ÿWPC) 7#  % 0D#w@g4§»ÊU:ÒU:  0ˆF 0DÎ 0J D3\Æ 0TU 0^© 0h 0ro 0|á 0†] 0ã 1us 0dè U *L B)v DCŸ AMâ B/ AOL Æ› 0`a 0@Á 0DE D/Z B‰f¦¯ S»Êv~ØvÓV˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ X(ñÄ$¡¡Ò€°ÒÒX°Ò &D& & & &E &E &(e&/&D&Ó€Ô¡¨ 3|x&, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularÂ"Arial Regular(8(3Åå$¤¤Ý ƒñÄ!ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÝ  Ýà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(((('ÿÿdxdLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd*,&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d*,-/Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(83¼$¢¢Ý ƒñÄ!ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌSeptemberÏ30,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó00'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ ¥Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€$ôÔThe€microphone€and€the€transmission€equipment€were€designed€to€cut€out€loud€noises,€suchÏas€gun€shots,€to€protect€the€hearing€of€the€listener.€€Therefore,€the€sound€of€the€gun€fired€inside€the€carÏwas€not€audible€to€the€officers.€Ì IÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€$ôÔOfficer€Gault€testified€that€it€took€one€and€one„half€to€two€minutes€from€the€time€they€realizedÏthat€the€informant€had€been€shot€until€he€arrested€the€appellant.€€He€also€testified€that€the€foot€chaseÏlasted€approximately€forty„five€seconds€and€that€during€that€time€he€lost€sight€of€the€appellant€one€timeÏfor€approximately€ten€seconds€and€another€time€for€approximately€five€to€six€seconds.€Ì ÀÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€$ôÔAlthough€the€video€recording€was€introduced€and€marked€as€Stateððs€Exhibit€1€during€trial,€it€wasÏnever€made€a€part€of€this€record€on€appeal.€€Consequently,€we€were€unable€to€view€the€contents€of€theÏrecording€during€our€review€of€the€record€in€this€case.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ € ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ 9© XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ќـ*ÙßR€'.&A1-j|` , `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌAT€NASHVILLE€ÌOCTOBER€1996€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àNO.€01C01„9601„CC„00011à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)à àMAURY€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JIM€T.€HAMILTON,€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌMICHAEL€AMOSà àà àà àà à)à à(Attempted€Second€Degree€Murder,Ïà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àEspecially€Aggravated€Robbery)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà àà à)Ìà à€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTà àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEEóóÌÌMichael€D.€Noelà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌ2400€œCrestmoor›€Road,€Ste.€318à àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌNashville,€Tennessee€37215à àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493ÌL.€Robert€œGrefseng›à àà àà àà àà àà àÌ28€Public€Square€€à àà àà àà àà àJohn€R.ÏCollierà àà àà àColumbia,€Tennessee€38401à àà àà àAssistantÏAttorney€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 àT.€Michael€BottomsÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€459Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœLawrenceburg›,€Tennessee€38464ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJesse€DurhamÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€1619Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àColumbia,€Tennessee€38402ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJ.€Lee€Bailey,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€1619Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àColumbia,€Tennessee€38402ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:_______________ÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÌÑ€1ÑÇÓÓòòÓ  ÓOpinionóóÌÓ  Óà àThe€appellant,€Michael€Amos,€appeals€as€of€right€his€convictions€following€aÏjury€trial€for€the€offenses€of€attempted€second€degree€murder€and€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery.€€He€argues€on€appeal€that:Ìà à(1)€€The€trial€judge€erred€when€he€did€not€grant€the€appellant€a€continuanceÏwhen€a€material€alibi€witness€failed€to€appear€on€the€day€of€the€trial;Ìà à(2)€€The€trial€judge€erred€when€he€did€not€allow€the€appellant€to€read€priorÏrecorded€testimony€of€the€missing€alibi€witness€into€evidence;€Ìà à(3)€€The€trial€judge€erred€when€he€refused€to€allow€the€appellant€to€use€a€priorÏrecorded€statement€to€impeach€the€Stateððs€ð ðeyewitnessðð€to€the€crimes;Ìà à(4)€€The€trial€judge€erred€when€he€refused€to€allow€a€photograph€of€theÏappellant€wearing€rings€on€his€left€hand€into€evidence;€andÌà à(5)€€The€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€the€conviction€of€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery.Ìà àFollowing€a€careful€review€of€the€record€on€appeal€and€the€applicable€law,€weÏfind€that€no€reversible€error€appears€on€the€record,€and€we,€therefore,€affirm€theÏappellantððs€convictions.òòÓ  ÓFactual€BackgroundóóÌÓ  Óà àOn€January€17,€1995,€Officer€William€Doelle€of€the€Maury€County€SheriffððsÏDepartment€and€Officer€William€Gault€from€the€Columbia€Police€Department€enlistedÏthe€services€of€an€undercover€informant,€Mike€Wiley,€to€assist€them€in€attempting€toÍmake€undercover€drug€purchases€in€a€housing€project€operated€by€the€ColumbiaÏHousing€Authority.€€The€officers€provided€Wiley€with€five€twenty„dollar€bills€for€his€useÏin€attempting€to€make€street€purchases€of€crack€cocaine.€€The€officers€planned€toÏmonitor€any€drug€transactions€through€a€concealed€microphone€placed€on€theÏundercover€informant.€€The€officers€also€hid€a€video€camera€in€the€informantððs€van€inÏorder€to€establish€a€visual€record€of€any€transaction.€€€Ìà àTo€execute€the€undercover€operation,€the€informant€drove€around€the€south„side€part€of€the€housing€authority€until€he€made€contact€with€the€appellant€andÏanother€unidentified€African„American€man.€€One€of€the€two€men€told€Wiley€to€driveÏaround€the€block€one€more€time€and€then€come€back.€€When€the€informant€returned,Ïthe€appellant€and€the€other€man€approached€the€van€and€Wiley€told€them€that€heÏwanted€to€buy€a€twenty„dollar€rock€of€crack€cocaine.€€The€unidentified€man€handedÏthe€informant€a€white€rock€which€at€first€appeared€to€be€crack€cocaine,€but€whenÏWiley€looked€closer€he€thought€it€looked€more€like€a€piece€of€wax.€€Wiley€asked€theÏtwo€men€if€the€rock€was€real€cocaine.€€In€response,€the€appellant€pulled€out€a€gunÏand€held€it€to€the€informantððs€head,€saying,€ð ðIs€this€real?ðð€€The€appellant€alsoÏdemanded€that€Wiley€return€the€cocaine„like€substance,€and€for€some€unknownÏreason,€Wiley€refused€to€relinquish€the€substance.€€At€that€time,€the€appellant€fired€theÏpistol€three€times€into€the€driverððs€compartment€of€the€van€with€the€last€bullet€strikingÏWileyððs€arm.€€€Ìà àOn€South€Way€Boulevard,€which€was€approximately€one€block€away,€OfficersÏDoelle€and€Gault€were€monitoring€the€transaction€through€the€radio€transmissionsÏfrom€the€van.€They€heard€the€informant€first€say,€ð ðDonððt€shoot!,ðð€and€then€a€fewÏseconds€later€say,€ð ðIððve€been€shot!,ðð€as€he€drove€off€in€the€van.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€The€officersÏimmediately€started€driving€towards€the€scene€of€the€shooting€and€on€the€way€theyÏintercepted€the€informant€who€told€them€that€he€had€been€shot€and€that€he€was€goingÏto€the€hospital.€€As€the€officers€got€closer€to€Sycamore€Street,€they€saw€two€African„American€men€running€south€on€West€Willow€Street,€with€one€man€wearing€whatÏappeared€to€be€tan€or€brown€coveralls€and€the€other€man€wearing€a€Dallas€CowboyððsÏstarter€jacket.€€Officer€Gault€got€out€of€the€car€and€began€pursuing€them€on€foot€up€anÏembankment€and€behind€some€houses.€€He€then€saw€the€two€men€running€through€aÏcreek€close€to€the€appellantððs€house,€and€he€intercepted€the€appellant€a€few€secondsÏlater€in€his€driveway€at€112€Sycamore€Street.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€The€officers€never€apprehended€theÏman€wearing€the€Dallas€Cowboyððs€jacket.€€Ì€à àAt€the€time€of€his€arrest,€the€appellant€was€wearing€tan€heavy„duty€pantsÏwhich,€according€to€the€testimony€of€Officer€Beth€Lovett,€were€wet€around€the€ankles.€ÏThe€appellant€was€also€wearing€a€few€gold€chains€and€a€gold€watch€on€his€left€wrist,Ïand€he€was€in€possession€of€a€wrench€and€some€miscellaneous€items,€includingÏsome€change€and€possibly€two€rings.€€The€rings€were€found€in€his€pocket,€not€on€hisÏfingers,€when€he€was€arrested.€€On€the€porch€of€the€house,€the€police€found€an€aqua„colored€ball€cap,€which,€according€to€the€officerððs€observation,€was€similar€to€a€capÏworn€by€one€of€fleeing€œmen.›€€Several€police€officers€searched€the€area€surroundingÏthe€crime€scene€and€the€appellantððs€house,€but€they€did€not€find€a€tan€jacket,€a€faceÏmask€worn€by€Wileyððs€assailant,€the€weapon€used€in€the€shooting,€any€drugs,€or€theÏtwenty„dollar€bill€that€changed€hands€during€the€drug€transaction.€€A€sample€takenÏfrom€the€appellantððs€hands,€however,€revealed€that€both€were€covered€with€gunshotÏresidue€and€that€the€palm€of€appellantððs€left€hand€had€sufficient€gunshot€residue€toÏindicate€that€he€could€have€fired€a€weapon€with€that€hand.€€Ìà àAt€trial,€both€the€informant€and€an€independent€eyewitness€identified€theÏappellant€as€the€shooter.€€They€testified€that€the€appellant,€during€the€drugÏtransaction,€was€wearing€what€appeared€to€be€tan€heavy„duty€coveralls€or€aÏmatching€jacket€and€pants€looking€like€coveralls,€a€face€mask,€and€an€aqua„coloredÏball€cap.€€They€further€testified€that€the€unidentified€man€was€wearing€a€DallasÏCowboyððs€starter€jacket€and€a€face€mask.€€The€video€recording€made€during€theÍtransaction€was€introduced€into€evidence€by€the€State€and€was€played€before€the€juryÏthree€times.× ƒ4 ××  ×€€Apparently,€the€video€depicted€the€two€assailants€wearing€the€clothingÏas€identified€by€the€two€witnesses,€and€it€also€showed€that€the€shooter€was€left„handed€and€that€he€was€wearing€a€gold€watch€on€his€left€hand,€but€no€rings€on€thatÏhand.€Ìà àSix€witnesses,€including€the€appellant,€testified€for€the€defense.€€The€appellantÏtestified€that€earlier€on€the€day€of€the€shooting€he€had€gone€to€a€body€shop€to€obtainÏa€repair€estimate.€€He€said€that€he€was€accompanied€by€Steve€Kinnard.€€AfterÏobtaining€his€estimate,€he€testified€that€he€returned€to€his€home€at€112€Sycamore,€aÏshort€distance€from€the€shooting.€€The€appellant€said€that€although€he€was€on€theÏstreet€where€the€shooting€occurred,€he€was€some€distance€away.€€When€he€heardÏgunfire,€the€appellant€testified€that€he€left€the€area€and€was€in€his€driveway€whenÏconfronted€and€arrested€by€Officer€Gault.€€He€testified€that€he€had€been€wearing€hisÏrings€earlier€in€the€day,€but€had€removed€them€and€placed€them€in€his€pocket€in€orderÏto€work€on€a€motorcycle.€€Ìà àNathan€Hill€testified€that€he€was€sitting€outside€near€the€location€of€theÏshooting.€€He€testified€that€he€saw€the€appellant€some€distance€away€from€the€van€atÏthe€time€of€the€shooting€and€that€the€appellant€was€with€Steve€Kinnard.€€Ìà àWilliam€Hall,€appellantððs€next„door€neighbor,€testified€that€he€heard€whatÏsounded€like€firecrackers€and€thereafter€saw€some€boys€running€in€the€back€of€hisÏhouse€down€a€creek€and€toward€the€highway€away€from€his€house.€€Ìà àMilton€Murray€testified€that€he€had€known€the€appellant€for€twenty€years€andÏopined€that€the€appellant€was€truthful€and€honest.€€Murray€acknowledged€that€he€wasÏaware€that€the€appellant€had€previously€been€convicted€of€robbery.€€Ìà àThe€appellantððs€mother€testified€that€her€son€lived€with€her€and€did€not€own€aÏski€mask.€€She€had€no€knowledge€of€any€of€the€events€surrounding€the€shooting,€butÏshe€testified€that€her€son€owned€rings€that€he€normally€wore.€€Ìà àBased€upon€the€foregoing€evidence,€the€jury€found€the€appellant€guilty€ofÏattempted€second€degree€murder€and€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€The€trial€courtÏlater€sentenced€the€appellant€to€a€term€of€twelve€years€imprisonment€for€hisÏconviction€of€attempted€second€degree€murder€and€to€a€term€of€twenty„five€years€forÏhis€conviction€of€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€He€was€also€assessed€a€fine€ofÏ$15,000€for€each€offense.€€The€sentences€were€ordered€to€be€served€consecutively€toÏeach€other€and€consecutive€to€a€previous€six„year€sentence€for€an€earlier€robberyÏconviction.Ìà@ àI.Ìà àThe€appellant€first€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€motion€for€aÏcontinuance€when€a€material€alibi€witness€failed€to€appear€on€the€day€of€the€trial.€ÏThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ìà àThe€appellantððs€theory€at€trial€was€that€even€though€he€was€present€on€theÏstreet€when€the€shooting€occurred,€he€was€standing€next€to€Steve€Kinnard€someÏdistance€away€from€the€shooting€and€that€upon€hearing€the€gunshots,€he€andÏKinnard€left€the€street€for€the€appellantððs€house.€€To€support€his€theory,€the€appellantÏplanned€to€call€two€witnesses€who€would€testify€that€they€had€seen€or€had€beenÏstanding€next€to€the€appellant€when€the€shooting€occurred.€€One€of€those€witnesses,ÏSteve€Kinnard,€failed€to€appear€at€trial.€€The€appellantððs€counsel,€believing€thatÏKinnard€would€voluntarily€appear€at€trial,€failed€to€issue€a€subpoena€to€secure€hisÏattendance€until€the€day€before€trial.€€After€learning€that€the€subpoena€had€not€beenÏserved€on€Kinnard€and€that€Kinnard€was€not€present€on€the€morning€of€trial,€counselÏfor€the€appellant€made€an€oral€motion€for€a€continuance.€€The€motion€was€notÏsupported€by€counselððs€affidavit.Ìà àWhether€to€grant€or€deny€a€motion€for€a€continuance€is€within€the€trial€courtððsÏsound€discretion€and€the€denial€of€such€a€motion€will€not€be€overturned€on€appealÏabsent€a€clear€showing€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€to€the€prejudice€of€theÏdefendant.€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€638€S.W.2d€342,€359€(Tenn.€1982);€òòBaxter€v.€Stateóó,€503ÏS.W.2d€226,€230€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).€€When€a€continuance€is€sought€because€aÍwitness€is€unavailable,€the€party€seeking€to€offer€that€witness€is€required€to€file€aÏwritten€motion€which€sets€forth€the€grounds€for€the€continuance€with€particularityÏunless€the€trial€court€permits€an€oral€motion.€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€256Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990),€òòseeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€47.€€The€motion€must€be€supported€byÏan€affidavit€stating:€ÌÓÓà8 à(a)€the€substance€of€the€facts€that€the€accused€expects€to€prove€throughÏthe€unavailable€witness,€(b)€sufficient€facts€to€establish€the€relevanceÏand€materiality€of€the€unavailable€witness,€(c)€that€the€testimony€wouldÏbe€admissible€if€the€witness€were€available,€(d)€that€the€testimony€is€notÏmerely€cumulative€to€other€testimony,€(e)€that€the€witness€will€beÏavailable€at€a€later€date,€and€(f)€diligence€was€exercised€to€obtain€theÏpresence€of€the€witness.ÌÌÓÓòòDykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€at€256„57€(footnotes€omitted);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Zirkleóó,€910€S.W.2dÏ874,€884€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„103€(1990).€Ïð ðThe€failure€to€file€a€.€.€.€properly€drafted€affidavit,€standing€alone,€will€justify€the€denialÏof€the€motion€without€a€hearing.ðð€€òòDykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€at€257.€€Ìà àIn€this€case,€appellantððs€oral€motion€for€continuance€was€not€supported€byÏaffidavit€and€therefore,€the€trial€judge€was€well€within€his€discretion€in€denying€theÏmotion.€€Moreover,€even€if€an€affidavit€had€been€filed,€it€is€unlikely€that€theÏà àappellant€would€have€satisfied€the€òòDykesóó€test.€€First,€the€testimony€of€SteveÏKinnard€was€cumulative€to€that€of€other€witnesses€that€the€appellant€presented€atÏtrial.€€Moreover,€the€appellant€failed€to€show€diligence€in€insuring€that€Steve€KinnardÍwould€be€present€at€trial.€€As€indicated€above,€the€appellantððs€counsel€did€not€issue€aÏsubpoena€for€Kinnard€until€one€day€before€the€trial.€€€€€Ìà@ àII.Ìà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€allowing€the€priorÏrecorded€testimony€of€Steve€Kinnard€into€evidence.€€This€issue€is€without€meritÌà àOn€February€7,€1995,€the€Maury€County€Circuit€Court€held€a€probationÏrevocation€hearing€for€the€purpose€of€determining€whether€or€not€to€revoke€theÏappellantððs€probationary€sentence€from€a€previous€offense.€€Apparently,€the€groundÏrelied€upon€by€the€State€for€the€probation€revocation€was€the€appellantððs€participationÏin€the€present€œoffenses.›€€At€that€hearing,€Steve€Kinnard€testified€that€he€and€theÏappellant€were€standing€together€near€the€appellantððs€house€when€the€shootingÏoccurred€and€that€the€appellant€therefore€could€not€have€fired€the€pistol€into€WileyððsÏvan.€€Since€Kinnard€was€never€served€with€his€subpoena€to€be€a€witness€in€theÏpresent€case,€the€appellant€argues€that€Kinnard€was€an€ð ðunavailableðð€witness€andÏthat€his€testimony€from€the€probation€revocation€hearing€should€have€been€admittedÏas€former€testimony€under€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€804(b)(1).Ìà àTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€804(b)(1)€provides€that€when€a€witness€isÏunavailable€to€testify€at€trial,€his€or€her€former€testimony€will€be€allowed€into€court€if€itÏwas:ÌÓÓà8 à[œt]estimony›€given€as€a€witness€at€another€hearing€of€the€same€or€aÏdifferent€proceeding€or€in€a€deposition€taken€in€compliance€with€the€lawÏin€the€course€of€the€same€or€another€proceeding,€if€the€party€againstÏwhom€the€testimony€is€now€offered€had€both€an€opportunity€and€aÏsimilar€motive€to€develop€the€testimony€by€direct,€cross,€or€redirectÏexamination.ÌÓÓòòÌIdóó.€€For€a€witness€to€be€considered€ð ðunavailable,ðð€the€party€offering€the€testimony€hasÏto€show€that€the€witness€ð ðis€absent€from€the€hearing€and€the€proponent€of€[the]Ïstatement€has€been€unable€to€procure€the€declarantððs€attendance€by€process.ðð€€Tenn.ÏR.€Evid.€804(a)(5).€€This€issue€is€most€common€in€cases€where€state€prosecutors€seekÏto€introduce€former€testimony€of€ð ðunavailableðð€witnesses.€€In€those€cases,€courts€haveÏrequired€prosecutors€to€satisfy€a€two„prong€test€to€protect€the€defendantsðð€SixthÏAmendment€right€to€confrontation.€€This€test€provides€that€ð ðit€must€be€shown€that€theÏ[witness]€whose€prior€testimony€is€offered€at€trial€is€truly€ððunavailableðð€after€a€goodÏfaith€effort€by€the€prosecutorial€authorities€to€obtain€his€presence€.€.€.€[and€that]€once€itÏis€shown€that€he€is€ððunavailableðð€the€evidence€must€carry€its€own€ððindicia€ofÏreliability.ðððð€òòState€v.€Arnoldóó,€719€S.W.2d€543,€548€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986)€(quotingÏòòOhio€v.€Robertsóó,€448€U.S.€56,€100€S.Ct.€2531,€2539,€2542„43,€65€L.Ed.2d€597Ï(1980)).€€Ìà àWe€find€that€this€test€should€apply€equally€to€prosecutors€and€defendants€whoÏseek€to€admit€the€former€testimony€of€an€ð ðunavailableðð€witness€under€TennesseeÍRule€of€Evidence€804(b)(1).€€We€will,€therefore,€analyze€this€case€under€the€aboveÏstated€test.€€€€€€Ìà àHere,€we€find€no€evidence€that€the€appellant€made€a€good„faith€effort€to€obtainÏKinnardððs€presence€at€trial.€€The€appellantððs€counsel€knew€that€Kinnard€disappearedÏone€week€before€the€trial,€however,€the€appellant€has€failed€to€introduce€anyÏevidence€that€he€attempted€to€locate€Kinnard€during€that€week.€€The€record€indicatesÏthat€the€appellant€had€access€to€Kinnardððs€girlfriend€and€that€the€appellantððs€motherÏwas€able€to€relay€information€and€assist€in€locating€Kinnard.€€Furthermore,€theÏappellant€did€not€try€to€subpoena€Kinnard€until€the€day€before€trial.€€€Thus,€weÏconclude€that€the€appellant€failed€to€make€a€good„faith€effort€to€ensure€KinnardððsÏpresence€at€trial.€€Accordingly,€we€need€not€address€the€second€prong€of€the€test€orÏdiscuss€whether€Kinnardððs€testimony€qualified€as€former€testimony.€Ìà@ àIII.Ìà àThe€appellantððs€next€contends€that€the€trial€judge€erred€when€he€refused€toÏadmit€in€evidence€a€photograph€of€the€appellant€wearing€rings€on€his€left€hand.€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.Ìà àThe€video€recording€of€the€drug€transaction€apparently€showed€that€theÏindividual€firing€the€gun€into€the€van€wore€no€rings€on€his€left€hand.€€The€appellantÏclaimed€that€he€almost€always€wore€two€gold€rings€on€his€left€hand€and,€therefore,€heÏcould€not€have€been€the€person€firing€the€gun€on€the€video€tape.€€At€trial,€theÍappellant€attempted€to€prove€this€claim€through€witness€testimony€and€an€undatedÏphotograph€of€himself€wearing€two€rings€on€his€left€hand.€€Immediately€before€heÏattempted€to€introduce€the€photograph,€he€testified€that€he€had€not€been€wearing€theÏtwo€rings€when€he€was€arrested€after€the€shooting.€€The€trial€judge€excluded€theÏphotograph€stating€that€it€was€irrelevant.Ìà àAll€relevant€evidence€is€admissible€unless€it€is€specifically€excluded€by€state€orÏfederal€constitution,€statute€or€rule.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€402.€€Relevant€evidence€isÏð ðevidence€having€any€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€ofÏconsequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€thanÏit€would€without€the€evidence.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€Whether€evidence€is€relevant€isÏwithin€the€trial€courtððs€sound€discretion€and€its€findings€will€not€be€overturned€absentÏa€clear€showing€of€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€œLeath›óó,€744€S.W.2d€591,€593€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1987);€òòGray€v.€Stateóó,€235€S.W.2d€20€(Tenn.€1950).Ìà àWe€find€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€when€it€excluded€theÏphotograph€of€the€appellant€wearing€two€rings€on€his€left€hand.€€Both€the€appellantÏand€his€mother€had€already€testified€that€the€appellant€wore€rings€on€his€left€hand.€ÏThe€photograph,€which€illustrated€one€undated€instance€in€time,€would€have€beenÏcumulative€to€that€testimony.€€Furthermore,€the€appellant€failed€to€establish€when€theÏphotograph€was€taken,€and€since€rings€can€easily€be€removed€and€put€back€on,€oneÏpicture€of€the€appellant€wearing€rings€a€few€weeks€before€the€shooting€has€little,€ifÍany,€relevance.€€òòSeeóó€òòHardy€v.€Stateóó,€519€S.W.2d€400,€402€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974)€Ï(ð ð[œD]emonstrative›€evidence€such€as€[a]€photograph€should€be€admitted€with€greatÏcaution€where€it€is€corroborative€of€evidence€representing€physical€characteristics€asÏtransitory€as€long€or€short€hair,€sideburns,€mustaches,€or€beards.ðð).€€Ìà àEven€if€the€photograph€were€relevant€to€a€material€issue€of€fact,€we€find€that€inÏlight€of€the€evidence€in€the€record€on€appeal,€the€trial€courtððs€error€would€have€beenÏharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ï52(a).€€The€appellant€was€identified€as€the€shooter€by€the€informant€and€anÏindependent€eye€witness,€and€the€video€recording€also€confirmed€that€the€appellantÏand€the€shooter€had€similar€characteristics€and€wore€similar€clothes.Ìà@ àIV.Ìà àThe€appellant€next€argues€that€the€trial€judge€erred€in€refusing€to€allowÏcounsel€for€the€appellant€to€play€a€previously€recorded€audio€taped€interview€of€StateÏwitness€Norm€Hogue€for€impeachment€purposes.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ìà àBefore€trial,€the€appellantððs€counsel€conducted€phone€interviews€with€an€eyeÏwitness,€Norm€Hogue,€who€had€identified€the€appellant€as€the€person€firing€the€gunÏinto€the€van.€€During€the€cross„examination€of€Hogue,€the€appellant€sought€to€playÏthe€taped€interviews€to€impeach€Hogue€by€showing€that€his€recorded€statementsÏcontained€racial€bias€and€were€inconsistent€with€his€testimony.€€After€the€appellantÏnotified€the€trial€court€of€his€intention,€the€trial€court,€outside€the€presence€of€the€jury,Íreviewed€the€statements€and€compared€them€to€Hogueððs€testimony€at€trial.€€The€trialÏcourt€found€that€the€statements€were€not€impeaching.Ìà àThe€decision€to€admit€or€exclude€evidence€is€left€to€the€trial€courtððs€soundÏdiscretion€and€will€not€be€disturbed€unless€it€is€arbitrarily€exercised.€€òòState€v.€Hawkóó,Ï688€S.W.2d€467,€472€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985);€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€785€S.W.2d€132,€134Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€à àWe€have€reviewed€Hogueððs€testimony€at€trial€andÏcompared€it€to€his€recorded€phone€conversation€with€the€appellantððs€counsel.€€WeÏfind€no€evidence€that€Hogue€was€racially€biased€against€the€appellant€or€that€hisÏphone€conversation€was€inconsistent€with€his€testimony€at€trial,€even€though€he€didÏexpress€discontent€with€some€of€the€activities€that€took€place€in€the€housing€authority.€ÏWe,€therefore,€find€that€the€trial€court€did€not€arbitrarily€limit€cross„examination€of€theÏwitness.€Ìà@ àV.Ìà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€evidence€introduced€at€trial€wasÏinsufficient€to€support€his€conviction€of€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€Specifically,Ïhe€asserts€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€did€not€establish€the€elements€ofÏrobbery,€as€charged,€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€Although€we€find€this€to€be€a€closeÏissue,€we€conclude€that€the€record€sufficiently€supports€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ìà àWhen€a€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€weÏmust€review€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution€inÍdetermining€whether€ð ðany€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.Ï307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979).€€We€do€not€reweigh€or€re„evaluateÏthe€evidence€and€are€required€to€afford€the€State€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏproof€contained€in€the€record€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferencesÏwhich€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1978).Ìà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€beÏgiven€to€the€evidence,€and€any€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolved€byÏthe€trier€of€fact,€not€this€Court.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€A€guilty€verdictÏrendered€by€the€jury€and€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€testimony€of€theÏwitnesses€for€the€State,€and€a€presumption€of€guilt€replaces€the€presumption€ofÏinnocence.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).Ìà àA€defendant€challenging€the€sufficiency€of€the€proof€has€the€burden€ofÏillustrating€to€this€Court€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returnedÏby€the€trier€of€fact.€€This€Court€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€for€lack€of€sufficientÏevidence€unless€the€facts€contained€in€the€record€and€any€inferences€which€may€beÏdrawn€from€the€facts€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€toÏfind€the€defendant€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.€œTuggle›óó,€639€S.W.2dÏ913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€à àÌà àIn€this€case,€the€State€charged€the€appellant€with€especially€aggravatedÏrobbery.€€Count€II€of€the€indictment€provided€that:€ÓÓÌÌà àà àà8 àon€or€about€the€17th€day€of€January,€1995,€in€the€State€of€TennesseeÏand€County€of€Maury,€that€Michael€Amos,€before€the€finding€of€thisÏindictment,€did€unlawfully€and€intentionally€or€knowingly,€òòobtainÏproperty,€to„wit:€Twenty€($20.00)€Dollars€in€moneyóó,€with€the€intent€ofÏdepriving€Michael€Wiley€of€the€property€and€without€his€effectiveÏconsent€from€the€person€of€Michael€Wiley€by€violence€andÏaccomplished€by€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon,€to„wit:€a€gun€as€a€resultÏof€which€Michael€Wiley€suffered€serious€bodily€injury€.€.€.€€.(emphasisÏadded).ÌÓÓÌà àThe€only€testimony€as€to€what€took€place€during€the€drug€transaction€wasÏpresented€by€Michael€Wiley€and€in€pertinent€part€provided:€ÌÓÓà8 àQ.à àNow,€if€you€would,€tell€us€what€you€did€when€you€departed€fromÏwhere€Officer€Doelle€was€that€day?Ìà8 àA.à àI€was€in€my€vehicle,€and€I€was€going€down€Polk€Street.€€And€IÏwent€down€there€a€little€ways,€and€I€took€a€right.€€And€there€was€a€groupÏof€people€standing€out€there,€and€I€kind€of€eased€by€once,€and€I€madeÏthe€block,€once€again.€€And€some€people€stopped€and€talked€to€me,€andÏI€told€them€I€wanted€to€buy€some€crack.€€And€they€said,€okay.€€Make€theÏblock.Ìà8 àà àAnd€so,€I€made€the€block,€again,€and€I€pulled€back€up.€€And€IÏdidnððt€pull€all€the€way€up€to€the€end€of€the€road.€€I€stopped€back€fromÏthere€a€little€ways.Ìà8 àà àAnd€two€people€approached€me.€€And€they€come€over€to€the€car,Ïand€I€told€them€to€go€to€the€other€side.€€And€they€„„€I€told€them,€you€know,Ïto€slam€me€a€twenty.€€You€know,€I€wanted€a€$20.00€rock.Ìà8 àà àAnd€so€this€little€guy€in€a€Dallas€Cowboyððs€jacket,€he€handed€meÏthe€rock.€€And€I€looked€at€it,€and€it€didnððt€look€real.€€I€said,€man,€is€thisÏreal?€€And€so,€the€taller€guy,€over€there,€he€pulled€a€gun€out,€and€stuck€itÏto€my€head€and€said,€is€this€real?€€And€I€said,€yeah,€thatððs€real.Ìà8 àQ.à àWell,€was€this€upsetting€to€you€when€that€was€done?Ìà8 àA.à àThatððs€an€understatement.Ìà8 àQ.à àWould€it€be€fair€to€say€that€it€scared€the€heck€out€of€you?Ìà8 àA.à àIt€scared€the€you„know„what€out€of€me.Ìà8 àQ.€à àDid€you€say€anything?Ìà8 àA.à àI€didnððt€know€actually€what€to€say.€€I€told€him€not€to€shoot€me.€€IÏsaid,€donððt€shoot€me;€donððt€shoot€me.€€And€he€wanted€the€piece€ofÏwhatever€it€was€he€give€me€back.€€I€donððt€know€why€I€didnððt€give€it€back.€ÏMy€brain€wasnððt€working€right.€€But€I€didnððt€give€it€back,€and€heÏproceeded€to€fire€off€rounds€in€the€automobile.€€And€about€the€third€timeÏhe€shot,€he€got€me€in€the€arm.Ìà8 à*€€*€€*Ìà8 àQ.à àOkay.€€Now,€you€mentioned€that€they€were€demanding€back€„„€orÏthis€one€was€demanding€back€this€item€you€had€purchased.€€And€was€itÏyou€intention€to€be€purchasing€a€rock€of€cocaine?Ìà8 àA.à àYes,€sir.Ìà8 àQ.à àNow,€what€about€money?€€Was€there€any€money?€€DidÏsomebody€get€some€money?Ìà8 àA.à àYes,€sir.Ìà8 àQ.à àAnd€what€was€that?€€A€$20.00€bill?Ìà8 àA.à àYes,€sir.Ìà8 àQ.à àAnd€did€you€have€some€other€monies€in€the€vehicle,€there?Ìà8 àA.à àYeah.€€I€had€four€more€twenties€in€the€vehicle€with€me.€€That€wasÏfor€to€make€other€buys€with.Ìà8 àQ.€à àWas€each€buy€„„€how€much€was€each€buy€supposed€to€be?Ìà8 àA.à àAbout€a€twenty.ÌÌÓÓà àThe€jury€convicted€the€appellant€of€robbing€Mr.€Wiley€of€twenty€dollars€byÏviolence€with€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon.€€The€record€demonstrates€that€theÏappellant€stuck€a€gun€to€Mr.€Wileyððs€head€with€the€intent€to€threaten€Mr.€Wiley€andÏdeprive€him€of€personal€property.€€At€that€time,€Mr.€Wiley€was€in€possession€of€fiveÏtwenty„dollar€bills€and€the€white€rock,€purported€to€be€cocaine.€€There€is€no€evidenceÏthat€Mr.€Wiley€gave€a€twenty„dollar€bill€to€the€appellant€to€complete€a€purchase€of€theÍwhite€rock.€€To€the€contrary,€Mr.€Wiley€testified€that€ð ðsomeoneðð€took€one€of€the€twenty„dollar€bills€from€him€while€the€appellant€pointed€his€gun€at€Mr.€Wiley€and€thereafterÏfired€three€shots€into€the€cab€of€the€van.€€The€appellant€and€his€accomplice€were€theÏonly€two€individuals€near€enough€to€Wiley€to€take€the€money.Ìà àUpon€viewing€this€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€we€concludeÏthat€the€jury€was€justified€in€finding€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€appellantÏwas€guilty€of€robbery€under€especially€aggravating€circumstances.€€The€appellantððsÏconviction€is€based€upon€sufficient€evidence.€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ì€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÇÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJ.€STEVEN€STAFFORD,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌ