ÿWPC  5# öU: %; 0ˆAÉwšÑ4kŽ 0– 0DnXáU09 0Ji 0T³ nX 0^_ 0h½ 0D% 0ri 0|Û 0†W 0Ý 1um 0dâ AQFÆ— B] 0@z 0Dº D/þ B- D3JU *}B)§DCÐ AM„`”äUxv~ÍvÓK˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(`o=$¡¡ÑTRY(3Ø'ÿ LetterY(3Ø'ÿ Letter3Ø'ÿ Letter3Ø'ÿ LetterTÑÔ  ÔGHIIJ[KSNUOUPDQUR«U«VWDXEZt[\D]D^_+`DabDcÓ€mê‚_#D3|xo(·(2ðo$¤¤Ý ƒo=!ÝÑTRY3Ø'ÿ Letter3Ø' 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ô€™ôXXÔà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó«(t˜`$GourmandBookESXXrt˜ P|ƒ"sXP(t˜`$GourmandBookESôô_t˜ P|ƒ"sôP8äP `GenevaPC2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô«(t˜`$GourmandBookESXXrt˜ P|ƒ"sXP(t˜`$GourmandBookESôô_t˜ P|ƒ"sôP2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý2@ 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!#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd""""'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d----7Border 1dd!#.Cþÿ << Gÿÿ zÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€,XÔÌÌMarch€9,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ŠÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€,ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€sole€apparent€change€to€former€practice€made€by€Rule€613€concerns€writtenÏstatements.Ì KÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€,ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝUpon€an€unequivocal€admission€by€the€witness,€the€extrinsic€evidence€remains€relevantÏfor€only€two€purposes:€(1)€to€bolster€the€witnessðð€credibility€in€admitting€to€having€made€the€pre„trialÏstatement;€or€(2)€as€substantive€evidence€that€the€witnessðð€prior€statement€was€true.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿáùEG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€,ÔÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€?¯XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ , ÑÑ   ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ€- §u` Ñò òÞ ÞÌà@ à›IN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFOR€PUBLICATIONÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœò òFiled:ó 󛀜òò€€€€€€€€€March€9,€1998›à€ àóóÌÌÌÌœSTATE›€OF€TENNESSEE,à@ à)à àDAVIDSON€COUNTY€CRIMINALÌà@ à)à àà àNo.€93„B„879Ìà àAPPELLEE,€à@ à)Ìà@ à)Ìv.à@ à)à àHon.€Seth€Norman,€œJudgeÔ€,&Ô›Ìà@ à)ÌHENRY€LEE€MARTIN,à@ à)Ìà@ à)Ìà àAPPELLANT.€à@ à)à àNo.€01S01„9611„CR„00225ÌÙ€!ÙœßR€/0.A1-j|.` ç `€€@ÿRß›ÌÌÌÌ̛̜ÌÌÌòòFOR€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòFOR€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌJeffrey€A.€DeVasherà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌNashvilleÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àANDÌJames€P.€McNamaraÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àMichael€E.€MooreÌNashvilleà àà àà àà àà àSolicitor€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKaren€M.€YacuzzoÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashvilleÌÌÌœ›ÌœÌÌ›ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òÔ€,èÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÔ€,XÔÌÌœ›ÌÌAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIED€€€€€€€à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àHOLDER,€J.ÇÓÓà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌà àA€jury€convicted€the€defendant,€Henry€Lee€Martin,€of€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery.€€He€was€sentenced€to€twenty„two€years€imprisonment€andÏfined€five€thousand€dollars.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€both€hisÏconviction€and€his€sentence.€€We€granted€review€to€determine€whether€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.,€Rule€613(b)€mandates€that€a€foundation€be€laid€prior€to€the€introduction€ofÏextrinsic€evidence€of€a€witness'€prior€inconsistent€statement.€€We€hold€thatÏextrinsic€evidence€remains€inadmissible€until:€€(1)€€the€witness€is€asked€whetherÏthe€witness€made€the€prior€inconsistent€statement;€and€(2)€€the€witness€deniesÏor€equivocates€as€to€having€made€the€prior€inconsistent€œstatement.›ÌÌÓ  Óò òFACTSó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àOn€February€24,€1993,€the€defendant€entered€a€One€Price€Clothing€storeÏin€Nashville.€€Ms.€Hollingsworth€testified€that€she€spoke€with€the€defendant€forÏapproximately€ten€minutes€and€showed€him€several€garments.€€She,€however,Ïbecame€frustrated€at€the€defendant's€indecisiveness.€€She€told€the€defendant€toÏlet€her€know€if€he€required€further€assistance.€€She€went€back€to€the€front€of€theÏstore.€€A€short€time€later,€the€defendant€again€requested€her€assistance.€€SheÏassisted€him€for€an€additional€five€to€ten€minutes.€€The€defendant€requested€aÍgarment€in€a€size€not€on€the€rack.€€Ms.€Hollingsworth€then€went€into€theÏstockroom€to€determine€whether€they€had€the€garment€in€the€requested€size.ÌÌà àMs.€Hollingsworth€had€a€short€conversation€with€another€store€employee,ÏMs.€Blakely,€while€in€the€stockroom.€€Ms.€Hollingsworth€then€realized€that€theÏdefendant€had€followed€her€part€of€the€way€into€the€stockroom.€€She€turned€toÏthe€defendant,€informed€him€that€the€requested€size€was€not€available€andÏasked€whether€there€was€anything€else€she€could€show€him.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€later€requested€Ms.€Hollingsworthððs€assistance€for€a€thirdÏtime.€€On€this€occasion,€the€defendant€appeared€to€have€an€object€in€his€hand.€ÏHe€lured€her€into€a€back€corner€of€the€store.€€As€she€was€taking€an€item€from€theÏrack,€the€defendant€stabbed€her€and€threw€her€onto€the€floor.€€He€then€pulledÏher€to€her€feet,€stood€behind€her€and€held€a€knife€to€her€throat.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€directed€both€Ms.€Hollingsworth€and€Ms.€Blakely€to€enterÏthe€stockroom€where€he€bound€Ms.€Blakely's€hands€and€feet€together€with€ductÏtape.€€He€then€forced€Ms.€Hollingsworth€to€accompany€him€to€the€cash€register.€ÏMs.€Hollingsworth€told€the€defendant€how€to€open€the€register.€€The€defendantÏthen€led€Ms.€Hollingsworth€back€into€the€stockroom€where€he€asked€Ms.€BlakelyÍto€confirm€the€procedure€for€opening€the€cash€register€without€setting€off€anÏalarm.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€and€Ms.€Hollingsworth€proceeded€back€to€the€cashÏregister.€€She€opened€the€register€and€placed€the€register's€contents€into€a€bag.€ÏThe€defendant€led€Ms.€Hollingsworth€back€into€the€stockroom€and€forced€her€toÏlie€on€the€stockroom€floor€next€to€Ms.€Blakely.€€He€then€placed€boxes€and€chairsÏon€top€of€them€and€fled€the€store.ÌÌà àMs.€Hollingsworth€was€able€to€crawl€out€from€beneath€the€boxes€andÏchairs.€€She€then€summoned€help€from€a€customer€who€had€entered€the€store.€ÏShe€was€transported€to€the€hospital€where€she€spent€thirty„six€hours€in€intensiveÏcare€and€an€additional€three€days€in€a€regular€hospital€room€prior€to€beingÏreleased.€€She€sustained€a€collapsed€lung€as€a€result€of€the€defendant€havingÏstabbed€her.ÌÌà àMs.€Hollingsworth€provided€the€police€with€a€description€of€the€defendant.€ÏShe€later€was€able€to€identify€the€defendant€from€a€photographic€line„up.€€SheÏtestified€that€she€had€no€doubts€concerning€her€identification€of€the€defendantÏas€the€perpetrator.ÌÌà àMs.€Blakely€testified€that€she€had€worked€at€the€One€Price€Clothing€StoreÏon€February€24,€1993.€€She€stated€that€she€had€seen€the€defendant€in€the€storeÏon€February€24,€1993,€and€that€Ms.€Hollingsworth€had€assisted€the€defendant.€ÏShe€further€stated€that€she€got€a€good€look€at€the€defendant€while€Ms.ÏHollingsworth€was€assisting€him.€€Ms.€Blakely€was€positive€that€the€defendantÏwas€the€perpetrator.ÌÌà àLennie€Covington,€the€investigating€officer,€testified.€€He€stated€that€anÏapartment€where€the€defendant€had€resided€in€February,€1993,€was€located€onÏa€hill€that€overlooked€the€One€Price€Clothing€Store.€€He€identified€photographsÏof€a€path€which€lead€from€the€apartment€complex€where€the€defendant€hadÏresided€to€the€One€Price€Clothing€Store.ÌÌà àPatricia€Berry,€the€defendant's€girlfriend,€testified€as€an€alibi€witness.€ÏShe€stated€that€she€and€the€defendant€had€resided€together€in€February,€1993.€ÏShe€stated€that€they€injected€cocaine€on€a€daily€basis€and€that€she€and€theÏdefendant€supported€their€habit€by€stealing.€€Their€typical€day€consisted€ofÏ"get[ting]€high"€and€shoplifting€to€"get€some€more€[dope]."€€Ms.€Berry€testified€thatÏon€the€date€of€the€robbery,€she€had€worked€until€three€o'clock€in€the€afternoon.€ÏShe€and€the€defendant€"did€some€cocaine"€that€afternoon€and€later€"went€outÏboosting,€shoplifting"€so€that€they€could€purchase€more€cocaine.€€On€crossÍexamination,€Ms.€Berry€appeared€to€have€some€initial€confusion€as€to€whetherÏshe€had€worked€on€February€23€or€February€24,€the€date€of€the€robbery.€€She,Ïhowever,€maintained€that€she€could€remember€the€events€of€those€days€clearlyÏand€that€the€defendant€was€with€her€at€their€apartment,€injecting€cocaine€duringÏthe€time€of€the€robbery.€€ÌÌà àDuring€the€stateððs€cross€examination,€Ms.€Berry€admitted€talking€to€officerÏCovington,€the€arresting€officer,€at€the€time€of€the€arrest.€€She€agreed€that€sheÏdid€not€tell€officer€Covington€that€the€defendant€could€not€have€committed€theÏrobbery€because€he€had€been€with€her€at€the€time€of€the€arrest.€€The€followingÏcolloquy€occurred€between€the€state€and€Ms.€Berry:ÌÌÓÓà8 àQ.€€And€you€knew€that€[the€defendant]€had€not€done€that€becauseÏhe€had€been€with€you,€and€the€two€of€you€were€together?ÌÌà8 àA.€€Yes.ÌÌà8 àQ.€€Did€you€tell€Detective€Covington€that?ÌÌà8 àA.€€No,€Sir.€€I€didn't€tell€nobody€nothing.€€I€haven't€talked€toÏanybody.ÌÌà8 àQ.€€You€talked€to€Detective€Covington€that€day,€didn't€you?ÌÌœ›à8 àA.€€That€day€he€picked€us€up€from€Murfreesboro?€€We€both€talkedÏto€him,€yes.€.€.€.€I€probably€did.€€I€was€thinking€the€day€that€I€workedÏwas€on€a€Tuesday.€€And€it€was€not€on€a€Tuesday.€€It€was€on€aÏWednesday.€€At€the€beginning.€.€.€.€€I€mistaked€[sic]€my€days.ÌÌà à€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àQ.€€Okay.€€My€question€to€you€was,€did€you€tell€Officer€CovingtonÏwhen€you€were€arrested€that€he€couldn't€have€done€it,€that€he€wasÏwith€me€that€day€at€my€apartment?ÌÌà8 àA.€€No.€€I€did€not€tell€him€that.ÓÓÌà àÌÌà àOn€rebuttal,€the€state€called€officer€Covington€to€testify€that€the€defendantÏinitiated€a€conversation€while€the€defendant€and€Ms.€Berry€were€in€the€back€seatÏof€Covington's€car.€€The€defendant€asked€on€what€date€the€robbery€occurred.€ÏWhen€told€the€date,€Martin€then€turned€to€Ms.€Berry€and€asked€if€she€knewÏwhere€he€had€been€on€that€night.€€Ms.€Berry€responded,€"I€don't€know€whereÏyou€were,€I€was€in€the€motel."Ìà àÌÓ  Óò òDISCUSSIONó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€issue€with€which€we€are€confronted€is€whether€the€officer's€testimonyÏwas€properly€admitted€as€extrinsic€evidence€of€a€prior€inconsistent€statementÏmade€by€Ms.€Berry.€€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€held€that€a€foundation€wasÏnot€a€prerequisite€to€the€admission€of€the€extrinsic€evidence€under€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.,€Rule€613(b).€€Pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€Rule€613(b):ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[e]xtrinsic€evidence€of€a€prior€inconsistent€statementÏby€a€witness€is€not€admissible€unless€the€witness€isÏafforded€an€opportunity€to€explain€or€deny€the€sameÏand€the€opposite€party€is€afforded€an€opportunity€toÏinterrogate€the€witness€thereon,€or€the€interests€ofÏjustice€otherwise€require.ÓÓÌÌ€ÌÔ€Ôà àThe€origin€of€Rule€613€is€the€rule€in€Queen€Caroline's€Case,€2ÏBr.€&€B.€284,€129€Eng.€Rep.€976€(1820).€€The€rule€in€Queen's€caseÏstates:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àÌà8 àà8 àIf€it€be€intended€to€bring€the€credit€of€aÏwitness€into€question€by€proof€of€anything€heÏmay€have€said€or€declared€touching€the€cause,Ïthe€witness€is€first€asked,€upon€cross„examination,€whether€or€not€he€has€said€orÏdeclared€that€which€is€intended€to€be€proved.ÓÓÌÌAccordingly,€the€rule€in€Queen's€case€required€a€cross„examiner€toÏconfront€a€witness€with€the€contents€of€a€prior€inconsistentÏstatement€before€the€introduction€of€extrinsic€evidence.ÌÌà àThe€Tennessee€practice€traditionally€has€adhered€to€theÏprocedures€set€forth€by€the€rule€in€Queen's€case.€€òòHardin€v.€Stateóó,€355ÏS.W.2d€105,€113€(Tenn.€1962);€òòState€v.€Frahmóó,€737€S.W.2d€799,€802Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987);€òòState€v.€McDougleóó,€681€S.W.2d€578,€583Ï(Tenn€.€Crim.€App.€1984);€òòState€v.€Mackeyóó,€638€S.W.2d€830,€835€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1982).€€This€practice€required€that€a€witness'€attention€beÏdrawn€to€the€place,€persons€present,€time€of€the€statement,€and€toÏthe€substance€of€the€statement€before€extrinsic€evidence€of€theÏprior€inconsistent€statement€could€be€used€to€impeach€the€witness'Ïcredibility.€€òòMiddle€Tenn.€R.R.€Co.€v.€McMillanóó,€134€Tenn.€490,€515„16Ï(1915).€€The€foundational€requirements€were€to:€€(1)€€provide€theÏwitness€an€opportunity€to€admit,€deny,€or€explain€the€priorÏinconsistent€statement;€(2)€€refresh€the€witness'€memory;€and€(3)€Ïallow€the€witness€to€respond€intelligently€to€the€impeachmentÏattempt.€€òòIdóó.;€òòseeóó€òòMoore€v.€Bettisóó,€€30€Tenn.€67,€69€(1850)€(holding€itÏa€"manifest€injustice"€to€impeach€a€witness'€character€without€firstÏcalling€attention€to€statement€and€allowing€an€opportunity€toÏexplain).€€Both€Rule€613€and€the€Advisory€Commission€comments€toÍRule€613€omit€any€reference€to€timing€or€sequence.€€The€AdvisoryÏCommission€comments,€however,€do€affirmatively€note€that€theÏimplementation€of€Rule€613€"will€not€change€drastically€[former]ÏTennessee€procedure."× ƒ1 ××  ×€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€613,€Advisory€CommissionÏComments€òòcitingóó€òòMooreóó,€òòsupraóó.ÌÌà àThe€purpose€of€Rule€613(b)€is€to€allow€introduction€ofÏotherwise€inadmissible€extrinsic€evidence€for€impeachment.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Reeceóó,€637€S.W.2d€858,€861€(Tenn.€1982)€(stating€that€priorÏinconsistent€statement€may€be€considered€only€on€the€issue€ofÏcredibility€and€not€as€substantive€evidence).€€Extrinsic€evidence€of€aÏprior€inconsistent€statement€remains€inadmissible€when€a€witnessÏunequivocally€admits€to€having€made€the€prior€statement.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÏv.€Gradyóó,€619€S.W.2d€141,€143€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979)€(noting€generalÏrule€that€extrinsic€evidence€of€prior€inconsistent€statement€"isÏinadmissible€if€the€witness€unequivocally€admits€[to]€making€[theÍprior€statement]").€€The€unequivocal€admission€of€a€prior€statementÏrenders€the€extrinsic€evidence€both€cumulative€and€consistent€withÏa€statement€made€by€the€witness'€during€trial.€€Extrinsic€evidence€ofÏa€prior€consistent€statement€is€generally€inadmissible€and€notÏsubject€to€Rule€613(b).× ƒ2 ××  רØÛÛ€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€797€S.W.2d€589€(Tenn.Ï1990);€òòState€v.€Braggsóó,€604€S.W.2d€883€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€ÏAccordingly,€the€admissibility€of€the€extrinsic€evidence€isÏcontingent€upon€whether€the€witness€admits€or€denies€having€madeÏthe€prior€inconsistent€statement.ÌÌà àWe€further€believe€it€illogical€to€allow€admission€of€theÏextrinsic€evidence€prior€to€the€witness'€admission€or€denial.€ÏConfronting€a€witness€prior€to€the€introduction€of€extrinsic€evidenceÏprovides€for€an€orderly€presentation€of€evidence€and€testimony.€ÏTime€is€saved€if€the€witness€unequivocally€admits€to€having€madeÏthe€prior€statement.€€Moreover,€confronting€a€witness€with€anÍinconsistency€prior€to€the€introduction€of€the€extrinsic€evidenceÏlessens€the€risk€that€a€jury€will€consider€the€evidence€asÏsubstantive€evidence.€€We,€therefore,€hold€that€extrinsic€evidenceÏremains€inadmissible€until€the€witness€either€denies€or€equivocatesÏas€to€having€made€the€prior€inconsistent€statement.ÛÛ€€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏKendricksóó,€947€S.W.2d€875,€881€(Ct.€Crim.€App.€1996)€(holdingÏextrinsic€evidence€admissible€when€witness€denies€or€does€notÏrecall€making€prior€inconsistent€statement).ÌÌà àWe€note€that€Rule€613(b)€of€the€Federal€Rules€of€Evidence€isÏidentical€to€Rule€613(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.€€TheÏfederal€advisory€comments,€however,€state€that€a€foundation€mayÏeither€be€laid€before€or€after€an€offer€of€the€extrinsic€evidenceÔ€,Ô.€ÏWhile€there€exists€a€split€of€authority€as€to€the€timing€of€the€foundation,€severalÏcircuits€have€clearly€expressed€a€preference€for€the€traditional€approach€in€lightÏof€the€difficulties€the€change€has€caused.€€òòSeeóó€òòU.S.€v.€Bonnettóó,€877€F.2d€1450,Ï1462€(10th€Cir.€1989)€(preferring€traditional€approach€so€trier€of€fact€canÏ"observe€[witness]€demeanor€and€the€nature€of€his€testimony€as€he€denies€orÏexplains€his€prior€testimony.");€òòWammock€v.€Celotexóó,€793€F.2d€1518€(11th€Cir.Í1986)€(holding€"[r]ule€613(b)€does€not€supplant€the€traditional€method€ofÏconfronting€a€witness€with€his€inconsistent€statement€prior€to€its€introduction.");ÏòòU.S.€v.€McGuireóó,€744€F.2d€1197,€1204€(6th€Cir.€1984)€(stating€"[w]e€do€notÏapprove€of€the€government's€not€informing€the€defendant€of€this€evidence,Ïwhich€we€view€as€a€questionable€trial€tactic.");€òòU.S.€v.€Barrettóó,€539€F.2d€244,€254Ï(1st€Cir.€1976)€(noting€traditional€foundational€good€practice€though€notÏrequired).ÌÌÔ€Ôà àWhile€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€Rule€613(b)€substantially€maintainsÏformer€Tennessee€procedure,€the€rule€also€ameliorates€the€harshÏeffect€of€strictly€applying€the€rule€in€Queen's€case.€€Rule€613(b)Ïpermits€the€trial€court€to€depart€from€the€foundational€requirementsÏwhen€"the€interests€of€justice€otherwise€require."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,ÏRule€613(b).€€This€clause€provides€flexibility€to€deal€with€theÏextraordinary€case€in€which€the€strict€application€of€the€rule€inÏQueen's€case€would€lead€to€injustice.€€òòSeeóó€Saltzburg,€òòFederal€RulesÏof€Evidence€Manualóó,€6th€Ed.,€Vol.€2€(1994)€(noting€œthat€the€strictÏapplication€of€the€common€law›€rule€œresulted€in€prohibiting›€extrinsicÏevidence€when€inconsistent€statements€were€discovered€after€œaÍwitness›€œtestified›€and€œin€prematurely›€alerting€collusive€witnesses€toÏevidence€available€for€impeachment).ÌÌà àThe€case€now€before€us€is€not€the€extraordinary€case.€€TheÏstate€was€aware€of€Ms.€Berry's€prior€inconsistent€statement€and€hadÏample€opportunity€to€lay€a€foundation€before€it€attempted€to€admitÏthe€extrinsic€evidence.Ô€,Ô€€The€state,€however,€never€asked€Ms.€Berry€whetherÏshe€had€made€a€prior€statement€to€the€œdefendant›€œor›€to€anyone€else€that€she€didÏnot€know€the€defendant's€whereabouts€œat›€the€time€of€the€robbery.€€Accordingly,ÏMs.€Berry€was€not€provided€an€opportunity€to€admit€or€deny€her€pre„trialÏstatement€to€the€defendant.€€Officer€Covington's€testimony,€therefore,€wasÏerroneously€admitted.ÌÌà àA€violation€of€an€evidentiary€rule€may€not€mandate€reversal€if€the€errorÏ"was€more€probably€than€not€harmless."€€òòUnited€States€v.€œBarrettóó,›€703€F.2dÏ1076,€€1081„82€(9th€Cir.€1983).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòWilson€v.€Stateóó,€724€S.W.2d€766,€769€Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986)€(noting€that€"harmless€error€analysis€applies€to€virtuallyÏall€trial€errors€except€the€denial€of€counsel€and€the€partiality€of€the€œadjudicator.").€ÏPursuant›€to€Tenn.€R.€Crim€P.,€Rule€52(a),€"[n]o€judgment€of€conviction€shall€beÍreversed€on€appeal€except€for€errors€which€affirmatively€appear€to€have€affectedÏthe€result€of€the€trial€on€its€merits."ÌÌà àBoth€victims€positively€identified€the€defendant€and€his€voice.€€Ms.ÏHollingsworth€spent€approximately€œthirty€minutes›€assisting€the€defendant€priorÏto€being€stabbed€by€him.€€Ms.€Blakely€witnessed€Ms.€Hollingsworth€assisting€theÏdefendant€and€stated€that€she€got€a€good€look€at€the€defendant.€€The€defendantÏlived€in€close€proximity€to€the€store€and€attempted€to€evade€the€law€when€heÏfound€out€that€there€was€a€warrant€for€his€arrest€in€connection€with€the€robbery.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€638€S.W.2d€417,€421€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982)€(holdingÏjury€may€draw€inference€of€guilt€from€fact€that€defendant€attempted€to€flee€orÏevade€arrest).€€The€defendant's€own€alibi€witness€exhibited€some€confusion€andÏtestified€that€she€and€the€defendant€injected€cocaine€and€shoplifted€on€a€dailyÏbasis.€€We,€therefore,€conclude€that€the€evidence€against€the€defendant€wasÏoverwhelming€and€find€that€the€erroneous€admission€of€Officer€Covington'sÏtestimony€did€not€"affirmatively€appear€to€have€affected"€the€outcome€of€the€trial.ÌÌà àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€judgment€is€affirmed€as€modified.€€Costs€ofÏthis€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellant,€Henry€Lee€Martin,€for€which€executionÏmay€issue€if€necessary.ÌÓӜ̛à0 àÌÌà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àœòòà€ àóóÌà àà àà àà àà àJanice€M.€Holder,€JusticeÌÌÌÌò òCONCURRING:ó ó›ÌÌAnderson,€C.J.ÌDrowota,€Reid€and€Birch,€JJ.ÌÓÓ