ÿWPCÀ ‹sB×TB9¸C%4ú^¤J$„‚’Q¦Ùº‡khÔIàÚ~Ìkâ3¼žÚsíP‹»£c3W¢ ÷õ]X¶ÖˆçŸ”΂jÌ÷Á:§3§Ç‡»³¼·Ð^Ÿ¯l>ôÕ<Ë'ÁUñåîâfPøËð³–Íž]>B„­H‰^¥Íj<_k—®‡R{Cw»ÿRÐý…x 2n«¼4•¸šÌ}PÙz-¨MØe^‡SnF¨û6Ž’âH¾´OÈXL@5'‘<óˆàN ÔÛþà_ѺΒ:½]·¢õBMò²)û7¤2gsÜò²øp0°Å#o¦3¬R«É§ à1Ó©P©„¦•øq&3»ŒX ŽÔõ«L¶È…9ÜTž|+gÀÝ¢ÔÒ¤È~³PÀYÙ[rVÌìÎíU× úñòè…ÛuãThf6Øi rŠI“gŸc«xœ·¦ÀÚ–;f0dÅygXöGÑ¿Ü¿îš XºÕΤ9 ˜Az ]V´L‹¿& =føs7j¬ªá L¦ä\Ã,òeÍë½ø2­Þ%6ŠŽm{‡ƒò Ñü œí ¾Ê‘q&µñØüy«,ƒÆÀcdúÒåY€ƒ‡ÏìÈöˆ‡7ŒS˜fÏ‹b %\^ b 0ˆnU4NöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë ë N±±±E³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³bµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµ 0ë½½½½ B¨¨ 0¤Å D3i D-œ 0KÉÉ ASÆg 0¤- 0DÑ A«»çr*+ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖJ~'(*΀Progra3|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 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G2qû$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Å»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¦ò»»Ô d(|3?w$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Å»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?w$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Å»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Å»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Å»»»ÔÑ8€T‰XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îÅÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Å»îî #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€July€18,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡XT‰X»¼ÅÔÌò òÔ#†¼Å»XXT‰#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€ROBERT€L.€DREWòòóóÔ‡XT‰X»¼ÅÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òà0 @ àDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€95„D„2559€€€€€€Steve€R.€Dozier,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„01853„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€September€7,€Ô_Ô20Ô_ÔÔ_Ô01Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant€appeals€his€conviction€of€theft€of€property€valued€at€$1,000€or€more,€but€underÐ ŒÜ  Ð$10,000.€€He€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€motion€to€suppress€a€Ô_ÔshowupÔ_ÔÐ xÈ  Ðidentification€of€him€at€the€crime€scene.€€He€further€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€toÐ d´ Ðsupport€his€conviction€and€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€instructing€the€jury€on€flight.€€After€review,Ð P  Ðwe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð <Œ ÐÓèÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ d ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Å»àXT‰”#ÔÔ‡XT‰X.¼ÅÔJohn€Everett€Williams,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€óóandÐ ì< ÐòòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€joined.Ð Ø( ÐÌDavid€A.€Collins,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Robert€L.€Drew.Ð ° ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Elizabeth€T.€Ryan,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Ð ˆØ ÐVictor€S.€(Ô_ÔTorryÔ_Ô)€Johnson€III,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Ô_ÔKymberlyÔ_Ô€L.€A.€Haas,€Assistant€DistrictÐ tÄ ÐAttorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.€Ð `° ÐÓ¨ÓÌÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÐ $"t! ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant,€Robert€L.€Drew,€was€indicted€by€the€Davidson€County€Grand€Jury€for€theftÐ ü#L# Ðof€property€valued€at€$1,000€or€more,€but€under€$10,000.Ô#†¼Å»XXT‰×#ÔÔ‡XT‰X»¼ÅÔ€€After€a€jury€trial,€he€was€found€guilty€andÐ è$8 $ Ðsentenced€to€twelve€(12)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction€as€a€career€offender,€to€runÐ Ô%$!% Ðconsecutive€to€several€Shelby€County€convictions€and€a€conviction€for€felony€escape,€which€occurredÐ À&"& Ðon€the€same€date€of€the€instant€offense.€€His€appeal€is€properly€before€this€court€and€he€contends€thatÐ ¬'ü"' Ðthe€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€motion€to€suppress€a€Ô_ÔshowupÔ_Ô€identification€at€the€scene€of€theÐ ˜(è#( Ðcrime,€as€it€tainted€the€eventual€in„court€identifications.€€He€also€contends€that€the€evidence€wasÐ „)Ô$) Ðinsufficient€to€support€his€conviction€and€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€instructing€the€jury€on€flight.€Ð p*À%* ÐAfter€review,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð \+¬&+ ÐÌÔ_ÔÐ 4-„(-ýE ÐÓ  Óò òòòFactsóóó ó€Ð ° ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àOn€June€16,€1995,€Linda€Capley€was€working€at€Lavertððs€Market€in€West€Nashville.€€EarlierÐ ŒÜ Ðin€the€day€she€had€been€in€the€liquor€store€that€was€attached€to€the€market,€and€while€in€the€liquorÐ xÈ Ðstore,€the€defendant€came€in,€talked€with€her€for€a€few€minutes,€and€purchased€a€bottle€of€wine.€€LaterÐ d´ Ðin€the€day,€she€was€waiting€on€a€woman€in€the€market€and€the€defendant€came€in€and€stood€behindÐ P   Ðthe€woman€in€line.€€She€was€cashing€several€checks€and€had€just€opened€a€new€bundle€of€twenty„Ð < Œ Ðdollar€bills,€which€contained€$2,000,€and€had€placed€them€in€the€register.€€Ð ( x ÐÌà  àWhile€waiting€on€a€customer,€Ms.€Capley€opened€the€cash€register€drawer€and€the€defendantÐ  P  Ðreached€over€the€counter€and€took€a€hand€full€of€twenty„dollar€bills€out€of€the€register.€€At€thatÐ ì <  Ðmoment,€Ms.€Capley€screamed,€ð ðHe€got€my€money,ðð€and€she€ran€after€him€as€he€fled€from€theÐ Ø(  Ðmarket.Ô#†¼Å»XXT‰í #ÔÔ‡XT‰X»¼ÅÔ€Mary€Sigler,€the€owner€of€the€market,€was€on€the€telephone€when€the€defendant€came€intoÐ Ä  Ðthe€store.€€She€did€not€see€the€defendant€take€the€money€out€of€the€register;€however,€she€saw€theÐ °  Ðmoney€in€his€hand€as€he€was€drawing€his€hand€back€from€the€register.€€€Two€other€men€who€workedÐ œì  Ðnear€the€market€witnessed€the€defendant€running€from€the€store€with€money€in€his€hands€and€chasedÐ ˆØ  Ðhim€to€a€nearby€field€that€surrounded€an€abandoned€grain€silo.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àOfficer€Jeff€Burnette€was€dispatched€to€Lavertððs€Market€after€a€call€came€in€reporting€theÐ Lœ Ðincident.€€He€was€instructed€by€an€eyewitness€who€saw€the€defendant€run€from€the€store€with€theÐ 8ˆ Ðmoney€in€his€hands€that€he€ran€into€the€field€near€the€grain€silo.€€Ms.€Capley€described€the€perpetratorÐ $t Ðas€a€black€male€wearing€a€white„colored€shirt€and€blue€jeans.€€Ms.€Sigler€described€the€perpetratorÐ ` Ðas€wearing€a€light„colored€shirt€and€dark€pants.€€She€said€that€he€had€a€very€identifiable€face€with€aÐ üL Ðlong€nose,€long€face,€and€normal€size€lips.€€She€said€that€she€could€see€the€defendant€very€well€in€theÐ è8 Ðmarket€and€that€he€had€stood€in€line€for€at€least€a€couple€of€minutes,€so€she€had€a€good€opportunityÐ Ô$ Ðto€look€at€him.€€Ð À ÐÌà  àAfter€searching€the€area€near€the€silo€for€nearly€two€hours,€Officer€Burnette€located€theÐ ˜è Ðdefendant€hiding€near€a€grain€bin.€€The€defendant€was€wearing€a€white€shirt€and€dark€pants€and€hadÐ „Ô Ð$260€in€twenty„dollar€bills€in€his€left€front€pocket.€€After€arresting€the€defendant,€Officer€BurnetteÐ pÀ Ðreturned€to€the€market€and€asked€each€witness€to€walk€by€the€police€car€and€determine€if€they€couldÐ \ ¬ Ðidentify€the€man€in€the€car.€€Each€witness€individually€identified€the€defendant€as€the€perpetrator.€€Ð H!˜ ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€defendant€had€onlyÔ#†¼Å»XXT‰A#ÔÔ‡XT‰X»¼ÅÔ€$260€in€twenty„dollar€bills€in€his€possession€when€he€wasÐ  #p! Ðarrested,€Mary€Sigler€testified€that€based€on€the€amount€of€money€that€had€been€put€in€the€registerÐ  $\" Ðthat€day,€roughly€$2,000€was€missing.€€Furthermore,€Linda€Capley€testified€that€she€had€just€put€aÐ ø$H # Ðbundle€of€twenty„dollar€bills€in€the€register,€which€contained€$2,000.€€The€only€money€that€theÐ ä%4!$ Ðdefendant€took€from€the€register€was€twenty„dollar€bills.€€Ð Ð& "% ÐÌà  àPrior€to€trial,€the€defendant€moved€to€suppress€the€showup€identification€of€him€by€theÐ ¨(ø#' Ðwitnesses€at€the€market€as€being€impermissibly€suggestive€and€as€tainting€any€subsequent€in„courtÐ ”)ä$( Ðidentifications.€€Both€Mary€Sigler€and€Linda€Capley€testified€at€the€hearing.€€Ms.€Sigler€testified€thatÐ €*Ð%) Ðshe€was€on€the€phone€near€the€check„out€counter€when€the€defendant€came€into€the€store.€€SheÐ l+¼&* Ðtestified€that€he€stood€in€line€for€several€minutes€behind€a€woman€who€was€placing€a€money€order.€Ð ° ÐMs.€Capley€testified€that€she€was€working€the€cash€register€and€helping€a€woman€with€her€purchasesÐ œì Ðwhen€the€defendant€reached€over€the€counter€and€grabbed€the€money€out€of€the€register.€€She€thenÐ ˆØ Ðscreamed,€ð ðHe€got€my€money,ðð€and€ran€after€him€as€he€fled€the€market.€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àMs.€Sigler€testified€that€she€did€not€see€the€defendant€grab€the€money€out€of€the€register,€butÐ L œ Ðshe€saw€the€money€in€his€hand€as€he€was€drawing€his€hand€back€from€the€register.€€She€described€himÐ 8 ˆ Ðas€a€black€male€wearing€a€light„colored€shirt€and€dark€pants.€€She€said€that€he€had€a€very€identifiableÐ $ t Ðface€with€a€long€nose,€long€face,€and€normal€size€lips.€€Ms.€Capley€also€described€the€perpetrator€asÐ  ` Ða€black€male€wearing€a€white„colored€shirt€and€blue€jeans.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àOfficer€Jeff€Burnette€testified€that€the€description€given€to€him€of€the€perpetrator€was€a€blackÐ Ô$  Ðmale,€about€six€feet€tall,€wearing€a€white€shirt€and€dark€pants.€€An€eyewitness€instructed€the€officerÐ À  Ðthat€they€saw€the€defendant€run€from€the€store€into€a€nearby€fieldÔ#†¼Å»XXT‰°#ÔÔ‡XT‰X»¼ÅÔ€with€money€in€his€hands.€€After€aÐ ¬ü  Ðsearch€of€the€nearby€field€and€grain€bin,€the€officer€located€the€defendant,€who€was€dressed€in€a€whiteÐ ˜è  Ðshirt€and€dark€pants.€€The€defendant€had€$260€in€twenty„dollar€bills€in€his€left€front€pocket.€€OfficerÐ „Ô  ÐBurnette€then€arrested€the€defendant.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àOfficer€Burnette€returned€to€the€market€with€the€defendant€and€asked€each€witness€to€walkÐ H˜ Ðby€the€police€car€and€determine€if€they€could€identify€the€man€in€the€car.€€Five€witnesses,€includingÐ 4„ ÐMary€Sigler€and€Linda€Capley,€each€positively€identified€the€defendant€as€the€perpetrator.€€At€theÐ  p Ðconclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€judge,€relying€upon€the€case€of€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó,€409€U.S.€188,Ð  \ Ð199,€93€S.€Ct.€375,€382,€34€L.€Ed.€2d€401€(1972),€denied€the€defendantððs€motion€to€suppress€theÐ øH Ðshowup€identification.Ð ä4 ÐÌÓ  Óò òòòÔ#†¼Å»XXT‰&#ÔÔ‡XT‰X»¼ÅÔÓÓIdentification€ProcedureÐ ¼  Ðó óóóÓ XÓÓ  ÓÓÓFirst,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€suppressing€the€showupÐ ”ä Ðidentification€of€him€and€that€such€impermissibly€suggestive€identification€tainted€any€in„courtÐ €Ð Ðidentifications.€€In€reviewing€suppression€issues,€we€will€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€factÐ l¼ Ðunless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€Ð X ¨ ÐFurthermore,€in€reviewing€a€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€a€motion€to€suppress,€this€court€may€considerÐ D!” Ðproof€€adduced€at€both€the€suppression€hearing€and€at€trial.€€òòState€v.€Henningóó,€975€S.W.2d€290,€299Ð 0"€  Ð(Tenn.€1998).Ð #l! ÐÐ $X" ÐAny€identification€process€that€is€so€impermissibly€suggestive€ð ðas€to€give€rise€to€a€veryÐ ô$D # Ðsubstantial€likelihood€of€irreparable€misidentificationðð€violates€due€process.€€òòSimmons€v.€UnitedÐ à%0!$ ÐStatesóó,€390€U.S.€377,€384,€88€S.€Ct.€967,€971,€19€L.€Ed.€2d€1247€(1968).€€A€showup€is€a€type€ofÐ Ì&"% Ðidentification€of€a€defendant€that€is€inherently€suggestive.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Drinkardóó,€909€S.W.2d€13,€15Ð ¸'#& Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€The€use€of€showups€to€establish€the€identification€of€a€person€suspectedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðof€committing€a€criminal€offense€has€been€repeatedly€condemned€unless€(1)€there€are€imperativeÐ )à$( Ðâ âcircumstances€necessitating€the€showup,€or€(2)€the€showup€is€part€of€an€on„the„scene€investigatoryÐ |*Ì%) Ðprocedure€shortly€after€the€commission€of€the€crime.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Thomasóó,€780€S.W.2d€379,€381Ð ° Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).Ð œì Ðâ âÐ ˆØ ÐAlthough€a€showup€may€be€suggestive,€it€may€satisfy€due€process€as€reliable€and€admissibleÐ tÄ Ðif€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€so€warrant.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€795€S.W.2d€689,€694€(Tenn.Ð `° ÐCrim.€App.€1990).€€The€five€factors€to€consider€when€evaluating€the€propriety€of€an€identificationÐ L œ Ðprocess€are:€(1)€the€opportunity€the€witness€had€to€view€the€criminal€at€the€time€of€the€crime;€(2)€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðwitnessðð€degree€of€attention;€(3)€the€accuracy€of€the€witnessðð€prior€description€of€the€criminal;€(4)Ð $ t Ðthe€level€of€certainty€of€the€witness€at€the€confrontation;€and€(5)€the€time€between€the€crime€and€theÐ  ` Ðconfrontation.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrownóó,€795€S.W.2d€at€694€(citing€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó,€409€U.S.€188,€199,€93€S.€Ct.Ð ü L  Ð375,€382,€34€L.€Ed.€2d€401€(1972)).Ð è 8  ÐÐ Ô$  ÐIn€this€case,€the€showup€identification€of€the€defendant€was€inherently€suggestive,€particularlyÐ À  Ðbecause€the€defendant€was€confined€to€the€back€of€the€police€car.€€However,€we€must€determineÐ ¬ü  Ðwhether€the€showup€was€unnecessarily€or€impermissibly€suggestive.€€We€first€note€that€the€defendantÐ ˜è  Ðwas€apprehended€only€two€hours€after€the€crime€occurred.€€The€police€apprehended€the€defendantÐ „Ô  Ða€short€distance€from€the€scene€of€the€crime€and€were€still€conducting€an€on„the„scene€investigationÐ pÀ Ðof€the€crime.€€Therefore,€this€particular€showup€may€be€permissible€if,€considering€the€totality€of€theÐ \¬ Ðcircumstances,€it€is€reliable€so€as€to€satisfy€due€process.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrownóó,€795€S.W.2d€at€694.Ð H˜ ÐÐ 4„ Ðà ° àà  àThe€evidence€at€the€suppression€hearing€showed€that€both€ò òòòóóó óMary€Sigler€and€Linda€CapleyÔ#†¼Å»XXT‰^*#ÔÔ‡XT‰X»¼ÅÔ€hadÐ  p Ðample€opportunity€to€view€the€defendant.€€Not€only€did€each€of€the€eyewitnesses€clearly€see€theÐ  \ ÐdefendantÔ#†¼Å»XXT‰¸9#ÔÔ‡XT‰X»¼ÅÔ€standing€in€line€and€taking€money€from€the€cash€register,€but€Ms.€Capley€had€even€had€aÐ øH Ðconversation€with€the€defendant€earlier€in€the€day€at€the€liquor€store.€€The€two€eyewitnesses€eachÐ ä4 Ðgave€the€police€a€description€of€the€perpetrator€as€being€a€black€male€wearing€a€light„colored€shirtÐ Ð  Ðwith€dark€pants.€€Ms.€Sigler€even€described€the€perpetrator€as€having€a€very€identifiable€longÔ#†¼Å»XXT‰:#ÔÔ‡XT‰X»¼ÅÔ€faceÐ ¼  Ðwith€a€long€nose€and€normal€size€lipsÔ#†¼Å»XXT‰<#ÔÔ‡XT‰X»¼ÅÔ.€€When€the€witnesses€were€confronted€with€the€defendant,€eachÐ ¨ø Ðof€the€five€positively€identified€the€defendant€as€the€perpetrator.€€When€questioned€at€the€suppressionÐ ”ä Ðhearing€and€at€trial€about€the€certainty€of€their€identification€of€the€defendant,€each€was€very€certainÐ €Ð Ðthat€the€defendant€was€the€perpetrator.€€Finally,€the€confrontation€wherein€the€witnesses€identifiedÐ l¼ Ðthe€defendant€was€only€a€couple€of€hours€after€the€crime€occurred.€€Given€the€totality€of€theÐ X ¨ Ðcircumstances€of€this€showup€and€eventual€in„court€identification€of€the€defendant€as€the€perpetrator,Ð D!” Ðthis€identification€procedure€clearly€satisfied€due€process.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrownóó,€795€S.W.2d€at€694.€Ð 0"€  ÐTherefore,€the€trial€court€properly€denied€the€defendantððs€motion€to€suppress.€€€Ô#†¼Å»XXT‰=#ÔÔ‡XT‰X»¼ÅÔ€€€ò òòòÐ #l! Ðà ° àÌÓ XÓÓ  Óà @° àSufficiency€of€EvidenceÐ ô$D # ÐÓ XAÓÐ à%0!$ Ðóóó óÓ  ÓThe€defendant€was€indicted€for€and€ultimately€found€guilty€of€violating€Tennessee€CodeÐ Ì&"% ÐAnnotated€sectioÔ#†¼Å»XXT‰Ó@#ÔÔ‡XT‰X»¼ÅÔn€39„14„103,€theft€of€property€valued€at€$1,000€or€more,€but€less€than€$10,000,€aÐ ¸'#& ÐClass€D€felony.€€He€contends€that€the€evidence€at€trial€was€insufficient€to€support€his€conviction.Ô#†¼Å»XXT‰FB#ÔÔ‡XT‰X»¼ÅÔ€HisÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcontention€is€two„fold:€(1)€Because€the€prior€showup€identification€of€the€defendant€should€haveÐ )à$( Ðbeen€suppressed€and€any€subsequent€in„court€identifications€were€tainted€by€the€impermissiblyÐ |*Ì%) Ðsuggestive€showup,€there€was€insufficient€evidence€to€identify€the€defendant€as€the€perpetrator€of€the€Ð h+¸&* Ðtheft;€and€(2)€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€a€conviction€for€theft€in€the€amount€ofÐ ° Ð$1,000€or€more.€€Ð œì ÐÐ ˆØ ÐWe€review€challenges€to€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€according€to€well„settled€principles.€€AÐ tÄ Ðguilty€verdict€by€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€Stateððs€witnessesÐ `° Ðand€resolves€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259Ð L œ Ð(Tenn.€1994).€€Although€an€accused€is€originally€cloaked€with€a€presumption€of€innocence,€a€juryÐ 8 ˆ Ðverdict€removes€this€presumption€and€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,Ð $ t Ð914€(Tenn.€1982).€€Hence,€on€appeal,€the€burden€of€proof€rests€with€the€defendant€to€demonstrate€theÐ  ` Ðinsufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914.€€€On€appeal,€ð ðthe€[S]tate€isÐ ü L  Ðentitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimateÐ è 8  Ðinferences€that€may€be€drawn€therefrom.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Ð Ô$  ÐÐ À  ÐWhere€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€contested€on€appeal,€the€relevant€question€for€theÐ ¬ü  Ðreviewing€court€is€whether€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€accused€guilty€of€everyÐ ˜è  Ðelement€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.Ð „Ô  Ð2781,€2789,€61€L.€Ed.€2d€560€(1979).€€This€court€may€not€substitute€its€own€inferences€ð ðfor€thoseÐ pÀ Ðdrawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence.ðð€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779Ð \¬ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€In€concluding€our€evaluation€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€court€isÐ H˜ Ðprecluded€from€reweighing€or€reconsidering€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Morganóó,€929€S.W.2d€380,€383Ð 4„ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).Ô#†¼Å»XXT‰QC#ÔÔ‡XT‰X»¼ÅÔò òòòÐ  p ÐÐ  \ Ðó óóóAs€previously€discussed€in€this€opinion,€we€reject€the€defendantððs€contention€that€the€showupÐ øH Ðidentification€was€impermissibly€suggestive€and€thus€should€have€been€suppressed.€€TheÐ ä4 Ðidentification€evidence€at€trial€consisted€of€two€eyewitnesses€who€worked€at€the€store€where€the€theftÐ Ð  Ðoccurred.€€These€two€eyewitnesses€positively€identified€the€defendant€as€the€perpetrator€of€the€theft.€Ð ¼  ÐAt€trial,€they€described€how€they€saw€the€defendant€pulling€his€hand€away€from€the€cash€register€withÐ ¨ø Ða€hand€full€of€bills.€€In€addition,€one€of€the€witnesses€then€chased€the€defendant€out€of€the€store€asÐ ”ä Ðhe€fled€to€a€nearby€field.€€This€evidence€was€clearly€sufficient€to€identify€the€defendant€as€theÐ €Ð Ðperpetrator€of€this€crime.€€Ð l¼ ÐÐ X ¨ ÐNext,€the€defendant€contends€that€insufficient€evidence€exists€to€support€a€conviction€for€theftÐ D!” Ðof€property€over€$1,000.€€The€evidence€at€trial€òòò òóóó óshowed€that€the€defendant€reached€over€the€counterÐ 0"€  Ðand€removed€a€hand€full€of€twenty„dollar€bills€from€the€cash€register.€€Mary€Sigler€testified€that€basedÐ #l! Ðon€the€amount€of€money€that€had€been€put€in€the€register€that€day,€roughly€$2,000€was€missing.Ô#†¼Å»XXT‰bM#ÔÔ‡XT‰X»¼ÅԀР$X" ÐFurthermore,€Linda€Capley€testified€that€she€had€just€put€a€bundle€of€twenty„dollar€bills€in€theÐ ô$D # Ðregister,€which€contained€$2,000.€€The€only€money€taken€from€the€register€was€twenty„dollar€bills.€Ð à%0!$ ÐÔ#†¼Å»XXT‰5S#ÔÔ‡XT‰X»¼ÅÔWhen€the€defendant€was€arrested,€he€had€Ô#†¼Å»XXT‰zT#ÔÔ‡XT‰X»¼ÅÔ$260€in€his€left€front€pocketÔ#†¼Å»XXT‰äT#ÔÔ‡XT‰X»¼ÅÔò òòòóóó ó,€all€twenty„dollar€bills.€€ThisÐ Ì&"% Ðevidence€was€clearly€sufficient€for€a€jury€to€conclude€that€the€amount€of€money€that€the€defendantÐ ¸'#& Ðtook€from€the€cash€register€was€over€$1,000.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ô#†¼Å»XXT‰CU#ÔÔ‡XT‰X»¼ÅÔò òòòÐ ¤(ô#' Ðó óóóà@ìì*ìàˆÌòòò òÓ XÓÓ  ÓJury€Instruction€on€FlightÐ |*Ì%) ÐÓ XãVÓÐ h+¸&* Ðóóó óÓ  ÓThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€giving€an€instruction€to€the€jury€on€flight.€Ð ° ÐInitially,€we€note€that€the€defendant€has€failed€to€include€the€jury€instructions€in€the€record€for€ourÐ œì Ðreview.€€The€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€provide€a€complete€record€for€our€review.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.Ð ˆØ ÐApp.€P.€24.€€Normally,€an€issue€is€waived€if€the€defendant€fails€to€effectuate€a€complete€recordÐ tÄ Ðadequate€for€us€to€review€the€issue.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Robertsóó,€755€S.W.2d€833,€836€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð `° Ð1988).€€However,€the€transcript€in€this€case€clearly€indicates€that€the€trial€court€determined€that€suchÐ L œ Ðan€instruction€on€flight€was€warranted.€€Further,€the€trial€court,€in€denying€the€defendantððs€motionÐ 8 ˆ Ðfor€a€new€trial,€stated,€ð ðIn€terms€of€the€flight€instruction,€I€think€the€case€law€is€clear,€that€theÐ $ t Ðinstruction€should€have€been€given.ðð€€The€record€clearly€indicates€that€a€flight€instruction€was€givenÐ  ` Ðto€the€jury.€€Because€the€defendant€only€contends€that€an€instruction€on€flight€was€inappropriate,€andÐ ü L  Ðnot€that€the€particular€substance€of€the€instruction€was€error,€for€purposes€of€review,€we€will€examineÐ è 8  Ðthe€Tennessee€Pattern€Jury€Instruction€on€flight:Ð Ô$  ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓThe€flight€of€a€person€accused€of€a€crime€is€a€circumstance€which,€whenÐ À  Ðconsidered€with€all€the€facts€of€the€case,€may€justify€an€inference€of€guilt.€€Flight€isÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€voluntary€withdrawal€of€oneself€for€the€purpose€of€evading€arrest€or€prosecutionÐ ˜è  Ðfor€the€crime€charged.€€Whether€the€evidence€presented€proves€beyond€a€reasonableÐ „Ô  Ðdoubt€that€the€defendant€fled€is€a€question€for€your€determination.Ð pÀ ÐÐ \¬ ÐThe€law€makes€no€precise€distinction€as€to€the€manner€or€method€of€flight;Ð H˜ Ðit€may€be€open,€or€it€may€be€a€hurried€or€concealed€departure,€or€it€may€be€aÐ 4„ Ðconcealment€within€the€jurisdiction.€€However,€it€takes€both€a€leaving€the€scene€ofÐ  p Ðthe€difficulty€and€a€subsequent€hiding€out,€evasion,€or€concealment€in€the€community,Ð  \ Ðor€a€leaving€of€the€community€for€parts€unknown,€to€constitute€flight.Ð øH ÐÐ ä4 ÐIf€the€flight€is€proved,€the€fact€of€flight€alone€does€not€allow€you€to€find€thatÐ Ð  Ðthe€defendant€is€guilty€of€the€crime€alleged.€€However,€since€flight€by€a€defendantÐ ¼  Ðmay€be€caused€by€a€consciousness€of€guilt,€you€may€consider€the€fact€of€flight,€ifÐ ¨ø Ðflight€is€so€proven,€together€with€all€of€the€other€evidence€when€you€decide€the€guiltÐ ”ä Ðor€innocence€of€the€defendant.€€On€the€other€hand,€an€entirely€innocent€person€mayÐ €Ð Ðtake€flight€and€such€flight€may€be€explained€by€proof€offered,€or€by€the€facts€andÐ l¼ Ðcircumstances€of€the€case.Ð X ¨ ÐÐ D!” ÐWhether€there€was€flight€by€the€defendant,€the€reasons€for€it,€and€the€weightÐ 0"€  Ðto€be€given€to€it,€are€questions€for€you€to€determine.Ð #l! ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓT.€P.€I.€„€Crim.€42.18.ÓÓÐ $X" ÐÓ XÓÓÓIn€order€for€a€trial€court€to€charge€the€jury€on€flight€as€an€inference€of€guilt,€there€must€beÐ à%0!$ Ðsufficient€evidence€to€support€such€instruction.€€Sufficient€evidence€supporting€such€instructionÐ Ì&"% Ðrequires€ð ðððboth€a€leaving€the€scene€of€the€difficulty€and€a€subsequent€hiding€out,€evasion,€orÐ ¸'#& Ðconcealment€in€the€community.ðððð€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€979€S.W.2d€276,€289€(Tenn.€1998)€(quoting€òòStateÐ ¤(ô#' Ðv.€Paytonóó,€782€S.W.2d€490,€498€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989)).Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) ÐHere,€the€defendant€both€ran€from€the€crime€scene,€while€being€chased€by€one€of€theÐ ° Ðâ âwitnesses,€and€hid€out€in€some€overgrown€weeds€near€a€grain€silo€for€nearly€two€(2)€hours€beforeÐ œì Ðbeing€apprehended€by€police.€€This€evidence€clearly€supported€the€trial€courtððs€instruction€on€flight.€Ð ˆØ ÐThe€defendant€contends,€however,€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€instructed€the€jury€on€flightÐ tÄ Ðbecause€the€trial€court€knew€he€was€on€escape€status,€and,€thus,€explaining€that€status€to€the€juryÐ `° Ðwould€have€an€extremely€prejudicial€effect€on€him€because€it€would€have€revealed€his€prior€robberyÐ L œ Ðand€theft€convictions.€€The€State€responds€that€the€record€does€not€indicate€that€the€defendant€wasÐ 8 ˆ Ðan€escapee.€€However,€the€pre„sentence€report€indicates€that€the€defendant€was€also€charged€withÐ $ t Ðfelony€escape€on€June€16,€1995,€the€same€date€of€the€offense€and€the€charge€in€the€instant€case.€€TheÐ  ` Ðdefendant€was€convicted€on€the€escape€charge€on€June€8,€1998,€approximately€two€months€prior€toÐ ü L  Ðthe€trial€in€this€matter.€€Further,€the€defendantððs€current€theft€conviction€was€ordered€to€runÐ è 8  Ðconsecutive€to€his€escape€conviction.€€We€disagree€with€the€Stateððs€contention€that€the€defendant€wasÐ Ô$  Ðnot€an€escapee.€€Therefore,€we€will€determine€whether€a€defendantððs€escape€status€or€priorÐ À  Ðconvictions€for€robbery€and€theft€preclude€a€trial€court€from€instructing€the€jury€on€flight.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÐ ˜è  ÐEssentially,€the€defendantððs€contention€is€that€he€was€denied€a€fair€trial€because,€in€order€forÐ „Ô  Ðhim€to€explain€why€he€was€hiding€from€the€authorities,€the€jury€would€be€informed€of€his€priorÐ pÀ Ðrobbery€and€theft€convictions.€€Although€a€defendant€is€guaranteed€the€right€to€a€fair€trial,€the€State,Ð \¬ Ðas€the€representative€of€the€people,€is€also€entitled€to€a€fair€trial.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòUnited€States€v.€Fordóó,€830Ð H˜ ÐF.2d€596,€603€(6òòthóó€Cir.€1987)€(Krupansky,€J.,€concurring);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Carruthersóó,€35€S.W.3dÐ 4„ Ð516,€563€(Tenn.€2000)€(discussing€the€Stateððs€interest€in€a€fair€trial).€€When€a€defendant€is€chargedÐ  p Ðwith€a€crime,€the€State€has€no€control€over€the€defendantððs€status€or€prior€record€and€must€take€itsÐ  \ Ðdefendants€as€it€finds€them.€€Here,€the€defendant€placed€himself€in€the€position€of€being€a€felonÐ øH Ðpreviously€convicted€of€several€robberies€and€thefts.€€Furthermore,€he€placed€himself€in€the€positionÐ ä4 Ðof€being€an€escaped€felon€from€the€Department€of€Correction.€€The€State€should€not€be€deprived€ofÐ Ð  Ðits€interests€in€a€fair€trial€by€not€having€the€jury€instructed€on€all€appropriate€instructions€as€a€resultÐ ¼  Ðof€the€defendant€being€an€escapee.€€Therefore,€we€hold€that€the€defendant€was€not€deprived€of€hisÐ ¨ø Ðright€to€a€fair€trial€as€a€result€of€his€own€misconduct.€€The€trial€court€properly€instructed€the€jury€onÐ ”ä Ðflight.Ð €Ð ÐÓ XÓÌÓ  Óò òòòConclusionóóó óÐ X ¨ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€record€before€us,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€properly€deniedÐ 0"€  Ðthe€defendantððs€motion€to€suppress€the€showup€identification€of€the€defendant€as€the€perpetrator.€€WeÐ #l! Ðfurther€hold€that€sufficient€evidence€exists€to€support€the€defendantððs€conviction€and€that€the€trialÐ $X" Ðcourt€properly€instructed€the€jury€on€flight.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€in€all€respects.Ð ô$D # ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à______________________________Ð h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,€JUDGE