ÿWPC‰ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µLÝb) w@1 4q … 0D” 0„Ø 0J\ 0T¦ 0^ú 0hX 0rÀ 0|2 0†® 04 1uÄ 0d9 BU>ºU *øB)"DCK AMŽÛ+õv~  D3žvÓÑ 0@¤ AOäÆ3 0Dù D/= Bl˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLlÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT- ù- 4D56D8:•;D<=D>?Ó€Úƒç"3|xJ(%Ã$òòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó(;!2{æ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÓÓ€€€€€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`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òJanuary€21,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó !Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€"ôÔÔ€#ÔAt€the€time€of€the€òòVesichóó€decision,€18€U.S.C.€Section€1623€provided:ÌÌà8 àà0 àWhere,€in€the€same€continuous€court€or€grand€jury€proceeding€in€which€aÏdeclaration€is€made,€the€person€making€the€declaration€admits€suchÏdeclaration€to€be€false,€such€admission€shall€bar€prosecution€under€thisÏsection€if,€at€the€time€the€admission€is€made,€the€declaration€has€notÏsubstantially€affected€the€proceeding,€or€it€has€not€become€manifest€thatÏsuch€falsity€has€been€or€will€be€exposed.Ìòòà àVesichóó,€724€F.2d€451,€460.€Ô€"ÔÔ€"XÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€#ÔÑ€ÑÑ7€¦/XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÔ€#ŠÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÙ€€ÙßR€&'%A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌAPRIL€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9606„CC„00226Ìà àà àà àà àà àó ó)Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àSULLIVAN€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€R.€JERRY€BECKó óÌò òJOHNNY€LEE€BOWMAN,ó óà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Direct€Appeal„Aggravated€Perjury)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌRAYMOND€C.€CONKIN,€JR.à àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌ320€Cherokee€St.,€Suite€Bà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌKingsport,€TN€37660Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àELIZABETH€T.€RYANÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDOUGLAS€DIMONDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àLegal€AssistantÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àGREELEY€WELLSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àEDWARD€WILSONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.€O.€Box€526Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBlountville,€TN€37617ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇÓ  Óò òòòÔ€#„ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€#ŠÔÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€Johnny€Lee€Bowman€appeals€from€a€jury€verdict€rendered€onÏSeptember€12,€1995€in€the€Sullivan€County€Criminal€Court€finding€him€guilty€ofÏaggravated€perjury.€€As€a€Range€III€persistent€offender,€Appellant€received€aÏsentence€of€ten€years€confinement€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.€€ÏAppellant€presents€two€issues€for€consideration€on€this€direct€appeal:€€(1)Ïwhether€claimed€memory€loss€constitutes€a€retraction€of€perjured€testimony€withinÏthe€meaning€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„704;€and€(2)€whether€the€evidence€isÏsufficient€€to€sustain€Appellant's€conviction€for€aggravated€perjury.ÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àò òI.€€FACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óÌà àThe€proof€shows€that€on€December€22,€1987,€Appellant€gave€a€signedÏand€sworn€statement€to€Officer€Bill€Smith€of€the€City€of€Bristol€Police€Department.€ÏIn€this€statement,€Appellant€implicated€Michael€Scott€and€himself€in€theÏNovember€9,€1987€burglary€of€a€vehicle.€€Appellant€stated€that€he€served€as€aÏlookout€while€Scott€burglarized€the€car€and€stole€a€suitcase€containing€women'sÏclothing,€a€purse,€and€a€pair€of€shoes.€€At€Appellant's€trial,€Officer€Smith€testifiedÏthat€when€Appellant€gave€his€December€22,€1987€statement,€Appellant€did€notÍappear€to€be€under€the€influence€of€either€alcohol€or€drugs.€€Moreover,€OfficerÏSmith€explained€that,€during€his€employment€with€the€Bristol€Police€Department,ÏSmith€had€known€Appellant€quite€well€and€had€never€known€Appellant€to€useÏeither€drugs€or€alcohol.€€On€January€20,€1989,€Appellant€pleaded€guilty€in€theÏSullivan€County€Criminal€Court€to€the€automobile€burglary€and€to€petit€larceny.€ÏIn€his€plea,€Appellant€agreed€under€oath€that€the€facts€of€the€burglary€set€out€inÏhis€December€22€statement€were€true€and€correct.€€Appellant€declined€toÏsupplement€his€statement€in€any€respect€and€also€declined€to€make€anyÏadditional€statement.ÌÌà àOn€December€12,€1994,€Michael€Scott€was€finally€tried€for€his€role€in€theÏburglary,€as€the€authorities€had€failed€to€locate€Scott€prior€to€this€time.€€òòSee€StateÏv.€Michael€Scottóó,€No.€22848„850,€(Sullivan€County,€December€12,€1994).€ÏAppellant€was€called€as€a€prosecution€witness€in€the€Scott€trial.€€At€the€ScottÏtrial,€Appellant€initially€testified€on€direct€examination€that€he€alone€burglarized€theÏvehicle€and€denied€ever€having€served€as€a€lookout€for€Scott.€€He€then€statedÏthat€he€could€not€remember€whether€or€not€anyone€else€had€participated€in€theÏcommission€of€the€burglary.€€Appellant€continued,€"I€honestly€do€not€rememberÏ1987.€€That's€been€seven€years€ago.€€There's€been€an€extremely€lot€of€thingsÏhappen€in€my€life€since€then,€so,€I€couldn't€give€you€an€honest€answer."€€€ÏAppellant€then€testified€that€he€did€not€remember€giving€a€statement€to€OfficerÍSmith.€€When€asked€to€identify€his€signature€on€the€statement€allegedly€given€byÏhim€to€Officer€Smith,€Appellant€responded,€"That's€my€writing."€€€He€then€stated,Ï"That€don't€really€look€like€it€now,€but€it€could€have€been€seven€years€ago,€IÏguess."€€Appellant€then€stated€that€he€could€not€positively€say€whether€or€notÏthe€signature€on€the€statement€was€his.€€Finally,€Appellant€flatly€denied€that€theÏhandwriting€on€the€December€22,€1987€statement€was€his.€€Appellant€thenÏreiterated,€"I€don't€remember€a€whole€lot€about€seven€years€ago."€€€When€askedÏwhether€he€recognized€the€signature€on€the€"Advice,€Waiver€of€Rights"€form,ÏAppellant€responded,€"That€looks€a€little€more€like€it,€sir."€€€Appellant€thenÏtestified,€"I€don't€recall€ever€seeing€this€paper€before€in€my€entire€life,€sir."€€€WhenÏagain€asked€whether€or€not€the€signature€on€the€form€was€his,€Appellant€repliedÏthat€"It€could€be"€but€that€he€could€not€say€positively€that€the€signature€was€his.€€ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Appellant€explained€that€the€reason€for€hisÏinability€to€remember€1987€is€because€he€was€an€alcoholic€and€a€drug€addict€atÏthat€time.€€Furthermore,€Appellant€admitted€that€he€was€"high"€much€of€the€timeÏand€that€he€used€alcohol,€marijuana,€and€cocaine.ÌÌà àAt€Appellant's€trial€for€aggravated€perjury,€the€State€introduced€redactedÏtranscripts€of€Appellant's€January€20,€1989€plea€hearing€and€of€Appellant'sÏtestimony€given€during€the€Scott€trial.€€At€the€close€of€the€State's€proof,€AppellantÍmoved€for€a€judgment€of€acquittal,€but€the€trial€court€denied€this€motion.€€TheÏcase€went€to€the€jury€which€convicted€Appellant.ÌÌà@ àò òII.€€CLAIMED€MEMORY€LOSS€AS€RETRACTION€OF€PERJUREDÏTESTIMONYó óÌà àAppellantððs€first€contention€is€that€his€alleged€memory€loss€constitutes€aÏð ðretractionðð€of€his€perjured€testimony.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€39„16„704€provides:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIt€is€a€defense€to€prosecution€for€aggravated€perjuryÏthat€the€person€retracted€the€false€statement€beforeÏcompletion€of€the€testimony€at€the€official€proceedingÏduring€which€the€aggravated€perjury€was€committed.ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àÌà àThe€question€of€whether€claimed€loss€of€memory€constitutes€a€retractionÏand€therefore€a€defense€to€aggravated€perjury€is€an€issue€of€first€impression€inÏTennessee.€€Indeed,€we€have€found€only€one€case€which€directly€deals€withÏthis€question.€€In€òòUnited€States€v.€Veischóó,€724€F.2d€451€(5th€cir.€1984);€theÏdefendant,€an€attorney,€appeared€before€a€grand€jury€and€denied€that€he€hadÏever€instructed€anyone€to€lie€before€a€grand€jury.€€òòIdóó.€at€458.ÌÌà àHowever,€unknown€to€Vesich,€the€prosecution€possessed€a€tapeÏrecording€of€a€conversation€which€Vesich€had€had€with€an€imprisoned€client.€€òòId.óóÍat€459€n.€16.€€In€this€conversation,€Vesich€urged€his€client€ð ðto€get€a€story€straightÏfor€when€you€do€go€[before€the€grand€jury]ðð€and€informed€his€client€that€the€grandÏjury€could€not€prove€that€his€client€was€lying.€€òòId.óó€at€459€n.16.€€FollowingÏVesichððs€denial€that€he€had€ever€urged€any€individual€to€lie€before€a€grand€jury,ÏVesich€repeatedly€responded€to€questions€pertaining€to€the€recordedÏconversation€by€professing€his€inability€to€recall€certain€statements€made€by€himÏduring€that€conversation.€€òòIdóó.€At€460.€€The€Fifth€€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals€held€inÏòòVesichóó€that€the€defendantððs€claimed€memory€loss€was€insufficient€to€establishÏthe€defense€of€recantation€under€18€U.S.C.€ðð€1623(d)× ƒ( ××  ×.€€òòVesichóó,€724€F.2d€451,Ï460.ÌÌà àIt€is€clear€that€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€39„16„704€is€designedÏto€provide€an€incentive€to€the€perjurer€to€tell€the€truth€before€the€falsity€can€do€anyÏharm.€€If€having€lied€the€perjurer€knows€he€can€avoid€prosecution€by€recanting,Ïthe€theory€is€he€will€have€more€reason€to€tell€the€truth€then€if€recantation€wouldÏgain€him€nothing.€€This€policy€is€hardly€served€by€a€claim€of€memory€loss.€ÍIndeed,€a€claim€of€memory€loss€makes€the€search€for€truth€more€difficult.€€WeÏagree€with€the€òòVeischóó€court€that€memory€loss€does€not€establish€a€recantationÏdefense.ÌÌà àà@ àò òIII.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óÌà àAppellant€also€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€to€sustain€hisÏconviction€for€aggravated€perjury.€€We€find€that€the€evidence€is€constitutionallyÏsufficient.ÌÌà àThis€Court€is€obliged€to€review€challenges€to€the€sufficiency€of€theÏconvicting€evidence€according€to€certain€well„settled€principles.€€A€verdict€of€guiltyÏby€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€State'sÏwitnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòStateÏv.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,Ï75€(Tenn.€1992).€€Although€an€accused€is€originally€cloaked€with€a€presumptionÏof€innocence,€a€jury€verdict€removes€this€presumption€and€replaces€it€with€one€ofÏguilt.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€Hence,€on€appeal,Ïthe€burden€of€proof€rests€with€Appellant€to€demonstrate€the€insufficiency€of€theÏconvicting€evidence.€€òòId.óó€€On€appeal,€"the€[S]tate€is€entitled€to€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimateÏinferences€that€may€be€drawn€therefrom."€€òòId.óó€(citing€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571ÍS.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978)).€€Where€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€isÏcontested€on€appeal,€the€relevant€question€for€the€reviewing€court€is€whetherÏany€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€accused€guilty€of€every€element€ofÏthe€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75;€òòJackson€v.ÏVirginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979).€€InÏconducting€our€evaluation€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€Court€is€precluded€fromÏreweighing€or€reconsidering€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Morganóó,€929€S.W.2d€380,Ï383€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1990).€€Moreover,€this€Court€may€not€substitute€its€own€inferencesÏ"for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence."€€òòMatthewsóó,Ï805€S.W.2d€776,€779.€€Finally,€òòTenn.€R.€App.€P.óó€13(e)€provides,€"Findings€of€guiltÏin€criminal€actions€whether€by€the€trial€court€or€jury€shall€be€set€aside€if€theÏevidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€findings€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt."€€òòSee€also€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€780.ÌÌà àWe€stated€in€òòMatthewsóó€that€"A€criminal€offense€may€be€establishedÏexclusively€by€circumstantial€evidence.€€However,€before€an€accused€may€beÏconvicted€of€a€criminal€offense€based€upon€circumstantial€evidence€alone,€theÏfacts€and€circumstances€`must€be€so€strong€and€cogent€as€to€exclude€everyÏother€reasonable€hypothesis€save€the€guilt€of€the€defendant.'"€€805€S.W.2d€776,Ï779„80€(quoting€òòState€v.€Crawfordóó,€470€S.W.2d€610,€612€(Tenn.€1971)).ÌÌà àòòTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.óó€29(a)€provides€in€part,€"The€court€on€motion€of€aÏdefendant.€.€.€shall€order€the€entry€of€judgment€of€acquittal€of€one€or€moreÏoffenses€charged€in€the€indictment€or€information€after€the€evidence€on€either€sideÏis€closed€if€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€sustain€a€conviction€of€such€offense€orÏoffenses."€€òòId.óó€€Furthermore,€in€dealing€with€a€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal,Ïboth€the€trial€court€and€this€Court€are€obligated€to€consider€only€all€of€theÏevidence€introduced€by€the€State.€€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€656€S.W.2d€60,€61€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1983).€€Finally,€when€resolving€a€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal,€the€trialÏcourt's€sole€concern€is€the€legal€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€and€the€trial€court€isÏprecluded€from€reweighing€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€916€S.W.2d€471,€473Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòHallóó,€656€S.W.2d€60,€61.ÌÌà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„702(a)(1)€provides€that€€"(a)€A€person€commitsÏ[perjury]€who,€with€intent€to€deceive:Ìà à(1)€Makes€a€false€statement,€under€oath."€€òòId.óó€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„703(a)€provides,€"(a)€A€person€commits€[aggravated€perjury]€who,€with€intent€toÏdeceive:Ìà à(1)€Commits€perjury€as€defined€in€ðð€39„16„702;Ìà à(2)€The€false€statement€is€made€during€or€in€connection€with€an€officialÏproceeding;€andÌà à(3)€The€false€statement€is€material."€€òòId.óó€€To€sustain€a€conviction,€the€StateÏwas€required€to€prove€each€and€every€element€of€the€offense€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.ÌÌà àViewing€the€evidence€in€light€of€the€above„stated€criteria,€we€hold€that€aÏrational€trier€of€fact€could€have€concluded€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€thatÏAppellant€committed€aggravated€perjury.€€We€further€hold€that€the€evidence€isÏsufficient€to€warrant€the€trial€court's€denial€of€Appellant's€motion€for€judgment€ofÏacquittal.Ìà àThe€prosecution€called€Officer€Smith€as€its€only€witness.€€Officer€SmithÏtestified€that€on€December€2,€1987,€he€took€Appellant's€statement€in€whichÏAppellant€alleged€that€Michael€Scott€had€burglarized€an€automobile€and€hadÏtaken€a€suitcase,€a€purse,€and€a€pair€of€shoes€while€Appellant€served€as€aÏlookout.€€€Additionally,€Officer€Smith€testified€that€Appellant€did€not€appear€to€beÏunder€the€influence€of€either€drugs€or€alcohol€at€the€time€Appellant€gave€theÏstatement.€€Officer€Smith€also€stated€that€he€knew€Appellant€quite€well€and€thatÏhe€had€never€known€Appellant€to€use€drugs€or€alcohol.€€ÌÌà à€The€jury€next€heard€the€Assistant€District€Attorney€General€read€portionsÏof€the€transcript€of€Appellant's€January€20,€1989€guilty€plea€hearing€in€whichÍAppellant€pleaded€guilty€to€the€November€9,€1987€burglary€and€swore€that€theÏstatement€given€to€Officer€Smith€was€true€and€correct.€€ÌÌà àThe€jury€next€heard€portions€of€the€testimony€given€by€Appellant€in€theÏScott€trial.€€In€his€testimony,€Appellant€contradicted€his€earlier€statement€andÏtestified€that€he€alone€had€burglarized€the€vehicle.€€Appellant€then€changed€hisÏtestimony,€stating€that€he€could€not€remember€whether€or€not€Michael€ScottÏparticipated€in€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€Additionally,€Appellant€stated,€"IÏhonestly€do€not€remember€1987."€€Appellant€also€claimed€that€he€could€notÏremember€giving€a€statement€to€Officer€Smith.€€After€identifying€the€handwritingÏon€the€statement€as€his,€Appellant€then€contended€that€the€handwriting€did€notÏresemble€his€handwriting€at€the€time€of€the€Scott€trial€in€1994€but€that€it€"couldÏhave€been€[his€handwriting]€seven€years€ago."€€€Appellant€next€asserted€thatÏthe€signature€on€the€"Advice,€Waiver€of€Rights"€form€more€closely€resembled€hisÏhandwriting€than€did€the€signature€on€the€statement.€€€Finally,€on€cross„examination,€Appellant€attributed€his€inability€to€remember€1987€to€his€allegedÏaddiction€to€drugs€and€alcohol.€€ÌÌà àIt€was€the€jury's€prerogative€to€reject€Appellant's€claim€of€memory€lossÏand€to€convict€him€of€aggravated€perjury.€€In€light€of€the€fact€that€Appellant'sÏtestimony€at€the€Scott€trial€was€both€internally€inconsistent€and€directlyÍcontradictory€of€his€earlier€sworn€testimony€that€the€statement€given€by€him€wasÏaccurate,€the€trial€court€properly€denied€Appellant's€motion€for€judgment€ofÏacquittal.€€Moreover,€the€verdict€was€amply€supported€by€the€evidence.ÌÌà àFinding€no€merit€in€either€of€the€two€issues€presented€by€Appellant€on€thisÏdirect€appeal,€we,€therefore,€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌCHRIS€CRAFT,€SPECIAL€JUDGE