ÿWPC‚6 …U:V % 0 Ü–w@r 4² Æ Õ 0 Ý 0Dý 0JA 0T‹ 0^ß 0h= 0r¥ 0| 0†“ 0 1u© 0d B‚U*ŸB)ÉDCò AM5°‚¬2®Þ%Œ D3±yäx] 0@Õ%ü&(]/+v~Œ-vÓ / AOÝ4Æ,5 0Dò5 D/66 Be6,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularX(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ æçDèDéêEëìDíîÓ€úÍD0"3|xú(Ð(3È™$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€éçXXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ¦Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌò òMayÏ15,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€"ôÔAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ¢Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€"ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀéçXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€dual€convictions€stem€from€the€fact€that€the€offense€involved€two€victims.€ÏSpecifically,€the€trial€court€imposed€the€following€sentences:€especially€aggravated€robbery,€30Ïyears€each€count;€aggravated€robbery,€16€years€each€count;€aggravated€burglary,€8€years;€andÏaggravated€sexual€battery,€16€years.€€The€court€ordered€that€all€of€the€sentences€run€concurrently,Ïwith€the€exception€of€the€8€year€sentence€for€aggravated€burglary,€which€was€to€runÏconsecutively.Ì ¤Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€"ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€appellant€raises€no€òòAnthonyóó€issue€with€respect€to€his€conviction€for€aggravatedÏsexual€battery.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€"ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€offenses€of€aggravated€kidnapping€in€the€consolidated€cases€of€òòAnthonyóó€and€òòMartinóóÏwere€committed€in€1986€and€1988.€€The€offense€in€òòColemanóó€was€committed€in€1988.€€At€the€timeÏthese€offenses€were€committed,€the€core€element€of€the€offense€of€aggravated€kidnappingÏproscribed€the€conduct€of€one€who€unlawfully€"seizes,€confines,€inveigles,€entices,€decoys,Ïabducts,€conceals,€kidnaps€or€carries€away€another.€.€.€."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„301€(1985ÏSupp.).Ì'ÿÿdxd oÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€"ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„305€defines€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€as€falseÏimprisonment€.€.€.€:Ìà8 àà à(1)€Accomplished€with€a€deadly€weapon€or€by€display€of€any€article€usedÏor€fashioned€to€lead€the€victim€to€reasonably€believe€it€to€be€a€deadly€weapon;Ìà8 àà à(2)€Where€the€victim€was€under€the€age€of€thirteen€at€the€time€of€theÏremoval€or€confinement;Ìà8 àà à(3)€Committed€to€hold€the€victim€for€ransom€or€regard,€or€as€a€shield€orÏhostage;€orÌà8 àà à(4)€Where€the€victim€suffers€serious€bodily€injury.Ì nÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€"ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€Code€comments€provide€the€following€illustrations:€€ÌÌà8 àThus,€for€example,€the€robber€who€forces€his€victim€to€move€from€one€room€toÏanother€in€order€to€find€a€cashbox€or€open€a€safe€technically€may€commitÏkidnapping€as€well€as€robbery.€€This€reasoning€raises€the€possibility€of€cumulativeÏpenalties€or€of€higher€sanctions€for€kidnapping,€even€though€the€ð ðremovalðð€of€theÏvictim€to€another€place€was€part€and€parcel€of€the€robbery€and€not€an€independentÏwrong.€€Similarly,€many€instances€of€forcible€rape€involve€some€coercedÏmovement€of€the€victim€or€unlawful€restraint€for€enough€time€to€complete€the€sexÏact.€€Again,€the€actor€may€be€liable€for€both€kidnapping€and€rape,€even€thoughÏsuch€asportation€or€detention€of€the€victim€is€a€criminologically€insignificantÏcircumstance€in€a€course€of€conduct€constituting€rape.€€Definition€of€kidnapping€toÏexclude€such€cases€is€a€task€of€special€subtlety€for,€unless€particular€care€is€taken,Ïtrivial€aspects€of€robbery,€rape,€or€some€other€crime€will€end€up€classified€as€theÏmost€serious€version€of€kidnapping.€.€.€.€€The€òòmodel€penal€codeððsóó€response€toÏthese€concerns€is€to€retain€kidnapping€as€an€aggravated€felony€but€to€restrict€itsÏscope€to€cases€of€substantial€removal€or€confinement€for€certain€specifiedÏpurposes.òò€€€model€penal€code€212.1(2)(3).óóÌ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò òÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€"ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThis€test€was€first€promulgated€by€the€Kansas€Supreme€Court€in€òòState€v.€Buggsóó,€547ÏP.2d€720,€731€(Kan.€1976).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòFaison€v.€Stateóó,€426€So.2d€963€(Fla.€1983).€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€"ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€supreme€court,€in€òòAnthonyóó,€suggested€that€ð ðone€methodðð€of€resolving€the€questionÏof€ð ðwhether€the€confinement€is€necessarily€incidental€to€the€accompanying€felony,ðð€is€to€askÏð ðwhether€the€defendantððs€conduct€substantially€increased€the€risk€of€harm€over€and€above€thatÏnecessarily€present€in€the€crime€of€robbery€itself.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€306.€€We€conclude€that€this€inquiry€isÏnecessarily€inherent€within€each€prong€of€the€test€set€forth€above.€Ì SÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€"ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóIt€is€the€legislatureððs€role€ð ðto€proscribe€and€prevent€conduct€that€unjustifiably€andÏinexcusably€causes€or€threatens€harm€to€individual,€property€or€public€interest€for€which€protectionÏthrough€the€criminal€law€is€appropriate.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„101(1)€(1989).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýò ò›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌà@ àJANUARY€SESSION,€1997̜ـ€Ùó óßR€%&$A1-j|«<` | `€€@ÿRß›ÌÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€02C01„9602„CR„00061Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€ò òJAMES€C.€BEASLEY,€SR.ó ó,ÏJudgeÌò òJOHNNY€L.€SMITHó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Two€Counts€Especially€AggravatedÌà àAppellantà àà àà à)à àKidnapping;€Two€Counts€AggravatedÌà àà àà àà àà àà àRobbery;€One€Count€AggravatedÏà àà àà àà àà àà àBurglary;€One€Count€Aggravated€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àSexual€Battery)ÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌò òWALKER€GWINNó óà àà àò òà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONó óÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ201€Poplar,€Suite€2„01à àÌMemphis,€TN€€38103à àà àà àò òDEBORAH€A.€TULLISó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneralà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌò òA.C.€WHARTONó óà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òWILLIAM€GIBBONSó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òAMY€WEIRICHó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àThird€FloorÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€ComplexÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÇÓÓà@ àòòò òOPINIONóóó óÌÌà àThe€appellant,€Johnny€L.€Smith,€was€convicted€by€a€Shelby€County€juryÏof€two€counts€of€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,€two€counts€of€aggravatedÏrobbery,€one€count€of€aggravated€burglary,€and€one€count€of€aggravated€sexualÏbattery.€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€imposed€an€effective€sentenceÏof€thirty„eight€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.× ƒ' ××  ×€€In€this€appeal€as€of€right,Ïthe€appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€hisÏconvictions€and€that€his€convictions€for€especially€aggravated€kidnappingÏviolate€the€holding€of€our€supreme€court€in€òòState€v.€Anthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€299Ï(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àAfter€review,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌà@ àò òI.€€Backgroundó óÌÌà àThe€victims,€Gregory€Stone€and€Kisha€Reed,€along€with€their€two€smallÍchildren,€shared€an€apartment€in€Memphis.€€€On€the€date€of€October€12,€1994,ÏMr.€Stone€and€Ms.€Reed€were€asleep€in€their€upstairs€bedroom,€while€the€twoÏchildren,€ages€two€and€one,€were€asleep€in€the€downstairs€living€area.€€DuringÏthe€early€morning€hours,€the€front€door€of€their€apartment€was€kicked€open,Ïawakening€the€sleeping€family.€€Four€to€five€men,€brandishing€a€variety€ofÏweapons,€entered€the€home.€ÌÌÌà àIn€the€master€bedroom,€the€men€forced€Stone€onto€the€floor€and€coveredÏhis€head€with€a€blanket€and€a€pillow,€while€Ms.€Reed€was€forced€to€lay€on€theÏfloor.€€One€man,€the€apparent€leader,€demanded€"money€and€guns."€€TheÏ"leader"€then€began€to€hit€Stone€upon€his€head€with€a€weapon,€as€he€continuedÏhis€demand€for€money.€€Stone€informed€the€leader€that€he€had€no€money,€butÏhe€did€have€a€gold€and€diamond€Cadillac€pendant,€worth€$10,000.€€Stone€wasÏrestrained€with€a€telephone€cord,€and€the€"leader"€instructed€the€other€men€toÏlook€for€valuables.ÌÌà àMs.€Reed€remained€on€the€floor€as€ordered,€while€the€"leader"€insistedÏthat€she€too€reveal€monies€or€valuables.€€Reed€informed€him€that€she€only€hadÏher€"bill€money."€€With€a€gun€aimed€at€her€head,€Reed€was€forced€downstairs€toÏthe€location€where€she€kept€this€money.€€Once€the€money€was€retrieved,€ReedÏwas€returned€upstairs.ÌÌà àUpstairs,€Ms.€Reed€sat€on€her€bed€with€her€two€children€as€the€intrudersÏcontinued€to€ransack€her€home,€looking€for€valuables.€€When€the€"leader"Ïnoticed€her€watching€them,€he€ordered€her€upon€her€stomach€whereupon€sheÏwas€physically€restrained€with€a€telephone€cord.€€While€Ms.€Reed€was€boundÏand€on€the€floor,€the€leader€told€her€that€he€was€going€to€have€sex€with€her.€ÏHowever,€after€making€brief€sexual€contact€with€the€victim,€he€returned€to€theÏplanned€robbery.€€No€penetration€was€attempted.€Ì€Ì€à àStone€was€then€placed€in€the€closet€in€the€children's€room,€while€Ms.ÏReed€and€her€two€children€were€placed€in€her€bedroom€closet.€€The€intrudersÏthen€left€in€Stone's€1983€Nissan€300SX.€€After€their€departure,€Stone€was€ableÏto€free€himself€and€the€others.€€The€family€then€called€the€police€from€aÏneighbor's€residence.€ÌÌÌà àAt€trial,€the€appellant€presented€an€alibi€defense.€€The€appellantððsÏgirlfriend€testified€that,€at€the€time€of€the€robberies,€she€and€the€appellant€wereÏin€bed.€€€Ms.€Reed€testified€that,€immediately€following€the€offense,€sheÏrecognized€the€ð ðleaderðð€as€the€man€to€whom€Stone€had€provided€transportationÏapproximately€two€months€previously.€€At€the€police€station,€she€identified€theÏappellant€from€a€photographic€lineup.€€At€trial,€Ms.€Reed€again€identified€theÍappellant€as€the€perpetrator€of€the€offense€in€this€case.ÌÌÌà@ àò òII.€€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidenceó óÌÌà àIn€his€first€issue,€the€appellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convictingÏevidence.€€Specifically,€he€contends€that,€because€the€only€proof€offered€linkingÏhim€to€the€charged€offenses€is€the€uncorroborated€testimony€of€Ms.€Reed,€theÏproof€is€insufficient€to€establish€his€identity€as€the€perpetrator€of€these€offenses.€ÏWe€disagree.€€ÌÌà àAn€accused€challenging€the€sufficiency€of€evidence€on€appeal€has€theÏburden€of€proving€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient.€€òòIdóó.€€In€determining€theÏsufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€does€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€theÏevidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Moreover,€theÏState€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€allÏlegitimate€or€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.ÏHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).€€It€is€the€appellate€court's€duty€to€affirmÏthe€conviction€if€the€evidence€viewed€under€these€standards€was€sufficient€forÏany€rational€trier€of€fact€to€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€offenseÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€317,€99€S.Ct.Ï2781,€2789€(1979);€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994);€Tenn.ÍR.€App.€P.€13€(e).€ÌÌà àAgain,€the€only€challenge€raised€as€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€convictingÏevidence€relates€to€Ms.€Reed's€identification€of€the€appellant€as€the€perpetratorÏof€the€offenses.€€Immediately€after€the€incident,€Ms.€Reed€stated€to€Mr.€Stone€thatÏshe€recognized€the€perpetrator€as€being€"that€dude€you€gave€a€ride€to€that€day."€ÏFrom€this€identification,€Stone€was€able€to€name€the€perpetrator€as€theÏappellant.€€Later€that€morning,€Reed€positively€identified€the€appellant€from€aÏphotographic€line„up€at€the€police€station.Ì€€€Ìà àIn€òòState€v.€Stricklandóó,€885€S.W.2d€85,€87„88€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€thisÏcourt€held€that€the€testimony€of€a€victim€identifying€the€perpetrator€is€sufficient€inÏand€of€itself€to€support€a€conviction.€€òòSee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€No.€01C01„9505„CC„00144€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Mar.€22,€1996),€òòperm.€to€appealÏdenied,€concurring€in€results€onlyóó,€(Tenn.€Nov.€12,€1996).€€Moreover,€theÏcredibility€of€eyewitness€testimony€identifying€the€accused€as€the€perpetrator€ofÏthe€criminal€offense€for€which€he€stands€trial€is€a€question€of€fact€for€theÏdetermination€of€the€jury€upon€consideration€of€all€competent€proof.€€òòStricklandóó,Ï885€S.W.2d€at€87€(citing€òòState€v.€Crawfordóó,€635€S.W.2d€704,€705€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1982));€òòsee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€623€S.W.2d€118,€120€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1981).€€Although€the€appellant€presented€an€alibi€defense,€i.e.,€the€testimony€ofÏhis€girlfriend,€the€jury,€by€returning€a€guilty€verdict,€accredited€the€testimony€ofÍMs.€œReed.€€Accordingly,›€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€for€a€rationalÏtrier€of€fact€to€find€the€appellant€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌÌà àÌà@ àò òIII.€€òòAnthony€Issueóóó óÌÌà àThe€appellant,€in€his€next€issue,€contends€that€his€convictions€forÏespecially€aggravated€kidnapping€are€improper,€because€the€kidnappings€wereÏmerely€incidental€to€his€primary€purpose€of€armed€robbery€and,€thus,€cannotÏwithstand€scrutiny€under€the€rule€announced€in€òòAnthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€299.× ƒ( ××  ×€€òòÏAnthonyóó€was€our€supreme€courtððs€first€decision€specifically€addressing€the€issueÏof€whether€movement€incidental€to€an€underlying€crime€such€as€robbery€wouldÏbe€sufficient€to€sustain€a€separate€kidnapping€conviction.€€Expressing€a€concernÏfor€the€constitutional€guaranty€of€due€process,€the€court€announced€that€the€testÏof€whether€the€kidnapping€should€be€sustained€was€ð ðwhether€the€confinement,Ïmovement,€or€detention€is€essentially€incidental€to€the€accompanying€felony€.€.€.Ïor€whether€it€is€significant€enough,€in€and€of€itself,€to€warrant€independentÏprosecution€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòAnthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€306.€€Again,€in€òòState€v.€Colemanóó,€865ÍS.W.2d€455€(Tenn.€1993),€our€supreme€court€held€that€the€offense€ofÏaggravated€kidnapping€could€not€stand€in€view€of€convictions€returned€forÏaggravated€robbery€and€aggravated€rape,€based€upon€the€due€processÏprinciples€announced€in€òòAnthonyóó.ÌÌà àAt€this€juncture,€it€is€important€to€note€that€the€decisions€in€òòAnthonyóó€and€itsÏcompanion€cases,€òòState€v.€Martinóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€299,€and€òòColemanóó,€involvedÏstatutory€offenses€under€the€pre„1989€Criminal€Code.× ƒ) ××  ×€€The€courtððs€focus€inÏthese€cases€was€ð ðwhether€the€confinement,€movement€or€detention€isÏessentially€Ìincidental€to€the€accompanying€felony.ðð€€In€1989,€Tennessee€enacted€a€newÏcriminal€code,€adopted,€in€large€part,€from€the€òòmodel€penal€codeóó,€which€includedÏthe€graded€offenses€of€false€imprisonment,€kidnapping,€aggravated€kidnappingÏand€especially€aggravated€kidnapping.× ƒ+ ××  ×€€€ÌÌà àThe€drafters€of€the€òòmodel€codeóó€recognized€that€a€broadly„drawnÏkidnapping€statute€could€potentially€sweep€within€its€scope€conduct€that€isÏunlawful,€but€which€should€be€punished€as€some€other€crime.œ× ƒ, ××  ×›€€òòmodel€penalÏcode€ðð212.1.óó€€The€Codeððs€approach€to€this€concern€was€to€define€the€crime€inÏterms€that€identify€a€distinct€kind€of€wrongful€act€or€harm.€€The€statutoryÏlanguage€of€our€kidnapping€statute€adopts€this€rational.€€Thus,€the€focus€of€ourÏkidnapping€offenses€is€upon€the€specific€harm€threatened€as€opposed€toÏmovement,€confinement€or€detention.€€Under€our€current€criminal€code,€before€aÏconviction€can€occur€for€any€of€the€enumerated€kidnapping€offenses,€there€mustÏbe€proof€of€an€unlawful€removal€or€confinement€of€another€so€as€to€ð ðòòinterfereÏsubstantiallyóóðð€with€the€otherððs€liberty,€coupled€with€specific€conduct€that€causesÍor€threatens€a€specific€harm.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„302€(1989).€€In€the€caseÏbefore€us,€the€specific€harm€targeted€was€ð ðaccomplished€with€a€deadlyÏweapon.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„305(1).€€ÌÌà àThe€enactment€of€new€statutory€offenses€of€kidnapping€have€not,Ïhowever,€obviated€the€guarantees€of€due€process€and€fundamental€fairnessÏaddressed€in€òòAnthonyóó.€Reiterating€this€principle,€we€hold€that€the€analysisÏemployed€in€determining€the€propriety€of€a€kidnapping€conviction€committed€inÏthe€course€of€another€felony€should€focus€on€the€òòspecific€harmóó€of€theÏð ðkidnappingðð€sought€to€be€prevented€in€conjunction€with€the€specific€facts€ofÏeach€individual€case,€rather€than€considering€the€òògeneralóó€elements€of€ð ðfalseÏimprisonment,ðð€which€are€present€in€any€grade€of€the€offense.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€based€upon€the€due€process€concerns€announced€inÏòòAnthonyóó,€and€the€legislative€focus€of€our€current€kidnapping€statutes,€we€adoptÏthe€three€part€test€utilized€by€other€jurisdictions€with€similar€statutory€language.× ƒ. ××  ×€ÏMoreover,€we€note€that€this€test€was€cited€to,€with€approval,€in€òòAnthonyóó,€817ÏS.W.2d€at€306.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Robinsonóó,€No.€01C01„9207„CR„00234€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€at€Nashville,€July€22,€1993).€€Under€this€test:ÌÓÓà8 à[I]f€a€taking€or€confinement€is€alleged€to€have€been€done€toÍfacilitate€the€commission€of€another€crime,€to€be€kidnapping€theÏresulting€movement€or€confinement:ÌÌà8 à1.€€òòMust€not€be€slight,€inconsequential€and€merely€incidental€to€theÏother€crimeóó;ÌÌÓÓòòBuggsóó,€547€P.2d€at€731.€€The€question€should€not€focus€upon€incidentalÏmovement€from€point€A€to€point€B,€but,€rather,€upon€whether€the€confinement€orÏremoval€"interfere[d]€substantially"€with€the€other's€liberty.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„13„302(a).€€In€other€words,€there€can€be€no€kidnapping€where€the€onlyÏconfinement€involved€is€the€sort€that,€although€not€necessary€to€the€underlyingÏfelony,€is€likely€to€naturally€accompany€it.€€òòBerry€v.€Stateóó,€668€So.2d€967,€969Ï(Fla.€1966).ÌÓÓà8 à2.€€òòMust€not€be€of€the€kind€inherent€in€the€nature€of€the€other€crimeóó;ÌÌòòÓÓBuggsóó,€547€P.2d€at€731.€€To€satisfy€this€prong€the€confinement€must€not€be€theÏsort€inherent€in€the€underlying€offense.€€For€example,€it€is€not€necessary€to€tie€upÏthe€victim€in€order€to€commit€a€robbery.€€òòBerryóó,€668€So.€2d€at€969.€€And,ÌÓÓà8 à3.€€òòMust€have€significance€independent€of€the€other€crime€in€that€itÏmakes€the€other€crime€substantially€easier€of€commission€orÏsubstantially€lessens€the€risk€of€detectionóó.òòÌóóÌÓÓòòBuggsóó,€547€P.2d€at€731.€€ð ð[T]he€determination€of€whether€the€confinementÏmakes€the€other€crime€substantially€easier€of€commission€or€substantiallyÏlessens€the€risk€of€detection€does€not€depend€upon€the€accomplishment€of€itsÏpurpose.€€The€question€is€whether€the€initial€confinement€was€intended€toÏfurther€either€of€these€objectives.ðð€€òòBerryóó,€668€So.€2d€at€970€(quoting€òòFergusonÍv.€Stateóó,€533€So.2d€763,€764€(Fla.€1988)).€€There€can€be€no€bright„line€rule€forÏdetermining€whether€the€ð ðremovalðð€or€ð ðconfinementðð€of€a€victim€to€another€placeÏis€part€and€parcel€of€the€accompanying€felony,€or€whether€it€will€support€anÏindependent€criminal€offense.€€The€test€remains€a€subjective€one,€based€uponÏthe€facts€of€each€case.× ƒ/ ××  ×ÌÌà àAgain,€in€the€case€before€us,€the€appellant€was€charged€with€especiallyÏaggravated€kidnapping€by€use€of€a€deadly€weapon,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„305(a)(1).€€Applying€the€above€stated€principles€to€the€present€case,€we€holdÏthat€the€conduct€of€the€appellant€constituted€especially€aggravated€kidnappingÏas€contemplated€by€our€legislature.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€The€appellant,€armed€and€accompaniedÏby€four€others,€entered€the€bedroom€of€the€sleeping€victims,€threatened€themÏwith€a€weapon,€beat€the€husband€upon€his€head€with€the€weapon,€and€tiedÏthem€up€with€telephone€cord,€while€the€others€ransacked€the€premises€forÏvaluables.€€Before€leaving€the€home,€the€appellant€ordered€that€the€victims€beÏplaced€in€separate€closets,€barricaded€with€furniture.€€First,€this€confinement€wasÍnot€slight,€inconsequential,€or€merely€incidental€to€the€crime€of€robbery.€€The€actÏof€tying€both€victims€with€cord€and€placing€them€in€separate€closets€"interfere[d]Ïsubstantiallyðð€with€their€liberty.€€Second,€it€was€not€necessary€to€tie€the€victims€inÏorder€to€commit€the€robberies.€€Third,€the€binding€of€the€victims€had€independentÏsignificance€because€it€made€the€robberies€easier€to€commit€and€substantiallyÏlessened€the€risk€of€detection.€€This€issue€is,€therefore,€without€merit.ÌÌà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€judgments€of€conviction€are€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌœJOE€B.€JONES,€Presiding›€JudgeÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌœJOE€G.€RILEY,›€Judge