It i s t he p o l i cy o f t his C o urt t o i d en t i f

y vi cti m s i n c hil d sex o f fen ses o nly b y t he i r i nit i als. 1 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs O ct obe r 13, 200 4

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. TIMM IE DA RR ELL B OSTON

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 2002-D- 2391 J. Randall Wyatt, Jr ., Judge

No. M2003- 03069-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Janu ary 28, 2005

Th is i s a dir e c t app e a l a s o f rig ht f ro m c on vic tio ns on a

jury ve rd ic t of ra

pe of a c hil d a nda ssa

ult

. Th e De fe nd a nt, Ti mmi e D. B os ton , was sen ten ceda s a Ra ng e I of fe nd e r t o tw e nty

y e ars ’ imprisonment for the ra

pe convic tion and six months for assault, with the t wo s entenc es t o be ser ved

c on c ur re ntl y . T he De fe nd a nt a

rg ue s tw o is su e s o n app e a l: (1 ) that the e vid e nc e wa s ins uf fi c ie nt t o fi n d t h e D ef

en d an tgu i l t y

o f r ap e o f ach i l d
, an d (2 ) t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erre d i n i m p o s i n g a m i d -r an ge

se nte nc e . We a ff

ir m th e jud g me nts of

the tr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

D AVI D H. W EL L ES , J ., delivere d the opi nion of the court, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., joined.

Emma Rae Te nnant (on a ppeal) ; and Elizabeth P. Ez ell and A m y D. Ha rw ell (at trial) , Nashville, Tenne ssee, f

or the a ppellant, Timmie Darr ell Boston.

Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt er; S eth P. Ke stn e r, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Victor S. J ohnson, Di s t rict Attorney Gene ral; and B rian Holmg ren, A ssistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION F AC TS

Th e c on vic tio ns a t iss ue ste m fr om tw o se pa rate inc ide nts wh e re in the De fe nd a nt s e xua lly

c on fr on te d th e se ve n- y e ar- oldvic tim , C. C., in h e r ow n ho me in Na sh vil le

. At the tim e , th e vic tim 1 lived with her mother, g randmother and seve ral siblings in a house on Stockell Street. The Def endant, who ha d once w orked with and dated the victim’s mother , was c onsidered a family friendSe e T enn. C o d e A nn. § 3 9

- 1 3

- 5 2 2

. C o unt one rel at ed t o t he Fe b ruary 15
, 20 0 2
, i nci d ent , and co unt s t wo and 2

t h r ee c h ar g ed t h e D ef

en dan t w i t h “ u n l aw f

u l s ex u al pe n et r at i on ” of t h e v i ct i m bet we en t h e dat es of O ct ober 24, 2000,

a n d F e b ru a ry 1 4 , 2 0 0 2

.

See T enn

. Co de Ann. § 39

- 13

- 50 4. Co un t s four t hr ough s eve n a l l ege d t he D ef endan t “ i nt ent i onal l y en gag ed 3

in u n la w ful se x u a l co n ta c t” w ith the vic tim b e tw e e n the d a te s o f O c to b e r 2 4 , 2 0 0 0 , an d F e b ru a ry 1 4 , 2 0 0 2

.

A cco rding to the S t at e’ s el ect i o n of o f fenses t hi s t est i m o ny fo rme d t he b asi s fo r count one , i n whi ch t he 4

D e fen d a n t wa s c h a rg e d w ith ra p e o f a c h ild . T h e D e fen d a n t wa s fo u n d gu ilt y o n this c o u n t.

-2- and fr equently

visite d t h ei r h o m e. The victim and her sibling s also spent time at the De fenda nt’s house, and he occa sionally baby sat for the family

at bot h l o ca t i o n s. For se vera l day s during the month of Feb ru ar y i n 2 0 0 2 , the Def endant wa s ill and had bee n invited to stay with the victim’s family at their Stockell Street r esidenc e.

We f ir st r e vie w the fa c ts fr om the e vid e nc e pr e se nte d at tri a l, in the lig ht m os t f a vo ra ble to the State. On the evening of Fe bruary 14, 2002, the victim we nt to sleep with her g randmother

about 10:30 p.m. Som etime af

ter midnig ht, the Def

endant e ntere d the b e dr o o m and pene trated the victim’s g enitals and a nus with his finge r. The vic tim im mediate l y wo k e up, scr eame d, “fe ll on” her g randmother

to wak e h er, a nd stated that the De fenda nt had “touche d” her . The g randmother observe d the Defenda nt standing in her bedroom and asked him to leave

. The Defendant complied, and the victim and he r g randmother went bac k to sleep.

L ater that morning the victim got up a nd went t o s ch o o l

. The De fenda nt remaine d at the ho us e a nda ssi ste d th e vic tim ’s g rand mothe r with hou se ho ld ch or e s, a ll the wh ile mutte ri ng a ud ibl y that he “me ssed up.” When the victim re turned home from sc hool, she reported to her g randmother that sh e ha d d if

fi c ulty urinatin g a ndit “ bu rn e d” wh e n s he tr ie d. Me mbe rs of th e vi c tim ’s famil y

acc used the de fenda nt of rape
, an alterc ation broke out, and the police wer e ca lled. The De fenda nt was subseque ntly

arr ested a nd indicted for two c harg es stemming f rom this incident.

Further investig ation reve al e d p rio r s e xu a l c o n tac t b e tw een the Def endant a nd the victim, and

a su pe rc e din g ind ic tme nt w a s is su e d in De c e mbe r o f 2 00 2, c ha rg ing the De fe nd a nt w ith thr e e c ou nts of ra pe of a child and four counts of ag g ravated sexual battery

. At his arra ignme nt, the Def endant 2 3 ple d n ot g uil ty

to a ll s e ve n c ha

rg e s.
A j ury tr ia l w a s h e ld ov er th e c ou rs e of tw o d a y s in June of

20 03 . A t tria l, the vic tim descr ib e d th e e v e n ts o f th e F e b ru ar y 1 5
, 2 0 0 2
, in c id e n t b y s tati n g th a t s h e w a s a s le ep in her g randmother ’s bedr oom when the De fenda nt came in a nd “stick [sic] his fing ers up my behind.” 4 When asked to identify

wher e she ha d been t ouched by the Def endant, the vic tim identified the buttocks reg ion on a diag ram of a fema le body

. The victim a lso te stified that she wa s not wearing

u n d e rp a n t s a t t h e t i m e , a n d w h e n a s k e d i n i t i a l l y i f t h e D e f e n d a n t h a d t o u c h e d h e r a n y wh e re e lse other than he r behind, she r eplied, “no.” Howeve r, whe n asked a bout the events the f

ollowing day when she returne d from school, the victim state d that her “private part hurt” be cause the Def endantA cco rding t o t he Stat e’ s el ect i o n of o f fenses , t hi s t est i m o ny fo rme d t he b asi s fo r count fo ur, i n whi ch t he 5

D e fen d a n t wa s c h a rg e d w ith a g g ra v a te d se x u a l b a tter y. T h e D e fen d a n t wa s a c q u itt e d o n this c o u n t b y ju ry v e rd ic t.

A cco rding t o t he Stat e’ s el ect i o n of o ff e n se s, thi s t est i m o ny fo rme d t he b asi s fo r count f i ve, i n whi ch t he 6

D ef en dan t wa s ch ar g ed wi t h ag g r av at ed s ex u al bat t er y

. T h e D ef en dan t wa s con v i ct ed of t h e l es s er

- i n cl u ded ch ar g e of

a ssa u lt w ith o ff

e n siv e o r p ro v o c a tive c o n ta c t.

A cco rding t o t he Stat e’ s e le ct i o n of o f fenses , t hi s t est i m o ny fo rme d t he b asi s o f co unt 2, i n whi ch t he 7

D e fen d a n t wa s c h a rg e d w ith ra p e o f a c h ild . T h e D e fen d a n t wa s a c q u itt e d o n this c o u n t.

-3- “would sticking [si c] his finge r up my behind.” When aske d t o i dentify what she ha d termed he r

“ p r i v a t e p ar t , ” t h e v i c t i mc i r c l e d t h e g e n i t a l r e g i o n o n a d i a g r a mo f

t h e f e m a l e b o d y.

The victim also testified that the De fenda nt touched her inappropriately

on other oc casions prior to the F ebrua

ry 15, 2002, incident. The vic tim st ated that on one occa sion, afte r she had take n

a bath at th e De fe nd a nt’ s ho us e , he too k h e r t o h is b e d a nd“ ru bb e d” he r g e nit a ls. Th e vic tim a lso 5 described another

occa sion at the Def

endant’ s hous e wh en h e “h unched” her on the couch in the front room. The victim described “hunching” as when she l aid on the couc h, fully clothed, and the 6 Def endant, a lso fully

clothed, laid on top of he r i n a manner in which their g enitals wer e positioned

over one another
, and the Def endant moved backw ards a nd forwa rds in that position. S he further stated that the De fenda nt had shown her “nasty ” movies at his hous e which de picted nake d men and

wo me n “ hu nc hin g ,” a ndthat th e Defe nd a nt t oo k p ic tur e s o f h e r “ private pa rt .” Th e vic tim

a lso
te sti fi e d a bo ut o the r i nc ide nts wh ic h h a d oc c ur re d in he r h ou se , s ta tin g that th e De fe nd a nt “ tie d my arms up . . . [a]nd then he took my underw ear off and tried to put ‘em in my mouth.” Desc ribing y et another i n ci dent, the victim stated that the De fenda nt put her on the c ouch in her living room a nd “lick[ed] myprivate pa

rts.” The victim also stated that the D efe ndant “showe d me his thing.” 7 When asked to desc ribe “ his thing,” the victim pointed to the ge nital reg ion of a male doll.

On cr oss-examination, the defense questioned t he victim as t o inconsistencies be tween w hat sh e tol d in sti g a tor s sh ortly a ft e r the De fe ndant ’s ar re st a ndhe r t e sti mon y

a t tria l. T he vic tim

a dmi tte d s e ve ra l ti me s to c ha ng ing he r m ind

. Con tr ary to h e r t e sti mon y

a t tria l, s he ha d o ri g ina lly
state d to on e inv e sti g a tor that the De fe nd a nt ha d not tou c he d he r pr ior to the F e br ua ry 15 th i nc ide nt,

a nd that sh e wa s we ari ng pa nti e s du ri ng the g rand mothe r’ s be dr oo m inc ide nt. Th e vi cti m also admitted that she wa s never in her house a lone with the Def endant, a nd th at n o o n e else ever saw h i mt o u c h h e r

i n a b a d w a y.

Th e vic tim ’s g rand mothe r, Ms. An nie Cla c k, te sti fi e d a t tr ia l that sh e wo ke up in the e arl y

mornin g ho ur s o f F e br

ua ry 15 , 2 00 2, wh e n th e vic tim fe ll o n h e r. S he st ate d th a t th e vic tim

sc re a me d “ [H]e tou c he d me, ” a nd sh e sa w the De fe nd a nt s ta nd ing by the vic tim ’s sid e of

the be d in her bedroom. After asking the Def endant to lea ve, she he ld the victim in her arms to comfort her. Ms. Cla c k f

urthe r te sti fi e d tha t sh e re me mbe re d th e vic tim wa s w e ari ng un de rp a nts be c a us e sh e fe lt them when she was holding her. Ms. Clack a lso testified that the next m ornin g t h e Defenda nt “consta ntly

repe ated, I

messed up. I

messed up. I

don’t know what’s wrong with me. I messed up.”-4-

When the vi ctim came home from school a nd described the pain in her g enital ar ea, Ms. Clac k stated that she put “two a nd two toge ther,” and re ported the inc ident.

Following the report of the incident on the afte rnoon of Fe bruary 15, 2002, the victim was interviewe d by

four diff ere nt responding law enf

orce ment o r m edica l personnel. Of fice r Jeanine Sarno of the Me tro Police Depa rtment was the first officia l to speak with the vi ctim. Office r Sarno testified that the victim stated that the De fenda nt “stuck his fing er up he r butt” t h e p re vious night and indicate d that he had done “i t ” b ef o re

. On cr oss-examination, Office r Sarno state d she wa s

uncertain whether

the victim meant the De fenda nt had on prior oc casions touche d her inappropriately , or spec ifically penetr ated he r anus be fore

.

Amanda L ewis, a Sex Abuse I nvestig ator with the Child Protective Service s Division of the Tenne ssee De partment of Children’ s Services, te stified that she we nt to the victim’s home and met wi th h e r o ne -o n- on e the a ft e rn oo n o f F ebru ary 15 , 200 2. Ms. L e wi s te sti fi e d th a t th e vic tim informed he r that the Def

endant had “put his f

inge r in he r bootie,” and identified the buttocks reg ion. Whe n M s

. L e w i s q u e s t i o n e d t h e v i c t i m ab o u t h e r r e p o r t s o f p a i n i n h e r g e n i t a l r e g i o n , t h e vic tim confirme d that her private part was hurting beca use the De fenda nt “place d his f i n ger i n t h at body pa rt , a s w e ll. ” Th e vic tim a lso inf orme d Ms. L e wi s that sh e wa s we ari ng pa nti e s the pr e vio us nig ht. Ms. L ewis fur

ther testifi ed t h at the victim describe d to her the e arlier “hunching ” incident, a nd claimed the D efe n d an t al wa y s wanted he r to take a bath. Ms. L ewis also obser ved a mor e compre hensive for ensic int ervie w of the vi ctim conducte d in her off ice a pproxi mately

three months later in whic h the victim alleg ed additional occ urre nces of inappropriate touching , incl uding the claim that the De fenda nt licked her g enitalia. On cross-e x amination, Ms. L ewis admitted there wer e

sever al diffe renc es in the nature and number of the alleg ed sexual c ontacts betwee n the victim and the Def endant c ommunicated during the victim’s various intervie ws.

The victim was a lso interviewed that evening at a hospital by Phy llis Thomps on, a licenc ed

c lin ic a l so c ia l w orker that sp e c ia lize d in me dic a l a ndps y c ho log ic a l e va luatio ns of c hil dr e n. Ms. Thompson stated that the victim a nswere d her questions at an ag e-a ppropriate level, and r ep o rt ed that th e De fe nd a nt “ stu c k h is fi ng e r up he r bu tt. ” Whe n a sk e d if the De fe nd a nt ha d tou c he d he r i n any other way , the victim stated that “he stuck his f inge r in he r private part,” identify ing the g enital reg ion on her own body . Ms. Thompson further te stified that when s h e asked the victim if the Def endant ha d ever

touched he r l ike t hat before, she responde d in the negative, but may have me ant no other touching that night, since all the conve rsation had f ocused on the events of the previous night.

J ulie Rosof-Will iams testified that she wa s the nurse pr actitioner w ho conducte d the medica l examination on the vi ct i m t h e evening of F ebrua ry 15, 2002. Ms. Wi lliams was certified by the
court a s an expert in the field of c onducting medical e x aminations of childre n with alleg ations of ina pp ro pria te se xua l c on ta c t. M s. Willi a ms t e sti fi e d th a t he r e xami natio n of the vic tim ’s g e nit a lia

reve aled a “small abra sion on her rig ht labia minora” that was three to four millimeters in leng th and

c ur ve d, c on sis te nt w ith a

wo un d mad e by a fi ng e rn a il. She a lso fo un d “ br uis ing on [the vic tim ’s ] hy men,” a nd “pinpoin t b rui ses ar ound [t he victim’s] urethra.” Ms. Wi lliams described a ll the-5-

injuries as “a cute,” or made within twenty -four hours of the ex am i n at i o n. Ms. Wi lliams further testified that the injuries required penetration of t he labia majora, were consistent with the victim’s testimonyof g enital pene tration, and we re unlikely to have be en self- inflicted.

Detec tive Ken Potter, with the Youth Servic es Divi sion of Metro Police, testified that when he re sponded to the ca ll to S tockell Street on Fe bruary 15, 2002, he first talke d to the victim’s g randmother , who made the sex crime alleg ations ag ainst the Def endant. The Def

endant wa s

arr ested a nd g iven his Miranda rights. Detec tive Potter testified that the De fenda nt stated he wa nted to talk, and proc eede d to inform the Dete ctive that he had a g ood relationship wit h the victim, and wished he c ould be her

fathe r. The D efe ndant conve y ed h i s v er s i on of the e vents of the pr evious night to the De tective by stating he woke up around three or four in the morning and went into the g randmother ’s room looking for a light for his cig are tte, saw the vic tim, and “popped he r one” on the leg . T h e De fe n d an t t hen chang ed his story and said he touched the vic tim’s ear. When q u e s t i o n e d ab o u t t h e i n c o n s i s t e n c y, t h e D e f e n d a n t r e t u r n e d t o h i s e ar l i e r “ l e g ” v e r s i o n o f t h e s t o r y. The De fenda nt stated, “I

know I am g o i n g to jail,” afte r being informed by the Dete ctive that the victim was g oing to be medically examined. When Detective Potter a sked the De fenda nt what he thought the r esults of the exam of the victim’s “private parts” would show, the De fenda nt responded, “Myfing er.” The De fenda nt further stated that his middle fing er pe netrated the victim up to the second knuc kle. Howe ver, the Def endant a lso claimed the pen et ra tion was an a ccide nt. L ater , at the police station, the Def endant asked Detec tive Potter to a pologize to the victim and her mother on his behalf, a nd when a sked why , the Def enda n t stated bec ause “ I

penetr ated my

baby .” At the

c on c lus ion of

De te c tiv e Pot te r’ s te sti mon y , th e S tat e res ted its c a se . T he Sta te mov e d to dis mis s three of the seve n counts, and e lected the fac ts upon which it relied for two counts of child rape and
t w o c o u n t s o f

a g g r a v a t e d s e x u a l b a t t e r y.

The de fense called a s its onlywitness the Defenda nt, who t estified that he had develope d a speci a l r e lati o n s h ip w ith th e v ic ti m’ s mo th e r , a n d s u b s e q u e n tl y th e v ic ti m an d h e r

s ib li n g s

. The Def endant state d that the nig ht of the incident, he was staying wi t h t h e v i cti m’s family , and he be c a me re stl e ss. He fi rs t we nt int o the be dr oo m wh e re the vic tim wa s sl e e pin g to g e t a lig ht f or his cig are tte. He later decided he wished t o leave the hous e, and returne d to the bedroom to wake up the victim so she could lock the door behind him after

he lef t. He stated that he attempted to “ pick h eru p ” w h en s h e “j u m p ed ” an d “s cr ea m ed

. ” He fu rt h ert es t i fi ed t h at h e gr ab b ed t h e v i ct i m ’s l eg, but did not deliberately

touch her in a sexual manne r. He explained that any inappropriate contac t must have been an accident which occur red when t he victim “jer

ked up, scre amed and jerke d back down” a s he wa s attempting to wa ke her

.

The De fenda nt further

explained that wh en he said he “messed up” the morning afte r the incident, he wa s ref

erring only to waking the vi ctim up. He said he had pre viouslybeen sc olded for waking the victim too early in the morning
, and as a result she was falling aslee p in sc hool. T he Def endant a lso claimed that a ny inconsistencies be tween his testimony at trial and the statement he g a ve to De te c tiv e Pot te r the da y of the inc ide nt we re the re su lt o f h im b e ing “ up se t” the da y of his

arr est. The De fenda nt reiterated that he c onsistentlyclaimed the pe netration in the be droom was a n

acc ident, and denie d all the other a lleg ed prior inc idents of sexual misconduct.S e e T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 3 9 -1 3 -1 0 1 (a )( 3 ). 8

T h e D e fen d a n t ex p re ssly e le c te d no t t o c h a ll e n g e o n a p p e a l t h e su ff ic ie n c y o f t h e e v id e n c e su p p o rting his 9

c o n v ic tio n o f ass a u lt w ith o ff e n siv e o r p ro v o c a tive c o n ta c t.

T he D efend ant do es not argue t hat t he evi d ence fai l ed t o supp o rt a f i nd i ng of anal pe net rat i o n. R at her, t he 10

D e fen d a n t no te s tha t t h e S ta te ’s e le c tio n o f o ff e n se s fo r co u n t o n e ra p e o f a c h ild
, w h ic h h e w a s c o n v ic te d o f, sp e c ifi c a lly ref erenced only geni t al pe net rat i o n.

-6- At the conc lusion of the trial, the jury returne d a ver dict of g uiltyof child ra pe under count

on e re la tin g to the F e br

ua ry 15 th, 20 02 , be dr oo m inc ide nt, a nd g uil ty of the le sse r- inc lud e d o ff e ns e of assault with provocative or of fensive c ontac t as charg ed in count five , relating to the e arlier 8 “hunching ” incident. The jury found t he Defenda nt not g uilty of rape of a child as c harg ed in count two, and not guilty of agg ravated s exual battery as charg ed in count four. A s entenc ing he aring was

co n d u ct ed i n Au gu s t o f 2 0 0 3
, at t h e co n cl u s i o n o f wh i ch t h e De fe n d an t wa s s en t en ce d as a R an ge I offe nder to the “presumptive” mid-rag e sentence of twenty y ear s’ imprisonment for the r ape of a child conviction, and six m onths for the assault conviction, to be se rved c oncurr ently . I n rea ching its sentence, the trial court f ound one mitigating f

actor and one e nhance ment fac tor applied, re asoned that the two ca ncele d eac h other out, and imposed the pre sumptive sentence on the Def endant. The Def endant f iled a motion for a ne w trial, which w as subseque ntly denied by t h e trial c ourt. The Def endant’ s late-f

iled notice of a

ppeal wa s acc epted by

this Court i n Dec ember

of 2003.

AN AL YSI S On app e a l, the De fe nd a nt r a ise s tw o is su e s: ( 1) the e vid e nc e wa s insu ffi cie nt to s up po rt a conviction of ra

pe of a child considering the S tate’s e lection to rely on g enital pene tration to support thi s c ou nt, a nd(2 ) the tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d in imp os ing the mid -r a ng e se nte nc e on the De fe nd a nt d ue to its a pp lic a tio n o f an in app ro pria te e nh a nc e me nt f a c tor . We fi nd the De fe nd a nt’ s a rg ume nts

un pe rs ua siv e a s to the c la im o f i ns uf fi c ie nt e vid e nc e, bu t c on c lud e that th e tr ia l c ou rt dide rr in apply ing the enhanc ement fa ctor. How ever , we a lso find this sentencing err or harmless and af firm both the conviction and twe nty y ear sentenc e.

I. Insu ff icient Evidence The De fenda nt first challeng es the sufficiency of t he evide nce to support his convic tion of

ra pe of a c hil d. Th e De fe nd a nt c la ims that th e e vidence presen te d at tria l w a s in su ff ic ie nt t o 9 support the find i n g t h at t h e De fenda nt penetrated the g enitals of the victim as c harg ed in the indictment and spec ified in the State’s e lection of off enses. We disag ree

.

10

Tenne ssee Rule of Appellate Proc edure 13(e) presc ribes that “[f]indings of g uilt in criminal actions whether by the trial court or jury shall be set aside if the evidenc e is insuff icient to support the finding s by

the trier of fac t of g uilt bey ond a re asonable doubt.” A convic ted criminal defenda nt who cha lleng es the sufficie ncy of the evidenc e on appea l be ars the burden of demonstrating why the evidenc e is insuff

icient to support the verdic t because a ve rdict of g uilt destroy s the presumption of innocenc e and imposes a presumption of g uilt. See State v. Evans, 108 S.W

. 3 d 2 3 1
, 2 3 7 (Tenn. 2003); State v. Carruthe rs, 35 S.W.3d 516, 557-58 (Tenn. 2000); State v. Tug g le, 639 S.W .2d 913,-7-

914 (Tenn. 1982) . Th i s C o u rt must reject a convicted c riminal defe ndant’s cha lleng e to the sufficie ncy

of the e vidence if, afte r considering the evidenc e in a lig ht most favo rable to the prosec ution, we determine that any rational trier of fa ct could have found the e ssential elements of the crime bey ond a reasonable doubt. See J ackson v. Virg inia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); S tate v. Hall, 8 S.W.3d 593, 599 (Tenn. 1999).

On app e a l, the Sta te is e nti tle d to the str ongest legi tim a te vie w o f the e vid e nc e a nda ll

rea sonable a nd leg itimate infere nces which may be dra wn there from. See Ca rruther s, 35 S.W .3d at 558; Hall, 8 S.W .3d at 599. A g uiltyverdic t by the trier of fac t acc redits t he testi mony of the State’s wi tne sse s a ndre so lve s a ll c on fl ic ts in the e vid e nc e in f a vo r o f the pr os e c uti on ’s the ory . Se e Sta te v. Bla nd, 958 S.W .2d 651, 659 (T en n . 1997). Que stions about the cre dibilit y of witnesses, the weig ht and value of the evidenc e, as well as all fa ctual issues ra ised by the evidenc e ar e re solved by the trier of

fac t, and this Court will not re- weig h or re -eva luate the e vidence . See Eva ns, 108 S.W .3d at 236; Bla nd, 958 S.W .2d at 659. Nor w ill thi s Court substi tute its own i n fe re n ces drawn f rom cir cums tantial evidenc e for those draw n by

the trier of

fac t. See Evans, 108 S.W.3d at 236-37; Carruthe rs, 35 S.W.3d at 557.

Rape of a child is the “unlawf

ul sex ual pene tration of a victim by the def endant . . . if suc h victim is l ess than thirtee n (13) y ear s of ag e.” T enn. Code Ann. § 39- 13-522(a ). For the purposes of this s t at u t e, sex ual pene tration is defined a s “sexual intercourse , cunnilingus, f ellatio, anal intercour se, or a ny

other intrusion, howeve r slight, of any part of a person’ s body

or of any object into the ge nital or anal opening s of t he victim ’s, t he defenda nt’s, or any other pe rson’s body

. . . .” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-501( 7). When the re is evide nce in a criminal ca se that the de fenda nt may have c ommitt ed more than one sexual off ense ag ainst the victim, the State must e lect the pa rticular offe nse for

which a c onviction is sought in order to en s u re the jury ’s ver dict is unanimous. See Bur lison v. State, 501 S.W .2d 801 (Tenn. 1973) . This election re quirement ha s been de emed to be fundame ntal, immediately touching the consti tutional rig hts of t he accuse d. See id. I n case s where the re are mor e ins ta nc e s of crimi na l beh a vio r pr ov e n th a n th e re are c ou nts to a c c omm od a te the m, the State must matc h specific conduct to a specific count to e nsure the jury is una nimo u s i n t he conduct upon whic h the conviction is based. See State v. Hallock, 8 7 5 S

. W

. 2 d 2 8 5, 293 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). I n this case, th e S t at e el ected to rely on the testimony

of the e vents which

occur red w hen t h e v i ct i m was in t he bed w ith her g randmother to support the char g e of r ape of a

c hil d in c ou nt o ne of

the ind ic tme nt. I n a dd iti on , th e Sta te sp e c if ic a lly state d it wa s r e ly ing on its proof of g enital penetration to establish this crime. The tria l court’s c harg e to the jury instructed the jury that count one char g ed the Def endant with penetr ating the “ge nitals” of the victim. Ther efor e, fo r the jury to co nv ic t the De fe nd a nt of ra pe of a c hil d a s sp e c if

ie d b y the Sta te ’s e le c tio n o f o ff e ns e in count one, it had to find that the State prove d bey ond a reasonable doubt that the victim was under
t h i rt ee n , an d t h at t h e D ef

en d an ts ex u al l y

p en et ra t ed t h e v i ct i m ’s gen i t al o p en i n g.
The proof in this case wa s undisputed that the victim was under a g e thirtee n. Howeve r, the Def endant c ontends that the only evidenc e sug g esting he pene trated the g enitals of the victim was from an e x pert wi tness who mere ly said the victim’s injuries wer e “c onsistent” with sex ual penetr ation of the g enitals, and two out-of -court statements made by the victim which wer eT h e D e fen d a n t ar g u e s tha t it is u n c le a r if t h e trial c o u rt a p p lied the m iti g a ting fac to r th a t no se rio u s b o d ily 11

i n j u r y w a s t h r e a t e n e d o r r e s u l t e d f r om t h e cr i mi n a l co n du c t

. Se e T e n n

. Cod e An n

. § 40

- 35

- 11 3( 1)

. How e v e r , i t s e e ms

c le a r fro m t h e r e c o rd tha t t h is w a s the o n ly m iti g a ting fac to r th e ju d g e c o n sid e re d a n d ultim a te ly ap p lied in o rd e r to “o ff se t” the e n h a n c e m e n t fa c to r it also fo u n d a p p lica b le

.
-8- introduced a s hear say

exceptions onlyto corrobor ate the vic tim’s actual t ri al t estimony . The Def endant a rg ues t hat t he victim ’s t estimony is filled with inconsistencies as to g enital pene tration. The De fenda nt admits two counselors and a nurse testified that the victim t o l d them she wa s g e n i t a l l y p e n e tr a t e d
, b u t s tr e s s e s t h a t a t tr i a l t h e v i c t i m h e r s e l f t e s t i f i e d o n l y t o a n a l p e n e tr a t i o n

. In sum, the Defe ndant claims the “ proof at trial established only anal, but not genital, pene tration,” a nd there fore the evidenc e is insufficient to support the subseque nt jury conviction. On revie w, the rec ord reve als the Def endant stated to D etec tive Potter that an examination of the victim’s “private parts” would reve al evidence of his finge r. L ess than twenty -four hours af ter the incident, the victim informed both Ms. L ewis and Ms. Thompson in separ ate inter views that the Def endant pe netrated both her a nus and g enitals. Nurse Wil liams, certifie d as an expert, testified

a s to t he recen t cut on the vic tim ’s la bia min or a ndthe br

uis ing of he r h y me n a ndur e thr a , a ll

c on sis te nt w ith the vic tim ’s te sti mon y of g e nit a l pen e tr a tio n. Mo re ov e r, we no te that ou r S up re me Court has previously found sufficient evidenc e to s upport a c onviction of rape of a c hild despite the fac t that the vi ctim’s testimonycontained some inconsistencies. See State v. Elkins, 102 S.W .3d 578, 582 (Tenn. 2003) (upholding a conviction despite t he victim’s inconsistent statements and the fac t that the victim’s own mother denie d his testimony ).

We conclude the Def

endant ha s failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the evidenc e pr e se nte d at

tr i a l w a s i n s u f

f i c i e n tt o s u p p o r tt h e j u r y ’ s f i n d i n g t h a tt h e v i c t i mw a s g e n i t a l ly pe ne tr a te d. I n p oin tin g to i nc on sis te nc ie s in the vic tim ’s te sti mon y , the Def e nd a nt i s e sse nti a lly questioning the cre dibilit y of witnesses and the weig ht of the evidenc e introduced at trial. Howe ver, this Court has consistentlyheld that questions as to the cr edibilityof witnesses and the weig ht and value of evidenc e ar e re solved by the trier of

fac t , an d we will not re- weig h or re -eva luate the evidenc e. See E vans , 1 0 8 S.W . 3d at 236; Bla nd, 958 S.W .2d at 659. B ased on a ll the evidence
, viewed in a

light most favor able to the State, we conclude that a rat i o n al t rier of fac t could have fo un d th e De fe nd a nt g uil ty be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t of ra

pe of a c hil d. Th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t.

II. Se nt e nc ing Iss ue Th e De fe nd a nt al so a sse rt s tha t the tr ia l cou rt e rr e d w he n it se nte nc e d h im t o tw e nty

y e ars ’ imprisonment. Th e Def

endant a rg ues that the trial c ourt misapplied one enhanceme nt fac tor and failed to a pply a relevant mitigating f actor , and ther efor e the De fenda nt should have bee n sentenc ed to less than the pre sumptive sentence

. We disag ree

. 11

Be fore a trial c ourt imposes a sentenc e upon a convicted criminal defe ndant, it must consider (a) the evidenc e adduc ed at the trial and the se ntencing hearing; (b) t he presentenc e re port; (c) the principles of se ntencing and ar g uments as to sentenc ing a lternatives; (d) the nature and char acte ristics of the criminal conduct involved; (e) e vidence and information offer ed by the parties on the enha nceme nt and m itigating fac tors set forth in Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tions 40-35--9-

113 and 4 0 -3 5 -1 1 4 ; and (f ) any statement the de fenda nt wishes to make in the def endant’ s own behalf about sentenc ing. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210( b); State v. I mfeld, 70 S.W.3d 698, 704 (T e nn . 2 00 2) . To faci lit a te app e llate re vie w, the tr ia l c ou rt is r e qu ir e d to pla c e on the re c or d it s

rea sons for imposing the specific sentenc e, includin g t h e identification of the mitigating and enhanc ement fa ctors found, the specific fac ts supporting e ac h en h ancement fa ctor found, and the

me tho d b y w h i c h t h e m i t i g a t i n g a n d e n h a n c e m e n t f a c t o r s h a v e b e e n e v a l u a t e d a n d b a l a n c e d in determining the se ntence . See State v. Samuels, 44 S.W.3d 489, 492 (Tenn. 2001).

Upon a c halleng e to the sente nce imposed, this court has a dutyto conduct a de novo revie w of the sente nce w ith a presumption that the determinations made by the trial court are corr ect. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-401(d)

. Howeve r, this presumption “is conditioned upon the af firmative sh ow ing in the re c or d th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt c on sid e re d th e se nte nc ing princ ipl e s a nd a ll re le va nt f a c ts and cir cumstance s.” State v. Ashby , 823 S.W .2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991) . I f our r eview r efle cts that the trial court followed the statutory sentenc ing proce dure, that the court imposed a lawful sente nce afte r ha v i ng g iven due c onsideration and pr oper w eig ht to the fac tors and princ iples set out under the s entenc ing law, and that the t rial court’s finding s of fa ct ar e ade quately supported by

the re cord, then the pre sumption i s applicable , and we may not modi fy t h e s en t ence eve n if we w ould have pr e fe rr e d a

dif fe re nt r e su lt. Se e Sta te v. Pik e , 9 78 S.W. 2d90 4 a pp . at 92 6- 27 (T e nn

. 19 98 ). We w ill uphold the sentenc e impo s ed b y t h e t ri al court if (1) the se ntence complies with the purposes a nd principles of the 1989 Sentencing Act, and ( 2) the trial c ourt’s findings are adequately supported by the re cord

. S ee S ta te v. Arne tt, 49 S.W. 3d25 0, 25 7 ( Te nn . 2 00 1) . T he bu rd e n o f s ho wi ng that a sentenc e is improper is upon the a ppealing party . See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 401, Sentencing Commi ssion Com ments; Arnett, 49 S.W.3d at 257.

I n calc ulating a sentenc e for a Class A felony conviction, the pre sumptive sentence is “the midpoint of the rang e if ther e ar e no enhanceme nt or mitigating fac tors.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 210(c) . I f there are enhanc ement, but no mitigating fac tors, the trial court may set the sentenc e at or above the midpoint, but s till wit hin the rang e. See T enn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210( d). A sentence involving both enha nceme nt and mitigating fac tors for a Class A felony require s the court to start

a tt h e m i d p o i n t , n e x ta s s i g n t h e p r o p e r w e i g h tf o r t h e e n h a n c e m e n tf

a c t o r , a n d f

i n a l l y ap p l y a reduc tion within the ra ng e as a ppropriate for the mitig ating fac tor. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 210(e) . The sente nce rang e for a R ang e I
, Class A felony is “not less than fiftee n (15) nor more than twenty -five ( 25) y ear s.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-112(1) . There fore , the pre sumptive sentence for a Class A fe lony

conviction of ra

pe of a child is the midpoint , or twenty y ear s.

Whil e not briefe d by either the Def endant or the State, we are compelled to addr ess this issue in l ig ht o f the Un ite d St a te s Su pr e me Cou rt ’s re c e nt o pin ion in B lake ly v. W a sh ing ton , 5 42 U. S.

, 1 2 4 S

. C t

. 2 5 3 1 ( 2 0 0 4 )
, r e h ’ g d e n i e d
, 2 0 0 4 W L 1 8 7 2 7 1 2 ( U

. S

. W a s h

. A u g 2 3
, 2 0 0 4 )

. In B l ak e l y, the hig h court struc k down a pr ovision of t he W ashing ton state sentenc ing g uidelines, quite similar
to the one in Tenne ssee, that permitted t he trial judge to impose an “ exceptional sentenc e” a fter the court made a

p o s t- tria l d e te r mi n a ti o n th a t c e r tain s tatu to r y e n h a n c e me n t f

a c to r s e xis te d

. T he Supreme Court dete rmined that the prote ctions in the Six th Amendment to the fe dera l Consti tution would allow a de fenda nt’s sentenc e to be increa sed onl y if the enha nceme nt fac tors relied upon by-10-

the judg e we re based on facts re flec ted in the jury verdic t or admitted by

the def endant. See id. at 2537. The Court conc luded that “e very def en d an t has the rig ht to insi st that the prosec utor prove to a jury all fac ts leg ally

essential to the punishment.” I d. at 2543.

Th e B lake ly de c isi on c a lls int o qu e sti on the va lid ity of Te nn e sse e ’s se nte ncing s tatu te s, insofar a s they

permit tri al co u rts to increa se a de fendant’s presumptive sente nce ba sed upon enhanc ement fa ctors found by a trial judg e as opposed to f indings made by a jury

. I n this case the De fe nd a nt w a s c on vic te d o f a Cla ss A F e lon y wi th a

se nte nc ing rang e of

fi ft e e n to tw e nty -f

ive y e ars

. He wa s sentenced as a R ang e I offe nder to a

presumptive sente nce of twenty y ear s. At the
sentenc ing he aring , the trial court found that one enhanc ement fac tor applied: the defe ndant abuse d a position of trus t

. S ee T en n . Code Ann. § 40-35- 114(16). This enhanceme nt fac tor was not

su bmi tte d to the jury

or a dmi tte d b y

the De fe nd a nt. However
, the c ou rt ult imate ly

of fs e t th is enhanc ement by

apply ing one mitigating fac tor: that t h e cr i m i nal conduc t neither thre atene d nor resulted in “se rious” bodily injury . See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 113(1). The court ther efor e decla red that the “[enhanc ement] factor s and th e m i t i gat ing f actor s just sort of offset ea ch other ,” and sente nced the Def

endant to the pr esumptive midrang e sente nce of twenty y ear s.

We c on c lud e that B lake ly pr e c lud e s the app lic a tio n of the e nh a nc e me nt fa c tor app lie d in thi s

case . Howeve r, we also conc lude th at t h e re cord doe s not support a mitigate d sentenc e for the Def endant. The trial court attri b u t ed v ery littl e we ight to the mitigating f actor , stating, “ [T] here

we re ob vio us ly

inj urie s. I t may

no t ha ve be e n e xtre me ly se ri ou s in

jurie s, bu t th e re wa s tr a uma to this child . . . .” The judge acc epted the enhanc ement fa ctor pe rtaining to an abuse of trust followed direc tly by its conclusion that the mitigating and enhanceme nt fac tors canc elled ea ch other out. Upon re viewing the re cord of the sentenc ing c ourt as a w hole, we believe it is clea r t hat, even if the
court had not c onsidered the enhanc ement fac tor, the court would not ha ve reduc ed the s en t ence below the pr esumptive sentenc e. Ac cording ly , we f ind the applicat i o n o f t he enhanceme nt fac tor to be harmless bey ond a re asonable doubt. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23-24 (1967). We also note that, based on our de novo re view of the rec ord, the mitigating f actor applied by

the trial judg e is entitled to litt le weig ht, and the pre sumptive mid-rang e sente nce is a ppropriate

.

CO NC LU SION For the fore g oing rea sons w e aff irm the trial court’s judgme nts as to both the convictions and

se nte nc e s.

___________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, J UDGE