€ample€timeÏto€see€the€appellant€on€two€separate€occasions.€€On€the€first€occasion€he€placed€her€inÏthe€car€and€drove€several€blocks€before€releasing€her.€€Randolph€also€made€a€positiveÏcourtroom€identification.€€There€is€nothing€to€suggest€in€the€record€that€there€was€anyÏtaint€whatsoever€in€the€photographic€array€identifications.ÌÌÓ  Óò òB.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àIt€appears€that€the€photographic€array€shown€to€Randolph€and€Adams€followingÏthe€second€robbery€was€introduced€as€an€exhibit.€€When€the€record€was€beingÍprepared€for€transmission€to€this€Court,€the€exhibit€could€not€be€found.€€Three€deputyÏclerks€and€the€assistant€district€attorney€who€prosecuted€the€appellant€executed€aÏdocument€that€states:ÌÓÓÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒThis€is€to€certify€that€after€a€diligent€and€thorough€searchÏand€inquiry,€the€Property€and€Exhibits€Section€of€theÏCriminal€Court€Clerks€Office€has€never€been€in€receipt€ofÏthe€above€described€exhibits,€after€having€been€enteredÏinto€evidence€by€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€This€is€to€furtherÏcertify€that€after€a€diligent€search€of€the€records€in€the€officeÏof€the€Criminal€Court€Clerk€and€the€records€in€the€office€ofÏthe€District€Attorney€General,€the€above€described€exhibitsÏwere€not€found€in€regards€to€this€matter.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓà àThe€record€does€not€indicate€that€counsel€for€the€appellant€made€this€fact€knownÏto€the€trial€court.€€Furthermore,€the€record€does€not€indicate€that€counsel€for€theÏappellant€made€an€effort€to€have€the€state€and€the€law€enforcement€officers€reconstructÏthe€photographic€array.€€As€a€general€rule,€officers€usually€note€the€names€of€theÏindividuals€whose€photographs€were€included€in€a€photographic€array.€€An€officerÏtestified€at€the€suppression€hearing€that€he€could€examine€his€file,€determine€theÏbooking€numbers€of€those€present€in€the€lineup,€and€make€sure€that€this€was€theÏphotographic€array€that€was€presented€to€the€victims.€€Obviously,€the€officer€couldÏretrieve€identical€photographs€from€the€"mug€books"€or€the€Bureau€of€Identification,Ïwhich€maintains€the€records,€fingerprints€and€photographs€taken€of€each€person€that€isÏarrested.€€Although€a€reconstructed€array€would€not€be€identical€in€every€minuteÏparticular€to€the€originals,€it€would€permit€this€Court€to€perform€its€function€ofÏdetermining€whether€the€photographs€were€suggestive€as€the€appellant€claims.Ì€€€€€€€It€is€the€duty€of€the€appellant€to€prepare€a€record€which€conveys€a€fair,€accurateÍand€complete€account€of€what€transpired€with€respect€to€the€issues€which€form€theÏbasis€of€the€appeal€to€enable€this€Court€to€determine€the€issues€presented€for€review.€ÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b);€€òòState€v.€Baneóó,€874€S.W.2d€73,€82€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€òòperóó.Ïòòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994);€€òòState€v.€Robertsóó,€755€S.W.2d€833,€836€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),Ïòòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1988).€€If€the€appellant€cannot€prepare€or€have€prepared€aÏcomplete€transcript€of€the€evidence,€including€exhibits,€the€appellant€must€establish€hisÏor€her€inability€to€prepare€the€transcript€or€include€the€exhibits,€the€reason€that€the€Ïtranscript€or€the€exhibits€cannot€be€included€in€the€record,€and€that€this€deficiency€inÏthe€record€was€caused€by€circumstances€beyond€his€or€her€control.€€òòState€v.€Rhodenóó,Ï739€S.W.2d€at€6,€14€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1987).€€In€this€case,Ïthe€record€establishes€why€the€exhibits€have€not€been€included€in€the€record.€ÏHowever,€this€does€not€equate€to€relief.Ìà àFirst,€this€Court€has€held€that€this€issue€pertaining€to€the€photographic€array€hasÏbeen€waived.€€Thus,€this€issue€is€rendered€moot.€€Second,€the€record€does€notÏestablish€that€counsel€for€the€appellant€took€steps€to€reconstruct€the€photographicÏarray.€€It€appears€that€the€officers€had€the€precise€booking€numbers€and€names€of€theÏindividuals€who€were€included€in€the€photographic€lineup.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€ÌÌÓ  Óò òIII.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àAfter€the€jury€had€been€selected,€the€appellant€complained€to€the€trial€court€thatÏthe€proceedings€were€unfair.€€He€also€complained€that€his€court„appointed€counselÍhad€just€given€him€certain€court„related€documents.€€One€document€was€the€indictmentÏand€another€was€the€Tennessee€Pattern€Jury€Instruction€on€aggravated€robbery.€€TheÏtrial€court€declared€a€recess€so€that€the€appellant€could€review€the€documents.€€He€wasÏtaken€to€the€area€where€prisoners€are€kept€when€court€is€not€in€session.Ìà àWhen€the€trial€court€returned€to€the€bench,€the€court€learned€that€the€appellantÏmight€refuse€to€return€to€the€courtroom.€€The€court€told€a€deputy€to€open€the€door€andÏpermit€the€accused€to€enter€the€courtroom.€€The€deputy€stated:€€"He€doesn't€want€toÏcome€out,€Judge."€€The€state€proceeded€without€the€defendant.Ìà àDuring€the€direct€examination€of€Randolph,€the€assistant€district€attorneyÏgeneral€asked€the€court€to€inquire€if€the€appellant€would€voluntarily€reenter€theÏcourtroom€so€that€Randolph€could€view€him€and€make€a€courtroom€identification.€€If€heÏwould€not€come€into€the€courtroom€voluntarily,€the€assistant€district€attorney€generalÏasked€the€trial€court€to€require€the€appellant€to€come€into€the€courtroom.€€The€appellantÏcame€into€the€courtroom€voluntarily.€€The€trial€court€asked€the€appellant€if€he€would€likeÏto€remain€in€the€courtroom.€€The€appellant€replied€that€the€trial€was€unfair.€€WhenÏasked€again€if€he€wanted€to€stay€in€the€courtroom,€the€appellant€stated:€€"I'd€like€toÏhave€me€an€attorney."€€The€appellant€then€left€the€courtroom.€€Randolph€positivelyÏidentified€the€appellant€as€the€perpetrator€of€all€the€crimes€in€question.Ìà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€violated€his€due€process€and€equalÏprotection€rights€"by€forcibly€bringing€him€into€the€courtroom€during€the€trial."€€€HeÏasserts€that€this€was€"akin€to€trying€the€defendant€in€shackles€or€handcuffs,€or€informingÏthe€jury€that€the€defendant€was€unable€to€make€bond."€€The€state€argues€that€theÏappellant's€"assertion€is€not€accurate,€and€is€no€more€than€fanciful€hyperbole."Ìà àAs€previously€stated,€the€appellant€was€asked€to€come€into€the€courtroom,€andÏhe€entered€the€courtroom€freely€and€voluntarily.€€No€one€forced€the€appellant.€€WhenÏhe€refused€to€come€into€the€courtroom€a€second€time€for€identification€by€anotherÏwitness,€the€trial€court€did€not€have€the€appellant€forcibly€brought€into€the€courtroom.€ÏThe€appellant€was€never€shackled€or€handcuffed€while€in€the€presence€of€the€jury.€€NorÏdid€the€trial€court€advise€or€insinuate€that€the€appellant€was€unable€to€make€bond.€ÏMoreover,€the€appellant€was€the€victim€of€his€own€circumstances.€€He€advised€theÏbailiffs€that€he€would€not€sit€in€the€courtroom€during€the€course€of€the€trial.Ìà àThe€precise€issue€in€question€has€not€arisen€in€this€state.€€However,€otherÏappellate€courts€have€addressed€similar€issues.Ìà àThe€privilege€against€self„incrimination€protects€an€accused€from€being€aÏ"witness"€against€himself.€€The€scope€of€the€privilege€is€limited€to€"testimony"€orÏ"communications."× ƒ. ××  ×ÌIn€òòSchmerber€v.€Californiaóó,× ƒ/ ××  ×€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€said:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àIt€is€clear€that€the€protection€of€the€privilege€[against€self„incrimination]€reaches€an€accused's€communications,Ïwhatever€form€they€might€take,€and€the€compulsion€ofÏresponses€which€are€also€communications,€for€example,Ïcompliance€with€a€subpoena€to€produce€one's€papersÏ(citation€omitted).€€On€the€other€hand,€both€federal€and€stateÏcourts€have€usually€held€that€it€offers€no€protection€againstÏcompulsion€to€submit€to€fingerprinting,€photographing,€orÏmeasurements,€to€write€or€speak€for€identification,€to€appearÏin€court,€to€stand,€to€assume€a€stance,€to€walk,€or€to€make€aÏparticular€gesture.€€The€distinction€which€has€emerged,Ïoften€expressed€in€different€ways,€is€that€the€privilege€is€aÏbar€against€compelling€"communications"€or€"testimony,"€butÏthat€compulsion€which€makes€a€suspect€or€accused€theÏsource€of€"real€or€physical€evidence"€does€not€violate€it.× ƒ0 ××  ×ÌÌÓÓÌà àIn€3€Wharton's€òòCriminal€Evidenceóó€ðð€585€(14th€ed.€1987),€the€author€states€whatÏan€accused€may€be€compelled€to€do€during€the€course€of€a€trial:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌÒ  ÒÒ X Òà8 àà8 àAt€the€trial€itself,€an€accused€may€be€required€to€stand€soÏthat€he€may€be€observed;€to€walk;€to€remove€a€veil,€visor,Ïmask€or€glasses;€to€put€on€a€wig€and€sunglasses;€to€exhibitÏhis€hands;€€to€roll€up€his€sleeve€to€show€a€tattoo;€to€submit€toÏthe€taking€of€his€fingerprints;€to€remove€his€coat€and€shirt€toÏshow€scars;€to€allow€inspection€of€his€face€for€identifyingÏmarks;€to€move€his€feet€into€view;€or€to€put€on€a€garment,€hatÍor€cap.× ƒ1 ××  ×ÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€òòBass€v.€Stateóó,× ƒ2 ××  ×€the€accused€testified€in€support€of€his€defense.€€Later,€the€trialÏcourt€ordered€the€accused€to€"stand€up€in€order€that€witnesses€might€see€him."× ƒ3 ××  ×€€TheÏSupreme€Court€held€that€this€did€not€violate€the€accused's€privilege€against€self„incrimination.€€The€Court€observed€in€dictum€that€"[c]ourts€have€held€that€even€thoughÏthe€defendant€has€not€testified,€his€rights€are€not€violated€by€being€required€to€standÏwhere€witnesses€may€identify€him."× ƒ4 ××  ×€Ìà àIn€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,× ƒ5 ××  ×€the€trial€court€ordered€the€accused€to€stand€in€front€of€the€juryÏduring€the€state's€case€in€chief€and€present€the€jury€with€a€front€and€side€view.€€ItÏappears€that€the€accused€had€a€scarred€right€neck€and€disfigured€right€ear,€which€wereÏimportant€in€his€identification€as€the€perpetrator€of€the€crime.€€This€Court€held€that€theÏprocedure€did€not€violate€the€accused's€privilege€against€self„incrimination.Ìà àIn€òòState€v.€Hendersonóó,× ƒ6 ××  ×€the€trial€court€required€the€accused€to€"to€display€to€theÍjury€a€distinctive€tattoo€on€his€arm."× ƒ7 ××  ×€€This€Court€held€that€the€procedure€did€not€violateÏthe€accused's€privilege€against€self„incrimination.Ìà àThe€accused€is€afforded€a€reciprocal€right.€€In€òòState€v.€Sandersóó,× ƒ8 ××  ×€the€identity€ofÏthe€accused€as€the€person€who€committed€the€crime€was€a€critical€issue.€€Although€theÏaccused€did€not€testify,€he€sought€permission€from€the€trial€court€to€stand€in€theÏpresence€of€the€jury€to€show€his€height.€€This€Court€held€that€"a€defendant€is€entitled€toÏstand€up€before€[the€jury]€regardless€of€whether€or€not€he€plans€to€testify.€€UnlessÏSanders€stood€up,€the€jury€would€have€no€way€of€knowing€whether€his€height€wasÏsubstantially€that€of€the€offender€described€by€the€[victim]."× ƒ9 ××  ×€Ìà àIn€òòState€v.€Rodriguezóó,× ƒ: ××  ×€the€accused€sought€permission€to€wear€the€shirt€andÏcap€the€victim€testified€was€worn€by€the€perpetrator€of€the€crime€to€demonstrate€hisÏappearance.€€This€Court€held€that€a€"defendant€can€introduce,€'demonstrative€real€orÏphysical€evidence'€by€exhibiting€himself€to€the€jury€in€items€of€clothing€relevant€to€theÏinquiry,€whether€he€testifies€or€not."× ƒ; ××  ×Ìà àThis€Court€concludes€that€asking€the€appellant€to€voluntarily€enter€the€courtroomÏso€that€he€could€be€viewed€by€Randolph€did€not€violate€his€privilege€against€self„incrimination,€his€right€to€due€process€of€law,€or€his€right€to€equal€protection€under€theÏlaw.€€The€appellant€did€not€have€the€right€to€dictate€how€the€state€would€try€its€case.€ÏNor€was€the€appellant€entitled€to€deny€the€state€evidence€by€opting€to€remain€outsideÏthe€courtroom.€€In€this€case,€the€appellant€attempted€to€destroy€the€state's€identificationÏevidence€at€every€stage€of€the€proceeding.€€The€state€was€entitled€to€have€RandolphÏview€the€appellant€to€determine€if€she€could€identify€him€in€person€as€the€perpetrator€ofÏthe€three€crimes.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€Ìà à€€ÌÓ  Óò òIV.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€had€been€convicted€of€armed€robbery€and€carjacking€in€federalÏcourt.€€The€appellant€filed€a€motion€in€limine€seeking€the€entry€of€an€order€prohibitingÏthe€assistant€district€attorney€general€from€using€these€convictions€to€impeach€him€as€aÏwitness.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion.€€The€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€courtÏcommitted€error€of€prejudicial€dimensions€in€permitting€the€offenses€to€be€used€toÏimpeach€him€because€of€the€similarities€of€the€offenses€to€the€crimes€for€which€he€wasÏbeing€tried.€€He€also€argued€that€the€prejudicial€effect€of€using€these€convictions€wouldÏfar€outweigh€their€probative€value.Ìà àThe€state€may€use€certain€prior€convictions€to€impeach€an€accused€who€testifiesÏin€support€of€his€or€her€defense.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609€states€in€part:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 à(a)€€òòGeneral€Ruleóó.€€For€the€purpose€of€attacking€theÏcredibility€of€a€witness,€evidence€that€the€witness€has€beenÍconvicted€of€a€crime€may€be€admitted€if€the€followingÏprocedures€and€conditions€are€satisfied:ÌÌÓ  Ó*€*€*€*ÌÓ  Óà8 àà8 à(2)€€The€crime€must€be€punishable€by€death€orÏimprisonment€in€excess€of€one€year€under€the€law€underÏwhich€the€witness€was€convicted€or,€if€not€so€punishable,Ïthe€crime€must€have€involved€dishonesty€or€false€statement.ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€€If€the€witness€to€be€impeached€is€the€accused€in€aÏcriminal€prosecution,€the€State€must€give€the€accusedÏreasonable€written€notice€of€the€impeaching€convictionÏbefore€trial,€and€the€court€upon€request€must€determine€thatÏthe€conviction's€probative€value€on€credibility€outweighs€itsÏunfair€prejudicial€effect€on€the€substantive€issues.€€The€courtÏmay€rule€on€the€admissibility€of€such€proof€prior€to€the€trialÏbut€in€any€event€shall€rule€prior€to€the€testimony€of€theÏaccused.€€If€the€court€makes€a€final€determination€that€suchÏproof€is€admissible€for€impeachment€purposes,€the€accusedÏneed€not€actually€testify€at€the€trial€to€later€challenge€theÏpropriety€of€the€determination.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€crimes€of€robbery€with€a€deadly€weapon€and€carjacking€are€punishable€byÏimprisonment€for€more€than€one€year.€€Furthermore,€these€crimes€involve€dishonestyÏbecause€they€are€an€aggravated€form€of€theft€„„€taking€the€property€of€another€atÏgunpoint.€€The€trial€court€stated€on€the€record€that€it€had€weighed€the€probative€valueÏand€the€prejudicial€effect€of€the€convictions€on€the€substantive€issues€before€ruling€thatÏthe€state€could€use€the€convictions€to€impeach€the€appellant€if€he€opted€to€testify€inÏsupport€of€his€defense.Ìà àThe€mere€fact€that€a€prior€conviction€of€the€accused€is€identical€or€similar€inÏnature€to€the€offense€for€which€the€accused€is€being€tried€does€not,€as€a€matter€of€law,Íbar€the€use€of€the€convictions€for€impeachment€of€the€accused.× ƒ< ××  ×€€As€the€rule€states,Ïthe€availability€of€a€conviction€for€an€identical€or€similar€crime€depends€upon€the€natureÏof€the€conviction€and€the€probative€value€of€the€conviction.× ƒ= ××  ×€€The€appellate€courts€ofÏthis€state€have€recognized€ÇÌthat€a€conviction€for€a€crime€involving€dishonesty€or€a€false€statement€has€greaterÏprobative€value€than€convictions€for€other€crimes.à àThis€Court€has€previously€heldÏthat€a€prior€conviction€for€robbery€with€a€deadly€weapon€can€be€used€to€impeach€anÏaccused€who€is€being€tried€for€robbery.× ƒ> ××  ×€These€cases€were€decided€upon€the€theoryÏthat€a€conviction€for€armed€robbery€is€highly€probative€of€an€accused's€credibility€as€aÏwitness.Ìà àThe€trial€court€properly€ruled€that€the€convictions€for€armed€robbery€andÏcarjacking€could€be€used€to€impeach€the€appellant€if€he€testified€in€support€of€hisÏdefense.€€This€Court€finds,€as€it€did€in€the€cases€hereinabove€set€forth,€that€convictionsÏfor€armed€robbery€and€carjacking€would€have€been€exceptionally€probative€of€theÏappellant's€credibility€as€a€witness.€€In€other€words,€the€probative€value€of€these€twoÏconvictions€far€outweighs€the€prejudicial€effect€upon€the€substantive€issues.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ì€€ÌÓ  Óò òV.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€raises€two€issues€concerning€sentencing.€€In€view€of€the€fact€thatÏthis€Court€has€reduced€two€offenses€and€this€cause€must€be€remanded€to€the€trial€courtÏfor€a€new€sentencing€hearing,€these€issues€have€been€rendered€moot.Ìà àThis€Court€parenthetically€notes€that€appellant's€prior€convictions€can€be€usedÏto€enhance€the€sentences€within€the€appropriate€range€and€to€support€consecutive€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Çsentencing.× ƒ? ××  ×Ìà àThis€Court€agrees€with€the€appellant€that€the€aggravating€circumstance€in€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(9)€(possession€or€use€of€a€firearm€during€the€offense)€shouldÏnot€be€used€in€this€case.€€The€use€of€the€weapon€is€an€element€of€aggravated€robbery.€ÏIn€addition,€this€Court€has€held€in€several€reported€and€unreported€opinions€thatÏaggravating€factors€(10)€(lack€of€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€toÏhuman€life€was€high)€and€(16)€("the€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€underÏwhich€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€a€victim€was€great")€should€not€be€used€toÏenhance€the€offenses€of€aggravated€robbery€and€robbery.€€€€€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€à à€€€€JOE€B.€JONES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€PAUL€€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_________________________________Ì€€€€€WILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGE