ÿWPC‡% …U .V %„bŠ 0JŽØn­è 0T• 0 (éU: w¸K 4 0™ 0D° U:ô 0^. 0hŒ 0rô 0|f 0†â 0h 1uø 0dm BÑU *îB)ADCI AMŒ D3Ùâ fî 0@T ”5ŸàÔF´Cúv~=vÓ» 0TŽ# AOâ#Æ1$ 0D÷$ D/;% Bj%<þ6X9`(CourierX ù2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô3|x8«<þ6X9`(CourierXôxþ6X@ɹ`7ûX@2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial RegularÛ7VÜ7DÝ7VÞ7Dß7Và7Eá7â7Dã7Dä7æ7Vç7Dè7Vé7Dê7í7Vî7Dï7Uð7Dñ7Dò7ó7ô7Dõ7Dö7÷7ø7Dù7ú7Dû7Ó€Ô¡¨ (I(2/T$¤¤Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X™÷XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ""""'ÿÿdxd ØÝ ƒ !ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌJanuary€21,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€%Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€victims'€testimony€was€conflicting€as€to€whether€any€descriptionsÏwere€ever€given€over€the€telephone.€€In€any€event,€no€evidence€of€recordÏsupports€Wakefield's€assertion€that€any€tape€made€of€such€a€conversation,Ïassuming€it€took€place,€was€recorded€and€that€the€tape€was€erased€during€theÏdelay€in€his€reaching€trial.Ì +Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€%Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIt€bears€emphasizing€that€the€victims€disagree€whether€any€descriptionsÏwere€even€given€during€the€911€call.Ì ÖÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€%Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€state's€assertion€that€the€defense€did€not€object€to€admission€of€theÏco„defendant's€prior€testimony€is€only€partially€correct.€€There€was€noÏcontemporaneous€objection;€however,€after€the€witness€testified€and€the€tapeÏwas€played€for€the€jury,€defense€counsel€made€a€motion€to€strike,€which€the€trialÏcourt€denied.€€Due€to€the€constitutional€magnitude€of€the€alleged€error,€weÏdecline€in€this€instance€to€accept€the€state's€invitation€to€find€the€issueÏpretermitted€based€on€the€defendant's€failure€to€interpose€a€timely€objection.Ì <Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€%Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€witness€testified€he€was€19€years€old€on€the€date€of€trial,€the€trialÏtaking€place€well€over€two€years€after€the€offense.Ì 9Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€%Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€record€does€not€reflect€that€the€defendant€made€a€pre„trial€motion€toÏsuppress€the€show„up€identification€of€the€defendant€which€he€now€claims€wasÏ"impermissible."€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(b)(3),€(f)€(motion€to€suppressÏevidence€must€be€made€before€trial€or€it€will€be€treated€as€waived).€€We€are€notÏunmindful€that€the€defendant€has€now€framed€his€issue€in€a€way€in€which€we€areÏasked€to€consider€the€merits€of€an€otherwise€waived€issue€as€a€component€ofÏthe€question€presented.€€In€light€of€Rule€12(b)(3),€(f),€we€decline€to€consider,€òòperÏseóó,€the€asserted€impermissibility€of€the€pre„trial€identification€procedure.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò(—8$——ÔªÔò òòòóóó óÔªÔ€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€%ÔßR€)+(A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€Ìò òÑ€Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌ€à@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌó óÌà@ àSEPTEMBER€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à€à àà àó ó)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppellee,à àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€No.€01C01„9609„CR„00389Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CountyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òROY€DALE€WAKEFIELD,€JR.,à à€ó ó€€€à à)à àHon.€Thomas€H.€Shriver,ÏJudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellant.à àà àà à)à à(Aggravated€Robbery,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Attempted€Aggravated€Robbery)Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌTOM€WHITESIDEà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌAttorney€at€Lawà àà0 àà àà àà0 àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ172€Second€Ave.€North,€Ste.€214ÌNashville,€TN€€37201à àà àà àà àELIZABETH€B.€MARNEYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àVICTOR€S.€JOHNSON,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNICK€BAILEYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÏGeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à222€Second€Ave€North,€Ste.€500Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37201„1649ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€____________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌó óÌÌCURWOOD€WITT€ÌJUDGEÌÌÌÑ€,ÑÇÑ7€"$XXdðXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ ` ÑÓÓÑ7€ 29 XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àò òòòOPINIONó óóóÌà àà àThe€defendant,€Roy€Dale€Wakefield,€Jr.,€appeals€his€conviction€ofÏaggravated€robbery€and€attempted€aggravated€robbery.€€His€conviction€resultedÏfrom€a€jury€trial€in€the€Davidson€County€Criminal€Court.€€A€Range€I€offender,ÏWakefield€was€given€an€effective€eleven€year€sentence,€which€he€is€serving€inÏthe€Department€of€Correction.€€In€this€direct€appeal,€he€raises€three€issues€forÏour€consideration:ÌÓÓà à1.à0 àWhether€the€charges€against€him€should€have€been€dismissedÏbased€on€violation€of€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial.ÌÌà à2.à0 àWhether€he€was€denied€the€right€to€confront€a€witness€and€a€fairÏtrial€€by€the€trial€court's€admission€of€a€witness's€prior€statementÏunder€oath.ÌÌà à3.à0 àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€motion€for€judgment€ofÏacquittal€based€on€an€insufficiency€of€evidence€properly€identifyingÏthe€defendant€as€one€of€the€perpetrators€of€the€crime.ÌÌÓÓHaving€considered€the€parties'€arguments€in€conjunction€with€the€record€onÏappeal,€we€find€no€error€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€early€morning€hours€of€July€11,€1993,€two€employees€of€theÏBellevue€Captain€D's€Restaurant€in€Davidson€County€were€approached€in€theÏrestaurant€parking€lot€by€two€armed€males€wearing€bandanas€over€portions€ofÏtheir€faces.€€The€males€demanded€the€money€bag€from€the€restaurant,€which€theÍvictims€did€not€have.€€The€males€then€took€five€dollars€from€one€of€the€victimsÏand€searched€the€other€victim's€person€but€found€nothing€of€value.€€The€robbersÏfled€on€foot,€and€the€victims€alerted€the€authorities,€who€responded€shortlyÏthereafter.€€ÌÌà àà àOfficer€Todd€Frye€of€the€Metropolitan€Police€Department€wasÏpatrolling€the€Bellevue€area.€€While€on€his€way€to€another€call,€he€receivedÏinformation€over€his€police€radio€about€the€robbery€of€the€Captain€D'sÏemployees.€€As€he€traveled€in€the€vicinity,€he€noticed€a€car€with€a€missingÏheadlight€coming€from€the€area€of€the€robbery.€€He€initiated€a€traffic€stop.€€As€aÏresult€of€the€stop,€Frye€and€another€officer€ultimately€discovered€a€handgun,Ïammunition,€a€knife€and€bandanas€in€the€vehicle.€€After€receiving€identifyingÏinformation€about€the€robbers,€Frye€determined€that€two€of€the€vehicle's€fourÏoccupants€fit€the€description.€€A€"showup"€was€conducted,€and€the€victimsÏidentified€Wakefield€and€a€juvenile€companion€as€the€individuals€who€robbedÏthem.€€Wakefield€and€the€juvenile€were€arrested.ÌÌà àà àUltimately,€a€presentment€was€returned€against€Wakefield€onÏDecember€13,€1994,€approximately€17€months€after€his€arrest.€€He€was€tried€onÏDecember€12,€1995,€resulting€in€the€convictions€which€bring€him€before€thisÍcourt.ÌÌà@ àò òIó óÌà àà àIn€his€first€issue,€Wakefield€claims€the€trial€court€erred€in€denyingÏhis€motion€to€dismiss€based€upon€infringement€of€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial.€€HeÏclaims€the€17€month€delay€between€the€date€of€his€arrest€and€the€return€of€theÏpresentment€constitutes€impermissible€delay€which€is€presumptively€prejudicial.€ÏHe€further€claims€he€was€actually€prejudiced€because€the€tape€of€the€victims'Ï911€call€in€which€the€victims€allegedly€described€their€assailants€was€erasedÏduring€the€delay.€€The€state€analyzes€the€issue€differently€from€the€defendant.€€ItÏposits€that€this€is€not€a€case€for€speedy€trial€analysis,€but€one€of€due€processÏinquiry€based€upon€the€delay€between€the€commission€of€the€offense€andÏcommencement€of€adversarial€proceedings.€€Ultimately,€the€state€argues€theÏtrial€court€correctly€denied€the€motion€to€dismiss.ÌÌà àà àA€criminal€defendant€has€a€right€to€a€speedy€trial.€€U.S.€Const.Ïamend.€XI;€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€9;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„14„101;€òòseeóó€Tenn.€R.ÏCrim.€P.€48(b).€€This€right€accrues€when€the€defendant€is€arrested€or€indicted,Ïwhichever€œis€first,›€and€continues€until€the€time€of€trial.€€òòUnited€States€v.€LoudÏHawkóó,€474€U.S.€302,€311„14,€106€S.€Ct.€648,€654„55€(1986).€€Similarly,Íalthough€there€is€no€constitutional€right€to€be€arrested,€an€undue€delay€betweenÏthe€commission€of€an€offense€and€the€initiation€of€criminal€proceedings€mayÏviolate€due€process.€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€255€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1990).€€In€the€case€at€bar,€Wakefield€was€arrested€almost€immediately€after€theÏcrime;€thus,€we€agree€with€him€that€the€proper€basis€for€our€analysis€is€his€rightÏto€a€speedy€trial,€rather€than€the€due€process€analysis€advanced€by€the€state.ÌÌà àà àIn€determining€whether€a€criminal€defendant's€right€to€a€speedyÏtrial€has€been€violated,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€adopted€theÏapproach€announced€by€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€in€òòBarker€v.€Wingoóó,Ï407€U.S.€514,€92€S.€Ct.€2182€(1972).€€Under€the€òòBarkeróó€analysis,€four€factorsÏdetermine€whether€a€defendant's€right€to€a€speedy€trial€has€been€œviolated.€€They›Ïare€(1)€the€length€of€the€delay,€(2)€the€reason€for€the€delay,€(3)€whether€theÏdefendant€asserted€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial,€and€(4)€whether€the€defendantÏhas€suffered€prejudice€from€any€delay.€€òòState€v.€Bishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€81,€84Ï(Tenn.€1973).€€On€appellate€review,€the€trial€court's€determination€in€this€regardÏis€subject€to€review€for€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Jeffersonóó,€938€S.W.2dÏ1,€9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).ÌÌà àà àThe€first€factor,€length€of€the€delay,€has€generally€been€consideredÍthe€triggering€mechanism€for€consideration€of€the€other€factors.€€òòState€v.€Woodóó,Ï924€S.W.2d€342,€346€(Tenn.€1996).€€However,€a€lengthy€delay,€standing€alone,Ïwill€not€support€a€finding€of€a€speedy€trial€violation.€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Vanceóó,€888ÏS.W.2d€776,€778€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€Kolbóó,€755€S.W.2d€472,€474Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€Rather,€the€length€of€the€delay€must€be€balancedÏalong€with€the€remaining€factors.€€òòKolbóó,€755€S.W.2d€at€474.€€In€determiningÏwhether€inquiry€beyond€the€œfirst€€factor›€is€warranted,€the€United€States€SupremeÏCourt€endorsed€a€delay€of€one€year€or€more€as€the€point€at€which€inquiry€intoÏthe€remaining€òòBarkeróó€factors€is€mandated.€€òòDoggett€v.€United€Statesóó,€505€U.S.Ï647,€654€at€n.1,€657„58,€112€S.€Ct.€2686,€2691€at€n.1,€2694€(1992).€€ÌÌà àà àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€delay€between€the€defendant's€arrest€andÏhis€trial€was€approximately€29€months.€€Thus,€the€appropriate€course€of€action€isÏconsideration€of€all€of€the€òòBarkeróó€factors.€€We€are€unable€to€complete€thatÏinquiry,€however,€because€we€have€not€been€favored€with€the€transcript€of€theÏhearing€on€the€motion€to€dismiss€and€other€relevant€information.€€As€such,€weÏhave€no€evidentiary€basis€for€some€of€the€facts€asserted€by€Wakefield€in€supportÏof€his€argument.€€The€record€contains€no€evidence€regarding€the€reason€for€theÏdelay.€€Similarly,€the€record€does€not€contain€the€motion€for€a€speedy€trial€thatÏWakefield€alleges€he€made€òòpro€seóó,€although€the€record€does€contain€hisÍcounseled€motion€to€dismiss€based€on€the€speedy€trial€issue,€which€was€madeÏapproximately€19€months€after€his€arrest.€€€At€most,€the€motion€to€dismiss€may€beÏviewed€as€a€demand€for€a€speedy€trial€as€of€the€date€of€its€filing.€€Finally,€theÏrecord€contains€no€evidence€to€support€Wakefield's€bald€assertion€that€theÏdelay€hindered€his€defense€because€the€alleged€tape€of€the€911€call€in€whichÏthe€victims€described€their€attackers€was€erased€during€the€delay.œ× ƒ. ××  ×›€Without€aÏsufficient€factual€basis€upon€which€to€base€a€determination,€we€are€hindered€inÏour€ability€to€consider€the€issue.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b);€òòState€v.€Jack€D.ÏWilliamsóó,€01C01„9505„CR„00146,€slip€op.€at€6„7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,ÏNov.€12,€1996).ÌÌà àà àNevertheless,€we€have€considered€Wakefield's€allegations,€andÏeven€if€the€trial€court€found€all€of€the€defendant's€assertions€to€be€true,€itÏnevertheless€reached€the€proper€conclusion€upon€weighing€of€the€four€òòBarkeróóÏconsiderations.€€First,€the€period€between€Wakefield's€arrest€and€trial€strikes€usÏas€unduly€protracted€given€the€comparatively€uncomplicated€nature€of€the€case.€€ÏSecond,€however,€there€is€no€evidence€the€state€purposefully€caused€the€delay.€ÍThere€is€some€indication€the€defendant€may€have€been€responsible€for€at€leastÏpart€of€the€delay€by€requesting€a€continuance.€€We€decline€to€find€against€theÏstate€on€this€factor.ò ò€€ó óThird,€Wakefield€claims€to€have€filed€a€òòpro€seóó€motion€for€aÏspeedy€trial€on€March€22,€1994.€€This€militates€in€his€favor.€€Fourth,€we€fail€to€findÏmerit€in€Wakefield's€allegation€he€suffered€prejudice€as€a€result€of€the€delayÏbecause€his€counsel€was€unable€to€effectively€cross„examine€the€victims€aboutÏtheir€descriptions€of€their€assailants€due€to€the€erasure€of€the€tape€of€the€911Ïcall.€€Nothing€in€the€record€indicates€that€any€such€tape€contained€descriptionsÏvarying€from€those€given€by€the€victims€at€trial.€€If€the€record€can€be€said€toÏindicate€anything,€it€is€the€contrary.€€Officer€Bryan€Brooks€testified€about€theÏdescriptions€the€victims€gave€of€the€suspects€when€he€responded€to€the€scene.€ÏThose€descriptions€are€generally€consistent€with€the€descriptions€given€by€theÏvictims€at€trial.€€€Officer€Brooks€responded€mere€minutes€after€the€911€call€wasÏmade.€€It€stands€to€reason€that€any€descriptions€given€by€the€victims€over€such€aÏshort€period€of€time€would€not€differ€substantially.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€Absent€evidence€whichÏpoints€to€the€existence€of€some€actual€ground€for€cross„examination€of€theÏvictims€on€this€point,€we€decline€to€resolve€this€issue€favorably€for€the€defendant.€ÏOn€balance,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€inÍdetermining€that€the€defendant€failed€to€make€out€a€speedy€trial€violation.€€ThisÏissue€lacks€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òIIó óÌà àà àIn€his€second€issue,€Wakefield€claims€he€was€denied€the€right€toÏconfront€a€witness€and€a€fair€trial€by€the€trial€court's€admission€of€his€co„defendant's€sworn€testimony€from€the€co„defendant's€plea€submission€hearing.€ÏThis€evidence€was€admitted€for€purposes€of€impeachment€when€the€co„defendant€took€the€stand€and€claimed€to€have€lost€his€memory€of€the€relevantÏevents.€€In€an€argument€bereft€of€citation€to€authority,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(b),Ïthe€state€defends€the€admission€of€this€evidence€as€a€prior€inconsistentÏstatement€which€met€with€no€objection€at€trial.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€Further,€the€state€points€out,€theÏdefendant€was€not€denied€the€right€of€confrontation€because€defense€counselÏcross„examined€Wakefield's€co„defendant€about€his€professed€lack€of€memoryÏand€his€prior€testimony.ÌÌà àà àThe€Sixth€Amendment€of€the€United€States€ConstitutionÏguarantees€a€defendant€the€right€to€confront€witnesses€against€him€at€trial.€ÏSimilarly,€article€I,€section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€and€Code€sectionÏ40„17„105€guarantee€a€defendant's€right€to€meet€the€witnesses€face„to„face.€ÏEssentially,€the€purpose€of€the€Confrontation€Clause€is€to€protect€theÏdefendant's€right€of€cross„examination.€€òòTennessee€v.€Streetóó,€471€U.S.€409,Ï414,€105€S.€Ct.€2078,€2082€(1985)€(citations€omitted).€€Where€a€defendant€isÏunable€to€cross„examine€a€hearsay€declarant€about€his€or€her€statement€whichÏis€admitted€for€substantive€purposes€at€the€defendant's€trial,€such€admissionÏruns€afoul€of€the€Confrontation€Clause.€€òòBruton€v.€United€Statesóó,€391€U.S.€123,Ï88€S.€Ct.€1620€(1968).ÌÌà àà àIn€the€case€at€bar,€a€witness€who€the€state€alleged€was€Wakefield'sÏjuvenile€partner€in€crime× ƒ1 ××  ×€was€called€by€the€state.€€He€testified€that€due€to€pastÏdrug€use€and€stress,€he€had€no€recollection€of€his€or€the€defendant'sÏinvolvement€in€the€robbery€and€attempted€robbery€of€the€victims€on€July€11,Ï1993.€€He€likewise€claimed€to€have€no€memory€of€entering€his€guilty€plea€andÏtestifying€about€committing€the€crimes€with€the€defendant.€€We€gather€from€theÍrecord€that€this€professed€loss€of€memory€was€surprising€for€both€the€state€andÏthe€defense.€€We€further€glean€from€the€record€the€witness's€testimony€about€hisÏlack€of€memory€was€generally€considered€incredible€by€the€parties€and€theÏcourt.€€The€state€questioned€the€witness€about€his€entry€of€a€guilty€plea€for€theÏcrimes,€and€specifically€about€his€admissions€under€oath€about€the€details€of€theÏcrimes,€those€details€including€Wakefield's€involvement€as€the€other€robber.€ÏThe€witness€steadfastly€maintained€his€claim€of€lost€memory.€€The€defense€wasÏlikewise€unable€to€shake€the€witness's€position€€on€cross„examination.€€TheÏcourt€allowed€the€state€to€play€a€tape€of€the€guilty€plea€hearing€in€which€theÏwitness€recalled€the€crimes€in€detail.Ìà àÌà àà àWe€begin€our€analysis€with€the€admissibility€of€the€tape's€contentsÏunder€the€Rules€of€Evidence.€€Rule€613€provides€for€admission€of€a€witness'sÏprior€inconsistent€statement.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€613(b).€€Such€statements€areÏadmissible€to€impeach€the€witness/declarant.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€613,€AdvisoryÏComm'n€Comment.€€In€the€case€at€bar,€the€witness€claimed€to€have€no€memoryÏof€committing€the€crimes€with€the€defendant.€€Likewise,€he€claimed€to€have€noÏmemory€of€entering€his€guilty€plea€and€giving€testimony€at€the€plea€hearing.€ÏUnder€the€Rules€of€Evidence,€the€tape€was€properly€admitted€as€a€priorÏinconsistent€statement€for€the€non„hearsay€purpose€of€impeaching€the€witness'sÍclaim€of€lost€memory.ÌÌà àà àThe€question€that€remains€is€whether€the€evidence,€thoughÏotherwise€admissible,€should€have€been€excluded€because€it€violated€theÏdefendant's€right€to€confront€adverse€witnesses.€€We€hold€it€should€not€haveÏbeen€excluded.€€The€tape€was€offered€as€evidence€to€assist€the€jury€inÏdetermining€whether€the€witness'€testimony€was€credible.€€The€witness€wasÏthoroughly€cross„examined€about€the€tape.€€Simply€stated,€the€defendant€wasÏnot€denied€the€right€to€confront€the€witness.€€òòSeeóó€òòStreetóó,€471€U.S.€at€414,€105€S.ÏCt.€at€2081„82;€òòState€v.€George€Harlessóó,€03C01„9203„CR„00105,€slip€op.€at€6„9Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Aug.€11,€1993),€òòperm€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1993);ÏòòJimmy€Don€Spangler€v.€Stateóó,€No€Number,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Apr.€2,Ï1987),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1987);€òòaccordóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Shoupeóó,€548ÏF.2d€636,€643€(6th€Cir.€1977)€(trial€court€would€have€been€justified€in€allowingÏlimited€impeachment€of€witness€by€use€of€prior€inconsistent€statement€given€toÏgovernment€agent€where€witness's€claim€of€selective€memory€was€incredible).€ÏAccordingly,€we€find€this€issue€lacking€in€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òIIIó óÌà àà àIn€his€third€issue,€Wakefield€claimsÌÓÓà8 àThe€trial€court€erred€as€a€matter€of€law€in€denying€defendant'sÏmotion€of€acquittal€made€at€the€close€of€the€state's€proof€where€theÏevidence€of€identification€of€the€defendant€was€based€upon€anÏimpermissible€show„up€conducted€by€the€police€and€not€basedÏupon€an€independent€recollection€of€the€assailants€whoÏconfronted€the€victims€on€the€night€the€offense€occurred.ÌÌÓÓThe€state€considers€the€issue€to€be€one€of€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€AfterÏreflecting€on€the€wording€of€Wakefield's€issue€and€his€accompanying€argument,Ïwe€are€inclined€to€agree€with€the€state€that€Wakefield's€attack€is€to€theÏsufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€particularly€the€identification€of€theÏdefendant€as€one€of€œthe€perpetrators›€of€the€crime€and€not€to€the€legality€of€theÏshow„up€procedure.œ× ƒ2 ××  ×›Ìà àà àÌà àà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€anÏappellate€courtððs€standard€of€review€is€whether,€after€considering€the€evidenceÏin€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€haveÏfound€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJacksonÏv.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€324,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2791„92€(1979);€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,Í698€S.W.2d€63,€67€(Tenn.€1985);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€€13(e).€€This€rule€applies€toÏfindings€of€guilt€based€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€aÏcombination€of€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2dÏ250,€253€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€€ÌÌà àà àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€should€notÏreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,Ïthe€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€theÏevidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,Ï835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Nor€may€this€court€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawnÏby€the€trier€of€fact€from€the€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286ÏS.W.2d€856,€859€(1956);€€òòFarmer€v.€Stateóó,€574€S.W.2d€49,€51€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1978).€€On€the€contrary,€this€court€must€afford€the€State€of€Tennessee€theÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€as€well€as€allÏreasonable€and€œlegitimate€€inferences›€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€ÏòòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.ÌÌà àà àThe€victims'€in„court€identifications,€one€unequivocal€and€the€otherÏsomewhat€tentative,€support€the€defendant's€convictions.€€In€addition€to€theÍidentifications,€the€record€likewise€reflects€that€Wakefield€was€apprehended€inÏthe€area€of€the€crimes€shortly€after€their€occurrence.€€Both€he€and€one€of€hisÏcompanions€matched€the€victims'€preliminary€descriptions€of€the€robbers.€€TheÏvehicle€in€which€the€defendant€was€a€passenger€contained€the€weapons€usedÏin€the€crime€and€bandanas€like€those€worn€by€the€robbers.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏPappasóó,€œ754€€S.W.2d›€620€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987);€òòWadley€v.€Stateóó,€634ÏS.W.2d€658€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).ÌÌà àà àWe€conclude€that€the€eyewitness€identifications€of€Wakefield,Ïbuttressed€by€other€circumstantial€evidence€of€his€guilt,€overwhelmingly€supportÏhis€convictions€of€the€crimes€of€aggravated€robbery€and€attempted€aggravatedÏrobbery€of€the€victims.ÌÌà àà àFinding€all€of€the€defendant's€issues€lacking€in€merit,€we€affirm€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÌÌÌ̜ǛœCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________›ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÌÌÌ