ÿWPC®5 e·® Rû íª_Âr¨¥}£×æªÓ WÆæëXÑũڂ‡óÉ“ Gif5z)%g>b@ì Ó•m::XkÖàkáLÚ¨® ª©1Z´XͯŽ:%¨’—ùƒdå_N™s¼Šð³ÑæçÑf†ºEù•«½T egI>Yë0~‰': XøLRó@ òMŸ…ÿqþ$A¨”ü‰LSOó¿pfgñOÚd:bÃvß[q µa`l»YR¢Юž¸És˜™±Vbê™f:êZÒPÓà  àà ` àIn€order€to€successfully€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€supporting€hisÐ 0"€  Ðconvictions,€the€appellant€must€demonstrate€to€this€court€that€no€ð ðrational€trier€of€factðð€could€haveÐ #l! Ðfound€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.Ð $X" Ð307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979);€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€Tenn.Ð ô$D # ÐR.€App.€P.€13(e).€€In€other€words,€on€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657Ð Ì&"% ÐS.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983).€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses€and€the€weightÐ ¸'#& Ðand€value€to€be€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence,€are€resolvedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðby€the€trier€of€fact€and€not€the€appellate€courts.€€òòState€v.€Pruettóó,€788€S.W.2d€559,€561€(Tenn.€1990).Ð )à$( Ðâ âà  àÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àà ` àThe€appellant€was€charged€with€one€count€of€first€degree€murder€and€one€count€ofÐ ° Ðâ âfelony€murder€during€the€perpetration€of€or€attempt€to€perpetrate€robbery.€€He€was€convicted€of€bothÐ œì Ðcounts€and€the€trial€court€correctly€merged€the€convictions.€€On€appeal,€the€appellantððs€soleÐ ˆØ Ðcomplaint€regarding€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€that€the€only€witnesses€to€the€murder€wereÐ tÄ ÐPinshon€and€Joe€Vaughn.€€The€appellant€argues€that€these€witnesses€were€so€unreliable€that€noÐ `° Ðrational€jury€could€accredit€their€testimony.€€The€appellant€notes€that€Pinshon€and€Joe€Vaughn€gaveÐ L œ Ðinconsistent€statements€to€police€regarding€their€ability€to€identify€the€shooter€and€admitted€that€atÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€time€of€the€shooting€they€had€been€smoking€marijuana.€Ð $ t ÐòòóóÌà  àà ` àThe€jury,€as€was€their€prerogative,€chose€to€believe€the€testimony€of€the€StateððsÐ ü L  Ðwitnesses.€€The€inconsistencies€in€the€statements€of€Pinshon€and€Joe€Vaughn€were€emphasized€toÐ è 8  Ðthe€jury.€€It€is€the€duty€of€the€jury,€not€the€appellate€court,€to€accept€or€reject€the€testimony€ofÐ Ô$  Ðwitnesses.€€When€the€evidence€is€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€as€it€must€be,€weÐ À  Ðconclude€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€convictions.€€Pinshon€and€Joe€Vaughn€testifiedÐ ¬ü  Ðthat€the€appellant€approached€them€and€asked€for€money.€€Shortly€after€walking€away€from€them,€theÐ ˜è  Ðappellant€walked€over€to€the€victimððs€car€and€fired€one€shot,€striking€the€victim€in€the€head.€€He€thenÐ „Ô  Ðwalked€away€from€the€scene.€€Both€Pinshon€and€Joe€Vaughn€identified€the€appellant€from€aÐ pÀ Ðphotographic€line„up.€€Moreover,€the€appellant€attempted€to€persuade€Pinshon€to€lie€about€theÐ \¬ Ðappellantððs€involvement€in€the€murder.€€In€a€letter€the€appellant€wrote€to€his€brother,€Scott,€theÐ H˜ Ðappellant€instructs:Ð 4„ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àtell€Jeff€I€need€for€him€to€send€me€a€letter€and€when€he€write€me€tellÐ  p Ðhim€not€to€say€anything€about€the€robbery.€€Tell€him€to€say€that€heððsÐ  \ Ðsorry€that€he€lied€about€me€killing€lil€buddy.€€Then€tell€me€everythingÐ øH Ðelse€but€leave€me€and€the€robbery€out.€€Because€that€the€only€way€IððmÐ ä4 Ðgoing€to€get€out.€€Tell€him€when€we€go€to€[trial]€to€say€the€thing€heÐ Ð  Ðsay€in€the€letter€when€my€lawyer€gets€the€chance€to€talk€to€him.€€TellÐ ¼  Ðhim€to€tell€the€D.A.€a€few€lies€while€heððs€talking€to€her.€€Ð¨ø` x` x ÐWe€conclude€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€appellantððs€convictions.€€This€issue€isÐ ”ä Ðwithout€merit.Ð €Ð ÐÌÓ  ÓB.€€Instruction€on€FlightÐ X ¨ ÐÓaÓà  àà ` àNext,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€giving€the€jury€an€instructionÐ D!” Ðon€flight.€€The€appellant€contends€that€ð ðcertain€activities€such€as€flight€or€escapeðð€have€traditionallyÐ 0"€  Ðbeen€labeled€as€ð ðadmissionsðð€or€circumstances€from€which€guilt€may€be€inferred.€Although€theÐ #l! Ðappellant€concedes€that€there€is€ð ðsome€evidence€suggesting€flight,ðð€he€contends€that€evidence€isÐ $X" Ðexplained€and€rebutted€by€other€evidence.€€The€appellant€contends€that€during€the€trial€he€presentedÐ ô$D # Ðevidence€that€his€trip€to€New€York€had€been€planned€for€several€months.€€The€appellantððs€brother,Ð à%0!$ ÐOlawumi,€testified€at€trial€that€the€appellant€had€planned€to€visit€an€uncle€in€New€York€and€obtainÐ Ì&"% Ðwork€there.€€Additionally,€Olawumi€testified€that€the€appellant€regularly€called€home€after€arrivingÐ ¸'#& Ðin€New€York.€€Moreover,€Lieutenant€Graves€testified€that€he€became€aware€that€the€appellant€wasÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwanted€in€Nashville€only€after€the€appellant€informed€him€that€if€he€checked€his€computer€usingÐ )à$( Ðanother€Social€Security€number,€he€would€discover€that€the€appellant€was€wanted€in€Nashville.€€TheÐ |*Ì%) Ðappellant€argues€that€his€leaving€Nashville€the€day€after€the€murder€is€not€evidence€of€flight.€€HeÐ h+¸&* Ðmaintains€that€the€length€of€time€between€the€commission€of€the€offense€and€his€departure€isÐ ° Ðirrelevant.Ð œì Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àFollowing€the€conclusion€of€the€proof,€the€trial€court€used€Tennessee€Pattern€JuryÐ tÄ ÐInstruction€42.18,€the€instruction€on€flight,€specifically€charging€the€jury:Ð `° Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€flight€of€a€person€accused€of€crime€is€a€circumstance€which,Ð L œ Ðwhen€considered€together€with€all€the€facts€of€the€case,€may€justify€anÐ 8 ˆ Ðinference€of€guiltòòóó.€€Flight€is€the€voluntary€withdrawal€of€oneself€forÐ $ t Ðthe€purpose€of€evading€arrest€or€prosecution€for€the€crime€charged.€Ð  ` ÐWhether€the€evidence€presented€proves€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÐ ü L  Ðthat€the€defendant€fled€is€a€question€for€your€determination.Ðè 8 ` x` x Ðà  àà ` à.€.€.€.Ð Ô$  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIf€flight€is€proved,€the€fact€of€flight€alone€does€not€allow€you€to€findÐ À  Ðthat€the€defendant€is€guilty€of€the€crime€alleged.€€However,€sinceÐ ¬ü  Ðflight€by€a€defendant€may€be€caused€by€a€consciousness€of€guilt,€youÐ ˜è  Ðmay€consider€the€fact€of€flight,€if€flight€is€so€proven,€together€with€allÐ „Ô  Ðof€the€other€evidence€when€you€decide€the€guilt€or€innocence€of€theÐ pÀ Ðdefendant.€€On€the€other€hand,€an€entirely€innocent€person€may€takeÐ \¬ Ðflight€and€such€flight€may€be€explained€by€proof€offered,€or€by€theÐ H˜ Ðfacts€and€circumstances€of€the€case.Ð4„` x` x Ðà  àà ` àÌà  àà ` àIn€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908,€918€(Tenn.€1994),€our€supreme€court€addressedÐ  \ Ðthe€appropriateness€of€an€instruction€on€flight€and€concluded€that€the€meaning€and€weight€of€suchÐ øH Ðevidence€was€a€question€to€be€determined€by€the€jury.€€òòóóReviewing€a€similar€charge,€this€court€hasÐ ä4 Ðstated,€Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àthe€flight€instruction€pointed€out€to€the€jury€that€innocent€persons€mayÐ ¼  Ðtake€flight,€and€it€was€up€to€the€jury€to€determine€whether€there€wasÐ ¨ø Ðflight,€the€reasons€for€the€flight,€and€the€weight€to€be€given€to€it.€€JustÐ ”ä Ðas€the€instruction€allowed€an€inference€of€guilt€from€flight,€it€alsoÐ €Ð Ðinstructed€that€the€evidence,€facts,€and€circumstances€may€show€thatÐ l¼ Ðan€innocent€person€may€take€flight.€€òòÐX ¨` x` x ÐState€v.€Richardsonóó,€995€S.W.2d€119,€129€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).Ð D!” Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àIn€the€instant€case,€the€evidence€showed€that€the€appellant€left€Nashville€the€day€afterÐ #l! Ðthe€murder.€€Although€Olawumi€testified€that€the€appellant€called€relatives€after€arriving€in€NewÐ $X" ÐYork,€he€did€not€know€how€the€appellant€traveled€to€New€York€or€the€appellantððs€specific€locationÐ ô$D # Ðin€New€York.€€The€appellant€was€aware€that€he€was€wanted€by€authorities€in€Nashville€and€did€notÐ à%0!$ Ðdisclose€the€information€until€several€months€after€the€offense,€during€his€fourth€stay€at€the€jail€inÐ Ì&"% ÐBelmont,€New€York.€€Moreover,€upon€his€arrest€he€gave€New€York€authorities€a€false€name.€€WeÐ ¸'#& Ðcannot€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€instructing€the€jury€on€flight.€€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌâ âÓ  ÓC.€€Admission€of€PhotographÐ |*Ì%) ÐÓZuÓà  àà ` àFinally,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€improperly€allowed€the€admissionÐ ° Ðâ âof€a€ð ðgruesome€and€inflammatoryðð€photograph€of€the€victim.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€alleges€thatÐ œì Ðthe€photograph€was€ð ðunduly€inflammatory,€shows€a€lot€of€blood,€and€was€pretty€gruesome.ðð€€TheÐ ˆØ ÐState€responds€that€the€photograph€was€relevant€to€show€the€ð ðpositioning€of€the€bodyðð€and€to€supportÐ tÄ Ðthe€Stateððs€theory€that€the€door€of€the€car€was€not€opened.Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€decision€regarding€the€admissibility€of€photographs€lies€within€the€soundÐ 8 ˆ Ðdiscretion€of€the€trial€court€and€that€decision€will€not€be€overturned€on€appeal€absent€a€showing€ofÐ $ t Ðan€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947,€949€(Tenn.€1978).€€Photographs€whichÐ  ` Ðare€graphic€or€even€horrifying€may€be€admissible€if€they€are€relevant€to€an€issue€at€trial€and€if€theÐ ü L  Ðprobative€value€of€such€evidence€outweighs€any€prejudicial€effect€on€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Bradenóó,€867Ð è 8  ÐS.W.2d€750,€758€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ð Ô$  Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àThe€photograph€in€question,€Exhibit€15,€shows€the€victim€slumped€in€the€driverððs€seatÐ ¬ü  Ðof€his€vehicle€with€his€shoulder€against€the€driverððs€side€door.€€His€face€is€hidden;€however,€severalÐ ˜è  Ðlarge€pools€of€blood€cover€his€shirt.€€Shattered€pieces€of€glass€can€be€seen€in€the€passenger€seat€ofÐ „Ô  Ðthe€vehicle.€€The€photograph€supports€the€Stateððs€theory€that€the€victim€was€shot€from€the€driverððsÐ pÀ Ðside€of€the€vehicle€and€the€door€of€the€vehicle€was€not€opened.€€Moreover,€an€issue€at€trial€was€theÐ \¬ Ðlack€of€fingerprints€on€the€driverððs€side€door.€€€The€photograph€also€supports€the€testimony€of€€Dr.Ð H˜ ÐGerber€regarding€the€manner€and€cause€of€death.€€Finally,€we€do€not€find€the€photograph€to€beÐ 4„ Ðparticularly€gruesome€or€inflammatory.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€inÐ  p Ðallowing€the€admission€of€this€photograph.Ð  \ ÐÌà@MM"ìàòòò òIII.€€Conclusionóóó óˆÐ ä4 Ðà  àà ` àIn€summary,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€appellantððsÐ Ð  Ðconvictions€and€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€by€instructing€the€jury€on€flight€or€in€allowing€theÐ ¼  Ðintroduction€of€the€photograph€of€the€victim.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€isÐ ¨ø Ðaffirmed.Ô#†XTIXXXTI½#ÔÐ ”ä ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð D!” Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNORMA€McGEE€OGLE,€JUDGE