WPCZ 1UN %  0(w@:4z 0 0D+ 0@o 0J 0T 0^M 0h 0r 0| 0 0 1u 0d AQA 0D BK 0Dh D/ U> B D36 U*i B) DC AM L O v~ v(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ [[UD4eӀ n~<$3|x(6(2:$ !     `   0  (#$  0  ("$    2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X ! #%C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !   d($$   1  ''' dxd<  9p`(&Times New RomanP Pd""""'dxd<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d****7Border 1dd +C << G !&  !"  ))   YYY FILED)X July24,1998CecilCrowson,Jr.)AppellateCourtClerk   !#d#&   $             ݀InhisbriefdefensecounselonlycitedtheOnidascaseanddidnotmention,nortrytodistinguish,theBanecase.Yet,presentdefensecounselalsorepresentedthedefendantinBane.Banewascitedinthestatesbrief.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ! . &        )\RA'\ћR,-+A1-j|`  `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATJACKSON@ JUNE1998SESSIONSTATEOFTENNESSEE, @ )@ ) NO.02C019707CR00255  Appellee,@ )@ ) SHELBYCOUNTY VS. @ )@ ) HON.BERNIEWEINMAN,IRABARBER, @ ) JUDGE @ ) Appellant.@ ) (AggravatedRobbery)y FORTHEAPPELLANT:BRETTB.STEIN 236AdamsAvenueMemphis,TN381031922 FORTHEAPPELLEE:JOHNKNOXWALKUP AttorneyGeneralandReporter MARVINE.CLEMENTS,JR. AssistantAttorneyGeneralCordellHullBuilding,2ndFloor425FifthAvenueNorthNashville,TN372430493 WILLIAML.GIBBONS DistrictAttorneyGeneral PAULTHOMASHOOVER,JR. AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral201PoplarAvenue,Suite301Memphis,TN381031947 OPINIONFILED:򀀀AFFIRMEDJOEG.RILEY,JUDGE 7vXXdXXd7@ OPINION  Thedefendant,IraBarber,wasconvictedbyaShelbyCountyjuryoftwo(2)countsofaggravatedrobbery.Hewassentencedtoconcurrenttermsoften(10)yearsforeachcount.Onappeal,heclaimsthat(1)thetrialcourterredinallowingtheprosecutortoreadtheindictmenttothejurypriortothestatepresentingitsproof,and(2)thejuryinstructiononreasonabledoubtwasunconstitutional.AfterareviewoftherecordbeforethisCourt,wefindnoerror.Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.@ FACTS  Althoughthesufficiencyoftheconvictingevidenceisnotatissue,abriefrecitationofthefactsisappropriate.ShortlyaftermidnightonOctober1,1996,CarolynTurleyandEmmaThomaslefttheirplaceofemploymentandbegandrivinghome.BecauseTurleyreceivedapageonher beeper,theystoppedataconveniencestoresothatTurleycouldusethepayphone.ThomasexitedthevehicleandplacedthecallwhileTurleysatinthecar.Turleythengotoutofthecar,andwhileshewasonthephone,bothvictimsnoticedamanwalkingdownthestreet. Themancontinuedwalkingaroundacornerandsuddenlyappearedfromthesideofthebuilding,pointedhisgunatthemandtoldTurleyto dropthekeysofforhewouldkillbothofthem.Healsodemandedmoney.ThemantookTurleyskeysandher beeper,andleftinthevehicle.Thepursesofbothvictimswereinthevehicle.Thevictimssubsequentlyidentifiedthemanasthedefendant. Defendantwasconvictedoftwo(2)countsofaggravatedrobbery.Henowbringsthisappealasofright.@ READINGTHEINDICTMENT  Inhisfirstissue,defendantcontendsthatthetrialcourterredinallowingtheprosecutortoreadtheindictmenttothejury.Heclaimsthatinformingthejurythatagrandjuryreturnedanindictmentagainstthedefendantdepriveshimofhisconstitutionalrighttothepresumptionofinnocence.SeeStatev.Onidas,635S.W.2d516(Tenn.1982).Hefurtherallegesthattheindictmentitselfisirrelevant;therefore,theprejudicialeffectofreadingtheindictmentfaroutweighsitprobativevalue. InStatev.Bane,853S.W.2d483(Tenn.1993),theSupremeCourtheldthatreadingtheindictmenttothejuryisaproperandappropriateprocedure.Insoholding,theCourtdistinguishedtheformercaseofStatev.Onidas,supra.InOnidas,theprosecutorexplainedthefunctionsofthegrandjuryandtheprocedureutilizedinreturningatruebillduringvoirdire.635S.W.2d51617.TheCourtinOnidasdeterminedthatinformingthejuryofsuchmatterswasirrelevant,undulyprejudicialtothedefendantand,therefore,reversibleerror.Id.at51718. However,inBanetheprosecutorsimplyreadtheindictmenttothejury.853S.W.2dat484.TheCourtnotedthattheindictment atbestisamereaccusationtoinformthejuryofthechargesagainstthedefendant.Itraisesnopresumptionofguilt.Id.Therefore,theCourtconcludedthatmerelyreadingtheindictmenttothejurywasapermissibleprocedure.Id. .    Inthecasesubjudice,thereisnoindicationintherecordthattheassistantdistrictattorneydidanythingotherthansimplyreadtheindictmenttothejury.Therefore,thiscaseisinlinewithBane,andthetrialcourtdidnoterrinallowingthestatetoreadtheindictmenttothejury.Furthermore,thetrialcourtinstructedthejurythattheindictmentisnot evidenceagainstthedefendantanddoesnotcreateanyinferenceofguilt.Jurorsarepresumedtofollowtheinstructionsofthetrialcourt.Henleyv.State,960S.W.2d572,581(Tenn.1997). Thisissuehasnomerit.@ REASONABLEDOUBTJURYINSTRUCTION  Inhisfinalissuedefendantcontendsthatthetrialcourtsinstructiontothejuryonreasonabledoubtisunconstitutional.Heassertsthattheinstructionloweredthestatesburdenofproofbystating absolutecertaintyofguiltisnotdemandedbythelawtoconvictofanycriminalcharge. Theissueiswithoutmerit.Thereasonabledoubtjuryinstructionutilizingthe absolutecertaintylanguagehasbeenupheldbythisCourt.SeeStatev.WillieTaylor,C.C.A.No.02C019702CR00080,ShelbyCounty(Tenn.Crim.App.filedMarch10,1998,atJackson);Statev.MelvinEdwardHenning,C.C.A.No.02C019703CC00126,MadisonCounty(Tenn.Crim.App.filedOctober24,1997,atJackson);Statev.JamesEarlSomerville,C.C.A.No.02C019608CC00289,TiptonCounty(Tenn.Crim.App.filedOctober13,1997,atJackson).@  CONCLUSION  Fortheforegoingreasons,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.        򀀀       JOEG.RILEY,JUDGECONCUR:򀀀PAULG.SUMMERS,JUDGE򀀀DAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGE