ÿWPCß …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4Ýñ 0l 0Dl U:° ê w ê 0Jô 0T> 0^’ 0hð 0rX 0|Ê 0†F 0Ì 1u\ U,Ñ 0dý U,aU>U*Ë D3õ B(B)E 0@nDC® AMñ,>jv~évÓg AO:Ɖ 0DO D/“ B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0†(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ypÑ 3|x®((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó@"Arial Regular£Ó€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial++++'ÿÿdxd d% Line 7 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò,,,,7Border 1dd€-.Cþÿ << Gÿÿ "Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌò òJuly€11,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€)ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó uÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€By€comparison,€we€note€that€€the€Tennessee€legislature€has€deemed€it€necessary€in€oneÏsituation€à àto€permit€the€compulsion€of€the€testimony€of€a€witness€against€his€or€her€spouse.€€TheÏ"Tennessee€à àAdult€Protection€Act",€which€lists€as€its€purpose€the€protection€of€adults€from€abuse,Ïneglect,€or€à àexploitation,€includes€the€following€provision:€€"à8 àNotwithstanding€the€existence€of€theÏprivilege€for€à àconfidential€communications€between€husband€and€wife,€the€chancellor€at€the€hearingÏmay€compel€à àtestimony€if€in€his€opinion€disclosure€is€necessary€in€the€interest€of€the€adult."€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€à à71„6„106€(1995).ÌÔ€(ÔPtPtHHÚ(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 ° ÒÔ€)ÔÑ7€o•XXdædÈ7ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÙ€€ÙßL€/0.;+'h|` Å `€€Lßà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌà@ àSEPTEMBER€SESSION,Ï1994óóÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àAPPELLEEà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNO.€03C01„9311„CR„00370Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àPOLK€COUNTYÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€MAYO€L.€MASHBURNÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Attempt€to€Commit€ÌELLA€MAY€SHELFER€€€€€€à àà àà à)à à€First€Degree€Murder)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àAPPELLANTà à)ÌÌÌòòÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÌÌKenneth€L.€Millerà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌLogan,€Thompson,€Miller,à àà àà àà àAttorney€GeneralÌBilbo,€Thompson€&€FisherÌAttorneys€at€Lawà àà àà àà àà àSharon€S.€SelbyÌP.O.€Box€191à àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌCleveland,€TN€37364„0191à àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJerry€N.€EstesÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSarah€BirdÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€Dist.€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€1351Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCleveland,€TN€37364„1351ÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€____________________________ÌÌÌÌÌÌJERRY€SCOTT,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÓÓÇÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÓÓò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓóóó óà àThe€defendant,€Ella€Mae€Shelfer,€was€indicted€for€conspiracy€to€commitÏfirst€degree€murder€and€for€attempt€to€commit€the€first€degree€murder€of€herÏhusband,€Andy€Shelfer.€€The€case€was€initially€set€for€trial€on€February€16,€1993,Ïat€which€time€the€trial€court€granted€the€state's€request€for€a€continuance€on€theÏground€that€an€essential€witness€had€failed€to€appear.€€Beginning€on€May€17,Ï1993,€the€defendant€was€tried€before€a€jury,€found€to€be€guilty€of€the€offense€ofÏattempted€first€degree€murder,€and€sentenced€to€twenty€years€in€the€DepartmentÏof€Correction.€€On€appeal,€the€defendant€raises€the€following€issues:Ìà àà àà àà àà àI.ÌÓÓà8 àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€a€continuance€to€the€stateÏon€the€grounds€that€€the€state€failed€to€comply€with€the€necessaryÏrequirements€for€obtaining€a€continuance?ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àII.ÌÌà8 àWhether€the€defendant€was€placed€in€jeopardy€by€the€proceedingsÏat€the€initial€trial€date€on€February€17,€1993€thereby,€causing€theÏtrial€and€conviction€on€May€17,€1993€to€be€a€violation€of€doubleÏjeopardy?ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àIII.ÌÌà8 àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€in„court€identificationÏof€the€defendant€by€the€witness,€Marie€Martin,€subsequent€to€Ms.ÏMartin's€out„of„court€identification€in€an€impermissibly€permissiveÏphotographic€show€up?€ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àIV.ÌÌà8 àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€statements€made€by€theÏdefendant€to€a€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€agent€becauseÏthey€were€inadmissible€hearsay?€ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àV.ÌÌà8 àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€holding€the€marital€privilegeÏinapplicable€and,€thereby,€compelling€the€defendant's€husband€toÏtestify€against€his€will€regarding€a€conversation€he€had€had€withÏthe€defendant?ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àVI.ÌÌà8 àWhether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€jury€verdict?ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àFACTS€ÌÌÓÓà àOn€August€20,€1992,€Andy€Shelfer€was€driving€home€around€11:30€p.m.Ïafter€getting€off€duty€at€the€Polk€County€Sheriff's€Office€when€he€noticed€aÏvehicle€approaching€him€from€behind€travelling€in€an€erratic€manner.€€A€gunÏwas€fired€from€the€vehicle,€which€Mr.€Shelfer€identified€as€an€InternationalÏScout,€and€the€bullet€hit€the€driver's€door€of€Mr.€Shelfer's€automobile.€€Mr.ÏShelfer€recognized€Tommy€Lee€Dockery€inside€the€Scout€with€a€gun.€€After€aÏhigh€speed€chase,€he€was€able€to€see€the€Scout's€license€plate€number€whichÏwas€later€confirmed€to€be€registered€to€Mr.€Dockery.€€After€returning€to€his€homeÏwhere€he€lived€with€his€wife,€the€defendant,€and€their€two€children,€Mr.€ShelferÏobserved€that€his€wife€came€home€on€foot€some€fifteen€minutes€later.€€Mr.ÏDockery€was€arrested€that€evening,€and,€on€the€following€day,€after€Mr.€DockeryÏconfessed€to€the€attempted€murder€and€implicated€the€defendant€as€hisÏaccomplice,€the€defendant€was€also€arrested.€€ÌÌà àAt€trial,€Mr.€Shelfer€testified€regarding€the€shooting€as€detailed€above.€€HeÏsaid€that€it€looked€like€two€or€three€people€were€in€the€Scout€and€it€seemed€as€ifÏthey€were€scuffling.€€Against€his€will,€he€also€testified€that€his€wife€had€called€himÏfrom€jail€and€explained€to€him€that€she€was€driving€the€Scout€on€the€night€of€theÏcrime.€€She€had€told€him€that€Mr.€Dockery€had€coerced€her€into€the€vehicle€andÏthat€she€had€attempted€to€escape€once€and€struggled€with€Mr.€Dockery€in€anÏattempt€to€stop€him€from€shooting.€€However,€after€the€state€referred€to€certainÏprior€inconsistent€statements€of€Mr.€Shelfer's,€he€acknowledged€telling€an€officerÏon€the€night€of€his€wife's€arrest€that€he€thought€she€was€driving€but€did€not€wantÏto€believe€it.€€At€the€preliminary€hearing,€he€claimed€not€to€know€who€wasÏdriving€the€Scout,€but€he€did€say€that€whoever€it€was€had€saved€his€life€byÏdriving€back€and€forth€on€the€road.ÌÌÌÌÌà àThough€Mr.€Shelfer€€thought€that€Mr.€Dockery€was€infatuated€with€hisÏwife,€he€said€that€he€did€not€believe€his€wife€was€having€an€affair€with€Mr.ÏDockery.€€He€said€that€he€and€the€defendant€€had€been€married€twenty„threeÏyears€with€two€brief€divorces€during€that€period€and€that€they€had€been€veryÏhappy€for€the€four€years€prior€to€the€crime.€€Mr.€Shelfer€knew€that€his€wife€hadÏbeen€involved€in€certain€business€dealings€with€Mr.€Dockery.€€He€was€alsoÍaware€that€his€wife€had€been€with€Mr.€Dockery€at€a€bar€on€one€occasion€andÏeven€that€they€had€danced€together€there.€€However,€Mr.€Shelfer€testified€that€heÏnever€distrusted€his€wife€nor€had€any€belief€that€she€had€romantic€feelings€forÏMr.€Dockery.ÌÌà àTommy€Lee€Dockery,€who€had€already€confessed€to€his€involvement€inÏthe€attempted€murder,€was€also€a€witness€at€trial.€€Confirming€Mr.€Shelfer'sÏtestimony,€he€said€that€his€relationship€with€the€defendant€began€as€a€businessÏrelationship€and€that€his€relationship€with€the€defendant€evolved€into€a€romanticÏone€on€June€3,€1992€when€they€first€went€to€the€County€Line€Tavern€to€danceÏand€listen€to€live€music.€€The€County€Line€Tavern€was€a€bar€just€across€theÏMcMinn€County€line€in€Monroe€County€where,€according€to€Mr.€Dockery'sÏtestimony,€he€had€performed€country€and€western€songs€so€often€that€they€gaveÏhim€a€personal€table.€€Mr.€Dockery€said€that€he€and€the€defendant€went€backÏthere€several€times,€always€at€night.€€Their€relationship€continued€to€developÏand€they€were€soon€talking€about€marriage€and€a€future€together.ÌÌà àMr.€Dockery€testified€that€he€loaned€the€defendant€$1000€of€his€father'sÏmoney€so€that€she€could€get€a€divorce€from€her€husband.€€According€to€Mr.ÏDockery,€it€was€the€defendant€who€initiated€the€plan€to€murder€her€husbandÏbecause€she€thought€a€divorce€would€not€eliminate€the€problem€of€Mr.€Shelfer'sÏpresence€in€her€life.€€Moreover,€if€he€was€killed€in€Polk€County€in€uniform€and€onÏduty,€she€would€get€money€from€a€work„related€insurance€policy.€€Mr€DockeryÍtestified€that€on€August€20,€1992,€the€defendant€told€him€to€come€pick€her€upÏand€to€bring€his€gun.€€After€they€ate€some€food€that€she€had€brought,€sheÏpracticed€driving€his€Scout.€€When€Mr.€Shelfer€passed€by,€they€sped€after€him,Ïhe€shot€at€Mr.€Shelfer,€and€missed.€€A€high€speed€chase€ensued€in€which€Mr.ÏShelfer€chased€the€Scout€and€then€backed€off.€€After€Mr.€Dockery€drove€home€toÏswitch€cars,€he€dropped€the€defendant€off€a€couple€of€blocks€from€her€house.ÌÌà àAccording€to€Mr.€Dockery,€the€defendant€was€furious€at€him€for€missingÏand€threatened€to€kill€him€if€he€ever€told€anyone€about€the€events€of€the€day.€€OnÏcross„examination,€€Mr.€Dockery€said€that€he€had€volunteered€to€be€the€shooterÏso€he€could€purposely€aim€to€miss€Mr.€Shelfer.€€However,€he€had€earlierÏresponded€on€direct€examination€that€it€was€in€his€heart€to€kill€Mr.€Shelfer€thatÏday.ÌÌà àMarion€Dockery,€the€father€of€Tommy€Lee€Dockery,€also€testified€at€trial.€ÏHe€said€that€in€June,€July,€and€August€of€1992,€the€defendant€was€at€his€homeÏthree€to€four€times€a€week.€€According€to€the€elder€Mr.€Dockery,€his€son€and€theÏdefendant€acted€like€much€more€than€friends,€and€he€had€even€heard€theÏdefendant€tell€his€son€that€she€loved€him€more€than€life.€€He€said€that€he€hadÏpermitted€his€son€to€borrow€$1000€for€the€defendant.ÌÌà àMarie€Martin,€the€proprietor€of€the€County€Line€Tavern,€testified€that€sheÏrecognized€the€defendant€and€Tommy€Lee€Dockery€as€the€couple€who€hadÍbeen€in€her€bar€two€to€five€times.€€She€testified€that€she€worked€during€theÏdaytime€and€saw€the€couple€in€the€bar€only€during€the€day.€€She€said€that€theyÏdanced€to€the€jukebox€when€they€were€at€the€bar.€€She€noticed€them€becauseÏthey€seemed€to€be€an€especially€happy€couple.€€However,€she€did€not€agreeÏthat€Mr.€Dockery€had€ever€sung€at€the€bar€before,€and€she€said€that€she€was€theÏone€who€hired€all€the€bands.ÌÌÌÌÌà àThe€state's€proof€also€included€the€testimony€of€Andy€Lockhart,€a€friend€ofÏthe€Shelfers.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€had€asked€him€for€money€a€few€weeksÏprior€to€the€shooting,€because€he€testified€that€he€had€helped€the€ShelfersÏfinancially€in€the€past.€€On€this€occasion,€he€understood€from€the€defendant€thatÏboth€she€and€her€husband€needed€money.€€There€was€no€inference€that€theyÏwere€having€any€problems€with€their€marriage.ÌÌà àThe€state's€final€witness€was€Richard€Brogan,€the€T.B.I.€agent€whoÏarrested€Tommy€Lee€Dockery.€€He€said€that€he€stopped€by€the€Shelfer's€homeÏon€the€day€after€the€shooting€and€asked€the€defendant€a€few€questions.€€Mr.ÏBrogan€testified€that€the€defendant€appeared€to€be€calm€and€collected€at€first.€ÏShe€told€him€that€she€had€been€with€a€neighbor€named€Denise€the€night€before.€ÏHowever,€upon€further€questioning€regarding€the€whereabouts€and€last€name€ofÍDenise,€the€defendant€got€excited€and€emphatically€asserted€that€she€was€notÏgoing€to€get€Denise€involved.€€Mr.€Brogan€contacted€various€people€in€theÏdefendant's€neighborhood€in€an€attempt€to€find€Denise€but€found€no€one€thatÏknew€of€her.ÌÌà àThe€defendant's€theory€was€that€she€was€not€involved€in€the€attemptedÏmurder€of€her€husband.€€Only€two€witnesses€testified€for€the€defense„„€both€hadÏbeen€in€jail€with€Mr.€Dockery€after€the€shooting€and€one€of€the€men€was€Mr.ÏDockery's€son.€€They€gave€similar€stories€about€how€Mr.€Dockery€had€told€themÏthat€he€would€€try€to€get€the€defendant€convicted€and€sent€to€prison€because€itÏwas€the€only€way€to€keep€her€away€from€her€husband.€€According€to€theseÏdefense€witnesses,€Mr.€Dockery€also€had€hopes€of€having€his€sentence€reducedÏif€he€could€help€convict€the€defendant.ÌÌà àPrior€to€the€trial€of€the€defendant,€Tommy€Lee€Dockery€pled€guilty€to€thisÏcrime€and€received€a€fifteen€year€sentence.€€On€February€16,€before€the€trialÏwas€continued,€the€jury€was€selected.€€While€the€state€was€€attempting€to€locateÏtheir€witness,€Marie€Martin,€a€plea€was€entered€by€the€defendant€and€openingÏstatements€were€given€by€both€parties.€€Over€the€defendant's€objection,€the€juryÏwas€deliberately€not€sworn.€€€ÌÓ  Óò òÌI.ó óÌÓ  Óà àIn€the€defendant's€first€issue,€she€contends€that€the€state€failed€to€satisfyÏthe€requirements€for€obtaining€a€continuance.€€Acknowledging€that€the€grant€ofÏa€continuance€is€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€the€defendantÏcited€this€court€in€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€256€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990):ÌÓÓà8 àWhen€an€accused€seeks€a€continuance€on€the€ground€a€witness€isÏunavailable,€the€accused€is€required€to€file€a€written€motion€whichÏsets€forth€the€grounds€with€particularity;€and€the€motion€must€beÏsupported€by€an€affidavit.€€The€affidavit€must€allege€(a)€theÏsubstance€of€the€facts€that€the€accused€expects€to€prove€throughÏthe€unavailable€witness,€(b)€sufficient€facts€to€establish€theÏrelevance€and€materiality€of€the€testimony€of€the€unavailableÏwitness,€(c)€the€testimony€would€be€admissible,€if€the€witness€wasÏavailable,€(d)€the€testimony€is€not€merely€cumulative€to€otherÏevidence,€(e)€the€witness€will€be€available€at€a€later€date,€and€(f)Ïdiligence€was€exercised€to€obtain€the€presence€of€the€witness.€ÏThe€failure€to€file€a€proper€motion€and/or€a€properly€draftedÏaffidavit€standing€alone,€will€justify€the€denial€of€the€motion€withoutÏa€hearing.€ÌÌÓÓAs€the€state€has€pointed€out€in€its€brief,€òòDykesóó€and€the€others€cases€cited€by€theÏdefendant€establish€factors,€the€absence€of€which,€may€justify€a€trial€court'sÏdenial€of€a€motion€for€continuance.€€It€does€not€logically€follow,€however,€thatÏthese€factors€are€threshold€requirements€for€a€trial€court€to€òògrantóó€a€continuance.€ÏRule€47€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provides€that€the€courtÏmay€permit€oral€motions.€€As€for€affidavits€Tenn.R.Crim.P.€47€provides€thatÏmotions€"may€be€supported€by€affidavit";€however,€there€is€no€such€requirement.€ÏIn€this€case,€the€state€did€not€know€that€its€€witness,€Marie€Martin,€would€beÏabsent€until€the€morning€of€the€trial.€€The€state€explained€to€the€court€theÏsignificance€of€this€witness€who€was€the€only€non„family€member€who€could€Ïtestify€to€the€relationship€between€the€defendant€and€Mr.€Dockery.€€It€was€well€ÌÌÌÌwithin€the€trial€court's€discretion€to€grant€a€continuance€to€the€state€upon€oralÏmotion€under€those€circumstances.Ó  Óò òÌII.ó óÌÓ  Óà àIn€the€defendant's€next€issue,€she€contends€that€she€was€placed€inÏjeopardy€by€the€proceedings€at€the€initial€trial€date€on€February€17,€1993.€ÏTherefore,€the€trial€and€conviction€on€May€17,€1993€were€in€violation€of€theÏprohibition€against€double€jeopardy.€€The€state€first€knew€that€its€witness,€MarieÏMartin,€was€missing€around€9:00€in€the€morning€at€which€time€it€beganÏimmediately€trying€to€locate€her.€€After€determining€that€the€witness€could€not€beÏfound,€the€state€made€the€court€aware€of€her€unavailability.€€The€judgeÏacknowledged€that€once€the€jury€was€sworn,€jeopardy€would€attach.€€While€theÏstate€continued€its€search€for€the€witness,€the€indictment€was€read€by€theÏAttorney€General;€a€plea€of€not€guilty€was€entered€by€the€defendant's€attorney;Ïthe€witnesses€were€called,€placed€under€the€rule,€and€excluded€from€theÏcourtroom;€and€opening€statements€were€made€by€both€parties.ÌÌà àThe€defendant's€argument€is€that€she€was,€in€essence,€placed€in€theÏhands€of€the€jury€during€the€proceedings€that€took€place€on€the€morning€ofÏFebruary€17€and,€therefore,€placed€in€jeopardy€even€though€the€jury€was€notÏsworn.€€However,€neither€does€the€defendant€present€nor€can€we€find€authorityÍto€support€her€argument.€€Indeed,€it€is€well€established€in€Tennessee€thatÏjeopardy€does€not€attach€in€a€jury€case€until€the€"defendant€is€put€to€trial€beforeÏa€court€of€competent€jurisdiction€upon€a€sufficient€indictment€and€the€jury€isÏimpaneled€òòand€swornóó."€€òòState€v.€Maxóó,€714€S.W.2d€289,€294€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1986);€€òòState€v.€Mooreóó,€713€S.W.2d€670,€675€€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€The€trialÏjudge€stated€that€it€was€his€normal€procedure€to€swear€the€jury€only€after€theÏindictment€had€been€read,€the€plea€entered,€and€the€opening€statements€made.€ÏThis€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÓ  Óò òIII.ó óÌÓ  Óà àNext,€the€defendant€contends€that€in„court€identification€of€herself€and€ofÏTommy€Lee€Dockery€by€the€witness,€Marie€Martin,€was€tainted€by€an€earlierÏimpermissibly€suggestive€photographic€showup.€€Following€the€arrest€of€theÏdefendant,€the€Sheriff€and€Deputy€Sheriff,€James€Burris,€of€Polk€County€visitedÏMs.€Martin€at€her€bar,€the€County€Line€Tavern.€€Ms.€Martin,€who€had€read€aboutÏthe€shooting€in€the€newspapers,€was€unable€to€recognize€the€defendant€or€Mr.ÏDockery€from€the€descriptions€given€by€the€officers.€€However,€when€Mr€BurrisÏreturned€later€with€photographs€of€Mr.€Dockery€and€the€defendant,€she€identifiedÏthem€as€a€couple€who€had€been€in€her€bar€two€or€three€times.€€BothÏphotographs€were€mug€shots€and€Mr.€Dockery's€photograph€had€upon€it€hisÏname€and€the€following€notation:€"attempted€murder€of€an€officer."€€Though€theÏofficer€admittedly€had€the€opportunity€and€time€to€obtain€other€photographs€ofÏthe€suspects,€as€well€as€those€of€other€persons€of€similar€descriptions€for€aÏphotographic€array,€he€did€not.€€At€trial,€the€judge€disallowed€the€pre„trialÍidentification€but€permitted€Ms.€Martin€to€identify€the€defendant€and€Mr.€DockeryÏwho€were€both€in€the€courtroom.ÌÌà à"Constitutional€due€process€is€violated€if€a€pre„trial€identificationÏprocedure€is€so€suggestive€as€to€render€the€identification€unreliable."€€òòState€v.ÏShortóó,€698€S.W.2d€81,€83€€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985)€(citing€òòState€v.€Shanklinóó,€608ÏS.W.2d€596,€598€€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980)).€€Once€the€initial€determination€isÏmade€that€the€pre„trial€identification€procedure€is€unreasonably€suggestive,€theÏcourt€must€examine€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€to€determine€the€reliabilityÏof€the€in„court€identification.€€òòState€v.€Moselyóó,€667€S.W.2d€767,€770€€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1983)€(citing€òòStovall€v.€Dennoóó,€388€U.S.€293,€302,€87€S.Ct.€1967,€1972,€18ÏL.Ed.2d€1199€(1967);€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó,€409€U.S.€188,€198,€93€S.Ct.€375,€382,€34ÏL.Ed.2d€401€(1972);€òòManson€v.€Brathwaiteóó,€432€U.S.€98,€114,€97€S.Ct.€2243,Ï2253,€53€L.Ed.2d€140,€154€(1977)).€€We€agree€with€the€defendant€that€thisÏphotographic€showup€was€unduly€suggestive.€€This€court€has€said,€"[w]e€knowÏof€no€decision€of€any€appellate€court€which€has€approved€a€photographic€show„up€consisting€of€only€one€picture€designated€by€the€prosecutor€as€the€accused."€ÏòòState€v.€Tysonóó,€603€S.W.2d€748,€753€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€Here,€not€onlyÏwere€the€photographs€not€accompanied€by€others€but€they€were€mug€shots,€oneÏof€which€designated€the€defendant's€confessed€accomplice€as€an€attemptedÏmurderer.€€ÌÌà àThe€question€then€becomes€whether€the€subsequent€in„courtÏidentification€was€affected€by€the€earlier€tainted€photographic€show„up.€€TheÏUnited€States€Supreme€Court€has€enumerated€the€factors€to€be€weighedÏagainst€the€corrupting€effect€of€suggestive€identifications€including€"theÏopportunity€of€the€witness€to€view€the€criminal€at€the€time€of€the€crime,€theÏwitness'€degree€of€attention,€the€accuracy€of€his€prior€description€of€the€criminal,Ïthe€level€of€certainty€demonstrated€at€the€confrontation,€and€the€time€betweenÏthe€crime€and€the€confrontation."€€òòManson€v.€Brathwaiteóó,€supra.€€Turning€to€theÏfacts€of€this€case€to€apply€this€analysis,€we€look€first€at€Ms.€Martin's€opportunityÏto€view€the€defendant.€€She€testified€that€the€defendant€came€into€her€bar€threeÏto€five€times,€staying€briefly.€€Ms.€Martin€said€that€the€defendant€came€to€the€barÏin€the€daytime€with€Mr.€Dockery€where€they€usually€danced€and€drank€beerÏwhich€Ms.€Martin€served€them.€€The€witness€said€that€she€noticed€theseÏcustomers€in€particular€because€they€seemed€happy.€€Although€ten€months€hadÏpassed€from€the€time€that€the€defendant€was€in€the€bar€and€the€time€that€Ms.ÏMartin€identified€her€in€the€courtroom,€Ms.€Martin€was€certain€that€the€defendantÏwas€the€one€who€had€been€in€her€tavern€with€Mr.€Dockery.€€Though€there€areÏcertainly€factors€weighing€against€the€reliability€of€this€identification,€there€areÏindicia€of€reliability€surrounding€the€in„court€identification€made€by€Ms.€MartinÏwhich€outweigh€any€injurious€effect€of€the€suggestive€photographic€show„up,Ïparticularly€her€level€of€certainty€as€to€the€identification€of€both€parties.ÌÓ  Óò òÌÌÌÌIV.ó óÓ  Óà àThe€defendant's€next€argument€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€theÏstatements€she€had€made€to€a€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€agent€whichÏshe€contends€were€inadmissible€hearsay.€€The€defendant€has€failed€to€includeÏthis€issue€in€her€motion€for€new€trial.€€It€has,€therefore,€been€waived.€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€3(e).€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Clintonóó,754€S.W.2d€100,€103€€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1988).Ó  Óò òÌV.ó óÌÓ  Óà àIn€the€defendant€'s€fifth€issue,€she€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏforcing€her€husband€to€testify€as€to€certain€statements€made€to€him€by€her.€€AfterÏthe€defendant€was€arrested€and€taken€to€jail,€she€made€€several€telephone€callsÏto€her€husband€at€his€home.€€During€one€of€their€phone€conversations,€theÏdefendant€told€him€that€she€had€been€driving€Tommy€Lee€Dockery's€Scout,€butÏhad€nothing€to€do€with€trying€to€kill€him.€€She€explained€to€him€that€she€hadÏended€up€in€the€Scout€against€her€desire€and€that€she€had€attempted€to€driveÏerratically€so€that€Mr.€Dockery€would€not€be€able€to€accurately€aim€the€gun.€€AtÏtrial€the€defense€counsel€objected€to€the€admission€of€this€testimony€basedÏupon€the€fact€that€the€communication€was€made€in€confidence€and€thereforeÏsubject€to€the€marital€privilege.€€Mr.€Shelfer€made€it€clear€that€he€was€not€willingÏto€testify,€asking€the€judge€if€there€were€any€way€that€he€could€invoke€the€maritalÏprivilege.€€However,€after€the€judge€found€that€the€marital€privilege€wasÍinapplicable,€Mr.€Shelfer€testified€to€the€defendant's€version€of€the€crime€as€toldÏto€him€by€her.ÌÌà à"There€are€two€traditional€privileges€involved€when€a€spouse€is€beingÏcalled€to€testify€against€his€[or€her]€criminal€defendant€spouse€at€his€[or€her]Ïtrial."€€Cohen€et.€al.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€501.13€(2d€ed.€Supp.€1994).€ÏThe€marital€communications€privilege€protects€against€the€disclosure€ofÏconfidential€marital€communications€and€has€historically€been€held€by€both€theÏtestifying€spouse€and€the€defendant€spouse.€€òòId.óó€€The€second€privilege€is€theÏspousal€witness€privilege€under€which€a€spouse€cannot€be€forced€to€testifyÏabout€either€confidential€or€non„confidential€communications€with€his€or€herÏspouse.€€òòId.óó€€This€court€has€held€that€there€is€no€marital€privilege€in€trials€ofÏcrimes€of€violence€committed€by€one€spouse€against€the€other,€or€upon€theirÏchildren€òòAdams€v.€Stateóó,€563€S.W.2d€804,€809€(Tenn.Crim.App.€1978);€òòRoystonÏv.€Stateóó,€1€Tenn.Crim.App.€748,€450€S.W.2d€39,€42€(Tenn.Crim.App.€1969)Ï(where€the€husband€and€wife€were€separated,€and€the€wife€willingly€testifiedÏthat€she€feared€her€husband€who€had€been€abusive€in€the€past);€òòState€v.ÏPhillipsóó,728€S.W.2d€21,€27€€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986)€(where€estranged€wife€wasÏa€willing€witness€for€the€state€in€her€testimony€that€defendant/husband€had€hitÏher).€€The€marital€privilege€has€been€justified€in€the€past€by€society's€interest€inÏthe€sanctity€of€the€home€and€in€marital€communications.€òòSeeóó€òòMartin€v.€Stateóó,Ï584€S.W.2d€830,€832€(Tenn.Crim.App.€1979).€€In€the€cases€where€the€privilegeÏwas€held€to€be€inapplicable,€the€court€based€its€decisions€on€the€theory€thatÍsocietal€interests€were€better€served€by€allowing€disclosure€where€the€spouseÏor€the€children€were€the€victims.€€òòSeeóó€òòAdams€v.€Stateóó,€563€S.W.2d€804,€809Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978)€(where€marital€privilege€did€not€preclude€statementsÏand€actions€surrounding€the€beating€of€a€deceased€child).€ÌÌà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€addressed€a€situation€in€which€theÏwitness,€who€was€not€the€victim€of€the€crime,€willingly€testified€against€herÏhusband/defendant€who€had€attempted€to€invoke€the€marital€privilege€to€keepÏher€from€testifying.€€òòState€v.€Hurleyóó,€876€S.W.2d€57,€64€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€courtÏwas€"of€the€opinion€that€the€common€€law€rule,€as€it€has€been€stated€heretofore,Ïto€the€effect€that€public€policy€requires€that€neither€the€husband€nor€the€wifeÏshall€be€permitted€to€testify,€in€criminal€cases€as€to€any€matter€coming€to€his€orÏher€knowledge€by€reason€of€the€marital€relation.€.€.€is€too€broad€a€statement."€€òòId.óóÏat€63.€€The€court€further€stated€that,€"[s]uch€a€rule€does€not€necessarily€promoteÏmarital€harmony.€€In€this€case,€defendant€invoked€the€rule€of€spousalÏdisqualification€not€for€the€protection€of€confidential€marital€communications,€butÏto€exclude€evidence€of€criminal€acts€with€which€he€was€charged."€€òòId.óó€€TheÏcourt's€holding€modified€the€spousal€privilege€in€criminal€cases€€so€that€"theÏwitness€spouse€alone€has€the€privilege€to€refuse€to€testify€adversely."€€òòId.óó€at€64.€ÏIn€so€holding,€the€Court€stated€that,€"[t]he€witness€can€be€neither€compelled€toÏtestify€nor€foreclosed€from€testifying."€òòId.óó€€The€Court€felt€that€the€new€rule,Ï"furthers€the€important€public€interest€in€marital€harmony€without€undulyÏburdening€legitimate€law€enforcement€needs."€€òòId.óóÌÌà àThe€Supreme€Court€in€òòHurleyóó€failed€to€distinguish€between€the€maritalÏcommunications€and€the€spousal€witness€privilege,€instead€"collaps[ing]€theseÏtwo€privileges€into€one€that€is€controlled€by€the€witness€spouse."€€Cohen€et.€al.,ÏòòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€501.13€(2d€ed.€Supp.€1994).€€The€questionÏremains€whether€or€not€a€spouse€who€has€been€the€victim€of€a€crime€can€refuseÏto€testify€against€his€or€her€spouse€who€is€on€trial€for€that€crime.€€As€the€court€inÏòòHurleyóó€did,€we€examine€this€situation€in€light€of€the€historical€justification€for€theÏmarital€privilege:€the€interest€in€marital€harmony.€€Here,€we€have€a€spouse€whoÏtestified€that€he€did€not€believe€that€his€wife,€the€defendant,€was€guilty€of€theÏcrime.€€He€testified€that€they€were€living€together€at€the€time€of€the€trial€and€wereÏthe€happiest€they€had€been€since€first€marrying€twenty„three€years€before.€€HeÏwas€convinced€by€the€conversation€he€had€had€with€the€defendant€that€herÏinvolvement€in€the€events€surrounding€the€crime€was€innocent.€€However,€byÏcompelling€an€unwilling€spouse€such€as€this€victim€to€testify,€we€do€not€find€thatÏthe€important€societal€interest€in€marital€harmony€would€be€unduly€encumbered.€ÏThis€is€not€like€the€situation€in€òòHurleyóó€where€the€fact€that€a€spouse€is€willing€toÏtestify€indicates€that€the€marriage€is€already€beyond€repair.€€Nor€is€this€aÏsituation€in€which€the€legislature€has€provided€for€the€compulsion€of€testimonyÏfrom€an€unwilling€spouse€in€order€to€protect€that€spouse.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€We€do€not€believeÍthat€òòState€v.€Hurleyóó€controls€this€situation€giving€this€witness€the€power€to€testifyÏor€to€refuse€to€testify€against€the€defendant,€his€wife.€€As€the€Supreme€CourtÏnoted€in€òòHurleyóó,€876€S.W.2d€at€63,€Tenn.R.Evid.€501€has€"removed€any€barrierÏto€interspousal€testimony,€for€or€against€the€other€spouse,€except€as€provided€byÏcommon€law."€€The€Court€then€went€on€to€note,€as€previously€stated,€that€theÏcommon€law€rule€was€too€broad.€€In€òòHurleyóó,€the€Supreme€Court€cited€òòAdamsóóÏapprovingly,€and€òòAdamsóó€clearly€mandated€that€no€privilege€exists€in€casesÏinvolving€crimes€by€one€spouse€against€the€other.€€Therefore,€we€hold€that€Mr.ÏShelfer€was€properly€compelled€to€testify€against€the€defendant€in€the€trial€andÏhis€testimony€was€properly€considered€as€evidence€by€the€jury.ÌÌÓ  Óò òVI.ó óÌÓ  Óà àIn€her€final€issue,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€toÏsupport€the€jury€verdict€finding€her€guilty€of€attempted€murder€because€thereÏwas€insufficient€evidence€to€corroborate€the€testimony€of€Tommy€Lee€Dockery,Ïan€accomplice.€€The€principles€which€govern€this€court's€review€of€a€convictionÏby€a€jury€are€well€established.€€This€court€must€review€the€record€to€determine€ifÏthe€evidence€adduced€at€trial€was€sufficient€"to€support€the€finding€of€the€trier€ofÏfact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€This€rule€isÏapplicable€to€determinations€of€guilt€predicated€upon€direct€evidence,Ícircumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€thereof.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805ÏS.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).ÌÌà àA€jury€verdict€of€guilty,€approved€by€the€trial€court,€accredits€the€testimonyÏof€the€state's€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€theory€of€theÏstate.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983);€òòState€v.€Hatchettóó,Ï560€S.W.2d€627,€630€(Tenn.€1978).€€On€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€theÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€and€legitimateÏinferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,Ï835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Moreover,€a€verdict€against€the€defendant€removes€theÏpresumption€of€innocence€and€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt€on€appeal,€òòState€v.ÏGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973),€which€the€appellant€has€the€burdenÏof€overcoming.€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€551€S.W.2d€329,€330€(Tenn.€1977).ÌÌà àIn€examining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€does€notÏreevaluate€the€weight€or€credibility€of€the€witnesses'€testimony€as€those€areÏmatters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€the€triers€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,Ï676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Wrightóó,€836€S.W.2d€130,€134€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1992).€€Nor€may€this€court€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€byÏthe€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,Ï305,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859€(1956).€€The€relevant€question€on€appeal€is€whether,Ïafter€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€any€rationalÏtrier€of€fact€could€have€determined€that€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€wereÍestablished€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòJackson€V.ÏVirginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€314„324,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2786„2792,€61€L.€Ed.€2d€560Ï(1979).€€ÌÌà àIt€is€also€well€established€that,€in€Tennessee,€a€conviction€may€not€beÏbased€upon€the€uncorroborated€testimony€of€an€accomplice.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€Ï885€S.W.2d€797,€803€(Tenn.€1994);€òòMonts€v.€Stateóó,€379€S.W.2d€34,€43€(Tenn.Ï1964).€€Whether€a€witness'€testimony€has€been€sufficiently€corroborated€is€aÏmatter€entrusted€to€the€jury€as€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòId.óó€€The€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt€recently€discussed€the€nature€of€the€rule€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 à[T]here€must€be€some€fact€testified€to,€entirely€independent€of€theÏaccomplice's€testimony,€which,€taken€by€itself,€leads€to€theÏinference,€not€only€that€a€crime€has€been€committed,€but€also€thatÏthe€defendant€is€implicated€in€it;€€and€this€independentÏcorroborative€testimony€must€also€include€some€fact€establishingÏthe€defendant's€identity.€€This€corroborative€evidence€may€beÏdirect€or€entirely€circumstantial,€and€it€need€not€be€adequate,€inÏand€of€itself,€to€support€a€conviction;€€it€is€sufficient€to€meet€theÏrequirements€of€the€rule€if€it€fairly€and€legitimately€tends€to€connectÏthe€defendant€with€the€commission€of€the€crime€charged.€€It€is€notÏnecessary€that€the€corroboration€extend€to€every€part€of€theÏaccomplice's€evidence.€€The€corroboration€need€not€beÏconclusive,€but€it€is€sufficient€if€this€evidence,€of€itself,€tends€toÏconnect€the€defendant€with€the€commission€of€the€offense,Ïalthough€the€evidence€is€slight€and€entitled,€when€standing€alone,Ïto€but€little€consideration.€€ÌÓÓÌòòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€€885€S.W.2d€at€83€(quoting€òòState€v.€Gayloróó,€862€S.W.2d€546,Ï552€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)€which€was€quoting€òòHawkins€v.€Stateóó,€469€S.W.2dÏ515€€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1971));€€also€citing€òòState€v.€Henleyóó,€774€S.W.2d€908,€913Ï(Tenn.€1989),€and€other€cases.ÌÌà àAs€we€have€concluded,€the€defendant's€husband,€the€victim,€AndyÏShelfer,€was€properly€compelled€to€testify€at€trial;€therefore,€his€testimony€isÏconsidered€in€our€review€of€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€The€defendant€isÏcorrect€that,€other€than€her€husband's€testimony,€there€is€nothing€in€the€recordÏwhich€leads€to€the€inference€that€she€is€implicated€in€the€crime.€€The€testimonyÏof€both€Marion€Dockery€and€Marie€Martin€suggest€that€€the€defendant€andÏTommy€Lee€Dockery€were€involved€in€a€relationship€on€some€level.€€However,Ïproof€of€even€a€serious€romantic€relationship€is€inadequate€to€connect€theÏdefendant€to€the€crime€for€which€she€has€been€convicted.€€Neither€were€theÏstate's€final€two€witnesses€sufficient€to€incriminate€the€defendant.€€The€testimonyÏof€Andy€Lockhart€€revealed€only€that€the€defendant€expressed€a€need€for€moneyÏa€few€weeks€prior€to€the€crime.€€The€crux€of€Richard€Brogan's€testimony€was€thatÏhe€could€not€verify€the€defendant's€story€about€where€she€was€on€the€night€ofÏthe€shooting.€€But€when€the€victim's€testimony€concerning€the€defendant'sÏstatement€is€added€to€the€evidence,€it€is€clear€that€the€evidence€adduced€at€trialÏis€sufficient€to€support€her€attempted€murder€conviction.€€Therefore,€this€issueÏhas€no€merit.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à___________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€SCOTT,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌPENNY€J.€WHITE,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà à