ÿWPCI Q•;§i*X¨=Œì“ ½cR/÷ÞßiÙè}YY½Ÿf\psýÇàÂMW= d¢O»$¿y“#eê‚ï›1­z°˜WÛÇÀA«›¿~6 ”ÂØFS’>©š„5 /øXù70µFŠDHâGµç€ 1Ùb$®¼a¤ØO+tÀ­} ûweP½” à *÷Çnú±.SÂ'F¢ÃVÓ`òÅ~íWw 1ÿi¦_|$gAðÃþ?ònÎ’ Ègw³Ûvç#s ‡2ýr¢áï/­U–ÄgD PD¬y2‡OW;³ …âä¦ òéˆL“Œ@4Qxôu°U ¯ßœ Ñ~ ã“5ôʼ÷¯O FaÒµibäj–sïNè¬GÁ<€2b¼£_z›ÂŠâ¥‡0TœY@+²…§fþ¦þüùØÎ/­“?FºÑ½cˆPCq3 4<±˃Õ1‰´Ê×­ø37ÒŸÔ—•ˆVœ% ­{Ýx6œè3«‹Űéìµ´_,¥¦¤ò^}k¹š:ÆeÀÖVY}œ÷tç]¯sÖ§`ìäD†jk@¥Ä¬Cï_°Z^ÀwÁKï‹mÙ ¾·’•Ñ  ß oÿi² ª¦_b %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ UN‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ11N÷÷÷Eùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùbûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûÿ 0ë 0Dí B11 0¤N D3ò D-% 0KRR ASÆð 0¤¶ 0DZ A«ž»Â|‰-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularYo†)ê:i¢Ø+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.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù- õÝ ƒRõÜ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Ô_ÔpresentenceÔ_Ô€report€reflects€that€the€Appellant€has€twelve€prior€felony€convictions.(|G2õÜ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨¥ò»»Ô(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó d(|3^$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3^$¢¢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_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼ »»»ÔÑ8€L1XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼ »îî#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àSeptember€10,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XL1X»¼ ÔÌò òÔ#†¼ »XXL1&#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€PAUL€HAYESòòóóÔ‡XL1X»¼ Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNos.€99„01383,€84,€85€€€€€€Chris€Craft,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2001„02637„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€December€6,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ XL1XXXL1ÔÌThe€Appellant,€Paul€Hayes,€appeals€his€convictions€by€a€Shelby€County€jury€for€aggravated€burglaryÐ d´ Ðand€two€counts€of€aggravated€robbery.€€€In€this€appeal€as€of€right,€Hayes€raises€the€following€issuesÐ P  Ðfor€our€review:€(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€prohibiting€defense€counsel€from€addressing€theÐ <Œ Ðjury€during€entry€of€the€plea;€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€Hayesðð€motion€for€a€mistrialÐ (x Ðfollowing€a€detectiveððs€testimony€that€Hayes€was€a€suspect€in€uncharged€similar€crimes;€(3)€whetherÐ d Ðthe€trial€court€committed€plain€error€by€limiting€the€scope€of€cross„examination€of€a€co„defendantÐ P Ðtestifying€for€the€State;€(4)€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€to€support€theÐ ì< Ðconvictions;€and€(5)€whether€the€cumulative€effect€of€all€errors€amounted€to€a€denial€of€due€processÐ Ø( Ðof€law.€€After€a€review€of€the€record,€we€hold€that€Hayesðð€issues€are€without€merit€and€affirm€theÐ Ä Ðjudgment€of€the€trial€court.€€€€€€€€Ð ° ÐÔ#†XL1XX XL1Ð#ÔÔ#†¼ »XXL1˜#ÔÔ‡XL1X»¼ ÔÌÓÄÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ tÄ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ »àXL1¶ #ÔÔ‡XL1X.¼ ÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ôóó€and€òòJoe€G.Ð L œ ÐRileyóó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌWilliam€D.€Massey,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Paul€Hayes.Ð #`" ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€John€H.Ð è$8 $ ÐÔ_ÔBledsoeÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€William€L.€Gibbons,€District€Attorney€General;€and€DavidÐ Ô%$!% ÐHenry€and€David€Ô_ÔPritchardÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€Attorneys€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€ofÐ À&"& ÐTennessee.Ð  ¬'ü"'ý ÐÔ_ÔÔ#†¼ »XXL1q #ÔÔ‡XL1X»¼ ÔÓB Óà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ »XXL1š #ÔÔ‡XL1X»¼ ÔÐ ° ÐÌò òFactual€Backgroundó óÐ ˆØ ÐòòóóÔ#†¼ »XXL1 #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XL1X»¼ ÔÌÔ‡ XL1XXXL1Ôà  àOn€October€26,€1998,€the€victims,€Saeed€Zarshenas€and€his€guest,€Jacquelyn€Scruggs,€wereÐ `° Ðdining€at€Zarshenasðð€home€in€Germantown.€€After€Zarshenas€finished€eating,€he€went€to€the€backyardÐ L œ Ðto€smoke€a€cigarette.€€While€Zarshenas€was€smoking,€Brian€Kimbrough€jumped€over€the€backyardÐ 8 ˆ Ðfence,€yelling,€ð ðD.E.A.,ðð€and€asking€where€the€guns€and€drugs€were€located.€€Kimbrough€orderedÐ $ t ÐZarshenas€back€inside€the€home€at€gunpoint,€forced€him€to€the€kitchen€floor,€and€handcuffed€him.€Ð  ` ÐThe€Appellant€followed€Kimbrough€into€the€house,€grabbed€Scruggs€from€behind,€and€held€a€gunÐ ü L  Ðto€her€head.€€The€Appellant€removed€her€ring€and€necklace€and€took€$200€from€her€purse.€€ScruggsÐ è 8  Ðwas€then€forced€to€the€floor,€handcuffed,€gagged,€and€a€hood€was€placed€over€her€head.€€Two€otherÐ Ô$  Ðaccomplices,€Dexter€Futrell€and€ð ðShorty,ðð€had€also€entered€the€house.€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€four€men€began€to€search€the€home€looking€for€drugs€and€money.€€Zarshenas€wasÐ ˜è  Ðblindfolded,€gagged,€and€his€feet€were€tied€together.€€The€men€kept€asking,€ð ðWhere€is€the€safe?ðð€Ð „Ô  ÐZarshenas€responded€that€he€did€not€have€a€safe,€which€only€angered€the€men.€€Zarshenas€andÐ pÀ ÐScruggs€were€ð ðjust€dragged€around€and€pushed€and€punched,ðð€and€Zarshenas€was€stabbed€severalÐ \¬ Ðtimes€in€the€buttocks€and€burned€multiple€times€with€a€cigarette€lighter.€€Also,€sexual€advances€wereÐ H˜ Ðmade€towards€Scruggs.€€One€of€the€men€located€a€briefcase€containing€$5,000€in€Zarshenasðð€car.€€TheÐ 4„ Ðmen€also€took€a€camcorder,€leather€jacket,€collectorððs€knife,€jewelry,€and€$1,500€found€inside€aÐ  p Ðsuitcase.€€The€men€left€through€the€back€door,€which€sounded€the€home€invasion€alarm.€€After€theÐ  \ ÐAppellant€was€certain€the€men€had€exited€the€residence,€he€freed€himself€from€his€restraints,€calledÐ øH Ð911€and,€then,€helped€Scruggs€free€herself€from€her€restraints.€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àA€Shelby€County€grand€jury€indicted€the€Appellant,€Futrell,€and€Kimbrough€for€aggravatedÐ ¼  Ðburglary€and€two€counts€of€aggravated€robbery.€€The€identity€of€ð ðShortyðð€was€never€determined.€Ð ¨ø ÐFutrell€and€Kimbrough€pled€guilty€and€received€eight„year€sentences.€€After€a€trial€by€jury,€theÐ ”ä ÐAppellant€was€convicted€as€charged€and€received€an€effective€seventy„five„year€sentence.€€HisÐ €Ð Ðmotion€for€new€trial€was€denied,€and€this€timely€appeal€followed.Ð l¼ ÐÌÓ  Óò òANALYSISó óÐ D!” ÐÌò òI.€€Entry€of€Pleaó óÐ #l! ÐÌÓ´Óà  àIn€his€first€issue,€the€Appellant€contends€that€ð ðthe€trial€court€erred€by€admonishing€counselÐ ô$D # Ðnot€to€address€the€jury€in€the€context€of€the€entry€of€the€pleas.ðð€€Each€of€the€three€offenses€wereÐ à%0!$ Ðreturned€in€separate€indictments.€€The€first€indictment€was€read€to€the€jury,€and€the€trial€courtÐ Ì&"% Ðrequested€the€Appellant€to€enter€a€plea€of€guilty€or€not€guilty.€€Defense€counsel€responded,€ð ðYourÐ ¸'#& ÐHonor,€ladies€and€gentlemen€of€the€jury€as€to€that€indictment€and€as€to€each€indictment€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdefendant,€Paul€Hayes,€pleads€not€guilty€and€asks€for€your€consideration€of€these€matters€at€trial.ðð€Ð )à$( ÐThe€second€indictment€was€read€to€the€jury,€and€the€Appellant€was€again€requested€to€enter€a€plea.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐDefense€counsel€began€responding€in€the€same€fashion,€and€the€State€objected€to€counsel€ð ðaddressingÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€jury€and€making€statements.ðð€€After€a€bench€conference,€the€trial€court€sustained€the€objection,Ð ° Ðstating€that:Ð œì ÐÌà8  àMr.€Massey,€youððre€basically€talking€to€the€jury.€€And€the€first€time€that€I€asked,Ð tÄ Ðð ðHow€does€the€defendant€plead,ðð€you€started€talking€about,€ð ðAnd€the€defendant€asksÐ `° Ðyou€for€your€consideration.ðð€€The€defendant€is€not€allowed€to€ask€the€jury€anything.€Ð L œ ÐSo€Iððd€ask€you€to€say,€you€know,€ð ðYour€Honor,€ladies€and€gentlemen€of€the€jury,€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðdefendant€enters€a€plea€of€not€guilty.ðð€€And€then,€also€the€first€time,€on€the€firstÐ $ t Ðindictment,€you€were€talking€about,€ð ðAs€to€all€the€indictmentsðð€and€I€just€asked€youÐ  ` Ðas€to€that€particular€indictment.€€So€youððre€adding€a€lot€of€things.€€Youððre€making€anÐ ü L  Ðopening€statement€in€your€plea.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌWhen€reading€of€the€indictments€resumed,€defense€counsel,€thereafter,€responded,€ð ðYour€honor€andÐ À  Ðladies€and€gentlemen€of€the€jury,€as€to€that€indictment,€the€defendant,€Paul€Hayes,€enters€a€plea€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðnot€guilty.ðð€€The€Appellant€argues€that€statements€of€defense€counsel€should€have€been€permittedÐ ˜è  Ðbecause€ð ð[t]here€was€nothing€erroneous€or€improper€in€counselððs€statement€to€the€jury.ðð€Ð „Ô  ÐAdditionally,€he€contends€that€he€was€denied€a€fair€trial€because€Ð pÀ ÐÌà8  àit€is€likely€that€the€jury€understood€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€the€prosecutionððsÐ H˜ Ðobjection€as€well€as€the€bench€conference€which€followed€closely€thereafter€to€meanÐ 4„ Ðthat€the€trial€court€was€adopting€a€position€in€accord€with€the€prosecution.€€Thus,€itÐ  p Ðappeared€to€the€jury€that€the€trial€judge€and€the€prosecution€had€a€common€goalÐ  \ Ðwhich€was€distinct€from€that€of€the€defense.ÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€reading€of€the€indictment€by€the€prosecutor€after€the€jury€has€been€sworn€is€of€long„Ð Ð  Ðstanding€practice€in€this€state€and€is€still€followed€in€many€judicial€districts.€€òòSeeóó€òò10€David€LouisÐ ¼  ÐRaybinóó,€òòTennessee€Criminal€Practice€and€Procedure,óóòòóó€ðððð€26.10„11€(1985)€(the€purpose€beingÐ ¨ø Ðto€inform€the€jury€as€to€the€issue(s)€they€have€been€sworn€to€try).€€After€the€indictment€is€read,€theÐ ”ä Ðdefendant€is€requested€to€enter€a€plea.€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àFirst,€with€regard€to€this€issue,€we€note€that€the€Appellant€failed€to€provide€any€authority€inÐ X ¨ Ðsupport€of€his€assertion,€and€this€court€is€unaware€of€any,€that€he€possessed€a€right€to€address€the€juryÐ D!” Ðduring€entry€of€the€plea.€€Rule€11€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€allows€a€defendantÐ 0"€  Ðto€plead€not€guilty,€guilty,€or€òònolo€contendereóó.€€Rule€11€does€not€create€a€right€to€address€the€juryÐ #l! Ðduring€entry€of€the€plea.€€Indeed,€the€appropriate€time€to€address€the€jury€prior€to€the€presentation€ofÐ $X" Ðevidence€is€within€the€opening€statement,€which€permits€the€defendant€to€set€ð ðforth€their€respectiveÐ ô$D # Ðcontentions,€views€of€the€facts€and€theories€of€the€lawsuit.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€20„9„301€(1994).€Ð à%0!$ ÐThe€overriding€perspective€of€this€issue€is€addressed,€however,€by€the€well„established€principle€thatÐ Ì&"% Ðin€the€absence€of€any€statutory€or€procedural€right,€the€trial€judge€has€wide€discretion€in€conductingÐ ¸'#& Ðtrial€matters.€€òòMarress€v.€Carolina€Direct€Furnitureóó,€785€S.W.2d€121,€129€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐSecond,€the€Appellantððs€argument€that€he€was€denied€a€fair€trial€because€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€gaveÐ )à$( Ðthe€appearance€to€the€jury€that€the€trial€court€and€the€prosecution€had€a€common€goal€is€withoutÐ |*Ì%) Ðmerit.€€The€trial€court€sustained€the€prosecutionððs€objection€during€a€bench€conference€out€of€theÐ h+¸&* Ðhearing€of€the€jury.€€If€we€were€to€adopt€the€Appellantððs€argument,€a€trial€court€would€not€beÐ ° Ðpermitted€to€sustain€any€objection€by€way€of€a€bench€conference.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð œì ÐÌò òÓ  ÓII.€€Motion€for€Mistrialó óÐ tÄ ÐÌÓ/Óà  àSecond,€the€Appellant€argues€that€ð ðthe€trial€court€erred€by€denying€[his]€motion€for€mistrialÐ L œ Ðafter€Detective€Bruce€stated€to€the€jury€that€[he]€was€suspected€of€uncharged€similar€crimes.ðð€€AfterÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€State€advised€that€Detective€Bruce€would€be€their€next€witness,€defense€counsel€moved€òòin€limineÐ $ t Ðóóthat€no€witness€be€allowed€to€mention€ð ðanything€about€any€prior€recordðð€and€that€the€StateððsÐ  ` Ðwitnesses€be€informed€of€such€a€ruling.׃Q×Ý ƒU#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trial€court€granted€the€motion,€and€the€prosecutorÐ ü L  Ðstepped€outside€the€courtroom€to€inform€Detective€Bruce€of€the€ruling.€€Then,€Detective€Bruce€wasÐ è 8  Ðcalled€to€the€stand,€and€the€following€colloquy€occurred:Ð Ô$  ÐÌà8  àQ.€€Subsequent€to€the€statement€that€you€took€from€Mr.€Futrell,€did€you€put€togetherÐ ¬ü  Ðphoto€spread€arrays,€or€participate€in€the€organization€of€photographic€displays?€€€Ð˜è Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àA.€€Yes,€sir.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àQ.€€And€you€mentioned€that€you€were€contacted€by€the€Memphis€Police€DepartmentÐ H˜ Ðrobbery€squad.€€Did€you€work€with€somebody€closely€on€this€case€and€on€other€casesÐ 4„ Ðfrom€the€robbery€bureau?Ð pÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àA.€€Yes,€I€did.ÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àQ.€€And€who€was€that,€sir?ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àA.€€Sergeant€Darren€Goods.ШøÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àQ.€€And€what€was€the€purpose€of€this€joint€investigation?ЀÐÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àA.€€We€believed€there€to€be€a€connection€between€this€particular€home€invasionÐ X ¨ Ðrobbery€and€several€home€invasion€robberies€in€Memphis€and€we€believe€the€suspectsÐ D!” Ðwere€the€same€in€several€of€those.Ð0"€ Ð Ð  ÐÌWhen€Detective€Bruce€implied€that€the€Appellant€was€a€suspect€in€other€home€invasion€robberies,Ð $X" Ðhe€injected€inadmissible€evidence€into€the€trial.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€R.€Evid.€404.€€This€evidence€wasÐ ô$D # Ðparticularly€damaging€because€it€informed€the€jury€of€the€Appellantððs€propensity€for€committingÐ à%0!$ Ðcrimes€similar€to€the€offense€on€trial.€€òòState€v.€Rickmanóó,€876€S.W.2d€824,€828€(Tenn.€1994).€€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àAfter€the€jury€heard€Detective€Bruceððs€statement,€the€Appellant€moved€for€a€mistrial.€€TheÐ ¤(ô#' Ðtrial€court€found€that€Detective€Bruceððs€statement€did€not€violate€the€Appellantððs€motion€òòin€limineóó,Ð )à$( Ðwhich€concerned€only€prior€arrests€and€convictions.€€Nonetheless,€the€trial€court€gave€the€followingÐ ° Ðcurative€instruction:Ð œì ÐÌà8  àLadies€and€gentlemen,€I€donððt€want€you€all€to€get€the€wrong€impression.€€Usually,€itððsÐ tÄ Ðnot€my€job€to€comment€on€the€evidence€as€the€Judge,€okay?€€But,€I€can€tell€youÐ `° Ðwhatððs€not€evidence.€€So€youððll€understand,€there€was€just€testimony€by€this€officerÐ L œ Ðthat€he€and€somebody€from€Memphis€were€working,€trying€to€solve€home€invasionÐ 8 ˆ Ðrobberies€and€thought€that€some€suspects€might€be€similar.€€Weððre€not€going€to€getÐ $ t Ðinto€the€facts€of€those€other€home€invasions,€or€robberies,€if€there€were€any,€ððcauseÐ  ` Ðthey€have€nothing€to€do€with€this€case.€€But,€that€investigation€did€not€result€in€Mr.Ð ü L  ÐHayes€being€charged€with€any€of€those€offenses,€nor€is€he€suspected€in€committingÐ è 8  Ðany€of€those€offenses,€nor€is€he€charged€with€any€of€those.€€So€we€donððt€want€you€allÐ Ô$  Ðto€think,€well€maybe,€Mr.€Hayes€had€done€this€before,€because€this€officerÐ À  Ðinvestigated€him.€€Weððre€not€hiding€any€of€the€charges.€€He€was€never€charged€withÐ ¬ü  Ðany€of€those.€€Any€youððre€only€to€consider€whether€or€not€the€state€has€proven€beyondÐ ˜è  Ða€reasonable€doubt€that€heððs€committed€these€three€indictments€here.Ð„Ô Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àSo€for€that€reason,€I€donððt€want€you€to€take€that€testimony€as€thinking€thatÐ \¬ Ðmaybe€Mr.€Hayes€has€committed€any€other€offenses,€because€thatððs€not€the€case.ÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àI€talked€with€the€attorneys€up€here.€€We€donððt€want€to€start€calling€witnessesÐ  p Ðabout€other€cases€that€have€nothing€to€do€with€Mr.€Hayes,€ððcause€it€has€nothing€to€doÐ  \ Ðwith€this€case.€€But,€at€the€same€time€I€donððt€want€to€leave€the€impression€with€youÐ øH Ðall€that€because€he€was€working€with€another€officer,€trying€to€solve€cases€thatÐ ä4 Ðsomehow€Mr.€Hayes€was€involved,€because€he€was€not.€€Does€everybody€understandÐ Ð  Ðthat?м Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` à(Jurors€affirmed).Ð ”ä ÐÌà8  àà ` àAll€right.€€And€Iððll€note€that€all€fourteen€of€them€are€shaking€their€heads,€yes.€Ðl¼Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àð ðGenerally,€a€mistrial€will€be€declared€in€a€criminal€case€only€when€there€is€a€'manifestÐ D!” Ðnecessity'€requiring€such€action€by€the€trial€judge."€€òòState€v.€Millbrooksóó,€819€S.W.2d€441,€443€(Tenn.Ð 0"€  ÐCrim.€App.€1991)€(citation€omitted).€€In€reviewing€a€trial€court's€denial€of€a€motion€for€mistrial,€thisÐ #l! Ðcourt€will€not€disturb€that€decision€unless€there€is€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Adkinsóó,€786Ð $X" ÐS.W.2d€642,€644€(Tenn.€1990);€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€929€S.W.2d€385,€388€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€Ð ô$D # ÐWhen€determining€whether€a€mistrial€is€necessary€after€a€witness€had€injected€improper€testimony,Ð à%0!$ Ðthis€court€has€often€considered:€(1)€whether€the€improper€testimony€resulted€from€questioning€by€theÐ Ì&"% ÐState,€rather€than€having€been€a€gratuitous€declaration;€(2)€the€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€theÐ ¸'#& ÐStateððs€proof;€and€(3)€whether€the€trial€court€promptly€gave€a€curative€instruction.€òòSee€State€v.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐDemetrius€Holmesóó,€No.€E2000„02263„CCA„R3„CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Nov.€20,€2001).€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àIn€the€present€case,€it€does€not€appear€from€the€record€that€the€State€furtively€sought€to€elicitÐ ° Ðâ âtestimony€regarding€the€Appellant's€criminal€background.€€Rather,€the€record€suggests€that€the€StateÐ œì Ðwas€attempting€to€establish€that,€through€the€course€of€a€joint€investigation,€the€two€officersÐ ˆØ Ðconstructed€photographic€and€video€line„ups.€€In€its€ruling,€the€trial€court€first€observed€that€theÐ tÄ Ðdetectiveððs€statements€did€not€violate€its€instruction€that€the€Stateððs€witnesses€òòóónot€mention€ð ðanythingÐ `° Ðabout€any€prior€record,ðð€as€no€record€was€mentioned.€€Further,€the€trial€court€found€that€theÐ L œ Ðdetectiveððs€statements€were€ð ðnot€done€on€purpose€to€implicate€the€defendant€in€other€crimes.ðð€€TheÐ 8 ˆ Ðproof€before€us€does€not€preponderate€against€this€finding.€€The€trial€court€immediately€provided€theÐ $ t Ðjury€with€a€sufficient€curative€instruction€that€they€were€to€disregard€the€statements€concerning€anyÐ  ` Ðuncharged€similar€conduct.€€We€presume€that€the€jury€followed€the€trial€court's€explicit€instructionÐ ü L  Ðnot€to€consider€the€inappropriate€statement.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908,€923€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.Ð è 8  Ðdeniedóó,€516€U.S.€829,€116€S.€Ct.€99€(1995).€€Under€these€circumstances,€we€hold€that€the€trial€courtÐ Ô$  Ðdid€not€abuse€its€discretion€when€it€denied€the€motion€for€a€mistrial.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.€Ð À  ÐÌÓ  Óò òIII.€€Scope€of€Cross„examinationó óÐ ˜è  ÐÌÓåOÓà  àThe€Appellant€next€argues€that€ð ðthe€trial€court€erred€by€improperly€limiting€the€cross„Ð pÀ Ðexamination€of€Dexter€Futrell.ðð€€We€note€that€this€issue€was€not€included€in€the€Appellant's€motionÐ \¬ Ðfor€new€trial.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e).€€The€general€rule€is€that€this€court€does€not€consider€issuesÐ H˜ Ðthat€are€not€raised€in€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Hoytóó,€928€S.W.2d€935,€946€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð 4„ ÐHowever,€this€court€may€"recognize€errors€pursuant€to€rule€52(b)€that€seriously€affect€the€fairness,Ð  p Ðintegrity€or€public€reputation€of€judicial€proceedings€when€necessary€to€prevent€a€miscarriage€ofÐ  \ Ðjustice."€€òòState€v.€Adkissonóó,€899€S.W.2d€626,€639„40€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€(footnotes€omitted).€Ð øH ÐThis€rule€should€not€be€invoked€to€recognize€an€error€that€is€not€plain€or€does€not€affect€a€substantialÐ ä4 Ðright€of€the€accused.€€òòIdóó.€at€640.€€In€determining€whether€an€error€constitutes€plain€error,€theÐ Ð  Ðreviewing€court€must€consider€the€following€factors:€Ð ¼  ÐÐ Ðà8  à(a)€the€record€must€clearly€establish€what€occurred€in€the€trial€court;€Ð ”ä Ð(b)€a€clear€and€unequivocal€rule€of€law€must€have€been€breached;€Ð €Ð Ð(c)€a€substantial€right€of€the€accused€must€have€been€adversely€affected;€Ð l¼ Ð(d)€the€accused€did€not€waive€the€issue€for€tactical€reasons;€and€Ð X ¨ Ð(e)€consideration€of€the€error€is€necessary€to€do€substantial€justice.€ÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌòòIdóó.€at€642€(footnotes€omitted).€Thus,€our€review€will€be€limited€to€address€alleged€errorsÐ #l! Ðencompassed€within€these€guidelines.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(b).€Ð $X" ÐÐ Ðà  àIn€his€brief,€the€Appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€improperly€limited€questioning€duringÐ à%0!$ Ðdefense€counsel's€cross„examination€of€the€co„defendant,€Dexter€Futrell,€who€was€a€key€witness€forÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€State.€€Specifically,€defense€counsel€asked:Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà8  àQ.€€And€you€were€[previously]€convicted€of€second€degree€murder?Ð)à$(Ð Ð  Ðà8  àA.€€Yes.Ð|*Ì%)Ð Ð  Ðà8  àQ.€€And€you€went€to€the€penitentiary€then,€I€guess;€didnððt€you?Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  Ðà8  àA.€€Yes.аРР Ðà8  àQ.€€Where€did€you€go€then?МìÐ Ð  Ðà8  àA.€€I€went€to€several€penitentiaries.ЈØÐ Ð  Ðà8  àQ.€€And€you€got€out?ÐtÄÐ Ð  Ðà8  àA.€€Yes,€sir.Ð`°Ð Ð  Ðà8  àQ.€€You€met€the€parole€board,€I€guess?ÐL œÐ Ð  Ðà8  àA.€€Yes,€sir.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  Ðà8  àQ.€€Did€you€talk€to€the€parole€board?Ð$ tÐ Ð  Ðà8  àA.€€Yes,€sir.Ð `Ð Ð  Ðà8  àQ.€€And€you€told€them€that€if€they€let€you€out€you€were€a€changed€man;€didnððt€you?Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€State€objected€to€the€relevance€of€the€question.€€The€trial€court€sustained€the€objection,Ð Ô$  Ðfinding€that€defense€counsel€ð ðwould€have€to€establish€that€at€some€time€[the€Appellant]€said€to€theÐ À  Ð[parole€board]€that€he€would€not€get€into€any€more€trouble.€€That€he,€in€fact,€was€planning€onÐ ¬ü  Ðcommitting€this€crime.ðð€€The€Appellant€argues€that€ð ð[t]he€question€was€proper€to€impeach€FutrellÐ ˜è  Ðas€well€as€to€show€his€bias€toward€the€defendant€on€account€of€the€favorable€treatment€he€hadÐ „Ô  Ðreceived.ððÐ pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€Sixth€Amendment€of€the€United€States€Constitution€guarantees€a€defendant€the€right€toÐ H˜ Ðconfront€witnesses€against€him€at€trial.€€òòóóSimilarly,€article€I,€ðð€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€andÐ 4„ ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„17„105€(1997)€guarantee€a€defendant's€right€to€meet€the€witnessesÐ  p Ðface„to„face.€€Essentially,€the€purpose€of€the€Confrontation€Clause€is€to€protect€the€defendant's€rightÐ  \ Ðof€cross„examination.€€òòTennessee€v.€Streetóó,€471€U.S.€409,€414,€105€S.€Ct.€2078,€2082€(1985)Ð øH Ð(citations€omitted).€€The€scope€of€cross„examination€extends€to€"any€matter€relevant€to€any€issue€inÐ ä4 Ðthe€case,€including€credibility."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€611(b).€€Moreover,€a€party€"may€offer€evidence€byÐ Ð  Ðcross„examination,€extrinsic€evidence,€or€both,€that€a€witness€is€biased€in€favor€of€or€prejudicedÐ ¼  Ðagainst€a€party€or€another€witness."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€616.€€However,€the€propriety,€scope,€manner,€andÐ ¨ø Ðcontrol€of€cross„examination€of€witnesses€rests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòCoffeeÐ ”ä Ðv.€Stateóó,€216€S.W.2d€702,€703€(Tenn.€1948);€òòState€v.€Dishmanóó,€915€S.W.2d€458,€463€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð €Ð ÐApp.€1995).€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àFirst,€there€was€no€evidence€produced€at€trial€that€Futrell€received€favorable€treatment€inÐ D!” Ðexchange€for€his€testimony€against€the€Appellant.€€The€parole€board€hearingòòóó€occurred€well€beforeÐ 0"€  Ðthe€commission€of€these€crimes.€€Regarding€the€questionððs€impact€on€Futrellððs€credibility,€defenseÐ #l! Ðcounsel€offered€no€proof€that€the€statement€had€in€fact€been€made€to€the€parole€board€or€that€FutrellÐ $X" Ðintended€to€commit€these€crimes€at€the€time€the€statement€was€made.€€ð ð[A]€defendant's€right€toÐ ô$D # Ðconfrontation€does€not€preclude€a€trial€court€from€imposing€limits€upon€cross„examination€whichÐ à%0!$ Ðtake€into€account€such€factors€as€harassment,€prejudice,€issue€confrontation,€witness€safety,€or€merelyÐ Ì&"% Ðrepetitive€or€marginally€relevant€interrogation."€€òòState€v.€Reidóó,€882€S.W.2d€423,€430€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ¸'#& ÐApp.€1994);€òòsee€State€v.€Wyrickóó,€62€S.W.3d€751,Ô#†XL1XX XL1Â#ÔÔ‡ XL1XXXL1Ô€770€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,Ð ¤(ô#' Ð(Tenn.€2001).€€Any€statement€made€by€Futrell€to€the€parole€board€regarding€whether€he€was€aÐ )à$( Ðâ âð ðchanged€manðð€is,€at€best,€marginally€relevant€to€the€Appellantððs€credibility,€and€defense€counsel€laidÐ |*Ì%) Ðno€foundation€for€asking€the€question.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€limitingÐ ° Ðinterrogation€into€such€matters.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€no€error€occurred.Ð œì Ðâ âÌòòóóò òÓ  ÓIV.€€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidenceó óÐ tÄ ÐÌÓ(kÓà  àThe€Appellant€argues€that€the€evidence€introduced€at€trial€was€insufficient€to€support€hisÐ L œ Ðconvictions€for€aggravated€burglary€and€two€counts€of€aggravated€robbery.€€Specifically,€he€contendsÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€he€was€not€sufficiently€identified€as€the€perpetrator€of€the€offenses.€€A€jury€conviction€removesÐ $ t Ðthe€presumption€of€innocence€with€which€a€defendant€is€cloaked€and€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt,Ð  ` Ðso€that€on€appeal,€a€convicted€defendant€has€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€the€evidence€isÐ ü L  Ðinsufficient.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€In€determining€the€sufficiency€ofÐ è 8  Ðthe€evidence,€this€court€does€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2dÐ Ô$  Ð832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Likewise,€it€is€not€the€duty€of€this€court€to€revisit€questions€of€witnessÐ À  Ðcredibility€on€appeal,€that€function€being€within€the€province€of€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Holderóó,€15Ð ¬ü  ÐS.W.3d€905,€911€(Tenn.€1999);€€òòState€v.€Burlisonóó,€868€S.W.2d€713,€719€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€Ð ˜è  ÐInstead,€the€Appellant€must€establish€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€was€so€deficient€that€noÐ „Ô  Ðreasonable€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonableÐ pÀ Ðdoubt.€€òòóóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);òò€Jackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979);Ð \¬ ÐòòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994)òòóó.€€Moreover,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongestÐ H˜ Ðlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.òò€€StateÐ 4„ Ðv.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).€€These€rules€are€applicable€to€findings€of€guilt€predicatedÐ  p Ðupon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€both€direct€and€circumstantialÐ  \ Ðevidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€Ð øH ÐÌà  àAggravated€robbery€is€defined€as€robbery€accomplished€through€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon.€Ð Ð  ÐTenn.€€Code€Ann.€ðð€ò òó ó39„13„402(a)(1)€(1997).€€A€person€is€guilty€of€aggravated€burglary€if€that€person,Ð ¼  Ðwithout€the€effective€consent€of€the€property€owner,€enters€a€habitation€with€intent€to€commit€a€theft.€Ð ¨ø ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„14„402(a)(3),€„403(a)€(1997).€€The€proof€at€trial,€in€the€light€most€favorableÐ ”ä Ðto€the€State,€established€that€both€victims€identified€the€Appellant€as€one€of€the€perpetrators.€Ð €Ð ÐAdditionally,€the€co„defendant,€Futrell,€testified€that€the€Appellant€participated€in€the€crimes€at€theÐ l¼ ÐZarshenas€residence€on€the€evening€in€question.€€While€the€Appellant€presented€alibi€witnesses€andÐ X ¨ Ðthe€co„defendant,€Kimbrough,€testified€that€the€Appellant€was€not€involved€in€the€crimes,€the€weightÐ D!” Ðand€credibility€of€the€evidence€is€resolved€by€the€jury.€€The€credible€testimony€of€one€identificationÐ 0"€  Ðwitness€is€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€if€the€witness€viewed€the€accused€under€suchÐ #l! Ðcircumstances€as€would€permit€a€positive€identification€to€be€made.€€òòState€v.€Stricklandóó,€885€S.W.2dÐ $X" Ð85,€87€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€We€find€the€evidence€legally€sufficient€to€support€the€conclusionÐ ô$D # Ðthat€the€Appellant€committed€the€offenses€of€aggravated€burglary€and€aggravated€€robbery.€€ThisÐ à%0!$ Ðissue€is€without€merit.€Ð  Ì&"% Ðò òÓ  ÓV.€€Cumulative€Effect€of€All€Errorsó ó€€Ð ° ÐÌÓtzÓà  àThe€Appellant€contends€that€the€cumulative€effect€of€all€errors€violates€his€constitutionalÐ ŒÜ Ðrights.€€As€this€court€has€not€found€any€error€with€respect€to€the€Appellant's€previous€issues,€we€findÐ xÈ Ðthis€final€issue€to€be€meritless.Ð d´ ÐÌÓ  Óò òCONCLUSIONó ó€Ð < Œ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àBased€upon€the€foregoing,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€limiting€defenseÐ  h Ðcounselððs€statements€during€entry€of€the€Appellantððs€plea€or€by€denying€a€mistrial€after€DetectiveÐ  T  ÐBruce€stated€that€the€Appellant€was€suspected€of€uncharged€similar€crimes.€€It€was€not€plain€errorÐ ð @  Ðfor€the€trial€court€to€limit€the€scope€of€the€Appellantððs€cross„examination€of€Dexter€Futrell.€Ð Ü,  ÐFurthermore,€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€sustain€the€Appellantððs€convictions.€€Accordingly,€theÐ È  Ðjudgment€of€the€Shelby€County€Criminal€Court€is€affirmed.Ô#†XL1XX XL1Íh#ÔÐ ´  ÐÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð <Œ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE