Of course, the State has a responsibility not to present false testimony and "an affirmative duty to correct false testimony presented by State's witnesses." State v. Watkins, No. M2017-01600-CCA-R3-CD, 2019 WL 1370970, at *11 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 26, 2019) (citing Spurlock, 874 S.W.2d at 617), no perm. app. filed.

We agree with the State that the Defendant cannot show the required factors for plain error relief. First, although the State has "an affirmative duty to correct false testimony presented by State's witnesses," State v. Watkins, No. M2017-01600-CCA-R3-CD, 2019 WL 1370970, at *11 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 26, 2019), no perm. app. filed; see State v. Spurlock, 874 S.W.2d 602, 617 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993)("It is a well established principle of law that the state's knowing use of false testimony to convict an accused is violative of the right to a fair and impartial trial as embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, §§ 8 and 9 of the Tennessee Constitution.")(citations omitted), it is not at all clear that Co-Defendant Tanner's testimony on the topic was false.

The State has a responsibility not to present false testimony and "an affirmative duty to correct false testimony presented by State's witnesses." State v. Watkins, No. M2017-01600-CCA-R3-CD, 2019 WL 1370970, at *11 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 26, 2019) (citing Spurlock, 874 S.W.2d at 617), no perm. app. filed. "In order to prevail on a claim that the State failed to correct false testimony, the defendant must prove the following by a preponderance of the evidence: '(a) that false or perjured testimony was admitted at trial, (b) that the [S]tate either knowingly used such testimony or knowingly allowed it to go uncorrected, and (c) that the testimony was material and deprived him of a fair trial.'"

We have consistently held that, even "numerous inconsistencies" in testimony do not serve to undermine a jury's verdict on appeal. State v. Watkins, No. M2017-01600-CCA-R3-CD, 2019 WL 1370970, at *23 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 26, 2019) (citing State v. Brewer, III, No. W2014-01347-CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 4060103, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 1, 2015), no perm. app. filed; State v. Smith, No. E2007-00084-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 230696 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 2, 2009), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2009); see State v. Radley, 29 S.W.3d 532, 537 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) ("[A]lthough inconsistencies or inaccuracies may make the witness a less credible witness, the jury's verdict will not be disturbed unless the inaccuracies or inconsistencies are so improbable or unsatisfactory as to create a reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt.")). Based on the evidence adduced at trial, a rational jury could find that the Appellant committed the offense of aggravated assault by strangulation or attempted strangulation beyond a reasonable doubt.

The State has a responsibility not to present false testimony and "an affirmative duty to correct false testimony presented by State's witnesses." State v. Watkins, No. M2017-01600-CCA-R3-CD, 2019 WL 1370970, at *11 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 26, 2019) (citing Spurlock, 874 S.W.2d at 617). "In order to prevail on a claim that the State failed to correct false testimony, the defendant must prove the following by a preponderance of the evidence: '(a) that false or perjured testimony was admitted at trial, (b) that the [S]tate either knowingly used such testimony or knowingly allowed it to go uncorrected, and (c) that the testimony was material and deprived him of a fair trial.'"

However, "the current version [of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 30] provides the trial courts with greater discretion regarding the timing of jury instructions." State v. Ahmon Watkins, No. M2017-01600-CCA-R3-CD, 2019 WL 1370970, at *19 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Mar. 26, 2019). The Appellant has not shown that he was prejudiced in any way by the timing of the closing arguments.

In general, "trial courts should refrain from instructing the jury before the panel is selected and sworn, consistent with Rule 30." State v. Ahmon Watkins, No. M2017-01600-CCA-R3-CD, 2019 WL 1370970, at *19 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 26, 2019), no perm. app. filed. This is to ensure that every juror hears and understands the instructions.

These comments, which were not based on the proof, were inflammatory and improper and were clearly made with the intent to evoke sympathy for the victim. See State v. Ahmon Watkins, No. M2017-01600-CCA-R3-CD, 2019 WL 1370970, at *14 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 26, 2019). Accordingly, we conclude that the defense attorneys' failure to object and ask for a mistrial in response to these comments was deficient. When determining whether this deficiency resulted in prejudice, we recognize that aforementioned comments, when viewed only in isolation, may not have affected the results of the Petitioner's trial.