ÿWPCm kOø B( BgÍÂë*êÐðõÔÙê[1x€ÕjZC{A ½•£R„åhŒ«H…Ÿ„tW½œEr[ºWh@‚ª=>—\;!˜%Xˆ¥ïÂ;Ú³1|â[“*m°:Ï,ሓˆ[SõÔïjùÔŠ))jº^¯ˆT'}Y• .Hcé}ÃPI¡ÐŠÒÑÊiHt~œ±NY!ór›U‚%ŒÎÞu ™~mÖœ– ƒ>âðû'{¹S¶ÃbÕ€45»/–3g~ÏÝÅr¸Y£r ¦¨©2%k~¬óÐsgÜ€n|¹<ü™É ¦›~2ìú1›WF¦¥Ë/›A|ëd—»÷hk@øUaW¡)[ª‰ïÙË/Òþ©vš  U\˜,0…³cŒs‚Ü|`u¿|£iE Ü}6-m¼³±Ì—1¦ÀΕÞíÎË&+*ÒýN_2NƒÍAa °ÃòÛT,ɰÆþÝÏNÒ°' .Ëõ(»»¢÷m€¦ÚÄQìDËŸžjº‰ 3[4¢ú‚’©„qºÙ¼+ªG/ãgBØKaŽ7LÓ E_)üÎ(Úäÿ‘œr'ù”2iüWTÃk5\ª¦›–÷gg•|Dô=VÏ‹Tñq£·èDá›ã-æüµùüMØ<¥£ªb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë ë N±U@³)óE 0Dbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb 0ëjjjj BUU 0¤r D3 D-I 0Kvv ASÁÆ 0¤Ú 0D~ A«Â»8¦=) (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖJ~'À8¥€©3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0 Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman  Ý ƒRÈ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô~Ôò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€age€of€the€victim€is€not€set€forth€in€the€record;€however,€the€defendant€in€his€testimony€referred€to€theÐ ° Ðvictim€as€an€ð ðold€man.ðð€€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2È$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô~Ôò»»Ô d(|3Îb$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Îb$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼»»»ÔÑ8€d<XXdæ»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î!CÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼»îî!C #ԈРР ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAugust€2000€SessionÐ ð@ ÐÔ‡Xd<X»¼ÔÌò òÔ#†¼»XXd<#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€DOUGLAS€Ô_ÔCANADYÔ_ÔòòóóÔ‡Xd<X»¼Ôó óÐ ä4 ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Ô_ÔHickmanÔ_Ô€CountyÐ Ø ( Ðà@@øøìàNos.€98„5126CR„II€and€99„5022CR„II€€€€€€Timothy€L.€Easter,€JudgeÐ ¾  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<o` AßÐ pÀ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1999„02135„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€September€29,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ eµ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<0` AßÐ 1  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓDefendant,€Douglas€Ô_ÔCanadyÔ_Ô,€appeals€his€conviction€for€aggravated€robbery,€for€which€he€receivedÐ &v  Ða€sentence€of€ten€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€The€sole€issue€in€this€appeal€is€whether€theÐ  \ Ðevidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€verdict.€€Finding€the€evidence€sufficient,€we€affirm€the€judgmentÐ òB Ðof€the€trial€court.€€Ð Ø( ÐÓÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ ¤ô ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼»àXd<§#ÔÔ‡Xd<X.¼ÔJoe€G.€Riley,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJerry€L.€Smith,€J.,óó€and€òòL.€TerryÐ pÀ ÐÔ_ÔLaffertyÔ_Ô,€Sr.€J.óó,€joined.Ð V¦ ÐÌTroy€L.€Brooks,€Clarksville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Douglas€Ô_ÔCanadyÔ_Ô.Ð "r ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€David€H.€Ô_ÔFindleyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð î> ÐRonald€L.€Davis,€District€Attorney€General;€Jeffrey€L.€Long€and€Judson€W.€Phillips,€AssistantÐ Ô$ ÐDistrict€Attorneys€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.€€Ð º  ÐÌÓBÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼»XXd!% Ðaggravated€robbery€and€sentenced€the€defendant€to€a€term€of€ten€years€in€the€Department€ofÐ Ô&$"& ÐCorrection.€€This€appeal€followed.Ð º' #' ÐÌà@‡ ‡ ìàò òòòSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óóóˆÐ †)Ö$) ÐÌÔ€Xd<XXXd<Ôà  àDefendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€In€Tennessee,€great€weightÐ R+¢&+ Ðis€given€to€the€result€reached€by€the€jury€in€a€criminal€trial.€€A€jury€verdict€accredits€the€state'sÐ 8,ˆ', Ðwitnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€state.€€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€803Ð ° Ð(Tenn.€1994).€€On€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€andÐ –æ Ðall€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€òòId.óó;€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835Ð |Ì Ð(Tenn.€1978).€€Moreover,€a€guilty€verdict€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€which€the€appellantÐ b² Ðenjoyed€at€trial€and€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476Ð H˜ Ð(Tenn.€1973).€€The€appellant€has€the€burden€of€overcoming€this€presumption€of€guilt.€€òòId.óóÐ . ~ ÐÌà  àWhere€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged,€the€relevant€question€for€an€appellate€courtÐ ú J Ðis€whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rationalÐ à 0 Ðtrier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€or€crimes€beyond€a€reasonableÐ Æ   Ðdoubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789,€61Ð ¬ ü  ÐL.Ed.2d€560€(1979);€òòState€v.€Abramsóó,€935€S.W.2d€399,€401€(Tenn.€1996).€The€weight€and€credibilityÐ ’â  Ðof€the€witnesses'€testimony€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€the€triers€of€fact.€€òòStateÐ xÈ  Ðv.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€932€S.W.2d€1,€19€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ^®  ÐApp.€1996).€€Ð D”  ÐÌò òà  àA.€€Self„DefenseÐ ` ÐÌó óà  àThe€crux€of€the€defense€theory€was€that€the€defendantððs€use€of€force€was€self„defense.€€òòSeeóóÐ Ü, ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„611(a).€€If€evidence€is€introduced€supporting€self„defense,€the€burden€isÐ Â Ðon€the€state€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€did€not€act€in€self„defense.€€Tenn.Ð ¨ø ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„11„201(a)(3).€€However,€whether€an€individual€acted€in€self„defense€is€a€factualÐ ŽÞ Ðdetermination€to€be€made€by€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Goodeóó,€956€S.W.2d€521,€527€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð tÄ Ð1997).€€Although€the€trial€court€properly€charged€self„defense€to€the€jury,€the€jury€rejected€thisÐ Zª Ðdefense.€€Ð @ ÐÌà  àThe€defendantððs€testimony,€if€found€to€be€credible,€supported€self„defense€with€regard€to€theÐ  \ Ðuse€of€force.€€However,€we€must€view€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€state.€€AccordingÐ òB Ðto€the€victim,€the€victim€did€not€grab€or€threaten€the€defendant€with€the€machete.€€The€jury€chose€toÐ Ø( Ðbelieve€the€victim,€as€was€the€juryððs€prerogative€since€it€had€the€responsibility€of€judging€theÐ ¾ Ðcredibility€of€the€witnesses.€€We€are€not€at€liberty€to€second„guess€the€jury€in€light€of€this€testimony.€Ð ¤ô ÐThere€was€sufficient€evidence€for€the€jury€to€reject€self„defense.€€Ð Š Ú ÐÌò òà  àB.€€The€Taking€of€Propertyó óÐ V"¦! ÐÌò òà  àó óDefendant€insists€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€show€that€he€intended€to€deprive€the€victimÐ "$r# Ðof€the€victimððs€property€at€the€time€of€the€altercation.€€He€insists€that€he€only€intended€to€deprive€theÐ %X $ Ðvictim€of€the€property€temporarily€and€strictly€for€evidentiary€purposes.€€Ð î%>!% ÐÌà  àRobbery€is€defined€as€ð ðthe€intentional€or€knowing€theft€of€property€from€the€person€ofÐ º' #' Ðanother€by€violence€or€putting€the€person€in€fear.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„401(a).€€AggravatedÐ  (ð#( Ðrobbery€is€a€robbery€ð ð[a]ccomplished€with€a€deadly€weapon€or€by€display€of€any€article€used€orÐ †)Ö$) Ðfashioned€to€lead€the€victim€to€reasonably€believe€it€to€be€a€deadly€weapon.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„Ð l*¼%* Ð13„402(a)(1).€€A€ð ðdeadly€weaponðð€includes€anything€ð ðthat€in€the€manner€of€its€use€...€is€capable€ofÐ R+¢&+ Ðcausing€death€or€serious€bodily€injury.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(5)(B).€€A€person€whoÐ 8,ˆ', Ðknowingly€obtains€or€exercises€control€over€property€without€the€ownerððs€effective€consent€with€theÐ ° Ðð ðintent€to€depriveðð€the€owner€of€the€property€commits€theft.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„103.€Ð –æ Ðð ðDepriveðð€includes€withholding€property€permanently€or€ð ðfor€such€a€period€of€time€as€toÐ |Ì Ðsubstantially€diminish€the€value€or€enjoyment€of€the€property€to€the€ownerðð€or€using€it€ð ðunderÐ b² Ðcircumstances€that€makes€its€restoration€unlikely.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(8)(A)€and€(C).€Ð H˜ ÐIn€order€to€constitute€robbery,€the€violence€or€putting€the€victim€in€fear€ð ðmust€precede€or€beÐ . ~ Ðconcomitant€to€or€contemporaneous€with€the€taking€of€property.ðð€€òòState€v.€Owensóó,€___€S.W.3d€___,Ð  d Ð___€(Tenn.€2000).€€Ð ú J ÐÌà  àViewing€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€evidence€is€sufficient€toÐ Æ   Ðsupport€the€conviction.€€The€victim€testified€that€the€defendant€struck€him€with€a€shovel€four€timesÐ ¬ ü  Ðand€took€his€two€cameras.€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€shovel€constituted€a€deadly€weapon,€andÐ ’â  Ðthe€violent€act€preceded€the€taking€of€the€property.€€The€jury€could€further€infer€that€at€the€time€ofÐ xÈ  Ðthe€taking€the€defendant€intended€to€withhold€the€cameras€for€such€a€period€of€time€as€toÐ ^®  Ðsubstantially€diminish€their€value€to€the€victim,€and€that€the€defendant€intended€to€destroy€the€film.€Ð D”  ÐWe€must,€therefore,€conclude€that€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€satisfy€the€elements€of€aggravatedÐ *z  Ðrobbery.€€Ð ` ÐÌà@FF%ìàò òòòCONCLUSIONó óóóˆÐ Ü, ÐÌà  àBased€upon€our€review€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€supportÐ ¨ø Ðthe€conviction€for€aggravated€robbery.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Ð ŽÞ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð &v Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE