ÿWPC·( ™—Úkï¿iœ!?Œ!¹cËî°èhį[^¤$¡[AÉfÊlêºÈ2»Ý„r9oÿ*ûlèËt×w󬣯:”1II×Xh5;® ã«9Ýkr–µ²i"…Òé:P²P°°ÆðWË&¦‚“nœêZƒïñ_úu!ÎØŠKÎ}̨}ed±»{ŤO ½Rþl_†yÓ‚ÎxVp]­¸Æpãd{Ü.—¥.– .#Ñõ¹Ÿ] ˜Ùèòˆ"Œ†Q:ò‚¹‹ö{¦íN;Ì­æ0¦U†§Ý[wZͽš¨Â9wš”Ã)<}žíz;êßBÿv6J MÑZÝèÃ(/áÃÌŽ­è¼Å²‚G éÌ„ÈÝk3Š•4ö¡Ä‰èˆÒú&GÔ~öê‰^ ݵžkÔmËæä®æzkƒÒ´õãÉí?Zðó/·gq÷'ɼxåÐÄ)þv‡óƒ‰„bþ V°ãi0ÂêøkÓ|Ú¶v©·®|wÎdÊ®´@&˜æµx’¿5`’®†/ : K#EZÌOù%ÂÝSöõH£i*k™ê5]K¡]ƒ~äÔ$ŽK°sø¡ð;ŸëV&•l®ÇÑÁ].k=2ö=èb° éB1ÓÿÃju±SÞÑb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz 2‘ ÆÃƉÆOÆ 0 DÛN­!êÎE¸Ôº±Žl?-««ÌØ!¤#¤#¤#¤#¤#¤#¤#¤#¤#¤#¤#¤#¤#¤#¤#¤#¤#b¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬#¬# 0 ë´#´#´#´# BŸ$Ÿ$ 0¤¼$ D3`% D-“% 0KÀ%À% AS &Æ^& 0¤$' 0DÈ' A« (˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0»Ħ2)â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularq\;'¢¤ ˜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.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ (Ý ƒRw¿$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÇdò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔDefense€counsel€asked€Officer€Ô_ÔTrenthamÔ_Ô€if€ð ðMiss€Ô_ÔLovedayÔ_Ôðð€ever€mentioned€the€harelip,€and€Ô_ÔTrenthamÔ_ÔÐ ° Ðanswered,€ð ðRefused€to€speak€to€me.ðð€This€response€makes€sense€only€if€Ô_ÔTrenthamÔ_Ô€understood€that€he€was€beingÐ xÈ Ðquestioned€concerning€what€the€defendant,€Ô_ÔLovedayÔ_Ô,€said,€not€the€victim,€Hatmaker.€€This€was,€in€fact,€what€he€clarifiedÐ @ Ðon€redirect,€that€is,€that€he€had€responded€to€defense€counselððs€question€as€it€related€to€the€defendant€not€the€victim.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó £Ý ƒRw¿$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÇdò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOur€supreme€court€has€adopted€the€òòÔ_ÔBiggersÔ_Ôóó€factors€as€those€that€should€be€considered€in€evaluating€theÐ ° Ðreliability€of€an€identification.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔRippyÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€550€S.W.2d€636,€640€(Tenn.€1977). àÝ ƒRw¿$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÇdò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔA€ð ðÔ_ÔshowupÔ_Ôðð€is€a€one„on„one€confrontation€where€a€single€individual€is€ð ðpresented€as€a€suspect€to€a€viewingÐ ° Ðeyewitness.ðð€€òòUnited€States€v.€Sandersóó,€547€F.2d€1037,€1040€(8th€Cir.€1976),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€431€U.S.€956,€97€S.€Ct.€2679,Ð xÈ Ð53€L.€Ed.€2d€273€(1977). ÊÝ ƒRw¿$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÇdò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note,€as€did€the€State€in€its€brief,€that€no€contemporaneous€objection€was€made€by€the€defense€to€theÐ ° Ðpositive,€in„court€identification€made€by€the€victim.€€According€to€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure,€a€party€isÐ xÈ Ðnot€entitled€to€relief€who€ð ðinvited€error,€waived€an€error,€or€failed€to€take€whatever€steps€were€reasonably€available€toÐ @  Ðcure€an€error.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36,€Advisory€Commission€Ô_ÔCmtsÔ_Ô.€€We€have,€nevertheless,€chosen€to€address€this€issue.€Ð ° Ѐ §Ý ƒRw¿$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÇdò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOur€supreme€court€has€adopted€the€ð ðtotality€of€the€circumstancesðð€rule€for€evaluating€the€reliability€ofÐ ° Ðidentifications€made€where€suggestive€confrontation€procedures€were€employed.€€òòSeeóó€òòBennett€v.€Stateóó,€530€S.W.2d€511,Ð xÈ Ð515€(Tenn.€1975). bÝ ƒRw¿$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÇdò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€defendant€argues€that€some€four€to€five€hours€had€passed,€while€Ô_ÔtheStateÔ_Ô€argues€that€no€more€than€twoÐ ° Ðand€a€half€hours€passed.€€The€record€supports€the€Stateððs€position. #Ý ƒRw¿$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÇdò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note€that€the€phrase€ð ðvery€substantial€likelihood€of€irreparable€misidentificationðð€has€been€applied€byÐ ° Ðcourts€as€the€standard€for€determining€admissibility€of€both€€in„court€identifications€and€out„of„court€identifications€inÐ xÈ Ðthe€context€of€unnecessarily€and€impermissibly€suggestive€procedures.€€The€òòÔ_ÔBiggersÔ_Ôóó€Court€suggested€a€distinction€by€Ð @ Ðthe€deletion€of€the€word€ð ðirreparableðð€when€the€question€is€the€admissibility€of€testimony€concerning€an€out„of„courtÐ X Ðidentification.€€òòSeeóó€òòNeil€v.€Ô_ÔBiggersÔ_Ôóó,€409€U.S.€188,€198,€93€S.€Ct.€375,€381,€34€L.€Ed.€2d€401€(1972).€€While€it€isÐ Ð  Ðtheoretically€possible€that€an€out„of„court€identification€could€be€suppressed€but€ð ðrepairedðð€by€an€in„court€identificationÐ ˜è Ðby€the€same€person,€Professor€Ô_ÔLaFaveÔ_Ô€has€described€such€a€scenario€as€ð ðunlikely.ðð€€Wayne€R.€Ô_ÔLaFaveÔ_Ô€&€Ô_ÔJeroldÔ_Ô€H.€Ô_ÔIsrealÔ_Ô,Ð ` ° ÐòòCriminal€Procedureóó€ðð€7.4(c)€(€2d€ed.€1992).€€Whether€or€not€an€identification€can€be€repaired€by€other€testimony,€bothÐ ( x Ðin„court€and€out„of„court€identifications€present€issues€that€are€analyzed€using€the€same€elements.€ ÂÝ ƒRw¿$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÇdò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔDuring€questioning,€the€defendant€was€given€the€date,€ð ðJuly€15,€1995,ðð€apparently€as€the€offense€date.€Ð ° ÐHowever,€in€doing€so,€the€attorney€Ô_ÔmisspokeÔ_Ô,€and€the€defendant€responded€as€if€the€date€about€which€he€was€beingÐ xÈ Ðquestioned€was€June€14,€1995. - ù-(|G2w¿$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€±¬»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÇdò»»Ô 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_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼±¬»»»ÔÑ8€¯ëXXdð»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îê±¬ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼±¬»îîê #ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àApril€2000€SessionÐ X ÐÔ‡X¯ëX»¼±¬ÔÌò òÔ#†¼±¬»XX¯ë#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€SAMUEL€WAYNE€Ô_ÔLOVEDAYÔ_ÔòòóóÔ‡X¯ëX»¼±¬Ôó óÐ  ` ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ  h Ðà@@øøìàNo.€60107€€€€€€Ray€L.€Jenkins,€JudgeÐ  X ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<×` AßÐ Ø(  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E1999„01090„CCA„R3„CDÐ ×'  ÐSeptember€18,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ Ç  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<¶` AßÐ ·  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant,€who€was€convicted€of€attempted€aggravated€rape,€aggravated€sexual€battery,€andÐ ¶ Ðaggravated€assault,€appealed€these€convictions,€presenting€as€issues€whether€the€out„of„court€Ô_ÔshowupÔ_ÔÐ ¦ö Ðidentification€of€the€defendant€was€impermissibly€suggestive€and€whether€the€subsequent€in„courtÐ –æ Ðidentification€was€tainted€as€a€result.€Based€upon€our€review,€we€conclude€that€these€issues€areÐ †Ö Ðwithout€merit€and,€thus,€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð vÆ ÐÓÚÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ V¦ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼±¬»àX¯ë¬#ÔÔ‡X¯ëX.¼±¬ÔAlan€E.€Glenn,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòThomas€T.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€joined.€Ð 6† ÐòòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€concurring€in€results€only.Ð &v ÐÌD.€David€Sexton,€II€(on€appeal)€and€Thomas€Slaughter€(at€trial),€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€theÐ V Ðappellant,€Samuel€Wayne€Ô_ÔLovedayÔ_Ô.Ð öF ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€R.€Stephen€Ô_ÔJobeÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð Ö& ÐRandall€E.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General;€and€G.€Scott€Green,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ Æ  ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ¶!  ÐÓ®ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼±¬»XX¯ëÝ#ÔÔ‡X¯ëX»¼±¬ÔÐ –#æ" ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼±¬»XX¯ë‰ #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X¯ëX»¼±¬Ôà  àThe€defendant,€Samuel€Wayne€Ô_ÔLovedayÔ_Ô,€was€convicted€by€a€Knox€County€jury€of€attemptedÐ v%Æ $ Ðaggravated€rape,€aggravated€sexual€battery,€and€aggravated€assault.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€theÐ f&¶!% Ðdefendant€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€to€eleven€years€for€the€attempted€aggravated€rape,€elevenÐ V'¦"& Ðyears€for€the€aggravated€sexual€battery,€and€five€years€for€the€aggravated€assault,€with€all€terms€toÐ F(–#' Ðbe€served€concurrently.€€Ð 6)†$( ÐÌÓ*°,XƒXŒ –X°œX*Óà  àIn€this€appeal€as€of€right,€the€defendant€raises€two,€related,€constitutional€due€process€issuesÐ +f&* Ðfor€our€review:Ð ,V'+ Ðâ âÐ ö,F(,ý¢ ÐÔ_Ôà8  àà8` Ð Ð àI.€à8Œ ` x` xàWhether€the€out„of„court€showup€identification€of€theÐ ° Ðâ âdefendant€was€impermissibly€suggestive,€and€thus€testimonyÐ  ð Ðconcerning€the€identification€itself€should€not€have€beenÐ à Ðadmitted€into€evidence;ЀЌ LŒ L ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àII.€à8Œ ` x` xàWhether€the€in„court€identification€made€by€the€victim€wasÐ ` ° Ðtainted€by€the€showup€and€thus€should€not€have€been€admittedÐ P   Ðinto€evidence.€Ð@ Œ LŒ L ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€did€not€file€a€motion€to€suppress€the€identification€evidence,€either€as€to€theÐ  p  Ðout„of„court€showup€or€the€in„court€identification.€€Failure€to€raise€these€issues€pretrial€constitutesÐ `  Ða€waiver€of€his€right€to€attack€the€identification€evidence€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(b)(3);Ð P  Ðòòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Stricklandóó,€885€S.W.2d€85,€88€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€We,€nevertheless,€electÐ ð@  Ðto€address€the€issues€on€the€merits.€€Having€reviewed€the€entire€record€and€found€no€reversible€error,Ð à0  Ðwe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð Ð  ÐÌà@¤¤(ìàò òòòFACTSó óóóˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€at€trial€showed€that€the€defendant€first€approached€the€victim,€Kelly€Hatmaker,Ð à Ðas€she€was€walking€alone€in€the€early€morning€hours€of€June€15,€1995.€€Hatmaker€had€gone€withÐ €Ð ÐTony€Frye€and€the€coupleððs€son,€to€the€residence€of€a€friend€of€Fryeððs€in€Christenberry€Heights€inÐ pÀ ÐKnoxville,€for€a€cookout.€€At€some€point,€Hatmaker€and€Frye€engaged€in€an€argument€that€led€toÐ `° ÐHatmakerððs€walking€out€of€the€house,€in€her€sock€feet,€in€search€of€a€pay€phone€so€that€she€could€callÐ P  Ðher€mother„in„law€to€come€pick€her€up.€€While€walking€along€Central€Avenue€near€a€railroad€trestle,Ð @ Ðshe€saw€an€individual€walking€towards€her.€€She€crossed€to€the€other€side€of€the€street€to€avoid€theÐ 0€ Ðindividual.€€As€they€passed,€he€called€out,€propositioning€her.€€She€responded€that€she€was€ð ðnot€aÐ  p Ðprostituteðð€and€kept€walking.€€He€also€kept€walking,€but€the€victim€then€heard€something€and€turnedÐ ` Ðto€see€the€individual€running€up€behind€her.€€At€first€he€offered€to€help€her,€but€once€she€dropped€aÐ P Ðrock€that€she€was€carrying€to€ward€off€dogs,€he€grabbed€her€by€her€ponytail€and€dragged€her€ten€toÐ ð@ Ðfifteen€feet€down€the€railroad€tracks.€€There€were€street€lights€in€the€area,€so€the€victim€was€able€toÐ à0 Ðget€a€good€look€at€the€defendantððs€face.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€slung€the€victim€to€the€ground€and€told€her€he€was€going€to€have€both€vaginalÐ °"  Ðand€oral€sex€with€her.€€She€fought€back€and€escaped,€only€to€be€run€down€and€recaptured.€€UponÐ  #ð! Ðrecapturing€her,€the€defendant€tried€to€place€his€penis€in€her€mouth€and€told€her,€ð ðIððm€going€to€killÐ $à" Ðyou,€you€bitch.ðð€€The€victim€fought€back€again€and€managed€to€free€herself.€€The€defendant€thenÐ €%Ð # Ðpicked€up€a€piece€of€concrete€and€threw€it€at€her,€hitting€her€in€the€chest.€€The€defendant€again€triedÐ p&À!$ Ðto€put€his€penis€in€her€mouth,€but€she€kicked€him€in€the€groin€and€escaped.€€She€ran€screaming€forÐ `'°"% Ðhelp€across€a€vacant€lot€to€a€nearby€house.€€The€whole€encounter€lasted€some€thirty€to€forty„fiveÐ P( #& Ðminutes.€€The€victim€testified€that€the€defendant€was€wearing€jeans€and€a€very€light€blue€T„shirt€theÐ @)$' Ðnight€of€the€attack.€€She€further€testified€that€she€was€able€to€clearly€see€him€several€times€during€theÐ 0*€%( Ðattack€because€ð ð[h]e€was€in€my€face€a€lot.ððÐ  +p&) ÐÐ ,`'* Ðà  àCarl€Reynolds€heard€the€victim€screaming,€ð ðHelp,€help,€heððs€gonna€kill€me;€heððs€gonna€killÐ ° Ðme.ðð€€Reynolds€jumped€out€of€his€bed,€looked€out€the€window,€and€saw€a€female€running€across€aÐ  ð Ðvacant€lot.€€Reynolds€put€on€some€clothes€and€then€opened€his€door,€telling€the€victim€to€get€insideÐ à Ðhis€gate.€€From€his€porch,€Reynolds€finally€saw€the€individual€that€the€victim€kept€pointing€out,Ð €Ð Ðtelling€Reynolds,€ð ðThere€he€is;€there€he€is.ðð€€Reynolds€was€not€close€enough€to€see€the€face€of€theÐ pÀ Ðman€who€was€standing€on€the€railroad€track€before€the€man€turned€and€ð ðtook€off€in€a€fast€haste,€youÐ ` ° Ðknow,€walkinðð€fast.ðð€Reynolds€did€see€that€the€individual€was€wearing€jeans€and€a€T„shirt.Ð P   ÐÌà  àOfficer€Ron€Trentham€with€the€Knoxville€Police€Department€was€among€the€four€officersÐ 0 € Ðresponding€to€a€911€dispatcherððs€alert€to€be€on€the€lookout€for€a€suspect€in€an€attempted€rape€whoÐ  p  Ðwas€last€seen€near€the€tracks€on€Central€Avenue€around€the€Southern€Foundry.€€Trentham€and€theÐ `  Ðother€officers€were€given€a€general€description€of€a€white€male€with€long€brown€hair,€wearing€a€whiteÐ P  Ðshirt€and€blue€jean€pants€who€was€intoxicated.€€For€about€an€hour,€the€officers€carried€out€a€ð ðgridÐ ð@  Ðsearchðð€of€the€area€without€finding€anyone.€€Officer€Trentham€testified€that€the€four€officers€hadÐ à0  Ðregrouped€on€Central€Avenue€to€discuss€where€the€suspect€could€have€gone€when€a€white€male€withÐ Ð  Ðlong€brown€hair,€wearing€a€white€shirt€and€jeans,€emerged€from€bushes€growing€against€the€wall€ofÐ À Ðthe€Southern€Foundry.€€He€started€running€across€the€street€with€his€head€down.€€When€he€lookedÐ ° Ðup€and€saw€the€police€cars€and€the€four€officers€standing€there,€he€veered€off€to€the€left.€€OfficerÐ  ð ÐTrentham€went€after€him€and€apprehended€him,€tackling€him€to€the€ground.€€In€court,€OfficerÐ à ÐTrentham€identified€the€man€he€caught€as€the€defendant.€€According€to€Trentham,€ð ðHe€had€a€strongÐ €Ð Ðodor€of€alcoholic€beverage€coming€from€his€breath€and€his€person.€€He€had€long,€unkept€[sic]€hair.€Ð pÀ ÐHe€was€violent€at€the€time€of€the€arrest€by€elbowing€and€basically€resisting,€trying€to€get€away€fromÐ `° Ðus.ðð€€Furthermore,€the€defendant€was€dirty,€ð ðall€of€his€clothes€were€dirty,ðð€and€he€was€ð ðreal€sweaty.ðð€Ð P  ÐÌà  àThe€officers€put€the€defendant€in€handcuffs€and€placed€him€in€the€back€seat€of€one€of€theÐ 0€ Ðpolice€cars.€€Trentham€testified€further€that€the€defendant€was€taken€immediately€to€the€hospitalÐ  p Ðwhere€the€victim€was€being€treated.€€The€victim€was€brought€out€in€a€wheelchair€to€the€carport€of€theÐ ` Ðemergency€room€of€the€hospital.€€Officer€Trentham€had€the€defendant€step€out€of€the€police€car,€someÐ P Ðsix€feet€from€the€victim,€and€the€victim€did€not€hesitate€in€identifying€the€defendant€as€her€attacker.€Ð ð@ ÐThis€confrontation€occurred€within€approximately€two€hours€of€the€attack.€€Ð à0 ÐÌÓ* °X°,XƒXŒ –X*Óà  àThe€defendant€has€a€distinguishing€physical€characteristic,€a€harelip.€€According€to€theÐ À! Ðtestimony€of€Tony€Frye,€who€followed€the€ambulance€that€took€the€victim€to€the€hospital,€the€victimÐ °"  Ðtold€a€police€officer€that€her€attacker€had€a€harelip.€€The€exchange€at€trial€between€Trentham€andÐ  #ð! Ðcounsel€for€the€defense€fails€to€clarify€whether€it€was€Trentham€whom€the€victim€told€about€theÐ $à" Ðharelip.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð €%Ð # Ðâ âÐ p&À!$ Ðà  àThe€defendant€testified€that€he€was€not€the€perpetrator€of€the€attack€on€the€victim.€€HeÐ ° Ðâ âtestified€that€on€the€day€in€question׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€he€had€gone€directly€from€his€job€to€the€hospital€to€visit€hisÐ  ð Ðterminally€ill€brother€and€be€with€his€mother.€€He€left€the€hospital€around€7:30€p.m.€and€went€withÐ à Ðhis€brother„in„law€and€nephew€to€Jackððs€Bar€which€is€located€on€Central€Avenue,€about€two€and€aÐ €Ð Ðhalf€blocks€from€where€the€attack€took€place.€€According€to€the€defendant,€he€drank€three€or€fourÐ pÀ Ðbeers€and€left€the€bar€at€approximately€9:30€p.m.€€He€left€the€bar€alone€to€walk€home.€€Instead,€heÐ ` ° Ðstopped€on€a€grassy€hill€near€the€trestle€and€fell€asleep.€€When€he€awoke,€he€was€in€handcuffs.€€TheÐ P   Ðdefendant€admitted€to€being€asleep€some€twenty„five€to€fifty€feet€from€the€location€of€HatmakerððsÐ @  Ðattack€but€testified€that€he€heard€and€saw€nothing.€€He€admitted€that€the€grid€search€conducted€byÐ 0 € Ðpolice€covered€the€area€where€he€claimed€to€have€been€sleeping.€€He€denied€running€from€the€bushes.€Ð  p  ÐHe€admitted€that€he€was€wearing€a€white€T„shirt€and€jeans€and€that€he€has€a€harelip.€€He€claimed€thatÐ `  Ðwhen€he€was€taken€to€the€hospital€for€the€victim€to€identify€him,€the€victim€was€some€seventy„fiveÐ P  Ðto€one€hundred€yards€away€from€him.Ð ð@  ÐÌà@òò&ìàò òANALYSISó óˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà@ääìàò òI.€€Out„of„Court€IdentificationˆÐ ° Ðó óÌà  àIn€the€trial€of€this€case,€no€issue€was€raised€questioning€whether€the€assault€of€KellyÐ à ÐHatmaker€occurred€in€the€early€hours€of€June€15,€1995.€€The€only€issue€was€whether€the€defendantÐ €Ð Ðwas€the€perpetrator.€€The€defendant€argues€first€that€evidence€concerning€the€victimððs€identificationÐ pÀ Ðof€him€at€the€hospital€shortly€after€the€attack€should€have€been€excluded€because€the€identificationÐ `° Ðprocedure€violated€his€constitutional€due€process€rights.€€Specifically,€the€defendant€asserts€that€theÐ P  Ðcompelled€confrontation€at€the€hospitalððs€emergency€room€carport€was€carried€out€underÐ @ Ðcircumstances,€including€the€fact€that€he€was€presented€in€handcuffs,€that€unfairly€focused€theÐ 0€ Ðvictimððs€attention€on€him€as€the€man€the€police€believed€to€be€her€attacker.€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àDue€process€is€violated€if€an€identification€procedure€is:€(1)€unnecessarily€or€impermissiblyÐ P Ðsuggestive;€and€(2)€gives€rise€to€a€ð ðvery€substantial€likelihood€of€irreparable€misidentification.ðð׃è×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Рð@ ÐòòSimmons€v.€United€Statesóó,€390€U.S.€377,€384,€88€S.€Ct.€967,€971,€19€L.€Ed.€2d€1247€(1968).€€SinceÐ à0 Ðð ðreliability€is€the€linchpin€in€determining€the€admissibility€of€identification€testimony,ðð€òòManson€v.Ð ° ÐBrathwaiteóó,€432€U.S.€116,€114,€97€S.€Ct.€2243,€2253,€53€L.€Ed.€2d€140€(1977),€the€central€questionÐ  ð Ðis€ð ðwhether€under€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€the€identification€was€reliable€even€though€theÐ à Ðconfrontation€procedure€was€suggestive.ðð€€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó,€409€U.S.€188,€199,€93€S.€Ct.€375,€382,Ð €Ð Ð34€L.€Ed.€2d€401€(1972)€(interior€quotations€omitted);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòStovall€v.€Dennoóó,€388€U.S.€293,€302,Ð pÀ Ð87€S.€Ct.€1967,€1972,€18€L.€Ed.€2d€1199€(1967)€(stating€that€ð ða€claimed€violation€of€due€process€ofÐ ` ° Ðlaw€in€the€conduct€of€a€confrontation€depends€on€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€surrounding€itðð).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РP   ÐÌà  à€The€factors€to€be€considered€in€evaluating€the€reliability€of€an€identification€include€theÐ 0 € Ðfollowing:€(1)€the€opportunity€of€the€witness€to€view€the€criminal€at€the€time€of€the€crime;€(2)€theÐ  p  Ðwitnessððs€degree€of€attention;€(3)€the€accuracy€of€the€witnessððs€prior€description€of€the€criminal;€(4)Ð `  Ðthe€level€of€certainty€demonstrated€by€the€witness€at€the€confrontation;€and€(5)€the€length€of€timeÐ P  Ðbetween€the€crime€and€the€confrontation.׃è×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeóó€òòBiggersóó,€409€U.S.€at€199,€93€S.€Ct.€at€382.€€TheÐ ð@  Ðcorrupting€effect€of€the€suggestive€procedure€is€weighed€against€these€factors.€€òòSeeóó€òòMansonóó,€432€U.S.Ð à0  Ðat€114;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Stricklandóó,€885€S.W.2d€85,€88€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(ð ðThe€degree€ofÐ Ð  Ðreliability€of€the€identification,€as€indicated€by€[the€òòBiggersóó]€factors,€should€be€assessed€in€light€ofÐ À Ðthe€suggestiveness€of€the€identification€procedure€.€.€.€.ðð).Ð ° ÐÌà  àThe€identification€procedure€carried€out€in€this€case,€commonly€called€a€ð ðshowup,ðð׃@×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€has€longÐ à Ðbeen€considered€to€be€ð ðinherently€suggestive€and€unfair€to€the€accused.ðð€€òòState€v.€Thomasóó,€780Ð €Ð ÐS.W.2d€379,€381€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1989).€€For€this€reason,€TennesseeÐ pÀ Ðcourts€have€repeatedly€condemned€the€use€of€showups€as€a€means€of€establishing€the€identity€of€anÐ `° Ðindividual€suspected€of€committing€a€crime,€unless€ð ð(a)€there€are€imperative€circumstances€whichÐ P  Ðnecessitate€a€showup,€or€(b)€the€showup€occurs€as€an€on„the„scene€investigatory€procedure€shortlyÐ @ Ðafter€the€commission€of€the€crime.ðð€€òòIdóó.€(citations€omitted).€€As€to€imperative€circumstances,€theÐ 0€ ÐUnited€States€Supreme€Court€has€identified€not€only€circumstances€such€as€the€possible€death€of€theÐ  p Ðwitness/victim,€as€was€the€case€in€òòStovallóó,€where€a€suspect€was€brought€to€the€hospital€room€of€theÐ ` Ðknife„attack€victim,€but€also€circumstances€such€as€noted€in€òòSimmons,óó€including€the€facts€that:€ð ðAÐ P Ðserious€felony€had€been€committed.€€The€perpetrators€were€still€at€large.€€The€inconclusive€cluesÐ ð@ Ðwhich€law€enforcement€officials€possessed€led€to€[the€suspects].€€It€was€essential€for€the€FBI€agentsÐ à0 Ðswiftly€to€determine€whether€they€were€on€the€right€track€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòSimmonsóó,€390€U.S.€at€384„85,€88Ð Ð  ÐS.€Ct.€at€971.Ð À! ÐÐ °"  Ðà  àIn€this€case,€the€one„on„one€showup€was€inherently€suggestive,€particularly€because€theÐ ° Ðdefendant€was€in€handcuffs€and€pulled€from€the€police€car€for€identification.€€The€practice€ofÐ  ð Ðpresenting€a€handcuffed€suspect€in€a€one„on„one€confrontation€has€been€condemned.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòWebbÐ à Ðv.€Haveneróó,€549€F.2d€1081€(6th€Cir.€1977);€òòState€v.€Bealóó,€614€S.W.2d€77,€81„82€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),Ð €Ð Ðòòpermóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1981)€(describing€such€practices€as€ð ðcreating€a€substantial€likelihood€ofÐ pÀ Ðmisidentification€and€are€thus€to€be€shunned€unless€absolutely€unavoidableðð).€€Ð ` ° ÐÌà  àWe€consider€next€whether€the€showup€was€unnecessarily€or€impermissibly€suggestive.€€HereÐ @  Ðthere€was€no€concern€about€whether€the€victim€was€in€a€critical€state.€€Officer€Trentham€was€unawareÐ 0 € Ðof€her€condition€prior€to€the€showup.€€On€the€other€hand,€a€serious€felony€had€been€committed.€€TheÐ  p  Ðpolice€had€chased€and€tackled€a€fleeing€suspect€who€fit€the€description€of€the€attacker€and€was€foundÐ `  Ðin€the€very€area€of€the€attack.€€It€was€important€that€the€police€either€continue€the€search,€knowingÐ P  Ðthat€a€violent€criminal€was€still€at€large,€or€confirm€that€they€were€on€the€right€track€with€theÐ ð@  Ðdefendant€in€custody.€€The€attack€had€taken€place€within€two€to€three€hours€of€the€confrontation,€andÐ à0  Ðthe€victim€was€still€in€the€emergency€room,€so€her€experience€was€vivid.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  à€We€conclude€that€the€showup€in€this€case€was€suggestive,€but€it€was€not€unnecessarily€orÐ ° Ðimpermissibly€so,€given€the€fact€that€it€was€essential€for€law€enforcement€officers€to€determineÐ  ð Ðquickly€whether€they€were€on€the€right€track€or€whether€a€wider€alert€and€renewed€search€needed€toÐ à Ðbe€undertaken€and€the€showup€was€in€the€field€shortly€after€the€commission€of€the€crime.€€Even€ifÐ €Ð Ðwe€were€to€conclude€to€the€contrary,€that€is,€that€the€showup€was€not€only€suggestive€butÐ pÀ Ðunnecessarily€and€impermissibly€so,€our€analysis€would€not€end€there.€€We€would€then€go€on€toÐ `° Ðdetermine€whether,òòóó€under€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€the€identification€was€reliable€evenÐ P  Ðthough€the€confrontation€procedure€was€unnecessarily€and€impermissibly€suggestive.€€The€òòBiggersóóÐ @ Ðfactors€would€guide€this€analysis€of€identification€reliability,€which€we€here€undertake€for€the€sakeÐ 0€ Ðof€thoroughness.Ð  p ÐÌà  àFirst,€the€victim€here€did€have€the€opportunity€to€view€the€defendant€at€the€time€of€the€crime.€Ð P ÐThe€victim€testified€that€she€first€encountered€the€defendant€under€street€lights.€€She€was€in€closeÐ ð@ Ðproximity€to€the€defendant€throughout€most€of€the€thirty€to€forty„five€minute€attack.€€She€faced€himÐ à0 Ðdirectly€and€intimately€during€the€attack.€€Second,€the€victim€was€not€a€casual€or€passing€observerÐ Ð  Ðbut€was€being€subjected€to€one€of€the€most€personally€humiliating€of€all€crimes.€€òòSeeóó€òòForbes€v.€Stateóó,Ð À! Ð559€S.W.2d€318,€322€(Tenn.€1977)€(quoting€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó,€409€U.S.188,€200,€93€S.€Ct.€375,€382„Ð °"  Ð83,€34€L.€Ed.€2d€401€(1972)).€€Her€attention€was€focused€on€the€perpetrator.€€Third,€the€victim€gaveÐ  #ð! Ða€description€of€her€assailant€that€was€accurate€in€most€details.€€Although€the€defendant€made€muchÐ $à" Ðof€the€fact€that€the€victim€described€his€T„shirt€as€ð ðvery€light€blueðð€at€trial€rather€than€white,€such€aÐ €%Ð # Ðdissimilarity€is€inconsequential€in€view€of€the€overall€accuracy€of€her€description,€including€herÐ p&À!$ Ðattackerððs€race,€clothing,€hair€color€and€style,€intoxicated€condition,€and€distinguishing€facial€feature.€Ð `'°"% ÐThe€description€was€given€shortly€after€the€attack,€and,€as€Officer€Trentham€testified,€the€originalÐ P( #& Ð911€description,€which€would€have€been€taken€directly€from€the€victimððs€call,€described€the€T„shirtÐ @)$' Ðas€white.€€Fourth,€the€victimððs€level€of€certainty€at€the€confrontation€was€high.€€She€identified€theÐ 0*€%( Ðâ âdefendant€without€hesitation€at€the€hospital,€showing,€according€to€Officer€Trentham,€absolutely€noÐ  +p&) Ðhesitation.€€Fifth,€the€time€between€the€crime€and€the€confrontation,€although€disputed€as€to€amount׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ° Ðâ âwas€well€within€a€reasonable€time€frame€to€support€reliability.€€This€court€has€previously€foundÐ  ð Ðacceptable€a€span€of€seven€days€between€crime€and€confrontation.€€òòSeeóó€òòWadley€v.€Stateóó,€634€S.W.2dÐ à Ð658,€662„63€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1982).€€€€€€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àWe€conclude,€therefore,€that,€even€if€the€confrontation€were€unnecessarily€and€impermissiblyÐ ` ° Ðsuggestive,€our€review€of€the€òòBiggersóó€factors€supports€our€conclusion€that,€under€all€theÐ P   Ðcircumstances€of€this€case,€there€is€no€substantial€likelihood€of€irreparable€misidentification.€ð ðShortÐ @  Ðof€that€point,€such€evidence€is€for€the€jury€to€weigh.ðð€€òòMansonóó,€432€U.S.€at€116,€97€S.€Ct.€at€2254.€Ð 0 € ÐThe€trial€court€properly€admitted€evidence€concerning€the€out„of„court,€showup€identification€of€theÐ  p  Ðdefendant.Ð `  ÐÌà@yyìàò òII.€€In„Court€IdentificationˆÐ ð@  ÐÌà  àó óThe€defendant€also€challenges€the€admissibility€of€the€victimððs€in„court€identification€of€theÐ Ð  Ðdefendant€on€the€grounds€that€it€was€tainted€by€the€illegal€out„of„court,€showup€identificationÐ À Ðprocedure.€€The€State€argues€that€there€was€no€illegal€out„of„court€identification€of€the€defendant€byÐ ° Ðthe€victim,€but,€even€if€there€were,€the€State€established€that€the€in„court€identification€wasÐ  ð Ðsufficiently€reliable€such€that€its€admission€as€evidence€did€not€constitute€a€violation€of€theÐ à Ðdefendantððs€due€process€rights.€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àAccording€to€the€above€analysis€in€section€I,€the€showup€identification€in€this€case,€whileÐ `° Ðsuggestive,€was€not€so€unnecessarily€or€impermissibly€suggestive€as€to€give€rise€to€a€substantialÐ P  Ðlikelihood€of€irreparable€misidentification.€€Even€if€the€showup€procedure€had€risen€to€that€level,€itÐ @ Ðwould€not€ð ðtrigger€the€application€of€a€per€se€rule€of€exclusion.ðð€€òòState€v.€Bealóó,€614€S.W.2d€77,€82Ð 0€ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€Rather,€the€State€may€elicit€in„court€identification€testimony€if€it€canÐ  p Ðestablish€an€ð ðindependent€basis€for€the€in„court€identification.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Thomasóó,€780€S.W.2dÐ ` Ð379,€382€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1989).€€That€is,€the€prosecution€must€showÐ P Ðthat€the€in„court€identification€testimony€has€not€been€tainted€by€the€illegal€pretrial€identificationÐ ð@ Ðprocedure.€€òòSeeóó€òòBealóó,€614€S.W.2d€at€82.€€The€test€of€reliability€is€the€same€as€that€for€testimonyÐ à0 Ðconcerning€an€out„of„court€showup€identification:€whether€the€identification€is€reliable€under€theÐ Ð  Ðtotality€of€the€circumstances,€based€upon€the€òòBiggersóó€factors.€€òòSeeóó€òòidóó.€€Ð À! ÐÌà  àAccording€to€the€preceding€analysis€of€the€òòBiggersóó€factors,€in€light€of€the€totality€of€theÐ  #ð! Ðcircumstances€in€this€case,€we€find€no€error€in€the€admission€of€the€victimððs€in„court€identification.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð $à" Їà@FF%ìàò òCONCLUSIONˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àó óHaving€chosen€to€address€the€defendantððs€issues€on€the€merits,€in€spite€of€clear€waiver€of€bothÐ à Ðissues,€we€conclude€that€testimony€concerning€the€victimððs€out„of„court€identification€of€theÐ €Ð Ðdefendant€and€the€victimððs€in„court€identification€testimony€were€sufficiently€reliable€to€withstandÐ pÀ Ðthe€defendantððs€due€process€attack,€despite€the€suggestiveness€in€the€identification€procedure.Ð ` ° Ðà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð P   ÐÌÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð P  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€GLENN,€JUDGEÐ ð@  Ð