### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A pr il 18, 200 6 S es sio n
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. AL BER T R . N EESE

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 2003-C- 2017 Monte Wat kin s, Jud ge

No. M2005- 00752-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Dece m ber 15, 2006

The de fendant, Albert R. Nee se, appe als from jury convictions of two counts of ag g ravated sexual battery and two counts of rape of a child. The defenda nt also appea ls the impositi on of conse cutive sentenc es which tota l ed twenty -eig ht y ear s. The issues on appe al include c halleng es to the admissibili ty

of a vide otaped inter view of the seve n-y ear -old victim, the defe ndant’s pastor’ s report to the police, and the victim’s statement to a social wor ker for medica l diag nosis and treatment. The

rema ining issues a

re the propriety of t he jury instructions as t o the mens re a ele ments of child ra pe and the p r o p r ie ty o f c o n s e c u ti v e s e n te n c e s

. H a v in g f o u n d n o r e v e r s ib le e rr o r , w e a f f ir m the judgme nts of conviction and se ntence as imposed.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON , P.J ., joined. D AVI D H. W EL L ES , J ., filed a se parate opinion.

David L . Ray

bin and Will iam Br

uce, N ashville, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Albert Ray

Nee se.

Pa u l G

. Su mm e r s , A tt o rn e y

Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Preston Shipp, Assi stant Attorney Gene ral; Victor S. ( To rry ) J oh nson , I I I , D ist ri c t A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; a ndB e rn ardMc Ev oy a ndJenn if

e r T a c ke tt, Assistant District Attorney s Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

Th e de fe nd a nt, a t tria l, f

a c e d in dic tme nt on char ge s o f a g g ra vate d s e xua l batte ry (C la ss B felony ) i n counts one, three, and five, and rape of a child (Class A fe lony ) in counts two and f our. A jury convicted the defe ndant on all counts as cha rg ed. At sente ncing , the trial court dismi ssed the ag g ravated sexual battery

in c ount thr ee and imposed an e ffe ctive twenty -eig ht-y ear sentenc e on the

rema ining c oun t s

. E i gh t concur rent y ear s on eac h conviction of a g g ravated sexual battery and twenty concur rent y ear s on eac h rape of a child conviction, wit h the two g roups to run conse cutive, constituted the total sentence imposed.O ur cour t ’ s pol i cy i s t o re f r ai n f r om publ i s hi ng t he names of mi nor vi ct i ms of

s exu al abus e. 1

-2- Th e de fe nd a nt a

pp e a ls h is c on vic tio ns a ndse nte nc e , r a isi ng the fo llo wi ng iss ue s: 1. Whether t he admissi on of an ex-parte video rec ording of t he victim was in er ror:
a. As violating the defe ndant’s rig ht to c onfrontation under the Tenne ssee a nd the Un ite d St a te s Co ns tituti on s, b. As failing to qualify

as an e x ception to t h e gen era l prohibition of hear say t e s t i m o n y,
c

. As vio l a t i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s r i g h tt o a

f a i r tr i a l u n d e r

t h e d u e p r o c e ss provisions of the United States Constitut ion; 2. Whe the r the de fe nd a nt’ s p a sto r’ s “ re po rt to the po lic e ” c on sti tut e d in a dmi ssi ble h e ar s a y; 3. Whe t h er a licensed c linical social worke r’s testimony of the victim’s hea

rsay statements was a dmissibl e; 4. Whether the trial c ourt err ed in its instructions a s to the mens rea elements of child rape ; and 5. Whether the trial court properly imposed consec utive sentenc es under Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ction 40-35-115( b)5 and the United States Constit ution.

This c ase conce rns char g es ag ainst the defe ndant for sexual a buse of his step-g randdaug hter, C.C. On J une 14, 2003, the victim’s mother, Ma lina Shannon, had re tur n ed t o the def endant’ s 1 house unexpectedly early from an err and. At the time, the def endant wa s the only

adult prese nt and was ba by sitti ng for Mrs. Shannon’ s four c hildren. The children then ra ng ed in ag e fr om six months to seven y ear s, which wa s the ag e of the victim. Mrs. Shannon’s hus band, W ilson Shannon, was the

on ly c hil d o f the de fe nd a nt’ s wi fe , Athe na

. Th e Sha nn on s, a t that tim e , liv e d inNe w Joh ns on vil le bu t f re qu e ntl y vis ite d inthe de fe nd a nt’ s h ome in N a sh vil le on we e ke nd s. On thi s o c c a sio n, Mr s. S h an n o n ’s v eh i cl e h ad b ro k en d o w n t w o b l o ck s aw ay , an d s h e r et u rn ed t o t h e h o u s e b y u s i n g a
c hil d’ s sc oo te r. She state d th a t th e c hil dr e n insi de the ho us e we re c rying . M rs . Sh a nn on sa w C .C. sitti ng on a scr ap of c arpe t in the car port with her panties down t o her ankles. A male dog , Boo, w as in close proximi ty wi th its genitals showing signs of arousa l. The def

endant wa s standing ne arby and in the a c t o f

f a s te n in g h is s h o r ts

. M r s

. Sh a n n o n f ir s t w e n t t o th e v ic ti m t o c ar e f o r h e r

. T he de fe nd a nt i mme diate ly

we nt i ns ide the ho us e wi tho ut c omm e nt. Mr s. Sha nn on we nt ins ide a lso to call the defe ndant’s wife and tell he r to r eturn home. Mr. Shannon happe ned to ca ll then and was told to come there by

hi s wi fe

. Mrs. Shannon went ba ck outside and f ound the victim with her pa nti e s d ow n a g a in andthe do g , B oo , lic kin g he r pu bic are a . M rs . Sh a nn on e xpla ine d to the vic tim that this behavior wa s inappropriate. She also questioned t he victim as t o what the de fendant had done.

When the defe ndant’s wife and Mr. Shannon returne d, Mrs. Shannon related what she had seen. The Shannons and their c hildren then lef t t h e d ef en d an t ’s re sidence . On J une 16, the fo llo wi ng Mo nd a y , Mrs . Sha nn on re po rt e d the inc ide nt to Na sh vil le Me tr o Polic e . Sh e sp ok e wi th D e t e c t i v e G r a n tC arr o l l , w h o s c h e d u l e d a n i n t e r v i e w o f t h e v i c t i ma t N a s h v i l l e C h i l d A d v o c a c y.-3-

De te c tiv e Carr oll a sk e d M rs . Sha nn on to we ar a wi re le ss t rans mit te r andto c on fr on t th e de fe nd a nt. S h e d i d t h i s o n J u n e 2 3

. T h e t ap e d c o n v e r s a t i o n w a s p l a ye d f o r t h e j u r y.

Mrs. Shannon described the defe ndant’s backy ard as conta ining a n above g round swimming pool and a sauna re fer

red to a s the smokehouse.

On c ro ss- e xami natio n, sh e a dmi tte d th a t sh e ha d in sti tut e d a c ivi l su it a g a ins t th e de fe nd a nt, seeking two milli on dollars i n d am ages. Mrs. Shannon also stated that she ha d not seen the de fe nd a nt d o a nythi ng ina pp ro pria te to the vic tim

.
Jame s Ro c ke y , inJune 20 03 , w a s th e pa sto r at the c hu rc h a tte nd e d by the de fe nd a nt andhis wife. O n J une 15, P as t o r Rockey was c onsulted by

the def endant a nd his wife. The defe ndant exhibi ted tear s and appe are d distraug ht to Pastor Rockey . I n their mee ting a fter the churc h service , t h e d e f e n d a n tt o l d P a s t o r

R o c k e y th a t h e h a d s i n n e d a g a i n s tG o d , h i s c h u r c h , h i s w i f e , a n d h i s f

a m i l y. The de fendant relate d that on that wee kend he had seen the ir dog licking the victim’s privates and that he too licked her. The de fendant also stated that in 2002, possiblyin November , he had touc hed the victim. Th e p as t o r di d not inquire furthe r. L ater , Pastor Rockey reported the incident to the Depa rtment of Children’s Ser vices.

The victim was eig ht y ear s old at the time of the def endant’ s trial. C.C. testi fied how she had allowed Boo, the dog , to lick he r vag ina, which she ref err ed to as “ her private.” T he def endant ha d wi tne sse d a n in c ide nt o f this ty pe pr e vio us ly

a ndtol d h e r he wo uldke e p it a se c re t. S he state d th a t,
on a no the r occa sio n, the de fe nd a nt h a d a llo we d th e do g to l ic k th e de fe nd a nt’ s p e nis . T he vic tim described another

incident when she and the defe ndant wer e in the smokehouse, and the def endant touched he r vag ina. She used dolls to demonstrate the touc hing and said it happene d m ore tha n once. T he victim related another incident wher ein she a nd t h e d ef endant r ubbed their e x posed privates tog ether . The victim furthe r testified that on a nother oc casion she ha d touched the defe ndant’s exposed “private” while they wer e in the s mokehouse. The victim stated that she ha d sug g est e d th e y to u c h p r iv a te s , a n d th e d e f e n d a n t a g r e e d

. T h e v ic ti m s a id s h e li k e d d o ing “ bad touches” with “Paw Paw” (the de fendant) but did not li ke to g et caug ht. She said she locked the smokehouse door to avoid being caug ht. The victim ne x t r elated that on one occ asion she re clined on the benc h in the smokehouse while the de fendant licked her private w hile supporting himself on his ha nd s a ndkn e e s. On a no the r o c c a sio n, the vic tim state d tha t she lic ke d the de fe nd a nt’ s p ri vate while s tanding on a bench in the smokehouse. The victim reca lled another incident when she was sitti ng with the defe ndant in the swing in the back y ard. Sh e s t at ed t h at t here was a blanket over the m a ndthat th e de fe nd a nt f e lt h e r p ri vate un de r the blank e t bu t on top of he r c lothin g . T he vic tim next described the e vents on the d ay t h at her mother discovere d the victim with the dog and the defe ndant. She said the de fendant was in the swing , watching her and “sort of g uarding [her].” The victim said that the defe ndant had bent down and touched her private from his seate d position i n the

s wi n g.-4-

I n cross-e x amination, the victim was a sked about the numbe r of times she ha d talked to the individuals int ervie wing her a nd the two prosec uting attorney s. Other questions wer e related to the events she ha d described during direc t examination.
Holly e Ga llion was a pediatric nurse prac titioner at Our Kids Center who had e x amined the vic tim fo r e vid e nc e of

se xua l a bu se . M s. Ga lli on wa s r e c og nize d b y the tr ia l c ou rt

a s a n e xpe rt

in the fi e ld of diag no sis a ndtr e a tme nt o f c hil d s e xua l a bu se . M s. Ga lli on te sti fi e d th a t Ph y lli s Th omp so n, a so c ia l w or

ke r, ha d d on e the ini tia l in te rv ie w w ith the famil y a ndvic tim

in o rd e r t o obtain the history

of the c omplaint. Ms. Gallion perf ormed the g enital ex am based on the alleg ations contained in the history

. The examination, performed with a culpasc ope, proved to be normal. She state d th a t le ss tha n s e ve n pe rc e nt of e xami natio ns pr od uc e ph y sic a l e vid e nc e of se xua l a bu se . M s. Gallion stated that her

results neither c onfirmed nor denied a ctual sexual abuse.
Phy llis Thomps on serve d as a lice nsed clinica l social worke r at Our Kids Center. She ha d taken the victim’s history as related by the victim and her

family . This information was then g iven to the pe diatr ic ia n o r l ic e ns e d n ur se pr a c tit ion e r w ho pe rf orme d th e ph y sic a l e xami natio ns . M s. Thompson relate d the incidents told to her by the victim. These include d the defendant touching the victim’s privates by

hand, the last time being the pre vious Saturday , J u n e 1 4

. T h e defenda nt’s tongue touched t h e v i ct i m ’s private more than once . The de fendant’s private ha d touched the victim’s. The victim had touche d the def endant’ s penis both by

hand and mouth. Ms. Thompson admitted that, in gathering a history , the model used in questioni n g chil dren inc luded the use of leading questions at times.

Gra nt Carr o l l wa s , in J une 2003, a de tective with the Youth Ser vices Division of Metro Nashville Police. Afte r re ceiving Mrs. Sh annon’s r eport a lleg ing se x ual abuse of her daug hter, De te c tiv e Carr oll sc he du le d an int e rv ie w of the vic tim by Ms. Pa m Sc re tc he ns of

Na sh vil le Chi ld Advoca cy Center. He explained that the police used this ag ency for inter viewing children due to the expertise require d. Over the defendant’s objection, the vi deo-r ecor ded intervie w of the vic tim was play ed for

the jury . Detec tive Carroll h ad eq u i p p ed Mrs. Shannon with a wire transmitter for her meeting with the defe ndant on J une 23. Detective Carroll interviewe d the defendant pe rsonally on J une 25 and a

udio-rec orded the conver sation. During the interview the def endant a dmitted to li cking the vic tim on he r “ bu tt ch e e ks ” on June 14

. Th e de fe nd a nt sa id h e ha d s e e n th e do g lic k th e vic tim

on sever al occ asions. He state d that he had once rubbed the victim ag ainst him in response to one of the victim’s questions. The de fendant relate d how the vi ct i m h ad once jumped in his lap and kissed him and he had c orrect ed h er

. The de fendant also told of a g ame he and the victim play ed simula ti n g th e v ic ti m h a v in g “ k itte n s ” a s h e p u s h e d o n h e r ab d o me n

. T h e d e f

e n d a n t d enied

a lle g a tio ns of

abu se or of se xua l g ratif

ic a tio n mo tiv e s.

After rea ding an elec tion of offe nses, the State re sted.

The de fense ’s only

witness was the de fendant. He re counted the events of J une 14, say ing t h a th e w e n to u t s i d e a n d s a w t h e d o g l i c k i n g t h e v i c t i m

. T h e v i c t i ma s k e d th e d e f e n d a n tt o p l a y. The de fendant stated t hat he was concerned with g etting back to the y oung er c hildren in the house.-5-

Th e de fe nd a nt s a id that in a laps e of jud g me nt, he ha d kiss e d th e vic tim ’s “ bu tt. ” When Mr s. Sha nn on re turne d, he wa s me re ly bu tto nin g a

top bu tt on on his sh orts that ha bitua lly be c a me unbuttoned. He state d that this was the ac count he c onvey ed to his pastor. He denied any other form of inappropriate beha vior on his part and sa id he neve r wa s undressed o u t side the house. The defe ndant said that Wilson and Malina S h an n o n h ad filed a civil suit aga inst him for two million dollars. He a lso stated that Mrs. Shannon had sent a n email messag e of the alleg ations to his church.

An a ly sis

Admission of Video Recor ding

Th e vid e o r e c or din g in que sti on wa s of an int e rv ie w of the vic tim by Ms. Pa m Sc re tc he ns , an employ ee o f Na s h ville Chil d Advoca cy Center. Ac cording to Detec tive Gra nt Carroll, the Nashville Metro Police Depa rtment relied on this a g ency for their fore nsic interviews of

children. Th e int e rv ie w too k pla c e in a c omf orta ble se tti ng , anda

larg e blank

pa pe r o n a n e a se l w a s p re se nt. The intervie wer

used this aid in having the victim relate her a ccount of past incidents of a

buse. The interview was approx imately one hour in duration. The victim essentially repe ated the a lleg ations contained in he r trial testimony with some additional elabor ations. The video w as admitted by the trial court on the g rounds that the def endant ha d att ac ked the victim’s cr edibility . The video w as admitted as a prior consistent statement to re habilitate the victim’s cr edibility

. T h e jury was instructed that the evidenc e was only for assessing the victim’s cre dibilit y and wa s not substantive evidenc e. The video was shown to the jury during the testimony

of De tective Car

roll. The jury reque sted to see the vide o ag ain during its deliberations, and the tria l court complied, a g ain g iving the same a ccompa ny ing instruc tion.

Th e de fe nd a nt f

ir st a sse rt s th a t th e e vid e nc e vio la te d his rig ht of c on fr on ta tio n p ur su a nt t o Cr aw ford v. W ashing ton, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. C t. 1354 (2004). The Supreme Court held that tes t i m o n i al s t at em en t s ar e a d m i s s i b l e o n l y wh en th e d ec l ar an ti s u n av ai l ab l e a n d where the de fenda nt has had a prior opportunity

to cross-e x am i n e. I d

. , 541 U.S. at 59. Testimonial evidence was not fully define d, but the court observed that an acc user’ s formal statement to a g overnme nt office r wa s testimonial. I d. at 51. Under the fa ct s o f t h i s case wher ein the questioning of the victim was perf ormed by a surr og ate of

the police, the statement would be testimonial. Howe ver, w e conc lude that the def

endant is not entitled to relief . The de fendant had, prior to the introduction of the video,

cross-e x amined the victim a nd could have rec alled the victim f or examination as to the content of the re cording

. The fac ts he rein do not pr esent an occa sion of unavailability which would ca ll for the confr ontation protections protec ted by Crawf ord.

The de fendant contends that S t ate v. Pi lkey , 776 S.W .2d 943 (Tenn. 1989) , and State v. Deuter , 839 S.W .2d 391 (Tenn. 1992) , support his contention that the ex-parte vide o violated the ri g ht o f c on fr on ta tio n. We be lie ve that Pil ke y a ndDe ute r a

re dis tin g uis ha

ble fr om the ins ta nt c a se in that in both cases the objectionable testi mony was introduce d as substantive evide nce a s opposed to the prese nt case

. No i n s t ru ction conce rning the use of the evidenc e wa s provided in Pilkey or Deuter unlike the proc edure followed in the pre sent ca se.-6-

The de fendant next asserts that the vi deo int ervie w consti tuted “bolstering ” of the victim’s testimonyin the absenc e of any attack on the victim’s cre dibilit y . The State re sponds by arg uing that the victim’s cre dibilit y

was attacked and that the video wa s introduced not as substantive e vidence b u tt o s h o w a

p r i o r c o n s i s t e n ts t a t e m e n ti n s u p p o rto f t h e v i c t i m ’ s t e s t i m o n y.

Th e de fe nse ado pt ed b y

the de fe nd a nt w a s th a t th e y ou ng vic tim , in he r d e sir e to p le a se adults, had been prog rammed to re cite a litany of alleg ations ag ainst the defe ndant. This theory was broac hed initially

by questions during jury voir dire. The prospec tive jury members we re que stioned by the defendant’s counsel as to whether they believed a child would make e x cuses if c aug ht by her mother doing something w rong

. Other repr esentative questions w ere : “Do y ou think children ar e impressionable? Do y ou think they will say things, what people want them to say ? ”’ “ There is a fine line betwee n prepa

ration and prog ramming

. Would y ou ag ree ? ” and “ Do y ou think it i s possible that a child could be encour ag ed to say something that isn’t true to please somebody ? ” In questioning an individual juror who ha d been a teac her, c ounsel asked the juror if he ever had c hildren who “made things up to plea se their pa rents.”

I n opening s t at ements, the de fendant’s counsel told the jury that they must decide if the

v i c t i mwa s t el l i n g t h e t ru t h o r m ak i n g s o m et h i n g u p d u e t o b ei n g ca u gh ti n t er ac t i n g wi t h t h e d o g. Also, in openi n g s tate me n ts , c o u n s e l t o ldth e ju r y th e y mu s t d e c id e if

th e v ic ti m h a d b e en pr og ramme d th ro ug h th e int e rv ie ws a ndthe pr os e c uto rs ’ p re pa ri ng he r f or tr ia l.

The de fendant’s counsel pursue d this theme during cross-e x amination of the State’s witnesses. During the cr oss-examination of the victim’s mother , she was asked the fre quency of the victim’s visit s to Our Kids Center, N ashville Child A d v o ca cy C en t er, a nd the Rape and Sex ual Abuse Center . The victim’s mother wa s als o questioned about he r civil suit seeking two milli on do lla rs in d a ma g e s f

ro m th e de fe nd a nt f

or his abu se of

the vic tim

. Phy lli s T ho mps on , th e c lin ic a l so c ia l w or ke r at O ur K id s Ce nte r, wa s th or ou g hly c ro ssexamined by

the def endant’ s counsel as to he r protocol in int ervie wing , including the use of lea ding qu e sti on s to fo c us the vic tim

.
The for ensic intervie w videotape was a dmitted by the trial cou rt d u ri ng the testimony of Detec tive Carroll. The trial court re lied on his finding that “ to some deg ree , [ t h e v ictim] was impeache d.” The jury

was instructe d at the time of the vide o admission as follows: “. . . this is not substan tive evidenc e. That is, it is not evidence proving fac ts in thi s case . I t is play ed for the purpose of

assessing her c redibility

only .”

The de fendant’s counsel, in closing arg ument, ref err ed to the fore nsic interview a s a “stag ed production.” Counsel also stated that the victim “ g ets confuse d when she g ets away from the sc ript.” Mo re re fe re nc e s to pr og rammi ng of the vic tim

we re a lso ma de by

the de fe nd a nt’ s c ou ns e l.

The c redibility

of the victim in this case wa s cruc ial to the State due to the pauc ity of other incriminating evidenc e. It was equa lly important to the defe ndant that doubt be ca st on the victim’s-7-

testimony . The de fendant attempted to do this bysug g esting that investigators and counse lors had pr og ramme d th e c hil d th ro ug h r e pe tit ive se ssi on s.

Prior consistent statements ar e perm i s s ible afte r an impea ching attack on the witness’s testimony . State v. Meeks, 867 S.W.2d 361, 374 (Tenn. Crim. App.1993) ; State v. Robert D. Walsh, No. W 199 9

- 0 1 4 7 3

- CC A

- R3

- CD , 2 0 0 1 T e n n

. Crim

. A p p

. LE X I S 6 9 , * 4 ( T e n n

. Crim

. A p p

. at Jac ks on , Jan . 3 0, 20 01 ), pe rm

. app

. de n. (Jun e 4, 20 01 ). “ [I ]t is w e ll- e sta bli sh e d inthi s st a te that a prior consistent stateme nt is a dmissibl e to re habilitate a witness a fter insinuations of re cent fabrication or de liberate falsehood or to respond to impeac hment by a prior inc onsistent statement.” State v. Daniel D. Naug hton, Sr., N o. 02C01-9612-CR-00449, 1998 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXI S 317, *12 (Tenn. Crim. App. at J ackson, Ma r. 18, 1998). The impeaching attack o n the witness’s

cre dibilit y

need not be succe ssful for a dmissibi lityof the prior consistent statement. I d. at *13.

On the two occ asions that the j ury viewed the video interview , the trial court, before and af ter
e a c h v ie wi ng , in str

uc te d th e jury th at it was no t su bs ta nti ve e vid e nc e a ndwa s f or us e on ly in assessing the victim’s cre d i b i l i t y

. T h is is a proper instruc tion to ensure ag ainst the use of the evidenc e for

other tha n co rr o borative pur poses. See State v. Livingston, 907 S.W.2d 392, 398 (Tenn. 1995) . A prior c onsistent statement used to r ehabilitate a witness is not hear say as it is not offe red f or the truth of the matter a sserted. Te nn. R. Evid. 801(c).

We conclude that the admission of the forensic i nterview video was not error. I n light of the defe ndant’s assertions of prog ramming the victim by repe titive means, the interview c orrobor ated the victim’s testimonyat trial. It was ef fec tive reb u t t al i n t hat the intervie w occ urre d during the init ia l in v e s ti g a ti o n o f th e c o mp lain t b e f o r e c o u n s e li n g s e s s io n s w e r e in s ti tu te d a n d p r ior to the

re pe a te d v isi ts t o c ou ns e lor s.

I n summary , we c oncl u de that the f orensic interview wa s not hearsay in that it was not offe red for the truth of the statements there in. T he intervie w was introduc ed as c orrobor ation of the victim’s in-court testimony afte r impeac hment by

the def ense. A proper

instruction was provided the jury for the pur

pose for which the e vidence could be c onsidered. T he def en d an t has not demonstrated e rror

on this iss ue. Pastor Rockey ’s Police Report

Th e ne xt iss ue c on c e rn s a re po rt pr e pa red by the D e pa

rt me nt o f C hil dr e n’ s Se rv ic e s a s a result of Pastor Rocke y ’s telephone report of the def endant’ s admissions. The State ag ree s with the de fe nd a nt that th e re po rt

wa s in a dmi ssi ble he ars a y bu t ma int a ins that th e e rr or wa s h arm le ss.

No witness testified who c ould authenticate the document, a nd Pastor Rockey did not have persona l knowledg e that the r eport wa s g ener ated f rom his telephone c all. See Te nn. R. Evid. 901(a) ,(b)( 1). Ther e wa s no evidenc e that the r eport wa s self-authenticating pursuant to Tenne ssee Rul e s o f E vid e nc e 90 2( 1) . D ue to the la c k of pr op e r au the nti c a tio n, the do c ume nt w a s e rr on e ou sly admitted as evide nce.-8-

I n addition, the report constituted hearsay under Te nnessee Rule of Evidence 801(c) . The tr ia l c ou rt ob se rv e d tha

t “ it loo ks lik e a bu sin e ss re c or d, ” bu t no wi tne ss or c us tod ia n te sti fi e d to its prepa ration and no c ertification pursuant to Tennesse e Rule of Evide nce 902( 11) ac companied the document. The document did no t q u al i fy as an e x ception to hea rsay under Te nnessee Rule of Evidence 803.

Ne ve rthe le ss, we a g re e wi th the State that th e e rr or wa s h arm le ss b e y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t. Se e Te nn . R. Cr im. P. 52 (a). Pa sto r R oc ke y te sti fi e d in de ta il a s to the de fe nd a nt’ s r e ve la tio ns to him. He furthe r clarified or explained the inconsistences contained in the r eport’s w ording . Pastor Rockey testified that he did n o t re ca ll using the wor ds “vag ina” or “fondle d” as c ontained in the

re po rt in m akin g his or a l re po rt

. Hi s tes tim on y of the de fe nd a nt’ s adm iss ion s and the e rr on e ou sly admitted report w ere otherwise consistent. I n light of the pastor’s testimony , th e e rrone ous
a dmi ssi on wa s h arm le ss b e y on d a re a so na ble do ub t.

Victim’s Statements for Medic al Diag nosis and Treatment

I n this iss ue, the de fendant contends that the trial c ourt err ed in allowing a license d clinical social worker to testify conce rning the victim’s alleg ations under the me dical diag nosis ex ception to the hear say

rule. Te nn. R. Evid. 803(4).
Phy llis Thomps on was the soc ial worke r who int er v i ew ed t he victim at Our Kids Center. On e pu rp os e fo r o btaini ng the vic tim ’s re le va nt h ist ory wa s f or the us e of me dic a l pe rs on ne l in the ir subsequent medica l examination and tre atment. Holly e Ga llion, the nurse pra ctitioner and e x aminer in this case, conf

i rm ed t h at this was the proc edurefollowed at Our Kids Center. T he def endant maintains that, due to Ms. Thompson being “only ” a licensed clinical social wor ker, the statement would not qualify

under the medical diag nosis hearsay exceptio n

. T he rule excepting suc h statements from the he arsay prohibition is as fol lows: “Statements made f or purpose s of medica l dia g no sis a ndtr e a tme nt d e sc ri bin g me dic a l his tory ; pa st or pr e se nt sympt oms , p a in, or se ns a tio ns ;
or the inc e pti on or

g e ne ra l c ha

ra c te r o f the cau se or

e xterna l so ur c e the re of

ins of ar a s r e a so na

bly pertinent to diag nosis and treatment.” Tenn. R. Evid. 803(4). The plain wording of the exception does not requir e that the state men t b e i m p arted to medical per sonnel, but it does require that the informa t i o n i s i n t ended f or use in diag nosis and treatment. The scope of the rule applies to any person to whom a statement is made for purposes of or

is pertinent t o m ed i ca l d iag nosis and treatment. State v. McL eod, 937 S.W. 2 d 8 67, 869 fn.1 (Te nn. 1996); cf. State v. B arone , 852 S.W .2d 216 (Tenn. 1993) (whe rein the rule was not e x tended to stateme nts made to psy cholog ists).

There was e vidence in the i nstant case that the method utiliz ed wa s standard pr ocedur e at Our Ki ds Ce nte r. Th e c lin ic a l so c ia l work er to ok the vic tim ’s his tory a ndre la y e d th e inf

orma tio n to
me dic a l pe rs on ne l. T he inf orma tio n wa s take n a t le a st in pa rt , fo r me dic a l dia g no sis a ndtr e a tme nt. We conclud e t hat the stateme nt was admissible hea rsay pursuant to Tenne ssee Rule of E vidence 803(4).-9- Mens Rea Jury

I nstructions

The defe ndant next contends that the trial court e rre d by char g ing the jury

that the def

endant could be c onvicted o f ra p e o f a child if “the def endant a cted e ither intentionally , knowing ly or reck l es s l y

. ” T h e def

endant a rg ues that child ra

pe is define d by

conduct a nd that the inclusion of

rec klessness impermissiblylessened the State’s burde n of proof

.

“ [A] de fe nd a nt ha s a con sti tut ion a l r ig ht t o a c or re c t a ndc omp le te c ha

rg e of the la w. ” State v. Tee l, 793 S.W .2d 236, 249 (Te n n

. 1 9 9 0 ). E ach element of an offe nse must be desc ribed a nd de fi ne d b y

the tr ia l c ou rt . St ate v. Cr aven s, 76 4 S. W.2 d 7 54 , 7 56 (T e nn . 1 98 9) . A c ha rg e is pr e jud ic ia l e rr or

if it f a ils to “ su bmi t th e le g a l is su e s o r if it misl e a ds the jury a s to the app lic able law.” State v. H odg es, 944 S.W.2d 346, 352 (Tenn. 1997).
The pre cise issue whic h the def endant posits in this ca se was addre ssed in State v. Che ster Way ne Walters, No. M2003-03019- CCA-R3-CD, 2 0 0 4 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXI S 1053, **35-37 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. a t N a sh vil le , N ov . 3 0, 20 04 ), pe rm . a pp. denie d ( Te nn . M ar. 21 , 2 00 5) . T his

c ou rt the re in s ta te d th a t the e le me nts of ra pe of a c hil d a re un la wf ul s e xua l pe ne tr a tio n o f the vic tim and the victim being less t h an t h i rt ee n. The unlaw ful sexual penetration of the victim was

c a te g orize d a s b othnatur e of the c on du c t a ndre su lt of the c on du c t. I d. a t *16. B e c a us e the c ri me of child rape contains all three conduct elements, a jury can find the def endant g uiltyby

determining the def endant a cted intentionally , knowing ly , or re cklessly . I d. at *14.

We acknowle dg e that this position is not unanimously held by the m ember s of our court. The oppos in g v ie w is c o n ta

in e d in St ate v

. We ltha Womack, No. E2003-02332- CCA-R3-CD, 2005 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXI S 2 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knox ville, J an. 4, 2005). The rein, a panel of this court held that sexua l penetr ation as used in the of fense of ag g ravated ra

pe wa s a nature of conduc t element. The Womack court de termined that t h e i n cl u sion of rec klessness in the jury instruction

wa s re ve rs ibl e e rr or

in p e rm itt ing a

c on vic tio n b a se d o n r e c kle ss p e ne tr a tio n. Ho we ve r, a ma jority of th is p a n e l a d h e r e s to th e h o ld in g in Wa lt e r s , 2 0 0 4 T e n n

. Crim

. A p p

. LE X I S 1 0 5 3 , * 1 6 , th at “unlawf ul sex ual pene tration of the victim is both nature of the conduc t and re sult of the conduct [element].”

A s a c o m p a n i o n i s s u e , t h e d e f e n d a n ta s s e r t s t h a tt h e m e n s r e a c h ar g e o f

i n t e n t i o n a l l y, knowing ly , or re cklessly

in the disjunctive permitted the possibilityof a non- unanimous verdict on the c hil d r ape c ha

rg e s.

We a g r e e w ith th e d e f

e n d a n t th a t th e d e f

in itio n in s tr

u c ti o n w a s in th e d is

ju n c ti ve and

auth orize d a

c on vic tio n b a se d o n a

re c kle ss m e ns re a

e le me nt. Ho we ve r, we ha ve previ ou sly d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e e l e m e n t s o f t h e c r i m e o f c h i l d r ap e c a n b e p r o v e n b y a m e n s r e a o f i n t e n t i o n a l l y, kn ow ing ly , o r r e c kle ssl y . T he re fo re , a ma jority he re in c on c lud e s th a t th e inc lus ionof re c kle ssn e ss in the dis jun c tiv e do e s n ot p os e a

thr e a t of a no n- un a nim ou s v e rd ic t.-10-

Our re view re veals that the trial court in the instant c ase pr operly described the ele ments of the c ri me of c hil d ra

pe a nd c or re c tly pr ov ide d the statut ory de fi nit ion s f

or the me ns re a

re qu ir e me nts

. Acc ording ly , we c onclude that the subject jury instructions w ere proper and that the def endant ha s faile d to de mon str ate e rr or a s to e ith e r o f the iss ue s atta c kin g the jury ins truc tio ns

.
Consecutive Sentenc ing

I n his last issue, the defe nd an t co n t en d s that the trial court erre d in imposi ng consec utive

s e n t e n c e s

. T h e d e f

e n d a n t b a s e s h i s c o n t e n t i o n o n a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t t h e tr i a l c o u r t f a i l e d t o s t a te its

rea sons for im posing c onsecutive se ntence s in acc ordanc e with Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40-35-115 a nd that consec u ti v es e n te n ces a re pr ohibited by

the Six th Amendment to the Constitut ion of the Un ite d St a te s.

This court’s re view of the sentenc e imposed by the trial court is de novo w ith a presumption of correc tness. T.C.A. § 40-35-401( d). This presumption is conditioned upon an af firmative sh ow ing in the re c or d th a t the tr ia l jud g e c on sid e re d th e se nte nc ing princ ipl e s a nda ll r e le va nt f a c ts
a ndc ir c ums ta nc e s. State v. Pe ttu s, 98 6 S. W.2 d 5 40 , 5 43 (T e nn . 1 99 9) . I f the tr ia l c ou rt fails to comp ly with the statutory

direc tives, there is no pre sumption of corre ctness and our revie w is de novo. State v. Poole, 945 S.W .2d 93, 96 (Tenn. 1997)

.
I f our r eview r efle c ts th at the trial c ourt followed the statutory sentenc ing pr ocedur e, imposed a lawf ul sentence afte r g iving due consideration and proper weig ht to the fac tors and princ iples set out under sente ncing law, and the trial court’ s fin d i n gs o f fa ct are adequately supported by

the

re c or d, the n w e ma y no t mo dif y the se nte nc e e ve n if

we wo uldha ve pr e fe rr e d a dif fe re nt r e su lt. State v. Hooper , 29 S.W .3d 1, 5 (Tenn. 2000)

.
Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 4 0- 35 -1 15 (a )( b) (5 ) p ro vid e s a s f oll ow s: ( a ) I f a d e f

e n d a n t is c o n v ic te d o f mo r e th a n o n e ( 1 ) c r im in a l o f f e n s e , the court shall order

sentenc es to run conse cutively or conc urre ntly as provided by

the criteria in this section. ( b ) T h e c o u r tm a y o r d e r s e n t e n c e s t o ru n c o n s e c u t i v e l y i f t h e c o u r tf

i n d s b y a pr e po nd e ranc e of

the e vid e nc e that: (5) The de fendant is convicted of two ( 2) or more statutory offenses involving sex u al abuse of a minor with consider ation of the ag g ravating c ircumstance s arising from the r elationship betwee n the d ef endant a nd victim or victims, the tim e span of defe ndant’s undetec ted sexual activity , the nature and scope of the sexual acts a nd the e xten t of

the re sid ua l, phy sic a l a ndme nta l dama g e to the vic tim

or vic tim s.

The S e n te n c in g Co mm is s io n Co mm e n ts to T e n n e s s e e Co d e A n n o tate d s e c ti o n 4 0

- 35-115

a c kn ow le dg e that th e statut e is e sse nti a lly a c od if ic a tio n o f t wo Te nn e sse e Sup re me Co urt c a se s: Gray v. State, 538 S.W .2d 391 (Tenn. 1976) , and State v. Ta y lor, 739 S.W .2d 227 (Tenn. 1987)

.-11-

The Court in Tay lor g ave the following g uidance to trial courts in considering c onsecutive

se nte nc e s: Trial courts should weigh the aggr avating circ umstances a rising f rom the relationship between de fendant and the victim or victims, the age o f t h e victim or victims, the tim e span of defe ndant’s undetec ted sexual a ctivity , the nature and scope of the sexual acts a nd the e x t en t of the re sidual phy sical and me ntal damag e to the victim or victims and determine the appropriate use of consec utive sent en cing

acc ording ly , bearing in mind the g ener al objectives set forth in G ray

. Obviously , no rig id formula for

application to suc h case s would be appropriate, but we c aution that

c on se c uti ve se nte nc e s sh ou ld n ot r ou tin e ly be imp os e d in sexua l a bu se c a se s, or

in other c ases, a nd that the ag g reg ate max i m u m of conse cutive terms must be

rea sonably

related to the seve rity

of the off enses involved. Tay lor, 739 S.W .2d at 230.

The c ateg ories of of

fende rs elig ible for c onsecutive se ntencing are set forth in T.C .A. § 40- 35 -1 15 . T he pe rt ine nt p ro vis ionfo r this de fe nd a nt i s a s f oll ow s: The de fendant is convicted of two ( 2) or more statutory offe nses involving sexual abuse of a minor with c onsideration of the ag g ravating c ircumstance s arising from the relationship betwe en the de fendant and victim or victims, the time span of defe ndant’s undete ct ed s ex u al activity , the nature and scope of the sexual acts a nd the e xten t of

the re sid ua l, p hy sic a l a ndme nta l dama g e to the vic tim or vic tim s. I d. at 40-35-115( b)(5)

.
The e vidence established that the de fendant w as considere d by the victim a s her g randf ather , and she c alled him Paw-Paw. The defe ndant fre quently was the c are taker

for the vic ti m and her siblings. The de fendant had occ upied a position of trust within the familial structure.

The e vidence did not clear ly delineate the time span over which the a

buse occ urre d. We can infer that it occur

red over sever al months fr om the differ ent incidents desc ribed by the victim and the fa ct that h er v i sits to t he def endant’ s occur

red on w eeke nds. Pastor Rockey stated that the defe ndant admitted to touching the victim possibly in N ovember of 2002, seve n months prior to J une 14 , 2 00 3. Th e se fa c tor s in dic a te a re la tiv e ly lon g pe ri odof

un de te c te d a

bu se by the de fe nd a nt.

Th e n a t u r e a n d s c o p e o f

t h e a c t s o f

ab u s e ar e d o c u m e n t e d e ar l i e r i n t h i s o p i n i o n a n d t h e ir specific s need not be repe ated. Suffice it to say , those acts provide strong justification to pr otect the p u b l i c f ro mt h e d ef

en d an tb y co n s ec u t i v e s en t en ci n g.

Rebec ca L ee, a

thera pist with t he ra

pe and sex u al abusecente r, had be en counse ling the victim since Aug ust 2003. She testified that the victim had suff ere d sever e trauma, exacer bated by the def endant’ s betray al of trust and the involvement of an animal. Ms. L ee stated that the seve re trauma e x perie nced by

the victim produce s definite chang es in the bra in, making e motional

re g ulatio n p r o b l e m atic . T his c ou ld r e su lt i n th e vic tim be ing mor e vu lne ra

ble to d e pr e ssi on , p ho bia s, eating disorders, c hemical a nd behavior al addictions, and impulse contr ol. Ms. L ee e x presse d hope-12-

that th e e arl y

tr e a tme nt o f the vic tim

a ndhe r f

a mil y ’s c los e su pp ort w ou ld h e lp h e r a vo id the se da ng e rs

. She state d that the le ng th o f t ime , th e re la tio ns hip of the de fe nd a nt, a ndthe mul tip le a c ts involved, espec ially

with an animal, all weig hed ag ainst the victim’s prospec ts. Tang ible signs of adver se ef fec ts on the victim had been obs erve d by Ms. L ee. The victim had invol ved other children in s e xua l pl a y

a ndha d a ssu me d th e ro le of a do g in p la y

se ssi on s.

Th e vic tim ’s mothe r, Mal i n a S h ann on , a lso te sti fi e d at th e se nte nc ing he ari ng a s to the e ff e c ts sh e ha d o bs e rv e d c on c e rn ing the vic tim . M rs . Sh a nn on st ated that th e vic tim a c te d p re c oc iou s, neede d rea ssuranc e, expressed anxiety over losing family members, and wa s more aw are of sexual behavior

.
The evidenc e establishes that sufficie nt g rounds exis t to justify the impositi on of conse cutive

se nte nc ing . T he de fe nd a nt’ s w ill ing ne ss t o b re a c h his p os iti on of trus t, the mul titud e of

a c ts involved, and the de fendant’s callousness towa rd t he harm suffer ed by the victim all support the pr op os iti on that so c ie ty sh ou ld be pr ote c te d fr om the de fe nd a nt. Th e ind ivi du a l se nte nc e s w e re a ll set at pre sumptive rang es. Consecutive se ntencing was a ppropriate under the fac ts of this case.

The de fendant asserts, without arg ument or citation to authority , that consec utive sentenc es
are prohibited by

the Six th Amendment. We consider the issue waived by the defe ndant pursuant to Tennesse e Court of Criminal Appea ls Rule 10(b).

Conclusion

There being no reve rsible er ror r evea led by

ou r re v i ew, the judgments of c onviction and sentenc ing a

re he reby aff irmed.

__________________________________ J OHN EV ERETT WI LL I AMS, J UDGE