### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ma y

21, 200 8
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. RO BER T C HARLES T AY LOR

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Bradley County

No. M- 03-644 Car roll L. Ross, Jud ge

No. E2007-01868-CC A-R3- CD - F iled May 26, 2009

De fe nd an tw a s i n d i c t e d

f o r r a p e o f a c h i l d , a C l a s s A f

e l o n y
. F o l l o w i n g a

j u r y t r i a l , D e f

e n da nt, Robert Charles Taylor, was convicted of the lesse r included of fense of attempted r ape of a child, a Cla ss B fe lony . T he tr ia l c ourt se nte nc e d D e fe nd ant a s a Rang e I I I , Ca

re e r O ff e nd e r, to t hir ty y e a rs
. On appeal, Defenda

nt argues t hat t he evidence was i nsufficie nt to support his conviction. After a tho ro ug h r e vie w, we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

T HOM A S T. W O O D A LL , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J J ., joined.
Charl e s Ri c h a

r d H u gh e s , Jr

. , D istrict Publi c De fende r; and Way ne Carte r, Assistant Public Defe nder, for the a ppellant, Robert Charle s Taylor.
Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; L e sli e E. Pr ic e , As sis tant Attor ne y Ge ne ra l; Ste ve B e bb , D istri c t A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; a

nd An dr e w F re ibe rg , A ssi sta nt D ist ri c t A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, the State of Tenne ssee.
OP IN ION
I. Bac kgr ound The minors in this case, inc luding the vic tim, will be re fer red to by their initials. C.W ., the victim, testified that he was bor n on Dec ember

28, 1992, and he was ten y ear s old in August 2003 when the inc ident occur

red. C.W. said that he spent the nig ht with h i s g randf ather on Aug ust 16, 2003. The nex t morning he play ed and r ode bikes with his friends. L ater that day , C.W . said that De fe nd ant a

pp ro a c he d h im and his tw o fr ie nd s and a sk e d a bo ut M. B , ano the r on e of C.W. ’s fr ie nd s. De fe nd ant s a id that he w ante d to take M. B . c a mpi ng . C. W. to ld D e fe nd ant t hat he wa nte d to joi n them, and De fenda

nt ag ree d. C.W . said that he ha d not met Defe ndant prior to this encounte r.-2-

De fe nd ant d

ro ve of f, and M. B . a pp ro a c he d C. W. a sh or

t time la te r. M. B . a

nd C.W. we nt t o M.B.’ s house so that C.W. could call his mot her, B randy Swaffor d, and ask he r permission to g o on the ca mping trip. At fir st Ms. S waf ford did not want C.W

. to g o, but then she said, “ All rig ht. L et me come to mee t him, and I might let y ou g o.” C.W. said that he waited a pproxi mately

one hour a

nd then dec ided to leave with Defe ndant and M.B . without seeing Ms. Swaffor d.
Th e g ro up dr ov e tow ard

the c a mpg ro un d in

Defendant’s ve hic le . D e fe nd ant s top pe d at a g asoline station, and the y o ung men boug ht snacks. De fenda nt rented a

cabin at the KOA Ca mp g r o u n d

. I t w a s g r o w in g d ar k , s o th e g r o u

p u n lo a d e d th e c ar an d

th e nw a tc h e d

te le v is io n
. C. W. said that the first floor w as one larg e room with bunk beds ag ainst the wall and one larg er be d. The bathroom wa s upstairs. C.W . said that he a nd M.B. talke d as they

g ot rea dy for bed. C.W . climbed into the top bunk of t h e b u nk bed, M.B . g ot into the larg er be d, and De fenda nt laid down on the bottom bunk. C.W. a

nd M.B. continued to la

ug h and g igg le. Def

endant told them to stop, and then he re ache d for C.W. and told him t o g et into the bottom bunk. C .W. climbed down the bed’s ladde r, and De fenda

nt gr abbed him fr om the rea r. De fenda

nt pulled C.W. down until they wer e lying dow n on the bo tto m bu

nk wi th C .W. on

top of De fe nd ant’ s c he st.
D e f e n d an t g o t u

p to g o to th e b a thr o o m a

n d r e tu r n e d in a p p r o xim a te ly

f iv e mi n u te s
. C. W. was lying be neath the c o v er s o f the bottom bunk bed wea ring shorts and a te e-shirt. De fenda nt cra wled into bed with him. C.W

. woke up at s ome point during the nig ht and discover ed that he w as nake d. C.W. wa s ly

ingon his sto ma c h, and De fe nd ant w a s k iss inghim on the ou tsi de of

his bu tto c ks . D e fe nd ant t

ur ne d C. W. o ve r a

nd kis se d C. W.’ s g ro in a

re a
. De fe nd ant too k C. W.’ s p e nis into his m outh and then flipped C.W

. back on to his stomach. De fenda nt touched C.W.’s buttocks with his penis, and C .W. told Def endant that his uncle was a policema n. Def endant r esponded, “ I do n’ t c are .” C.W. a c kn ow le dg e d th a t th is s ta te me nt wa s n ot t ru e , b ut h e sa id t

hat he wa s tr

y ingto make De fenda

nt stop.
C.W. tol d D e fe nd ant t o s top tw o o r t hr e e tim e s, and

the y wr e stl e d. C.W. str

uc k D e fe nd a nt, and De fenda

nt struck him b ac kwith a closed f ist, bruising C.W.’s face . Def endant g ot out of the bunk bed, and C.W

. tucked the cover s under himself a nd went bac k to sleep. C.W. said that when he ne xt w o k e u

p , D e f e n d a n t w a s i n b e d w i t h M

. B

. C

. W

. s aw D e f e n d an t p e n e t r a t e M

. B

. w i th h is penis for a

pproxi mately

ten minutes, and then C.W. fell asleep a g ain.
C.W. sa id t

hat D e fe nd ant t oo k th e y oung me n swi mmi ng the ne xt mor nin g and the n th e y a te lunch at a fast food restaurant. Def endant laid his wallet on the t able, a nd C.W . remove d his driver’s license a nd a key when De fenda

nt was not looking. C.W. said that he wa nted to let the police know Def endant’ s identity . C.W . told Defe ndant, “I just took som ething from y o u
. ” De fenda nt asked wh a t C. W. h a d ta

ke n s e ve ra l ti me s. C.W. ha nd e d h im the ke y , a

nd De fe nd ant p ut t

he ke y in h is po c ke t.
Def

endant boug ht some bottle rockets at a fire works store, and they set them off in a f ield. D e f e n d an tn e x tdr o v e t o a

f l e a m ar k e tan d b o u g h t t h e b o ys s e v e r a l i t e m s
. D e f e n d an tt o l d

t h e b o ys not to tell any one about what happene d the nig ht before , and C.W. said, “Okay .”-3-

Def endant dr opped C.W. off at his house. C.W

. went to a neighbor ’s house a cross the stre et wher e he told seve nteen- y ear -old “Eldon” w hat had ha ppened in the c abin beca

use he thoug ht Eldon
wa s a po lic e man. C.W. g a ve El do n D e fe nd ant’ s dr ive r’ s lic e ns e
. El do n le ft to f ind C.W. ’s pa

re nts

. After they returne d, his parents c alled the police

. On cr oss-examination, C.W . said that he did not reme mber talking with Tammy Walker at the Children’s Advoc acy Center on August 21, 2003. C.W . acknow ledg ed that he r eviewe d the vid e ota pe of the int e rv ie w thr e e da

y s b e fo re tr ia l. C .W. sa id t hat he re me mbe red sayingthat Ms

. Swaffor d had told him t hat he c ould not go with De fenda nt to the campg round. C.W. said that he did not remember

stealing a ball from the convenience store where the y stopped befor e ar

riving at the campgr ound. C.W . did not remember telling Ms. Walker that he had se en coc aine, a rifle, a nd a pistol in Defenda

nt’s car , or that h e had thr own six thousand dollars in curr ency out of De fe nd ant’ s c ar w ind ow
. C.W. sa id that M. B . a lso str ug g le d w ithDe fe nd ant a

nd hit De fe nd ant w ith
a br oo m.
C.W. state d th a t he did no t re me mbe r pr e vio us ly fi lin g a c omp la int

a g a ins t hi s unc le , Josh Ki ng , f or se xua l a bu se
. He a lso te sti fi e d tha t he did no t r e me mbe r f

ili nga sim ila r c omp la int

a g a ins t Ry an Ro g e rs . C.W. ac kn ow le dg e d tha t a KO A C a mpg ro un d b ro c hure did no t de pic t a

te le vis ion

in the display ed ca

bin, but C.W . insisted that the cabin De fenda nt rented ha d a television.

Detec tive Donald L eon Shahan w ith the Bra dley County Sheriff’ s Depa

rtment testified that he wa s a de pu ty sh e ri ff a t th e tim e of

the inc ide nt. Detect ive Sh aha n in te rv ie we d C. W. and

Ms. S w a f f o r d o nA u g u s t1 7 , 2 0 0 3

. D e t e c t i v e S h ah ans t a t e d t h a tC

. W

. h a d

a b r u i s e a b o v e h i s l e f

te ye wh ic h a pp e are d to be c on sis te nt wi th a blu nt fo rc e tr a

uma to the fo re he a d. De te c tiv e Sha ha n s a id that he wa s g ive n De fe nd ant’ s d ri ve r’ s li c e ns e duri ngthe int e rv ie w. De te c tiv e Sha ha n a lso i n t er v i ew ed M.B. a

nd M.B.’ s mother bef

ore turningthe ca se over to the criminal investig ation division.
On cr oss-examination, Detective Shaha n stated t h at h e was present whe n Def endant wa s arr ested, a nd he said that he could not rec all seeingany marks or a

brasions on De fenda

nt. Detec tive Shahan did not rec all seeingany drug s or wea

pons in Defe ndant’s vehic le.

Detec tive Carl M askewwith the Br adley County Sheriff’ s Depa

rtment testified that he ob ta ine d a

re c e ipt fr om t he KO A Campg ro un d fo r on e a du lt and tw o c hil dr e n f

or the re nta l of

a c a bin on Aug ust 16, 2003, with departure on Aug ust 17, 2003. The re ceipt wa s signe d “Robert Ta y lor.” De te c tiv e Ma sk e w and oth e r un if or me d of fi c e rs we nt to the re sid e nc e of De fe nd ant’ s si ste r t o lo c a te Def endant. The sister opene d the door in re sponse to their knock. O ne o f t h e p o l i ce office rs shouted, “Someone’ s running out the b ac k d o or.” The police off icer s sear ched the back yard a nd located D efe ndant hiding in a larg e doghouse.

De fe nd ant was tr ansp or

te d to the sh e ri ff

’s de pa rtme nt a nd sig ne d a wr itt e n w a ive r o f h is Miranda r ights at 12:40 a.m. on Aug ust 18, 2003. Defe ndant g ave a brief statement in which he admitted being at the ca

mpgr ound but said that if he h ad wa n t ed to sex ually abuse the boy s, “he would have dr

ug g ed them.”-4-

On c ro ss- e xami natio n, De te c tiv e Ma sk e w i de nti fi e d thre e oth e r KO A C a mpg ro un d r e c e ipt s, all signe d by

“Robert Ta

y lor,” for the renta l of cabins on August 2, 2003, for two adults, one child; Aug ust 3, 2003, for two adults, one c hild; and Aug ust 9, 2003, for one a dult, two children.
The trial c ourt rea d the foll owing stipulations into the record as ag ree d upon by Def endant and the State: (1) As a result of the investigation of this matter , C.W . was see n by a medica l doctor. The e y e injury

was minor. (2) The results of the medic al ex amination reve aled no phy sical evide nce to support a se xua l a ssa

ult

. (3) As a result of the investigation of this matter , M.B. wa s seen by a medica l doctor three day s after

the alleg ation. (4) The results of t he medica l examination reveale d no phy sical evide nce to support a se xua l a ssa

ult

. ( 5 ) G e n e r a l l y, t h e r e m ay b e n o p h ys i c a l e v i d e n c e o f anan a l a s s a

u l tb e yo n d

s e v e n t ytw o h ours of

the a ssa ult

. The State re sted its c ase- in-chief , and De fenda

nt presente d his defense . M.B. testified that he wa s thirteen y ear s old at the t ime of t rial. M.B. testified that he, Defenda nt, and C.W. went on
a ca mping trip tog ether

. M.B. acknow ledg ed that he reme mbere d a conver sation betwee n Def endant and C.W. after C.W. stole a ball from a convenience store . M.B. sa id the g roup we nt swimmi ng afte r they rea ched the campg round and then went to be d. M.B. stated that there was no tele vision i nt h e c ab i n
. M

. B. t es t i fi edt h ath e f el l as l ee p t h at n i gh tan d

d i d n o twa k e up u n t i l t h e n ex tm o rn i n g. M.B. could not r emember talking to the Children’s Advoca cy Center, the Depa rtment o f H uman Se rv ic e s, or

the po lic e a

bo ut C .W. ’S a lle g a tio ns
. On cr oss-examination, M.B. said that he observe d Def endant cra

wling into the lowe r bunk bed with C.W. before M.B . g ot into the bi g bed. M.B. said that Defe ndant was lying on top of the bedcov ers . M .B. s aid th at D efen dan t w as i n C .W .’s bedfor “pro bab ly

mo st of t he n ight .” M .B. acknow ledg ed that he r emember ed telling Ms. Walker that he thoug ht he was in trou b l e an d that De fe nd ant w a s “ na sty” be c a us e he “ tou ched k ids .” M. B . d e nie d th a t D e fe nd ant t ou c he d h im sexually and stated that he did not know if Def endant has touched C.W

. On re direc t examination, M.B. state d that he did not know how long Def endant wa s in C.W .’s bed be cause he wa s asleep.
II. Su ff iciency of the Evid ence
Def endant a rg ues that the evidenc e was insuffic ient to support his conviction of attempted rape of a child. Defe ndant ac knowledg es that the e valuation of a witness’s cr edibility

rests with the ju r y , b u t h e c o n te n d s th a t t

h e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d

s ig n if ic an tl y c o n tr a d ic te d

C. W. ’ s te s ti mo n y
. C. W.-5-

den ied st eal in g a bal l f

rom th e con ven ien ce st ore n ex t t o t he cam pgrou ndas r ela ted by M. B. M .B. testified t hat t here was no tele vision in t he re ntal cabin a s descr ibed by C.W . on direc t examination, wh ic h w a s su

pp or te d b y the c a mpg ro un d’ s b roch ure . F ina lly , M .B . d e nie d th a t D e fe nd ant a na lly p e n e tr a te d

h im w h il e th e g r o u

p w a s a t t h e c a b in a s te s ti f ie d b y C. W.
The State a

rg ues that Defenda

nt has fa iled to affir

matively show that he filed a

timely notice of appe al bec ause the notice of a ppeal i s n o t co n t ai n ed in the tec hnical re cord. A ccor ding to the te c hn ic a l re c or d, the tr ia l c ourt ’s or de r d e nyingDe fe nd ant’ s mo tio n f or ne w tri a l w a s f

ile d o n July 18, 2007. Although the date stamp is diff icult to rea d, it a

ppear s that Def

endant’ s notice of a

ppeal was filed in the B radle y

County Criminal Court on August 17, 2007. See Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a) , (e) (re quiring a notice of

appea l to be filed within thirty day s of the e ntry of judg ment or the e ntry

of an order denying motion f

o r n ew trial). The notice of a ppeal wa s filed with the cour t of criminal appea ls on Aug ust 20, 2007, and is contained within the cour t fi l e p ertaining to this case

. Acc ording ly , we will addr ess Def endant’ s issues conce rning the suffic iency of the e vidence

. When a def

endant c halleng es the suff iciency of the c onvicting e vidence , we must revie w the evidenc e in a lig ht most fa vorable to the prosec ution in deter mining whether

a rational trier of f

act could have found all the e ssential elements of the crime be y o n d a re asonable doubt. J ackson v. Vi rg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 3 07 , 3 19 , 9 9 S. Ct. 27 81 , 27 89 (1 97 9)

. On c e a jur y fi nd s a de fe nd ant guil ty , h is
or he r p re su mpt ion

of inn oc e nc e is r e mov e d a

nd repl aced on appea l w itha pr e su mpt ion

of g uil t. State v. B la c k, 81 5 S. W.2 d 16 6, 17 5 ( Te nn . 1 99 1) . T he de fe nd ant h a s th e burd e n o f o ve rc omi ngthi s pr e su mpt ion , and the State is e nti tle d to the str on g e st l e g iti ma te vie w o f t he e vid e nc e a lon g wi th a ll
rea sonable infe renc es which may be dra wn from that e vidence . I d.; State v. Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d 91 3, 91 4 (T e nn
. 19 82 ). Th e jur y is pr e su me d to have re so lve d a ll c on fl ic ts a nd dr awn any re a so na ble infere nces in favor of t he S tate. S tate v. Sheffield, 676 S.W .2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984) . Questions
conce rning the cr edibility of wit nesses, the weig ht and value to be g iven the evide nce, a nd all fac tual issues raised by

the evidenc e ar e re solved by the trier of

fac t and not this court. State v. Bla nd, 958 S.W .2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997). These rules are applicable to f indings of guilt predicate d upon direc t e vid e nc e , c ir c ums tant ial evi den ce, o r a co mb in ati on of b ot h d ir ectandcir cum st ant ial evi den ce. Sta te v. Matthews, 805 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). A p e rs on c omm its c ri min a l a tte mpt wh o, a c tin g wi th t

he kin d o f culpa

bil ity oth e rw ise
re qu ir e d f or the of fe ns e (1 ) I nte nti on a lly

e ng a g e s in a c tio n or ca

us e s a re su lt that w ou ld c on sti tut e an o ff e ns e if the circ umstances surr ounding the conduct were as t he person believes them to be; (2) Ac ts with intent to c ause a result that is an eleme nt of the off ense, a nd believes the conduc t will cause the r esult without further c onduct on the per son' s part; or (3 ) A c t s w i t h i n t e n t t o c o mp l e t e a c o u r s e o f a c t i o n o r c a u s e a r e s u l t t h a t w ou ld constitute the offe nse, under the circ umstances surr ounding the conduct a s the person believes the m to be, and the c onduct constitutes a subs t an t i al step towar d the commission of the offe nse.-6-

T.C.A. § 39-12-101( a)( 1)-( 3). Rape of a child is defined a s the “unlawf ul sex ual pene tration of a vic tim by the def endant ... if such vic t i m i s less than thirteen ( 13) y ear s of ag e.” I d. § 39-13-522( a). “ ‘Sexual P enetr ation’
means s e xu a l i n te r c o u r s e , c u n n il in g u s , f e ll a ti o , an a l i n te r c o ur s e , o r an y o th e r in tr u s io n , h o w e v er sli g ht, of any

pa rt of a pe rs on ' s b od

y or of any ob je c t in to t he g e nit a l or

ana l op e nin g s o f t

he vic tim ' s, the def endant' s, or any

other pe rson' s b o d y , b u t em i s sion of semen is not require d.” I d. § 39-13- 501(7 ). Attempted ra

pe re quires proof

both that the defe ndant attempted to sexual penetrate the victim and that the def

endant' s action constitutes a subst antial step towar d penetr ation. State v. Mix on, 983 S.W .2d 661, 676 (Tenn. 1999)

. Thus , f or the jur y to f ind De fe nd ant g uil ty of a tte mpt e d ch ild ra pe , it ha d to fi nd

that th e Sta te proved bey ond a re asonable doubt that Defe ndant ac ted with the intent to sex ually penetr ate C.W., that Def endant took a substantial step towa rd doing so, and that C.W

. was under t he age of thirteen, or the de fenda

nt believed C.W. was under the ag e of thirtee n.
C.W. te sti fi e d th a t he was bo rn in 1 99 2 a

nd wa s te n y e ars old

a t th e tim e of

the inc ide nt. C.W . stated that De fenda nt pulled hi m d o wn fr om the top bunk and g ot into bed with him i n the low e r b u n k

. C

. W

. w a s w e ar i n g s h o rt s an d a t e e - s h i rt w h e n h e f e l l a s l e e p b u t fo un d h ims e lf undresse d when he woke up later that night. C.W. testi fied that De fenda nt kissed him in t he buttocks
ar e a , f li p p e d h im o v e r , k is s e d h im o n th e g e n it a l ar e a , to o k C. W. ’ s p e n is in h is mo u th , an d then f li p p e d C. W. o v e r a g a in

a t w h ic h ti me h e a tt e mp te d to p e n e tr a te C. W. an a ll y

w it h h is p e n is

. C. W. said that he strug g led with Def endant, and that Def

endant struck him lea

ving a bruise above his left ey e. Af ter the strug g le, Def

endant g ot out of C.W .’s bed.

De te c tiv e Sha

ha n o bs e rv e d a br

uis e ov e r C.W. ’s le ft e y e wh e n he int e rv ie we d C. W. a nd Ms. Swaffor d immediately

afte r the incide nt. The medical examination noted that the fac ial injury was min or . M .B . te sti fi e d th a t D e fe nd ant g ot i nto C.W. ’s bunk be d a nd la id d ow n o ve r t

he be d c ov e rs
. The jury hear d C.W .’s and M.B .’s testimony , and, by their ver dict, obviously resolved a

ny conflicts in favor of the State. V iewing the evidenc e in a lig ht m o s t fa vorable to the State, we
c on c lud e that a

ratio na l tr ie r o f fa c t cou ld f ind be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t th a t D e fe nd ant w a s g uil ty of the off ense of attempted ra

pe of a child. Def

endant is not entitled to relief on this iss ue.
CO NC LU SION
Af te r a tho ro ug h r e vie w, we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

.

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL L , J UDGE