### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A pr il 13, 201 0 S es sio n
STATE OF TENNESS EE v . WI LLI AM “BI LL” BOSL EY, JR.

D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C ircu it C o u rt fo r H a rd in C o u n ty N o. 8794 C
. C ree d M cG i nl ey, Judge

N o. W 2009- 00783- C C A

- R 3- C D - F i l ed M ay 27, 2010

Th e defendant, Wi ll ia m

“Bil l” Bo sl ey , J r. , was conv ic te d b y a Hardin Co un ty Circ uit Cou rt jury of a ggr a va t e d s e xua l ba t t e ry , aCl a s s B fe l ony , a nd s e nt e nced to tw el ve y e a r s i n the D ep artm en t o f C o r rectio n . O n ap p eal, h e arg u es th at (1 ) th e ev id en ce w as in su f f icien t to s upport hi s c onvi c t i on, ( 2) the tr i a l c ourt e rr e d i n de ny i ng hi s m ot i on for ne w t r i a l ba s e d on the Sta te ’s withho lding of evidence in violat ion of Brady v. Maryland , and (3) the tr ia l c ou rt e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o a d d r e s s th e n e e d f o r a c h a n g e o f v e n u e
. A f t e r r e v i e w , w e a f

f i r mt he j u d g m en t o f

th e trial co u rt b u t rem an d f o r en try o f a co rrected j u d g m en t.

Tenn. R
. A pp. P. 3 Appeal as of R i ght ; Judg m e nt of

t he C i r c ui t C our t A f

f i r m e d and R e m ande d f

or Ent r y of

C or r e c t e d Judg m e nt

A L AN E. G L ENN , J

. , del i ver ed t he opi ni on of t he C our t , i n w hi ch N OR MA M C G EE O G LE and R OB ER T W. W EDE MEY ER , J J

. , j oi ned.

R y an B

. Feeney , Sel m er , T ennes s ee ( on appea l ) ; and J ames S. Pow el l , Savannah, T ennes s ee (at t ri al), fo r t h e a p p ell an t, W il li am “B il l” B o sley , Jr.

R ober t E

. C ooper , J r
. , A t t or ney G ener al and R epor t er ; C l ar ence E

. L ut z, A s s i s t ant A t t or ney G ener al ; H ans el J

. M cC adams, D i s t r i ct A t t or ney G ener al ; and E d N

. M cD ani el and J ames E

. W i l l i ams, I I I , A s s i s t ant D i s t r i ct A t t or ney s G ener al , for t he appel l ee, St at e of Tennes s ee.
OP I NI ON
FACTS
In Marc h 2 00 8, the defendant was indict ed on the char ge of ra pe of a chil d for an actT hi s co ur t ’ s po l i c y is to re f e r to m i no r s by th e i r

in i t i a l s on l y. 1
-2- c om m i t t e d a ga i ns t

the vi c t i m , E. L. , hi s gr a nd

- ni e c e , wh o wa s fi ve y e a r s ol d a t the t i m e
. At 1 tr i a l , the the n s i x- y e a r - ol d vi c t i m t e s t i fi e d tha t

the de fe nda nt , he r

unc l e , pi c ke d up he r

a nd h er sister, L .L ., o n a d ay

in D ecem

b er 2 0 0 7 an d to o kth em

to h is h o u se to sp en d th e n ig h t. She r e c a l l e d th at w h ile i t wa s da y t i m e a nd onl y

the thr e e of t he m

we r e a t the hous e , the defend ant pushed h er

on the cou ch, p ulle d her clothes halfway do wn , and “s tuck his finger i n [he r ] pr i va t e s pot

a nd .

. . s t

uc k hi s t ongue i n [he r ] pr i va t e s pot

. ” Aft e rwa r ds , the y we nt wi th the de fe nda nt

t o the ve t e r i na r i a n, the n he t ook the m hom e
. The vi c t i m

r e port e d the in cid en t to h er m o th er an d f ath er, an d th ey

w en t to th e p o lice statio n an d to see a d o cto r.
L. L. , the vi c t i m ’ s e i ght

- y e a r - ol d s i s t e r , t e s t i fi e d tha t s he a nd the vi c t i m s pe nt the ni ght
a t the de fe nda nt ’ s hous e s om e t i m e t owa r d the e nd of 2007. She r e c a l l e d tha t the fol l owi ng m o rn in g , th e d ef

en d an t ask edth e v ictim if sh e w an ted to w atch a “d irty m o v ie.” T h e v ictim init ia ll y decl ined bu t, afte r bei ng pers uaded b y th e d efendant, agre ed to watc h the m ov ie

. From wh er e she was s itti ng in the defendant’s bedroom using the com

pu te r, L.L. witnes se d th e d ef en d an t “p u t [ th e v ictim ] o n th e co u ch [ in th e liv in g ro o m ,] p u ll[ ] h er p an ts d o w n , .

. . l ook[] a t thi ngi e , a nd

. . . s t i c k[] hi s fi nge r i n i t

. ” L. L. r e c a l l e d tha t a ft e rwa r ds , the y

we nt wi th the de fe nda nt

t o the ve t e r i na r i a n, the n ba c k t o the de fe nda nt ’ s hous e , t o W a l m a rt , a nd finall y ho m e. Th e defendant told the g ir ls that they wo uld g et in tr ou ble i f they

told any on e, bu t L.L. t old h er

m other who told her father. On cr oss- exam inat ion, L.L. ac kn ow le dg ed that sh e an d th e v ictim

h ad talk ed w ith p eo p le w h o h ad to ld h er h o w to “say th in g s.”

Me l i s s aRuth Lowe ry , the m othe r of the vi c t i m a nd L. L. , t e s t i fi e d tha t the de fe nda nt wa s he r unc l e a nd the gi r l s ’ gr e a t

- unc l e
. She s a i d tha t on De c e m

be r 28, 2007, the gi r l s s pe nt th e n ig h t at th e d ef

en d an t’s h o u se, an d h e b ro u g h t th em h o m e th e n ex t d ay af ter tak in g h is do g to the vete ri nari an. On N ew Year’ s Eve, the girl s t old h er ab o u t so meth ing that had ha ppe ne d a t the de fe nda nt ’ s hou se, w h ich pr om pt e d he r t o go t o the pol i c e a nd t a ke the vict im to th e d o ct o r. On cr oss- exam inat ion, Lo wery denied as king to li ve in Rebecca W a s hburn’ s l a ke hous e or thr e a t e ni ng t o l e a ve he r hus ba nd be c aus e of s om e thi ng goi ng on w ith h er d au g h ters.
Fa m i l y Nur s e Pr a c t i t i one r

J o J one s t e s t i fi e d tha t

s he i nt e rvi e we d a nd e xa m i ne d the vi c t i m on J a nua ry

2, 2008. The phy s i c a l e xa m i na t i on r e ve a l e d fi ndi ngs c ons i s t e nt wi t h t he vict im ’s ac coun t of sexual touching and a ls o finding s consis te nt with an abse nce of se xu al to u ch in g
. F o u rteen -y ear-o ld K irsten M attn er testif ied th at sh e an d h er m o th er, D eb b ie B u rg ess, l i v e d i n th e d e f

e n d a n t ’ s h o u s e , a n d s h e w a s i n h e r b e d r o o m w i th th e d o o r o p e n a t th e t i me th e in cid en t alleg ed ly

o ccu rred

. T h at m o rn in g , th e v ictim an d L .L

. w ere p lay in g w ith to y s,-3-

bo ok s, and the do gs, and cart oo ns were on the tel evis ion. Mattner s ai d that s he did n ot hear any thing “ x-ra te d” on the te le visi on and did no t re m em ber any thing b ad happ ening. Mattner st at ed that Bu rges s w as at the h ou se that m orning as well and left only abou t fifte en m inutes b ef o re th e d ef

en d an t to also g o to th e v eterin arian

. On cr oss- exam inat ion, Mattner ackno wledged that in her s ta te m ent t o p olic e given two da y s a ft e r

the i nc i de nt , s he s a i d tha t the de fe nda nt , he r

m othe r , an d th e g irls ha d r un e rr a nds and r e t

urne d be for e s he e ve n woke up. On r e di r e c t , Ma t tne r c l a r i fi e d tha t

s he woke up a t 10: 00 a
. m
. t o the s ound of the gi r l s pl a y i ng wi th the dogs but di d not phy s i c a l l y

ge t out o f b ed u n til n o o n
. Debb ie B u rg es s, the defendant’s s te pd augh te r, te st ifie d that s he and h er daug hter , Ki r s t e n M a t tne r , we r e l i vi ng i n t he de fe nd a nt ’ s ho us e a t the t i m e of

the a l l e ge d i nc i de nt

. On tha t da y , s he woke up be twe e n 8: 00 a nd 8: 30 a

. m
. a nd wa t c he d t e l e vi s i on a s the vi c t i m a nd he r s i s t e r pl a y e d. She no ted th at at one poi nt , one of t he gi r l s t a l ke d t o he r m othe r on t he te le ph on e. Bu rges s l eft t o take her do g to the vete ri nari an abou t f ifte en or twenty

m inutes be for e the de fe nda nt

l e ft t o a l s o go t o the ve t e r i na r i a n. Bur ge s s obs e rve d nothi ng out of t he
or di na ry t a ke pl a c e tha t

da y a nd thought

tha t i t wa s i m pos s i bl e for

the vi c t i m ’ s a l l e ga t i ons to b e tru e b ecau se M attn er w as at th e h o u se w h ile B u rg ess w as at th e v eterin arian . B u rg ess said th at th e g irls n ev er acted as if an y th in g b ad h ad h ap p en ed

. Rebecc a Wa shbu rn, the defend ant’ s si st er , te st ifie d that Lo wery , the vict im ’s m other, called h er ab o u t tw o an d h alf y ears ag o an d ask ed if sh e co u ld stay at Wash b u rn ’s lak e h o u se in Texas beca

use she was le aving h er

hu sband. Wa shbu rn re ca ll ed that Lo wery sa id she was le aving h er

hu sband b ec ause he and h is brother were “m es si ng with the girl s. ” Wa shbu rn said th at L o w ery

en d ed u p n o t g o in g to T ex as.
Es the r Bos l e y , the de fe nda nt ’ s m othe r , t e s t i fi e d tha t s he l i ve d i n W a s hburn’ s l a ke ho use a t one po int t

wo y ears earl ie r and that Lo wery had cal le d h er and sai d, “I want to st ay wi th y ou whe n I c om e down. ” She e l abor a t e d tha t Lowe ry a nd he r daught e r s we r e pl a nni ng to trav el w ith th e d ef

en d an t to T ex as to v isit h er.
Fo ll ow ing the conclusi on of the proo f, the ju ry conv ic te d the defend ant of the le ss er i n c l u d e d o f

f e n s e o f a g g r a v a t e d s e x u a l b a t t e ry.

A N A L Y S IS

I. Su ff ic ie ncy of

the Evidence
The de fe nda nt

c ha l l e nge s the s uffi c i e nc y of the c onvi c t i ng e vi de nc e
. I n c ons i de r i ng-4-

thi s i s s ue , we a

ppl y the r ul e tha t whe r e s uffi c i e nc y

of t he c onvi c t i ng e vi de nc e i s c ha l l e nge d, the r e l e va nt

que s t i on of the r e vi e wi ng c ourt i s “ whe the r , a ft e r

vi e wi ng the e vi de nc e i n t he lig h t m o st f

av o rab le to th e p ro secu tio n , any r a t i ona l tr i e r of fa c t c oul d ha ve found t he
e s s e nt i a l e l e m e nt s of the c r i m e be y ond ar e a s onabl e doubt

. ” J a c ks on v. Vi r gi ni a , 443 U. S. 307, 319 ( 1979) ; s e e a l s o Te nn. R. App. P. 13( e ) ( “ Fi ndi ngs of gui l t i n c r i m i na l a c t i ons wh ether by the tri al court or jury shal l be s et

as ide i f the evidence i s i nsuf fici ent t o sup po rt the fi ndi ngs by

the tr i e r of fa c t of gui l t be y o n d a reaso n abl e doubt

. ” ) ; St a t e v. Eva ns , 838 S

. W

. 2 d 1 8 5 , 1 9 0

- 9 2 ( T e n n
. 1 9 9 2 ) ; S t a t e v
. A n d e r s o n , 8 3 5 S

. W

. 2 d 6 0 0 , 6 0 4 ( T e n n
. C r i m. App. 1992)

. Al l que s t i ons i nvol vi ng the c r e di bi l i ty of wi tne s s e s , the we i ght a nd va l ue t o be g i v e n th e e v i d e n c e , a n d a l l f a c t u a l i s s u e s a r e r e s o l v e d b y th e tr i e r o f f a c t

. S e e S t a t e v. P a p p a s , 7 5 4 S

. W

. 2 d 6 2 0 , 6 2 3 ( T e n n
. C r i m
. A p p
. 1 9 8 7 )

. “ A g u i l ty v e r d i c t b y th e j u ry, a ppr ove d by

th e t r i a l judge , a c c r e di t s the t e s t i m ony of t he wi tne s s e s for

the St a t e a nd
r e s ol ve s a l l c onfl i c t s i n fa vor of t he the ory

of t he St a t e
. ” St a t e v. Gr a c e , 493 S. W

. 2d 474, 47 6 (Tenn . 197 3). Our suprem e c ou rt st at ed the r at ionale fo r this r ule:
Thi s we l l

- s e t t l e d r

ul e r e s t s on a s ound founda t i on. The tr i a l judge a nd th e j u ry see th e w itn esses f

ace to f ace, h ear th eir testim o n y

an d o b serv e th eir dem eano r on the st and. Th us the tri al ju dg e and ju ry ar e the prim ar y inst rum enta li ty

of ju st ic e to dete rm ine the weight and credi bili ty to be given to the t es ti m on y

of witnes se s. In the tri al fo rum al on e i s there hu m an a t m os phe r e a nd the t ot a l i ty of t he e vi de nc e can n ot

be r e pr oduc e d wi th a
w ritten reco rd in th is C o u rt.
Bol i n v. St a t e , 219 Te nn. 4, 11, 405 S. W

. 2d 768, 771 ( 1966) ( c i tin g C arr ol l v. St a t e , 212 T e nn. 464, 370 S. W

. 2d 523 ( 1963) )

. “ A jury c onvi c t i on r e m ove s the pr e s um pt i on of in n o cen ce w ith w h ich a d ef en d an t is in itiall y c l o a k e d a n d rep laces it w ith o n e o f g u ilt, so th at o n ap p eal a co n v icted d ef en d an t h as th e b u rd en o f d em o n stratin g th at th e ev id en ce is insuff ic ie nt.” Stat e v. Tug gle, 63 9 S .W .2d 9 13 , 914 (Tenn. 19 82 ).

T en n essee C o d e A n n o tated sectio n 3 9 -1 3 -5 0 4 p ro v id es: (a) A g g rav ated sex u al b attery is u n law f u l sex u al co n tact w ith a v ictim by the de fe nda nt

or th e de fe nda nt

by avi c t i m a c c om pa ni e d by

a ny of t he f o llo w in g circu m stan ces: (1 ) F o rc e or

c oe r c i on i s us e d t o a c c om pl i s h the a c t

a nd the de fe nda nt i s a rm e d with a w eapon or a ny a rt i c l e us e d or fa s hi one d i n am a nne r t o l e a d the vi c t i m r e a s onabl y t o be l i e ve i t t o be awe a

pon;-5- ( 2 ) T h e d e f

e n d a n t c au s e s b o d i l y

i n j u ry t o th e v i c t i m; (3) The defend ant i s a ided or abet te d by on e (1) or m ore other pe r s ons ; a nd (A) For ce or coer ci on is used to ac com plis h the ac t; or ( B) The de fe nda nt

knows or ha s r e a s on t o know t ha t

the vi c t i m i s m en t a l l y

de fe c t i ve , m e nt a l l y

i nc a pa c i t a t e d or ph y si ca ll y

helple ss ; or (4) The vict im

is le ss than thir

te en (13) y ears of

age.
Tenn . Cod e Ann . § 39 -13-50 4(a) (4).
The de fe nda nt

a r gue s tha t

the e vi de nc e wa s i ns uffi c i e nt be c aus e th e S tat e di d not pr e s e nt ev id en ce of for c e or c oe r c i on, bodi l y

i njury , or

tha t the de fe nda nt

wa s a i de d or abet te d b y

another pers on
. Ho wever, the defendant’s argum ent overl oo ks that aggravat ed
se xu al batt er

y can als o b e est abli shed by show ing that t

he vict im was l es s than thirt ee n y ears old. Th e vic ti m , who was s ix y ears old at the ti m e of tr ia l, w as cl earl y le ss than thir

te en y ears o ld at th e tim e o f

th e o f f en se.
Th e defendant als o in si nu at es that the e vidence was i nsuf

fici ent bec ause ther e was no evidence es ta

blis hing se xu al abuse as ide from the te st im on y of the vict im and her si st er
. Th e vic ti m

te st ifie d that the defend ant pushed her on the couch, pu ll ed her cl othes hal fw ay d o w n , an d “stu ckh is f

in g er in [ h er] p r i v a t e sp o t an d . . . stu ckh is to n g u e in [ h er] p riv ate sp o t.” T h e v ictim ’s sister, L .L ., co rro b o rated th e v ictim ’s acco u n t o f th e ev en ts. T h e n u rse pr a c t i t i one r ’ s t e s t i m ony

ne i the r pr ove d nor

di s pr ove d tha t

as e xua l t ouc hi ng oc c urr e d. The St a t e ’ s wi tne s s e s we r e a l l s ubje c t e d t o r i gor ous c r os s - e xa m i na t i on by the de fe nda nt , a nd t he jury he a r d the t e s t i m ony

a nd fo u n d the vi c t i m ’ s a nd he r s i s t e r ’ s t e s t i m ony

c r e di bl e
. The testim o n ial ev id en ce w as su f f icien t to su p p o rt th e d ef

en d an t’s co n v ictio n
. I I
. Br ady V i ol at i on
T h e d ef en d an t n ex t arg u es th at “th e p ro secu tio n , af ter rep eated req u ests, co n sisten tly
an d w illf u lly ref u sed to p ro v id e . . . th e v id eo ta p ed in terv iew o f th e alleg ed v ictim

. . . whe r e i n the a l l e ge d vi c t i m de s c r i be [d] t he a l l e ge d i nc i de nt [, ]” a nd the tr i a l c ourt di d nothi ng t o e ns ur e the St a t e s uppl i e d the vi de ot a pe
. He c l a i m s tha t

the wr i t t e n tr a n scrip t o f the inte rvie w “ra is e[d] the s pect er of po ss ible ‘vic ti m ’ c oaching.”-6-

“ [T]he s uppr e s s i on by

the pr os e c ut i on of e vi de nc e fa vorab le t o a n a c c us e d upon req u est v io lates d u e p ro cess w h ere th e ev id en ce is m aterial eith er to g u ilt o r to p u n ish m en t, i rr e s pe c t i ve of t he good fa i th or ba d fa i th of t he pr os e c ut i on. ” Br a dy v. Ma ry l a nd, 373 U. S. 83, 87 ( 1963)

. I n or de r

t o e s t abl i s h a Br a dy vi ol a t i on, a de fe nda nt m us t s how t ha t

he or s he
re qu es te d the info rm at ion, the Sta te supp re ss ed the inf orm at ion, the i nf

orm at ion w as fa vor abl e t o hi s or

he r de fe n se, an d the i nform a t i on wa s m a t e r i a l

. St a t e v. Edgi n, 902 S .W.2 d 3 8 7 , 3 8 9 (T en n . 1 9 9 5 ). E v id en ce is “m aterial” o n ly if th ere is a reaso n ab le prob abil it y that the re sult of the proceedi ng wo uld h ave been different had the e vidence been disc lose d to the defense. Un it ed Stat es v. Bagley , 4 73 U.S. 66 7, 68 2 (19 85 ). Th e burden of pr ovi ng a Br a dy vi ol a t i on r e s t s wi th the de fe nda nt , a nd the vi ol a t i on m us t be pr ove n by
apr e ponde r a nc e of t he e vi de nc e
. Edgi n, 902 S. W

. 2d a t 389.
We in itially

n o te th at th ere is n o req u est f o r d isco v ery in th e reco rd b ef o re th is co u rt. In f act, th ere is n o th i n g i n t h e reco rd th at su p p o rts th at a v id eo tap e w as ev er m ad e, th at a
v id eo tap e w as req u ested , o r th at th e S tate d id n o t p ro v id e th e req u ested m aterial. T h e f irst
re ference to any

withheld evidence appears in the d efendant’s m otion fo r n ew tr ia l, wh ic h the tr i a l c ourt

de ni e d by

wr i t t e n or de r
. Howe ve r , the tr a ns c r i pt of t he he a r i ng on the m ot i on f o r n ew trial w as n o t in clu d ed in th e reco rd b ef o re u s. T h e d ef

en d an t h as sim

p ly f ailed to c a rry hi s bur de n of pr ovi ng aBr a dy vi ol a t i on by a pr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e
. I n a ny event, wh ether the vict im was c oached bears on her c re dibili ty , and her c re dibili ty was th o ro u g h ly

ex am in ed b y

th e d ef en d an t in h is cro ss-ex am in atio n o f th e S tate’s w itn esses.
I I I
. V e nue
The de fe nda nt

l a s t l y a r gue s tha t

the tr i a l c ourt

e rr e d i n “f

a i l i ng t o r e c ogni z e a nd ad d ress th e n eed f

o r a ch an g e o f v en u e, g iv en th e p u b licity th at h as b een f o cu sed u p o n th is case.” T h e d ef

en d an t rep o rts th e p u b licity at issu e b ein g a f iv e-p arag rap h n ew sp ap er article in the Savannah C ou ri er , his ho m et ow n n ewspaper, that identi fied him as being “‘a cc used
o f so d o m izin g a 5 -y ear o ld g irl.’” H e reco u n ts th at th e article d escrib ed th at “‘th e g irl said Bo sl ey li cked her vagina and penetra te d i t wit h h is fing er ,[’] that

the ‘ inci dent was wit

ness ed b y a7

- ye a r

o l d g i r l , ’ th a t ‘ B o s l e y h a s b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f ‘ th e s a m e typ e i n c i d e n t ’ p r e v i o u s l y, and o ther si m il ar ac cusa ti on [sic ] h ad been m ade i n the past bu t not prosec uted.’ ”
The r ul e s of c r i m i na l pr oc e dur e pr ovi de tha t atr i a l c ourt

m a y gr a nt ac ha nge of ve nue i f i t a ppe a r s tha t

“ due t o undue e xc i t e m e nt a ga in st th e d efe nda nt

i n the c ounty

whe r e t he offe ns e wa s c omm i t t e d or a ny othe r c aus e , a fa i r tr i a l pr obabl y c oul d not be ha d. ” Te nn. R. Cr i m
. P. 21( a )

. W he the r

t o gr a nt a m ot i on for c ha nge of ve nue i s l e ft t o the s ound di s c r e t i on of t he tr i a l c ourt , a nd the c ourt ’ s r ul i ng wi l l be r e ve r s e d on a ppe a l onl y

upon ac l e a r

s howi ng of an abuse of that dis cr et ion. Stat e v. Davidson, 12 1 S .W .3d 6 00 , 611 -12 (Tenn . 200 3). The m e r e fa c t tha t jur or s ha ve be e n e xpos e d t o pr e tr i a l publ i c i ty wi l l not wa rr a nt ac ha nge-7-

o f v en u e. S tate v . M an n , 9 5 9 S .W.2 d 5 0 3 , 5 3 1 -3 2 (T en n . 1 9 9 7 ). F o r th is co u rt to rev erse ac onvi c t i on ba s e d on a ve nue i s s ue , the “ de fe nda nt m us t de m ons tr a t e tha t the jur or s who
a c t ua l l y s a t we r e bi a s e d or

pr e judi c e d a ga i ns t

hi m
. ” Eva ns , 838 S. W

. 2d a t 192.

W e i ni t i a l l y

not e tha t the r e i s no i ndi c a t i on tha t the de fe nda nt

br ought the i s s ue of pu bli c i ty t o the tr i a l c ou rt ’ s a t t e nt i on be fo r e or du r i ng the tr i a l

. As wi th the defend ant’ s Brady ar gu m ent, the fir st

and o nly m enti on of

any pu blic it y surr ou nd ing the ca se appears i n the de fe nda nt ’ s m ot i on for ne w tr i a l , a nd the tr a ns c r i pt of t he he a r i ng on the m ot i on i s not in th e reco rd b ef

o re u s. E v en so , th e ru les o f crimin al p ro ced u re allo w th e trial co u rt to o rd er a ch an g e o f v en u e o n its o w n in itiativ e. S ee T en n
. R

. C rim . P . 2 1 (a). H o w ev er, it is
s t i l l the de fe nda nt ’ s bur de n t o pr ove on a ppe a l tha t the jur or s o n h is case we r e bi a s e d or prejud ic ed agai nst him

– a bu rden he has not car ri ed. The defend ant m er el y of fers that “[t]his ty pe of pu blic it y wo uld und ou btedly prod uce und ue exci te m ent i n w hich a fai r tri al ‘p ro b ab ly ’ co u ld n o t b e o b tain ed .” Y et, h e o f f ered n o p ro o f in su p p o rt o f th is claim . In f act, a t the s t a rt of voi r

di r e , the pot e nt i a l jur or s we r e a s ke d i f t he y ha d he a r d a ny

thi ng about

the
c a s e , a nd no a ffi rm a t i ve r e s pons e s we r e not e d i n the r e c or d. I f the pot e nt i a l jur or s we r e not a wa r e of a ny

publ i c i ty s urr oundi ng the c a s e , we woul d be ha r d- pr e s s e d t o de t e rm i ne tha t t he
ac tual ju rors were awar e o f the p ub li ci ty and p re ju dice d b y

it . The defend ant i s not enti tl ed to relief o n th is issu e.
As pa rt of hi s a r gum e nt

c onc e rni ng ve nue , the de fe nda nt a l s o a l l e ge s tha t

he di d not
r e c e i ve afa i r

tr i a l i n Ha r di n County

be c aus e two of hi s wi tne s s e s we r e threaten ed b y t he vi c t i m ’ s fa m i l y m e m

be r s
. Aga i n, the fi r s t

m e nt i on of t hi s a l l e ga t i on a ppe a r s i n the m ot i on for ne w t r i a l , a nd we do not ha ve the tr a ns c r i pt

of t ha t he a r i ng be for e u s t o de t e rm i ne wh ether the defend ant pre se nted any proo f o n the is sue. In this court, the defend ant off er ed
no proo f in sup po rt

of his cla im other than h is bare al le gati on . Moreover, we ar e per plexed as to h o w a ch an g e o f

v en u e w o u ld h av e h ad an y im p act o n w h eth er th e v ictim ’s f am ily
wo uld h ave threa te ned the witnes se s. Th e defendant is not enti tl ed to re li ef on this is sue.
CONCLUSI ON
Base d o n the fo re go ing autho ri ti es and r ea soning , we affirm the ju dg m ent of the tr ia l
c ourt. We not e tha t

the judgm e nt

c orr e c t l y i de nt i fi e s a ggr a va t e d s e xua l ba t t e ry a s t he of fe ns e of c on vi c t i on ; ho we ve r , i t l i s t s the i nc or r e c t s t a t ut e fo r tha t

of fe ns e
. Th e r e fo r e , we re m and f or entr y of a c orre ct ed ju dg m ent t o refle ct the c orre ct

st at ute for aggravate d sexual ba t t e ry , Te nn. Code Ann. § 39- 13- 504.

_________________________________ AL AN E

. GL E NN, J UDGE