ÿWPCÙ ³yxÌÊ‚äÈÉíåG["*6æ¹ç|ÊÈ¢Ç}/5ØwÎwÝþNˆ©Æº˜­LT9%©Þ¾Ó§âæ¦5Õw âPSÅÔ}qC†’S€²ÆŸ¤É¡’ŸÇ _Ò%¾!ö6G/¿²‘;Ð ¸ŒQ]Þ£XCÚJÊ}›Ï~“Þ}l6ŸI‹NÎ6Ήbºh,×§ûíâÛ÷SwOpm%ñ3èðhç]´‹)Ú—$ RÀP„— 8) âQG"@-ÕG™(ù¢Q2„ûyÚWÒê;²)“emX» [—”–’½É$;ØA¬kü¤KPí1´¿Ûý4€nÀz÷Ìjè¯øª\ò½]•«®ÌUå ºÓF®/¶ŠfÞ7”D‚ÒD‘“…z £çðÙø³)¹Ë^‡“Z<Žü1=Q=J„tý0y-P ú4‚»¸ý€‰t÷#rJ¾¬­a›÷t§Ï<  ;Y³®NÖ\ü"aú×Ùå–s€ß0á“Ð çÃ[».Óv)H>5R{pBæŒSóå+˜Æ2¿'Õô E: 8ms/ß')ð)ª#Êc33ÐâË OÒH—Xn”³)Ô¾;6tó³]wÏÐ]žß†A ~ê=ë·±ub#Á\ % N# 0ˆ% UN­ 1û 72ˆ zº Ò4 z Ò€ ^ R w^ Æb Æ(ÆîÆ´4zNŽŸE¡ m£UNº 0D 1uL 72Á 0 cóVV|sýïàìììììììììììììbÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ 0ëÔÔÔÔ B¿¿ 0¤Ü D5€ D-µ 0Kââ AS-Æ€ 0¤F 0Dê A«.˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(¦ÙCEMU]emu}AutoList1(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptI’f)â Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5UUb)¢Ø+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÆúI Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à Ý ƒR^þ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôä² ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€defendant€contends€in€his€brief€that€the€evidence€should€not€have€been€admitted€because€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]hereÔ_Ô€wasÐ ° Ðample€evidence€presented€to€the€jury€regarding€the€identity€of€the€accused.ðð€€Although€we€acknowledge€that€evidenceÐ tÄ Ðof€other€crimes€should€be€excluded€where€identity€has€already€been€ð ðclearly€made€out,ðð€òòState€v.€Bunchóó,€605€S.W.2d€227,Ð 8ˆ Ð230€(Tenn.€1980)€(quoting€òòWarren€v.€Stateóó,€156€S.W.2d€416,€419€(Tenn.€1941)),€in€the€present€case€identity€was€veryÐ üL Ðmuch€at€issue,€particularly€given€defense€questioning€detailed€above. rÝ ƒR^þ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôä² ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€presume€the€prosecutor€was€referring€to€the€questioning€of€Officer€Ô_ÔVakertzisÔ_Ô€and€Sean€Thomas€whetherÐ ° Ðanyone€in€the€courtroom€other€than€the€defendant€could€be€the€perpetrator€of€the€crime.€ óÝ ƒR^þ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôä² ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€trial€court€prohibited€the€state€from€developing€evidence€that€the€prior€ð ðcontactsðð€were,€in€fact,€arrests. ÖÝ ƒR^þ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôä² ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€record€is€silent€on€the€issue€of€whether€any€of€the€victimððs€money€was€recovered.- ù-(|G2^þ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]Ì»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô-`ò»»Ô d(|3Î$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]Ì»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Î$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]Ì»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Qä»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼G»»»ÔÑ8€7$XXdê»»d 8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îSkGÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼G»îîSk #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAugust€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X&X»¼GÔÌò òÔ#†¼G»XX&#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€JOHN€BROWNòòóóÔ‡X&X»¼GÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€98„07512,€98„07513€€€€€€Joseph€B.€Dailey,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W1999„00626„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€October€27,€2000Ð ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓJohn€Brown€appeals€from€his€Shelby€County€convictions€of€aggravated€robbery€and€especiallyÐ xÈ  Ðaggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô.€€He€alleges€insufficiency€of€identification€evidence€and€plain€error€inÐ d´ Ðadmission€of€evidence€of€arrests€for€other€crimes.€€Because€there€is€no€error€of€record€requiringÐ P  Ðreversal,€we€affirm.Ð <Œ ÐÓ“ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ d ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼G»àX&#ÔÔ‡X&X.¼GÔJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayesóó€andÐ ì< ÐòòJohn€Everett€Williamsóó,€JJ.€joined.Ð Ø( ÐÌA.C.€Wharton,€Jr.,€Public€Defender,€Juanita€Ô_ÔPeytonÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Public€Defender€(at€trial),€GarlandÐ ° ÐÔ_ÔErgdenÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Public€Defender€(on€appeal),€for€the€Appellant,€John€Brown.Ð œì ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General,€Mark€E.€Davidson,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€William€L.Ð tÄ ÐGibbons,€District€Attorney€General,€Jennifer€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€theÐ `° ÐAppellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð L œ ÐÓ¬ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼G»XX&Û#ÔÐ $"t! ÐÌÔ€X&X»¼GÔÓ  Óà  àà ` àThe€defendant,€John€Brown,€appeals€from€his€convictions€of€aggravated€robbery€andÐ "$r# Ðespecially€aggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô€which€he€received€at€the€conclusion€of€a€jury€trial€in€the€ShelbyÐ %^ $ ÐCounty€Criminal€Court.€€He€is€presently€serving€an€effective€80„year€sentence€for€his€crimes.€€In€thisÐ ú%J!% Ðdirect€appeal,€he€claims€that€the€stateððs€identification€evidence€is€insufficient€to€sustain€hisÐ æ&6"& Ðconvictions€and€that€we€should€notice€as€plain€error€the€trial€courtððs€admission€of€evidence€of€arrestsÐ Ò'"#' Ðfor€other€crimes.€€We€have€reviewed€the€record,€the€briefs€of€the€parties,€and€the€applicable€law.€Ð ¾($( ÐBecause€no€error€appears,€we€affirm.Ð ª)ú$) ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€evidence€at€trial€demonstrated€that€on€JuneÐ ‚+Ò&+ Ð21,€1998€at€approximately€1:00€p.m.,€Sean€Thomas€was€sitting€in€his€pickup€truck€near€a€bus€stationÐ n,¾', Ðin€Memphis€when€the€defendant€approached€him€and€said,€ð ðHey,€my€nameððs€Eddie€Murphy.€€CanÐ Z-ª(-ýC ÐI€wash€your€truck?ðð€€Thomas€said€no.€€€The€defendant€opened€the€passenger„side€door€and€got€intoÐ ° ÐÔ_Ôthe€truck.€€The€defendant€had€a€steak€knife€in€his€hand,€which€he€pointed€at€Thomas.€€The€defendantÐ œì Ðtold€Thomas€to€drive.€€Because€he€did€not€think€he€could€escape€without€being€hurt,€ThomasÐ ˆØ Ðcomplied.€€The€defendant€demanded€money,€and€Thomas€told€him€there€was€money€in€the€glove€box.€Ð tÄ ÐThe€defendant€thought€Thomas€was€trying€to€trick€him,€so€he€told€Thomas€to€open€the€glove€box.€Ð `° ÐAs€Thomas€was€complying€with€this€demand,€he€hit€a€fire€hydrant.€€This€enraged€the€defendant,€whoÐ L œ Ðtold€Thomas€to€keep€driving€or€he€would€get€ð ðstuck.ðð€€Because€one€of€the€tires€was€flat,€ThomasÐ 8 ˆ Ðcontinued€driving€very€slowly.€€The€defendant€demanded€Thomasðð€wallet,€and€Thomas€complied.€Ð $ t ÐThe€defendant€took€over€$800€from€the€wallet,€threw€it€at€Thomas,€and€demanded€that€Thomas€stopÐ  ` Ðthe€truck.€€The€defendant€fled€on€foot.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€police€quickly€suspected€the€defendant,€and€Thomas€positively€identified€€theÐ Ô$  Ðdefendant€from€a€photographic€lineup.€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àThomasðð€truck€was€processed€for€fingerprints,€but€none€were€found€which€matchedÐ ˜è  Ðthose€of€the€defendant.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àA€police€officer€testified€that€he€knew€the€defendant€used€the€name€Eddie€MurphyÐ \¬ Ðand€was€proud€of€his€similarity€to€the€actor€by€the€same€name.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defense€chose€not€to€introduce€proof.Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€this€evidence,€the€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€aggravated€robbery€andÐ øH Ðespecially€aggravated€kidnapping.€€At€a€separate€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€imposed€anÐ ä4 Ðeffective€80„year€sentence.€€The€defendant€now€appeals.Ð Ð  ÐÌà@ÅÅ*ìàò òIó óˆÐ ¨ø ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€begin€with€the€defendantððs€challenge€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€In€thatÐ €Ð Ðregard,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€stateððs€evidence€identifying€him€as€the€perpetrator€of€the€crimesÐ l¼ Ðis€insufficient€to€support€his€convictions.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€an€appellate€court'sÐ 0"€  Ðstandard€of€review€is€whether,€after€considering€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÐ #l! Ðprosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyondÐ $X" Ða€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€324,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2791-92€(1979);€òòStateÐ ô$D # Ðv.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€63,€67€(Tenn.€1985);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€This€rule€applies€to€findingsÐ à%0!$ Ðof€guilt€based€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€direct€andÐ Ì&"% Ðcircumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€253€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€€OnÐ ¸'#& Ðappeal,€the€defendant€no€longer€enjoys€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€therefore€has€the€burdenÐ ¤(ô#' Ðof€demonstrating€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€conviction.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639Ð )à$( ÐS.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.1982).Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€should€not€reweigh€orÐ ° Ðreevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€Ð œì ÐQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€as€wellÐ ˆØ Ðas€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571Ð tÄ ÐS.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Nor€may€this€court€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€theÐ `° Ðtrier€of€fact€from€the€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859€(1956);Ð L œ ÐòòFarmer€v.€Stateóó,€574€S.W.2d€49,€51€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€On€the€contrary,€this€court€must€affordÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€State€of€Tennessee€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€as€wellÐ $ t Ðas€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€€òòCabbageóó,€571Ð  ` ÐS.W.2d€at€835.€€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€present€case,€the€defendant€attacks€the€reliability€of€victimððs€identification€ofÐ Ô$  Ðhim€because€the€victim€was€frightened€and€focused€on€the€knife€wielded€by€the€perpetrator€of€theÐ À  Ðcrimes.€€He€also€points€out€that€none€of€the€fingerprints€found€on€the€victimððs€truck€could€be€matchedÐ ¬ü  Ðto€him,€and€the€police€did€not€recover€the€knife€or€money€taken€at€the€time€of€his€arrest.׃!×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€On€theÐ ˜è  Ðother€hand,€the€stateððs€proof€contains€an€unequivocal€identification€of€the€defendant€by€the€victim,€Ð „Ô  Ðevidence€that€the€perpetrator€had€a€scar€on€his€neck€that€was€consistent€with€the€one€the€defendantÐ pÀ Ðhad€at€the€time€of€trial,€and€evidence€that€the€defendant€had€used€the€name€Eddie€Murphy.€€A€rationalÐ \¬ Ðjury€could€conclude€that€the€stateððs€evidence€established€the€defendantððs€identity€as€the€perpetratorÐ H˜ Ðof€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€As€such,€we€may€not€revisit€the€juryððs€factual€resolutionÐ 4„ Ðof€the€identity€issue.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Stricklandóó,€885€S.W.2d€85,€87„88€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)Ð  p Ð(question€of€identity€is€issue€of€fact€for€juryððs€determination;€testimony€of€victim€alone€is€sufficientÐ  \ Ðto€support€a€conviction).Ð øH ÐÌà@žž)ìàò òIIˆÐ Ð  Ðó óÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€also€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€admission€of€evidence€of€arrests€forÐ ¨ø Ðother€crimes.€€This€complaint€relates€to€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€prior€arrests€and€of€lawÐ ”ä Ðenforcementððs€familiarity€with€him€by€the€name€Eddie€Murphy.€€This€issue€was€not€raised€in€theÐ €Ð Ðmotion€for€new€trial,€and€therefore,€appellate€consideration€of€it€as€a€matter€of€right€in€this€directÐ l¼ Ðappeal€is€waived.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e).€€However,€the€defendant€asks€us€to€address€it€as€plainÐ X ¨ Ðerror.€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àSeveral€aspects€of€the€trial€are€relevant€to€this€issue.€€First,€during€the€stateððs€case„in„Ð #l! Ðchief,€Officer€Demetrios€Vakertzis€identified€the€defendant€as€the€individual€he€arrested€for€theÐ $X" Ðcrimes€on€trial.€€The€defense€then€inquired€on€cross„examination€whether€there€was€anyone€else€inÐ ô$D # Ðthe€courtroom€whom€the€witness€could€have€identified€ð ðas€the€person€who€robbed€the€victim.ðð€€TheÐ à%0!$ Ðofficer€testified€that€there€was€not.€€Then,€the€victim€identified€the€defendant€as€the€perpetrator€of€theÐ Ì&"% Ðcrimes,€and€the€defense€inquired€on€cross„examination€whether€there€were€any€black€males€otherÐ ¸'#& Ðthan€the€defendant€in€the€courtroom€who€were€not€in€uniform.€€The€victim€replied€that€there€wereÐ ¤(ô#' Ðnot.Ð )à$( Їà  àà ` àThe€next€witness€was€Officer€Michael€J.€Clark.€€On€direct€examination,€he€was€askedÐ ° Ðwhat€he€did€once€he€was€assigned€the€case,€to€which€he€responded,€ð ðWell,€as€soon€as€I€was€assignedÐ œì Ðthe€case,€I€was€familiar€with€a€person€that€I€had€dealt€with€in€the€past€by€the€name€of€John€ThomasÐ ˆØ ÐBrown€that€had€also€been€arrested€under€the€name€of€ð!ð.ðð€€At€this€point,€the€defense€moved€for€aÐ tÄ Ðmistrial,€and€the€court€denied€the€motion.€€Then,€during€cross„examination€of€Officer€Clark,€theÐ `° Ðdefense€inquired€whether€the€witness€knew€anyone€other€than€the€defendant€and€the€famousÐ L œ Ðentertainer€who€used€the€name€Eddie€Murphy.€€Officer€Clark€replied€that€he€did€not.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€this€point,€the€state€moved€to€introduce€evidence€of€the€method€by€which€theÐ  ` Ðdefendant€was€developed€as€a€suspect.€€The€state€sought€to€introduce€evidence€of€other€crimes€inÐ ü L  Ðwhich€the€perpetrator€told€out„of„town€tourists€that€he€was€Eddie€Murphy€and€then€proceeded€to€robÐ è 8  Ðthem.€€The€prosecutor€argued€that€this€evidence€of€a€common€ð ðMOðð€would€explain€why€theÐ Ô$  Ðdefendant€was€developed€as€a€suspect.€€The€state€also€argued€that€this€evidence€was€responsive€toÐ À  Ðalleged€innuendo€in€defense€questioning€that€the€arrest€of€the€defendant€had€racial€overtones.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€court€ruled€that€once€the€defense€ð ðopened€the€doorðð€by€inquiring€whether€OfficerÐ „Ô  ÐClark€knew€anyone€who€used€the€name€Eddie€Murphy€other€than€the€defendant€and€the€famousÐ pÀ Ðentertainer,€the€state€was€entitled€to€explain€how€Officer€Clark€knew€the€defendant€as€Eddie€Murphy.€Ð \¬ ÐThe€court€then€proceeded€to€conduct€a€jury„out€hearing€to€determine€the€limits€of€such€evidence.€Ð H˜ ÐUltimately,€the€trial€court€limited€the€state€to€evidence€that€Officer€Clark€knew€the€defendant€asÐ 4„ ÐEddie€Murphy€from€prior€contact€on€several€occasions,׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€that€the€defendant€was€proud€of€hisÐ  p Ðresemblance€to€the€famous€entertainer,€and€that€the€defendant€frequented€the€area€in€which€the€crimesÐ  \ Ðon€trial€occurred.€€The€court€excluded€evidence€that€the€defendant€earned€the€nickname€EddieÐ øH ÐMurphy€in€prison,€that€the€defendant€had€committed€other€crimes€with€the€same€òòmodus€operandióó,Ð ä4 Ðand€that€the€defendant€chose€out„of„town€victims€because€they€would€not€come€back€to€MemphisÐ Ð  Ðto€testify.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àOfficer€Clark€then€testified€before€the€jury€that€he€was€familiar€with€the€defendant€asÐ ”ä ÐEddie€Murphy€from€at€least€two€contacts€prior€to€his€investigation€of€the€robbery€on€trial.€€TheÐ €Ð Ðdefendant€had€boasted€to€this€witness€about€using€the€name€Eddie€Murphy.€€Clark€knew€that€theÐ l¼ Ðdefendant€frequented€the€bus€station,€which€was€about€one„half€a€block€from€the€location€where€theÐ X ¨ Ðcrimes€took€place.€€For€these€reasons,€when€Officer€Clark€received€Thomasðð€description€of€theÐ D!” Ðperpetrator,€he€suspected€the€defendant.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€claims€that€the€evidence€was€inadmissible€under€Tennessee€Rule€ofÐ $X" ÐEvidence€404.€€He€argues€that€the€admission€of€evidence€of€his€ð ðarrests€for€other€crimesðð€did€nothingÐ ô$D # Ðto€advance€the€stateððs€evidence€on€the€issue€of€identity€and€that€the€propensity€aspect€of€the€evidenceÐ à%0!$ Ðcaused€any€probative€value€to€be€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€Ð Ì&"% Їà  àà ` àNormally,€the€fact€that€a€police€officer€had€prior€ð ðcontactsðð€with€a€defendant€wouldÐ ° Ðnot€òòper€seóósuggest€the€defendantððs€bad€character.€€However,€in€the€present€case,€we€analyze€OfficerÐ œì ÐClarkððs€testimony€about€two€prior€contacts€with€the€defendant€as€a€Rule€404(b)€issue€because€the€juryÐ ˆØ Ðhad€previously€been€told€that€some€of€Officer€Clarkððs€prior€contacts€with€the€defendant€resulted€inÐ tÄ Ðthe€defendant€being€arrested.€€Additionally,€in€the€later€testimony,€the€officer€specified€that€hisÐ `° Ðfamiliarity€with€the€defendant€was€based€upon,€not€one,€but€òòtwoóó€prior€contacts.€€Given€theÐ L œ Ðbesmirching€nature€of€the€prior€ð ðcontactðð€testimony€in€the€context€of€this€case,€we€review€the€issueÐ 8 ˆ Ðas€a€claimed€plain€error€under€the€Rule€404(b)€rubric.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àRule€404(b)€provides€that€evidence€of€a€defendant's€prior€crimes,€wrongs€or€acts€isÐ ü L  Ðnot€admissible€to€prove€that€he€committed€the€crime€in€question.€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€€TheÐ è 8  Ðrationale€underlying€the€general€rule€is€that€admission€of€such€evidence€carries€with€it€the€inherentÐ Ô$  Ðrisk€of€the€jury€convicting€the€defendant€of€a€crime€based€upon€his€bad€character€or€propensity€toÐ À  Ðcommit€a€crime,€rather€than€the€conviction€resting€upon€the€strength€of€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.Ð ¬ü  ÐRickmanóó,€876€S.W.2d€824,€828€(Tenn.€1994).€The€risk€is€greater€when€the€defendant's€prior€bad€actsÐ ˜è  Ðare€similar€to€the€crime€for€which€the€defendant€is€on€trial.€òòIdóó.;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€McCaryóó,€922€S.W.2dÐ „Ô  Ð511,€514€(Tenn.€1996).€Nevertheless,€evidence€of€a€defendant's€prior€crimes,€wrongs€or€acts€may€beÐ pÀ Ðadmissible€where€it€is€probative€of€material€issues€other€than€conduct€conforming€with€a€characterÐ \¬ Ðtrait.€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€€Such€material€issues€include€ð ðidentity€(including€motive€and€commonÐ H˜ Ðscheme€or€plan),€intent,€or€rebuttal€of€accident€or€mistake.ðð€€Tenn€R.€Evid.€404,€Advisory€CommððnÐ 4„ ÐComments.€€€In€order€for€such€evidence€to€be€admitted,€the€rule€specifies€three€prerequisites:€€€Ð  p ÐÌÓ€ (¦Ù83ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà  àÝ‚3£HÝÔ2¦ÙÔ(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝThe€court€upon€request€must€hold€a€hearing€outside€the€jury's€presence;€€€€Ýƒ3£HIHÝŒÐøH` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà0  àÝ‚3£1IÝÔ2¦ÙÔ(Ú  Ú2Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#àÝ  ÝThe€court€must€determine€that€a€material€issue€exists€other€than€conduct€conformingÐ ä4 Ðwith€a€character€trait€and€must€upon€request€state€on€the€record€the€material€issue,€theÐ Ð  Ðruling,€and€the€reasons€for€admitting€the€evidence;€and,€€Ýƒ3£1IjI݌м ` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà0  àÝ‚3£KÝÔ2¦ÙÔ(Ú  Ú3Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#àÝ  ÝThe€court€must€exclude€the€evidence€if€its€probative€value€is€outweighed€by€theÐ ¨ø Ðdanger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€Ýƒ3£KWK݌Дä` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  Ýà0  àÐ (#(# ÐTenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€A€fourth€prerequisite€to€admission€is€that€the€court€find€by€clear€andÐ l¼ Ðconvincing€evidence€that€the€defendant€committed€the€other€crime.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404,€AdvisoryÐ X ¨ ÐComm'n€Comments;€òòState€v.€DuBoseóó,€953€S.W.2d€649,€654€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Partonóó,€694Ð D!” ÐS.W.2d€299,€303€(Tenn.€1985).€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€reviewing€a€trial€court's€decision€to€admit€or€exclude€evidence,€an€appellate€courtÐ $X" Ðmay€disturb€the€lower€court's€ruling€only€if€there€has€been€an€abuse€of€discretion.€òòDuBoseóó,€953Ð ô$D # ÐS.W.2d€at€652;€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€785€S.W.2d€132,€134€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€Where€the€trial€courtÐ à%0!$ Ðhas€been€called€to€pass€upon€the€admissibility€of€evidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs€or€acts€under€RuleÐ Ì&"% Ð404(b),€its€determination€is€entitled€to€deference€when€it€has€substantially€complied€with€theÐ ¸'#& Ðprocedural€requisites€of€Rule€404(b).€€òòSeeóó€òòDuBoseóó,€953€S.W.2d€at€652.€€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€evidence€of€Officer€Clarkððs€familiarity€with€the€defendant€as€Eddie€Murphy,€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðdefendantððs€pride€in€that€nickname,€and€the€defendantððs€frequenting€the€bus€station€are€all€evidenceÐ h+¸&* Ðprobative€of€the€defendantððs€identity.€€The€issue€of€identity€was€a€material€one,€made€more€so€by€theÐ ° Ðdefense€questioning€of€Officer€Vakertzis€and€Sean€Thomas€about€their€in„court€identifications€of€theÐ œì Ðdefendant€and€by€the€questioning€of€Officer€Clark€about€other€individuals€who€used€the€name€EddieÐ ˆØ ÐMurphy.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€With€respect€to€prejudice,€the€evidence€did€not€directly€inculpate€the€defendant€in€priorÐ tÄ Ðcriminal€activity.€€At€most,€one€would€have€to€infer€that€Officer€Clarkððs€prior€ð ðcontactsðð€andÐ `° Ðfamiliarity€with€the€defendant€were€related€to€some€unspecified€prior€criminal€acts.€€Further,€the€courtÐ L œ Ðexcluded€evidence€of€other€robberies€in€which€the€perpetrator€identified€himself€as€Eddie€Murphy,Ð 8 ˆ Ðthereby€greatly€limiting€the€possibility€of€misuse€of€the€evidence€as€an€indicator€of€propensity€toÐ $ t Ðcommit€the€crimes€on€trial.€€Although€we€see€nothing€in€the€record€to€show€that€the€trial€courtÐ  ` Ðdetermined€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€the€defendant€used€and€was€proud€of€the€nameÐ ü L  ÐEddie€Murphy€and€that€he€frequented€the€area€of€the€bus€station,€the€defendant€has€raised€noÐ è 8  Ðchallenge€to€the€veracity€of€those€facts.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404,€Advisory€Comm'n€Comment;Ð Ô$  ÐòòDuBoseóó,€953€S.W.2d€at€654;€òòPartonóó,€694€S.W.2d€at€303.€€We€believe€there€has€been€"substantialÐ À  Ðcompliance"€with€the€procedural€prerequisites€of€the€rule.€òòSeeóó€òòDuBoseóó,€953€S.W.2d€at€652.€€As€aÐ ¬ü  Ðresult,€the€trial€courtððs€determination€is€entitled€to€deference.€€òòIdóó.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àOverall,€given€the€deference€to€be€afforded€the€trial€court,€we€see€no€abuse€ofÐ pÀ Ðdiscretion€in€the€admission€of€this€evidence.€€It€follows€that€there€was€no€plain€error€entitling€theÐ \¬ Ðdefendant€to€relief.Ð H˜ Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð  p ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGE