ÿWPCº {†øáa¥ó†2¥ó ¾z§íkj)a¯gÅZ¯Y J'ä½ ÷¬§)û«3 mH/2ë MŒ¢¬&èå?‹ðÝÆ>µ'­/8í¹àgúR­ZTUªNcºôQ4«è¸cßÖÅÙ5-•VñŠÜ‰[$‡Ã¨fSxöý»†WáïjPÓl)8ÌS£֯ߟb ޺㠚ê§Ü•®±¡(Q‡IšÅ,SSÊf<€½¿¹+‹=È*ôˆz·]PÖ!'¥Å‡ON&Ÿê#÷&W“®êK_ƒPÔ ¸Í(¯J® žÎaÀðCv…š÷(2½/‰¡ûî³Wµw‹”¨×L`ÑÖ£[êþ#yÂ|}_6Ë9jȹTÛÏAC'dI‡F5¢õ3J×Ï›Á¤lò³R$ú0ÁLVUº•Ø™Œw™†Œ îè :P:54A(À™£‚ŸÜ?m11šj¿Á¯¯~8J:½öŽùºS*¶—þJ É'Æq¶­yŒ'Ì)ÛÒ „j¼[¼rÓÑž¼8Á¬Wº(Õ°©™ F‹xÚèU¸go·[8ác(aÑ“f,Èœòñ(ñ}äŸrìor6â¤k%›¾ÏÛ‹gQþ´ð5…ÐŽ´Ý!‹B„Úb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë U>±NïU@ñ 1‡1E¸ 72º 1uì 72a 0c“ 1‡ö 72}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}b¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ 0ë···· B¢¢ 0¤¿ D3c D-– 0KÃà ASÆa 0¤' 0DË A«»éŽo-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularüPH,ê:i¢×+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ô\  `‹&Times New Roman(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman (5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(EhCEKQW]cioAutoList21.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.- ù-(|G2‡$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€•»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¸Åò»»Ô d(|3?t$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€•»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?t$¢¢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  ÑÑ8€[XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îüî»»ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†»•»îîüá#ԈРÖ& Ðà@ëë ìàJuly€16,€2002€SessionˆÐ üL ÐÌà@ŒŒìàò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€RICHARD€Ô_ÔLACARDOÔ_Ô€ELLIOTTó óˆÐ  p ÐÌÔ€X[X»»•Ôà@| | ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Montgomery€CountyˆÐ F – Ðà@  ìàNo.€40000379€€€€€€Michael€R.€Jones,€JudgeˆÐ 2 ‚ ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<õ` A߈Ð öF  ÐÌà@E E ìàNo.€M2001„01990„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€November€15,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ԈРñA  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<È` AßÐ É  Ðó óÌDefendant,€Richard€Ô_ÔLacardoÔ_Ô€Elliott,€appeals€his€convictions€in€the€Circuit€Court€of€MontgomeryÐ Ä ÐCounty€for€aggravated€robbery€and€aggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô.€€Defendant€argues€that€his€conviction€forÐ ° Ðaggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô€may€not€stand€pursuant€to€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Courtððs€holding€in€òòStateÐ œì Ðv.€Anthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€299€(Tenn.€1991).€€He€further€contends€that€the€evidence€at€trial€wasÐ ˆØ Ðinsufficient€to€support€his€convictions,€and€that€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€a€motion€forÐ tÄ Ðmistrial€based€upon€the€Stateððs€improper€comments€during€closing€argument.€€We€disagree,€andÐ `° Ðaffirm€the€judgments€of€the€trial€court.Ð Lœ ÐÌà@zzìàò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3,€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€Affirmedó ó.ˆÐ $t ÐÌòòThomas€T.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,Ð P Ðóóand€òòAlan€E.€Glenn,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ì< ÐÌGregory€D.€Smith,€Clarksville,€Tennessee€(on€appeal);€and€Roger€Eric€Nell,€District€Public€Defender;Ð Ä Ðand€Fred€W.€Love,€Assistant€Public€Defender,€Clarksville,€Tennessee€(at€trial€and€of€counsel€onÐ ° Ðappeal)€for€the€appellant,€Richard€Ô_ÔLacardoÔ_Ô€Elliott.Ð œ ì ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Helena€Walton€Ô_ÔYarbroughÔ_Ô,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ t"Ä! ÐGeneral;€John€Wesley€Ô_ÔCarneyÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€C.€Daniel€Ô_ÔBrollierÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€AssistantÐ `#°" ÐDistrict€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð L$œ# ÐÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ $&t!% ÐÌò òI.€€Factsó óÐ ü'L#' ÐÌà  àOn€July€3,€1999,€the€B€&€S€Package€Store€in€Clarksville,€Tennessee,€was€robbed.€€Jerry€KellyÐ Ô)$%) Ðwas€working€as€a€clerk€at€the€store€that€day€when€a€man€came€in€and€walked€up€to€the€counter€andÐ À*&* Ðasked€Mr.€Kelly€for€a€particular€brand€of€liquor.€€Kelly€got€the€bottle,€and€the€man€gave€Kelly€fiveÐ ¬+ü&+ Ðâ âdollars.€€Kelly€was€looking€down€to€ring€up€the€purchase€when€another€customer€walked€into€theÐ ˜,è',ý ÐÔ_Ôstore.€€Kelly€heard€the€man€tell€the€customer€to€get€on€the€floor.€€When€he€looked€up,€Kelly€saw€thatÐ ° Ðthe€man€had€a€gun.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àLeslie€Starks€testified€at€trial€that€she€walked€into€B€&€S€Package€Store€on€July€3,€1999.€Ð tÄ ÐWhen€she€entered€the€store,€she€saw€a€man€standing€at€the€counter.€€He€turned€around€and€pointedÐ `° Ða€gun€at€her€and€said,€ð ð[L]ady€get€on€the€floor.ðð€€Ms.€Starks€got€on€the€floor.€€She€remained€on€theÐ L œ Ðfloor€with€her€head€down,€and€she€heard€the€man€tell€Kelly€to€give€him€his€five€dollars,€the€moneyÐ 8 ˆ Ðfrom€the€cash€register,€and€the€money€from€a€cigar€box€underneath€the€counter.€€Kelly€gave€the€manÐ $ t Ðthe€money.€€The€robber€then€told€Ms.€Starks€to€get€up,€and€he€led€her€and€Mr.€Kelly€to€a€storage€areaÐ  ` Ðin€the€back€of€the€store.€€He€warned€them€not€to€move€from€that€location€for€five€or€ten€minutes€andÐ ü L  Ðthat€he€would€be€watching€them.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àIn€December€of€1999,€Mr.€Kelly€and€Ms.€Starks€both€separately€identified€the€Defendant€inÐ À  Ða€photographic€lineup€as€the€person€who€robbed€the€store€in€July.€€Both€victims€also€testified€at€trialÐ ¬ü  Ðthat€Defendant€was€the€robber.Ð ˜è  ÐÌò òII.€€Motion€to€Dismiss€Aggravated€Kidnapping€CountsÐ pÀ Ðó óÌà  àDefendant€argues€that€he€was€erroneously€convicted€for€aggravated€kidnapping.€€DefendantÐ H˜ Ðrelies€on€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Courtððs€holding€in€òòState€v.€Anthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€299€(Tenn.€1991),Ð 4„ Ðand€argues€that€the€kidnapping€of€Leslie€Starks€was€essentially€incidental€to€the€robbery,€and€the€trialÐ  p Ðcourt€committed€reversible€error€in€denying€his€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€as€to€counts€twoÐ  \ Ðand€three€of€the€indictment.€€As€alleged€in€the€indictment,€Defendant€was€charged€with€alternativeÐ øH Ðcounts€of€aggravated€kidnapping.€€Specifically,€Defendant€was€charged€with€false€imprisonment,€asÐ ä4 Ðdefined€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„302,€to€facilitate€the€commission€of€or€flight€from€the€felonyÐ Ð  Ðoffense€of€aggravated€robbery,€or€alternatively,€false€imprisonment€while€in€possession€of€a€deadlyÐ ¼  Ðweapon.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„304(a)(1)€and€(a)(5).€€Both€counts€involved€the€same€victim,Ð ¨ø ÐLeslie€Starks.€€The€jury€found€Defendant€guilty€of€both€counts,€but€the€trial€court€merged€count€twoÐ ”ä Ðwith€count€three,€resulting€in€one€conviction€for€the€aggravated€kidnapping€of€Leslie€Starks.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àòòState€v.€Anthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€299€(Tenn.€1991),€was€a€consolidation€of€two€cases,€òòState€v.Ð X ¨ ÐDennis€Anthonyóó€and€òòState€v.€James€Martinóó,€in€both€of€which€the€defendants€were€convicted€ofÐ D!” Ðaggravated€robbery€and€aggravated€kidnapping.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€reversed€bothÐ 0"€  Ðdefendantsðð€kidnapping€convictions,€holding€that€the€facts€of€each€case€did€not€support€separateÐ #l! Ðconvictions€for€both€robbery€and€kidnapping.€€òòAnthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€307.€€òòóóIn€òòState€v.€Martinóó,€theÐ $X" Ðdefendant€robbed€an€insurance€agency€at€gunpoint.€€He€ordered€one€employee€to€lie€on€the€floorÐ ô$D # Ðwhile€he€demanded€money€from€another€employee.€€òòIdóó.€at€302.€€He€also€demanded€money€from€theÐ à%0!$ Ðemployee€lying€on€the€floor.€€òòIdóó.€€He€then€led€both€employees€into€the€menððs€restroom€where€heÐ Ì&"% Ðordered€them€to€stay.€€òòIdóó.€€The€supreme€court€noted€that,€while€the€defendant€removed€the€twoÐ ¸'#& Ðemployees€to€another€part€of€the€store€after€taking€money€from€them,€he€did€not€ð ðsubstantiallyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðincrease€the€risk€of€harm€to€the€victims,ðð€emphasizing€that€one€of€the€store€employees€locked€theÐ )à$( Ðdoor€to€the€restroom€from€the€inside.€€òòIdóó.€at€307.€€The€defendant€in€òòState€v.€Anthonyóó€robbed€aÐ |*Ì%) Ðrestaurant,€while€his€accomplice€detained€three€restaurant€employees€outside,€ordering€them€atÐ h+¸&* Ðgunpoint€to€lie€on€the€ground€near€the€dumpsters.€€òòIdóó.€at€301.€€In€reversing€the€defendantððsÐ ° Ðkidnapping€convictions,€the€supreme€court€concluded€that€the€only€distinction€between€the€outsideÐ œì Ðemployees€and€the€inside€employees€was€their€location€during€the€robbery,€and€that€alone€is€notÐ ˆØ Ðenough€to€warrant€a€separate€conviction€for€kidnapping.€€òòIdóó.€at€307.€€The€detainment€of€the€outsideÐ tÄ Ðemployees€was€as€incidental€to€the€robbery€as€the€treatment€of€the€inside€employees,€whom€theÐ `° Ðdefendant€had€ordered€at€gunpoint€to€a€back€room€where€he€demanded€that€they€open€the€safe.€€òòIdóó.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€supreme€court€recognized€in€òòAnthonyóó€that€separate€kidnapping€convictions€may€violateÐ $ t Ðdue€process€when€the€kidnapping€is€essentially€incidental€to€another€offense,€such€as€rape€or€robbery.€Ð  ` ÐòòIdóó.€at€306.€€The€court€observed€that€every€robbery€involves€some€detention€of€the€victim,€but€theÐ ü L  Ðlegislature€did€not€intend€for€every€robbery€to€constitute€kidnapping.€€òòIdóó.€€The€court€articulated€andÐ è 8  Ðapplied€a€test€for€determining€whether€a€separate€kidnapping€conviction€may€stand.€€The€test€isÐ Ô$  Ðð ðwhether€the€confinement,€movement,€or€detention€is€essentially€incidental€to€the€accompanyingÐ À  Ðfelony€and€is€not,€therefore,€sufficient€to€support€a€separate€conviction€for€kidnapping,€or€whetherÐ ¬ü  Ðit€is€significant€enough,€in€and€of€itself,€to€warrant€independent€prosecution€and€is,€therefore,Ð ˜è  Ðsufficient€to€support€such€a€conviction.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€Stated€another€way,€a€separate€conviction€forÐ „Ô  Ðkidnapping€is€warranted€where€the€ð ðdefendantððs€conduct€ððsubstantially€increased€[the]€risk€of€harmÐ pÀ Ðover€and€above€that€necessarily€present€in€the€crime€of€robbery€itself.ðððð€òòIdóó.€(quoting€òòState€v.€Rollinsóó,Ð \¬ Ð605€S.W.2d€828,€830€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980)).Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àIn€a€subsequent€opinion,€the€supreme€court€further€refined€the€test€for€determining€whetherÐ  p Ða€separate€kidnapping€conviction€may€stand.€€òòState€v.€Dixonóó,€957€S.W.2d€532,€535€(Tenn.€1997).€Ð  \ ÐCiting€òòAnthonyóó,€the€òòDixonóó€court€stated€that€the€first€inquiry€is€ð ðwhether€the€movement€orÐ øH Ðconfinement€was€beyond€that€necessary€to€consummate€the€[felony].ðð€€òòIdóó.€€ð ðIf€so,€the€next€inquiryÐ ä4 Ðis€whether€the€additional€movement€or€confinement:€(1)€prevented€the€victim€from€summoning€help;Ð Ð  Ð(2)€lessened€the€defendantððs€risk€of€detection;€or€(3)€created€a€significant€danger€or€increased€theÐ ¼  Ðvictimððs€risk€of€harm.ðð€€òòIdóó.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àHere,€the€State€argues€that€the€robbery€was€complete€when€Mr.€Kelly€gave€Defendant€all€ofÐ €Ð Ðthe€storeððs€money.€€After€taking€the€money,€Defendant€led€Mr.€Kelly€and€Ms.€Starks€to€a€storageÐ l¼ Ðroom€in€the€back€of€the€store€where€he€ordered€them€to€remain€for€five€minutes.€€The€State€arguesÐ X ¨ Ðthat€Defendantððs€actions€prevented€Ms.€Starks€from€summoning€help,€lessened€the€risk€of€detection,Ð D!” Ðand€created€a€significant€danger€and€increased€the€risk€of€harm.€€In€denying€the€Defendantððs€motion,Ð 0"€  Ðthe€trial€court€commented€that€ð ðthe€risk€to€both€of€[the€victims]€was€greatly€increased€by€taking€themÐ #l! Ðinto€a€room€with€no€windows€and€no€other€access,€or€no€other€exit.ððÐ $X" ÐÌà  àWe€believe€that€the€kidnapping€of€Ms.€Starks,€as€alleged€in€counts€two€and€three€of€theÐ à%0!$ Ðindictment,€had€nothing€to€do€with€the€robbery€of€Mr.€Kelly,€an€employee€of€B€&€S€Package€Store.€Ð Ì&"% ÐòòSee€State€v.€Blouvetóó,€965€S.W.2d€489,€492€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€Unlike€the€defendants€inÐ ¸'#& ÐòòAnthonyóó,€Defendant€did€not€rob€the€victim€of€the€aggravated€kidnapping,€Leslie€Starks,€nor€was€heÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcharged€with€that€offense.€€Rather,€he€was€charged€with€the€aggravated€robbery€of€Mr.€Kelly€and€theÐ )à$( Ðaggravated€kidnapping€of€Ms.€Starks.€€As€the€supreme€court€stated€in€òòAnthonyóó,€ð ð[t]he€real€issueÐ |*Ì%) Ðinvolves€the€propriety€of€a€kidnapping€conviction€where€detention€of€the€victim€is€merely€incidentalÐ h+¸&* Ðto€the€commission€of€another€felony,€such€as€robbery€or€rape.ðð€€òòóó817€S.W.2d€at€300.€€In€this€case,€theÐ ° Ðquestion€is€whether€the€detention€of€Ms.€Starks€was€merely€incidental€to€the€aggravated€robbery€ofÐ œì ÐMr.€Kelly.€€The€òòAnthonyóó€court€did€not€address€a€situation€where€the€victims€of€the€aggravatedÐ ˆØ Ðkidnapping€and€the€aggravated€robbery€are€two€different€people.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Blouvetóó,€965€S.W.2d€489€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997),€this€Court€addressed€an€issueÐ L œ Ðsimilar€to€the€one€with€which€we€are€presented€in€this€case.€€In€òòBlouvetóó,€the€defendant€taped€two€storeÐ 8 ˆ Ðemployeesðð€hands€and€feet€together€in€the€course€of€committing€an€aggravated€robbery.€€òòIdóó.€at€491.€Ð $ t ÐHe€took€eighty€dollars€($80)€from€one€of€the€store€employees.€€òòIdóó.€€After€doing€so,€another€man,€notÐ  ` Ðan€employee€of€the€store,€who€was€there€spraying€for€insects,€entered€through€the€back€of€the€store.€Ð ü L  ÐòòIdóó.€€The€defendant€ordered€the€exterminator,€Mr.€Edmonds,€to€go€into€the€bathroom,€where€heÐ è 8  Ðremained€until€the€defendant€left€the€store.€€òòIdóó.€€The€defendant€was€not€charged€with€the€aggravatedÐ Ô$  Ðrobbery€of€Mr.€Edmonds.€€òòIdóó.€€He€challenged€his€conviction€for€the€aggravated€kidnapping€of€Mr.Ð À  ÐEdmonds.€€òòIdóó.€at€492.€€With€respect€to€that€conviction,€we€concluded€that€it€was€ð ðcertainly€notÐ ¬ü  Ðððessentially€incidentalðð€to€the€accompanying€felony€of€aggravated€robbery€of€[the€store€employee].ðð€Ð ˜è  ÐòòIdóó.òòóóà  àà ` àÐ „Ô  ÐÌà  àHere,€rather€than€leaving€the€store,€Defendant€ordered€Ms.€Starks€at€gunpoint€to€a€storageÐ \¬ Ðroom€in€the€back€of€the€store€after€the€aggravated€robbery€of€Mr.€Kelly€was€complete.€€Therefore,Ð H˜ Ðthe€aggravated€kidnapping€of€Ms.€Starks€was€not€incidental€to€the€aggravated€robbery€of€Mr.€Kelly.€Ð 4„ ÐWe€believe,€however,€that€when€the€robbery€victim€and€the€kidnapping€victim€are€two€differentÐ  p Ðpersons,€the€issue€is€better€characterized€as€a€question€of€whether€sufficient€evidence€exists€to€sustainÐ  \ Ða€conviction€for€aggravated€kidnapping.€€€We€address€this€issue€below€and€conclude€that€the€factsÐ øH Ðof€this€case€are€sufficient€to€warrant€such€a€conviction.€€Defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€thisÐ ä4 Ðissue.Ð Ð  ÐÌò òIII.€€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidenceó óÐ ¨ø ÐÌà  àNext,€Defendant€argues€that€the€evidence€at€trial€was€insufficient€to€support€a€finding€of€guiltÐ €Ð Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€as€to€both€convictions.Ô‡X[XXX[Ô€€When€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€ofÐ l¼ Ðthe€convicting€evidence,€we€must€determine€whether€ð ðany€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÐ X ¨ Ðessential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòState€v.€Keoughóó,€18€S.W.3d€175,€180„Ð D!” Ð81€(Tenn.€2000)€(quoting€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979)).€€In€so€determining,€thisÐ 0"€  ÐCourt€must€review€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€affording€it€the€strongestÐ #l! Ðlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€the€record€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferencesÐ $X" Ðwhich€may€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€€òòKeoughóó,€18€S.W.3d€at€181€(citinòòg€State€v.€Blandóó,€958Ð ô$D # ÐS.W.2d€651,€659€(Tenn.€1997)).€€Ô#†X[XXX[ =#ÔÔ‡X[XXX[ÔQuestions€regarding€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€toÐ à%0!$ Ðbe€given€the€evidence,€and€any€factual€issues€raised€Ô#†X[XXX[•@#ÔÔ‡X[XXX[Ôby€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,Ð Ì&"% Ðnot€this€Court.€€òòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€659.€Ô#†X[XXX[dA#ÔÔ‡X[XXX[Ô€Furthermore,€a€guilty€verdict€replaces€the€presumptionÐ ¸'#& Ðof€innocence€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€which€a€defendant€has€the€burden€of€overcoming€onÐ ¤(ô#' Ðappeal.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).Ô#†X[XXX[B#ÔÐ )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àDefendant€was€convicted€for€aggravated€robbery€and€aggravated€kidnapping.€€As€applicableÐ ° Ðâ âin€this€case,€aggravated€robbery€is€the€intentional€theft€of€the€property€of€another€accomplished€withÐ œì Ða€deadly€weapon,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„401€and€39„13„402.€€The€evidenceÐ ˆØ Ðestablished€that€Defendant€entered€B€&€S€Package€Store€on€July€3,€1999,€pointed€a€gun€at€Mr.€Kelly,Ð tÄ Ðand€demanded€that€he€give€him€the€money€from€the€cash€register€and€the€cigar€box€below€theÐ `° Ðcounter.€€Mr.€Kelly€complied€and€gave€Defendant€the€money.€€Viewed€in€a€light€most€favorable€toÐ L œ Ðthe€State,€this€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€Defendantððs€conviction€for€aggravated€robbery.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àAggravated€kidnapping,€as€applicable€in€this€case,€is€the€unlawful€removal€or€confinementÐ  ` Ðof€a€person€in€order€to€facilitate€the€commission€of€a€robbery€or€flight€therefrom,€or€alternatively,€theÐ ü L  Ðunlawful€removal€or€confinement€of€a€person€while€in€possession€of€a€deadly€weapon.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð è 8  ÐCode€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„302,€39„13„304(a)(1),€andòòóó€39„13„304(a)(5).€€Viewed€in€a€light€most€favorableÐ Ô$  Ðto€the€State,€the€proof€shows€that€Defendant€pointed€a€gun€at€Ms.€Starks€and€demanded€that€she€getÐ À  Ðon€the€floor.€€After€taking€the€money€from€Mr.€Kelly,€Defendant€removed€Ms.€Starks€to€the€back€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€store€and€into€a€storage€room€with€no€windows€and€no€exit,€where€he€directed€both€victims€toÐ ˜è  Ðstay€for€five€to€ten€minutes.€€This€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€Defendantððs€conviction€for€theÐ „Ô  Ðaggravated€kidnapping€of€Ms.€Starks€under€either€count€two€or€three€of€the€indictment.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€two€victims€gave€questionable€identifications€of€the€DefendantÐ H˜ Ðand€that€is€sufficient€to€create€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Specifically,€Defendant€emphasizes€that€bothÐ 4„ Ðvictims€failed€to€notice€Defendantððs€gold€teeth€during€the€robbery€and€Ms.€Starks€was€uncertain€asÐ  p Ðto€Defendantððs€identity€at€the€preliminary€hearing.€€However,€both€victims€separately€andÐ  \ Ðindependently€identified€Defendant€in€a€photographic€lineup€and€a€second€time€at€trial.€€AnÐ øH Ðidentification€by€the€victim€of€ð ða€defendant€as€the€person€who€committed€the€offense€for€which€heÐ ä4 Ðis€on€trial€is€a€question€of€fact€for€the€determination€of€the€jury€upon€consideration€of€all€competentÐ Ð  Ðproof.ðð€€òòState€v.€Stricklandóó,€885€S.W.2d€85,€87€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(citing€òòState€v.€Crawfordóó,Ð ¼  Ð635€S.W.2d€704,€705€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982)).€€Furthermore,€the€testimony€of€a€victim,€by€itself,Ð ¨ø Ðis€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€623€S.W.2d€118,€120€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ”ä Ð1981).€€Whether€the€jury€found€that€the€victims€experienced€a€lapse€in€memory€or€their€failure€toÐ €Ð Ðperceive€every€detail€of€Defendantððs€appearance€was€due€to€the€stress€of€the€event,€those€areÐ l¼ Ðdeterminations€for€the€jury€to€make,€and€we€defer€to€the€jury€as€to€the€credibility€of€the€testimony€atÐ X ¨ Ðtrial.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àDefendant€also€argues€that€because€the€State€did€not€present€any€evidence€explaining€howÐ #l! ÐDefendant€knew€about€the€cigar€box€hidden€under€the€counter,€there€is€insufficient€evidence€toÐ $X" Ðconvict€him€of€the€robbery.€€Mr.€Kelly€testified€that,€to€the€best€of€his€knowledge,€he€had€never€seenÐ ô$D # ÐDefendant€inside€the€liquor€store€before.€€The€jury€is€certainly€allowed€to€draw€inferences,€however,Ð à%0!$ Ðso€long€as€those€inferences€are€reasonable.€€We€can€surmise,€as€the€jury€might€have€done,€that€Mr.Ð Ì&"% ÐKelly€is€not€the€only€employee€at€B€&€S€Package€Store;€that€Defendant€has€been€inside€the€storeÐ ¸'#& Ðwhen€Mr.€Kelly€was€not€working,€or€Mr.€Kelly€simply€does€not€remember€seeing€Defendant;€or€thatÐ ¤(ô#' ÐDefendant€could€have€received€information€from€someone€else€who€knows€the€store€keeps€moneyÐ )à$( Ðin€a€cigar€box€under€the€counter,€rather€than€seeing€it€himself.€€Defendantððs€information€could€haveÐ |*Ì%) Ðcome€from€any€number€of€sources.€€We€are€not€going€to€speculate€as€to€which€theory€is€the€mostÐ h+¸&* Ðplausible€or€inquire€as€to€what€evidence€the€jury€relied€on€in€reaching€its€conclusion.€€It€is€sufficientÐ ° Ðthat€the€jury€could€reasonably€and€legitimately€have€drawn€any€of€those€inferences€and€concludedÐ œì Ðthat€Defendant€knew€about€the€cigar€box€hidden€under€the€store€counter.€€Defendant€is€not€entitledÐ ˆØ Ðto€relief€on€this€issue.Ð tÄ ÐÌò òIV.€€Stateððs€Closing€Argumentó óÐ L œ ÐÓÌÌÓÌÓÌ̾WÓà  àFinally,€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€his€objection€to€the€StateððsÐ ô D Ðclosing€argument.€€Defendant€argues€that€the€District€Attorneyððs€statement€to€the€jury€during€closingÐ à 0 Ðarguments€that,€ð ðI€would€submit€to€you€that€the€proof€.€.€.€is€unrebutted€in€this€case,ðð€was€improper,Ð Ì   Ðand€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€a€mistrial.€€During€a€bench€conference,€the€trial€courtÐ ¸   Ðcommented€that€such€statement€was€getting€very€close€to€being€improper,€but€nevertheless€overruledÐ ¤ô  Ðthe€objection.Ð à  ÐÓÌÌÓÌÓÌÌvZÓà  àòòóóClosing€argument€is€a€valuable€tool€for€the€parties€during€the€trial€process.€€òòState€v.Ð 8ˆ  ÐHumphreysóó,€70€S.W.3d€752,€767€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2001).€€Attorneys€are€generally€given€wideÐ $t  Ðlatitude€in€the€scope€of€their€arguments.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€809€(Tenn.€1994).€Ð ` ÐConsequently,€a€trial€court€is€accorded€wide€discretion€in€its€control€of€the€closing€arguments.€€òòStateÐ üL Ðv.€Zirkleóó,€910€S.W.2d€874,€888€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€We€will€not€interfere€with€that€discretionÐ è8 Ðin€the€absence€of€abuse.€€òòState€v.€Suttonóó,€562€S.W.2d€820,€823€(Tenn.€1978).€€To€show€error,€aÐ Ô$ Ðdefendant€must€show€that€the€argument€was€so€inflammatory€or€the€conduct€so€improper€that€itÐ À Ðaffected€the€verdict€to€the€defendantððs€detriment.€€òòZirkleóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€888.Ð ¬ü ÐÓÌÌÓÌÓÌÌ[^Óà  àDefendant€argues€that€the€District€Attorneyððs€remark€prejudiced€Defendant€and€was€in€factÐ T¤ Ða€comment€on€Defendantððs€decision€not€to€testify€in€violation€of€his€constitutional€rights€and€hisÐ @ Ðrights€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„17„103.€€The€State€argues€that€the€prosecutorððs€remark€duringÐ ,| Ðclosing€argument€was€not€intended€to€be€an€improper€suggestion€about€Defendantððs€failure€to€testify,Ð h Ðbut€rather€a€statement€about€the€Defendantððs€failure€to€present€evidence€in€rebuttal€of€the€StateððsÐ T Ðcase.Ð ð@ ÐÓÌÌÓÌÓÌÌ aÓà  àWhen€a€prosecutor€improperly€comments€on€a€defendantððs€decision€not€to€testify,€our€reviewÐ ˜è Ðis€whether€the€verdict€was€affected€in€such€a€way€that€the€defendant€was€prejudiced.€€òòCoker€v.€Stateóó,Ð „ Ô Ð911€S.W.2d€357,€368€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995),€òòoverruled€on€other€grounds€byóó€òòState€v.€Westóó,€19Ð p!À  ÐS.W.3d€753,€756€(Tenn.€2000)€(citing€òòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€385€S.W.2d€758,€759€(Tenn.€1965)).€€TheÐ \"¬! Ðfactors€relevant€to€determining€whether€a€defendant€was€prejudiced€by€an€improper€remark€duringÐ H#˜" Ðclosing€argument€include:Ð 4$„# ÐÓÌÌÓÌÓÌÌËcÓà8  à1.€€The€conduct€complained€of€viewed€in€context€and€in€light€of€the€facts€andÐÜ%,!%Ð Ð  Ðà  à€€€€€circumstances€of€the€case.Ð È&"& Ðà8  à2.€€The€curative€measures€undertaken€by€the€court€and€the€prosecution.д'#'Ð Ð  Ðà8  à3.€€The€intent€of€the€prosecutor€in€making€the€improper€statement.Р(ð#(Ð Ð  Ðà8  à4.€€The€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€and€any€other€errors€in€the€record.ÐŒ)Ü$)Ð Ð  Ðà8  à5.€€The€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€case.Ðx*È%*Ð Ð  ÐÓÌÌÓÌÓÌÌgfÓòòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).Ð  ,p', Їà  àThis€Court€has€held€that€ð ð[m]ere€argument€by€the€State€that€proof€on€a€certain€point€isÐ ° Ðunrefuted€or€uncontradicted€is€not€an€improper€comment€upon€a€defendantððs€failure€to€testify.ðð€€òòStateÐ œì Ðv.€Couryóó,€697€S.W.2d€373,€378€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999).€€We€also€addressed€this€issue€in€òòState€v.Ð ˆØ ÐThorntonóó,€10€S.W.3d€229,€235€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999),€where€the€prosecutor€stated€during€closingÐ tÄ Ðargument,€ð ðI€submit€to€you,€ladies€and€gentlemen,€there€has€not€been€any€defense€asserted€hereÐ `° Ðwhatsoever.ðð€€In€òòThorntonóó,€we€noted€that€it€is€well„established€that€ð ða€district€attorney€general€mayÐ L œ Ðargue€that€the€stateððs€evidence€is€uncontradicted.€€[Such]€argument€does€not€violate€the€ruleÐ 8 ˆ Ðprohibiting€comments€on€the€failure€of€the€defendant€to€testify€in€support€of€his€defense.ðð€€òòIdóó.€(citingÐ $ t ÐòòState€v.€Riceóó,€638€S.W.2d€424€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982)).€€The€defendant€in€òòThorntonóó€did€not€presentÐ  ` Ðany€evidence,€and€the€Defendant€in€this€case€did€not€present€any€evidence.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€that€the€Stateððs€comment€was€not€a€specific€reference€to€Defendantððs€failure€toÐ Ô$  Ðtestify,€but€rather€a€statement€that€there€was€no€evidence€presented€to€refute€the€Stateððs€case.€€This,Ð À  Ðin€effect,€is€the€same€as€saying€that€the€Stateððs€evidence€is€uncontradicted.€€Furthermore,€applyingÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€òòJudgeóó€factors,€we€conclude€that€the€comment€did€not€prejudicially€affect€the€verdict€of€the€jury.€Ð ˜è  ÐDefendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà@FF%ìàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ \¬ ÐÌà  àAfter€a€careful€review€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€isÐ 4„ Ðaffirmed.Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à___________________________________€Ð øH Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÐ ä4 Ð