ÿWPC¹ &k Äæ×zb76ðÏQ-c+ºtNå ´×ÿ¡³(ã(1W±ß&ó³]½Ši Xø"]@£ãåÔ}rz³@Qr3ØŽñ©Wœe-Ö»[=Ó³’³[}ƒ¿G̦’Ÿ ùBXþ ÌŸ…¸yQâ¥B=Ê™ «¾@|íbá^MDè^¾¼kÉ0åê3ÛÿÇõ?ê £Ðe@?¥ÜwóœV‘Àî‰$°>ù66ÎÜ»UxG÷úxAÀÖLOÁˆ>]4…ŪìP¸~*‘·ÒwiXÓ#yÿ±uŸÏ%EarZVqp4¼­ _æóÅ”Y;ùLr(H y9Aö€t¶H‰×ìx+î/FÆ„H¼ŒÎÃõ=bu8ó ¼š`‡œò¡h7ÀXc CýväÆÔ>¸ÕN"¶þ^CÚ² To«ªý T·#Ó³œõð'A;s†Ù]¦ šUdÿ”e•ê ¹(i§&>?·³uL~¦[oQ>“óÍ÷y¿ˆ¸‘NÇ"1œü^ìP£t:³Ó³óI'EÄÇOa…n´:þbe ÀM;ûP¢ ZÒõÔ~(®=[u²J!© QS~ÒNBr»ç|’êŒë Œc¯ü/êøË!&ƒ4Vlb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz 0D‘ ÆÕ Æ› Æa Æ''Ní×ïÜÆE¢¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤b¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ 0ë´´´´ BŸŸ 0¤¼ D5` D-• 0K AS Æ` 0¤& 0DÊ A«˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»¬P+ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖJ~'˜C¬5Ÿ ˜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(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ÍÝ ƒRø@$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôôýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThere€is€no€indication€in€the€record€that€such€photographs€actually€were€taken. ÒÝ ƒRø@$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôôýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTo€consider€the€issue€upon€only€a€portion€of€the€evidence€presented€might€well€cause€us€to€reverse€a€convictionÐ ° Ðbased€upon€insufficient€evidence€presented€in€the€appellate€record,€even€though€the€state€had€carried€its€burden€byÐ tÄ Ðpresenting€significant€proof€that€was€accredited€by€the€jury€in€the€court€below.€€Additionally,€proceeding€with€appellateÐ 8ˆ Ðreview€with€less€than€all€of€the€evidence€before€us€would€give€appellants€the€incentive€to€present€us€with€a€record€fromÐ üL Ðwhich€inculpatory€evidence€had€been€omitted.€ - ù-(|G2ø@$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Pu»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôôýò»»Ô d(|3Ç‚$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Pu»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ç‚$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Pu»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Pu»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Pu»»»ÔÑ8€IXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îMäPuÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Pu»îîMä #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àMarch€13,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XIX»¼PuÔÌò òÔ#†¼Pu»XXI#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€DANIEL€Ô_ÔTHOMASONÔ_ÔòòóóÔ‡XIX»¼PuÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€99„B„1387€€€€€€Steve€Dozier,€Judge€Ð æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„01164„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€October€15,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓDaniel€Ô_ÔThomasonÔ_Ô€appeals€from€the€aggravated€robbery€conviction€he€received€at€a€jury€trial€in€theÐ xÈ  ÐDavidson€County€Criminal€Court.€€Ô_ÔThomasonÔ_Ô€is€serving€an€eight„year€sentence€in€the€DepartmentÐ d´ Ðof€Correction€for€his€crime.€€In€this€appeal,€he€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidenceÐ P  Ðthat€he€accomplished€the€robbery€ð ðby€display€of€any€article€used€or€fashioned€to€lead€the€victim€toÐ <Œ Ðreasonably€believe€it€to€be€a€deadly€weapon.ðð€ò òó ó€Because€the€record€before€us€is€does€not€contain€allÐ (x Ðof€the€relevant€evidence€presented€at€trial,€we€are€precluded€from€reviewing€the€sufficiency€of€theÐ d Ðevidence€and€therefore€affirm.Ô#†¼Pu»XXI«#ÔÔ‡XIX»¼PuÔÐ P ÐÓÌÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmed.€ó óÐ Ø( ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Pu»àXI0#ÔÔ‡XIX.¼PuÔJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayesóó€andÐ ° ÐòòJohn€Everett€Williams,€Ô_ÔJ.J.Ô_Ôóó,€joined.Ð œì ÐÌKathryn€S.€Evans€(at€trial),€Assistant€Public€Defender;€Jeffrey€A.€Ô_ÔDeVasherÔ_Ô,€(on€appeal),€AssistantÐ tÄ ÐPublic€Defender,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Daniel€Ô_ÔThomasonÔ_Ô.Ð `° ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Jennifer€L.€Smith,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð 8!ˆ  ÐVictor€S.€Johnson,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€Derrick€Ô_ÔScretchenÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ $"t! ÐGeneral,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð #`" ÐÓÑÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Pu»XXI #ÔÔ‡XIX»¼PuÔÐ è$8 $ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Pu»XXIî #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XIX»¼PuÔà  àà ` àIn€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€evidence€at€trial€demonstrated€that€onÐ À&"& ÐMarch€19,€1998,€Violet€Ô_ÔMosleyÔ_Ô€was€working€at€Z€Store,€a€convenience€store€owned€by€her€brother.€Ð ¬'ü"' ÐAround€12:30€p.m.,€the€defendant€came€in€the€store.€€He€took€a€drink€from€a€cooler€and€approachedÐ ˜(è#( Ðthe€counter€behind€which€Ms.€Ô_ÔMosleyÔ_Ô€was€standing.€€Ms.€Ô_ÔMosleyÔ_Ô€rang€up€the€transaction,€and€theÐ „)Ô$) Ðdefendant€demanded€that€she€give€him€the€money€from€the€register.€€Ms.€Ô_ÔMosleyÔ_Ô€hesitated,€and€theÐ p*À%* Ðdefendant€put€his€hand€in€his€right€jacket€pocketð ð€and€pulled€the€corner€of€his€jacket€up€over€theÐ \+¬&+ Ðcounter.ðð€€He€said,€ð ðThis€is€a€robbery.€€Give€me€the€money.ðð€€Fearing€for€her€safety,€Ms.€Ô_ÔMosleyÔ_ÔÐ H,˜', Ðcomplied.€€The€defendant€put€the€money€in€his€left€jacket€pocket€and€fled€on€foot.Ð 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ô‡à  àà ` àThe€defendant€was€a€regular€customer€of€Z€Store,€and€Ms.€Mosley€was€able€to€identifyÐ ° Ðhim€in€a€photographic€lineup€the€authorities€presented€to€her€a€few€days€later.Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àTo€counter€the€stateððs€proof,€the€defendant€admitted€in€his€testimony€that€he€stole€theÐ tÄ Ðmoney€from€Ms.€Mosley.€€His€proof€characterized€the€crime€as€a€mere€theft,€as€opposed€to€a€robberyÐ `° Ðor€an€aggravated€robbery.€€He€claimed€that€he€induced€Ms.€Mosley€to€step€away€from€the€openÐ L œ Ðregister€by€inquiring€whether€she€had€a€Dr.€Pepper€in€the€back€of€the€store,€and€after€she€did€so,€heÐ 8 ˆ Ðreached€into€the€register€and€took€the€money.€€He€denied€that€he€had€a€weapon€or€that€he€hadÐ $ t Ðmimicked€having€a€weapon€by€holding€his€hand€in€his€pocket.€€He€claimed€that€he€had€no€intent€toÐ  ` Ðhurt€or€scare€Ms.€Mosley.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€rebuttal,€the€state€recalled€Ms.€Mosley,€who€denied€the€defendantððs€version€ofÐ Ô$  Ðevents.€€Specifically,€she€testified€that€the€defendant€never€asked€her€for€another€soda€and€that€sheÐ À  Ðnever€walked€away€from€the€register€until€the€defendant€left€the€store€with€the€proceeds€of€the€crime.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€aggravated€robbery.€€After€he€was€sentencedÐ „Ô  Ðto€serve€eight€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction,€the€defendant€filed€this€appeal.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€sole€issue€before€us€is€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€When€anÐ H˜ Ðaccused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€court€must€review€the€record€toÐ 4„ Ðdetermine€if€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial€is€sufficient€ð ðto€support€the€finding€by€the€trier€of€fact€ofÐ  p Ðguilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€This€rule€is€applicable€to€findings€of€guiltÐ  \ Ðbased€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€direct€and€circumstantialÐ øH Ðevidence.€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€253€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990),€òòoverruled€on€otherÐ ä4 Ðgrounds€by€State€v.€Hooperóó,€29€S.W.3d€1€(Tenn.€2000).Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€court€does€not€re„weighÐ ¨ø Ðor€re„evaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€NorÐ ”ä Ðmay€this€court€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantialÐ €Ð Ðevidence.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859òòóó€(1956).€€To€the€contrary,€thisÐ l¼ Ðcourt€is€required€to€afford€the€state€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€theÐ X ¨ Ðrecord€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.òò€Ð D!” ÐState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àà ` àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€beÐ $X" Ðgiven€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€ofÐ ô$D # Ðfact,€not€this€court.€€òòIdóó.€€In€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973),€our€supreme€courtÐ à%0!$ Ðsaid:€ð ðA€guilty€verdict€by€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€theÐ Ì&"% Ðwitnesses€for€the€State€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€theory€of€the€state.ððÐ ¸'#& Ðà  àà ` àÌà  àà ` àBecause€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€it€withÐ )à$( Ða€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused,€as€the€appellant,€has€the€burden€in€this€court€of€illustrating€whyÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdicts€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639Ð h+¸&* ÐS.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€This€court€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€due€to€the€sufficiencyÐ ° Ðof€the€evidence€unless€the€facts€contained€in€the€record€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€aÐ œì Ðrational€trier€of€fact€to€find€that€the€accused€is€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòIdóó.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€relevant€to€the€crime€charged€in€this€case,€ð ðAggravated€robbery€is€robbery€.€.€.Ð `° Ð[a]ccomplished€with€a€deadly€weapon€or€by€display€of€any€article€used€or€fashioned€to€lead€the€victimÐ L œ Ðto€reasonably€believe€it€to€be€a€deadly€weapon€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€38„13„402€(1997).€€Ð 8 ˆ Ðò òó óà  àà ` àThe€defendant€challenges€whether€the€evidence€in€this€case€sufficiently€supports€theÐ $ t Ðjuryððs€conclusion€that€he€accomplished€the€robbery€by€display€of€an€article€used€or€fashioned€to€leadÐ  ` ÐMs.€Mosley€to€reasonably€believe€it€was€a€deadly€weapon.€€The€evidence€on€this€point,€at€leastÐ ü L  Ðinsofar€as€it€is€memorialized€in€the€appellate€record,€is€sparse.€€Ms.€Mosley€testified€that€after€sheÐ è 8  Ðhesitated€when€the€defendant€demanded€money,€he€put€his€hand€in€his€right€jacket€pocket,€ð ðpulledÐ Ô$  Ðthe€corner€of€his€jacket€up€over€the€counter,ðð€and€said,€ð ðThis€is€a€robbery.€€Give€me€the€money.ðð€Ð À  ÐWhile€the€record€reflects€that€the€state€engaged€the€victim€in€a€demonstration€of€the€defendantððsÐ ¬ü  Ðactions€during€the€crime,€the€demonstration€itself€has€not€been€sufficiently€memorialized.€€We€cannotÐ ˜è  Ðtell€from€the€brief€testimonial€description€the€victim€gave€how€the€defendant€had€his€hand€in€hisÐ „Ô  Ðpocket,€what€the€contents€of€his€pocket€looked€like,€or€the€manner€in€which€he€raised€the€corner€ofÐ pÀ Ðhis€jacket€over€the€counter.€€Likewise,€no€statement€of€the€evidence€relative€to€that€issue€wasÐ \¬ Ðprepared.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(c).€€Neither€were€still€nor€video€photographs€taken€at€the€time€ofÐ H˜ Ðthe€demonstration€and€tendered€as€exhibits.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€These€same€deficiencies€exist€with€respect€to€theÐ 4„ Ðdemonstration€the€defense€had€the€victim€give€on€cross„examination.Ð  p ÐÌò òó óà  àà ` àIt€is€by€now€an€elementary€principle€of€appellate€review€that€we€may€not€consider€anÐ øH Ðissue€when€the€record€fails€to€reflect€what€transpired€in€the€trial€court€relative€to€that€issue.€€òòSee,€e.g.,Ð ä4 ÐState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€òò560„61€(Tenn.€1993);€State€v.€Draperóó,€800€S.W.2d€489,€493Ð Ð  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€That€rule€is€particularly€appropriate€where,€as€here,€the€evidence€that€isÐ ¼  Ðabsent€from€the€appellate€record€may€well€have€been€the€crucial€proof€which€compelled€the€jury€toÐ ¨ø Ðreturn€a€conviction.€€It€must€be€remembered€that€our€obligation€as€an€appellate€court€is€to€review€theÐ ”ä Ðevidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state.€€òòSee€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€With€less€thanÐ €Ð Ða€complete€record€of€the€stateððs€evidence,€we€are€unable€to€perform€that€function.׃T×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Rather,€we€areÐ l¼ Ðrelegated€to€presuming€that€the€factual€determinations€made€below€are€supported€by€adequateÐ X ¨ Ðevidence.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€State€v.€Oodyóó,€823€S.W.2d€554,€559€(Tenn.€1991);€òòcf.€McDonald€v.€Onohóó,€772Ð D!” ÐS.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989)€(court€of€appeals€holds€that€in€absence€of€transcript,€it€mustÐ 0"€  Ðpresume€that€jury€verdict€is€supported€by€sufficient€evidence).€€Therefore,€we€must€affirm€theÐ #l! Ðaggravated€robbery€conviction.Ð $X" ÐÐ ô$D # Ðà  àà ` àThe€case€before€us€is€not€the€first€one€in€which€this€court€has€been€faced€with€aÐ ° Ðdeficient€record€relative€to€a€demonstration€by€a€witness.€€In€òòState€v.€Alton€Darnell€Youngóó,€No.Ð œì ÐM1999„01166„CCA„R3„CD,€slip€op.€at€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Apr.€14,€2000),€the€stateÐ ˆØ Ðappealed€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€the€defendantððs€motion€to€suppress.€€A€demonstration€given€by€aÐ tÄ Ðlaw€enforcement€officer€was€relevant€and€dispositive€of€the€suppression€issue.€€òòSee€idóó.€€However,Ð `° Ðthere€was€no€explanation€in€the€record€of€what€the€officer€did€during€the€demonstration.€€òòIdóó.€€WeÐ L œ Ðobserved,Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àThe€appellate€court€is€limited€to€review€of€only€the€facts€set€forth€in€the€record.€Ð  ` ÐT.R.A.P.€13(c).€€If€the€record€on€appeal€is€deficient€by€not€including€a€record€ofÐ ü L  Ðactions€which€are€relevant€to€the€issue,€then€this€court€may€presume€that€the€trialÐ è 8  Ðcourtððs€determinations€were€adequately€supported€by€the€evidence.€€òòSee€Smith€v.Ð Ô$  ÐStateóó,€584€S.W.2d€811,€812€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979).ÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐÌòòAlton€Darnell€Youngóó,€slip€op.€at€3.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àSimilarly,€during€the€testimony€of€the€child€sex€abuse€victim€in€òòState€v.€Ross€JuniorÐ pÀ ÐGrahamóó,€No.€01C01„9110„CC„00316€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Oct.€22,€1992),€òòperm.€app.Ð \¬ Ðdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1993),€the€witness€pointed€to€the€area€of€her€body€with€which€the€defendant€madeÐ H˜ Ðphysical€contact.€€On€appeal,€the€defendant€challenged€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,Ð 4„ Ðbut€he€failed€to€provide€the€appellate€court€with€a€record€which€indicated€what€area€of€the€body€theÐ  p Ðvictim€demonstrated€that€he€had€touched.€€òòId.óó,€concurring€slip€op.€at€3.€€The€court€unanimouslyÐ  \ Ðaffirmed€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€òòIdóó.,€slip€op.€at€11.€€The€author€of€the€leadÐ øH Ðopinion€judged€the€testimony€sufficient€to€sustain€the€conviction,€while€a€second€member€of€theÐ ä4 Ðpanel€wrote€in€a€concurring€opinion€that€although€the€testimonial€evidence€was€lacking,€the€resultÐ Ð  Ðwas€correct€because€ð ðthe€deficiency€in€the€record€[of€the€victimððs€demonstration]€results€in€ourÐ ¼  Ðpresuming€that€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€jury€verdict,€which,€itself,€is€presumptivelyÐ ¨ø Ðcorrect€on€appeal.ðð€€òòId.óó,€concurring€slip€op.€at€3€(Tipton,€J.,€concurring).€€The€third€member€of€theÐ ”ä Ðpanel€joined€both€the€majority€and€concurring€opinions.€€òòSee€idóó.,€slip€op.€at€12.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àThus,€both€òòAlton€Darnell€Youngóó€and€the€concurring€opinion€in€òòRoss€Junior€GrahamóóÐ X ¨ Ðstand€for€the€proposition€that€the€appellant€bears€the€responsibility€for€seeing€that€òòallóó€of€the€evidenceÐ D!” Ðrelevant€to€appellate€issues,€including€the€content€of€witness€demonstrations,€is€memorialized€inÐ 0"€  Ðsome€form€in€the€appellate€record.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€first€blush,€it€may€appear€anomalous€to€penalize€the€defendant€in€the€case€at€barÐ ô$D # Ðfor€the€stateððs€failure€to€present€a€component€of€its€proof€in€a€way€in€which€it€would€be€preserved€inÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€record.€€Upon€careful€consideration,€however,€we€are€convinced€that€this€is€the€proper€course.€Ð Ì&"% ÐThe€physical€acts€that€comprised€the€demonstration€were€evidence€that€was€before€the€jury€at€the€trialÐ ¸'#& Ðof€this€matter.€€The€state€had€the€burden€of€proving€the€defendantððs€guilt€in€the€trial€court,€and€itÐ ¤(ô#' Ðchose€to€do€so€in€part€with€a€physical€demonstration.€€The€jury€had€that€evidence€before€it€in€passingÐ )à$( Ðon€the€defendantððs€guilt.€€After€the€jury€made€its€guilt€determination€and€the€trial€court€accepted€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðverdict,€the€stateððs€obligation€had€been€successfully€discharged.€€Thereafter,€the€defendant€appealedÐ h+¸&* Ðto€this€court,€and€in€doing€so€he€shouldered€the€burden€of€persuading€us€that€the€juryððs€determinationÐ ° Ðwas€incorrect.€€As€the€appellant,€he€was€required€to€ò òó ópresent€us€with€a€complete€record€of€òòallóó€theÐ œì Ðevidence€that€the€jury€had€before€it€in€making€its€determination€of€guilt.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b).€Ð ˆØ ÐHe€has€not€done€so.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€concluding€that€we€are€unable€to€review€the€defendantððs€sufficiency€issue€on€itsÐ L œ Ðmerits,€we€have€not€overlooked€the€possibility€that€notwithstanding€the€deficiency€of€the€record,€weÐ 8 ˆ Ðmight€reverse€the€aggravated€robbery€conviction€because€the€defendant€made€no€verbal€threat€ofÐ $ t Ðharm€during€the€crime.€€The€defendant€urges€to€that€course.€€In€support€of€his€argument,€theÐ  ` Ðdefendant€cites€two€prior€decisions€of€panels€of€this€court,€òòState€v.€Daryl€Anthony€Jemisonóó,€No.Ð ü L  Ð01C01-9303-CR-00107€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Mar.€31,€1994),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.Ð è 8  Ð1994),€and€òòState€v.€Aaron€Cooperóó,€No.€01C01-9708-CR-00368€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Sept.Ð Ô$  Ð29,€1998).€€In€both€cases,€the€defendant€failed€in€sufficiency„of„the„evidence€challenges€toÐ À  Ðaggravated€robbery€convictions.€€The€common€thread€of€€òòDaryl€Anthony€Jemisonóó€and€òòAaron€CooperóóÐ ¬ü  Ðis€that€in€both€cases€the€defendant€held€his€hand€in€a€manner€consistent€with€having€a€weapon€òòandóóÐ ˜è  Ðmade€a€verbal€threat€of€harm€to€the€victim.€€òòSee€Aaron€Cooperóó,€slip€op.€at€7;òò€Daryl€Anthony€Jemisonóó,Ð „Ô  Ðslip€op.€at€5.òòóó€€In€òòDaryl€Anthony€Jemisonóó,€the€panel€questioned€whether€ð ða€hand€in€a€jacket,€withoutÐ pÀ Ðmore,€support[s]€a€conclusion€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€there€was€a€ððdisplay€of€[an]€article€usedÐ \¬ Ðor€fashioned€to€lead€the€victim€to€reasonably€believe€it€to€be€a€deadly€weapon.ðð"€€òò€See€Daryl€AnthonyÐ H˜ ÐJemisonóó,€slip€op.€at€5.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àòòóóWe€acknowledge€that,€unlike€the€facts€of€òòAaron€Cooperóó€and€òòDaryl€Anthony€Jemisonóó,Ð  \ Ðthere€is€affirmative€evidence€in€this€case€that€the€defendant€did€òònotóó€threaten€to€harm€the€victim.€Ð øH ÐRather,€he€merely€demanded€money€of€the€victim€and€informed€her€that€she€was€being€robbed.€Ð ä4 ÐNevertheless,€we€are€not€prepared€to€conclude€that€the€mere€absence€of€a€verbal€threat€of€harm€orÐ Ð  Ðstatement€indicating€possession€of€a€deadly€weapon€is€necessarily€fatal€to€an€aggravated€robberyÐ ¼  Ðprosecution€in€which€the€weapon€is€not€actually€seen.€€We€believe€that€the€non„verbal€evidence€ofÐ ¨ø Ðdeadly€weapon€possession€might€be€sufficient€in€certain€circumstances€to€warrant€a€conviction.€€òòSeeÐ ”ä ÐPeople€v.€Jollyóó,€502€N.W.2d€177,€182€(Mich.€1993)€(ð ðThe€existence€of€some€object,€whether€actuallyÐ €Ð Ðseen€or€obscured€by€clothing€or€something€such€as€a€paper€bag,€is€objective€evidence€that€a€defendantÐ l¼ Ðpossesses€a€dangerous€weapon€or€an€article€used€or€fashioned€to€look€like€one.€€Related€threats,Ð X ¨ Ðwhether€verbal€or€gesticulatory,€further€support€the€existence€of€a€weapon€or€article.ðð).€€It€is€preciselyÐ D!” Ðthe€quantum€of€proof€on€that€issue€which€cannot€be€evaluated€from€the€incomplete€record€before€us.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àà ` àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð $X" ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð Ì&"% Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGE