### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE Fe br ua ry 20, 200 8 S es sio n

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. CH AD LEWIS M ONE TTE

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Houston County

No. 4678 Robert

E. Bu rch, Judge

No. M2006- 02462-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Septem ber 4, 2008

Following a benc h trial in the Houston County Circuit Court, the defe ndant, Chad L ewis Monette,

was c onvicted of one count of a g g ravated s ex u al battery , a Class B f elony , as a le sser-inc luded offe n s e of r ape of

a child. He was subseque ntly sentenc ed to eig ht y ear s in the Depa rtment of Cor re c tio n. On

a pp e a l, t he de fe nd ant c on te nd s th a t hi s c on vic tion s ho uld be re ve rs e d b e c a

us e ag g ravated sexual battery is not a lesser- included off ense of rape of a c hild. He furthe r cha lleng es the a dmi ssi on

and c on side rat io n of c e rt a in t e sti mony and e xhibi ts i ntr od

uc e d a s e vid e nc e a t tr ia l. Following revie w of the r ecor d, we c onclude that a g g ravated sexual battery is a lesser- included offe nse of r ape of

a child; thus, no err or occ urre d in the conviction. Wit h reg ard to the e videntiary iss ue s, we c on c lud e tha

t th e de fe nd ant h a s w a ive d c on sid e ratio n o f t he iss ue s b y

his fa ilure to

c on te mpo ra

ne ou sly ob je c t a t tr ia l, h is f

ail ure to ra ise the iss ue s in his mot ion

fo r n e w t ri a l, o r h is failure to cite to leg al authority on appea l. B eca

use the alleg ed evidentiar y issues do not rise to the level of pla in error , we de cline re view. Ac cording ly , the judg ment of convic tion is affirmed
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., and D AVI D G. H AYES , S R

. J ., joined.

J im Sowell, Dickson, Tennessee , for the a ppellant, Chad L ewis Monette.
Robert E. Cooper, J r. , Attorney Gene ral a

nd Reporter ; Cameron L . Hy der, A ssistant Attorney Gene ral; Da

n Mitchum Alsobrooks, District Attorney Gene ral; and Carey J . Thompson, Assistant District Attorney

Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

F ac tu al B ac kgr ound

I n 1994, th e d e f

e n d an t a n d h is w if e , w h o w e r e h o me le s s , b e g anli v in g w it h th e v ic ti m’ s family and continued to do so “off and on” for seve ral y ear s. L iving in the home at the time were-2-

the victim, her pare nts, a

nd her two sisters. The victim’s mother hired the defe ndant’s wife to work

as a housekee per, and, acc ording to the victim, the defe ndant often baby sat the thr ee ch i l d ren. During th e ir s ta

y , th e d e f e n d an t’ s w if

e b e g an h a v in g an a f

f a ir w it h th e v ic ti m’ s f

a th e r , and the victim’s mother left the home in 1998. The victim and her two sisters went bac k and for th betwee n their par ents’ two hou s eh o l d s . During this period, the three ref err ed to the def

endant’ s wife a s “daddy ’s g irlfriend.” Testimony established that the de fenda nt’s wife a

nd the victim’s fathe r slept in the bedroom, and the defendant, who continued li ving with them, slept on the couc h in the living

room.

Acc ording to the victim, the inappropriate conduct by the def endant st ar t ed when she was

seven or eigh t y ea rs o ld. She stated that he would touch he r “bottom” a nd that he tried

unsucce ssfully

to put his “private par

t” inside her. She te stified reg ardinga specific incident, which

occur red in August of 2003, during which she was in the living room play ing vide o g ames a

nd the defe ndant aske d her to lie be side him on the couch. Acc ording to the victim, the defe ndant touched her va g ina and trie d unsucce ssful l y t o p u t h is “private pa rt” in her vag ina. She informed the defe ndant’s wife what had oc curr ed bec ause she “couldn’ t take it any more,” but nothing wa s done about the def

endant’ s conduct.
Approxim ately

one month later, the victim visi ted he r mo ther for

the wee kend and w as ac ting “withdra wn.” Her mother became conce rned and beg an questioni ng her, a nd the victim “opene d up” to her mother a

bout the defe ndant’s ac ts. Her mother contac ted the author ities, and the victim, along wi th h e r t wo sis te rs , w a s in te rv ie we d. Th e vic tim , ag e tw e lve a t the tim e , wa s inte rv ie we d b y Da vid Hicks and B onnie B igg s, and she infor med them what the de fenda nt had done.
A Houston Country

g rand jury

subsequently indicted t he def endant f or four counts of ra

pe of a child, and a bench trial was he ld. Be cause of conf licts in the proof pre sented, the State e lected to proce ed on only

one count of

ag g ravated sexual battery

. Be cause jeopar dy had attache d, the trial court found the defe ndant not g uilty of three counts of rape of a child but g uilty of ag g ravated sexual battery , as a le sser-inc luded offe nse of r ape o f a child, in Count 4. The c ourt then sentenc ed the defe ndant to a ter

m of eig ht y ear s, to be serve d at one hundr ed perce n t , i n t h e De partment of Correc tion. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, the defe ndant filed a timely notice of appea l.

Ana lys is

On a p p e a l , t h e d e f

e n d an t r a i s e s m u l t i p l e i s s u e s f o r o ur r e v i e w

. F i r s t , h e c o n t e n d s t h a this conviction should be re verse d beca use ag g ravated sexual battery is not a lesser- included off

ense of rape of a c hild. He also ra ises five e videntiary issues for re view.

I. Le sse r -i nc lude d Offe nse
First, the defe ndant contends that his c onviction f or ag g ravated sexual battery s h o u l d be

reve rsed beca u s e itis not a lesser- included off ense of the indicted off

ense of rape of a c hild.-3-

Specifica lly , he conte nds that the eleme nts of aggr av ated sex ual batter y are not included in the elements of rape of a child and that the mental state of a defe ndant who commits ag g ravated sexual battery is not less culpable than one who commits rape of a child.

I n State v. Burns , 6 S.W .3d 453, 466-67 (Te nn. 1999), our supre me cour t set forth the c urre nt test for de termining if an off ense is a le sser-inc luded. Pursuant to Burns , an o f f e nse is a lesser

included off

ense if: (a ) a ll o f its st atut or

y e le me nts are inc lud e d w ith in t he statut or

y e le me nts of

the of fe ns e char g ed; or (b) it fails to meet the def inition i n part (a ) only

in the re s p ec t t h at i t contains a statutory element or

elements e stablishing (1) a differ ent mental state indicating a lesser kind of c ulpability ; and/or (2) a less serious harm or risk of har m to the same per son, proper ty or public intere st; or (c) it consists of (1) fac ilitation of the offense char g ed or of an off ense that otherwise me ets the def inition of lesser -included in pa

rt (a) or (b) ; or (2) an attempt to commit th e off ense c harg ed or a

n offe nse that otherw ise meets the definition of lesser -included of fense in part (a ) or ( b); or (3) solicitation to c o m m i t the offe nse cha rg ed or a n offe nse that otherw ise meets the definition of lesser -included of fense in part (a ) or ( b). Burns , 6 S.W .3d at 466-67.
Rape of a child is de fi n ed as “t h e unlawful sexual penetration of a victim” under thirtee n y ear s of age

. T.C.A. § 39-13-522( a) ( 2006). B y contra st, ag g ravated sexual battery require s unlawful sexua l c o n ta c t w it h a v ic ti m l e s s th anth ir

te e ny e ar s o f

a g e

. T

. C. A

. § 3 9

- 1 3

- 5 0 4 ( a ) ( 4) (2 00 6) . U nla

wf ul s e xua l c on ta c t in c lud e s “ the int e nti on a l tou c hin g of the vic tim ’s , th e de fe nd a nt’ s, or any other pe rson’s intimate par ts, or the intentional touching of the c lothing cove ring the immediate ar ea of

the victim’s, the def

endant’ s, or any

other pe rson’s intimate par ts, if that intentional touching c an be r easona bly construed a s being for the pur pose of se x ual ar o u sal or g ratification.” T.C.A. § 39-13-501( 6) (2006)

.
Th e de fe nd ant’ s argume nt i n th is c a se ig no re s e sta bli sh e d p re c e de nt w hic h h a s r e pe a te dly held that, when the v ictim is l ess than thirtee n y ear s of ag e, ag g ravated sexual batteryis a lesserincluded offense of rape of a c hild. I n State v. Elkins , our supreme court spec ifically rec og nized that ag g ravated sexual battery was a lesser- included offe nse of rape of a child. 83 S. W

. 3 d 7 0 6 , 713 (Ten n. 20 02 ); see also State v. E vans , 1 08 S.W. 2d

23 1, 23 7 ( Te nn . 2 00 3) ; State v. Biggs , 218 S.W. 3d 64 3, 65 7 ( Te nn . Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ). I n dir e c t c on tr ave nti on of the de fe nd ant’ s argume nt, thi s court ha s held that aggr av at ed sexual battery is a lesser- included off

ense unde r par

t (b)(1) of the Burns test beca

use a defe ndant’s “intent to touc h a victim’s intimate parts for the purpose of sexual

ar o u s al co n s t i tu t es a me n t al s t at e re fl ec t i n g a le s s er d egr ee o f c u l p ab i l i t y

t h an t h e r ec k l es s , kn o wi n g, or i ntentional commission of sex ual penetration for any rea son.” Sta te v . Ch este r W ay ne W alt e rs , No. M2003-03019-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 Te nn. Crim. App. L EXI S 1052 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Na sh vil le , N ov . 3 0, 20 04 ). I n th is c a se , th e vic timwa s und e r t hir te e n y e ars of

a g e wh e n th e c ri me-4-

occur red. Thus, the defe ndant’s arg ument is without m erit, and his convic tion for ag g ravated sexual battery , as a le sser-inc luded offe nse, wa s proper

.
II. Evid entiary Issues

Next, the defendant raises a my riad of evidentiar

y issues. First, he a lleg es that the testimony of David Hicks, the investig ator who inter viewed th e victim , as we ll as the memorandum r eport prepa red of the interview , should have be en excluded as he arsa y beca use Hick s h ad no persona l kn ow le dg e of

the fa c ts c on ta ine d in

the me mor and

um. Se c on d, he c on te nd s tha t the c ourt e rr e d in failing to voir dire the twelve- y ear -old victim a nd her nine-y ear -old sister prior to their testimony at tr ia l to e ns ur e the ir

un de rst and in g o f the oath. Th ir d, the de fe nd ant a lle g e s th a t th e c ourt e rr e d in g ivi ngc on sid e ratio n to the te sti mony of the vic tim ’s sis te r b e c a

us e sh e wa s n ot a c re dib le wi tne ss based upon he r fa ilure to ac curately rec all events. The defe ndant also cha lleng es the a dmission of the tape of

the interviewwith the victim, asserting it was introduced wi thout foundation or authentication in violation of Tennesse e Rule of Evide nce 901. F inally , he conte nds that the court

e r r e d i na l l o w i n g p o rt i o n s o f t h e c r o s s
- e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e d e f e n d an t ’ s w i f

e b e c a u s e i tw a s h e a r s a y.

On a pp e a l, t he State argue s th a t th e de fe nd ant h a s w a ive d r e vie w o f t he se iss ue s b y

bo th h is failure to c ontemporane ously object at trial and his f ailure to inc lude the issues in his motion for new trial. The State f

urther c ontends that the issues ar e not prope r for plain err or re view. We ag ree

.
Re view of the rec ord bef

ore us indicates that the def endant did not contempor aneously object to t he a dmi s s i o n o f t h e c h a l l e n g e d t e s t i m o n y o r e xh i b i t s d u r i n g t r i a l

. I n f

a c t , w i t h r e g a rd

to

memora ndum report pr epar ed by Hicks, it was the de fenda nt’s own trial counse l who moved for admission. Pursuant to the rules of o u r co urt, the fa ilure to object c ontemporane ously to the admission of evidenc e constitutes waive r. Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a ) (not hing in the r ule shall be construed a s requiringrelief be g rante d to a par

ty re s p o n s i ble for a

n err or or who f

ailed to take wh a te ve r a c tio n w a s r e a so nab ly avai labl e to p re ve nt o r n ull if y the ha rm fu l e ff e c t of an e rr or ); see
a l s o S t a t e v. T

hompson , 3 6 S

. W

. 3 d

1 0 2 , 1 0 8 ( T e n n

. C r i m

. A p p

. 2 0 0 0 ) ( “ T h i s c o u rti s e xtr e m e ly hesitant to p u t a trial c ourt in err or whe re its alleg ed shortcominghas not bee n the subject of a contempora

neous objec tion”).

L ikewise, the defe ndant also failed to include any of the c halleng ed issues in his motion for new tria l, in which he challeng ed only the sufficie ncy of the convicting evidenc e. As such, the issues have not been preser

ved for appellate revie w. See Tenn. R. A pp. P. 3( e) (stating that “in all ca ses tried by a jury , no issue prese nted for r eview sha ll be predic ated upon e rror in the admission or

e xclu sio n o f evid ence , . . . un le ss t he same wa s sp e c if

ic a lly state d in a mot ion fo r a ne w tri a l; oth e rw ise su c h is su e s w ill be tr e a te d a s w a ive d” ); se e als o S tat e v . M ar tin , 9 4 0 S. W. 2 d 5 6 7 , 569 (Tenn. 1997) (holding that a def endant r elinquishes the r i gh t t o ar gu e on appe al any issues which sh ou ld h a ve be e n p re se nte d in a mot ion fo r n e w tri a l) ; State v. Dodson , 780 S.W .2d 778, 780 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1989).-5-

Finally , with reg ard to the issues r eg arding the testimony of David Hicks, the testimony of the vic tim ’s sis te r, and the c ro ss- e xami natio n of the de fe nd ant’ s wi fe , the de fe nd ant h a s f a ile d to c ite to a ny leg al authority in suppor t of his contentions. Thus, those issues are waived upon that gr ound

as we ll. See Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a) (7); Te nn. Ct. Crim . App. R. 10(b).

Des p it e w a iv e r

b y th e d e f e n d an t, w e n o te th a t “ ane r r o r w h ic h h a s a f

f e c te d th e s u b s ta ntial rig hts of an ac cused ma

y be noticed a

t a ny time, e ven though not r aised in the motion for ne w trial or assig ned as e rror

on appea l,” if the a

ppellate c ou rt co n s i d ers such notice “ne cessa ry to do

su bs tanti a l ju sti c e .” Te nn . R. Cr im. P. 52 (b ). I n c on du c tin g a pla in e rr or re vie w, a c ourt wi ll r e ve rs e fo r p la in e rr or

on ly if : (a ) T he re c or d .

. . c le arl y e sta bli sh [es ] wh a t oc c ur

re d in the tr ia l c ourt ; (b) a clea r and une quivocal rule of law [has] been bre ache d; (c) a substantial rig ht of the ac cused [has] been adve rsely aff ecte d; (d) the a ccuse d did not waive the issue f or tac tical re asons; and (e) considera

tion of the err or is “nec essar y to do substantial just ice.” Sta te v . S mi th , 2 4 S

. W

. 3 d 2 7 4 , 2 8 2 (T en n

. 2 0 0 0 ) ( qu o t i n g State v. Adk isson , 899 S.W .2d 626, 641-42 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) ). The appellate court need not c onsider all five fac tors if it determines that any single fac tor indicates that r elief is not war rante d. Id . at 28 3. Furt he rm or e , f or thi s c ourt

to

reve rse the judgme nt of the trial court, the “‘pla in e rror ’ must [have been] of such a g reat mag nitude that it pr obably chang ed the outcome of the trial,” a nd “re cog nition shoul d be limited to error s that had an unf

air pre judicial impact which unde rm i n ed the fundamental fa irness of the tr ial court.” Adkisson , 899 S.W .2d at 642. Moreove r, it is the defe ndant, not the State, who bea rs the burde n of demonstrating plain err or. State v. Gome z , 239 S.W .3d 722, 727 (Tenn. 2007) ( Gomez I I ).

After revie w, we c annot conc lude t h at t h e allege d evidentiar y err ors complained of

by the defe n d an t ri s e t o the level of plain err or. This court ha s held that “ra rely will plain error

revie w extend to an evidentiary

issue.” Sta te v

. Ri c k

yE. Sc ov ill e , No. M2006-01684-CCA-R3-CD, 2007 Tenn. Crim. App. L EXI S 711 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Sept. 11, 2007). The defe ndant has failed to c arr

y his burden of showingthat con s i d er ati on of the a lleg ed er rors a re “ nece ssary

to do substantial justi ce” in this case. Ac cording ly , we do not extend revie w.

CO NC LU SION

Ba sed upon the for eg oing, the conviction for a g g ravated sexual battery is affirme d.

___________________________________ J OHN EV ERETT WI L L I AMS, J UDGE