IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs April 2, 2019

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHRISTIAN BLACKWELL

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County

No. 13-06191 W. Mark Ward, Judge

___________________________________

No. W2018-01233-CCA-R3-CD

___________________________________

The Defendant, Christian Blackwell, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court 

jury of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and sentenced to twenty-five years in the 

Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues the trial court erred in 

excluding unrelated allegations of sexual abuse made by the victim’s sister, in admitting 

the victim’s forensic interview into evidence, and that the evidence is insufficient to 

support his conviction. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Tenn. R. App. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed

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

WILLIAMS, P.J., and TIMOTHY L. EASTER, J., joined.

Jessica L. Gillentine, Bartlett, Tennessee, and Benjamin Israel, Memphis, Tennessee (on 

appeal), and Thomas E. Hansom, Memphis, Tennessee, (at trial), for the appellant, 

Christian Blackwell.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Caitlin Smith, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Lessie Rainey, 

Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

FACTS

The Defendant was indicted for rape of a child based on allegations that he put his 

penis in the victim, his sister’s, mouth after blindfolding her.

06/13/2019
- 2 -

Hearing on Motion to Admit Forensic Interview

Carla Coleman, an investigator with the Department of Children’s Services 

(“DCS”), testified that she received a referral in January 2013 regarding allegations of 

sexual abuse of the victim by the Defendant and psychological harm to the victim by her 

grandmother. DCS later determined that the allegations of psychological harm to the 

victim by her grandmother were unsubstantiated. 

Ms. Coleman testified that she visited the victim’s home and interviewed her. The 

victim’s mother, the victim’s mother’s boyfriend, and three of the victim’s siblings were 

present in the house that day. She spoke with the victim in private and asked her whether 

anyone had ever “done anything” to her. The victim disclosed that the Defendant, her 

brother, had sexually abused her. The victim provided Ms. Coleman with information 

that was consistent with the initial report of abuse. The interview lasted approximately 

ten minutes and was not recorded. After speaking with the victim, Ms. Coleman spoke 

with the victim’s siblings, individually, as well as the victim’s mother. She then 

scheduled a forensic interview for approximately two weeks later. Ms. Coleman 

conducted background checks on the victim’s mother, grandmother and the Defendant, 

but not on the victim’s mother’s boyfriend. 

Ms. Coleman testified that the victim’s mother brought the victim to the forensic 

interview, and the victim’s mother’s boyfriend and a sibling were present as well. Ms. 

Coleman explained the process to the victim and her family, but she did not ask the 

victim any questions about the abuse because she did not want her to reach the point of 

being unwilling to talk during the forensic interview. Ms. Coleman observed the 

interview, and the victim’s account was consistent with what she had previously 

disclosed to Ms. Coleman. Ms. Coleman acknowledged that the victim’s family had 

previous interactions with DCS, but she could not recall the details of those allegations. 

Letitia Cole, a forensic interviewer with the Memphis Child Advocacy Center, 

conducted the forensic interview of the victim, who was seven years old at the time. No 

one else was present during the interview, and it was recorded. She asked open-ended 

questions to avoid leading the victim, and the victim gave age-appropriate responses. 

Ms. Cole recalled that the victim told her that “her brother made her put her mouth 

on his penis.” Before making this disclosure, Ms. Cole showed the victim anatomical 

diagrams of the human body, and at first the victim said that “no one ever touched her 

anywhere on her body.” They discussed the male anatomical diagram, and the victim 

said that she had not “seen the penis or the behind[.]” Ms. Cole asked the victim who she 

could tell if someone did something to her that was not okay, and the victim answered 

that she could tell her mother and grandmother. Ms. Cole then asked the victim if she 
- 3 -

had ever told her mother and grandmother that someone had done something to her and 

that was when the victim disclosed what had happened with the Defendant. 

Ms. Cole testified that during the interview, the victim seemed well-oriented to 

time and place, although she was confused as to the year, thinking it was 2012 when it 

was 2013. The victim recalled that the incident happened when the Defendant was home 

visiting from college, but she did not know the name of the school he attended. The

victim said, “He’s not really 18. He’s like an eight and a zero.” Ms. Cole asked the 

victim how she knew that the Defendant had put his penis into her mouth if she was 

blindfolded. The victim responded that God had told her but also that she had looked 

down from under the tie and could see. Ms. Cole stated that she asked follow up 

questions to clarify some of the victim’s responses. 

The victim was nine years old at the time of the hearing. She confirmed that she 

understood the difference between the truth and a lie. The victim recalled watching part 

of the video of the forensic interview at the prosecutor’s office. She remembered that a

woman named Lois was present while she watched the video, and a man was there for a 

portion of the video as well. She said that she was “[s]ort of” scared when she watched 

the video, and that one of the prosecutors got upset with her when she did not remember 

things and told her “[y]ou have got to remember that.” She testified that she was telling 

the truth when she answered the questions in the video. 

The victim recalled watching part of the video again in defense counsel’s office; it 

was muted so she could not hear the sound. The victim recognized herself in the video, 

but she did not recognize the interviewer or remember being with the interviewer. The 

victim said that she did not remember any questions that the interviewer asked or any of 

her answers. The victim confirmed that the interview took place two years prior, when 

she was seven years old. The victim remembered talking to defense counsel about her 

saying in the video that the Defendant would lock the bathroom door but that the door, in 

fact, will not lock. She said that she did not remember talking about the Defendant 

locking the bathroom door during the interview but that she did not try to lie about 

anything. The victim confirmed that it was her in the video and that she was telling the 

truth when she answered the questions in the video, although she could not remember the 

questions and answers at this point in time. 

Trial

Sergeant Katie McKinnie with the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office Sex Crimes 

Division investigated the allegations of abuse of the victim in February 2013. The 

complaint came as a referral from DCS. The victim’s mother was the one who made the 

original complaint, and it involved two of her children – the seven-year-old victim and 
- 4 -

eighteen-year-old Defendant. The victim’s mother reported that the rape had occurred on 

January 9, 2013. The complaint was made outside of the 72-hour window to obtain a 

sexual assault examination. Sergeant McKinnie reached out to the victim’s mother about 

scheduling a forensic interview with the victim, and she was “[v]ery cooperative.” She 

attempted to speak with the Defendant but was unable to reach him. Sergeant McKinnie

did not ask the victim’s mother about her relationship with the Defendant, but she 

observed that the victim’s mother spoke of the Defendant like “a concerned mom.” 

The victim’s mother testified that she had six children, who were between the ages 

of 12 and 24 at the time of trial. During the time period from December 2012 to January 

2013, the victim’s mother and her children lived with her mother and step-father and then 

moved to another residence with her boyfriend. The Defendant did not live with them 

because he was attending college in Chattanooga, but the victim’s mother believed that 

the Defendant had come home for Christmas break. 

The victim’s mother testified that the victim disclosed the allegations to her at 

some point between December 2012 and January 2013. The victim’s mother called a 

child abuse hotline about “[o]ne to two months” later and thereafter reported the abuse to 

DCS. She remembered that someone came to her house to talk to them and that she took 

the victim to the Child Advocacy Center for counseling on a weekly basis for a time.

The victim’s mother testified that when she was living with her mother and stepfather, she had a bedroom of her own, but the room did not have a door, and her 

boyfriend would frequently spend the night. The victim’s mother acknowledged that she 

originally told DCS that the victim had not seen pornography, but when she learned that 

the victim had, she advised the Child Advocacy Center of such. The victim’s mother 

learned this information because the victim admitted to her that she had watched 

pornography, and the victim’s mother checked the search history on the computer.

The victim’s mother admitted that prior to making the report against the 

Defendant, she was concerned that someone might be molesting the victim and would not 

permit her to spend the night with friends due to suspicions of the victim’s friends’

fathers or grandfathers. She also suspected that her own boyfriend was molesting the 

victim. The victim’s mother did not report any of these concerns. She acknowledged 

that she had suspected that two or three people had molested the victim before she 

reported the allegations against the Defendant. 

The victim testified that she was twelve years old at the time of trial. She did not 

recall where she was living during the time in question. She remembered getting along 

with the Defendant when they lived together and did not remember anything bad 

happening with him. The victim remembered watching the video of her forensic 
- 5 -

interview with the prosecutor a couple of days earlier and recognized herself in the video. 

However, she did not remember having the conversation that occurred on the video or of 

the events discussed during the interview happening. She did not remember going to the 

Child Advocacy Center. On cross-examination, the victim said that in preparing her for 

trial, the prosecutor told her that she needed to remember the things on the video and that 

she needed to tell the truth. The victim acknowledged that she had watched pornography 

when one of her brothers was watching it.

Letitia Cole, a forensic interviewer with the Child Advocacy Center, interviewed 

the victim. Ms. Cole said that the only information she had prior to the interview was the 

allegation and alleged suspect. Ms. Cole authenticated the video of the interview, and it 

was played for the jury. Ms. Cole acknowledged that in the video, the victim stated that 

she had never been touched on her mouth, breasts, vagina or buttocks, and that she had 

never seen a penis. Ms. Cole agreed that the victim was contradictory or confused in 

some parts of the interview. Ms. Cole recalled that when asked how she knew the 

Defendant put his penis in her mouth, the victim said “because God told her and she 

looked down and saw it.” Ms. Cole stated that the victim told her that what took place 

between her and the Defendant was a “game” and that after they finished the “game,” she 

went and played with her parakeet. 

In the video of the forensic interview that was entered into evidence, the victim 

said that the areas of her body that other people were not allowed to touch were her 

buttocks, vagina, mouth and “noobs,” which she identified as her breasts. The victim 

pointed out on the male body that the penis, “noobs,” and ears (because they are dirty) 

should not be touched. She said that she had not seen a boy’s penis, buttocks, or 

“noobs.” 

The victim initially said that no one had touched her on the body parts that she had 

listed as being areas that should not be touched. When asked who she could tell if 

someone did touch her mouth, “noobs,” vagina, or buttocks, she responded that she could 

tell her mother or grandmother. She said that she told her mother and grandmother that 

the Defendant put his “wiener” in her mouth and that she vomited on it. She identified 

the “wiener” as the penis on the diagram of a male body. She said that the Defendant 

told her to come into the bathroom, and he tied something around her eyes. She thought 

the Defendant locked the door. She explained that she looked down from under the 

bottom gap of the blindfold and saw “a fluffy ball,” which she clarified was the 

Defendant’s “wiener.” 

The victim recalled that the Defendant made her kneel and put her hands behind 

her back. She said that he put his finger in her mouth as well as his “wiener.” She knew 

that he put his penis into her mouth because “God told her,” although she clarified that 
- 6 -

she was also able to see by looking down. He told her to suck on his penis as hard as she 

could. She threw up on his penis because it hurt her throat, and the “game was over.” 

The Defendant did not tell her what the game was called. The victim recalled that it felt 

“really, really, really bad.” The victim said that the Defendant always gave her a piece of 

gum when they were finished. She didn’t remember how many times it had occurred but 

thought it happened five times. She said that she told her grandmother about what had 

happened and that she could tell the Defendant not to do it again. 

The victim recalled that the Defendant attended college. She said that he was not 

eighteen; he was an “eight and a zero.” She began to count from eighteen as though she 

was unsure of the number. She remembered that her grandmother, mother, brothers, and

sister were home during the rape. When asked what she was doing in the Defendant’s 

room before he took her into the bathroom, she responded that she was playing with the 

bird. She thought that the last time that the Defendant raped her was “this January.” She 

thought that the current year was 2012. She confirmed that no one else had ever put their 

penis into her mouth and that the Defendant had not put his penis or finger anywhere else 

on her body. 

The victim and Defendant’s grandmother testified that prior to the Defendant’s 

arrest, the victim had never mentioned anything to her about sexual misconduct by the 

Defendant. She recalled that when the victim’s mother and her children lived in her 

home, the bathroom door near the Defendant’s bedroom did not shut or lock due to a 

structural issue. There were five bathrooms in the house, and the other bathrooms had 

doors that locked. She recalled that the family owned a parakeet from February to 

August 2010, but did not have a parakeet in 2012 or 2013. 

The victim and Defendant’s grandmother recalled that the Defendant came home 

for Christmas break in December 2012, but he did not stay in the house because they got 

into a fight when he announced that he had dropped out of college. However, “[h]e came 

back for Christmas” for “about four days[.]” The Defendant also lived with her for “a 

couple weeks” at the end of January and early February until he moved to Montana that 

February. He moved back to Memphis the following December. 

The Defendant testified that he did not sexually penetrate the victim. He recalled 

that he was enrolled in college in Chattanooga until December 2012, and he returned to 

Memphis in the middle of the month after he dropped out. He went to his grandmother’s 

house where his mother and siblings were living, but he did not stay there long because 

he and his grandmother got into a fight about his dropping out of college. He then went 

to his great-grandmother’s house, although he returned to his grandmother’s house for a 

few days at Christmas. He slept in a bedroom downstairs, and his younger siblings slept 

upstairs. He was aware that his mother and siblings moved in January, but he did not 
- 7 -

know the reason why as he was not in the house at the time. The Defendant said that he 

and the victim were as close as siblings normally are prior to the allegations coming out 

against him. 

Following the conclusion of the proof, the jury convicted the Defendant as 

charged of rape of a child. 

ANALYSIS

I. Other Allegations of Sexual Abuse

The Defendant argues that the trial court erred in excluding evidence that the 

victim’s sister had made unrelated accusations of sexual abuse by other individuals that 

DCS did not substantiate to “exemplify and underline the atmosphere of the home the 

victim was raised in.” He asserts that the evidence is relevant to offer an explanation as 

to why the victim would know about sexual things and provide an alternative theory as to 

“why a young child would have enough knowledge to fabricate such a story.” 

During trial, the State requested that the trial court exclude any proof of 

allegations of sexual misconduct made by other family members of the victim as being 

irrelevant. Specifically, the victim’s older sister had made allegations of sexual abuse, by 

someone other than the Defendant, and the victim’s mother had previously reported 

inappropriate conduct by people other than the Defendant. The State did not intend to 

call the victim’s sister as a witness at trial, but it intended to call the victim’s mother.

The defense responded that it wanted to provide an alternate explanation for 

“where did [the things the victim said in the forensic interview] come from if it did not in 

fact occur, where did the seven year old contrive or have this information, these facts.” 

The defense said that it wanted to establish that the victim’s mother ran away from home 

at the age of fifteen, became pregnant, and was subsequently placed in Lakeside hospital 

where she accused a doctor of fondling her. The defense also wanted to show that the 

mother had referred another of her sons for sexual counseling, and that another daughter 

had made three accusations of sexual misconduct by other individuals. The defense 

wanted to argue that the victim’s mother was fixated on sex as it related to her children. 

The victim’s mother testified that she reported the allegations of sexual abuse of

the victim by the Defendant to DCS. She acknowledged that she had previously referred 

another son for counseling for sexual misconduct when he was around twelve years old, 

shortly after she made the complaint to DCS regarding the Defendant. She said that she 

referred that son to counseling because he was watching pornography. The victim’s 
- 8 -

mother stated that in 2015 or 2016, her other daughter, not the victim, accused four 

people of sexual abuse. 

The victim’s mother admitted that, twenty five years ago, around the age of 

eighteen, she ran away from home and became pregnant with the Defendant. She was 

admitted to Lakeside hospital for treatment and, while there, reported that a doctor 

fondled her. The victim’s mother acknowledged that she did not allow her daughter to 

spend the night in the homes of friends out of fear that the fathers and grandfathers were

sexually abusing her. She also did not allow other people, including friends of her 

children, to spend the night in her home for fear that they would sexually abuse her 

children. 

The trial court first looked at the issue under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 608 and 

determined that the victim’s sister’s credibility could be attacked, if she were to testify, 

with questions about the prior allegations as specific instances of bad conduct, but that 

the Defendant would be bound by her answer. The trial court also concluded that the 

Defendant would not be entitled to use extrinsic evidence to prove that the allegations 

were false if the victim’s sister denied that they were false. Tenn. R. Evid. 608(b). The 

trial court also looked at the issue under Tennessee Rule Evidence 404(b) and determined 

that the defense could introduce the evidence if it could prove that the allegations were in 

fact false and that the probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect. The court 

summarized that under both rules, the prior allegations of sexual misconduct were 

irrelevant unless they were false. The court concluded that it did not “have under 608 the 

reasonable factual basis to find that they’re false . . . [or] have under 404 clear and 

convincing evidence that they’re false.” Accordingly, the trial court excluded evidence 

of the victim’s sister’s unrelated complaints of sexual abuse that occurred after the 

victim’s rape.

The Defendant argues that the trial court should not have applied either of the

aforementioned rules in reaching a decision. He asserts that “Rule 608 should not have 

been applied in the court’s ruling . . . [because] [c]ounsel was not requesting to have said 

evidence entered to impeach the mother[.]” The Defendant is correct that Rule 608 

would not apply to the victim’s mother because allegations of misconduct raised by the 

victim’s sister against other people could not be used to impeach the victim’s mother. 

However, we discern no error in the trial court’s preemptive ruling under Rule 608 

addressing the situation if the victim’s sister was to testify. 

The Defendant also asserts that the court should not have applied Rule 404(b)

because the acts at issue were not committed by the Defendant and “Rule 404(b) is 

limited to such evidence relative to the other crimes or acts of the [D]efendant.” The 

Defendant argues that, instead, the trial court should have only reviewed the issue under 
- 9 -

Tennessee Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403 and that under those rules “the testimony 

was relevant, was more probative than prejudicial, and would have been admissible.” 

Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides that “evidence of other crimes, 

wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show 

action in conformity with the character trait.” Such evidence may, however, be admitted 

for other purposes if the following conditions are met prior to admission of this type of 

proof:

(1) The court upon request must hold a hearing outside the jury’s presence;

(2) The court must determine that a material issue exists other than conduct 

conforming with a character trait and must upon request state on the record 

the material issue, the ruling, and the reasons for admitting the evidence;

(3) The court must find proof of the other crime, wrong, or act to be clear 

and convincing; and

(4) The court must exclude the evidence if its probative value is outweighed 

by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b). “Other purposes” have been defined to include the defendant’s 

motive, intent, guilty knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident, a common 

scheme or plan, completion of the story, opportunity, and preparation. See State v. Berry, 

141 S.W.3d 549, 582 (Tenn. 2004). If the trial court substantially complies with the 

procedural requirements, its decision will only be reversed if it “applie[d] an incorrect 

legal standard or its decision is illogical or unreasonable, is based on a clearly erroneous 

assessment of the evidence, or utilizes reasoning that results in an injustice to the 

complaining party.” Wilson v. State, 367 S.W.3d 229, 235 (Tenn. 2012).

In this case, the trial court followed the proper procedures outlined in Rule 404(b) 

and concluded that there was not clear and convincing proof that the victim’s sister had 

made false allegations of sexual abuse. Aside from the Defendant’s vague contention 

during the first hearing on the matter that the unidentified “parties” had denied the 

allegations and that DCS did not find enough evidence to substantiate the claims, he did 

not present any evidence that the allegations were in fact false. This finding justified the 

court’s excluding the evidence under Rule 404(b)(3). The court furthermore properly 

held that such evidence would not be admissible in order to establish a propensity to 

make false allegations of sexual abuse. See Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b)(2). The Defendant’s 

complaint that the trial court should not have applied Rule 404(b) because the acts were 

not committed by him is without merit because Rule 404(b), while previously only 
- 10 -

applying to the accused, now applies to “any individual,” including a witness. Tenn. 

Code Ann. § 24-7-125; see also State v. Devin Buckingham, No. W2016-02350-CCAR3-CD, 2018 WL 4003572, at *14 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 20, 2018), perm. app. denied

(Tenn. Jan. 16, 2019). 

The Defendant contends that the trial court should have only reviewed the issue 

under Tennessee Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403. Rule 401 defines relevant 

evidence as “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of 

consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it 

would be without the evidence.” Tenn. R. Evid. 401. Rule 402 provides that all relevant 

evidence, subject to certain exceptions, is generally admissible. Tenn. R. Evid. 402. 

However, the advisory comment to Rule 402 provides that “[o]nce evidence satisfies the 

definition of relevance, it becomes admissible unless a rule excludes it.” Id. In this case, 

the trial court properly determined that Rule 404(b) excluded evidence of the victim’s 

sister’s unrelated allegations of sexual abuse. In addition, relevant evidence may be 

excluded under Rule 403 if “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger 

of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations 

of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Tenn. 

R. Evid. 403. As discussed, the trial court properly determined that the victim’s sister’s 

allegations of sexual abuse were irrelevant because there was no factual basis to conclude 

that they were false. The Defendant misunderstands the applicability of Rule 404(b) to 

witnesses and his sole reliance on Rules 401, 402, and 403 disregards the applicability of 

that rule. The trial court properly applied the rule and its decision to exclude this 

evidence was appropriate. Furthermore, the Defendant’s argument presupposes that the 

victim’s sister’s allegations were false. Without proof that the allegations were false, the 

fact that the victim’s sister reported sexual abuse by persons other than the Defendant is 

irrelevant. The trial court properly excluded the evidence. 

II. Forensic Interview

The Defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting the recording of the 

victim’s forensic interview. 

The admission of evidence is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court, 

and a trial court’s ruling on evidence will be disturbed only upon a clear showing of 

abuse of discretion. State v. Robinson, 146 S.W.3d 469, 490 (Tenn. 2004). See State v.

DuBose, 953 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tenn. 1997). A trial court’s exercise of discretion will 

only be reversed on appeal if the court “‘applied an incorrect legal standard, or reached a 

decision which is against logic or reasoning that caused an injustice to the party 

complaining.’” Robinson, 146 S.W.3d at 490 (quoting State v. Shuck, 953 S.W.2d 662, 

669 (Tenn. 1997)).
- 11 -

Tennessee Code Annotated section 24-7-123 provides for the admissibility of the 

video recording of a forensic interview of a child under the age of thirteen, during which 

the child described any act of sexual contact performed on or with the child, if certain 

requirements are met. Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-123(a). Relevant to this appeal, the video 

recording “may” be admitted if “[t]he child testifies, under oath, that the offered video 

recording is a true and correct recording of the events contained in the video recording 

and the child is available for cross examination[.]” Id. § 24-7-123(b)(1).

The Defendant asserts that the victim could not have sworn that the recording was 

an accurate depiction of the interview as required by the statute because she testified that 

she did not remember the interview. However, the victim testified that she had recently

watched the video, she recognized herself in the video, and that she was telling the truth 

when she answered the questions on the video, although she could not remember the 

questions and answers at this point in time. The Defendant also argues that the victim 

could not swear to the veracity of the video because she was untruthful in it when she

stated that the Defendant locked the bathroom door, but she testified at the hearing that 

the bathroom door did not lock. At the hearing, the victim testified that she remembered 

talking to defense counsel about her saying in the video that the Defendant would lock 

the bathroom door but that the door, in fact, will not lock. However, she said that she did 

not remember talking about the Defendant locking the bathroom door during the 

interview but that she did not try to lie about anything. A nine year old’s memory two 

years later regarding whether a bathroom door locked hardly discredits her description of 

a sexual assault soon after the incident. 

The trial court found that the victim had satisfactorily testified that the video was a 

true and correct recoding of the events contained in the video. The court elaborated:

She said she told the truth. And she’s available for cross-examination . . . . 

Well, I think that the State has met their burden under 24[-]7[-]123. I think 

the only question we were really interested in was subsection [(b)](1). And,

you know, the child did testify under oath. And she said she told . . . the 

truth in the video. She doesn’t have any independent recollection of that, 

but I think for purposes . . . it doesn’t say in here that she has to remember 

every single thing that she said or did. It just says that she is subject to 

cross-examination, which she was, and that what she told them was the 

truth. So I think . . . for purposes of this, at least the admissibility of it, I 

think the State has met their threshold, so I’m going to allow the evidence

to come in at trial.

The trial court accredited the victim’s testimony on direct examination that she 

had told the truth in the video over her subsequent testimony during the Defendant’s 
- 12 -

assertive cross-examination that she did not remember the interview. The trial court did 

not abuse its discretion in accrediting the victim’s testimony on direct examination and 

admitting the video of the forensic interview. 

III. Sufficiency

The Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. 

In considering this issue, we apply the rule that where sufficiency of the convicting 

evidence is challenged, the relevant question of the reviewing court is “whether, after 

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, 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); see also Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e) (“Findings 

of guilt in criminal actions whether by the trial court or jury shall be set aside if the 

evidence is insufficient to support the findings by the trier of fact of guilt beyond a 

reasonable doubt.”); State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 190-92 (Tenn. 1992); State v.

Anderson, 835 S.W.2d 600, 604 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992).

All questions involving the credibility of witnesses, the weight and value to be 

given the evidence, and all factual issues are resolved by the trier of fact. See State v.

Pappas, 754 S.W.2d 620, 623 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “A guilty verdict by the jury, 

approved by the trial judge, accredits the testimony of the witnesses for the State and 

resolves all conflicts in favor of the theory of the State.” State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 

476 (Tenn. 1973). Our supreme court stated the rationale for this rule:

This well-settled rule rests on a sound foundation. The trial judge and the 

jury see the witnesses face to face, hear their testimony and observe their 

demeanor on the stand. Thus the trial judge and jury are the primary 

instrumentality of justice to determine the weight and credibility to be 

given to the testimony of witnesses. In the trial forum alone is there human 

atmosphere and the totality of the evidence cannot be reproduced with a 

written record in this Court.

Bolin v. State, 405 S.W.2d 768, 771 (1966) (citing Carroll v. State, 370 S.W.2d 523 

(1963)). “A jury conviction removes the presumption of innocence with which a

defendant is initially cloaked and replaces it with one of guilt, so that on appeal a 

convicted defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is insufficient.” 

State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982).

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

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

thirteen (13) years of age.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-522(a). “Sexual penetration” is 
- 13 -

defined as “sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, anal intercourse, or any other 

intrusion, however slight, of any part of a person’s body or of any object into the genital

or anal openings of the victim’s, the defendant’s, or any other person’s body, but 

emission of semen is not required[.]” Id. § 39-13-501(7).

The Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. 

He asserts that the victim’s inability to remember the rape at the time of trial contradicts 

the statements she made during the forensic interview, and that the “two statements 

should cancel each other out.” 

The victim gave a detailed account of the rape in a forensic interview

approximately one to two months after the rape. In the interview, the victim recounted 

that the Defendant took her into the bathroom, blindfolded her, told her to kneel on the 

ground with her hands behind her back, and placed his penis into her mouth. He told her 

to suck on his penis as hard as she could, and she vomited because it hurt her throat. 

After she vomited, the Defendant told her that the “game was over.” The jury was 

presented with the victim’s lack of memory at the time of trial and, by its verdict,

accredited the description of the rape she provided during the interview. The victim’s 

testimony at trial was not “contradictory,” but was simply a lack of memory by a twelve 

year old child trying to recall something that happened five years earlier when she was in 

the first grade. The victim did not testify that the rape did not happen; she only testified 

that she did not remember it. Again, all questions involving the credibility of witnesses, 

the weight and value to be given the evidence, and all factual issues are resolved by the 

trier of fact. See Pappas, 754 S.W.2d at 623. The evidence is sufficient to support the 

Defendant’s conviction for rape of a child.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing authorities and reasoning, we affirm the judgment of the 

trial court. 

____________________________________

 ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE