ÿWPCi" 4# èU:ó %- 0 3w@74w‹ 0Hš 0Dâ 0J& 0Tp 0^Ä 0h" 0rŠ 0|ü x 0†€ 0 0D– 1uÚ 0dO AQ³ Æ 0DÊ 0@ BN D/kU *š BÄ D3áB)DC= AM€ãÍæ°F–nÜÎJv~vÓ–˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLàÏ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(Üg$¡¡Ñ°ÑÑ€°ÑÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€YXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ Í EÎ Ï EÐ Ñ EÒ Ó eÔ  Õ Ö Ó€Ìqæ$3|xá (ø(3])$¤¤Ý ƒg!ÝѰÑÑ€°ÑÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ÿÀXXdæXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$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($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ!"#&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò d(('÷ÿ dxd< Œ 9p`(ArialüÿP Pd$$$$'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d****7Border 1dd!#+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÙÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òAugustÏ14,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ÜÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€'ôÔThe€victim€identified€the€appellant€from€a€photo€lineup€prior€to€trial€and€also€made€an€in„courtÏidentification.Ì <Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€'ôÔFor€the€Class€A€felonies,€appellant€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender.€€However,Ïbecause€of€his€previous€record,€appellant€was€classified€a€Range€II€multiple€offender€for€the€remainingÏconvictions.Ì dÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€'ôÔThe€defendant€was€also€convicted€of€aggravated€assault,€but€the€court€omitted€it€from€theÏòòAnthonyóó€analysis€because€it€clearly€was€not€incidental€to€either€the€aggravated€kidnapping€or€attemptedÏsexual€battery.€€òòDixonóó,€957€S.W.2d€at€535.Ì ÄÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€'ôÔThe€only€injuries€the€victim€suffered€were€an€abrasion€to€her€knee€and€a€sprained€ankle.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€'ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÙ€!ÙßR€,-+A1-j|` , `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌóóÌà@ àòòAT€KNOXVILLE€óóÌÌà@ à€€JANUARY€1998€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9704„CR„00138€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHAMILTON€COUNTYÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€DOUGLAS€A.€MEYER,ÌALBERT€CHRISTIAN€PADGETT,à à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà àà à)à à(Especially€Aggravated€Kidnapping,Ïà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAggravated€Rape,€AggravatedÏà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àRobbery,€Theft)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appellee:óóÌÌAlan€R.€Beardà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌ737€Market€Street,€Suite€601à àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌChattanooga,€TN€37402à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àTimothy€F.€BehanÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Cox,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.€Leland€DavisÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à600€Market€Street,€Suite€310Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€37402ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€___________________ÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÇà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Albert€Christian€Padgett,€appeals€as€of€right€his€convictions€inÏthe€Hamilton€County€Criminal€Court€of€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,€two€countsÏof€aggravated€rape,€two€counts€of€aggravated€robbery,€and€theft€over€$1,000.€€HeÏreceived€an€effective€sentence€of€103€years.Ìà àAppellant€argues€on€appeal:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€separate€convictions€forÏaggravated€rape€and€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€based€uponÏthe€same€criminal€episode;ÌÌà8 à(2)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€two€convictions€for€aggravatedÏrape€when€both€rapes€occurred€at€the€same€time€and€involved€the€sameÏvictim;€andÌ€Ìà8 à(3)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€defense€ofÏnecessity.€ÌÌÓÓAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€we€find€no€reversible€error.€€Accordingly,€weÏaffirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ìà àSometime€after€11:00€p.m.€on€September€30,€1994,€the€victim,€Carol€Hill,€wasÏwalking€to€her€home€on€North€Chamberlain€Avenue€in€Chattanooga.€€At€that€time,Ïshe€and€her€boyfriend€were€living€across€the€street€from€her€parents€in€the€sameÏneighborhood€where€the€victim€spent€her€childhood.€€When€she€was€approximatelyÏ400€yards€from€her€home,€the€victim€noticed€the€headlights€of€a€car€approaching€fromÏbehind.€€The€car€swerved€over€toward€her€and€pulled€alongside€where€she€wasÍwalking.€€The€passenger,€a€black€male€whose€face€was€partially€covered€by€aÏbandana,€displayed€a€sawed„off€shotgun€and€ordered€her€to€drop€to€her€knees.€€TheÏvictim€fell€down€on€the€street€and€the€passenger€got€out€of€the€car€and€beganÏrummaging€through€her€purse.€€The€passenger€found€five€dollars€and€told€the€driver,Ïwho€was€standing€nearby,€ð ðWe€can€use€this€for€gas€money.ðð€€While€continuing€toÏpoint€the€gun€at€her,€the€passenger€then€ordered€the€victim€to€get€into€the€backseat€ofÏthe€car.€€He€also€got€into€the€backseat,€and€the€driver,€later€identified€as€appellant,× ƒ. ××  ×Ïbegan€to€drive.€€The€men€then€directed€the€victim€to€get€undressed.€€As€she€wasÏdoing€so,€appellant€drove€several€blocks€to€Glenwood€Drive€and€then€turned€in€to€aÏsecluded€alleyway.Ìà àAppellant€joined€the€victim€and€the€passenger€in€the€backseat€and€the€menÏproceeded€to€rape€the€victim.€€While€appellant€anally€penetrated€the€victim,€theÏpassenger€forced€her€to€perform€fellatio.€€Appellant€then€ordered€the€victim€to€turnÏover€and€he€vaginally€raped€her.€€Following€these€acts,€the€men€told€the€victim€to€getÏdressed€and€appellant€resumed€his€position€at€the€wheel.€€He€drove€the€victim€backÏto€where€they€initially€accosted€her€and€the€passenger€pushed€the€victim€out€of€theÏmoving€car.€€As€the€car€drove€away,€the€rear€tire€ran€over€the€victimððs€left€leg.Ìà àThe€victim€ran€to€a€nearby€residence,€but€was€unable€to€garner€any€responseÏfrom€the€residents.€€Fearing€the€men€would€come€back€for€her,€she€hid€in€the€yardÏuntil€she€was€able€to€stop€an€approaching€cab,€which€took€her€the€short€distanceÏhome€where€she€called€the€police.€€Appellant€was€apprehended€several€weeks€laterÏin€Volusia€County,€Florida€and€was€returned€to€Tennessee.€€Ìà àAppellant€was€later€indicted€for€the€aggravated€robbery€of€Carol€Hill,€theÏespecially€aggravated€kidnapping€of€Carol€Hill,€one€count€of€aggravated€rape€by€analÏpenetration,€and€one€count€of€aggravated€rape€by€vaginal€penetration.€€Based€onÏevents€that€occurred€prior€to€the€abduction€of€Ms.€Hill,€appellant€was€also€indicted€forÏthe€aggravated€robbery€of€Joseph€Sims€and€theft€over€$1,000€for€stealing€a€car€fromÏa€restaurant€parking€lot.€Ìà àWhen€the€indictments€were€read€to€the€jury€at€trial,€appellant€pled€guilty€to€theÏtheft€of€the€automobile,€the€aggravated€robbery€of€Joseph€Sims,€and€the€aggravatedÏrape€of€Carol€Hill€by€vaginal€penetration.€€The€remaining€charges€were€tried€by€a€jury.€ÏAt€the€conclusion€of€the€proof,€the€jury€returned€verdicts€finding€appellant€guilty€of€theÏaggravated€robbery€of€Carol€Hill,€the€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€of€Carol€Hill,Ïand€the€aggravated€rape€of€Carol€Hill€by€anal€penetration.€€Ìà àAt€a€subsequent€sentencing€hearing,€appellant€received€the€maximumÏsentence€for€each€offense.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€He€was€sentenced€to€twenty„five€years€for€the€especiallyÏaggravated€kidnapping,€twenty„five€years€on€each€of€the€aggravated€rapes,€twentyÏyears€for€each€aggravated€robbery,€and€eight€years€for€theft€over€$1,000.€€TheÏespecially€aggravated€kidnapping€sentence€was€ordered€to€be€served€concurrentlyÏto€the€aggravated€robbery€of€Carol€Hill,€but€the€remaining€sentences€were€orderedÏserved€consecutively€for€an€effective€sentence€of€103€years.Ìà àAppellant€first€argues€that€the€separate€convictions€for€especially€aggravatedÏkidnapping€and€aggravated€rape€violate€his€due€process€rights.€€He€contends€that€theÏkidnapping€was€essentially€incidental€to€the€rape,€and€therefore,€a€separateÏconviction€is€unconstitutional.€€We€cannot€agree.€€Ìà àAppellant€relies€upon€òòState€v.€Anthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€299€(Tenn.€1991).€€InÏòòAnthonyóó,€the€court€recognized€that€due€process€of€law€will€not€permit€a€kidnappingÏconviction€where€the€detention€of€the€victim€is€merely€incidental€to€the€commission€ofÏanother€felony,€such€as€robbery€or€rape.€€òòId.óó€at€306.€€In€order€to€determine€whetherÏthe€confinement,€movement,€or€detention€is€significant€enough€in€and€of€itself€toÏwarrant€an€independent€prosecution,€the€court€must€determine€whether€theÍdefendantððs€conduct€substantially€increased€the€risk€of€harm€over€and€above€thatÏnecessarily€present€in€the€accompanying€felony.€€òòId.óó€€Ìà àRecently,€our€supreme€court€elaborated€on€the€relevant€considerations€inÏdetermining€whether€separate€convictions€for€rape€and€kidnapping€violate€aÏdefendantððs€due€process€rights.€€òòState€v.€Dixonóó,€957€S.W.2d€532€(Tenn.€1997).€€InÏòòDixonóó,€the€defendant€accosted€the€victim€on€a€well„lit€sidewalk,€assaulted€her,€andÏthen€dragged€her€into€a€vacant€lot€behind€overgrown€vegetation€where€he€attemptedÏto€sexually€assault€her.€€òòId.óó€at€533.€€In€holding€that€the€defendantððs€convictions€forÏaggravated€kidnapping€and€attempted€sexual€battery€did€not€violate€due€process,× ƒ0 ××  ×Ïthe€court€first€considered€whether€the€movement€or€restraint€was€beyond€thatÏnecessary€to€consummate€the€accompanying€sexual€assault.€€òòId.óó€at€535.€€TheÏsupreme€court€also€found€it€relevant€that€the€defendantððs€movement€or€confinementÏof€the€victim:€(1)€prevented€the€victim€from€summoning€help;€(2)€lessened€theÏdefendantððs€risk€of€detection;€or€(3)€created€a€significant€danger€or€increased€theÏvictimððs€risk€of€harm.€€òòId.óó€Ìà àApplying€those€considerations€to€the€instant€case,€we€hold€that€appellantððsÏconduct€was€sufficient€to€warrant€separate€convictions€for€the€kidnapping€and€rape.€ÏThe€confinement€of€the€victim€and€the€attendant€movement€was€unnecessary€toÍconsummate€the€rape.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€The€victim€was€accosted€on€the€street€in€a€well„populated€neighborhood€and€robbed€of€her€personal€belongings.€€She€was€thenÏforced€into€a€waiting€car,€transported€several€blocks,€and€brutally€raped.€€NeitherÏconfining€the€victim€in€the€car€nor€transporting€her€was€requisite€to€the€rape.€€HadÏappellant€and€his€companion€so€desired,€they€could€have€perpetrated€the€sexualÏassault€on€the€street.€€Ìà àIt€is€also€apparent€that€the€movement€prevented€the€victim€from€summoningÏhelp.€€òòId.óó€€Appellant€removed€the€victim€from€familiar€surroundings€on€a€public€streetÏonly€a€short€distance€from€her€home.€€Had€the€sexual€offenses€been€committed€onÏthe€sidewalk,€there€would€have€been€a€far€greater€potential€for€the€victimððs€rescue.€ÏAlso,€because€appellant€confined€the€victim€in€the€car,€any€cries€for€help€were€likelyÏunheard.€€Ìà àIn€addition,€the€movement€lessened€the€appellantððs€risk€of€detection.€€òòId.óó€ÏAppellant€drove€the€car€to€a€secluded€location€and€pulled€off€the€main€thoroughfareÏinto€a€dark€alley.€€The€possibility€of€discovery€in€that€location€was€far€less€than€in€theÏwell„populated€neighborhood€where€the€victim€knew€many€of€the€residents.€€Ìà àAlthough€the€victim€did€not€sustain€serious€injuries,€we€believe,€as€did€theÏòòDixonóó€court,€that€by€lessening€the€risk€of€detection,€appellant€increased€the€risk€ofÏharm€to€the€victim.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€òòId.óó€€Certainly€the€potential€for€harm€was€great€since€theÍperpetrators€were€armed€with€a€shotgun.€€All€the€relevant€factors€support€separateÏconvictions.€Ìà àAppellantððs€case€is€significantly€different€from€the€scenario€in€òòAnthonyóó€in€whichÏthe€confinement€was€incidental€to€the€accompanying€felony.€€Here,€appellantððsÏconfinement€of€the€victim€cannot€be€considered€incidental€to€the€rape.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏMichael€Eugene€Duffóó,€No.€03C01„9501„CR„00008€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,ÏFebruary€8,€1996),€òòperm.óó€òòapp.óó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1996)€(affirming€convictions€forÏaggravated€kidnapping€and€aggravated€rape€where€defendant€moved€victim€fromÏside€of€road€to€dark€parking€lot€of€closed€restaurant).€€As€our€supreme€court€stated,ÏòòAnthonyóó€is€not€meant€to€provide€the€rapist€a€free€kidnapping€merely€because€he€alsoÏcommitted€rape.€€òòDixonóó,€957€S.W.2d€at€534.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€theÏconfinement€and€movement€of€the€victim€supports€an€independent€conviction€forÏespecially€aggravated€kidnapping.Ìà àAppellant€contends€that€his€two€convictions€of€aggravated€rape€violateÏprinciples€of€double€jeopardy€because€they€both€occurred€at€the€same€time€andÏinvolved€the€same€victim.€€He€argues€that€only€one€conviction€of€aggravated€rapeÏwas€appropriate€under€the€circumstances.€€Appellantððs€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ìà àWhile€the€double€jeopardy€clause€of€the€Fifth€Amendment€generally€providesÏprotection€against€multiple€prosecutions€and€convictions,€appellantððs€argumentÏspecifically€implicates€multiplicity,€the€protection€against€multiple€punishments€for€theÍsame€offense.€€òòState€v.€Phillipsóó,€924€S.W.2d€662,€664€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€evil€soughtÏto€be€avoided€in€such€cases€is€the€improper€division€of€conduct€into€discrete€offenses,Ïthereby€creating€several€offenses€out€of€a€single€offense.€€òòId.óó€at€665.Ìà àð ðAlthough€separate€acts€of€intercourse€may€be€so€related€as€to€constitute€oneÏcriminal€offense,€generally€rape€is€not€a€continuous€offense,€but€each€act€ofÏintercourse€constitutes€a€distinct€and€separate€offense.ðð€€òòId.óó€At€664€(quoting€75€œC.J.S.›ÏòòRapeóó€ðð€4€(1952€&€œSupp›.€œ1995)).›€€Additionally,€both€vaginal€and€anal€intercourse€areÏseparately€defined€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„501(7)€as€discreteÏtypes€of€sexual€penetration€prohibited€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„502.€€œÌà àNevertheless,€it€is€conceivable€that€separate€acts€of€intercourse€may€be€soÏrelated€as€to€constitute€one€criminal€offense.€€òòId.óó€€In€order€to€ensure€that€sexualÏoffenses,€such€as€those€presented€in€appellantððs€case,€are€not€multiplicitous,€theÏfollowing€factors€should€be€considered:€(1)€the€nature€of€the€act;€(2)€the€area€of€theÏvictimððs€body€invaded€by€the€sexually€assaultive€behavior;€(3)€the€time€elapsedÏbetween€the€discrete€conduct;€(4)€the€accusedððs€intent,€in€the€sense€that€the€lapse€ofÏtime€may€indicate€a€newly€formed€intent€to€again€seek€sexual€gratification€or€inflictÏabuse;€and€(5)€the€cumulative€punishment.€€òòId.óó€at€665.€€No€single€factor€isÏdeterminative€of€the€issue.€€Ìà àThe€two€counts€of€aggravated€rape€in€appellantððs€indictment€specified€twoÏmethods€of€sexual€penetration:€anal€and€vaginal.€€The€victimððs€testimony€clearlyÏsupports€two€separate€acts.€€Initially,€appellant€instructed€the€victim€to€get€on€herÏhands€and€knees€in€the€backseat€of€the€car.€€He€positioned€himself€behind€the€victimÏand€penetrated€her€anally.€€The€victim€was€forced€to€perform€fellatio€on€the€co„defendant€simultaneously.€€At€some€point,€these€acts€stopped€and€appellantÏinstructed€the€victim€to€turn€over,€at€which€time€he€entered€her€vaginally.€€ConsideringÏthat€the€two€acts€involved€differing€body€positions€and€that€appellant€invaded€differentÏareas€of€the€victimððs€body€each€time,€we€consider€the€acts€to€be€discrete.€€The€twoÏconvictions€of€aggravated€rape€are€not€multiplicitous.Ìà àAppellant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€request€toÏinstruct€the€jury€on€the€defense€of€necessity.€€He€alleges€the€instruction€wasÏwarranted€in€the€face€of€his€own€testimony€that€he€was€fearful€of€the€armed€co„defendant€and€that€after€the€robbery€of€Joseph€Sims,€he€no€longer€wanted€toÏparticipate.€€We€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€that€there€was€no€evidence€toÏsupport€the€charge.Ìà àIt€is€incumbent€upon€a€trial€court€to€give€the€jury€a€complete€charge€of€the€lawÏbased€upon€the€facts€of€the€case.€€òòState€v.€Harbisonóó,€704€S.W.2d€314,€319€(Tenn.),Ïòòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€476€U.S.€1145,€106€S.Ct.€2261,€90€L.Ed.2d€706€(1986)€(citationÏomitted).€€With€regard€to€necessity,€the€jury€should€be€so€instructed€where€admissibleÍevidence€fairly€raises€the€defense.€€òòState€v.€Culpóó,€900€S.W.2d€707,€710€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1994).€€The€burden€then€falls€on€the€state€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÏthat€the€defense€does€not€apply.€€òòId.óó;€òòState€v.€Hoodóó,€868€S.W.2d€744,€748€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1993).€Ìà àThe€defense€of€necessity€provides€that€criminal€conduct€is€justified€if:€(1)€theÏperson€reasonably€believes€the€conduct€is€immediately€necessary€to€avoid€imminentÏharm;€and€(2)€the€desirability€and€urgency€of€avoiding€the€harm€clearly€outweigh,Ïaccording€to€ordinary€standards€of€reasonableness,€the€harm€sought€to€be€preventedÏby€the€law€proscribing€the€conduct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„11„609€(1991).€€TheÏdefense€of€necessity€is€applicable€in€ð ðexceedingly€rare€situations€where€criminalÏactivity€is€an€objectively€reasonable€response€to€an€extreme€situation.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð39„11„609€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€Ìà àIn€support€of€that€defense,€appellant€testified€that€the€aggression€the€co„defendant€showed€during€the€perpetration€of€the€first€aggravated€robbery€indicated€toÏhim€that€he€would€not€go€home€alive.€€He€testified€that€he€was€scared€and€before€theyÏsaw€Ms.€Hill,€he€told€the€co„defendant€that€he€no€longer€wanted€to€participate€in€theÏcriminal€enterprise.€€With€regard€to€the€rape,€appellant€testified€that€the€co„defendantÏtold€him€ð ðCome€back€here€and€get€some.ðð€€He€testified€that€the€way€the€co„defendantÏmotioned€the€gun€and€ð ðthe€look€in€his€eyeðð€scared€him.€€Although€expressing€his€fearÍof€the€co„defendant,€appellant€stated€that€he€did€not€believe€he€would€ð ðblow€hisÏbrains€out.ððà àÌà àSuch€testimony€fails€to€show€that€appellant€was€threatened€with€imminentÏbodily€harm€or€that€the€desirability€and€urgency€clearly€outweighed€the€harm€ofÏcommitting€the€crime.€€Appellant€never€testified€that€the€co„defendant€threatened€himÏwith€bodily€harm,€or€that€he€attempted€to€harm€him.€€In€contrast,€his€testimonyÏdemonstrated€that€he€was€high€on€crack€cocaine€that€night,€had€planned€to€commitÏrobberies€in€order€to€obtain€more€drugs,€and€participated€voluntarily€in€the€criminalÏenterprise.€€As€a€result,€the€trial€court€was€under€no€duty€to€charge€the€defense€ofÏnecessity.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Scotty€Davenportóó,€No.€01C01„9611„CR„00477€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€at€Nashville,€February€18,€1998).Ìà àOur€review€of€the€record€indicates€that€the€proof€presented€at€trial€sustainsÏeach€of€appellantððs€convictions€and€that€appellant€was€not€entitled€to€an€instructionÏon€the€defense€of€necessity.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€all€respects.ÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ____________________________ÌJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌÌ____________________________ÌCurwood€Witt,€Judge