IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs February 03, 2015

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ED LOYDE

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County

No. 1200603 James C. Beasley, Jr., Judge

No. W2014-01055-CCA-R3-CD - Filed April 6, 2015

The defendant, Ed Loyde, was convicted of one count of rape of a child, a Class A felony,

and one count of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. He received an effective

sentence of thirty-five years. On appeal, he raises the sole issue of whether the evidence was

sufficient to support his convictions. After thoroughly reviewing the record, the briefs of the

parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Criminal Court

Affirmed

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ALAN E. GLENN

and CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, JJ., joined.

Stephen C. Bush, District Public Defender; and Harry E. Sayle III (on appeal) and Lawrence

R. White (at trial), Assistant District Public Defenders, for the appellant, Ed Loyde.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Jonathan H. Wardle, Assistant

Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Teri Fratesi and Cavett

Ostner, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In September of 2010, the defendant had been evicted from his residence and needed

a place to stay. He was friends with the victim’s mother, and she brought the defendant’s

plight to the attention of the victim’s grandmother, G.H. After speaking with the defendant,

1

G.H. agreed to let him live in her home. At the time, the eight-year-old victim, her mother,

her stepfather, her older brother, and her younger brother were all living with G.H. G.H. and

the defendant agreed that the stay would only be for a few months, until the defendant could

“get back on [his] feet,” and that he would pay G.H. rent. G.H. had seen the defendant at

church, and he informed her that he was the musical director for two churches and an

aspiring preacher.

G.H.’s home had five bedrooms, and the defendant slept in the living room. He paid

rent for the first three months that he lived with G.H. and her family, but he stopped paying

rent after November of 2010. G.H. allowed several months to pass before bringing up the

issue of the unpaid rent. The defendant informed her that he had not received a settlement

from the bank that he was expecting, and he told G.H. that he would pay rent once he

received his settlement. By the end of April of 2011, the defendant still had not paid G.H.

any rent money, and she evicted him from her home.

Shortly after the defendant left G.H.’s residence, the victim told G.H. that the

defendant had abused her. G.H. immediately called the police. Officer Jamie Lambert

testified that he received a call on May 1, 2011, regarding a criminal assault at G.H.’s

address. He was the first officer to arrive at G.H.’s residence, and he spoke with G.H. and

the victim in the living room. G.H. informed him that the victim had been sexually assaulted.

When Officer Lambert spoke with the victim, she appeared “[n]ervous and hesitant to speak

with [him].” The victim told Officer Lambert that on April 9, 2011, the defendant told her

to go to her room, lie down, and remove her clothes. The defendant proceeded to fondle her

vaginal area and then penetrated her, and this episode lasted three or four minutes. After the

incident, the defendant instructed the victim not to tell anyone what happened and exited the

room. She waited until May 1st to report the incident because until that date, the defendant

still lived in G.H.’s home, and the victim was afraid of what the defendant might do to her.

After the initial interview with Officer Lambert, G.H. took the victim to the Child

Advocacy Center (“CAC”), where a nurse administered a sexual assault exam. The victim

also participated in a forensic interview with Letitia Cole. Ms. Cole testified that the victim

made an “active disclosure,” which is a full disclosure of abuse. The victim identified the

In order to protect the privacy of the victim and her family, we will refer to family members by their 1

initials. 

2
defendant as the perpetrator, and she was able to describe the relationship between herself

and the defendant and used an age-appropriate vocabulary in referring to different body parts.

She told Ms. Cole that the incident occurred on the couch in her living room. The defendant

touched her breast and then told her to go into the living room, take her clothes off, and lie

down on the couch.

At trial, the victim testified about the incident that occurred with the defendant. She

said that the abuse occurred in G.H.’s living room where the defendant touched her breast

and penetrated her vagina with his penis. The victim was in her home with her two brothers

and the defendant. Her grandmother was also at the home and was asleep in her room. The

defendant instructed the victim’s brothers to go outside and play, and he locked the door once

they exited the house. When the victim asked if she could go outside as well, the defendant

told her she could not. The defendant removed the cushions from the couch, placed them on

the floor, and asked the victim to help him to clean the couch. He then placed his hand under

her shirt and bra and touched her breast for “two or three minutes.” The defendant put the

victim on her stomach on the pillows, and he told her to pull down her pants. The victim

heard “a buckle of a belt” and “a zipper,” and she felt the defendant on top of her and

something “hard” between her legs. The defendant penetrated her vagina with his penis, and

his body “was going up and down.” She felt his penis inside of her vagina. The victim

estimated that the defendant was on top of her for “for fifteen to twenty minutes.”

The defendant stopped penetrating the victim when he heard the victim’s stepfather

at the door. The defendant started “trying to sweep out the stuff on the couch,” and the

victim went to her bedroom. When she later went to the bathroom, she felt a “wetness”

between her legs that had not been there before the defendant penetrated her. She testified

that she was not bleeding after the incident.

The victim could not recall the exact date of the incident, but she testified that it

occurred in April, several weeks before her April 21st birthday. She told her older brother

about the abuse, but she did not make a disclosure to anyone else until after the defendant

had moved out of the residence. Her brother testified that the defendant continued to live

with the family for a month after the victim revealed the abuse, but he agreed that it could

have been as long as nine weeks.

On cross-examination, the victim testified that she did not tell police officers that the

defendant touched her vagina with his hand or that the incident took place on her bedroom

floor and lasted for three or four minutes. She recalled telling Ms. Cole that the incident

occurred on the couch instead of on the floor. She remembered telling police officers and

the forensic interviewer that the defendant told her to take off all of her clothes, and she

agreed that she testified at trial that the defendant told her only to pull her pants down and

3
that she did not take off all of her clothes.

Dr. Karen Lakin testified as an expert in pediatrics and child sexual assault. She

testified that a sexual assault exam was performed on the victim. During the examination,

the victim stated that the defendant “raped [her].” She said that the defendant “stuck his

lower part in [her] private part” and touched her breast. Dr. Lakin testified that there were

no abnormalities or evidence of injuries were found during the examination. She testified

that in “ninety-five to ninety-eight percent” of pediatric sexual assault cases, there were no

physical findings of assault. She explained that there were not often physical findings

because children often did not disclose the assault immediately after it occurred. Dr. Lakin

stated that an increased passage of time between the assault and the examination made it less

likely that the examination would produce physical findings consistent with sexual assault.

She testified that in cases where the examination occurred more than seventy-two hours after

the assault, there was not an attempt to collect DNA evidence because the procedure would

be ineffective. She also testified that the vaginal area was able to heal very quickly, meaning

that there would be no evidence of an assault if the area were examined several weeks after

the assault.

The jury found the defendant guilty as charged in both counts. The trial court imposed

an effective sentence of thirty-five years. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion for

new trial, and he timely filed a notice of appeal. We now proceed to consider his claims.

ANALYSIS

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence

The defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction.

Specifically, he contends that because there was no forensic evidence of the rape and the

victim’s account of the incident was “sketchy,” his convictions must be reversed.

When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the relevant question

for this court is “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State,

any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a

reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). On appeal, “‘the State

is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and to all reasonable and legitimate

inferences that may be drawn therefrom.’” State v. Elkins, 102 S.W.3d 578, 581 (Tenn.

2003) (quoting State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274, 279 (Tenn. 2000)). Therefore, this court will

not re-weigh or reevaluate the evidence. State v. Matthews, 805 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tenn.

Crim. App. 1990). Instead, it is the trier of fact, not this court, who resolves any questions

4
concerning “the credibility of witnesses, the weight and value to be given the evidence, as

well as all factual issues raised by the evidence.” State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn.

1997). A guilty verdict removes the presumption of innocence and replaces it with a

presumption of guilt. State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992). The burden is then

shifted to the defendant on appeal to demonstrate why the evidence is insufficient to support

the conviction. State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). This court applies the

same standard of review regardless of whether the conviction was predicated on direct or

circumstantial evidence. State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370, 381 (Tenn. 2011).

Aggravated sexual battery is defined as “the unlawful sexual contact with a victim by

the defendant or the defendant by the victim” when the victim is less than thirteen years of

age. T.C.A. § 39-13-504(a)(4) (2010). “Sexual contact” includes the intentional touching

of the victim’s intimate parts for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification. T.C.A. § 39-

13-501(6). “Intimate parts” includes the breast of the victim. T.C.A. § 39-13-501(2). Rape

of a child is defined as “the unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant or the

defendant by the victim, if the victim is more than three (3) years of age but less than thirteen

(13) years of age.” T.C.A. § 39-13-522(a). “Sexual penetration” includessexual intercourse,

cunnilingus, fellatio, or anal intercourse. T.C.A. § 39-13-501(7).

The fact that there was no forensic evidence of the sexual assault does not entitle the

defendant to relief. First, forensic evidence is not required to establish proof of rape or

sexual battery, as evidence may be sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape of a child or

aggravated sexual battery when the only evidence is the testimony of the victim. See State

v. Collier, 411 S.W.3d 886, 891-92 (Tenn. 2013); State v. Smith, 42 S.W.3d 101, 106 (Tenn.

Crim. App. 2000). Second, Dr. Lakin testified that the vast majority of pediatric sexual

assault cases did not yield forensic evidence because the disclosure often occurred well after

the assault. Here, the record reflects that several weeks passed between the assault and the

victim’s disclosure, and Dr. Lakin testified that this length of time would have rendered a

rape kit ineffective.

In claiming that the victim’s account of the abuse was “sketchy,” the defendant

essentially asks this court to reevaluate the victim’s credibility, which we will not do on

appeal. As the final arbiter of credibility, the jury chose to resolve the discrepancies between

the victim’s pretrial statements to police and the forensic interviewer and her testimony at

trial in favor of the State. Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows

that the defendant was alone with the victim in the living room of G.H.’s residence. The

defendant reached his hand underneath the victim’s shirt and bra, placing it on her breast.

He then placed her on the ground on couch cushions, instructed her to pull her pants down,

and penetrated her. The victim testified that she felt the defendant on top of her and felt his

penis inside of her vagina. She testified that when she later went to the bathroom, she felt

5
a “wetness” between her legs that was not there before the defendant penetrated her, and she

testified that it was not blood. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the

defendant’s convictions for aggravated sexual battery and rape of a child. The defendant is

not entitled to any relief.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

_________________________________

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE

6