ÿWPC.( …UBV %˜U .žÌnXÜ 0P4 4„ 1m˜ 0d 0”i 0Dý A w@I 0J‰ 0TÓ 0^' 0h… 0rí 0|_ 0†Û Ba 0~ 1uU,ƒ 0d¯ D3U,F 0@rU6²B)èDC AMTU¡‚öÎxˆFv~ÎvÓL 0! 0Š®! 0 8" 0´Ø" 0ÇŒ# 0ÛS$ 0ï.% AO&Æl& 0l2' 0Dž' D/â' B(<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|X«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  Óo„p tuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(<1$´´Ô2Ô6.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0  à(D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ëìí[î[ïð[ñ[òEóô+e2 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  Ô d2^ 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 'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Monaco("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd€-0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ KÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÔ€.ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌMarchÏ22,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó xÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÔ€.ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔ€The€defendant€cites€the€following€additional€cases€in€support€of€his€argument:€òòState€v.ÏColemanóó,€865€S.W.2d€455€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Gregoryóó,€862€S.W.2d€574€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);ÏòòState€v.€Sandersóó,€842€S.W.2d€257€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992);€and€òòState€v.€Tommy€Kingóó,€C.C.A.€No.Ïœ01C01›„9111„CC„00334,€Rutherford€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€August€13,€1992,€at€Nashville).Ì ÄÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÔ€.ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔ€In€òòAnthonyóó,€for€example,€the€criminal€acts€took€no€more€than€five€minutes.€€òòSeeóó€òòAnthonyóó,€817ÏS.W.2d€at€301„302.€€In€the€case€at€bar,€the€victim€was€confined€for€a€period€of€up€to€two€and€a€half€hours.Ì ~Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÔ€.ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔ€In€òòSandersóó,€for€example,€this€Court€specifically€found€that€the€detention€of€the€victim€did€notÏcreate€a€risk€substantially€greater€than€that€necessarily€involved€in€the€crime€of€robbery.€€òòSeeóó€òòSandersóó,Ï842€S.W.2d€at€260.€€In€the€case€at€bar,€however,€the€detention€and€movement€of€the€victim€certainlyÏincreased€the€risk€of€harm€beyond€that€necessarily€present€in€the€crime€of€burglary.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò(gfi$µµà0  àÔ2(ÆÔ6.Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0` (#(#à(bÕä$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xâr$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒU$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿ@Æ$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³ýt$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Çñû$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(D3u$¢¢Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÓ&€,,X„d&ÓÑ#€,,Xd#ÑÔ€.ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÑ X Ñ›Ñ7€§öXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÙ€€ÙßL€120;+'h|` 81 `€€Lßà àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÓ  Óà@ àœNOVEMBER›€1995ÏSESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.ÏNO.€ó ó€ò òœ01C01›„9505„CC„00144ó óÌà àà àAppellee,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àRUTHERFORD€COUNTYó óÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.ÏJAMES€K.€CLAYTON,€JR.,ÌJOSEPH€MICHAELÏSHELTON,à àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)ó óà à(Aggravated€Burglary;€EspeciallyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àAggravated€Kidnapping)ÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THEÏAPPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òGERALD€L.ÏœMELTON›à àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.ÏœBURSON›ó óÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€&€ReporterÌ201€West€Main€St.,€Suite€101ÌMurfreesboro,€TN€37130ò òà àà àà àà àJOHN€P.ÏœCAULEY›ó óÌà àà àà àà àà à€à àà àœAsst›.ÍAttorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Pkwy.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òGUY€R.€œDOTSON›ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òDAVID€L.€œPUCKETT›ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœAsst›.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àRutherford€County€Judicial€œBldg›.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMurfreesboro,€TN€37130ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,ÌJudgeÇÑ  Ñà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àThe€defendant€was€indicted€for€aggravated€burglary€and€especiallyÏaggravated€kidnapping.€€On€May€24,€1994,€he€was€found€guilty€at€a€jury€trial€on€bothÏcharges.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€sixteen€years€for€especiallyÏaggravated€kidnapping€and€to€three€years€for€aggravated€burglary.€€The€sentencesÏwere€ordered€to€run€concurrently.€€In€this€appeal€as€of€right€the€defendant€challengesÏthe€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence€for€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,€theÏuse€of€the€victim's€uncorroborated€eyewitness€testimony€to€support€the€convictions,Ïand€the€trial€court's€failure€to€exercise€its€role€as€thirteenth€juror.€€We€find€that€theÏdefendant's€issues€lack€merit,€and€his€convictions€are€therefore€affirmed.ÌÌà àà àThe€principal€proof€offered€at€trial€connecting€the€defendant€with€theÏcharges€was€the€testimony€of€the€victim,€Rebecca€Kelsey.€€Kelsey€testified€that€atÏapproximately€3:00€p.m.€on€August€4,€1993,€a€man,€whom€she€later€identified€as€theÏdefendant,€had€knocked€on€the€door€of€her€home€and€had€asked€if€she€had€a€car€forÏsale.€€When€she€replied€that€she€did€not,€the€defendant€asked€to€use€her€phone.€ÏBefore€Kelsey€could€hand€him€her€portable€phone,€the€defendant€brandished€aÏhandgun,€yelled€"vice"€and€told€her€to€lie€on€the€floor.€€Once€the€victim€was€on€theÍfloor,€she€saw€two€other€men,€both€armed€with€handguns,€enter€her€home.€€One€ofÏthese€two€men€asked€the€victim€"where's€the€money,"€and€they€began€to€search€theÏhome.€€At€this€time€the€defendant€pulled€Kelsey€up€by€her€arm,€seated€her€in€a€chair,Ïand€held€a€handgun€next€to€her€head.€€The€other€two€men€then€threatened€"to€goÏoutside€and€get€a€shocker"€to€make€the€victim€reveal€the€location€of€money€in€theÏhome.ÌÌà àà àAfter€approximately€twenty€minutes,€the€defendant€ordered€Kelsey€toÏget€down€on€all€fours€and€to€crawl€to€a€back€bedroom.€€As€she€crawled€down€the€hallÏto€the€bedroom,€the€defendant€walked€behind€her€holding€his€gun€to€the€back€of€herÏhead.€€The€other€two€men€followed€behind€the€defendant.€€Once€they€had€arrived€atÏthe€bedroom,€the€defendant€pushed€the€victim€onto€her€stomach€on€the€floor€andÏripped€the€telephone€cords€out€of€the€wall.€€Kelsey€told€the€men€that€the€only€moneyÏshe€had€was€in€her€purse€next€to€her€bed,€and€one€of€the€men€began€to€searchÏthrough€her€purse.€€At€this€time,€the€defendant€pulled€the€sheet€and€the€comforter€offÏthe€bed€and€wrapped€them€around€the€victim's€head,€ostensibly€to€prevent€her€fromÏseeing€the€men€clearly.ÌÌà àà àAfter€about€ten€more€minutes€of€searching€the€bedroom,€the€defendantÍremoved€the€sheet€and€the€comforter€from€Kelsey's€head€and€walked€her€back€downÏthe€hall€to€the€living€room,€holding€a€gun€to€her€the€entire€way.€€The€other€two€menÏagain€followed€them€down€the€hall.€€Along€the€way,€one€of€those€men€mentioned€thatÏthey€were€going€to€"wait€till€your€boyfriend€gets€here."€€Upon€reaching€the€living€room,Ïthe€defendant€made€the€victim€sit€down€in€a€chair€and€bound€her€with€duct€tape€fromÏher€home.€€He€taped€her€arms€behind€her€back,€around€her€shoulders€down€to€herÏwaist,€her€legs,€her€eyes€and€her€mouth.€€Once€Kelsey€had€been€taped,€the€threeÏmen€left€the€living€room€and€went€to€a€back€room€in€the€home.€€Kelsey€stood€up€andÏhopped€to€the€kitchen,€found€a€knife,€and€managed€to€cut€herself€free€of€the€tape.€ÏShe€then€ran€out€of€her€home€to€a€neighbor's€house.€€After€police€officers€hadÏarrived,€Kelsey€told€them€that€the€man€who€had€first€entered€her€home€was€theÏdefendant.€€She€later€identified€the€defendant€from€a€photographic€spread.ÌÌà àà àOn€cross„examination,€Kelsey€stated€that€she€had€seen€the€defendantÏfor€about€twenty€minutes€approximately€one€year€before€the€incidents€charged€in€theÏindictment€had€taken€place.€€According€to€her€testimony,€the€defendant€came€to€herÏhome€to€speak€with€her€boyfriend€about€employment€opportunities.€€Kelsey€alsoÏtestified€that€she€had€not€seen€the€defendant€at€any€of€the€convenience€markets€atÏwhich€she€had€worked€for€nearly€seven€years.€€She€testified€further,€however,€thatÍshe€had€recognized€the€defendant€almost€immediately€after€he€had€entered€herÏhome€on€the€afternoon€of€the€alleged€offenses.ÌÌà àà àBill€Sims,€the€neighbor€to€whose€house€Kelsey€had€run€after€freeingÏherself€from€the€duct€tape,€testified€that€the€victim€had€arrived€at€his€home€atÏapproximately€5:30€p.m.€on€the€evening€of€August€4,€1993.€€When€she€arrived,€sheÏwas€covered€in€duct€tape,€had€a€knife€in€her€hand€and€was€hysterical.€€SimsÏattempted€to€calm€Kelsey€and€called€the€police.€€On€cross„examination,€Sims€testifiedÏthat€his€dogs€usually€bark€at€cars€driving€through€the€neighborhood,€but€he€had€notÏheard€them€barking€on€the€afternoon€of€the€offenses.€€Sims€testified€further€that€heÏhad€looked€at€the€victim's€home€often€until€the€police€had€arrived,€but€he€had€notÏseen€anyone€at€or€leaving€the€home.ÌÌà àà àDarrell€Long,€a€deputy€with€the€Rutherford€County€Sheriff's€Department,Ïtestified€that€he€had€arrived€at€Bill€Sims'€home€at€approximately€5:45€p.m.€on€AugustÏ4,€1993.€€Long€observed€that€Kelsey€had€duct€tape€on€her€body€and€that€she€wasÏextremely€upset.€€He€searched€the€area€surrounding€Kelsey's€home€but€found€noÏindividuals€fitting€Kelsey's€description€of€the€perpetrators.€€Detective€œJimmie›€Davis€ofÏthe€Rutherford€County€Sheriff's€Department€testified€that,€although€the€homeÍappeared€thoroughly€ransacked,€he€had€not€attempted€to€take€any€fingerprints€fromÏthe€scene€because€the€cloth€and€wood€surfaces€found€in€Kelsey's€home€do€notÏgenerally€yield€worthwhile€prints.€€On€cross„examination,€Davis€testified€that€in€spiteÏof€Kelsey's€identification€of€the€defendant€as€one€of€the€perpetrators,€he€had€notÏmade€an€arrest€because€he€felt€he€needed€more€information.€€In€addition,€DavisÏstated€that€Kelsey,€contrary€to€her€testimony€at€trial,€had€initially€told€him€that€sheÏknew€the€defendant€because€he€had€come€into€a€convenience€market€at€which€sheÏhad€once€worked.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€testified€at€trial€that€he€was€acquainted€with€KelseyÏbecause€he€had€been€to€her€home€on€a€few€occasions€while€visiting€his€half„brother,Ïwho€lives€near€Kelsey.€€With€regard€to€his€activities€on€August€4,€1993,€the€defendantÏtestified€that€he€stayed€throughout€the€day€in€the€trailer€park€in€which€he€and€hisÏmother€were€living.€€He€mowed€grass€around€the€trailer€park€most€of€the€morning€andÏhung€doors€in€the€trailer€park€in€the€afternoon€with€two€other€men.ÌÌà àà àAlthough€neither€of€the€two€men€with€whom€the€defendant€hadÏallegedly€hung€doors€was€located€for€testifying€at€the€trial,€the€defendant's€mother,ÏLinda€Pope,€did€confirm€his€testimony.€€Pope€stated€that€she€had€remained€at€theÍtrailer€park€throughout€the€day.€€She€testified€further€that€the€defendant€had€mowedÏgrass€in€the€morning€and€had€hung€doors€with€two€acquaintances€until€5:30€or€6:00Ïp.m.€€On€cross„examination,€however,€Pope€admitted€that€she€had€initially€toldÏofficers€investigating€the€matter€that€she€and€her€son€had€been€at€a€lake€all€day.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€first€issue,€the€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence€of€his€conviction€for€especially€aggravated€kidnapping.€€Specifically,€heÏcontends€that€the€movement€and€detention€of€the€victim€were€essentially€incidental€toÏthe€accompanying€aggravated€burglary€and€were€therefore€insufficient€to€support€aÏseparate€conviction,€citing€òòState€v.€Anthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€299€(Tenn.€1991).€€TheÏdefendant€compares€his€situation€to€a€number€of€cases€in€which€Tennessee€courtsÏhave€not€upheld€separate€kidnapping€convictions.œ× ƒ3 ××  ×›€€He€argues€that€although€theÏvictim€was€forced€to€move€around€within€her€home€and€was€eventually€bound€withÏduct€tape,€these€acts€were€clearly€incidental€to€the€commission€of€the€burglary.€€TheÏdefendant€points€out€that€the€victim€was€not€harmed€during€the€incident€and€contendsÏthat€the€confinement€was€no€more€than€necessary€to€complete€the€burglary€and€toÍescape.ÌÌà àà àInitially€we€note€that€the€defendant's€first€issue€does€not€challenge€theÏproof€as€to€the€elements€of€each€offense€involved€in€this€case.€€Instead,€the€defendantÏquestions€the€propriety€of€convicting€him€of€both€especially€aggravated€kidnappingÏand€aggravated€burglary€when€each€offense€arose€out€of€the€same€criminal€episode.€ÏAlthough€Tennessee's€kidnapping€and€burglary€statutes€obviously€survive€theÏscrutiny€of€a€"œBlockburger›€test",€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€held€in€òòAnthonyóó€thatÏtraditional€double€jeopardy€analysis€is€inadequate€to€resolve€this€issue.€€òòAnthonyóó,Ï817€S.W.2d€at€306.€€Instead,€the€Court€stated€that€the€test€applicable€to€theÏdefendant's€situation€is€"whether€the€confinement,€movement,€or€detention€isÏessentially€incidental€to€the€accompanying€felony€and€is€not,€therefore,€sufficient€toÏsupport€a€separate€conviction€for€kidnapping,€or€whether€it€is€significant€enough,€inÏand€of€itself,€to€warrant€independent€prosecution€and€is,€therefore,€sufficient€toÏsupport€such€a€conviction."€€òòAnthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€306.€€Our€Supreme€CourtÏexplained€that€"one€method€of€resolving€this€question€is€to€ask€whether€theÏdefendant's€conduct€'substantially€increased€[the]€risk€of€harm€over€and€above€thatÏnecessarily€present€in€the€crime€of€robbery€itself.'"€€òòAnthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€306Ï(citation€omitted).€€The€Court€concluded€that€Tennessee's€kidnapping€statute€shouldÍbe€narrowly€applied€"so€as€to€make€its€reach€fundamentally€fair€and€to€protect€theÏdue€process€rights€of€every€citizen,€even€those€charged€with€robbery,€rape,€or€theÏlike."€€òòAnthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€306.ÌÌà àà àApplying€the€òòAnthonyóó€analysis€to€the€facts€of€this€case,€we€can€only€findÏthat€there€is€sufficient€evidence€to€support€the€defendant's€kidnapping€conviction.€ÏWhile€the€kidnapping€was€certainly€related€to€the€burglary€in€the€sense€that€theyÏarose€out€of€the€same€criminal€episode,€it€was€not€essentially€incidental€to€theÏburglary.€€In€the€case€at€bar,€the€victim€was€forced€at€gunpoint€to€move€about€herÏhome€while€her€assailants€threatened€to€use€physical€violence€to€make€her€revealÏthe€location€of€any€money€in€the€home.€€Telephone€cords€were€torn€from€the€wall€ofÏher€bedroom,€ostensibly€to€prevent€her€from€calling€for€help.€€She€was€eventuallyÏbound€with€duct€tape,€and€the€intruders€stated€their€intention€to€remain€in€the€homeÏwith€her€captive€until€her€boyfriend€returned.€€In€all,€the€victim€was€confined€for€aÏperiod€of€up€to€two€and€a€half€hours.€€This€series€of€events€substantially€increased€theÏrisk€of€harm€beyond€that€necessarily€present€in€the€burglary€itself.€€òòSeeóó€òòAnthonyóó,€817ÏS.W.2d€at€306.€€Accordingly,€the€confinement€of€the€victim€was€not€essentiallyÏincidental€to€the€burglary€and€was€sufficiently€significant€to€support€the€defendant'sÏkidnapping€conviction.ÌÌà àà àFurthermore,€although€the€defendant€goes€to€great€lengths€to€compareÏhis€situation€to€òòAnthonyóó€and€its€progeny,€our€review€of€the€record€indicates€that€theÏcase€at€bar€is€quite€different€from€those€cases€which€the€defendant€cites.€€Apart€fromÏthe€factual€differences€regarding€the€duration€of€confinement× ƒ4 ××  ×€and€the€increased€riskÏof€harm× ƒ5 ××  ×,€the€principal€distinction€rests€upon€the€fact€that€òòAnthonyóó€and€its€progenyÏinvolve€the€crimes€of€rape,€robbery,€and€murder€as€the€felonies€accompanying€theÏkidnapping€convictions.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€€òòAnthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€301„302;€òòColemanóó,€865ÏS.W.2d€at€456„457;€òòGregoryóó,€862€S.W.2d€at€575„576;€òòSandersóó,€842€S.W.2d€at€258„259.€€The€present€case,€on€the€other€hand,€involves€the€crime€of€burglary.€€Aside€fromÏthe€obvious€distinction€that€burglary€is€an€offense€against€property€whereas€rape,Ïrobbery€and€murder€are€offenses€against€persons,€the€crime€of€burglary€is€notablyÏdifferent€with€regard€to€the€issue€of€confinement.€€In€contrast€to€crimes€such€as€rapeÏand€robbery,€the€offense€of€burglary€does€not€by€its€very€nature€necessarily€involveÍany€degree€of€confinement€or€detention€whatsoever.€€As€a€result,€we€can€foreseeÏvery€few,€if€any,€situations€in€which€it€can€be€said€that€the€detention€or€confinement€ofÏan€individual€was€incidental€to€the€commission€of€a€burglary.€€Certainly€the€facts€ofÏthe€case€at€bar€reveal€that€it€is€not€one€of€those€situations.€€The€defendant's€first€issueÏis€therefore€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€second€issue,€the€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence€for€both€his€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€conviction€and€hisÏaggravated€burglary€conviction.€€Specifically,€he€contends€that€because€the€onlyÏproof€offered€at€trial€linking€him€to€the€offenses€was€the€uncorroborated€testimony€ofÏthe€victim,€the€evidence€supporting€his€convictions€is€legally€insufficient.€€TheÏdefendant€does,€however,€concede€that€current€Tennessee€law€concerning€theÏstandard€of€review€of€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€based€on€eyewitnessÏidentification€weighs€against€his€argument.€€In€òòState€v.€Stricklandóó,€this€Court€held€thatÏthe€testimony€of€a€victim€identifying€the€perpetrator€is€sufficient€in€and€of€itself€toÏsupport€a€conviction.€€òòState€v.€Stricklandóó,€885€S.W.2d€85,€87„88€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1993).€€Hence,€the€defendant€urges€this€Court€to€adopt€a€new€rule€of€law€whichÏwould€require,€in€the€name€of€fundamental€fairness,€that€eyewitness€testimony€beÏcorroborated€in€much€the€same€way€that€accomplice€testimony€must€be€corroborated.€ÍWe€decline€to€alter€current€Tennessee€law€regarding€the€sufficiency€of€eyewitnessÏtestimony.ÌÌà àà àIn€Tennessee,€when€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€theÏconvicting€evidence,€we€must€review€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏprosecution€in€determining€whether€"òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÏessential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,Ï443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979).€€We€do€not€reweigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidence€and€are€required€to€afford€the€State€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€proof€contained€in€the€record€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimateÏinfer‚ences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835Ï(Tenn.€1978).ÌÌà àà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€valueÏto€be€given€to€the€evidence,€as€well€as€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€Court.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835.€€A€guiltyÏverdict€rendered€by€the€jury€and€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€testimonyÏof€the€witnesses€for€the€State,€and€a€presumption€of€guilt€replaces€the€presumption€ofÏinnocence.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).ÌÌà àà àIn€addition,€as€the€defendant€concedes,€it€is€a€well„established€principleÏof€law€in€Tennessee€that€the€credibility€of€eyewitness€testimony€linking€the€defendantÏto€the€criminal€offense€for€which€he€stands€trial€is€a€question€of€fact€for€theÏdetermination€of€the€jury€upon€consideration€of€all€competent€proof.€€òòStricklandóó,€885ÏS.W.2d€at€87€(citing€òòState€v.€œCrawford›óó,€635€S.W.2d€704,€705€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1982)).€€Moreover,€the€testimony€of€the€victim€identifying€the€defendant€as€theÏperpetrator€of€an€offense€is€itself€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction.€€òòSeeóó€òòStricklandóó,Ï885€S.W.2d€at€87;€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€623€S.W.2d€118,€120€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).ÌÌà àà àIn€the€present€case,€the€victim€identified€the€defendant€by€name€shortlyÏafter€the€commission€of€the€offenses.€€She€later€identified€the€defendant€from€aÏphotographic€lineup.€€Although€the€defendant€presented€an€alibi€defense,€the€verdictÏof€the€jury€accredits€the€victim's€testimony.€€From€a€review€of€the€entire€record,€we€canÏonly€conclude€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€ofÏfact€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€The€defendant's€secondÏissue€is€therefore€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€third€issue,€the€defendant€challenges€the€trial€court's€fulfillment€ofÍits€role€as€thirteenth€juror.€€He€contends€that€the€trial€court€misconceived€its€duty€toÏweigh€the€evidence€independently.€€Specifically,€the€defendant€points€to€theÏfollowing€language€of€the€trial€court€in€its€ruling€upon€the€motion€for€a€new€trial:ÌÒ ô ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌà àAnd€although€I€had€some€doubt,€I€didn't€have€aÏreasonable€doubt€about€it.€€Had€I€deliberated€with€the€jury,ÏI'm€satisfied€I€would€have€settled€my€reasonable€doubt€asÏthey€did€„„€or€settled€my€doubt.€€I€shouldn't€say€reasonableÏdoubt€because€I€didn't€have€any€reasonable€doubt.ÌÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓThe€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€judge's€use€of€"had€I€deliberated"€indicates€that€heÏdid€not€independently€weigh€the€evidence.€€As€a€result,€the€defendant€argues€that€heÏshould€receive€a€new€trial,€citing€òòState€v.€Moatsóó,€C.C.A.€No.€œ03C01›„9302„CR„00038,ÏKnox€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€May€2,€1994,€at€Knoxville),€òòœaff'd›óó€906€S.W.2d€431Ï(Tenn.€1995),€in€support€of€his€argument.ÌÌà àà àUnder€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€33(f),€the€thirteenth€juror€rule,€the€trial€judge€isÏempowered€to€grant€a€new€trial€if€he€or€she€views€the€verdict€to€be€contrary€to€theÏweight€of€the€evidence.€€The€trial€court's€approval€of€the€verdict€under€this€rule€is€aÏnecessary€prerequisite€to€the€imposition€of€a€valid€judgment.€€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€896ÏS.W.2d€119,€123€(Tenn.€1995);€òòCurran€v.€Stateóó,€157€Tenn.€7,€4€S.W.2d€957,€958Ï(1928).ÌÌà àà àIt€is€the€duty€of€this€Court€to€review€the€action€of€the€trial€court€under€theÏthirteenth€juror€rule.€€If€the€trial€court€disagrees€with€the€verdict€or€expresses€itsÏdissatisfaction€with€the€verdict,€it€is€error€for€it€to€fail€to€grant€a€new€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòœHelton›€v.ÏStateóó,€547€S.W.2d€564,€566€(Tenn.€1977).€€"An€appellate€court€may€presume€that€theÏtrial€court€has€acted€as€the€thirteenth€juror€and€approved€the€jury's€verdict€where€theÏtrial€court€simply€overrules€a€motion€for€new€trial€without€any€explicit€statement€that€itÏhas€independently€weighed€the€evidence€and€agrees€with€the€jury's€verdict."€€òòCarteróó,Ï896€S.W.2d€at€119.òò€ò ò€ó óóóWhen€the€trial€judge€approves€the€verdict€by€entering€judgmentÏand€denying€a€new€trial€motion,€our€review€is€limited€to€the€legal€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Draperóó,€800€S.W.2d€489,€499€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€ÏBefore€considering€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€however,€we€must€first€assure€thatÏthe€trial€court€properly€performed€its€mandatory€duty€as€thirteenth€juror.€€òòSeeóó€òòCarteróó,Ï896€S.W.2d€at€122.ÌÌà àà àBy€focusing€so€heavily€on€the€phrase€"had€I€deliberated,"€the€defendantÏoverlooks€the€majority€of€the€trial€court's€language€in€addressing€his€motion€for€a€newÏtrial.€€The€trial€court€found€the€victim's€testimony€to€be€credible,€especially€with€regardÏto€her€identification€of€the€defendant.€€Specifically,€the€trial€court€stated€that€the€victimÍ"didn't€answer€your€[defense€counsel]€questions€very€well,€I€agree€with€that.€€She€wasÏabout€as€argumentative€with€counsel€as€a€person€could€be.€€However,€she€was€veryÏpositive€of€her€identification."€€Moreover,€the€trial€judge€concluded€that€he€had€noÏreasonable€doubt€as€to€the€defendant's€guilt.€€Although€the€three€words€"had€IÏdeliberated"€might,€if€taken€alone,€lend€the€subtle€impression€that€the€trial€judgeÏaffirmatively€abdicated€his€duty€as€thirteenth€juror,€the€remainder€of€his€ruling€on€theÏdefendant's€motion€for€a€new€trial€clearly€demonstrates€that€he€fully€weighed€theÏevidence€and,€based€on€his€lack€of€reasonable€doubt,€found€the€defendant€guilty.€ÏFrom€our€review€of€the€entire€record,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€judge€did€in€fact€act€asÏthirteenth€juror,€and€that€there€is€sufficient€evidence€to€support€both€the€jury's€verdictÏand€the€trial€court's€approval€of€that€verdict.€€The€defendant's€third€issue€is€thereforeÏwithout€merit.ÌÌà àà àFor€the€reasons€set€forth€in€the€discussion€above,€we€find€that€theÏdefendant's€issues€on€appeal€lack€merit.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€herebyÏaffirmed.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌ________________________________€ÌJOSEPH€H.€WALKER,€III,€Special€Judge