### IN THE COURT OFCRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE Septe mb er

22, 200 9 S es sio n STA TE OFTEN NES SEE v. TA LLIE RILEY
A p p ea l f ro m th e C rim ina l C o u rt fo r K n o x C o u n ty N o. 86896 R i chard R
. B aum gart ner, Judge

N o. E 2008- 02714- C C A
- R 3- C D - F i l ed January 11, 2010

A K nox C ount y C r i m i nal C our tj ur y convi ct ed t he def endant , T all ie R i l ey, of aggr avat ed k idn ap p ing , k idn ap p ing , an d ag g rav ated crim inal tr esp ass. O n ap p ea l, the d efe n d an t ave rs t hatt he tr i al cour ter r ed i n per m i t t i ng t he as s i s t antdi s t r i ctat torn ey g en er al t o ques t i on t he d e fe n d a n t a b o u t in a d m is s ib le p ri o r b a d a c ts , s ee T e n n
. R

. E v id

. 4 0 4 (b ), a n d in d e n y in g h is
m ot i on for m i s t r i al

. Fur t her , t he def endantal l eges pr os ecut or i al m i s conduct

. A f t era ca r ef

ul
re v iew o f th e re c o rd , w e a ffirm th e ju d g m e n ts o f th e trial c o u rt.

T enn. R
. A pp. P
. 3; Judgm ent s of t he C ri m i nal C ourt A f f i rm ed
J AMES C UR WOOD W I TT , J R ., J

. , del i ver ed t he o p i ni on of t he cour t , i n w hi ch R OB ER T W. W EDE MEY ERa n d D. K ELLY T HO MAS , J R ., J J

. , j oi ned.
S pen c e R . B ru ner, K no xv i l l e, T enn essee ( on app eal ); and C harl es W

. P op e, A t hen s, T ennes s ee ( att r i al ) fort he appe l l ant , T al l i e R i l ey.
R ober tE

. C ooper , J r
. , A t t or ney G ener al and R ep o rt er; R ache l W es tH ar m on, A s s i s t ant A t t or ney G ener al ; R andal l E

. N i chol s , D i s t r i ctA t t or ney G ener al ; and Ta Ki s h a M

. Fi t z g e r al d, A s s i s t antD i s t r i ctA t t or ney G ener al , fort he appe l l ee, St at e of T ennes s ee.
OP I NI ON
T he v i ct i m , C han dra R i l ey, i s t he ex -w i fe of t he d efe n dan t , and t his case i nvol ves an i nci denton M ar ch 27, 2007, t hatcul m i nat ed i n t he def endant ’ s ki dnappi ng t he vi ct i m
. O n M ay 22, 2007, a K nox C ount y gr and j ur y i ndi ct ed t he def endantforone count of es peci al l y aggr avat ed ki dnappi ng forus i ng a deadl y w eapon t o r es t r ai n t he vi ct i m ( “C ount 1 ” ), s ee T. C. A. § 3 9

- 1 3

- 3 0 5 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( 2 0 0 6 ) ; o n e c o u n t o f a g g r a v a t e d k i d n a p p i n g wher e t he
v ic tim s u ffe re d b o d ily in ju ry (“ C o u n t 2 ” ), s ee i d. § 39- 13- 304( a) ( 4) ; one countof aggr avat ed k id n a p p in g to fa c ilita te th e c o m m is s io n o f a fe lo n y (“ C o u n t 3 ” ), s e e id

. § 3 9 -13 -30 4 (a)(1);-2-

o n e c o u n t o f r a p e (“ C o u n t 4 ” ), s ee i d. § 3 9 -13 -50 3 ; and o n e c o u n t of ag g rav ated b u rglary (“ C o u n t 5 ” ), s ee i d. § 39- 14- 403.

A f t era t w o- day tr i al , t he j ur y found t he def endantgui l t y of

t he l es s er
- i ncl uded
o ffe n s e o f k id n a p p in g i n C o u n t 1 , s ee T

. C

. A

. § 39- 13- 303, convi ct ed t he def endantas char ged i n C ount2, found t he def endant gui l t y of

the l es s er
- i ncl uded of

fens e of ki dnappi ng in C o u n t 3 , ac q u it ted the d efe n d an t in C o u n t 4 , an d fou n d the d efe n d an t g u il ty o f t h e lesse rin c lu d e d o ffe n s e o f a g g ra v a te d c ri m in a l tr e s p a s s in C o u n t 5 , s ee T

. C

. A

. § 39- 14- 406. T he t r i al cour tm er ged the k idna ppi ng convi ct i ons forC ount s 1 and 3 i nt o t he aggr avat ed ki dnappi ng convi ct i on, C ount2.

A f t era s ent enci ng hear i ng, t he tr i al cour ts ent ence d t he def endantt o ni ne year s ’ i ncar cer at i on w i t h t he T en n essee D epar t m entof C or r ect i on as a vi ol entof fenderat 1 0 0 p erc en t of serv ice fo r his C lass B felon y co n v ict ion o f ag g rav ated k idn ap p ing

. T h e c o u rt or der ed a c oncur r ent 11- m ont h, 29- day s ent ence fort he def endant ’ s C l as s A m i s dem eanor a g g ra v a ted c rim in a l tres p a ss c o n v ictio n . T h e d e fe n d a n t filed a tim e ly m o tio n fo r n e w trial,
a n d u p o n th e trial c o u rt’s d e n ial o f th e m o tio n , h e filed a tim e ly n o tice o f a p p e a l.

A tt r i al t he vi ct i m t es t i f i ed t h at s he had know n t he def endants i nce 2000 or 2 0 0 1 a n d th a t sh e h a d b e e n m a rrie d to h im . W h e n th e c o u p le w e re m a rrie d , the y liv e d in E vans vi l l e, I ndi ana. She expl ai ned t hats he had thr ee c hi l dr en f r om a pr evi ous m ar r i age a nd th a t h e r c h ild re n h a d a c lo se re latio n sh ip w ith th e d e fe n d a n t.

T he vi ct i m s t at ed t hats he and the def endantw er e di vor ced on O ctob er 11, 2006, and t hat s he m oved t o K noxvi l l e i n Febr uar y 2007. She s t at ed t hatthe d efe ndant h elpe d h er m o v e to T en n esse e an d that, alt h o u g h sh e h ad rese rva ti o n s ab o u t th e d efe n d an t’ s know i ng w her e s he l i ved, s he t houghthi s hel pi ng herm ove w oul d benef i t her chi l dr en. T he vi ct i m f ur t herexpl ai ned t hats he had us ed el ectr oni c m ai l t o com m uni cat e w i t h t he def endant
s t ar t i ng M ar ch 1, 2007, but s he m ai nt ai ned t hat t he com m uni cat i on w as fort he pur pos e of excha ngi ng f

i nanci al i nfor m at i on forherpendi ng bankr upt cy f i l i ng and t he d i vor ce. T he vi ct i m t es t i f

i ed t hatt he def

endanti ns i s t ed on keepi ng cont act w i t h t he chi l dr en; how ever , s he sta ted th a t sh e h a d n o d e sire to re su m e h e r ro m a n tic re latio n sh ip w ith th e d e fe n d a n t.

I n M ar ch of

2007, t he defendantcont act ed t he vi ct i m t o i nfor m hert hathe w as m ovi ng f r om I l l i noi s t o K noxvi l l e and thathe had s ever al j ob i nt er vi ew s i n t he ar ea. I n an el ectr oni c m ai l m es s age s enton M ar ch 7, 2007, t he defendant t ol d t he vi ct i m t hathe w ant ed to sp e n d tim e w ith th e c h ild re n b u t d id n o t w a n t to in ter fe re w ith h e r li fe
. T h e v ictim t esti fi ed t hatt he def

endantal s o conveye d hi s di f f i cul t y w i t h know i ng t hats he dat ed ot her peopl e. Sh e sai d t hatt he def endants t at ed t hathe w ant ed t o s ee the chi l dr en on M ar ch 26 b e c a u se h e w o u ld b e in K n o x v ill e to in ter v iew fo r jo b s. T h e v ictim sa id th a t th e d e fe n d a n t, ho w ever, nev er cal l ed to sol i dif y an y p l ans.-3- T he vi ct i m t es t i f

i ed t haton Sunday, M ar ch 25, 2007, t he def endantar r i ved
unannounce d atherhom e bef or e di nner
. She s ai d t hatt he chi l dr en s eem ed ver y happy t o s ee hi m beca us e t hey had not s een hi m i n m or e t han a m ont h. T he vi ct i m s ai d t hatt he def endant t hen s t ayed w hi l e s he and t he chi l dr en at e di nner
. She expl ai ned t hatt he def endantr em ai ned att he hom e “l i ke i tw as okay forhi m t o s t ay t her e. ” A t9: 00 o r 9: 30 s he t ol d hi m t hathe neede d t o l eave s o s he coul d s l eep. T he def endantr es ponded t hathe nee ded t o s t ay w i t h t he vi ct i m and us e her com put er i n t he m or ni ng befor e hi s i nt er vi ew s
. T he vi ct i m t es t i f i ed t hat
s he gave t he def

endanta hous e key s o t hat he coul d us e her com put er t he next day butt hat sh e d id n o t let h im sta y a t th e re sid e n c e
. T h e d e fe n d a n t ag re e d to lea v e th e k e y u n d e rn e a th t he doorm atw hen he f

i ni s hed.

T h e v ictim tes tified th a t th e d e fe n d a n t w a n ted to tak e th e c h ild re n to a m o v ie th e fo ll o w in g n ig h t. S h e a d m itt e d th a t sh e h a d p re v io u sly a g re e d to a llo w h im to d o th a t; how ever , s he s t at ed t hats he bega n feel i ng uncom for t abl e aboutt he def endant ’ s bei ng al one w ith h e r c h ild re n a fte r in ter a c tin g w ith h im th e p re v io u s n ig h t. S h e to ld th e d e fe n d a n t v ia t el ephone thathe coul d onl y s ee the chi l dr en i f s he w ent w i th t hem

. T he vi ct i m s t at ed t hat t hi s anger ed t he def

endant

. T he vi ct i m t es t i f i ed t hats he ul t i m at el y d i d notal l ow t he def endantt o s ee he r c hi l dr en t hateveni ng. She s t at ed t hatt he def endanthad us ed her
com put erand r et ur ned t he key a s agr eed a nd t hats he di d not s ee t he def endanton M onday, M ar ch 26.
O n th e fo llo w in g d a y , th e d e fe n d a n t c a lled th e v ictim se v e ra l ti m e s. H e to ld th e vict i m t hat, i f she w ou l d m eet him for l un ch t o di scuss his seei ng t he chi l dre n a n d to excha nge s om e pape r w or k i nvol vi ng t he di vor ce, he w oul d “j us tgo. ” She agree d that t he de fe n d a n t c o u l d p i c k h e r u p whe r e s h e wor k e d a t t h e Te n n e s s e e Sc h o o l for t he D eaf ( “TS D ”)

. T he vi ct i m t es t i f i ed t hat t he cam pus had a s ecur i t y gat e, s o s he ar r anged w i t h t he
s ecur i t y guar d to all o w the def endantt o ent ert he gr ound of t he s chool

. T he def

endant
a rriv e d in h is p ick u p tru c k , an d th e v ictim ro d e in th e fro n t p a ss e n g e r se a t.

T he vi ct i m t es t i f

i ed t hat , w hen s he ent er ed t he vehi cl e, t he def endants how ed herw hatappea r ed t o be a l et t erf r om a pot ent i al em pl oyerof fer i ng t he def

endanta j ob. T he
v ictim to ld th e d e fe n d a n t th a t sh e w a s p ro u d o f h im b u t th a t s h e d id n o t w a n t to re su m e th e ir
r el at i ons hi p. She s ai d t hatt h e d efendanti ns i s t ed t hathe coul d “f i x” the r el at i ons hi p. She tes tified th a t, w h e n sh e a rg u e d th a t th e ir re latio n sh ip w a s o v e r, h e b e c a m e a n g ry . S h e sa id t hatt he def

endants t ar t ed dr i vi ng “r eal fas t ” on cur vi ng r oads and t hats he r epea t edl y as ked hi m t o s l ow dow n. T he defendant t hen sai d, “[ I ] f you don’ t car e aboutus , I don’ tcar e about
us ei t her

. ” The vi ct i m s ai d t hat t he def endant t hen s uddenl y act ed cal m agai n and as ked her
w h e re sh e w a n ted to e a t.

T he vi ct i m t es t i f

i ed t hatt he def

endantdr ove t o a Soni c D r i ve- I n R es t aur ant ( “Soni c”) and t hataf

t eror der i ng t hei r l unches , t he t w o r es um ed ar gui ng. She s ai d t hatt he-4-

def endantas ked s ever al ques t i ons abouta m an w i t h w hom he t hought the v ict im w as r om ant i cal l y i nvol ved and t hat t he defendant s eem ed i ncr eas i ngl y ups et

. She s t at ed t hatt he def endantt hen gr abbed he rby t he hai rand p u sh ed h er he ad aga i ns tt he das hboar d s ever al tim e s. S h e sta ted th a t a s e rv e r th e n b ro u g h t th e fo o d to th e tru c k a n d th a t sh e a ttem p ted to leav e the v eh icl e w h il e h e w as sp ea k ing w ith the s erv er. T h e v ict im stat ed that the v eh icl e’s doorw as l ocked s o t hats he coul d notl eave t he tr uck.

Af t e rl e a v i n g S o n i c , t h e v i c t i m a s k e d t h e d e fe n d a n t t o d r i v e h e rb a c k t o T S D. She s t at ed t hatt he def

endantdi d not appea rt o be dr i vi ng t ow ar d T SD , and s he t ol d hi m t hat
s he nee ded t o r et ur n t o w or k beca us e hercow or ker s w oul d n o ti ce herabs ence
. T he d e fe n d a n t th e n d ro v e in th e d ire c tio n o f T S D . T h e v ic ti m tes tified th a t h e th e n su d d e n ly
s t opped t he vehi cl e and he l d t he vi ct i m dow n and aske d forT SD ’ s t el ephone num ber

. She
s t at ed t hat t he def

endant had t hr ow n her m obi l e t el ephone outof t he w i ndow ear l i erand t hat he ca l l ed TS D f

r om hi s m obi l e t el ephone. T he def endant t ol d hert o r epor tt o T SD t hats he
w oul d notbe r et ur ni ng t o w or k. A l t hough t he vi ct i m di d notknow herw or k num ber , t he def endantappar ent l y had t he num berpr ogr am m ed i n hi s t el ephone. T he vi ct i m s t at ed t hat th e d e fe n d a n t h a d p in n e d h e r n e c k d o w n a n d h e ld th e p h o n e n e x t to h e r e a r. S h e th e n to ld J ani ce M ur r el l atherof f i ce thats he w oul d notbe r et ur ni ng t o w or k.
S h e tes tified th a t th e d e fe n d a n t “w a s d e ter m in e d th a t h e w a s g o in g to g o to th is person w h o h e t hought[ s he] w as s eei ng’ s w or k. ” She r ef us ed t o t el l hi m w her e t he m an w or ked, w hi ch f

ur t heranger ed t he def

endant

. T he vi ct i m t es t i f i ed t hatt he def

endantw ove t hr ough t r af

f i c on t he i nt er s t at e w hi l e s peedi ng. She al s o s ai d t hat at one poi ntt he def endant t hr eat ened t o pus h heroutof t he m ovi ng vehi cl e. T he vi ct i m s t at ed t he s he w ant ed t o getout o f th e tru c k , so sh e su g g e ste d th a t th e d e fe n d a n t d riv e to h e r a p a rtm e n t w h e re th e tw o c o u ld t al k ab ou tt heirrel at i on shi p is sues.

U pon ar r i vi ng att he apar t m ent com pl ex, t he vi ct i m as ked t he def endantt o s t op ata bui l di ng neart he f

r ontof t he com pl ex s o t hat s he coul d getherm ai l

. She t es t i f i ed t hat t he def endants t opped t he vehi cl e and that s he exi t ed t he vehi cl e and w al ked t ow ar d t he
m ai l boxes

. T he def

endantt hen dr ove t ow ar d t he vi ct i m ’ s apar t m entuni tt o par k hi s t r uck. T h e v ic tim e x p lain e d th a t sh e p re ten d e d to g e t h e r m a il b u t th a t sh e th e n ra n d o w n a p a th b e h in d h e r a p a rtm e n t b u ild in g . S h e tes tified th a t s h e ra n b y so m e m e n in sta lli n g a se c u rity
s ys t em and t hats he s ai d t o t hem , “I f t her e i s a m an t hat fol l ow s m e, pl eas e cal l 911. ” She stat ed that sh e d id n o t kn o w w h ethe r t h e m en h ea rd h er.

T he vi ct i m t hen ar r i ved at her apar t m ent and w enti ns i de. She t es t i f i ed t hatt he doorw as unl ocked a l t hough s he coul d notexpl ain w h y herunat t ended a par t m entw as not l ocked. T he vi ct i m t hen l ocked he rdoorand r an t o herhom e t el ephone. She t es t i f i ed t hat th e d e fe n d a n t k ick e d in h e r fro n t d o o r a n d g ra b b e d th e tele p h o n e a n d p u lled it o u t o f th e w a ll. She s ai d t hathe t hen gr abbed he r by t he ar m s and for ced her t o t he l i vi ng r oom couch. She-5-

said that the d efe n d an t scre am ed , “W ell , y o u think y o u ca n ca ll 9 1 1 ? Y o u think that .

. . I’d act ual l y d o s o m e t h i n g t o h u r t y o u ? ” Sh e t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e was s c a r e d a n d h o p e d t hat t he
s ecur i t y em pl oyees out s i de had he ar d herand ca l l ed 9- 1- 1.

T he vi ct i m t es t i f

i ed t hat t he defendant t hen st ar t ed paci ng i n f r ontof herand
a sk e d “ if [sh e ] ev e r kn e w w h a t it fe lt lik e to e a t a b u llet.” S h e sa id th a t th e d e fe n d a n t w o u ld th e n w h o lly c h a n g e h is d e m e a n o r a n d p lea d w ith h e r to “ g e t m a rrie d a n d fix th is w h o le t hi ng. ” The vi ct i m t es t i f i ed t hatt he def

endantt hen too k the w i r es us ed t o connec tt he t el evi s i on and t he V C R and w r apped them ar ound herneck. She t es t i f i ed t hatt he def

endant th e n sto p p e d a n d sa id , “ W e ll, h u rtin g y o u w o u ld n ’t b e g o o d e n o u g h . T h e o n ly w a y to re a lly gett o you w oul d be t o hur t one of [ t he chi l dr en] and m ake you w at ch. ” The defendantt hen said that h e c o u ld m ak e h er w atch h im k il l him self.

T he vi ct i m t es t i f

i ed t hatt he def

endantm oved hert o a cha i ratt he di ni ng r oom t abl e. H e as ked i f

s he had a ny ductt ape and s t ar t ed “[ s ] cave ngi ng” t hr ough her hom e. She sta ted th a t th e d e fe n d a n t fo u n d a p a rin g k n ife a n d a c ted a s th o u g h h e w o u ld u se th e k n ife to hur t hi m s el f

. T he vi ct i m t es t i f i ed t hat he t hen gr abbed her f r om t he cha i rand s t ood behi nd herw i t h t he kni fe t o herneck. H e l ed t he vi ct i m i nt o t he bedr oom w hi l e “t al ki ng abouthow

. . . h e c o u ldn ’tb eli ev e tha t [ s h e] d idn ’tu n d erstan d that h e lov ed them an d that– [t h eir]
m ar r i age ha d ended be caus e of an af fai r , and t hathe w as goi ng t o pr ove t o [ her ] t hat

. . . he
r eal l y di d l ove [ her ]

. ” The vi ct i m s t at ed t hatt he defendant for ced he ront o t he bed, l i f t ed her
s ki r t , and penetr at ed her vagi na w i t h hi s peni s
. She m ai nt ai ned t hatt he i nt er cour s e w as not cons ens ual ; how ever , s he coul d not r eca l l w het her t he def endant hel d t he kni fe t o herdur i ng t he r ape.
T he vi ct i m t est if ied t hat , af

t ert he r ape, s he w al ked aw ay f r om t he bed. T he def endantt hen aske d w her e s he w as goi ng, and s he r es ponded t hats he w as goi ng t o t ake a
s how er
. T he vi ct i m t es t i f i ed t hat s he t hen undre s s ed and w ent i nt o t he show er
. She t es t i f i ed t hatt he def

endants oon fol l ow ed herand t hathe al s o ent er ed the s how er
. A tt hatpoi nt , t he vi ct i m l ef

t t he show er and obt ai ned t he defendant ’ s t r uck keys f r om hi s pant s t hatw er e l yi ng o n the fl o o r. S h e then d resse d in a p air o f h er jean s that w ere lying o n the floo r an d the s h ir t t hats he had be en w ear i ng. T he vi ct i m t es t i f i ed t hat s he t hen r an out s i de t he apa r t m entand
e n t e r e d t h e d e fe n d a n t ’ s t r u c k

. S h e s t a t e d t h a tt h i s o c c u r r e d a ta p p r o x i ma t e l y 2 : 0 0 p
. m.

T he vi ct i m t es t i f

i ed t hats he cont act ed herf r i end, Paul A l l en, w ho had hel ped heri n ot hert i m es of

di f f i cul t y. She s ai d t hats he m etw i t h M r
. A l l en at hi s apar t m ent , and that the tw o u sed M r. A ll en ’s truc k to p ick u p h er ch il d ren from sch o o l. S h e stated that M r. A l l en cal l ed 9- 1- 1 and gave her hi s m obi l e t el ephone. T he vi ct i m s t at ed t hat t hey arr i ved at W e st H ill s E lem e n tar y S c h o o l, w h e re h e r tw o y o u n g e st c h ild re n a tten d e d , a t ap p ro x im a tely 3 :00 p
. m
. W h en they arrived at the sch o o l, the victi m w as on the telep h o n e w ith the 9 -1-1 oper at or
. She t es t i f

i ed t hatt he 9- 1- 1 oper at or s had cont act ed t he s chool and t hatherchi l dr en-6-

w er e w ai t i ng forherar r i val att he s chool

. T he vi ct i m t es t i f i ed t hat w hen s he exi t ed t he tr uck t o pi ck up herchi l dren sh e saw t hatt he def endanthad w al ked f

r om t he apa r t m entt o t he el em ent ar y s chool

. She s ai d t hatt he def endantr an af

t erherand t hatM r
. A l l en s t ood b e tw e e n th e tw o so th a t sh e c o u ld c o n tin u e g e tti n g h e r c h ild re n fro m in sid e th e sc h o o l.

A f t erget t i ng her younges t chi l dr en i nt o the tr uck w i t h M r
. A l l en, t hey dr ove t o B ear den M i ddl e S ch o o l, w h ich w as on t he s am e r oad as t he el em ent ar y s chool

. She expl ai ned t hat , beca us e t he s chool s had r ece nt l y r el eas ed t hei r s t udent s , t he t r af f i c on t he r oad
w as ver y s l ow
. T he vi ct i m t es t i f i ed t hat s he saw t he def

endantw al ki ng t ow ar ds t hem al ong t he s i dew al k. She expl ai ned t hatt hey t hen dr ove behi nd B ear den M i ddl e School beca us e her ol des tdaught erus ual l y exi t ed t he bac k doort o w al k hom e.

T he vi ct i m t es t i f

i ed t hat t he defendant ar r i ved at the back of t he school f i r s tand t hathe vi r t ual l y “j um p[ ed] i n f r ontof t he t r uck. ” S he expl ai ned t hatt he tr uck’ s s i de m i r r or s t r uck t he def

endantand knocke d hi m t o t he gr ound. T he vi ct i m t es t i f i ed t hat at t hatpoi nt s he l ef tt he tr uck t o get her ol des t chi l d but t hat , unl i ke at t he el em ent ar y s chool , t he s chool adm i ni s t r at or s w er e notpr epar ed s o s he had t o s i gn herdaught eroutw i t h a s ecur i t y guar d.

T he vi ct i m s ai d t hat t he school “w as goi ng i nt o l ockdow n m ode bec aus e t hey
r eal i zed that[ t he def

endant ] w as on t he pr oper t y. ” She t hen l ef tw i t h herol des tdaught erand goti nt o M r
. A l l en’ s t r uck. A s t hey w er e l eavi ng t he s chool , p o li ce of f i cer s ar r i ved. She expl ai ned t hats he r em ai ned onl i ne w i t h 9- 1- 1 oper at or s t he ent i r e t i m e and thats he ende d th e c a ll w h e n sh e sa w th a t p o lice h a d a rriv e d a t th e sc h o o l.

She t es t i f

i ed t hats he “j us tw ant [ ed] t o l eave ” and di d n o t w an t to a ns w er ques t i ons f

r om t he pol i ce. She adm i t t ed t hat s he i ni t i al l y t ol d t he pol i ce of f i cer s , “W ho car es about[ pr es s i ng] char ges
. T hey’ r e s af e, and I j us t w ant t o go. ” H ow ever , s he s ai d t hatonce th e o ffic e rs n o tice d m a rk s o n h e r n e c k , s h e e x p la in e d m o re a b o u t th e in c id e n t. T h e S tate i ntro d u c e d p h otographs of t he v i ct i m ’s dep i ct i ng i njur i es t o h er neck. T he v i ct i m al so t es t i f i ed t o br ui s es on herar m s , s cr at ches o n h er back, br ui s es under neath hers cal p, and a chi pped t oot h.

A tt he end of

t he vi ct i m ’ s d ir ec t exam i nat i on, t he St at e i nt r oduced s ever al exhi bi t s t o cor r obor at e hert es t i m ony. T hes e exhi bi t s i ncl uded t he l et t ert hatt he def endant g av e to th e v ict im ind icati n g that h e h ad a job o ffer an d sev era l ph o tog rap h s o f t h e v ict im ’s
a p a rtm e n t co m p lex . A re c o rd in g o f th e 9

- 1

- 1 c a ll b y th e v ictim w a s a lso in tro d u c e d in to evi dence and pl ayed be for e t he j ur y.

O n cr os s
- exam i nat i on, th e v i c t i m a c k n o wl e d g ed t hats he w as a “s t r ong per s on”
a n d th a t sh e h a d so m e e x p e rie n c e w ith m a rtial arts

. D e fe n se c o u n se l as k e d w h y th e v ictim
nevercom pl ai ned of

r ape dur i ng herl ong t el ephone c al l w i t h the 9 -1-1 oper at or s , and t he-7-

v ictim re sp o n d e d th a t sh e d id n o t w a n t to sp e a k o f it in fro n t o f h e r c h ild re n , w h o w e re w ith h er fo r m o s t o f t h e c all

. F u rt h er, th e v ict im stat ed that, w h il e d ea li n g w ith the 9 -1-1 oper at or s , herm ai n conce r n w as f i ndi ng herchi l dr en. T he vi ct i m expl ai ned t hats he di d not
re c a ll m a n y o f th e e v e n ts o f M a rc h 2 7 , 2 0 0 7 , u n til se v e ra l d a y s la ter . S h e e x p lain e d th a t o n ly lat er d id sh e re ca ll the d efe n d an t’ s u sing a k n if e a n d v ideo co rd to h arm h er.
D ef ens e couns el as ked about a s er i es of el ectr oni c m ai l m es s ages s entbet w een t he t w o and i nqui r ed w het hers he had l ed t he def endantt o bel i eve s he s t i l l l oved hi m i n t he
m e ss a g e s. T h e v ictim m a in tain e d th a t sh e d id n o t in te n d to m isle a d th e d e fe n d a n t in to bel i evi ng t hats he w ant ed t o r es um e t hei r r el at i ons hi p but t hat s he sai d com pl i m ent ar y t hi ngs to h im b e c a u s e th e d e fe n d a n t s e e m e d s a d a n d “ s o u n d e d v e ry s u ic id a l.”

T he vi ct i m deni ed havi ng a r om ant i c rel ati o ns hi p w i t h M r
. A l l en, and s he
m ai nt ai ned that sh e knew hi m t hr ough a di vor ce c ar e gr oup. T he vi ct i m adm i t t ed t hatt he def endanthad a good r el at i ons hi p w i t h herchi l dr en and thatt hey of t en s poke w i t h hi m over t he phone.

K noxvi l l e Pol ice D epar t m entO f f i cerSandr a L. R eynol ds t es t i f i ed t haton M a rc h 2 7 , 2 0 0 7 , sh e w a s p a tro lli n g th e w e st K n o x v ill e a re a a n d th a t sh e re sp o n d e d to B ea rde n M idd le S ch o o l. S h e ex p lai n ed that “[a ]pp are n tl y , there w as a d o m esti c [sic] w h ere t hey had s t at ed t hat a w om an had be en hel d agai ns therw i l l , and t he s us pectpr obabl y had a gun and w as on footi n t hatar ea w her e t he s chool w as at

. ” W hen O f f i cerR eynol ds ar r i ved at t h e sc en e, she o b serv ed L ieuten an t R o n G ree n an d the s ch o o l’ s reso u rce o ffi ce r.

O f f i cer R eynol ds t es t i f

i ed t hat s he s poke w i t h t he vi ct i m and t hen arr es t ed t he def endant

. She al s o s poke w i t h ot herof f i cer s att he sc ene w ho had col l ect ed i nfor m at i on a b o u t th e in c id e n t. S h e e x p lain e d th a t th e v ictim w a s n e rv o u s, h y p e r, an d sc a re d . T h e v ictim b egan c r yi ng s ever al t i m es w hi l e s peaki ng w i t h her

. O f f i cerR eynol ds t es t i f

i ed t hatt he vi ct i m “j us tbas i cal l y coul dn’ tqui tt al ki ng, l i ke s he coul dn’ tgetherb reat h. ” O f f i cer R e y n o ld s s tate d th a t sh e o b se rv e d th e sc ra tch e s o n th e v ictim ’s n e c k a n d th a t th e v ictim
re p o rte d th a t h e r h e a d h u rt.

Of f i c e r Re y n o l d s s t a t e d t h a t s h e a t t e mp t e d t o e x p l a i n t o t h e v i c t i m “ wh a twe h a v e to o ffe r fo r v ictim s o f d o m e stic v io len c e
. . . an d to ld h e r w h a t w a s av a ilab le.” S h e to ld t he vi ct i m t hatt he K noxvi l l e Pol i ce D epar t m ent coul d “w al k [ her ] t hr ough” t he pr os ecut i on of dom es t i c vi ol ence
. O f f i cerR eynol ds t es t i f

i ed t hatt he vi ct i m deci ded t o p rose cut e t he
cas e. O f

f i cer R eynol ds t es t i f

i ed t hat , af

t erconduct i ng heri nt er vi ew s , s he dr ove t he def endantt o j ai l

. O n cr os s
- exam i nat i on, O f f i cerR eynol ds deni ed thats he i nf l uence d t he
v ictim to file c h a rg e s a g a in st th e d e fe n d a n t.-8- D avi d L ee, m ai nt enanc e s uper vi s or at W es t w ood A par t m ent s , t es t i f i ed t hathe
re p a ire d th e v ictim ’s d o o r th a t w a s alle g e d ly k ick e d in b y th e d e fe n d a n t. A lth o u g h h e c o u ld notr eca l l s peci f

i cal l y m aki ng t he re pai r , M r
. L ee t es t i f i ed t hat he had t o s ecur e t he l ock l at ch and r e- nai l t he br oken tr i m
. T he St at e i nt r oduced hi s w or k or der for m as an exhi bi t , w hi ch
r ef l ect ed t hathe r ece i ved t he or der on M ar ch 28, 2007, and com pl et ed t he r epai ron M ar ch 29, 2007.
O n cr os s
- exam i nat i on, M r
. L ee a dm i t t ed t hathe di d notknow exac t l y w hen t he doorw as dam aged. H e t es t i f i ed t hat he di d nots ee the vi ct i m ’ s r unni ng i nt o herapar t m ent on M ar ch 27, 2007, buthe expl ai ned t hathe per for m ed m os tof hi s w or k on t he ot hers i de
o f th e a p a rtm e n t co m p lex , n e a rly tw o b lo c k s fr o m th e v ictim ’s a p a rtm e n t.

Jan ice M u rrell test if

ied th at i n 2 0 0 7 , sh e serv ed as th e a d m inistrati v e se cre tary fort he TS D ’ s s uper i nt endent

. She expl ai ned t hat t he vi ct i m w as hi r ed on Febr uar y 15, 2007,
as t he s e c r e t a r y fo r t h e d e p a r t m e n t o f s t u d e n t l i v i n g
. Sh e s a i d t h a t t h e v i c t i m w as an exce l l entem pl oyee a nd t hat , w i t h t he exc ept i on of M arc h 27, 2007, s he had ne verl ef tfor l unch and fai l ed t o r et ur n.

M s
. M ur r el l t es t i f

i ed t hatt he vi ct i m cal l ed her on M ar ch 27, 2007, and s ai d t hat sh e fe lt sick a n d w o u ld n o t re tu rn fro m lu n c h

. M s. M u rre ll tes tified th a t sh e to ld th e v ictim th a t sh e h o p e d sh e w o u ld fe e l b e tter. S h e sta ted th a t sh e n o tice d th a t th e v ictim ’s v e h icle
r em ai ned parked i n t he s chool ’ s par ki ng l otw hen s he l ef tt he s chool t hateveni ng.
M s
. M ur r el l s t at ed t hatt he next day, M ar ch 28, t he vi ct i m cam e t o w or k and h a d a c o n v e rsa tio n w ith h e r a b o u t th e p re v io u s d a y
. M s
. M u rre ll t e stifie d th a t th e v ictim pr oduced a phot ogr aph of t he defendant t o be pl ace d i n her f i l e at w or k. M s
. M ur r el l s t at ed t hatt he s ecur i t y guar d had docum ent ed t hats om eone c am e to the school l ooki ng fort he
v i c t i m o n Ma r c h 2 7 , 2 0 0 7

. S h e f u r t h e rt e s t i f

i e d t h a tt h e s c h o o l a l l o we d t h e v i c t i m s o me t i me off aft er M arch 27 t o h and l e cou rtm at t ers
.

M s
. M ur r el l s ai d t hatt he vi ct i m l ef therem p loym entw i t h t he s chool for

“ p e rso n a l issu e s” o n Ju n e 1 4 , 2 0 0 7 . T h e e m p lo y m e n t file o f th e v ictim re fle c ted th a t p e o p le t ri ed to vi si ther att he scho ol, al t ho ug h s he w as no l on ger em ployed there, on t w o o ccasi on s. T h e re p o rt re fle c ted th a t an u n id e n tified w o m a n c a m e to th e sc h o o l as k in g a b o u t th e v ictim on Sept em ber 25, 2007, and t hat an uni dent i f i ed w om an and m an ca m e t o t he s chool l ooki ng fort he def

endanton A ugus t3, 2007.
O n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n , M s. M u rre ll t e stifie d th a t th e sc h o o l’s e m p lo y e e s d id not l og i n or out w hen l eavi ng for or r et ur ni ng f r om l unch. She al s o cl ar i f i ed t hat , w hen t he vi ct i m cal l ed on M ar ch 27, s he di d notas k w het her s he coul d t ake off t he r em ai nderof

t he day butt hatt he vi ct i m s i m pl y i nfor m ed hert hats he w oul d notr et ur n.-9- K noxvi l l e P ol i ce D epar t m ent O f f i cerB r i an B al dw i n t es t i f i ed t hathe r ece i ved
a ca l l fo r ser vi ce a tB ear den M i ddl e School on M ar ch 27, 2007. O f f i cerB al dw i n r eca l l ed th a t o th e r o ffic e rs a rriv e d to th e sc e n e b e fo re h e d id . H e sta ted th a t h e sa w th e v ictim
s peaki ng w i t h O f

f i cerM or gan. H e s ai d t hatt he vi ct i m appea r ed to b e cry i ng and t hats he
w a s s w e a tin g . H e o b se rv e d th a t th e v ictim ’s c lo th e s w e re in d isa rra y . A fte r sp e a k in g w ith
o th e r o ffic e rs, O ffic e r B a ld w in d isc o v e re d th a t th e d e fe n d a n t w a s p re se n t. O ffic e r B a ld w in th e n d ro v e th e v ic tim to th e ju d ic ia l c o m m is s io n e r’ s o ffic e fo r th e s w e a ri n g o f a w a rr a n t. A vi deo f r om hi s cr ui s er ’ s vi deo ca m er a w as s how n t o t he j ur y depi ct i ng t he s cene
. O n cro ss-ex am ination , O ffice r B aldw in ad m it ted th at no fi n g erp ri n ts w ere t aken f r om t he vi ct i m ’s a p artm ent as par tof t he i nves t i gat i on. H e f ur t hert es t i f

i ed t hat not hi ng f r om t he apa r t m entw as anal yzed a nd t hatno r ape ki tw as per for m ed.
A f t ert he St at e r es t ed, t he def ens e ca l l ed D an K nappen, a s er vi ce a dvi s or for t he K i l e D odge dea l er s hi p. M r
. K nappen i ns pect ed t he defendant ’ s 2004 D odge R am pi ckup t r uck on A pr i l 25, 2007. H e t es t i f i ed t hatt he tr uck’ s l ocks f unct i oned pr oper l y, and he
m ai nt ai ned t hatt he f

r ontpas s enger ’ s s i de doorcoul d be opened f r om t he i ns i de eve n w hen t he doorl ock w as engage d. M r
. K nappen f ur t her t es t i f

i ed t hat , even w hen a pe r s on phys i cal l y hol ds dow n t he doorl ock, t he doorm ay s t i l l be opene d us i ng t he i ns i de handl e.

K at hl een B ur r es s , t he def endant ’ s s i s t er , t es t i f

i ed t hats he t ook pos s es s i on of t he def endant ’ s 2004 D odge R am a few days af t erhi s ar r es t

. She t es t i f i ed t hats he t ook t he
ve h i c l e t o Ki l e Dod g e o n Apr i l 2 5 , 2 0 0 7 , a n d s h e m a i n t a i n e d t h a t s h e d i d n o t a l t er t he condi t i on of

t he vehi cl e i n any w ay. M s
. B ur r es s f ur t hert es t i f

i ed t hat sh e sp o k e w i t h t he vi ct i m on M ar ch 29, 2007, t w o days af t er t he i nci dent

. She s t at ed t hatt he vi ct i m t ol d hert hat
s he s t i l l l oved t he def

endantand t hatt he vi ct i m i ndi cat ed t hats he w oul d neverl ett he d e fe n d a n t k n o w h o w sh e fe lt.

O n cr os s
- exam i nat i on, M s
. B ur r es s s t at ed tha ts he had know n t he vi ct i m for f i ve yea r s
. She explaine d thats he had l i ved i n I ndi ana butt hats he m oved t o C l evel and, T e n n e ss e e , b e c a u se h e r d a u g h ter h a d b e e n a c c e p ted in to th e O ly m p ics . S h e tes tified th a t in
ear l y M ar ch 2007 s he r andom l y s aw t he vi ct i m atC ades C o v e in t he Sm oky M ount ai ns N at i onal Par k. She adm i t t ed t hats he i nfor m ed t he def endantt hats he had s een the vi ct i m and t hatt he vi ct i m had m oved t o T ennes s ee.

Bl a i n e M e l i u s t e s t i f

i ed t hathe i ns t al l ed f

i r e al ar m s ys t em s forFl eenorSecur i t y. H e t est if ie d t hati n M ar ch 2007, he and Er ni e G i bs on w or ked on a f i r e al ar m s ys t em at W estw o o d A p artm en ts, w h ere the v ic tim liv e d

. H e stated that u su all y o n ly h e a n d M r. G ibso n w o rke d at W estw o o d A p artm en ts, b u t he s aid th at on o cc asio n ex tr a crew m em b ers w o u ld b e se n t to a id th e m
. H e tes tified th a t h e h a d n o m e m o ry o f a w o m a n ru n n in g b y h im and as ki ng hi m t o cal l 9- 1- 1.-10- M r. G i bson al so t est i fi ed t hat, w hil e w orki ng on t he W est w oo d A part m ents ’ f i r e al ar m s ys t em , he di d nots ee a brune t t e w om an w al k by or expr es s t hat s he needed he l p. O n cro ss-ex am ination , M r. G ibso n ag ree d that d if feren t com p an ies an d w o rke rs w ere cons t ant l y att he apa r t m entcom pl ex. H e al s o expl ai ned t hathe had di f f i cul t y hear i ng and g e n e r a l l y c o u l d n o tu n d e r s t a n d p e o p l e u n l e s s fa c i n g t h e m.

T he defen d antt es t i f

i ed t hathe w or ked as a qual i f i ed under gr ound di es el
m echa ni c, a ce r t i f

i ed gas ol i n e m echa ni c, and a m ot or cycl e m echa ni c. H e t es t i f i ed t hathe and t he vi ct i m had bee n m ar r i ed butt hatt hey di vor ced i n O ct ober 2007. H e expl ai ned t hat fo l l o wi n g t h e d i v o r c e , h e ma i n t a i n e d a r e l a t i o n s h i p wi t h t h e v i c t i m a n d h e rc h i l d r e n
. He
s t at ed t hat , att i m es , hi s r el at i ons hi p w i t h t he vi ct i m had bee n r om ant i c eve n af t ert he di vor ce an d that the tw o h ad sp en t som e n igh ts t o g ethe r.

T h e d e fe n d a n tt e s t i f

i e d t h a th e d r o v e t o Kn o x v i l l e o n M a r c h 2 5 , 2 0 0 7

. He
s t at ed t hat he w ant ed t o s ee hi s chi l dr en and thathe had s ever al j ob i nt er vi ew s on M onday, M arc h 2 6

. H e e x p lai n ed that h e w an ted to m o v e to T en n esse e b ec au s e h e h ad tw o sist ers l i vi ng i n t he ar ea. H e st at ed t hat he l ef t I l l i noi s on t he eveni ng of M ar ch 24, dr ove t hr ough t he ni ght , and arr i ved i n K noxvi l l e dur i ng t he m or ni ng of M ar ch 25. T he def

endants t at ed t hatt he vi ct i m cal l ed hi m befor e he a r r i ved atherapar t m entt o as k abouthi s l ocat i on.

T he def endantt es t i f

i ed t hatt he vi ct i m ans w er ed t he door w hen he ar r i ved at her apar t m ent and t hat t he chi l dr en s eem ed happy t o s ee hi m
. T he def endants ai d t hathe and th e v ictim h a d o rig in a lly p lan n e d to g o to a m o v ie to g e th e r “ lik e a fa m ily th in g .” H e sa id th a t tw o o r th re e h o u rs a fte r h e a rriv e d , the y d e c id e d n o t to g o to th e m o v ie s. T h e v ictim d e c id e d th a t sh e w a n ted to d isc u ss th e re latio n sh ip w ith th e d e fe n d a n t, so th e tw o w e n t to di nneratC ozym el ’ s w i t houtt he chi l dr en.

T he def endantr eca l l ed t hatt he ser vi ce at t he re s t aur ant w as ver y bad and t hat t he m anage rpr es ent ed hi m w i t h a vouche rfora f r ee m eal

. T he def

ens e i nt r oduced a voucher f r om C ozym el ’ s as an exhi bi t

. T he def endantt es t i f

i ed t h at atdi nnert he vi ct i m s ugges t ed t h a t t h e t w o “takethings slow and easy, and . . . that [they] just nee ded to seewhere things were go ing .” Hestate d th at after dinn er thetw o w e nt h omeandthat he sp e nt the nig ht wi th thevic tim

.

T he def endantt es t i f

i ed t hati n t he m or ni ng t he vi ct i m ’ s al ar m cl ock di d not
w ake the t w o and t hatt he vi ct i m w oke up l at ert han s he had pl an n ed

. H e stat ed t hatt he vi ct i m qui ckl y dr es s ed and t hen w oke t he chi l dr en. H e s ai d t hat t he vi ct i m handed hi m t he k e y s to th e a p a rtm e n t an d to ld h im th a t h e c o u ld u se th e c o m p u ter to p re p a re fo r h is in ter v iew s. T h e v ictim th e n a sk e d h im to tak e th e c h ild re n to sc h o o l b e c a u se sh e n e e d e d to l eave i m m edi at el y t o gett o w or k on t i m e.-11- T he def endantt es t i f

i ed t hatas he t ook t he chi l dr en t o s chool , K ayl ee, one of t he chi l dr en, as ked t he def endant t o pur chas e her s chool phot ogr aphs

. T he def endantt hen cal l ed t he vi ct i m on herm obi l e t el ephone t o di s cus s t he cor r ect pi ct ur e pac kage t o pur chas e. T he vi ct i m t ol d hi m w hatpacka ge t o buy and t hats he w oul d r ei m bur s e hi m fort he p h o to g ra p h s. H e m a in tain e d th a t h e w o u ld n o t h a v e b o u g h t th e p h o to g ra p h s h a d th e v ictim not gi ven hi m p e r m i s s i o n t o d o s o
. Th e p a y m e n ts l i p fo rt h e p i c t u r e s was e n t e r e d a s an e x h ib it.

T he def

endantt es t i f

i ed t hathe had t hr ee j ob i nt er vi ew s on M onday, M ar ch 26, 2007. H e expl ai ned t hat , w hi l e he w as us i ng t he vi ct i m ’ s com put ert hatm or ni ng t o get d i r e c t i o n s t o h i s i n t e r v i e ws , a n e l e c t r o n i c ma i l me s s a g e f r o m P a u l Al l e n “ p o p p e d u p
. ” He t es t i f i ed t hathe t houghtt hatt ur ni ng of f t he com puter w o u l d del et e t he m es s age, s o he handw r ot e t he m es s age on a s heet o f p ap er an d l ef ti tfort he vi ct i m
. H e s t at ed t hatt he
m es s age i ndi cat ed t hatt he vi ct i m w as i n a r om ant i c r el at i ons hi p w i t h M r
. A l l en. T he def endantt es t i f

i ed t hathe w as ver y s ur pr i s ed t o di s cover t hi s r el at i ons hi p beca us e he t hought t hat he a n d t h e v i c t i m h a d b e e n r e c o n c i l i n g t h e i rr e l a t i o n s h i p
. Th e d e fe n d a n ta d m i t t ed, h o we v e r , t h a th e h a d mo r e i n t e r e s t i n r e v i v i n g t h e r o ma n t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a n d i d t h e v i c t i m.

T he def endants t at ed t hathe ac cept ed a pos i t i on as an under gr ound
ma i n t e n a n c e s u p e r v i s o ra tJ e f fe r s o n Ci t y Z i n c
. He t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a f

t e rf i n i s h i n g th e i n t e r v i e w, he r et ur ned t o hi s t r uck and thathi s m obi l e t el ephone i ndi cat ed t hathe had m i s s ed s ever al cal l s f r om t he vi ct i m
. T he def endant s t at ed t hat t he vi ct i m s eem ed ups et and t hats he t ol d t he def endantt hathe had vi ol at ed hersp ac e an d h er pr i vacy a s a r es ul tof hi s r eadi ng her el ectr oni c m ai l

. T he vi ct i m also t ol d t he def endantt hats he had pl ace d hi s pos s es s i ons out s i de i n t he yar d. T he def endantt es t i f

i ed t hatt he vi ct i m told h im thathe w as no l onger t r us t ed and thathe coul d nott ake the chi l dr en t o a m ovi e.

T he def endantal s o t es t i f

i ed t hathe and the vi ct i m had l unch o n M arc h 26, 200 7

. H e st at ed t hathe had pi cked the vi ct i m up f r om t he TS D and w entt o a r es t aur ant n a m e d I L o v e P izz a . H e p ro d u c e d a re c e ip t fo r $ 1 8 .4 0 fro m th e re sta u ra n t.

T he def endantt es t i f

i ed t haton M ar ch 27, 2007, he ca l l ed t he vi ct i m and
w ant ed t o di s cus s pl aci ng herchi l dr en on hi s i ns ur ance and t he s t at us of t hei rr el at i ons hi p. H e as ked t he vi ct i m w het herhe coul d pi ck herup forl unch, and, af t eri ni t i al l y r ef

us i ng t he of fer , s he agr eed. T he def endantt es t i f

i ed t hatt he s ecuri ty g uar d r em em ber ed hi m f r om h av ing lun ch the d ay b efo re a n d that the g u ard assu m ed that the v ict im w as th e d efe n d an t’ s w i fe. H e t hen pul l ed i nt o t he s chool , and t he vi ct i m ent er ed hi s t r uck.

T he def endant s t at ed t hat he f i r s t dr ove t o an aut om at i c tel ler m achi ne ( “A T M ”) beca us e t he vi ct i m neede d cas h foran eve nt at her w or k. T he def endantt hen dr ove t o Soni c. H e expl ai ned t hat t he vi ct i m navi gat ed f r om t he pas s enger ’ s s eat beca us e he w as-12-

u n fa m ili a r w ith K n o x v ill e . T h e d e fe n d a n t m a in tain e d th a t h e d ro v e w ith th e flo w o f tra ffic and di d notdr i ve err at i cal l y. H e s t at ed t hatt hey or der ed t hei r m ea ls, an d t hata s er ver deli vered t he m eal t o the truck. T he d efendan tst at ed that the vi ct i m paid for l un ch b ecause he had pa i d t he pr evi ous day.

T h e d e fe n d a n t tes tified th a t h e sh o w e d th e v ictim a lette r fro m Je ffe rso n C ity Z i nc of fer i ng hi m em p l oym ent

. H e hoped t o pr ove t hathe w oul d m ove t o K noxvi l l e and
r em ai n i n t he chi l dr en’ s l i ves
. H e t es t i f i ed t hatthe vi ct i m s eem ed s ur pr i s ed att he am ount of m oney he w oul d ear n and t hats he bec am e ver y qui et

. H e s t at ed t hatt he vi ct i m t hen s ai d, “W el l , t her e’ s r eal l y not hi ng t hat ’ s goi ng t o be bet w een us anym or e. ” She t ol d hi m s he had d e c id e d to c o n tin u e h e r re latio n sh ip w ith M r. A llen . T h is u p se t th e d e fe n d a n t, es p e c ially beca us e he kne w t hatM r
. A l l en had not yetbeen di vor ced. T he t w o began a r gui ng, and t he def endantt ol d t he vi ct i m t o l eave t he tr uck. T he vi ct i m t ol d t he def endantt hat he w as act i ng s t upi dl y, and s he r ef

us ed t o l eave t he tr uck.
A f t era f ew m i nut es , t he def

endantdr ove aw ay f

r om Soni c. H e expl ai ned t hat t he t w o had a he at ed ar gum entw hi l e dr i vi ng t he vi ct i m back t ow ar d T SD

. T he def endant sta ted th a t d u rin g th e a rg u m e n t h e talk e d a b o u t c o n fro n tin g M r. A llen a b o u t t h e re latio n sh ip
a t M r. A llen ’s p lac e o f e m p lo y m e n t. H e sta ted th a t h e to ld th e v ictim th a t h e n e e d e d to talk
w i t h M r
. A l l e n a n d t h a tt h e v i c t i m b e g g e d h i m n o tt o s p e a k w i t h h i m
. H e a d m i t t e d t h a the p u lled th e v ictim ’s h a ir d u rin g th is tim e . H e sa id th a t th e v ictim re sp o n d e d b y h itt in g h im i n t he s i de. T he def

endants t at ed t hat , beca us e of t he ar gum ent , he pai d l i t t l e at t ent i on t o t he
ro a d a n d b e g a n sw e rv in g . H e tes tified th a t a t o n e p o in t h e a lm o st cra sh e d h is tru c k a n d th a t, a fte r d riv in g b a c k in to th e c o rre c t lan e , h e g ra b b e d th e v ictim b y th e n e c k a n d p u sh e d h e r in to t he pas s engers i de of

t he tr uck. T he def

endantt hen “t ol d [ t he vi ct i m ] t o puthers eatbel ton, th a t it w a s g e ttin g a littl e b it c a rr ie d a w a y a n d g e ttin g a littl e b it o u t o f h a n d .”

T he def endant t hen pul l ed i nt o a chur ch’ s par ki ng l ot beca us e he di d notknow
w her e he w as
. H e t est if ied t hathe as ked t he vi ct i m “w hats he exa ct l y w ant ed t o do” af t er he apol ogi zed f

orgr abbi ng herneck. T h e vi ct i m as ked hi m t o t ake he rback t o w or k; h o we v e r , a f

t e rd r i v i n g a wh i l e , t h e v i c t i m s a i d , “ I c a n ’ tg o b a c k t o wo r k l i k e t h i s
. ” He t es t i f i ed t hatt he vi ct i m det er m i ned t hats he w ant ed t o r et ur n t o t he apa r t m ent

. H e s ai d t hat th e v ictim h a d th ro w n h e r m o b ile tele p h o n e o u t o f th e w in d o w w ith h e r lu n c h d u rin g th e ir
ar gum ent

. T he defendant t es t i f i ed t hat he gave hi s m obi l e t el ephone t o t he vi ct i m s o t hats he coul d cal l T SD

. T he vi ct i m t ol d herem p loy ert hats he w as s i ck and w as t aki ng t he
re m a in d e r o f th e d a y o ff. T h e d e fe n d a n t m a in tain e d th a t h e d id n o t fo rc e h e r to c a ll.

T he def endantt hen tr i ed t o cal m t he vi ct i m beca us e s he appe ar ed ups etand fri g h tene d

. H e t es t i f

i ed t hatt he t w o acknow l edged thatt hey nee ded t o cal m dow n and d isc u ss th e situ a tio n . W h e n th e tw o a rriv e d a t th e v ictim ’s a p a rtm e n t co m p lex , the v ictim l ef tt he tr uck t o chec k herm ai l

. T he def endantt es t i f

i ed t hathe parked hi s t r u ck by her-13-

apar t m ent w hi l e s he chec ked her m ai l

. H e t es t i f i ed t hat he w al ked t o t he dum ps t er t o t hr ow aw ay t he tr as h i n hi s t r uck and thathe obs er ved t he vi ct i m w al k pas t s om e m en w or ki ng on t he f i r e al ar m s ys t em
. H e s t at ed t hat he di d notobs er ve t he vi ct i m s ay anythi ng t o t hos e m en i n pas s i ng. T he def

endants t at ed t hathe s aw t he vi ct i m w al k t ow ar d herapar t m entbutt hat h e c o u ld n o t see h er e n ter.

T he def endantes t i m at ed t hatt he vi ct i m ar r i ved att he apa r t m enta m i nut e or t w o befor e hi m
. T he def endantt es t if

ied that h e t hen w al ked t o t he f r ontdoorof

t he
a p a rtm e n t b e c a u se h e th o u g h t h e w a s w e lco m e to th e a p a rtm e n t to c o n tin u e th e ir
conver s at i on. H e s ai d, “I w ent ahea d and opened t he door. U pon m e get t i ng r eady t o open t he door , I hear d s om et hi ng go cl i ck, and as I w as pus hi ng on t he door , t he i ns i de faci ng of the d o o r b rok e.” H e said th at the v ict im told h im that sh e d eb ated w h ethe r t o lock the d o o r. T h e d e fe n d a n t th o u g h t th a t th e v ictim m a y h a v e b e e n “ se tti n g [h im ] u p
. . . to p u t [h im ] in ja il.”
T he def

endantt es t i f

i ed t h at, afte rent er i ng t he apa r t m ent , t he vi ct i m never a sk e d h im to lea v e . H e sta ted th a t th e tw o d isc u ss e d th e c h ild re n a n d w h e th e r th e y sh o u ld hi r e a ba bys i t t ert o w at ch t he t w o younges t chi l dr en becaus e t hey ar r i ved hom e f r om s chool 30 m i nut es befor e t he ol des t

. H e t es t i f i ed t hatt hi s agai n t ur ned i nt o an ar gum entand t hatt he t w o r ai s ed t hei rvoi ces
. T he def endantt es t i f

i ed t hatt he vi ct i m s ai d, “Y ou need t o s hutt he hel l u p a n d s i td o wn. ” He s t a t e d t h a tt h e t wo t h e n s a to n t h e c o u c h a n d s t a r t e d t al ki ng

“ c iv ill y ” a b o u t th e c h ild re n a n d a b o u t M r. A llen . T h e d e fe n d a n t tes tified th a t th e v ictim to ld h i m s h e wa s c o n f

u s e d a n d t h a t s h e s t i l l l o v e d th e d e fe n d a n t b u t d i d n o twa n th i m t o k n o w. H e s ai d t hatt he vi ct i m t ol d hi m t hats he w ant ed t o r em ai n i n t he r el at i ons hi p w i t h M r
. A l l en bu tt hat s he w anted t he d efendan tt o rem ai n in her chi l dren’s l i ves.

T he def endantt esti f

i ed t hatt he t w o began t al ki ng aboutt he pos s i bi l i t y of get t i ng r em ar r i ed and t hat t he vi ct i m t ol d hi m t hat“s he w as r eal l y i nt o herC hr i s t i ani t y now and t hats he w oul d w anta chur ch w eddi ng. ” H e s ai d t hatt he vi ct i m t hen st ar t ed cr yi ng and th e tw o h u g g e d . H e te s tif ie d th a t th e tw o th e n s ta rt e d k is s in g a n d th a t “[ i] t g o t r e a lly h e a te d .” H e t es t i f i ed t hat t he t w o w entt o t he bedr oom and had c ons ens ual i nt er cour s e. T he def endant
m a in tain e d th a t h e n e v e r u se d a k n ife o r a n y w e a p o n to fo rc e th e v ictim to h a v e se x w ith h im

. H e sa id tha t aft er the tw o h ad sex , the v ict im im m ed iat ely w en t t o take a sh o w er.

T h e d e fe n d a n t sta ted th a t h e jo in e d th e v ic ti m in th e sh o w e r a p p ro x im a tely ei ghtt o 12 m i nut es l ater. T h e v i ct i m t hen l ef tt he s how erbefor e he w as f i ni s hed. T he d e fe n d a n t tes tified th a t h e th o u g h t th a t th e ir re la ti o n s h ip w a s in a g o o d p lac e a t th a t p o in t. T he def en d an t t es t i f

i ed t hathe t hen hea r d t he f r ontdoorof

t he apa r t m ents l am m i ng s hut appr oxi m at el y t hr ee orfourm i nut es af t erthe vi ct i m l ef

tt he s how er. T h e d efe ndantt hen hear d hi s t r uck’ s engi ne s t ar t , and he dr es s ed and noti ced t h athi s keys w er e m i s s i ng. T he def endantt es t i f

i ed t hat , beca u se h is m obi l e t el ephone w as i ns i de hi s t r uck, he us ed t he-14-

apar t m entt el ephone t o cal l hi s t el ephone hop ing to co n t actt he vi ct i m
. H e s ai d t hatt he vict i m did not answ er hi s t el eph on e cal l s.

T h e d efe n d an t kn ew that it w as n ea r th e ti m e that the v ict im ’s ch il d ren w ere r el eas ed f

r om s chool , s o he r eas oned t hatt he vi ct i m t ook hi s t r uck t o pi ck up t he chi l dr en. T h e d e fe n d a n td e c i d e d t o wa l k t o wa r d t h e t wo y o u n g e s t c h i l d r e n ’ s e l e me n t a r y s c h o o l

. He
e x p lain e d th a t th e w e a th e r w a s w a rm , s o h e g o t a d rin k o f w a ter u p o n a rriv in g a t th e sc h o o l. H e t es t i f i ed t hathe t hen s aw a w hi t e For d F- 350 pi ckup tr uck pul l up and t hatM r
. A l l en and t he vi ct i m exi t ed t he tr uck. H e t es t i f i ed t hat t he t w o w er e hol di ng hands and w al ki ng t o t he f r ontof t he s chool

. H e t es t i f

i ed t hatt he vi ct i m w as t al ki ng on a m obi l e t el ephone.

T he def endant acknow l edged t hat , w hen he r ai s ed hi s voi ce, he coul d appea r i nt i m i dat i ng, and he a dm i t t ed r ai s i ng hi s voi ce t ow ar d t he vi ct i m s ever al t i m es on M ar ch 27, 2007.
O n cr os s
- exam i nati on, the p rose cu tor p o inted to se v era l discrep an cies b et w een t he d efen d a n t ’s t el eph on e records and h i s accou nt of t he ev ents

. T he d efendan tal so expl ai ned t hathe r et ur ned t o t he vi ct i m ’ s apar t m enton M ar ch 26 des pi t e know i ng t hats he
w a s u p s e t w it h h im fo r c h e c k in g h e r e lec tro n ic m a il. H e n o tice d th a t n o t all o f h is pos s es s i ons had bee n pl ace d on t he l aw n, s o he us ed t he hous e key t o ent ert he apa r t m entand
c o llec t th e re m a in d e r o f h is p o ss e ss io n s. H e th e n d ro v e to C lev e lan d , T e n n e ss e e , to s tay w ith hi s s i s t er
. T he def

endantal s o expl ai ned thaton M ar ch 27, 2007, he w al ked t o B ear den M i ddl e School beca us e he hope d t o f i nd hi s t r uck, w hi ch hel d ever yt hi ng t hathe ow ned.

T he as s i s t antdi s t r i ctat t or ney gene r al al s o as ked t he defendantques t i ons re g a rd in g a n o rd e r o f p ro tec tio n filed a g a in st h im b y th e v ictim , w h ich w e d isc u ss late r in t hi s opi ni on.
G ar y W ayne Parkert es t i f i ed t hat he s pent 17 year s as an i nves t i gat orfor t he D istri ct P u b li c D efe n d er’s o ffi ce an d that h e h ad also w o rke d for the K n o x C o u n ty S h eriff ’s D epar t m entand t he K nox C o u n ty D i s t r i ctA t t or ney G ener al ’ s of f i ce. H e t es t i f

i ed t hathe t o o k s t a t e me n t s f

r o m M r
. M e l i u s a n d M r
. Gi b s o n o f F l e e n o r S e c u r i t y , M s
. M u r r e l l o f T S D, and M r
. L ee of

W es t w ood A par t m ent s , as par tof hi s i nves t i gat i on. H e al s o r evi ew ed t he gr ounds of

t he apa r t m entcom pl ex. M r
. Par keral s o vi s i t ed var i ous A T M s t hatm i ghthave been vi s i t ed by t he def

endantand vi ct i m befor e l unch atSoni c.
T he d efense r est ed, and t he S t at e cal l ed O ff i cer R eyn olds as a rebut t al w i t ness. She t es t i f

i ed t hat , w hen s he s poke w i t h t he def endanton M ar ch 27 , 2 007, t he def endant
a d m itt e d to h e r th a t h e h e ld th e v ictim a g a in st h e r w ill a t th e a p a rtm e n t “s o th a t th e y c o u ld di s cus s i s s ues aboutt he r el at i ons hi p. ” O n cr os s
- exam i nat i on, O f f i cer R eynol ds t es t i f

i ed t hat-15-

s he r ef er r ed t he cas e t o t he depar t m ent ’ s det ect i ves but di d notknow w het hert hey com pl et ed an i nves t i gat i on.

T he St at e t hen r eca l l ed the v i ct i m
. T he vi ct i m t es t i f i ed t hats he and the d e fe n d a n t n e v e r w e n t to C o z y m e l’s o n M a rc h 2 5 , 2 0 0 7 , an d sh e m a in tain e d th a t sh e w o u ld
neverl eave herchi l dr en unat t ended a tni ghtas t he def endantal l eged. T he vi ct i m deni ed t he def endant ’ s as sert i on t hathe t ook herchi l dr en t o s chool , t hats he ca l l ed t he def endant
r epea t edl y, and t hat s he w ent t o a pi zza r es t aur ant w i t h t he vi ct i m on M ar ch 26, 2007. T he d e fe n d a n t als o tes tified c o n c e rn in g a n o rd e r o f p ro tec tio n sh e o b tain e d a g a in st th e d e fe n d a n t.

B as ed upon t he evi dence as s u m m ar i zed a bove, t he j ur y convi ct ed t he def endantof one countof

aggr avat ed ki dnappi ng, t w o count s of ki dnappi ng, and one c ount of aggr avat ed cr i m i nal t r es pas s
. T he j ur y acqui t t ed t he def endantof

t he r ape c har ge. T he t r i al cour tm er ged t he ki dnappi ng convi ct i ons i nt o t he convi ct i on of aggr avat ed ki dnappi ng. A f t era s ent enci ng hear i ng, t he cour t or der ed t he def endantt o s er ve ni ne yea r s ’ i ncar cer at i on as a v iolen t offen d er.
I s s ues on Appeal

T he def endantpr es ent s t hr ee i s s ues on appea l t hatal l ege the m i s us e of pr i or bad ac tevi dence att r i al

. Fi r s t , t he def endant ar gues t hat t he t r i al cour ter r ed “i n per m i t t i ng t es t i m ony r egar di ng pr i orbad ac t s al l egedl y per petr at ed by t he ac cus ed aga i ns tt he al l eged
v ictim .” N e x t, th e d e fe n d a n t ar g u e s th a t th e a ss ista n t d istric t atto rn e y g e n e ra l im p ro p e rly ques t i oned t he defendant and vi ct i m r egar di ng t he pr i orbad ac t s
. L as t , t he def endantar gues t hatt he tr i al cour ter r ed i n over r ul i ng hi s m ot ion for a m i s t r i al

. B efor e w e deve l op our anal ys i s of

t hes e i s s ues , f

i r s t w e m us t expl ai n t he s om ew hat com pl i cat ed m anneri n w hi ch th e a lleg e d T e n n e ss e e R u le o f E v id e n c e 4 0 4 (b ) te stim o n y su rfa c e d a t trial.

P r i orB ad A ctTes t i m ony
N ear t he end of t he defendant ’ s di r ect exam i nat i on, hi s at t or ney as ked w het her he had e verhad an or derof pr ot ect i on orr es t r ai ni ng or derf i l ed aga i ns thi m
. T he def endant
re sp o n d e d th a t th e v ictim h a d o b tain e d a n o rd e r o f p ro tec tio n a g a in st h im in In d ian a w h ile t hey w er e s t i l l m ar r i ed. H e s ai d, “W e w er e l egal l y get t i ng r eady t o be s epar at ed, and [ t he vi ct i m ]

. . . had f

i l ed for or der of pr ot ect i on and f i l ed fordi vor ce. ” The defendants t at ed t hat t h e o r d e rwa s n e v e rs e r v e d o n h i m b e c a u s e a n i n c o r r e c ta d d r e s s h a d b e e n l i s t e d

. He
m ai nt ai ned, “I di dn’ tknow anyt hi ng aboutt he r es t r ai ni ng or der‘ caus e [ t he vi ct im ] a n d I
w er e s t i l l t al ki ng w i t h eac h ot herand s t i l l s eei ng eac h ot her

. ” H e s ai d t hathe f i r s tl ear ned of t he or der w hen t he vi ct i m cal l ed hi m t o as k i f he w as at t endi ng t he cour thear i ng fort he
or derof pr ot ect i on.-16- D u ri n g cr os s
- exam i nat i on of t he def endant , t he St at e’ s pr os ecut oras ked t he d e fe n d a n t w h e th e r h e re c a lled w h y th e v ictim o b tain e d th e o rd e r of p ro tec tio n a g a in st h im
o n A u g u st 8 , 2 0 0 6 . T h e d e fe n d a n t re sp o n d e d th a t h e “ w o u ld p r o b a b ly n e e d to lo o k a t it ” beca us e he onl y r eca l l ed t hat t he t w o had a “bi g ar gum ent

. . . due t o t he factof ourdi vor ce [ and] t hat[ t he vi ct i m ] acc us ed [ hi m ] of havi ng an af

fai rt hat[ he] di dn’ thave. ” The as s i s t ant di s t r ict att o rne y gener al t hen as ked w het hert he def endantr eca l l ed an i nci denton J ul y 29, 2006, w her e he ar gued w i t h t he vi ct i m , “gr abb[ ed] her by t he hai r and sl am m [ ed] heri nt o t he
w al l and m a[ de] t he s t at em entt hat [ he] w i s h[ ed] t hats he w as dead. ” The defendantdeni ed t hathe s l am m ed t he vi ct i m ’ s head i nt o a w al l , but he adm i t t ed t hat he gr abbed he rhai rand th a t h e to ld h e r t h a t h e w is h e d s h e w a s d e a d b e c a u s e “ s h e w a s d e s tr o y in g [h is ] l ife .”

T h e assis t antdi s t r i ctat t or ney gene r al t hen as ked i f t he def endantr eca l l ed a conf r ont at i on w i t h t he vi ct i m on J ul y 30, 2006, w hen he thr ew t he vi ct i m t o t he f l oor and
r epea t edl y s t r uck herhead “ t r yi ng t o m ake s ur e t hats he and t he chi l dr en w er e unabl e t o l eave th e situ a tio n .” T h e d e fe n d a n t sta ted th a t h e d id n o t re m e m b e r a n y su c h in c id e n t.

T he assi st ant dis t ri ct at t orney gen eral t hen asked abo ut an i ncident on A ug ust 6, 2006. T he pr os ecut oras ked w het her t he defendant r eca l l ed ar r i vi ng unannounce d att he vi ct i m ’ s hom e, “bus t i ng t hr ough a pl at e gl as s door , ” s t r i ki ng t he vi cti m , an d for ci ng t he vi ct i m t o engage i n s exual i nt er cour s e. T he def endantw hol l y deni ed t hi s i nci dent , and he expl ai ned t hathe had ke ys t o t he hous e and w oul d not have t o for ci bl y ent er
. H e expl ai ned t hat he and t he v i c t i m d i d h a v e a c o n f r o n t a t i o n a n d t h a tt h e v i c t i m t o l d h i m t h a ts h e h ad
ca ll ed 9 -1-1

. H e testi fi ed that p o li ce o ffi ce rs arrived at the d o o r an d that h e told the o ffi ce rs t hathe w oul d l eave t he hom e. H e s t at ed t hat he t ol d t he of f i cer s t hat t he t w o “w er e havi ng a conf r ont at i on and i t w as get t i ng outof hand. ” The pr os ecut oras ked w het herhe r eca l l ed t hr eat eni ng t he vi ct i m w i t h a kni fe on t hat occa s i on, and t he defendant r es ponded, “I bel i eve t her e w as s om e t al k of

m e t hr eat eni ng w i t h .

. . a kni fe. I ’ m not for s ur e about t hat‘ caus e I d o n ’t re m e m b e r i t.”

D ur i ng t he St at e’ s r ebut t al pr oof , the as s i s t antdi s t r i ctat t or ney gene r al as ked t he vi ct i m about t he orde r of pr ot ect i on i s s ued A ugus t 8, 2006. T he pr os ecut orf i r s tas ked t he vi ct i m t o des cr i be an i nci denton J ul y 29, 2006, and t he vi ct i m s ai d,

T hatday I had conf

r ont ed [ t he def

endant ] w i t h sev era l phone cal l s f r om anot herw om an ca l l i ng hi s phone w hen he a r r i ved hom e. Pr e v i o u s l y h e h a d d e n i e d t h i s , a n d I h a d p r i n t e d s om e th in g s o u t, an d

. . . I ju st w a n ted h im to a c k n o w led g e th a t th is
w a s s o m e b o d y th a t h e w a s s e e in g o r ta lk in g to a t th a t ti m e a lo t. H e got angr y about t he num ber t hat I had pri nt ed out , and w hen I sh o w e d h im , . . . it sh o w e d th a t h e h a d re p e a ted ly sp o k e to s om eone f

orhi s com m ut e 45 m i nut es t o w or k and 45 m i nut es-17- hom e, he s poke t o t hi s s am e num ber m any t i m es , and dur i ng an a r g u me n t , h e g r a b b e d me b y t h e h a i r , a n d h e s l a mme d me agai ns tt he w al l and m ade a s t at em entw i s hi ng t hatI w as dead.

T h e v ictim sta ted th a t s h e d id n o t c a ll th e p o lice a s a re su lt o f th is in c id e n t b e c a u se sh e d id nott hi nk t hatt he def

endantw as a vi ol entper s on att hatt i m e.
T he vi ct i m t es t i f

i ed t haton t he nextday s he and t h e d efe n d anthad another
c o n fro n tatio n w h e re th e d e fe n d a n t “th re w [h e r] to th e flo o r . . . w ith fo rc e , rep e a ted ly h it [ her ] i n t he hea d, t r yi ng t o m ake s ur e that t he chi l dr en and [ her ] w er e unabl e t o l eave ” beca us e s he had a t t em pt ed t o l eave t he hous e.

T he assi st ant di stri ctat t orney g eneral t hen asked a bo ut an i ncidenton A ug ust 6, 2006, t o w hi ch defense c ouns el , fort he f i r s tt i m e, obj ect ed t o “t hes e t hi ngs ” as i nadm i s s i bl e evi dence pur s uantt o R ul e 404( b) of t he Tennes s ee Rul es of E vi dence

. O utof t he pr ese n ce o f

t he j ur y, t he tr i al cour tagr eed thatt he A ugus t6, 2006 al l egat i on of for ced
se x u a l in ter c o u rse w a s “ 4 0 4 (b ) ty p e e v id e n c e ” b u t p o in ted o u t th a t d e fe n se c o u n se l in iti a lly addr es s ed t he or derof

pr ot ect i on. T he tr i al court s t at ed t hati tw as “t aken a back” by t he pr os ecut or ’ s ques t ioni ng t he def endantaboutt he al l eged 2006 r ape on c r os s
- exam i nat i on, buthe not ed t hatdef

ens e couns el m ade no obj ect i on.
T he tr i al cour tt hen hea r d t he v ict im ’s put at i ve t es t i m ony out s i de of t he pr es ence of

t he j ur y. T he vi ct i m t es t i f i ed t hat , af

t ert he af or em ent i oned i nci dent s , s he and t he def endantagr eed thats he w oul d l i ve att he m ar i t al r es i dence and ca r e fort he chi l dr en and th a t th e d e fe n d a n t w o u ld liv e a t h is fa th e r’s h o m e . T h e d e fe n d a n t ag re e d th a t h e w o u ld c a ll befor e com i ng t o t he hom e i f he nee ded anyt hi ng. She t es t i f i ed t haton A ugus t5, 2006, s he had a s t r es s f

ul ni ghtand “tur ned of

f al l t he phones i n t he hous e. ” She s t at ed thatt he next
m or ni ng s he s aw t he def endantdr i vi ng qui ckl y t ow ar d t he hom e on t he gr avel dr i vew ay. She t es t i f i ed, [ A ] s s oon as I s aw hi s t r uck and he di d notcal l l i ke w e agr eed, I c a l l e d 9 1 1

. As h e c a me i n t h e d o o rt h e p h o n e wa s b e h i n d my back,

. . . t hey r ecor ded m os t of

. . . w hathappene d t hatday, but th e re w a s a sp o t w h e re
. . . h e ’s s a y in g th a t, i n h a v in g se x w ith
m e, he just .

. . w an ts m e to kn o w that h e h as n o t had an affair,
a n d h e ’s try in g to p ro v e th a t h e lo v e s m e b y d o in g th is , b u t it
w a s a g a in st m y w ill

. T he vi ct i m f

ur t herexpl ai ned t hatt he def endantbr oke t hr ough t he gl as s on a s cr een doort o geti ns i de. She s t at ed t hat t he defendant pos s es s ed a key t o t he hom e but t hat h e still b ro k e th ro u g h th e d o o r. T h e d e fe n d a n t to ld h e r th a t h e w a s a n g ry b e c a u se th e v ictim-18-

d id n o t a llo w h im to c a ll o n e o f th e c h ild re n to w ish h im a g o o d n ig h t an d th a t h e w o rrie d a ll ni ghtaboutt he chi l dr en. T he vi ct i m t es t i f i ed t hatherchi l dr en w er e hom e at t he t i m e and t hat t hey exi t ed t he bac k of t he hous e and then w en t tow ard the f r ontyar d. She s ai d, “[ O ] ur al t er cat i on ul t i m at el y ended w i t h m e bei ng i n t he ki t chen w i t h m y back a gai ns tl i ke a ki t chen i s l and, m y h ands w er e on t op of i t , and he ha d gr abbed i n t he dr aw era ki t chen kni fe, and
w hen he s aw t he pol i ce s how up, he s l am m ed i tby m y hand. ” She t es t i f i ed t hatt hi s i nci dent l ed hert o gett he or derof pr ot ect i on.
T h e trial c o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t th e v ictim w o u ld n o t b e p e rm itt e d to tes tify to th e d e tails o f th e A u g u st 6 , 2 0 0 6 in c id e n t. T h e trial co u rt re a so n e d th a t th e p ro se c u to r c o u ld ask abo ut the si t uati on becau se t he d efendan tden i ed the al l egati on s duri ng t he crossexam i nat i on of

t he def endant

. T he cour t s ai d, “I ’ m goi ng t o al l ow you t o as k heri f on a pr i or occa s i on befor e s he t ook outt he or derof pr ot ect i on w as t her e eve ran occas i on on w hi ch .

. . he for ci bl y ent er ed t he r es i dence and .

. . r equi r ed hert o engage i n uncons ens ual [ s i c]
a c tiv ity .” T h e trial c o u rt fo rb a d e th e p ro se c u to r to g o in to d e tails o f th e in c id e n t.

D ef ens e couns el t hen aske d for a m i s t r i al “bas ed on t hi s i l l egal 404 evi dence
com i ng i n. ” The t r i al cour tr es ponded t hatno bas i s for s uch a m ot i on w oul d exi s tunt i l t he evi dence actua ll y cam e bef or e t he j ur y. T he j ur y t hen r eent er ed t he cour t r oom and t he pr os ecut oras ked,

Q M s
. R i l ey, on a pr evi ous
. . . occa s i on pr i ort o t he or der of pr ot ect i on t hat w as t aken out i n A ugus t 2006, di d t he def endanthave the occ as i on t o bus tt hr ough yourdoor and for ce you t o engage i n noncons ens ual i nt er cour s e?
A Y es , m a’ am , he di d.
O n c r o s s
- e x a m i n a t i o n , th e v i c t i m a d m i t t ed t hatt he A ugus t2006 eventoccurr ed
w hi l e t he t w o r em ai ned m ar r i ed, al t hough t hey w er e s epar at ed. She ex p lai n ed t hatt he d e fe n d a n t’s a tto rn e y in c lu d e d a s p a rt o f th e d iv o rc e d e c re e th a t th e o rd e r o f p ro tec tio n w o u ld be di s m i s s ed upon t he fi nal i zi ng of t he di vor ce. She expl ai ned t hatatt hatpoi ntt he or derof prot ect i on w as not needed becau se he ha d m ov ed thr ee ho urs aw ay to M aryvi l l e, Il l i no i s.
I. C ro ss -E

x a m in a tio n R e g a rd in g P rio r B a dA c ts o f th e D e fen da n t T

o w a rdth e Victim
T he def endantaver s t hat t he t r i al cour t er r ed “i n al l ow i ng t es t i m ony r egar di ng pr i orbad act s of t he def endantcom m i t t ed aga i ns tt he al l eged vi ct i m
. ” The St at e ar gues t hat th e d e fe n d a n t h a s w a iv e d th is is s u e b y fa ilin g to m a k e a c o n t e m p o ra n e o u s o bje c tio n
. See T e n n . R . E v id . 1 0 3 (a )(1 ) (s tatin g th a t er ro r m a y n o t b e p re d ica ted u p o n a ru lin g w h ich a d m its
e v id e n c e if n o tim e ly o bjec tio n is p re se n ted ); T e n n . R . A p p . P . 3 6 (a ) (“ N o th in g in th is ru le-19-

s hal l b e co n str ued as r equi r i ng r el i ef be gr ant ed t o a par t y r es pons i bl e foran err oror w ho fai l ed t o t ake w hat everact i on w as r eas onabl y avai l abl e t o pr eventornul l i f y t h e har m f

ul ef fectof an err or
. ”)

. W e agr ee w i t h t he St at e.
Fi r s t , w e not e t hatt he r ecor d r ef l ect s t h at a n o rde rof

pr ot ect i on obt ai ned by the v ict im ag ains t th e d e fen d an t i n 2 0 0 6 refere n ce d three instan ce s o f t h e d efe n d an t’ s assaul t i ng t he vi ct i m i n s om e for m
. T he order of prot ect i on w as f i rs tm enti on ed b y d efense
couns el dur i ng hi s di r ect

- exam i nat i on of t he defendant

. O n cr os s
- exam i nat i on, t he as s i s t ant di s t r i ctat t or ney gener al as ked abouts peci f i c i ns t ance s i ncl udi ng a J ul y 29, 2006 ar gum ent r es ul t i ng i n an as s aul t on t he vi ct i m , a J ul y 30, 2006 ar gum ent r es ul t i ng i n the d efe n d ant strik in g th e v ic ti m ’ s h e a d re p e a ted ly , an d a n A u g u st 6 , 2 0 0 6 a lleg e d ra p e o f th e v ictim i nv olvi ng a kn i fe. D uri ng th is q u e sti on i ng t he d efendan tgen eral l y d enied t he all egati on s; h o w e v e r, w e n o te th a t co u n se l fa iled to o bjec t.

B eca us e t he def

endantfai l ed t o obj ect , w e w i l l onl y det er m i ne w het hert he S ta te ’s q u e s tio n in g in to s p e c if ic in s ta n c e s o f p ri o r b a d c o n d u c t c o n s titu te d p la in e rr o r. See T en n
. R

. A p p
. P

. 3 6 (a ),( b ). B ef or e pl ai n err orpur s uantt o R ul e 52( b) of the R ul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e maybe s o r ecogni zed, i t“mustbe ‘ pl ai n’ and i tm us t aff ect a ‘ s ubs t ant i al
r i ght ’ of the ac cus ed. ” S t at e v. A dkis s on , 8 9 9 S

. W

. 2 d 6 2 6 , 6 3 9 (T en n
. C ri m
. A p p
. 1 9 9 4 ). T he w or d “‘ pl ai n’ i s s ynonym ous w i t h ‘ cl ear ’ or , equi val ent l y , ‘ obvi ous
. ’ ” U ni t ed Stat es v. O l ano , 5 0 7 U .S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 4 , 1 1 3 S . C t. 1 7 7 0 , 1 7 7 7 (1 9 9 3 ). “ R u le 5 2 (b ) le a v e s th e d e c isio n to co rrect th e f

o rfe it ed erro r w ith in the so u n d d iscreti o n o f th e [ rev iew ing co u rt ], an d the c o u rt sh o u ld n o t ex e rc ise th a t d isc re tio n u n les s th e e rro r se rio u slya f f e c t[ s] th e f

a irn e ss , inte g rity
orpub li c rep u tat i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs
. ” Id

. at732, 113 S. C t

. at1776 ( ci t at i ons and interna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted) (se co n d alt era ti o n in o ri g inal).

I n S ta te v . Sm ith , 2 4 S

. W

. 3 d 2 7 4 , 2 8 2 -83 (T en n
. 2 0 0 0 ), o u r sup rem e c o u rt adopt ed the s t andar d announce d byt hi s cour ti n A dkis s on
. T her e, w e def ined “s ubs t ant i al
r i ght ” as a r i ghtof “fundament al pr opor t i ons i n t he i ndi ctm ent pr oces s , a ri ghtt o t he pr oof of eve r yel ementof the off ens e, and i s const i tut i onal i n natur e. ” A dkis s on , 899 S. W

. 2d at 639. O urs upr eme cour tal s o adopt ed A dkis s on ’ s fi ve fact ort es tfordet erm i ni ng w hetheran err ors houl d be r ecogni zed a s pl ai n:

“( a) t he r ecor d m us tcl ear l yes t abl i s h w hatoccurr ed i n t he tr i al
c o u rt; ( b) a cl earand unequi vocal rul e of l aw m us thave be en br eac hed; (c ) a su b sta n tial ri g h t o f th e a c c u se d m u st ha v e b e e n a d v e rse ly aff ect ed; ( d) t he ac cus ed di d not w ai ve the i s s ue fort act i cal r eas ons ; and-20- ( e) c o n sider at i on of the err ori s ‘ nece s s aryt o do s ubs t ant i al justi ce
. ’”
Sm ith , 24 S. W

. 3d at282 ( quot i ng A dkis s on , 89 9 S

. W

. 2d at64 1-42). “[A ]l l fi ve fa ct ors m ust b e e sta b lish e d b y th e re c o rd b e f o re [ a re v iew in g c o u rt] w ill re c o g n ize th e e x iste n c e o f p lain
err or , and compl et e cons i der at i on of al l t he fac t or s i s notnece s s aryw hen i ti s cl earfr om t he
r ecor d t hatatl eas tone of the fac t or s cannot be es t abl i s hed. ” I d. at 28 3

. O u r sup rem e c o u rt a lso o b se r v e d th a t “ th e ‘p lain e rro r m u st [ h a v e b e e n ] o f su c h a g re a t m a g n itu d e th a t it pr obabl ychange d t he out come of t he tr i al

. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng A dkis s on , 899 S. W

. 2d at642) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted).

Fi r s t , w e mustcons i der w hether evi dence of t he i ns t ance s on J ul y29, J ul y30, and A ugus t6, 2006, cons t i tut ed pr i orbad ac tevi d en ce p u rsuantt o T ennes s ee Rul e of E v id e n c e 4 0 4 (b ). E v id e n c e o f o th e r c rim e s, w ro n g s, o r a c ts is n o t g e n e ra lly a d m iss ib le to p ro v e th a t an a c c u se d c o m m itt e d th e c rim e in q u e stio n . T e n n . R . E v id . 4 0 4 . T h e ra tio n a le
un derl ying t he g eneral rul e i s t hat adm i ssi on of such ev i den ce carr i es w i t h i t t he i nh erentri sk
o f th e ju ry c o n v ictin g th e d e fe n d a n t o f a c rim e b a se d u p o n h is b a d c h a ra c ter o r p ro p e n sity to c o m m it a c ri m e , ra th e r t h a n th e c o n v ic tio n re s tin g u p o n th e s tr e n g th o f t h e e v id e n c e
. S ta te v. Thacker , 1 6 4 S

. W

. 3 d 2 0 8 , 2 3 9 (T en n
. 2 0 0 5 ). T h e risk is g rea ter w h en the d efe n d an t’ s o th e r b a d a c ts a re s im ila r to th e c ri m e fo r w h ic h th e d e fe n d a n t is o n tr ia l. I d. a t 2 3 9 ; see al so Stat e v. M cC ary , 9 2 2 S

. W

. 2 d 5 1 1 , 5 1 4 (T en n
. 1 9 9 6 ).

N ot wi th s t a n d i n g th e gene r al r ul e, evi dence of ot hercr i m es , w r ongs oract s m ay be adm i s s i bl e w her e i ti s pr obat i ve of m at er i al i s s ues ot hert han conduc tconfor m i ng w i t h a char act er tr ait

. T enn. R

. E vi d. 404( b)

. T o adm i ts uch evi dence , t he r ul e s peci f i es t he fol l ow i ng: ( 1) T he cour tupon r eques tm us thol d a hea r i n g o u tsi de t he

j ur y’ s pr es ence ; ( 2) T he cour tm us tdet er m i ne t hata m ateri al i s s ue exi s t s ot her t han con d u ct confor m i ng w i t h a cha r act ert r ai tand m us tupon r eques ts t at e on t he r ecor d t he m at er i al i s s ue, t he r ul i ng, and t he
r eas ons foradm i t t i ng t he evi dence ; ( 3) T he cour t m us t f

i nd pr oof of t he ot hercr i m e, w r ong, oract t o be cl earand convi nci ng; and (4 ) T h e c o u rt m u st ex c lu d e th e e v id e n c e if its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e is out w ei ghed by t he dange rof unfai rpr ej udi ce.-21-

T en n
. R

. E v id. 40 4 (b)(1 )-( 4 ).

T he thr ee speci fi c ac t s of dom es t i c abus e al l eged i n t he or derof pr ot ect i on cons t i tut e the type of e vi dence m eant t o be excl uded purs uant t o R ul e 404( b)

. T he J ul y29
a n d 3 0 a ss a u lts in v o lv e d th e d e f e n d a n t’s th re a ten in g a n d strik in g th e v ictim

. T h e A u g u st 6 i nci dent i nvol ved t he defe ndant ’ s br eaki ng t hr ough a door and for ci ng t he vict im to h ave s exual i nt er cour s e. I n t he pr es entcas e, t he pr os ecuti on’ s t heoryof the ca s e i nvol ved the defe ndant ’ s t hr eat eni ng, s t r i ki ng, ki dnappi ng, and r api ng t he vi ct i m
. T he thr ee i ns t ance s of pr i orbad ac t s br oughtfor t h byt he pr os ecut i on i nvol ved the s ame cr i m inal co n ductand
ce rt ainlyri sk ed the d an g er o f sh o w ing the d ef en d an t’ s p rop en sityto co m m itsim il ar f u ture cri m es.
H o w e v e r , t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h i s e v i d e n c e d o e s n o ta m o u n tt o p l a i n e r r o r
. We cannots ayt he pr i orbad ac t evi dence w as over l y pr ej udi ci al ort hati ts er i ous l yaff ect ed the out come of t he tr i al

. A l t hough t he s peci fi c i ns t anc es lead i ng t o t he or derof pr ot ect i on cert ai nl y coul d have i nfl uence d t he j ur y t o convi ctt he def endant , t he j ur yappar ent l ydi d not vi ew t hi s evi dence i n an unfa i rl i ght

. Fi r s t , w e not e that , even i n l i ghtof the A ugus t6, 2006
ra p e a lleg a tio n , the ju ryf u llya c q u itt e d th e d e f

e n d a n t o f th e ra p e c h a rg e . A lso , the ju ryd id notconvi ctt he def

endantof the aggr avat ed bur gl ary char ge t hat w as r el at ed t o t he al l eged
r ape. T he j ur y i ns t ead chos e t he l es s er - i ncl uded offe ns e of aggr avat ed cr i m i nal t r es pas s
. T he j ur yal s o chos e a l es s er - i ncl uded ki dnappi ng char ge ra t her t han t he count al l egi ng aggr avat ed k idn ap p ing to f

ac il it ate the co m m issi o n o f th e ra p e. F u rth er, w e n o te th at th e S tat e’s the o ry t hatt he def

endantus ed a kni fe t o for ce non- cons ens ual s ex w i t h t he vi ct i m w as r ej ect ed by t he jury ’s el ect i ng no tt o co nv i ct t he defen dan tof esp eci al l yagg ravat ed k i dn app i ng byuse of a de adl yw eapon.

V i ew i ng al l t he evi dence , w e ca nnot see how t he R ul e 404( b) evi dence adver s el yaff

ect ed t he defenda nt

. T he i nci dent s i n t he orde r of pr ot ect i on m er el yr efl ect ed
a lleg a tio n s m a d e b yth e v ictim in 2 0 0 6 a n d sh o u ld n o t h a v e c lo u d e d th e ju ry ’s ju d g m e n t in det ermi n i n g t h e me r i t s o f h e r a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e
. Th e j u r y o n l y c o n v i c t ed t he defe ndantof aggr avat ed cr i m i nal t r es pas s and of t he aggr avat ed ki dnappi ng of t he vi ct i m by
caus i ng bodi l yharm
. I n l i ghtof the ent i r e bodyof evi dence , w e obs erve thatt hes e cha r ges w e re c le a rl y p ro v e d o u ts id e o f a n yp ri o r b a d a c t e v id e n c e
. O f f i cerR eynol ds t es t i f

i ed t hatt he d e fe n d a n t ex p licitly a d m itt e d to h e r th a t h e h e ld th e v ictim a t th e a p a rtm e n t ag a in st h e r w ill

. P h o togr aphs s how ed t he ki cked- i n doorand t he i nj ur i es t o t he vi ct i m ’ s neck, and t he def endantt es t i f

i ed t hathe as s aul t ed t he vi ct i m
. T he r ecor d s how s t hatt he j ur y det er m i ned i t s ver di ctbas ed on w ei ghi ng t he evi dence and t hati tdi d notunfai r l y us e t he pri or bad ac t e v id e n c e a g a in st th e d e fe n d a n t.
II. R e b u tta l T

e stim o n y R e g a rd in g P rio r B a dA c ts o f th e D e fen da n t T

o w a rdth e Victim-22- T he pr i orbad ac tevi dence r es ur face d dur i ng t he S t at e’ s r ebut t al pr oof w hen t he pr os ecut oras ked t he vi ct i m aboutt he t hr ee i nci dent s t o i m peac h t he def endant

. T he pr os ecut oras ked t he vi ct i m aboutt he J ul y 29 and 30, 2006 al t er cat i ons , and t he vi ct i m gave f ul l acc o u n ts o f

t he as s aul t s
. W hen t he as s i s t antdi s t r i ctat t or ney gene r al i nqui r ed i nt o t he A ugus t6, 2006 r ape, def ense co u n sel obj ect ed. A f t era j ur y- outhear i ng of t he t es t i m ony, th e trial c o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t th e d isc u ss io n o f th e A u g u st 6 , 2 0 0 6 in c id e n t w o u ld sim p ly b e l i mi t e d t o t h e p u r p o s e o f i mp e a c h i n g t h e d e fe n d a n t ’ s d e n i a l t h a t h e b r o k e i n t o h e rh o me and for ced he rt o engage i n i nt er cour s e aga i ns therw i l l

. T he cour tpr ohi bi t ed t he pr os ecut or fro m a sk in g a b o u t sp e c ific fa c ts o f th e in c id e n t.

Fi r s t , w e aga i n not e t hatdef ens e couns el fai l ed t o obj ectt o t he J ul y 29 and 30
c o n flicts , an d , ac c o rd in g to o u r a b o v e a n a ly sis , su c h tes tim o n y d o e s n o t am o u n t to p lain
e rro r. H o w e v e r, d e fe n se c o u n se l ti m e ly o bjec ted to th e A u g u st 6 ra p e a lleg a tio n . A t th is p o in t, th e d e fe n se a rg u e d th a t th e v ictim ’s a c c o u n t o f A u g u st 6 w a s p re c lu d e d b y R u le 404( b ). T he cour tagr eed thatt he A ugus t6 i nci dentw as R ul e 404( b)

- t ype evi dence ; how ever , i tal l ow ed a r es t r i ct ed expl anat i on of t he eventi n or dert o i m peac h t he def endant
w ho deni ed t he i nci denton cr os s
- exam i nat i on.

W e di s cer n t hatt he pr os ecut ori nt ended t o us e t he vi ct i m ’ s t es t i m ony aboutt he A u g u st 6 ra p e a lleg a tio n a s fa c t c o n tra d ictio n to im p e a c h th e d e fe n d a n t th ro u g h re b u tti n g h is d e n ial o f h e r a lleg a tio n s. H o w e v e r, im p e a c h m e n t o f a w itn e ss th ro u g h fa c t co n tra d ictio n is
s u bje c t to th e c o lla te ra l e v id e n c e ru le

. St at e v. P erki ns on , 8 6 7 S

. W

. 2 d 1 , 6 ( T e n n
. Cr i m. A p p . 1 9 9 2 ). “ A c c o rd in g to th is ru le , th e re c a n b e n o e x tr in s ic p ro o f o f c o lla te ra l m a tte rs [,]

. . . [an d ] c o u n se l m u st a c c e p t th e w itn e ss ’ re sp o n se , ev e n if it i s a d e n ial th a t co u n se l co u ld di s pr ove. ” I

d. ( q u o t i n g N e il P . C o h e n e t a l., Tennes s ee Law of E vi dence § 607. 3 ( 2d ed. 1990) )

. A col l at er al facti s one w hi ch has no r el evanc e exce pt t hat i tcontr adi ct s s om et hi ng s a id in c o u rt , a n d a fa c t is n o t c o lla te ra l “ if it is re le v a n t in d e p e n d e n t o f a n y c o n tr a d ic tio n .” N e il P . C o h e n e t a l., Tennes s ee Law of E vi dence § 607[ 4] [c] ( 5t h ed. 2005)

. H er e, t he al l eged A ugus t6, 2006 r ape of t he vi ct i m atf

i r s tgl ance pur por t s t o be s ubs t ant i ve evi dence di r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o s u b s t a n t i v e i s s u e s a t t h e t r i a l ; h o wev e r , b e c a u s e Te n n e s s e e R ul e of E v id e n c e 4 0 4 (b ) se rv e s to b a r su c h p ro o f a s su b sta n tiv e e v id e n c e , th e A u g u st 6 in c id e n t is ef fect i vel y a col l at er al i s s ue. T hus , t he pros ecut or s houl d not have be en per m i t t ed t o us e fact contr adi ct i on t hr ough extr i ns i c pr oof of t he vi ct i m ’ s t es t i m ony.
F u rth e r, o u r re v iew o f th e re c o rd re v e a ls th a t, up o n th e d e fe n d a n t’s tim e ly obj ect i on, t he tr i al cour tfai l ed t o i ns t r uct t he j ur y t hat t he A ugus t 6 i nci dentcoul d onl y be
c o n s id e re d a s im p e a c h m e n t, a n d n o t a s s u b s ta n t i v e e v id e n c e
. S e e S ta te v . H a rr y D a v id Johns on , N o. 03C 01- 9712- C R

- 00526, s l i p op. at 15- 16 ( T enn. C r i m
. A pp. , K noxvi l l e, M ay 17, 1999) ( expl ai ni ng t hatw hen factcontr adi ct i on evi dence al s o cont ai ns p r i orbad ac tNeither partyargu ed that eviden ce of the Aug ust 6 incident was presente d as impeac hment u nder 1 Rule60 8 o f the Tenn essee Rule s of Evid ence. This ru le allow s for specific instance s of conduct to be used for thepurpose of attac king a w itnesses’ character for truth fulness. See Te nn. R . E vid. 608(b ). We no te that the rap e alleg ation is no t an indicia of u ntruthfuln ess an d that extrins ic evid ence may no t be presente d fo r Rule60 8 impeac hment. Id. -23- evi dence , t he tr i al c o u rts houl d i ns t r uctt he j ur y t o onl y us e t he evi dence fori m peac hm ent p u rpo ses a n d n o t as p rop en sit y ev iden ce ). 1

N ev e r t h e l e s s , i n t h e fa c e o f t h e p e t i t i o n e r ’ s o bj e c t i o n , we h o l d t h a tt h e t r i al
cour ter r ed by per m i t t i ng t hi s t es t i m ony w i t h or w i t houtany l i m i t i ng i ns t r uct i on. T he pr os ecut orpr oper l y r eca l l ed t he vi ct i m t o r ebut t he t es t i m ony of t he def endantr egar di ng t he fa c ts of th e c a se ; h o w e v e r, th e p ro se c u to r ex c e e d e d th e sc o p e o f reb u ttal by a sk in g th e v ictim t o expl ai n s peci f

i c i ns t ance s of

conductl eadi ng t o the o rde r o f pr ot ect i on. T hi s er r or not w i t hs t andi ng, w e al s o hol d t hatt he tr i al cour t ’ s er r orw as har m l es s
. “A f i nal j udgm ent fr om w hich r el i ef i s avai l able and o t herw i se approp ri at e shal l no tbe setasi de u nles s, cons i der i ng t he w hol e r ecor d, er r ori nvol vi ng a s ubs t ant i al r i ghtm or e pr ob ab ly than not af fect ed t he j udgm entorw ou ld resul ti n pr ej udi ce t o t he j udi ci al pr oces s
. ” Tenn. R

. A pp. P. 36( b)

. W e ca nnots ay t hatt he unneces s ar y and i m pr oper r eci t at i on of t he A ugus t6, 2006
r ape a l l egat i on “m or e pr obabl y t han not ” af fect ed t he j ur y’ s ver di ct

. Fi r s t , w e not e t hatt he def endanthad al r eady be en cr os s
- exam i ned on t h e all egat i on f r om t he or derof

pr ot ect i on a n d th a t th e ju ry h a d a lre a d y b e e n p re se n ted w ith th e in fo rm a tio n . S e c o n d , w e n o te th a t, i n l i ne w i t h ourpl ai n er r oranal ys i s above, t he j ur y’ s r ej ect i on of al l char ges i nvol vi ng t he r ape o f th e v ictim sh o w s th a t th e in a d m iss ib le te stim o n y d id n o t p re ju d ice th e d e fe n d a n t.
I I I

. P r os ecutor i alMis conduct

T he def endantnextar gues th a tth e a s s i s t a n td i s tr i c ta t t or neygener al ’ s i m pr oper q u e s t i o n i n g r e g a r d i n g th e Rul e 404( b) evi dence amount ed t o pr os ecut or i al m i s conduct

. O nce m or e, t he def

endantfai l ed t o cont empora neous l yobj ectt o t he pr os ecut or ’ s al l eged abuse. See T e n n
. R

. E v id

. 1 0 3 (a ); T e n n
. R

. A p p
. P . 3 6 (a ). Fur t her , t he defe ndant ’ s m ot i on fornew tr ia l d o e s n o t a lle g e a n yp ro s e c u to ri a l m is c o n d u c t. See T e n n
. R

. A p p . P . 3 (e ) (s tatin g th a t “in al l cas es t r i ed bya j ur y , no i s s ue pr es ent ed forr evi ew s hal l be pr edi cat ed upon err ori n t he admi s s i on orexcl us i on of evi dence , j ur y i ns t ruct i ons gr ant ed or r efus ed,

. . . orot hergr ound
u pon w hi ch a new t r i al i s s ought , unl es s t he s ame w as s peci fi cal l y s t at ed i n a m ot i on for a
n e w trial; o th e rw ise su c h iss u e s w ill b e tre a ted a s w a iv e d ” ); S ta te v . M a rtin , 940 S. W

. 2d 567, 569 ( T enn. 1997) ( hol di ng t hata def endantr el i nqui s hes the ri g h t to a r gue on appe al any i s s ues t hats houl d have be en pr es ent ed i n a m o ti o n fo r new tr i al )

. A s s uch, w e tr eatt he defe ndant ’ s ar gum entas w ai ved, and w e di s cern t h at n o p lai n err orexi s t s bas ed upon our
r eas oni ng t hatt he def

endantdi d nots uffe rpr ej udi ce a s a r es ul tof the i nappr opr i at e evi dence in tr o d u c e d b yth e p ro s e c u to r. S e e S ta te v . Sm ith , 803 S. W

. 2d 709, 710 ( T enn. C r i m
. A pp.-24-

1990) ( s t at i ng t hat th i s cour tr evi ew s al l egat i ons of pr os ecut or i al m i s conductt o det er m i ne “w h ethe r suc h co n d u ct co u ld h av e a ff ec ted th e v erd ictto the p rejud ice o f th e d ef en d an t”).

I V

. Mot i on f

orMis tr i al

L a stly , the d e f

e n d a n t ar g u e s th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d b yf a ili n g to g ra n t h is
m ot i on fo r mi s t r i a l

. Fi r s t , w e no t e t ha t a c l os e r e a di ng of t he r e c or d s ho w s t hat defense
couns el fai l ed t o m ake a t i m el ym ot i on. C ouns el m o v ed fo r a mi s t r i al dur i ng t he j ur y - out di s cus s i on of w hethert he vi ct i m ’ s t es t i m ony of t he spec i fi c i ns t ance of t he A ugus t6, 2006 al l eged rape shou l d co m e bef ore the jury
. A tt hat po in t, th e trial courtno t ed thatdefe nse co u n sel’s m o ti o n fo r m istri al w as pre m ature b ec au se th e juryh ad n o t y et he ard the v ict im ’s t es t i m onyr egar di ng t he i nci dent , a n d c o u n s el r es ponded thathe w oul d r enew hi s m ot i on aft er t he t es t i m ony
. A r evi ew of t he r ecor d s how s t hatdefe ns e couns el fai l ed t o r enew hi s m ot i on a f te r t h e v ic tim te s tif

ie d a b o u t th e A u g u s t 6 in c id e n t. See T enn. R

. E vi d. 103( a) ( 1) ; T enn. R

. A pp. P. 36( a)

. Fur t her , t he def ens e att or neyfai l ed t o i ncl ude thi s i s s ue i n hi s m ot i on for
n ew tria l. S ee T e n n . R . A p p . P . 3 (e ); M a rtin , 940 S. W

. 2d at569. W e tr eatt hi s i s s ue as w ai ved.

V

. C oncl us i on
In lig h t o f

th e f o re g o in g a n a ly sis , w e a f f irm th e ju d g m e n ts o f

th e trial c o u rt.

___________________________________ J AM E S CU RW OOD W I T T , J R. , J UDGE