ÿWPC# …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4Ýñ 0l 0Dt w@¸ 0Tø U„L Ð Þ 0Jì 0T6 0^Š 0hè 0rP 0| 0†> 0Ä 1uTU,É 0dõ BY D3vU,©U>Õ 0@U *SB)}DC¦ AMé,6òbT£kv~vÓŒ AO_!Æ®! 0Dt" D/¸" Bç"˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡»{s ppppdp3|xH((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó /0D12 e3D489Ó€EF(—8$——ÔªÔò òòòóóó óÔªÔ.The Miclie Company (c) 1992-1996 by The Michie Company, crm-52crm-522 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd€-0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ "Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌò òJuly€26,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€.ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó èÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€appellant€requested€the€òòUnited€States€v.€Telfaireóó,€469€F.2d€552,€557€(D.C.Cir.€1972)Ïà àcharge€at€trial,€which€the€trial€court€declined€to€give.€€However,€the€appellant€has€notÏà àraised€as€an€issue€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€give€the€òòTelfaireóóÏà àinstruction.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€In€òòDyleóó,€the€court€held€that€a€trial€courtððs€failure€to€give€the€instruction€when€requestedÏà àby€an€accused€is€plain€error.€€If€not€requested€by€the€defense,€the€failure€to€give€the€newÏà àcharge€is€subject€to€harmless€error€analysis.€€In€this€case,€the€appellant€could€not€possiblyÏà àhave€requested€the€òòDyleóó€charge€as€the€decision€had€not€been€released€at€the€time€of€trial.€Ïà àWe€therefore€do€not€hold€the€appellant€responsible€for€not€requesting€this€charge.€€For€theÏà àsame€reason,€the€trial€court€could€not€have€known€to€give€the€òòDyleóó€instruction.€Ì ™Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.Ô€€Ô€.&ÔWhile€we€commend€the€trial€court€in€this€case€for€giving€so€complete€a€charge€withoutÏà àbenefit€of€knowing€that€our€Supreme€Court€would€shortly€hold€that€the€pattern€instructionÏà àfrequently€used€by€trial€courts€on€the€issue€of€identity€is€inadequate,€we€remind€the€trialÏà àcourts€of€this€state€to€give€the€òòDyleóó€charge€in€its€entirety€when€identity€is€a€materialÏà àissue.€€€Ô€.XÔÔ€,ÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÓ&€++X„d&ÓÑ#€++Xd#ÑÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ € Ñ›Ñ7€æFXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ ` °œXӜԀ.ÔÙ€€ÙßL€120;+'h|«ÿ` Å `€€Lß›€€Ô€,ÔÌÔ€.Ôà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌà@ àMARCH€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àNO.€02C01„9509„CR„00264Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppelleeà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JOSEPH€B.€DAILEYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGE€ÌWILLIE€D.€ROBINSON,à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€(Felony€Murder)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà àà à)à à€€ÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌJames€V.€Ballà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ217€Exchange€Avenueà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌMemphis,€Tennessee€38105à àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€David€BridgersÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€W.€PierottiÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPhillip€Gerald€HarrisÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€CenterÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àThird€FloorÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€Tennessee€38103ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóà àÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÓÓòòÌÌÓ Ð Óà@ àOPINIONóóÌThe€appellant,€Willie€D.€Robinson,€was€indicted€on€two€counts€of€murder€by€aÏShelby€County€Grand€Jury.€€The€first€count€of€the€indictment€alleged€that€theÏappellant€committed€the€murder€of€Martha€Jean€Favati€during€the€commission€of€aÏfelony.€€The€second€count€of€the€indictment€alleged€that€the€appellant€committed€theÏpremeditated€and€deliberate€murder€of€Martha€Jean€Favati.€€The€jury€found€theÏappellant€guilty€on€count€one€(1),€felony€murder.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€him€to€lifeÏimprisonment.€€On€appeal,€the€appellant€argues€only€that€the€evidence€wasÏinsufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€to€support€the€conviction.ÌWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€€ÌOn€the€evening€of€December€9,€1992,€Martha€Jean€Favati€was€shot€and€killedÏas€she€unloaded€her€car€while€parked€in€her€motherððs€driveway.€€Ms.€Favatiððs€carÏkeys€and€a€sack€of€items€were€taken€during€the€robbery.€Ì€When€Officer€Doreen€Shelton€of€the€Memphis€Police€Department€arrived€onÏthe€scene€after€the€shooting,€the€victim€was€lying€in€the€driveway€with€a€blanketÏplaced€over€her€body€and€the€passenger€door€of€her€car€was€open.€€Officer€SheltonÏtestified€that€the€area€was€well€lit€by€two€nearby€street€lights€and€by€the€porch€lights€ofÏsurrounding€homes.€€The€officer€testified€that€during€her€preliminary€investigation€ofÏthe€crime€scene,€the€lighting€conditions€were€good€enough€that€she€did€not€need€toÏuse€her€flashlight.ÌSheri€Lynn€Leith€Derrick€lived€across€the€street€from€where€Ms.€Favati€wasÏshot.€€Ms.€Derrick€placed€the€appellant€and€his€unidentified€accomplice€at€the€murderÏscene€within€seconds€after€the€victim€was€shot.€€Ms.€Derrick€testified€that€on€theÏevening€of€the€murder,€she€was€sitting€in€her€living€room€when€she€heard€a€car€pullÏinto€Ms.€Favatiððs€motherððs€driveway.€€As€was€her€custom,€Ms.€Derrick€went€to€the€frontÏdoor€to€see€who€it€was€and€saw€that€it€was€Ms.€Favati.€€After€returning€to€her€livingÏroom,€Ms.€Derrick€heard€something€that€sounded€ð ðlike€a€backfireðð€from€the€street.€€Ms.ÏDerrick€returned€to€her€glass€front€door€and€saw€Ms.€Favati€lying€on€the€ground.€€SheÏthen€saw€the€appellant€standing€behind€the€car€and€the€appellantððs€accompliceÏstanding€in€the€street€holding€a€handgun.€€Ms.€Derrick€heard€the€appellantððsÍaccomplice€tell€the€appellant€to€ð ðcome€onðð€and€then€watched€the€pair€run€betweenÏher€house€and€her€next„door€neighborððs€house.€€ÌMs.€Derrick€never€wavered€in€her€testimony€that€one€of€the€two€men€she€sawÏstanding€next€to€the€victimððs€car€was€the€appellant.€€She€and€Officer€Shelton€gaveÏsimilar€testimony€as€to€the€light€conditions€on€the€night€of€the€murder.€Ms.€DerrickÏdescribed€the€clothing€worn€by€the€appellant€and€was€able€to€see€his€face€clearlyÏbecause€the€street€was€lit€by€several€porch€lights€and€at€least€one€streetlight.€€€JustÏthree€days€after€the€murder,€Ms.€Derrick€identified€the€appellant€from€a€photo€array€asÏthe€man€she€saw€fleeing€the€crime€scene€moments€after€the€shooting.€She€toldÏinvestigators€that€on€the€night€of€the€shooting€the€appellantððs€hair€was€shorter€than€inÏthe€photo€and€that€he€did€not€have€facial€hair€as€he€did€in€the€photo.€€€When€theÏappellant€was€arrested€and€photographed€on€December€13,€1992€his€hair€appearedÏsignificantly€shorter€than€it€did€in€the€photo€used€in€the€array€from€which€Ms.€DerrickÏidentified€him.€€However,€his€faint€mustache€and€goatee€appeared€similar€in€bothÏphotos.€€Ms.€Derrick€also€recognized€the€appellant€at€his€preliminary€hearing.€€Finally,Ïwhen€Ms.€Derrick€identified€the€appellant€during€her€testimony€at€trial,€she€stated€thatÏshe€was€ð ðabsolutely€positiveðð€that€the€appellant€was€one€of€the€two€men€she€saw€justÏafter€the€shooting.Ì€Belinda€Johnson,€the€appellantððs€girlfriend,€and€Toria€Slater€testified€that€theÏappellant€was€with€them€watching€a€movie€on€the€evening€that€the€victim€wasÏmurdered.€€The€appellant€did€not€testify.€€ÌThe€appellantððs€sole€argument€is€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€supportÏthe€conviction.€€€The€appellant€contends€that€Ms.€Derrickððs€opportunity€to€view€theÏassailants€was€limited€by€time,€distance,€and€darkness,€and€that€she€was€mistakenÏabout€her€identification€of€the€appellant€as€one€of€the€two€killers.€€The€appellantÏcontends€that€without€Ms.€Derrickððs€unreliable€testimony€there€would€be€no€evidenceÏto€support€the€conviction.€€In€essence,€€the€appellant€asks€this€court€to€reweigh€theÏevidence€from€the€trial.€€This€we€may€not€do.€€It€is€well„settled€that€questionsÏconcerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€theÏevidence,€as€well€as€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€ofÏfact,€not€this€Court.€€€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€œ1978).›€€ÌWhere€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged,€the€relevant€question€forÏthis€court€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏprosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€theÏcrime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,Ï61€L.€Ed.€2d€560€(1979);€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983);ÏT.R.A.P.€13€(e).€€ÌA€guilty€verdict,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€theÏwitnesses€for€the€State€and€resolves€any€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State's€theory.€€òòStateÏv.€Hatchettóó,€560€S.W.2d€627,€630€(Tenn.€1978).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€theÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€to€all€reasonable€inferences€whichÏmight€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€836€(Tenn.€1978).€€AÏverdict€against€the€defendant€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€itÏwith€a€presumption€of€guilt€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474€(Tenn.€1973).€ÏThe€defendant€has€the€burden€of€overcoming€the€presumption€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.ÏBrownóó,€551€S.W.2d€329€(Tenn.€1977).€€ÌThe€State€presented€uncontroverted€proof€that€Martha€Jean€Favati€was€killedÏduring€the€commission€of€a€robbery€on€December€9,1992€at€approximately€7:45€p.m.€€ÏThere€was€compelling€evidence€that€the€appellant€was€one€of€the€two€men€seen€byÏMs.€Derrick€on€the€evening€of€the€murder€and€that€the€two€men€robbed€and€killed€theÏvictim.€€The€appellantððs€defense€was€that€he€was€at€the€home€of€his€girlfriendÏwatching€a€movie€at€the€time€of€the€murder.€€The€jury€obviously€found€Ms.€DerrickððsÏtestimony€more€credible€than€that€of€the€appellantððs€witnesses,€as€was€its€prerogative.ÏòòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€After€reviewing€all€of€the€proof€in€thisÏcase€we€conclude€that,€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€the€evidenceÏestablished€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€appellant€participated€in€the€robberyÏand€killing€of€Martha€Jean€Favati.€€€Accordingly,€€this€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌAlthough€not€raised€by€the€appellant€as€an€issue€on€appeal,€we€deem€itÏappropriate€to€review€the€sufficiency€of€the€trial€courtððs€charge€to€the€jury€on€the€issueÏof€eyewitness€identification.œ× ƒ3 ××  ×›€€€In€òòState€v.€Dyleóó,€899€S.W.2d€607,€612€(Tenn.€1995),€Ïthe€Supreme€Court€set€forth€the€following€charge€as€the€charge€to€be€given€by€theÏtrial€courts€of€this€State€when€identity€is€a€material€issue€in€a€case.ÌÓÓà8 àOne€of€the€issues€in€this€case€is€the€identification€of€theÏdefendant€as€the€person€who€committed€the€crime.€TheÏstate€has€the€burden€of€proving€identity€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€Identification€testimony€is€anÏexpression€of€belief€or€impression€by€the€witness,€and€itsÏvalue€may€depend€upon€your€consideration€of€severalÏfactors.€Some€of€the€factors€which€you€may€consider€are:Ìà8 àÌà8 à(1)€The€œwitnessðð›€capacity€and€opportunity€to€observe€theÏoffender.€This€includes,€among€other€things,€the€length€ofÏtime€available€for€observation,€the€distance€from€which€theÏwitness€observed,€the€lighting,€and€whether€the€personÏwho€committed€the€crime€was€a€prior€acquaintance€of€theÏwitness;ÌÌà8 à(2)€The€degree€of€certainty€expressed€by€the€witnessÏregarding€the€identification€and€the€circumstances€underÏwhich€it€was€made,€including€whether€it€is€the€product€ofÏthe€witness'€own€recollection;€ÌÌ€à8 à(3)€The€occasions,€if€any,€on€which€the€witness€failed€toÏmake€an€identification€of€the€defendant,€or€made€anÏidentification€that€was€inconsistent€with€the€identification€atÏtrial;€and€ÌÌ€à8 à(4)€The€occasions,€if€any,€on€which€the€witness€made€anÏidentification€that€was€consistent€with€the€identification€atÏtrial,€and€the€circumstances€surrounding€suchÏidentifications.ÌÌ€à8 àAgain,€the€state€has€the€burden€of€proving€every€elementÏof€the€crime€charged,€and€this€burden€specifically€includesÏthe€identity€of€the€defendant€as€the€person€who€committedÏthe€crime€for€which€he€or€she€is€on€trial.€If€after€consideringÏthe€identification€testimony€in€light€of€all€the€proof€you€haveÏa€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€is€the€person€whoÏcommitted€the€crime,€you€must€find€the€defendant€notÏguilty.€€œ× ƒ4 ××  ×›ÌÓÓ€€òòId.óóÌThe€decision€in€òòDyleóó€had€not€been€released€at€the€time€of€the€trial€in€thisÏcase.€€However,€the€Court€specifically€stated€that€its€holding€was€to€be€applied€toÏcases€on€appeal€at€the€time€the€opinion€was€released.€€This€case€was€on€appealÏwhen€òòDyleóó€was€released.€€As€òòDyleóó€requires€us€to€do,€we€have€reviewed€the€proprietyÏof€the€charge€in€this€case€and€hold€that€because€the€charge€was€substantially€similarÍto€the€charge€promulgated€in€òòDyleóó,€the€trial€court€did€not€commit€reversible€errorÏwhen€it€gave€the€following€charge.ÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€court€charges€you€that€the€identity€of€theÏdefendant,€Willie€D.€Robinson,€must€be€proven€in€the€caseÏon€the€part€of€the€State€to€your€satisfaction,€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€In€other€words,€the€burden€of€proof€isÏon€the€State€to€show€that€the€defendant€now€on€trial€beforeÏyou€is€the€identical€person€who€committed€the€allegedÏcrime€with€which€he€is€charged.€€òòIn€considering€theÏquestion€of€the€identity€of€a€person,€the€Jury€may€take€intoÏconsideration€the€means€and€opportunity€of€identification,Ïif€any;€whether€it€was€light€or€dark;€the€distanceÏintervening;€the€dress€or€clothing€worn;€the€character€andÏcolor€of€same;€the€size,€height,€and€color€of€the€individual;Ïwhether€known€to€him,€and€if€so,€how€long,€and€if€seenÏbefore,€under€what€circumstances;€whether€running€orÏmoving€rapidly,€standing€still,€walking€fast€or€slow€at€theÏtime€claimed€to€the€person€testifying;€the€color€of€the€hair;Ïhat€worn;€facial€expression€or€features€and€appearance;Ïwhether€with€or€without€moustache€and€beard;€whetherÏperson€said€to€be€identified€was€white,€black,€dark,€yellow,Ïor€light€color;€masked€or€not;€the€voice€and€speech.óóÌÌà8 àà àòòAll€these€things€when€shown€in€the€proof€may€beÏconsidered€by€the€jury€in€determining€the€question€ofÏidentityóó.€€The€word€identity€means€the€state€or€quality€ofÏbeing€identical,€or€the€same;€it€means€sameness.€ÏIdentification€means€the€act€of€identifying€or€proving€to€beÏthe€same.€€The€word€ð ðIdentifyðð€mans€[sic]€to€establish€theÏidentity€or€tho€prove€to€be€the€same€as€somethingÏdescribed,€claimed€or€asserted.ÌÌà8 àà àThe€Court€charges€you€that€if€you€are€satisfied€fromÏthe€whole€proof€in€this€case,€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,Ïthat€the€defendant,€Willie€D.€Robinson,€committed€theÏcrime€charged€against€him,€and€you€are€satisfied,€beyondÍa€reasonable€doubt,€that€he€has€been€identified€as€theÏperson€who€committed€the€crime€charged,€then€it€would€beÏyour€duty€to€convict€him.€€On€the€other€hand,€if€you€are€notÏsatisfied€with€the€identity€from€the€proof,€or€you€have€aÏreasonable€doubt€as€to€whether€he€has€been€identifiedÏfrom€the€whole€body€of€the€proof€in€this€case,€then€youÏshould€return€a€verdict€of€not€guilty.€(Emphasis€added).ÌÌÌÓÓThe€underscored€portion€of€the€above€quoted€charge€reflects€the€essence€ofÏwhat€the€òòDyleóó€instruction€conveys€to€the€jury.€€As€in€òòDyleóó,€the€trial€court€instructed€theÏjury€that€eyewitness€identification€may€be€affected€by€a€variety€of€factors,€and€suchÏfactors€must€be€taken€into€account€when€assessing€the€reliability€of€such€testimony.€ÏòòId.óó€at€612.€€€€Ì€Ms.€Derrick€was€subjected€to€a€thorough€and€probing€cross€examination;Ïhowever,€she€never€wavered€in€her€testimony€identifying€the€appellant€as€one€of€theÏtwo€men€she€saw€fleeing€the€murder€scene.€€Crucial€to€our€decision€in€this€case€is€ourÏdetermination€that€the€trial€courtððs€charge€reflected€the€concerns€addressed€in€theÏòòDyleóó€charge.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€there€was€no€reversible€error€in€theÏinstruction€given€to€the€jury€on€the€issue€of€identity,€× ƒ5 ××  ×€and€the€evidence€supports€theÏconviction.ÌThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÌÌÌÓ  ÓCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÔ€Ô.€Ô4‚Ý ÂÔÝ‚—8ÝÔªÔò òòòÝ  ÝÔ5  ÔÔ6fUÔÝ‚—8zUƒ Ýóóó óÔªÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ý Â«UÔÓ  ÓÓ , ÓÔ€.ÔÔ4‚Ý ¬ÔÝ‚—8ÝÔªÔò òòòÝ  ÝÔ5  ÔÔ6£VÔÝ‚—8·Vƒ Ýóóó óÔªÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ý ¬èVÔ