ÿWPC% …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0DP 0„” 0J 0Tb 0^¶ 0h 0r| 0|î 0†j 0ð 1u€ 0dõ BYU>vU *´B)ÞDC AMJ D3—Ê¥ä 0@‰fÉv~/vÓ­ AO€ÆÏ 0D• D/Ù B˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- ¯D°±²E³´Dµ¶D·Ó€ÃÚƒç"3|xÇ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  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'ÿÿdxd Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òOctober€31,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ›Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Ô€%ôÔÔ€&ÔPursuant€to€the€policy€of€this€Court,€the€minor€victim€of€sexual€abuse€in€this€case€will€beÏreferred€to€by€her€initials€rather€than€her€full€name.Ô€%ÔÔ€%XÔÌ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò \Ñ\R AØ'\ÑPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{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€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€&ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€v?XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€)+(A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌFEBRUARY€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9608„CC„00316Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àBLOUNT€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€D.€KELLY€THOMAS,€JR.ó óÌò òJIMMY€GREENE,à àó óà àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Direct€Appeal)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌJULIE€A.€MARTINà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌP.€O.€Box€426à àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌKnoxville,€€TN€37901„0426Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àSANDY€R.€COPOUSÌà 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 àMIKE€FLYNNÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKIRK€ANDREWSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à706€Walnut€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TN€37901Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇœòòò òÓ  ÓÔ€&„ÔOPINIONó óóóÔ€&ŠÔ›ÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àAppellant€Jimmy€Greene€appeals€from€a€jury€verdict€rendered€in€theÏBlount€County€Circuit€Court€finding€him€guilty€of€the€aggravated€rape€of€a€personÏless€than€thirteen€years€of€age.€€As€a€Range€I€standard€offender,€AppellantÏreceived€a€sentence€of€twenty„two€years€in€the€Tennessee€Department€ofÏCorrections.€€On€April€10,€1996,€Appellant€filed€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€alleging,Ïòòinter€aliaóó,€the€existence€of€newly€discovered€evidence.€€The€trial€court€denied€thisÏmotion€on€May€21,€1996.€€Appellant€presents€three€issues€for€consideration€onÏthis€direct€appeal:€€(1)€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€sustain€theÏconviction€for€aggravated€rape;€(2)€whether€the€prosecution's€remarks€madeÏduring€closing€argument€were€improper€and€prejudicial;€and€(3)€whether€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€denying€Appellant's€motion€for€a€new€trial€based€on€the€allegedÏexistence€of€newly€discovered€evidence.Ìà 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€or€about€June€24,€1991,€four„year„old€A.L.€firstÏrevealed€to€her€paternal€grandmother€that€A.'s€stepfather,€Appellant€JimmyÍGreene,€had€performed€certain€sexual€acts€upon€her.× ƒ, ××  ×€€At€the€time€of€the€allegedÏincidents,€A.€resided€with€her€mother€and€her€stepfather,€Appellant€herein.€€OnÏJune€28,€1991,€A.'s€grandmother€took€her€to€the€emergency€room€at€BlountÏMemorial€Hospital€for€a€sexual€abuse€examination.€€As€a€result€of€theÏallegations€and€subsequent€investigation€of€sexual€abuse,€A.'s€grandmotherÏobtained€legal€and€physical€custody€of€A.Ìà àAt€trial,€the€court€permitted€A.€to€use€anatomically€correct€dolls€to€facilitateÏher€explanation€of€the€sexual€acts€to€which€she€was€subjected.€€A.€testified€thatÏher€stepfather€inserted€his€fingers€into€her€vagina,€which€she€referred€to€as€herÏ"poopy„cat,"€and€her€rectum.€€A.€further€testified€that€Appellant€"put€his€poopy„cat€[penis]€in€my€mouth€and€he€played€with€my€poopy„cat€and€bottom."€€Finally,ÏA.€stated€that€Appellant€inserted€his€penis€into€her€mouth€and€"peed"€andÏ"made€me€swallow€it."€Ìà àOn€October€3,€1991,€four€months€subsequent€to€the€last€incident€ofÏsexual€abuse,€Dr.€Gerald€Blossom€examined€A.€as€part€of€the€investigation€intoÏthe€allegations€of€sexual€abuse.€€By€the€time€of€the€trial,€Dr.€Blossom€wasÏemployed€at€Children's€Hospital€in€Knoxville€as€an€emergency€pediatrician.€€AtÏtrial,€Dr.€Blossom€testified€that€when€examining€A.,€he€noted€some€thickening€ofÏthe€hymenal€membrane€at€approximately€the€four€to€five€o'clock€position.€€HeÍstated€that€the€hymenal€membrane€is€typically€thin€and€that€the€abnormalÏthickening€of€A.'s€hymenal€membrane€would€have€been€caused€by€rubbing€anÏobject€across€and€against€the€membrane.€€Dr.€Blossom€further€testified€that€hisÏexamination€also€revealed€that€A.'s€hymenal€opening€measured€one€centimeterÏin€diameter.€€Dr.€Blossom€then€proceeded€to€elaborate€on€the€significance€of€thisÏabnormal€measurement.€€"This€is€approximately€twice€the€size€you€wouldÏexpect€to€see€in€a€four„year„old€girl."€€€While€acknowledging€that€normalÏvariations€exist€in€the€size,€shape,€and€width€of€hymenal€openings€in€four„year„old€females,€Dr.€Blossom€also€emphasized,€"This€is€about€twice€the€average€toÏmaximum€size.€.€.€.€[T]his€is€much€more€than€you€would€ever€expect€to€find€in€aÏnormal€situation."€€Dr.€Blossom€also€explained€that€the€only€way€in€which€theÏhymen€could€be€stretched€to€a€much€larger€diameter€than€normal,€as€was€A.'s,Ïis€through€direct€and€forcible€penetration.€€He€further€testified€that€the€more€timesÏthat€the€hymen€is€stretched,€the€less€likely€it€is€that€the€hymen€will€return€to€itsÏnormal€condition.€€Finally,€Dr.€Blossom€opined€that€A.'s€vagina€had€been€forciblyÏpenetrated.ÌÌà@ àò òII.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óÌà àAppellant's€first€contention€on€this€direct€appeal€is€that€the€evidence€wasÏinsufficient€to€sustain€a€conviction€for€aggravated€rape.€€We€disagree.Ìà 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,€571ÏS.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€at€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,€œ805€S.W.2d›€776,€779€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1990).€€Moreover,€this€Court€may€not€substitute€its€own€inferencesÍ"for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence."€€òòMatthewsóó,Ï805€S.W.2d€at€779.€€Finally,€òòTenn.€R.€App.€P.óó€13(e)€provides,€"Findings€of€guilt€inÏcriminal€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€at€780.Ìà 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€atÏ779„80€(quoting€òòState€v.€Crawfordóó,€470€S.W.2d€610,€612€(Tenn.€1971)).Ìà 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€rape.€€First,€the€jury€heard€the€compellingÏtestimony€of€young€A.L.,€œage›€eight€at€the€time€of€the€trial€in€December€1995.€€A.Ïprecisely€described€for€the€jury€what€had€occurred€between€herself€andÏAppellant.€€Moreover,€she€acknowledged€that€she€could€readily€distinguishÏbetween€a€"good€touch"€and€a€"bad€touch."€€€Clearly,€a€rational€trier€of€fact€couldÏreasonably€credit€A.'s€testimony.Ìà àSecond,€the€prosecution€presented€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Gerald€Blossom,Ïthe€physician€who€examined€A.€€Dr.€Blossom€testified€that€although€A.'sÍhymenal€opening€was€in€tact€at€the€time€of€the€examination,€the€diameter€acrossÏA.'s€hymen€measured€one€centimeter„„twice€the€size€which€one€would€expect€toÏfind€in€a€typical€four„year„old€girl.€Furthermore,€Dr.€Blossom€testified€that€hisÏexamination€of€A.€revealed€some€thickening€in€her€hymen€at€approximately€theÏfour€to€five€o'clock€position.€€After€explaining€that€the€usual€appearance€of€theÏhymen€is€that€of€a€very€thin€membrane,€Dr.€Blossom€opined€that€the€thickeningÏof€A.'s€hymen€was€caused€by€the€repeated€rubbing€of€an€object€against€herÏhymenal€membrane.Ìà àFinally,€the€State€introduced€the€testimony€of€A.'s€paternal€grandmother.€ÏShe€related€the€manner€in€which€A.€first€disclosed€to€her€the€sexual€interactionsÏbetween€A.€and€Appellant.Ìà àIn€urging€this€Court€to€hold€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€sustain€hisÏconviction,€Appellant€places€great€emphasis€on€the€fact€that€A.€was€acquaintedÏwith€three€men€whose€names€were€James:€€A.'s€biological€father,€James€(calledÏ"Jimbo");€her€stepfather,€James€(called€"Jimmy")€Greene;€and€her€grandfather,ÏJames€L.€€Appellant's€primary€contention€is€that€A.€was€confused€about€whoÏperpetrated€the€sexual€acts€upon€her€and€thus€wrongly€accused€Appellant.€ÏHowever,€the€record€is€clear€that€A.€unfailingly€referred€to€her€stepfather€asÏ"Jimmy".€€Furthermore,€when€shown€photographs€of€her€family€members€by€aÏpolice€detective,€A.€positively€identified€Appellant€as€the€perpetrator.€€€Given€theÍforegoing,€the€jury€was€more€than€justified€in€concluding€Appellant€was€theÏperpetrator€of€the€rapes.ÌÌà@ àò òIII.€€ALLEGED€IMPROPRIETY€OF€PROSECUTION'S€REMARKSÏDURING€CLOSING€ARGUMENTó óÌà àAppellant€urges€this€Court€to€find€that€certain€remarks€made€by€AssistantÏAttorney€General€Kirk€Andrews€so€prejudiced€the€outcome€of€Appellant's€trial€asÏto€rise€to€the€level€of€reversible€error.€€First,€Appellant€objects€to€Ms.€Andrews'Ïstatement€that,€as€the€victim€of€a€childhood€rape,€A.€œ€always›€would€be€"servingÏher€time"€and€that€the€facts€could€lead€the€jury€only€"to€the€emotion€of€outrage."€€ÏAdditionally,€Appellant€takes€issue€with€the€Assistant€Attorney€œGeneralððs›Ïcomment€that€the€jury's€responsibility€was€to€"relieve€a€little€girl's€mind"€ofÏremembering€what€Appellant€had€done€to€her€and€to€"put€a€final€legal€seal€on€aÏlittle€girl's€pain€and€suffering."€€Appellant€also€asserts€that€the€prosecutorÏconducted€herself€improperly€by€imploring€the€jury€to€give€Appellant€"his€justÏdesserts."€€Lastly,€Appellant€urges€this€Court€to€conclude€that€the€State'sÏassertion€made€during€closing€argument€that€as€a€child€sex€abuse€specialist,ÏDr.€Gerald€Blossom€was€"the€definitive€doctor...€to€make€the€definitiveÏexamination"€constituted€improper€prosecutorial€conduct.Ìà àRather€than€contemporaneously€objecting€to€any€purportedly€improperÏremarks€made€during€the€State's€closing€argument,€Appellant's€counsel€opted€toÍraise€all€objections€to€the€foregoing€remarks€at€the€conclusion€of€the€State'sÏrebuttal€argument.€€The€trial€court€then€issued€curative€instructions€to€the€jury,Ïinforming€them€that€"arguments€are€not€evidence,"€but€that€they€merely€areÏarguments€based€upon€the€evidence.€€The€court€further€instructed€the€jury€thatÏthe€arguments€of€counsel€also€contain€reasonable€inferences€which€may€beÏdrawn€from€the€evidence.€Ìà àAppellant€has€waived€his€right€to€raise€this€issue€on€appeal€due€to€hisÏfailure€to€contemporaneously€object€to€the€prosecution's€allegedly€improperÏremarks€at€trial.€€òòSee€State€v.€Byerleyóó,€658€S.W.2d€134,€139€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1983)€(citing€òòState€v.€Suttonóó,€562€S.W.2d.€820,€825€(Tenn.€1978)).Ìà àNevertheless,€we€will€briefly€examine€the€merits€of€Appellant's€complaints.€ÏIn€Tennessee,€it€is€well„settled€that€in€reviewing€allegations€of€prosecutorialÏmisconduct,€the€test€to€be€applied€by€the€appellate€court€is€to€ascertainÏ"whether€such€conduct€could€have€affected€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€theÏdefendant."€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€803€S.W.2d€709,€710€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990)Ï(citing€òòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976)).€€In€òòJudgeÏv.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€at€344,€this€Court€articulated€five€factors€to€be€utilized€byÏappellate€courts€when€evaluating€claims€of€prosecutorial€misconduct€duringÏclosing€argument.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€approved€of€and€adoptedÏthis€five„factor€analysis€in€òòState€v.€Buckóó,€670€S.W.2d€600,€609€(Tenn.€1984).€ÏThese€five€factors€include:€€"`(1)€the€conduct€complained€of€viewed€in€contextÍand€in€light€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case;€(2)€the€curativeÏmeasures€undertaken€by€the€court€and€the€prosecution;€(3)€the€intent€of€theÏprosecutor€in€making€the€improper€statement;€(4)€the€cumulative€effect€of€theÏimproper€conduct€and€any€other€errors€in€the€record;€and€(5)€the€relative€strengthÏor€weakness€of€the€case.'"€€òòId.óó€(quoting€òòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€at€344).Ìà àIn€òòCoker€v.€Stateóó,€this€Court€explained€that€"Trial€courts€have€substantialÏdiscretionary€authority€in€determining€the€propriety€of€final€argument.€€AlthoughÏcounsel€is€generally€given€wide€latitude,€courts€must€restrict€any€improperÏcommentary."€€911€S.W.2d€357,€368€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(citing€òòSparks€v.ÏStateóó,€563€S.W.2d€564€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978)).€€The€broad€discretionÏaccorded€to€trial€courts€in€controlling€the€argument€of€counsel€"will€not€beÏreviewed€absent€abuse€of€that€discretion."€€òòSmith€v.€Stateóó,€527€S.W.2d€737,Ï739€(Tenn.€1975).€€òòSee€also€State€v.€Paytonóó,€782€S.W.2d€490,€496€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1989).Ìà àIn€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€the€offending€remarks€were€neither€lengthy€norÏrepeated.€€Second,€once€Appellant's€counsel€made€known€to€the€court€herÏobjections€to€certain€portions€of€the€State's€closing€argument,€the€trial€courtÏissued€curative€instructions€to€the€jury€to€rectify€any€perceived€impropriety.€€Third,Ïnothing€in€the€record€indicates€that€these€remarks€were€made€maliciously€in€anÏattempt€to€unduly€prejudice€the€jury.€€Fourth,€the€cumulative€effect€of€theÏpurported€prosecutorial€improprieties€do€not€rise€to€the€level€of€reversible€error.€ÍThe€trial€court€prudently€gave€curative€instructions€to€the€jury€in€which€it€describedÏthe€meaning€and€significance€of€closing€arguments.€€Finally,€the€testimony€of€theÏvictim,€her€grandmother,€and€the€medical€proof€form€the€basis€of€a€compellingÏcase€against€Appellant.€€Under€the€circumstances,€we€find€no€reversible€errorÏwith€respect€to€this€issue.ÌÌà@ àò òIV.€€NEWLY€DISCOVERED€EVIDENCEó óÌà àFinally,€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€inÏdenying€his€motion€for€a€new€trial€on€the€basis€of€newly€discovered€evidence.€ÏWe€disagree.Ìà àTo€receive€a€new€trial€on€the€ground€of€newly€discovered€evidence,ÏAppellant€must€demonstrate€"(1)€reasonable€diligence€in€seeking€the€newlyÏdiscovered€evidence;€(2)€materiality€of€the€evidence";€and€(3)€that€the€evidenceÏwill€likely€change€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€737Ï(Tenn.€1994)€(citing€òòState€v.€Goswickóó,€656€S.W.2d€355,€358„60€(Tenn.€1983)).€ÏThe€trial€court€is€accorded€broad€discretion€in€deciding€whether€to€grant€or€deny€aÏmotion€for€a€new€trial€predicated€on€newly€discovered€evidence.€€òòState€v.ÏWalkeróó,€910€S.W.2d€381,€395€(Tenn.€1995).€€Moreover,€the€trial€court€isÏauthorized€to€ascertain€the€credibility€of€newly€discovered€evidence€for€which€theÏnew€trial€is€desired,€and€the€motion€should€be€denied€unless€the€court€hasÏassured€itself€that€the€testimony€would€be€worthy€of€belief€by€the€jury.€€òòId.óóÍ(quoting€òòRosenthal€V.€Stateóó,€292€S.W.2d€1,€5,€òòcert.€deniedóó,€352€U.S.€934,€77ÏS.Ct.€222,€1€L.Ed.2d€160€(1956)).€€As€a€general€rule,€"newly€discoveredÏimpeachment€evidence€will€not€constitute€grounds€for€a€new€trial.€€But€if€theÏimpeaching€evidence€is€so€crucial€to€the€defendant's€guilt€or€innocence€that€itsÏadmission€will€probably€result€in€an€acquittal,€a€new€trial€may€be€ordered."€ÏòòState€v.€Singletonóó,€853€S.W.2d€490,€496€(Tenn.€1993)€(citing€òòState€V.€Rogersóó,Ï703€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985);€òòRosenthal€v.€Stateóó,€292€S.W.2dÏat€4„5;€òòEvans€v.€Stateóó,€557€S.W.2d€927,€938€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977)).Ìà àAt€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial,€Appellant€proffered€as€newlyÏdiscovered€evidence€the€testimony€of€two€witnesses,€Kevin€Shepherd€andÏVilma€Mimi€Laney.Ìà àShepherd€is€an€attorney€who€had€represented€Appellant€initially€whenÏShepherd€worked€at€the€Public€Defender's€Office.€€€Mr.€Shepherd€testified€thatÏhe€had€attempted€unsuccessfully€to€contact€Vilma€Mimi€Laney€at€a€telephoneÏnumber€which€he€had€discovered€while€endeavoring€to€locate€witnesses.€Ìà àMs.€Laney,€a€friend€of€A.'s€mother.,€testified€that€shortly€after€AppellantÏwas€indicted€in€1991,€she€accompanied€A.'s€mother€to€the€Department€ofÏHuman€Services€to€visit€A.€€During€that€visit,€Ms.€Laney€allegedly€overheard€A.Ïtell€her€mother€"that€her€[the€mother's]€Jimmy€didn't€do€it."€€€Ms.€Laney€explainedÏthat€although€she€resided€next€to€Appellant€and€A.'s€mother€in€1991,€she€movedÏto€another€residence€in€Blount€County€in€1992.€€She€further€stated€that€she€hadÍresided€at€approximately€five€different€residences,€all€being€within€Blount€CountyÏsave€one,€between€1991€and€1996€and€that€she€had€neglected€to€maintainÏcontinuous€telephone€service€during€this€time.€€Additionally,€Ms.€Laney€indicatedÏthat€she€was€unaware€that€Appellant's€trial€had€been€scheduled€for€DecemberÏ1995€but€manifested€her€willingness€to€testify€as€to€the€conversation€between€A.Ïand€her€mother€if€a€new€trial€were€granted.€€When€the€State€asked€Ms.€LaneyÏwhether€she€had€reported€this€information€to€anyone€at€the€time,€she€responded:€Ï"No.€€I€just€didn't€think€to,€you€know,€at€the€time,€and€everything.€€I€didn't€thinkÏanything€was„„at€the€time,€I€didn't€report€it."€Ìà àThe€trial€court€correctly€found€this€was€not€newly€discovered€evidenceÏbecause€Appellant's€attorney€was€aware€of€it€before€the€trial.€€The€appropriateÏremedy€for€a€missing€witness€is€a€continuance.€€Appellant€failed€to€seek€such€aÏcontinuance€and€cannot€now€be€heard€to€complain.€€òòSee€State€v.€Dorningóó,€682ÏS.W.2d€221,€223€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984)€(holding€that€the€trial€court€properlyÏdenied€a€motion€for€new€trial€on€the€basis€of€the€alleged€newly€discoveredÏevidence€of€an€unavailable€witness€where€no€due€diligence€was€exercised€inÏprocuring€witness€and€denying€relief€on€appeal€where€Appellant€failed€to€file€aÏmotion€for€continuance);€òòKing€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9603„CR„00086,€slip€op.,€1,€7Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€June€6,€1997)€(holding€that€"Continuances€may€be€granted€forÏthe€purpose€of€securing€the€presence€of€identifiable€witnesses€if€their€testimonyÏis€material€and€admissible.").In€any€event,€there€appears€to€be€a€lack€of€dueÍdiligence€in€endeavoring€to€locate€Ms.€Laney.€€A€few€telephone€calls€hardlyÏsatisfies€this€criterion.€€Second,€the€evidence€is€at€most€impeachment€material€inÏthe€nature€of€a€prior€inconsistent€statement.€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€trialÏcourt€properly€denied€Appellant€a€new€trial€on€the€basis€of€allegedly€newlyÏdiscovered€evidence.Ìà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ô€&XÔÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÔ€&ŠÔà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÑ€.ÑÇœCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGE