### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs N ove m be r 15, 200 5
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. DA RR ELL T OOME S Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Laud erdale County No. 7659 Joseph H. Walk er, Judge

No. W2005-00517-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Dece m ber 16, 2005

A L auder dale County

jury convicted the defe ndant, Dar rell Toomes, of

ag g ravated ra

pe and a g g ra vated crimin a l tr e sp a ss i n c on ne c tio n w iththeJune 23 , 2 00 2 h ome inv a sio n o f M a mie Milli man’s re sidence in Ripl ey , and the a ssault of Ms. Milli man. T h e t ri al court sentence d the defe ndant to 11 months and 29 day s for a g g ravated criminal trespas s an d 2 3 y ear s as a violent offe nder f or the ag g ravated rape conviction. On appea l, the defe ndant challeng es the suff iciency of the evidenc e supporting his ag g ravated rape conviction and claims that his 23-y ear sentenc e for

that c on vic tio n is e xce ssi ve . We a ff ir m.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt s o f theCi r c uit Co ur t a r e Affir m e d.
J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J., de liv e re d the op ini on of thec ou rt , inwh ic h J.C. M C LIN , J ., joined. N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J

. , c o n c u rr e d i n r e s u l t s o n l y.
Gary F. Antrican, District Public Def ender ; and J ulie K. Pillow, Assis tant Public Defe nder, f or the Ap pe lla nt, Da

rr e ll T oo me s.
Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; B ri a n C. John so n, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Eliz abeth T. Rice , District At t o rn ey Ge n era l; and Trac ey A. B rew er, A ssistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee. OP IN ION
Take n in the l ight most favor able to the state , see State v . W illiams , 657 S.W .2d 405, 41 0 ( Te nn . 1 98 3) , th e e vid e nc e a t tria l sh ow e d th at Mam ie Mil lim a n, the vic tim , wa s 83 y e ars old a ndliv e d a lon e a t 22 6 K e lle r Av enu e in Ri pley , T e nn e sse e . T he vic tim te sti fi e d th a t in the e arl y morning hours of June 2 3 , 2 0 0 2 , s h e was awakened by a hand be ing pla ced ove r her fac e. The int ru de r r e mov e d n y lonho sie ry fr om t he to p of her

dr e sse r andtie d h e r h a nd s to the be d. Ms. Milli man testified that t he intruder repe atedly

told her, “B e quiet, and I won’t hurt y ou.” The intruder a lso asked if she ha d any money
.-2- Th e int ru de r r e mov e d th e vic tim ’s pa ja ma bo tto ms, ra

pe d he r, a nd le ft

. Th e vic tim waite d a fe w m inu te s to be c e rt a in that th e int ru de r w a s g on e , a ndsh e tr ie d to us e he r t e le ph on e to summon help. The telephone cord w as m i s s i n g , so Ms. Mill iman walked to the house of her neig hbors, Martha

and Curtis Gause. T he Gauses ca lled the police, and they rea ched the victim’s br oth e r w ho pic ke d up the vic tim a nddr ov e he r t o th e e me rg e nc y ro om at L aud e rd a le Cou nty B apti st Memorial Hospital. Ms. Milli man was examined by a phy sician, and a fter she was discha rg ed, she first went to her

brother’ s house and then later back to he r own home. Ms. Milliman determined that a c o i n co l l ec t i o n an d a s m al l am o u n to f m o n eywe re m i s s i n g.

Ms. Mill iman did not know the identity of her attacke r, and she could not identify at trial the def

endant a s the person w ho assaulted and rape d her.
On c ro ss- e xami natio n, Ms. Mil lim a n sai d th a t sh e on ly sa w the a tta c ke r’ s si lho ue tte from ligh t co m ing in throug h her be droom window. She believe d that the man wa s “tall,” but otherwise, she could not determine what clothing he wore or eve n what ra ce he was. She re called that at one point, the man place d a pillow over he r fa ce. Re g arding her injuries, Ms. Milliman testified that “it kindly

hurt” a nd that she “just knew [she] burned and hurt down there .” Additionally , afte r her

phy sical examination, Ms. Mil liman rea liz ed that she w as blee ding.
Th e vic tim ’s ne ig hb or , M artha Gaus e , te sti fi e d a

bo ut the vic tim

c omi ng to h e r h ou se for help. Ms. Gause de scribed the victim as “shaking and cry ing and rea l red, just rea l shaken up, very terrif ied.” Ms. Gause also noticed r edness a round the victim’s wr ists. Ms. Gause and he r husband tried to ca lm the victim, and they sat with her until the police a rrived.
When the vic ti m w a s ta

k e nto th eh o s p it al, medica l technolog ist Beve rly Bullar d drew blo odfr om the vic tim

fo r the po li ce in ves ti g atio n. Ms. B ull ardte sti fi e d th a t sh e wa s tr a ine d to document all of he r lab wor k and ac tiviti es t o establish an ac curate chain of custody . On c ro ss- e xami nation, Ms . Bu lla rde xpla ine d th e pr oc e du rethat sh e fo llo ws wh e re by a n o ff ic e r w ill hand her a poli ce kit for drawing blood, and she w ill draw the blood in the off icer ’s pre sence , label the tubes, sig n the police pa perw ork, and give the blood direc tly to the office r. Althoug h Ms. Bullard had no indepe ndent memory of draw ing blood f

rom the victim, Ms. Bullar d insisted that unless an office r wa s prese nt, she would not have dr awn blood.

Th e me dical recor ds c us tod ia n f or B apti st M e moria l H os pit a l, C he ryl Mann s, introduced Ms. Milliman’s patient rec ords from J une 23, 2002. The state established a foundation to a dmi t th e re c or ds a s “ bu sin ess reco rd s, ” a ndMs. Ma nn s te sti fi e d f ro m th e re c or ds that Ms

. Milli man arrived at the hospital at 3:52 a.m. The nursing notes rec orded the victim’s heig ht as five fee t and weig ht as 110 pounds. The phy sical exam i n ati on part of the rec ords showed “ Pelvic: Posit ive bleeding , lower e dg e of va g ina.” The victim reported to the medical st aff that she had be en

“ he ld d ow n by sin g le ind ivi du a l and ra pe d. ” Th e se xua l ass ault e xami nin g ph y sic ia n n ote d inhis rec ords attempted a nal pene tration, succe ssful vag inal penetr ation, and “[ b]l eeding from the lowe r edg e of f renulum.”-3- Doctor Panka

j Strivastava was the victim’s examini ng phy sician. He corr oborate d the victim’s injuries as reported in his hospital notes, and he e x plained the pr ocedur e he f ollowed to c oll e c t pu bic ha ir c omb ing s a nd a na l a nd va g ina l sw abs fo r the po lic e inv e sti g a tio n. Th e nu rs e who assisted Dr. Strivastava with the rape examination was Michelle Thompson. She testified and identified the ra

pe kit used for

the vi ct i m ; the items and documentation insi de the kit bore her ha nd writi ng , a ndsh e ha d g ive n th e ra pe kit to O ff ic e r M itc he ll. Rip le y Pol ic e Of fi c e r T e rr e nc e Mit c he ll w a s th e fi rs t off ic e r d isp a tc he d to inv e sti g a te the ra pe. He interviewe d the victim and collec ted evid en ce fr o m t he victim’s bedr oom. Office r Mitchell took a pillow case, m at t re s s co v er, bed linens, ny lon stockings, and a telephone , and he identified these items at trial. He testified that the ny lon stockings we re k notted, and one of the stocking s was tied to the bed r ail when he found it. Offic er Mitche ll also confirmed later re ceiving the ra pe kit dir e c tly fr om h os pit a l nu rs e Th omp so n. As pa rt of his inv e sti g a tio n, Of

fi c e r M itc he ll delivere d the ra

pe kit to the Tenne ssee B ureau of Investig ation Crime L aboratory for a naly sis.
On cr oss-examination, Offi ce r M i tchell testified that Ms. Millim an desc ribed he r attacke r as “about medium build” and “rea l soft spoken and polite.” He thought t hat Ms. Milli man told him t hat she wa s unsure whether the attacke r had penetr ated her. Offic er Mitche ll ag ree d that the only evidenc e submitted for a naly sis was the ra pe kit. He wa s unable to l ift any fing erprints from the telephone , and the other items were kept i n ev i d ence storag e. He also found no evide nce of a forc ed entry

into the residenc e, and when he questioned Ms . Milli man, she spec ulated that she may have mistake nly

left the door unloc ked.
The defense established through Office r Mi tchell t hat t he case re mained “unsolve d” for a pproxi mately

one y ear . The rape kit was not submitt ed for testing until almost one month after the assault. Of

fice r Mitchell explained that the kit, containing the samples, wa s kept in a re frig erator in the e vid e nc e ro om; ho we ve r, he didno t kn ow ho w qui c kly re frig e rate d sample s w ou ld b e g in t o deg rade

. On redire ct examination, Of fice r Mitchell testified that shortly afte r the ra pe, he w as rea ssigne d as a sc hool resourc e off icer and no long er he aded up the ca se. The of fice r said that he wa s f a mil iar wi th th e defe nd a nt andthe de fe nd a nt’ s f a mil y be c aus e the y

a ll g re w u p inthe sa me neig hborhood. Off

icer Mitchell knew that the de fendant had a twin brothe r. Ripley Police L ieutenant Steve Sande rs testified that his first involvement with the ca s e w a s tw o d a y s a f

te r th e a s s au lt w h e n h e s p o k e w ith th e v ic ti m a t h e r h o me
. A t th a t time, the victim mentioned that a coin collection was missing. The first solid lea d in the case occur red w hen the TB I Cr ime L ab id ent if

ied DNA c oll e c te d inthe ra pe kit a s matc hin g that of

Te rr e ll T oo me s. L ieutenant Sande rs learned, however, that Terr ell Toomes was incar cer ated at the time of the ra pe. Upon fur t h er investigation, Lieutenant Sande rs discover ed that the de fendant and Ter rell Toomes wer e twins. As a r esult, L ieutenant Sande rs sec ured a sear ch wa

rra nt to obtain a

blood sample from the de fe nd a nt. Th e of

fi c e r wa s pr e se nt wh e n the blo od wa s dr a wn ; he too k c us tod y of the sa mpl e a ndtr a ns po rt e d it

to the TB I

Cr ime L ab f

or a na ly sis

.-4- The re port of ana ly sis showed that DNA c ollected f rom the victim’s ana l swabs matched that of the def

endant a nd his twin brother. Ther eaf ter, the de fendant was ar

rested f or the rape of Ms. Millim an.

On cr oss-examination, L ieutenant Sande rs admitted that an initial an al y s is of the victim’s anal swa

bs perf ormed in Aug ust 2002 detecte d no DNA matc hes. Approximately one y ear la te r, ho we ve r, a DN A ma tc h to the de fe nd a nt’ s br oth e r wa s dis c ov e re d. Lie ute na nt S a nd e rs c ou ld no t e xpla in the dis c ov e ry

oth e r tha n s pe c ulate that th e tw in br oth e r’ s DNA wa s n ot i n th e F B I data bank whe n the first ana ly sis was submitted.

Th e state qu a lif

ie d TB I Spe c ia l A g e nt L a wr e nc e Jame s a s a n e xpe rt in D NAa na ly sis a ndse ro log y
. He te sti fi e d tha t DNA is uni qu e to e a c h p e rs on wi th the e xce pti on of ide nti c a l tw ins

. Ag e nt Ja me s r e c e ive d a nda na ly zed the ra pe kit c on ta ini ng the sa mpl e s r e c ov e re d f ro m th e vic tim

. He de tected spe rmatozoa on the ana l swabs and pr ocee ded to per form DNAtesting.

Ag e nt Jame s e xpla ine d that the F B I ma int a ins a DN A data ba se kn ow n as CO DI S. Ap pr oximate ly

13 0 la bo ratorie s c on tr ibu te DN A p ro fi le s t o th e data ba se , w hic h is de sig ne d to c omp are pr ofi le s to de te rm ine DN A m a tc he s. I n T e nn e sse e , a ll c on vic te d f e lon s a rere qu ir e d to provide blood samples that a re subse quently

analy zed and enter ed into the databa se. B eca use of the volume of samples, the TB I d o es n o t “d o the DNA ty ping on the convicted of fende r samples.” I ns tea d, th e sam pl es are sen t to ano th er labo rat ory th at th en repo rt s the res ul ts to th e TBI . T he T BI pe rf orms r a nd om c he c ks to v e ri fy the a c c ur a c y

of there su lts

. Ag ent J ames testified that no D NA match was reported the first time that the victim’s anal swa bs were submitt ed to CODI S. Sometime later, however , he was notified that there had bee n a “hit” w ith th e DN A p rofile of Terr ell Toomes. Ag ent J ames a dvised Lieutenant Sande rs of the development, but af

ter L ieutenant Sande rs investig ated the matter, he reported to A g ent J ames that the identified individual had be en inca rce rate d at the time of the rape. Ag ent J ames said that he wa s

“ du mbf o u n d e d , ” b u tap p r o xi m a t e l y o n e d a y l a t e r , Li e u t e n a n tS a n d e r s n o t i f i e d h i mt h a tT e rr e ll Toomes had a

twin brother. At that point, Ag ent J ames dire cted the lieute nant to obtain a blood sample fr om the twin brother, which was done. When A g ent J ames then analy zed the defe ndant’s blood sample, he matched the defe ndant’s DNA profile to the profile obtained from the victim’s anal swabs. Statist ically speaking , Ag ent J ames related that the proba biliti es of f

inding the de fendant’s profile within the Af

rica n-American population wa s 1 in 5 billion, 128 milli on; within the Caucasian population it was 1 in 22 bill ion, 870 mill ion; within t he Southeastern Hispanic population it was 1 in 90 billion, 910 milli on, and within the Southwestern Hispanic population it wa s 1 in 185 bill ion, 700 milli on.
O n c r o s s
- e x a m i n a t i o n , A g e n t J a m e s e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e C O D IS s ys t e mru n s w e e k l y. Ev e ry Tu e sd a y , CO DI S up loa ds the pr of ile s in the loc a l TB I data

ba se to make a

c omp ari so n a g a ins t the natio na l data

ba se . T he loc a l pr of

ile s st a y in the CO DI S data

ba se , a ndthe y

areauto ma tic a lly c o m p ar e d o n a

w e e k l y b a s i s
. A g e n tJ a m e s t e s t i f i e d t h a tw h e n e v e r

a “ h i t ” t u r n s u p i n t h e C O D IS sy stem, an F BI

ag ent who is desig nat ed a “spec imen manag er” will email him about the-5-

de ve lop me nt. Ag e nt Ja me s c on fi rm e d th a t th e DN A pr ofi le submi tte d inc on ne c tio n w ithMs. Milli man’s assault was che cked on a wee kly basis until the “hit” was re ported in Jul y of 2003.
Th e def ens e ex pl ored wi th AgentJ ame s an un us ual CO DI S repo rt in g d ela y . A T BI cowor ker ha d perf

ormed wor

k on a 2000 ca se involving a known blood profile ta k en fr o m the de fe nd a nt’ s tw in b ro the r, bu t th e DN A p ro fi le e vid e ntl y wa s no t e nte re d in to the CO DI S data ba se u n t i l approx imately

two y ear s later. Ag ent J ames testified that his office did not conne ct e le c tr on ica ll y with C OD I S un til so me tim e du ri ng 20 02 . A t th a t ti me , A g e nt Ja me s a ndhis c ow or ke rs pu lle d p ro fi le s f

ro m e ve ry fi le a nde nte re d th e pr of

ile s in to the CO DI S sy ste m. B e c aus e th e reco rds sh owi ng whe n t he p rof il es w ere en ter ed i nt o t he C ODI S sy s t e m w e re atth e TBI laboratory , Ag ent J ames c ould not provide a spec ific entry date f or the Te rre ll Toomes’s profile.
The state c alled W arde n Glenn Turner as its last witness. Mr. Turne r wa s the rec ords c us tod ia n f

or the Ha rd e ma n Coun ty Cor

re c tio na l Fa c ili ty , an d he ide nti fi e d th e c or re c tio na l f

a c ili ty rec ords for T err ell Toomes, the def endant’ s brother. The re cords showe d Terr ell Toomes’s date of birth as Se pte mbe r 1 7, 19 80 . T e rr e ll T oo me s w a s tr a ns fe rr e d f ro m th e Wes t T e nn e sse e State Penitentiary

to the Har deman County Correc tional F acility on Marc h 26, 2001. Mr. Turne r verified that Terr ell Toomes was inc arc erated at the Hardeman County Correc tional Fac ilityon J une 23, 2002.
Th e de fe ns e pr e se nte d n o tes tim on y , an d ba se d u po n th e e vid e nc e pr e se nte d at tria l, the j uryfou nd th e def

end antguil tyof aggravat ed ra pe an d aggravat ed cr im in al t res pas s an d n otguil ty of ag g ravated kidnapping or misdemeanor theft. At a se parate sentenc ing he arin g co n d u cted on Oc tob e r 1 5, 20 04 , th e tr ia l c ou rt or de re d th e de fe nd a nt t o s e rv e a n e ff e c tiv e se nte nc e of

23 y e ars
. I. Su ff iciency of the Evid ence
We discern f

rom the def

endant’ s brief on a

ppeal that his only

evidenc e-suf

ficienc y challeng e is to the ag g ravated ra pe convict i o n
. Ac cording ly , we c onfine our analy sis to that conviction.
Ou r s ta nd ardof re vie w o f e vid e nc e su ff

ic ie nc y is we ll se ttl e d. Onapp e a l, the state is e ntitled to the strong est leg itimate view of the e vidence and all re asonable infere nces w hich might be dra wn there from. State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978) . The c redibility of the witnesses, the we ight to be g iven t heir testim ony , and the rec onciliation of conflicts in the proof are matters entrusted to the j ury as t he trier of fact. By rg e v . S tate , 5 75 S.W. 2d29 2, 29 5 ( Te nn . Crim. App. 1978). When the s ufficie ncy of t he evide nce is c halleng ed, the r eleva nt question is whether, a ft e r r e vie wi ng the e vid e nc e in the lig ht m os t f a vo ra ble to the state , an y ratio na l trie r of fa c t c ou ld have f ound the essential e lements of the c rime bey ond a re asonable doubt. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e); W illiams , 657 S.W .2d at 410. Questions conc erning the cr edibilityof the witnesse s, the weig ht and value of the evidenc e, as w ell as all fa ctual issues raised by the evidenc e are resolved by the trier of fac t. Lia k

as v . S tate , 19 9 Ten n. 298, 28 6 S. W.2 d 8 56 , 8 59 (1 95 6) . B e c aus e a ve rd ic t of

g uil t remove s the presumption of innoce nce and raises a presumption of g uilt, the convicted criminal-6-

de fe nd a nt b e ars the bu rd e n o f sh ow ing that th e e vid e nc e wa s le g a lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o s us ta in a

g uil ty verdic t. State v. Ev ans , 838 S.W .2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992)

.

A criminal offense may

be esta bl i s h ed exclusively

by circ umstantial evidence

. Du c ha c v . S tate , 5 05 S.W. 2d23 7, 24 1 ( Te nn . 1 97 3) ; Ma ra ble v . S tate , 203 Tenn. 440, 313 S.W.2d 45 1, 45 6- 58 (1 95 8) ; State v. Hailey , 6 58 S.W. 2d54 7, 55 2 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 83 ). I f e nti re ly circ umstantial, the fac ts and circ umstances must “be so strong and cog ent as to exclude eve ry other rea sonable hy

pothesis save the g uilt of the defe ndant.” Sta te v . Cr awf or d , 225 Tenn. 478, 470 S.W. 2d61 0, 61 2 ( 19 71 ). I n suc h an e ve nt, the c ir c ums ta nti a l evi de nc e mus t be both c on sis te nt w ith g uilt and inconsistent with innocence. Pr uit t v . S tate , 3 Tenn. Crim. App. 256, 460 S.W .2d 385, 390 (1970). The weig ht of the circ umstantial evidence is for the jury to determ i ne. W

ill iam s v . S tate , 5 2 0 S

. W

. 2 d 3 7 1 , 3 7 4 (T en n
. C ri m
. Ap p
. 1 9 7 4 ) ( ci t i n g Pa tte rso n v . S tate , 4 Tenn. Crim. App. 657, 475 S.W .2d 201 (1971))

. The court may not substitut e it s infere nces f or those dra wn by

the trier of fac t in circumstantial evidenc e ca ses. Liakas , 2 86 S.W. 2da t 85 9; Fa rm e r v . S tate , 574 S.W .2d 49, 51 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978). The same standard of revie w is a pplicable whether the g uiltyverdic t was based upon direc t evidenc e or upon c ircumstantial evidenc e. Sta te v . B ro wn , 551 S.W .2d 329, 33 1 ( Te nn . 1 97 7) ; Fa rm e r v . S tate , 208 Tenn. 75, 343 S.W.2d 895, 897 (1961).

As rele vant to this case, an individual commits the offe nse of a g g ravated ra pe by “unlawf ul sex ual pene tration of a victim” causing “bodily injury to the vi ctim.” Tenn. Code A nn. § 39-13-502( a)( 2) (2003)

. Code section 39-11- 106(a) (2) pr ovides that “‘[b]odil y [i ]nj ury ’ includes a cut, a brasion, bruise, burn or disfig ureme nt; phy sical pain or t empora ry illness or impairment of the func tion of a bodily

member, or g an, or me ntal fac ulty .” Id . § 39-11-106( a)( 2).
We a re c on fi de nt that a

ratio na l ju ry c ou ld c on c lud e fr om the e vid e nc e in this c a se that Ms. Mill iman was the victim of unlawful sexual pe netration that caused he r bodily injury . The defe ndant ar g ues that the proof of bodily i n j u rywas “ minimal at best.” The state disag ree s and points to t he victim’s testimony that her lowe r org ans “kindly hurt” a n d t h at s h e “j u st knew [she] b u rn ed an d h u rt d o wn t h er e” an d t o Dr

. S ri v as t av a’ s d i agn o s i s o f “ [ p ] o s i t i v e b l ee d i n g, l o we r e d ge of vag ina” a nd “[b] leeding from the lowe r edg e of f renulum.” See State v. Mc Pherson , 882 S.W .2d 36 5, 36 9 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 94 ) ( bo dil y inj ury c on sis te d o f s c ratc he s o n th e vic tim ’s ne c k, a br uis e on her le g , a “buste d lip,” and a br oken sca b).
Even though the evidenc e was suff icient to prove that Ms. Mil liman was assaulted and wa s the subject of ag g ravated rape , the matter does not e nd. The state wa s obligated to prove bey ond a re asonable doubt that the defe ndant was the person who committed the crime in que stion. See State v . Sneed , 90 8 S.W. 2d 40 8, 41 0 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 95 ); W hite v . S tate , 533 S.W .2d 735, 744 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1975) . This is a question of f act f or the de termination of the jury following consideration of th e proof submitt ed at tria l. W

hite , 5 33 S.W. 2dat 74 4; Sta te v . Cr awf or d , 635 S.W .2d 704, 705 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982)

.

There is no direct evide nce of the def endant’ s g uilt in t his case. The victim was unable to identify

the def endant – or

any on e el s e

– as her a ssailant, and no witnesses pla ced theP end i ng be fo re t he suprem e co urt i s t he i ss ue whether b l o o d d rawn f rom a pri soner wi t ho ut a warrant and 1

u s e d i n a D N A d a ta b a se c o n stitute s a n un re a so n a b le se a rc h

. St at e v. Br uce War r en Scar bor ough , No

. E2 0 04- 0 1 3 3 2 -C C A -R 9 -C D (T e n n . C rim . A p p ., K n o x v ill e , J u n e 2 , 2 0 0 5 ), per m
. app
. gr an t ed (T enn. O ct

. 3, 20 0 5 ). T hi s co urt had accep t ed i nt erl o cut o ry revi ew o f t he issue, and al t ho ugh t he case has not b een t ri ed on i t s m eri t s, i t ap p ears p reli m i na ril y t ha t D N A ev i d en ce m ay b e the o nly d i rec t sup p o rt fo r t he ag gra va t ed rap e c ha rge s.

Agen t James di d not i dent i f y t he met hod of

D N A an al y s i s us ed i n t hi s ca s e. 2
-7- defe ndant in or around the victim’s r esidenc e at the time of the home invasion. The defe ndant made no statements to the investig ating office rs and did not testify at trial or at sentencing . The state w as un able to c on ne c t th e ite ms that th e vic tim c la ime d we re take n f ro m he r r e sid e nc e to the de fe nd a nt, an d we note that the jury found the de fendant not guilty of theft of

property . The only

– and we emphasize the only – e vid e nc e c on ne c tin g the de fe nd a nt t o th e vic tim ’s ra pe is the DN A r e su lts

. The state insists that the defe ndant has waived any evidence s u fficiency

arg ument other than his attac k on the evidenc e of bodily injur y
. W e are not inclined, howeve r, to view e v i d e n c e s u f

f i c i e n c y s o n arr o w l y. The que stion whether DN A ev idenceis sufficient to support a c onviction without further corr oborative proof appea rs to be a question of first impression in this st ate. Certainly , DNA 1 evidenc e is adm i s sible in Tennessee . I n 1991, the leg islature ena cted a statute to admit DNA e vid e nc e “ wi tho ut ante c e de nt e xpe rt te sti mon y

that D NAa n al y s i s p r o v i d e s a t r u s t w o r th y a ndre lia ble method of identifying c hara cteris t i cs i n an indi vidual’s g enetic material.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-117( b) (1994). Full admis sion of DNA analy sis into evidenc e, howe ver, is conditioned “ upon a showing t hat the off

ere d testimonymeets the standa rds of a dmissibi lityset forth in the Te nnessee Rules of Evidence.” Id

. Three methods of DNA analy sis have bee n held admissible pursuant to the statut e : ( 1) the re stric tio n f ra g me nt l e ng th pol y mor

ph ism (R F LP) me tho d, (2 ) the po lyme ra se c ha in rea ction (PCR) method, and (3) the mitocho n d rial DNA(mtDNA) me thod. Se e Sta te v . S c ott , 33 S.W. 3d74 6 ( Te nn . 2 00 0) ; State v. Be gley , 956 S.W .2d 471 (Tenn. 1997)

. Admissibil ity , howeve r, 2 is n ot the iss ue in this c a se ; su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e is.
We have c anvasse d numerous ca ses i n t h i s state involving D NA identification evidenc e, but r

ulings of evidenc e sufficie ncy invariably have ref ere nced other co rrobor ating evidenc e. Se e , e.g ., Do ug las F. J or da n, J r. , No. E2003-02159- CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxvi lle, May

17, 2005) (e vidence was m argina lly sufficie nt to support homicide conviction; defe ndant acknow ledg ed he was ang ry with the victim, de fendant’s blood f ound on victim’s bra a nd overa lls, and his DNA found unde r her fing ernails); State v. De e W . Thompson , No. M2 00 3- 01 14 9- CCA -R 3- CD (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. , N a sh vil le , Jun e 23 , 2 00 4) (e vid e nc e su ff ic ie nt t o sustain a g g ravated rape conviction; victim identifie d defe ndant, rec tal swab of v i ct i m contained DNA co nsistent with defenda nt’s DNA, and police re cover ed woode n stick with metal tip that ma tc he d d e sc ri pt io n g ive n b y vic tim ); Sta te v . B ob by Sh e llh ou se J r. , No. E2001- 0160 4-C CA -R3- CD (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. , Kno xvill e , O c t. 3 , 2 00 2) (e vid e nc e su ff ic ie nt t o s us ta in sexual battery ; DNA obtained from defe ndant’s blood sw atch matc hed saliva on vic tim’s underwe ar-8-

a nd m i n o r

i d e n t i f i e d d e f e n d a n ta s p e rp e tr a t o r ) ; State v. Albert Y arbrough , No. W2001-01150-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, Apr. 12, 2002) ( victim’s des cr i p t i on of de fe nd a nt, a lth ou g h v ari e d, c ou ple d w itha DN A m a tc h s uf

fi c ie nt to s us ta in r ape c on vic tio n) ; Sta te v. Lonnie Turner , No. M1999-01127-CCA-R3-CD (T enn. Crim. App., Nashville, June 5, 2 0 01) (evide nce suf

ficient to sustain felony

murder and ag g ravated ra pe convic tions because handwriting on the victim’s body

matched de fendant’s handwriting, the DN Afound in the victim’s body matched defe ndant’s extremely

rar e DNA , and an inmate t estified that def endant state d that he did not mean to kill t he victim).

We kno w that in the c on te xt of “ c on fessi on s, ” it ha s lo ng be e n r e c og nize d th a t a defe ndant’s confession must be corr oborate d by independe nt evidence which tends to establish the corpus de lic ti

. E. g. , A sh by v . S tate , 1 24 Te nn . 6 84 , 6 97 -9 8, 13 9 S. W. 8 72 , 8 75 (1 91 1) ; State v. Turner , 30 S.W .3d 355, 358-59 (Te nn. Crim. App. 2000). Additionally , “the mer e pre sence of a person in an a

rea wher e drug s are discovere d is not, alone, sufficie nt to support a finding that the person possesse d the drug s.” State v. Cooper , 736 S.W .2d 125, 129 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987) . On the oth e r h a nd , th e qu e sti on of ide nti fi c a tio n o f a de fe nd a nt a s th e pe rs on wh o c omm itt e d th e of fe ns e is a question for the jury , and a victim’s identification alone is sufficie nt to support a convic tion. See State v. Strickland , 885 S.W .2d 85, 87 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993)

.

Th e va ri ou s rat io nale s b e hin d th e c a se s c ite d a bo ve do no t st

ri ke us a s p art ic ula

rl y h el p fu l o r a p p ro p ri at e i n t h e c o n t ex to f D NA an al y s i s
. I n s t ea d , we b el i ev e t h at t h e m o s t ap tan al o gy is the use of “ fing erprint identification.” In J am iso n v . S tate , 20 9 T en n
. 4 2 6 , 3 54 S.W .2d 252 (1962), the supreme court g rapple d with the issue whether fing erprint evidence alone is suffic ient to support a convict i o n
. T h e court concluded that c orrobor ating evidenc e wa s not require d in a circ umstantial evidence case based on f inge rprint identification. The court e x plained, [A] ll the fing erprints that have eve r bee n taken a s far as re ported case s are conce rned run into an infinite number and no two ha ve eve r been f ound alike. The courts g ener ally have rea ched the conclusion that e vid e nc e of thi s kind is inf a lli ble be c aus e of

its c on c lus ive ne ss.
Fr om what has bee n said above it is obvi ous that we ha ve re a c he d th e con clu si on that th is e vid e nc e of the fi ng e rp ri nts of

thi s ma n o n th is m a c hin e is c on c lus ive a ndsu ff ic ie nt e v ide nc e to e sta

bli sh his guilt as the one who enter ed and bur g larized this buildi ng . There is n o e vid e nc e to s ho w that he wa s in or a ro un d o r n e ar o r h a d a c c e ss to the ma c h i n e w h e r e h e c o u l d h a v e h a d h i s h a n d s o n i t , a n d t h is being true if the f

inge rprints wer e true and ther e is no debate about the fa ct t hat t hese are his fing erprints beca use he fre ely

allowed them to t ake his fi ng e rp ri nts a ft e r h e wa s arres te d, a ndhis fi ng e rp ri nts which we re ma de af

ter he was a

rre sted and thos e of his that were on fi le in the F e de ra l B ur e au of I nv e sti g a tio n w e rea ll the sa me a ndthe se wer e exhibited in a blown-up manner , that is the finger p ri n t s wereE v e n tho u g h the d e fen d a n t ha d a livin g , id e n tica l tw in, in o u r o p inio n the sta te e ff e c tive ly ex c lud e d the twin 3

as t he s our ce of

D N A bas ed on t he t wi n’ s i nca r cer at i on at t he t i me of M s
. M i l l i man’ s r ape.
B y o u r h o ld ing , w e a re no t an n o u n c ing a n iro n -cla d p rin c ip a l tha t D N A e v id e n c e , w itho u t co rr o b o ra tio n , i s 4 al ways s uf

f i ci ent t o supp o rt a co nvi ct i o n. P ract i cal l y i nf i ni t e f act ual vari at i o ns can ari se, and we d o not i nt end by our
o p i n i o n t o p r ej u d g e o t h e r f a c t u a l s c e n a r i o s
. F o r i n s t a n c e , t h i s c a s e h a s a n u n u s u a l f e a t u r e i n t h a t t w o s e p a r a t e DNA
com pari s ons wer e per formed. T he f i r s t com pari s on i dent i f i ed t he t wi n’ s D N A , an d t he s econd comp ar i s on i dent i f i ed t he t wi n’ s and t he d efend ant ’ s D N A , whi ch were i d ent i cal , t hereb y rei nfo rci ng t he i nt egri t y o f t he co m p ari sons. In our op i ni on, i t i s qui t e s uf

f i ci ent i n t hi s ca s e t o re cogni ze and r es pect t he adm i s s i bi l i t y of D N A ev i dence an d t o concl ude t hat t he evi d ence wa s suf

f i ci ent t o s up p o rt t he d efend ant ’ s aggravat ed rape co nvi ct i o n. -9- enlar g ed so that y ou could very easily see the differ ent marks, a nd we re e xhibi te d to the jury . We thu s mu st c on c lud e that th is i s sufficie nt evidence a n d t h ere is no doubt under this rec ord in our mind but that the man w as g uilty and the judg ment must be aff irmed.
Id . at 43 4, 35 4 S. W.2 d at 25 5; see also State v. R ichmond , 7 S.W .3d 90 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) ; State v. Ev ans , 669 S.W .2d 708 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984)

.

F ro m Jamison , we dis t ill two im portant consider ations. First, fing erprint identif i ca t i o n evidenc e is unquestionably reliable , althoug h we he sitate to char acte rize it as abs olu te ly

inf a lli ble . Se c on d, the a c c e ssi bil ity of a defe nd a nt t o th e e xami ne d o bje c t is hig hly re le va nt be c aus e it c ou ld su g g e st a n inn oc e nt re a so n f or a de fe nd a nt’ s f

ing e rp ri nts to b e on a n o bje c t.
I n this inst ant ca se, we cannot c onceive of an innoc ent re ason for the def endant’ s DNA to be found on swabs taken from the victim’s anal are a. There fore , in ou r o p i n ion, acc essibilityis not an imp ortant consider ation reg arding the suffic iency of the e vidence based on DNA a naly sis. I n t er m s of the re liabilityof DNAanaly sis, we ag ain hesitate to de scribe it as 3 absolute or infa llible, nor do we be l i ev e that any properly qualified e x pert in the fie ld of DNA a na ly sis wo uld re pr e se nt it in su c h a fa sh ion

. Ne ve rthe le ss, DN A a na ly sis re pr e se nts a sci e nti fi c brea kthroug h of unquestionab l e i n t egrity , as re cog nized by Code section 24-7- 117(b), whic h auth orize s th e a dmi ssi on of DN A e vid e nc e “ wi tho ut ante c e de nt e xpe rt te sti mon y

that D NAa na ly sis pr ov ide s a

trus tw orthy

a ndre lia ble me tho d of

ide nti fying c ha

ra c te ri sti c s in a n in div idu a l’ s g e ne tic materia l.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-117(b) (1994) . Ag ent J ames, we note, testified that proba biliti es of finding the def

endant’ s profil e wi thin the African-American population wa s 1 in 5 bill ion, 128 milli on; within the Cauca sian population it was 1 in 22 billi on, 870 milli on; within the Sout heaste rn Hi sp a nic po pu la tio n it

wa s 1 in 9 0 b ill ion , 9 10 mil lio n, a nd wi thi n th e Sou thw e ste rnHi sp a nic populat i o n i t was 1 in 185 billion, 700 m illion. The confluenc e of the se fa ctors per suades us that the evidenc e wa s sufficient to support the de fendant’s conviction for a g g ravated ra pe. 4 Finally , we a dd, as a postscript of sorts, t h at o t h er jurisdictions have examined the sa me e vid e nc e su ff

ic ie nc y iss ue a s pr e se nte d inthi s c a se . O ur c on c lus ionis i n g e ne ra l a c c or d w ith the published decisions of those jurisdictions. Se e ge ne ra lly Pe op le v . S oto , 30 Cal. App. 4th 340, 35 Cal. Rptr. 2d 846 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994), aff’d , 981 P.2d 958, 21 Cal. 4th 512 (Cal. 1999); Pe op le-10-

v . R us h , 165 Misc. 2d 821, 630 N.Y.S.2d 631 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995), aff’d , 242 A.D.2d 108, 672 N.Y.S.2d 362 (App. Div. 1998); Ro be rso n v . S tate , 1 6 S. W.3 d 1 56 (T e x. Ap p. 20 00 ); Sp rin gfi e ld
v . S tate , 860 P.2d 435 (Wy o. 1993).
II. Se nt e nc ing

We quote from the defe ndant’s brief the entire a rg ument that his sentence of 23 y ear s is ex cessive:
T h e Co u r t s e n te n c e d th e d e f e n d a n t to 2 3 y e ar s on the Ag g ravated Rape Conviction. The Court found that t h e def endant ha d a pr e vio us his tory

of c ri min a l c on vic tions in a dd iti on to tho se nece ssary to establish the appropriate rang e. (T. se ntencing 12). T.C.A. 40-35-102( 1) s t ates that every defe ndant shall be punished by

the impositi on of a se ntence justlydeserved in re l ati on to the seriousness of the offe nse.
The terms of sentenc ing must be reasona bly related to the severity of the off

enses c ommitt ed. In the ca s e her e in question, de fe nd a nt r e c e ive d tw e nty -thr e e y ears. B a se d o n h is r e c or d a s a whole, this sentence d o es not match the se verity of the off

enses f or which he is c onvicted.
We h a ve re vie we d th e tr a ns c ri pt o f the de fe nd a nt’ s sen te nc ing he ari ng , an d th e re is ample evide nce that the trial court c onsidered the sentenc ing principles and a ll relevant facts a nd circ umstances. The ref

ore, w e re view its decision de novo wi th a pr e su mpt ionof

c or re c tne ss. So long as the t rial court complied wit h the purposes and proce dures of the 1989 Sentencing Act and its findings ar e supported by the fa ctual record, this C ourt may not disturb this sentenc e eve n if we would have pref

err ed a differ ent re sult. See Te nn . Code An n. § 40- 35 -2 10 (2 00 3) ; State v. Fletc her , 805 S.W .2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991)

.

The de fendant’s sentenc e is appropriate, and w e dec line to disturb th at sentenc ing decision.
I n conclusion, we hold that the evidenc e at tria l was s u fficie nt to support the defe ndant’s convic tion and that no err ors appear in the defendant’s sentencing

. We theref ore a ffirm the jud g me nts of

the low e r c ou rt

.

___________________________________ J AMES CURW OOD WI TT, J R., J UDGE