### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A pr il 19, 200 6 S es sio n

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . DAVID BOYD CONNER, J R.

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty

No. 2004-B-1684 Steve Dozier , Judge

No. M2005- 01628-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Dece m ber 5, 2006

The de fenda nt appea ls his convic tions of seven counts of ag g ravated sexual battery , alleg ing e rror in the following respe cts: 1) the evide nce w as i n s u fficie nt to support the convictions; 2) the trial

c ou rt e rr e d in the de fe nd a nt’s mo tio n f or se ve ranc e ; a nd3) the tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d in a dmi tti ng int o

e vid e nc e the vid e ota

pe d s ta te me nt o f the de fe nd a nt’ s in te rv ie w. Ou r r e vie w r e ve a le d n o r e ve rs ibl e

err or, and the convictions are here by aff irmed.

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 opinio n o f t he court, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES , J
., joined. J OS EP H M. T I PTON , P.J
., filed a c oncurring opinion.

J ames Robin McKinney , J r., Na shville, Tennessee , for the a ppellant, David B oy d Conner, Jr.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a n d Rep o r ter ; Pr e s to nSh ipp, A ssistant Attorney Gene ral; Victor S. (Torry ) Johns on, I I I , District Attorney Gene ral; and Brian Holmgr en, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

David B oy d Conner, Jr., the defe n d an t , wa s charg ed in an indictment with four c ounts of ag g ravated sexual battery (Class B felony ), one count of attempted c hild rape ( Class B fe lony ), and thr e e c ou nts of

ra pe of a c hil d ( Cla ss A fe lon y ). A jury re turne d g uil ty

ve rd ic ts a s to se ve n c ou nts of a g g ra vate d s e xua l batte ry a ndon e c ou nt o f as sault (C la ss B mis de me a no r) wh ic h wa s mer g e d in to one of the ag g ravated battery convictions. The defe ndant was sentenc ed to an ef fec tive thirty -two y e ars of inc arc e ratio n, to b e se rv e d at 10 0% . T he de fe nd a nt n ow app e a ls h is c on vic tio ns

.

Fa ctual B ackg round

The investig ation that led to the cha rg ing indictment wa s initi at ed o n M ay 5 , 2003. The

e ig ht- y e ar- oldvic tim , M .W. , r e sid e d w ith his famil y in E a st N a sh vil le . T he vic tim ’s nu c le ar f a mil y-2-

included his pare nts and three siblings. Two other rela tives, the defe ndant and L arry Paul Wi lson, also reside d with the family . The de fenda nt is a cousin of the victim’s mother, a n d L ar ry Paul Wil son is a brother of

the victim’s fathe r. On the nig ht of May 5, 2003, L ar ry Paul Wi lson discovere d the def

endant in bed w ith the victim in i ncriminating circ umstances. The pare nts were

a le rt e d, a ndthe Me tr o Pol ic e we re c a lle d. An inv e sti g a tio n f oll ow e d, wh ic h e ve ntu a lly re su lte d in the de fe nd a nt’ s in dic tme nt andtr ia l.

The victim testified that he l i v ed wi t h his parents a nd three siblings. I n May of 2003, the de fe nd a nt andL arry

Paul Wi lso n, the vic tim ’s un c le , we re a lso stay ing wi th the famil y . The vic tim had his own bedr oom and slept in a t win-sized bed. The victim said that the defendant ha d g otten into bed with him many

times before his discovery on May 5, 2003. The victim said the defe ndant would “mess with me” and described ver bally and by using demonstrative dolls the a ctions of the defe ndant. The de fenda nt had at times touched the victim’s penis and moved his hand up a nd down. The de fenda nt had placed his penis in the victim’s rec tum on more than one oc casion. This occ urre d bo th w ith the vic tim on his sid e a ndon his sto ma c h. Th e de fe nd a nt h a d a lso take n th e vic tim ’s pe nis in his mout h and moved up a nd down. These events oc curr ed for a period longe r than a

wee k.

Caroly n Smeltz er w as a nurse prac titioner employ ed by Our Kids Center . Ms. Smeltz er w as

acc epted as an e x pert in the a rea of for ensic nurse prac titioner. She testified that she per formed a phy sical exam of the victim at 4:00 a.m. on May 6, 2003. A cu lpascope was used to e x amine the victim’s anus, and a medical-leg al ex amination (ra pe kit ) was completed. No te ars or fissures we re noted, and the anal opening appea red normal. No traces of semen wer e dete cted. Ms. Smeltzer expl a in e d th a t d u e to th e f le xib il it y o f th e a n u s , it c a n b e p e n e tr a te d w ith o u t c a u s in g in jury . She
state d th a t he r f

ind ing s w e re no t in c on sis te nt w ith the his tory of mol e statio n p ro vid e d b y the vic tim

.

Detec tive Robert Carrig an was assig ned to Youth Service s Division withi n Nashville Metro Police Depa

rtment. Dete ctive Carrigan h ad responde d to the victim’s home on May 5 and later interviewe d the def

endant a nd rec orded the session on videotape.

L arry Paul Wi lson testified that he had been staying w ith the victim’s family for two we eks whe n h e f

o u n d th e d e f

e n d a n t in th e v ic ti m’ s b e d

. M r

. Wi ls o n a n d th e d e f e n d a n t s le p t in the de n wher e Mr. Wilson slept on a bed and the de fenda nt slept on a couc h. Mr. Wils on said that on the night of May 5, all family

members we re in be d except he and the def endant. The defe ndant looked in the living room as if to loc ate Mr. Wil son and then disappe are d. Shortlyafte rwa rds, Mr. Wilson

we nt t o th e victim ’s roo m. H e sta te d th e do or

wa s sh ut, a ndhe op e ne d it a ndturne d o n th e lig ht. He then pulled ba ck the c over on the victim’s bed and saw the defe ndant ly ing on his side be hind the vi c ti m in a s p o o n p o s it io n

. T h e d e f e n d a n t’ s p a n ts w e r e u n zi p p e d
, a n d th e d e f e ndant was attempting to hide an ere ction. The victim was we aring only his underwe ar. W hen Mr. Wilson asked the def endant what he was doing, the defe ndant responded t hat he had been t o the bathroom and had forg otten to zi p his pants. Mr. Wil son then woke the victim’s pare nts and, afte r some discussion, the police we re notified.-3-

On cr oss-examination, Mr. W ilson stated that he had be en diagnose d as bi polar and had bee n takin g me dic a tio n f

or ma nic de pr e ssi on . H e a lso a dmi tte d ha vin g smo ke d mari juana a t 8: 00 p. m. the nig ht of May

5.

Offic er H eathe r Martin Baltz was dispatche d to the v i ct i m’s residenc e on May 5. She detained the defe ndant in her squa d car . The de fenda nt ma de sever al spontaneous re marks to her

. The de fenda nt stated that he must have f org otten to zip up afte r g oing to the bathroom and be fore g e tti ng int o th e vic tim ’s be d. Of fi c e r B a ltz s a id the de fe nd a nt’ s d e me a no r w a s v e ry c a lm.

Serg eant B renda Steinbreche r responded t o the victim’s residenc e and briefly spoke with the vic tim . T he vic tim

sa id h e didno t kn ow if

the de fe nd a nt h a d h urt hi m. Whe n sh e a sk e d th e vic tim if the def endant ha d touched him in private pl ac es , the victim’s ey es tea red a nd his lip qui vere d. When she asked a g ain if he w as hurt, the victim ge stured y es. Serg eant Steinbre cher then terminate d h erq u es t i o n i n g.

The victim’s moth e r , L

yn nWi lson, testified that the defe ndant had lived with her family from J anuary 2000 throug h May 2003, except for a period fr om Aug ust to October of 2002. She stated that she wa s unawa

re that the defe ndant had slept with the victim. Mrs. Wils on said the victim’s be dr oo m w a s k e pt o pe n. She a lso re ve a le d th a t th e vic tim ha d p re vio us ly

a sk e d h is fathe r to p ut a lock on his bedroom door. The victim ha d also asked to slee p with his parents. The vic tim’s gr ades ha d f a ll en mar ked ly in the fa ll o f 2 00 2. Cou ns e lin g ha d b e e n a rr a ng e d f or the vic tim

a ft e r this inc ide nt andwa s c on tin uin g a t th e tim e of tr ia l.

Robert Wils on, the victim’s fathe r, testified that he was una war e that the def endant ha d been sleeping with the victim at various times. The def endant ne ver state d that he slept in the victim’s room in order

to be wake ned ea

rlier.

The re dacte d videotaped interview of the defe ndan t, a s c o n d u cted by Detec tive Carrig an, wa s play e d f or the jury . D uring the int e rv ie w, the de fe nd a nt s ta te d th a t he is a pr a c tic ing ho mos e xua l. Th e de fe nd a nt s ta te d th a t he ha d n o c ur re nt pa rt ne r a nd ha d o nly

ha d th re e ho mos e xua l e xpe ri e nc e s. Th e de fe nd a nt s a id that on thi s oc c a sio n he ha d g on e to the bathr oo m a ndha d f or g ott e n to zip h is pant s b ef o re g etting into bed w ith the victim. The defe ndant stated that he left the victim’s door open an inc h. The defe ndant denied ever touching the victim’s private are a and denied that he wa s

aro used whe n discovere d by L arry Paul Wi lson. The def

endant e stimated that he slept in the victim’s room once or

twice e very

two wee ks. The def

endant claimed that the vic tim’s parents we re
awa re of this. The defe ndant g ave two rationale s for slee ping w ith the victim: t o be aw akene d ear lier

a ndwh e n th e vic tim

re qu e ste d it

.

T h e S t a t e c o n c l u d e d i t s p r o o f
, a n d t h e d e f e n d a n t , a f t e r v o i r d i r e , c h o s e n o tt o t e s t i f

y.

An a ly sis

Sufficienc y

of the Evidenc e-4-

The de fenda nt contends that the e vidence was “ completely inco n s i s t ent” with the State’ s the ory . T he de fe nd ant’ s c on te nti on is b a se d o n th e la c k o f f or e ns ic e vid e nc e wh ic h w ou ld

corr oborate the wi t n es s ’s t est imony . We respec tfully disag ree in that this arg ument ignor es the
te sti mon y of wi tne sse s w hic h, if

a c c e pte d b y

the jury , is su ff

ic ie nt t o s up po rt

the c on vic tio ns

.

This court must reje ct a challeng e to the suffic iency of the e vidence if, afte r considering the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the prosec ution, it determines that any rational trier

of fa ct could have found the e ssential elements of the crime bey o n d a re as o nable doubt. Jackson v. Virg inia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S

. C t

. 2 7 8 1
, 2 7 8 9 (1979). We do not re weig h the evidenc e but presume that the jury has resolved all conflicts in the t estimony and drawn all rea sonable infe renc es from the evidenc e in f

avor of the State. See State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984); State v. Cabbag e, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). Questions conc erning witness cre dibilit y wer e resolved by

the jury . See State v. B land, 958 S.W.2d 641, 659 (Tenn. 1997).

The de fenda nt was convic ted on seve n counts of ag g ravated sexual battery and one c ount of assault. The a ssault conviction was mer g ed with the ag g ravated sexual battery in count one of the indictment.

Ag g ravated s exual battery is define d, in part, as “unlawf ul sex ual contac t with a victim by the def endant or the def endant by a victim” when the victim is less than thirteen y ear s of ag e. T.C.A. § 39-13-504( a).

“ Se xua l c on ta c t” inc lud e s th e int e nti on a l to uc hin g of the vic tim ’s
, the de fe nd a nt’ s, or any other pe rson’s intimate par ts, or the intentio n al touching of the c lothing

covering the immediate are a of the victim’s, the defe ndant’s, or a ny other pe rson’s intimate parts, if that intentional touching can be rea sonably construed as being for the purpose of

sexual arousal or g ratification. T.C.A. § 39-13-501( 6).

T h ere was testimony

by the victim’s uncle that he discovere d the def endant in a compromising position on the nig ht of May 5. The witness described how the def endant wa s behind the vic tim in a

“ sp oo n f a sh ion ” wi th h is p a nts un zipp e d a ndwi th an e re c t pe nis . T he vic tim confirme d that this had occurre d previously on sever al occasions. The victim rela ted accounts of the defe ndant per forming anal inter course on him, both with t he victim on his side and on his stomach. The victim g ave an acc ount of the defe ndant perf orming fellatio and, on othe r occ asions, touching and stroking the victim’s penis. Other of fense s were described by the victim relating to the de fe nd a nt p la c ing his p enis on the vic tim ’s bu tto c ks wi th the de fe nd a nt o n h is s ide a ndon his stomach. These acc ounts by the victim were ac ce p t ed by the jury . Conversely , the def endant’ s attempts during his interview to place his actions in an i n n ocent lig ht were reje cted. We will not

rew eig h the evidenc e or disturb the infe renc es drawn by the j ury from the evidenc e. W e conc lude that th e e vid e nc e wa s su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt

the c on vic tio ns

.-5- Severa nce

The de fenda nt next alleg es er ror by the trial court in deny ing the defe ndant’s motion to sever the various counts of the indictment. I n revie wing a trial c ourt ’s d ec i s i o n reg arding sever ance of offe nses, we look to the e vidence prese nted at the motion h ea ri n g, al ong with the trial court’ s f in d in g s o f

f a c t an d c o n c lu s io n s o f

la w

. Sp ic e r

v

. St a te , 1 2 S. W. 3 d 4 3 8
, 4 4 5 ( Tenn. 2000). We revie w the trial court’s decision under an abuse of discretion st andar d. State v. Shirley , 6 S.W .3d 24 3, 24 7 ( Te nn . 1 99 9). Th is c ou rt wi ll n ot i nte rf

e re wi th the e xer c ise of

thi s d isc re tio n u nle ss i t appea rs on the fa ce of

the re cord that the acc used wa s prejudice d by the court’s rul i n g. S t at e v. Wis eman, 643 S.W.2d 354, 362 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982).

I n most inst ance s, the trial court’s discretion in severing of fense s is gr eatly

limit ed by

Rules 8 and 14 of the Tenne ssee Rules of Criminal Proc edure

. See Shirley , 6 S.W .3d at 246. Rule 8(a)

ma nd a te s mu lti ple of

fe ns e s b e joi ne d if

the y are ba se d on the sa me c on du c t or ari se fr om the sa me

c ri min a l epi so de un le ss the y are se ve re d p ur su a nt t o Ru le 14 . Ru le 8( b) a llo ws mul tip le of fe ns e s to be joined if pa

rt of a common scheme or plan or if they are of the same or similar cha rac ter. The trial

c ou rt , b e fo re tr ia l, mus t g rant a se ve ranc e of

of fe ns e s ma nd a torily

joi ne d u nd e r R ule 8( a ) w he re it is n e c e ssa ry fo r a fair de te rm inatio n of the de fe nd a nt’ s g uil t or inn oc e nc e of

e a c h o ff e ns e . T e nn . R. Cr im

. P

. 1 4 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( I )

. R u l e 1 4 g r a n t s t h e a c c u s e d t h e r i g h t t o a s e v e r a n c e o f o f f e n s e s pe rm iss ibl y joined under Rule 8( b) unless: (1) the offe n s es ar e p ar t of a c ommon scheme or pla n, and (2) the evidenc e of one would be admissible upon the trial of the other s. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 14(b)(1); Spicer, 12 S.W .3d at 443.

Where off

enses a re “ part o f a co m m o n scheme or plan a nd the evidenc e of one would be admissible upon the trial of the other s,” the trial c ourt is allowed wide discre tion in determining whether to sever of

fense s. Shirley , 6 S.W .3d at 247. A dec ision whether t o s ev er offe nses under Rule 14(b)(1) will turn on the fac ts of each ca s e; there fore , a trial c ourt’s dec ision reg arding

sever ance will be reve rsed only wher e the “ court a

pplied an incor

rec t l ega l s t andar d, or re ache d a decision which is ag ainst logic or re asoning that cause d an injusti ce to the party complaining .” I d. (citations omitted).

I n determining whether a sever ance is ma ndated, the primary inquiry is whether the evidenc e of one c rime would be a dmissibl e in the trial of the other off ense if the two ch ar g es we re trie d separ ately . I d.; Spicer, 12 S.W .3d at 445. The courts should look to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b) f or g uidance in determining whether the evidenc e of the other off ense is admissible. See Shi rl e y , 6 S.W. 3d a t 247- 48

. Rul e 40 4( b) e xclu de s evi de nc e of a de fe nd a nt’ s “ oth e r c ri me s, wr on g s,

or a c ts” if of fe re d o nly to s ho w the de fe nd a nt’ s p ro pe ns ity to c omm it s uc h “ c ri me s, wr on g s, or a c ts; ” ho we ve r, if

the e vid e nc e is o the rw ise re le va nt t o a ma te ri a l is su e , Ru le 404 do e s n ot p ro hib it i ts admission. St ate v. M oore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 239 (Tenn. 1999). N ot only must the evidence be

re le va nt, bu t th e pr ob a tiv e va lue of the e vid e nc e mus t not be ou twe ig he d b y its pr e jud ic ia l e ff

e c t. Spicer, 12 S.W.3d at 445.-6-

The c ourt must also determine if the offe nses qualify as a common scheme or pl an. Te nn. R. Crim. P . 14(b)( 1); Moore, 6 S.W.3d at 240. Therearethree cate g ories of c ommon scheme or pla n evidenc e: (1) distinctive de sign or signature c rimes; (2) a larg er c ontinuing plan or conspirac y ; and (3) sa me criminal transaction. Moore , S.W .3d at 240; Shirley , 6 S.W .3d at 248.

For a distinctive de sign to e x ist a mong multipl e offe nses, the modus operandi of the off enses “must be substantially identical and must be so uni que that proof the def endant c ommitt ed the other offe nses fa irly

tends to establish that he also committed” the cha rg ed off ense. Moor e, 6 S.W.3d at 240 (quoting Bunc h v. State, 605 S.W .2d 227, 230 (Tenn. 1980)). Mere simil arity betwee n offe nses or t he fact t hat a defe ndant has committed a series of crimes is insufficient to prove the offe nses ar e part of a common scheme or plan. I d. at 241.

I n this case, the indictment w as time spe cific on counts one and two but wa s open-dated on the re ma ini ng six c ou nts . T he tria l c ou rt , in c on sid e ri ng the de fe nd a nt’ s mo tio n to se ve r, sp e c if ic a lly found t h at t h e evide nce of the other of

fense s would be admissible if tried sepa rate ly as part of a larg e r c on tin uin g plan by the de fe nd a nt. “ [A]dm iss ion of e vid e nc e of

oth e r c ri me s w hic h te nd s to show a c ommon scheme or plan is proper to show identity
, g uilty knowledg e, int ent, m otive, to rebut a def ense of mistake or ac cident, or to e stablish some other rele vant issue.” Moore , 6 S.W .3d at 239

n. 5 ( qu oti ng Sta te v. Ha llo c k, 87 5 S. W.2 d 28 5, 29 2 (T e nn

. Cr im. Ap p. 19 93 )) . T he de fe nd a nt, in his int e rv ie w, of

fe re d a s e xpla natio n fo r his e xpos e d c on dit ion that he ha d f or g ott e n to zip h is p a nts

. He f urther attempted to deflec t suspicion on an o t h er re lative whom he state d had visited in the victim’s house and wa s an ac knowledg ed homosexual. Fur thermore , in our view, the othe r off enses would be admissible in demonstrating a continuing plan and method. Contrary to the defe ndant’s

assertion in the interview, the victim’s pa rents wer e unawa

re of his visitations to the victim’s bed. Th e de fe nd a nt o n ea c h oc c a sio n wa ite d unti l the ho us e ho ld me mbe rs we re a sle e p b e fo re makin g his way to the victim’s bed. We conclude that evidenc e of these crimes would have be en re levant and admissible to show his int ent and motive, g uiltyknowledg e, and the lack of mistake. We af firm the trial court’ s denial of the motion for se vera nce.

Def endant’ s I nterrog ation

The de fenda nt’s final i ssue concerns the admission of the defe ndant’s videotape d statement as given during a custodial interrog ation. The basis for the defe ndant’s objection to portions of the
statement is la c k o f r e le v a n c e a n d/o r th e p r e ju d ic ia l e f

f e c t o f th e s tate me n ts

. Sp e c if ic a ll y , the defe ndant objects to the stateme nts by the def endant that he was a homosex ual, had used marijuana in the past, and ha d been se x ually victimiz ed him self as a child. The de fenda nt also sought to bar op ini on s r e nd e re d b y

the int e rr og a tin g de te c tiv e of the de fe nd a nt’ s g uil t.

“‘Rele vant evidenc e’ me ans evide nce ha ving any tendenc y to ma ke the exis tence of any

fac t that is of c on se qu e nc e to the de te rm inatio n o f the a c tio n mo re pr ob able or le ss pr ob able than it

wo uld b e wi t hout the evidenc e.” T enn. R. Evid. 401. Evidence which is not relevant is not admiss ible. Ten n

. R. E v id

. 4 0 2

. Re le v a n c e is d e te r mi n e d b y th e is s u e s p r e s e n te d f o r r e s o lu ti o n in the trial which, in turn, ar e dete rmined by the elemen t s o f t he off

ense c harg ed and the defe nse asse rted by-7-

the ac cused. State v. Du b o s e, 953 S.W .2d 649, 653 (Tenn. 1997) . The standa rd of r eview of admissibili ty of evidenc e under Tenne ssee Rules of Evidence 401 and 402 is a buse of d i s cretion. I d. at 652.

During the def

endant’ s interrog ation, the def endant spoke of why he had move d back to the victim’s family

house. The de fenda nt stated he wa s removing himself from some bad pra ctices a nd specific ally

mentioned marijuana

use. Whenq u e s ti oned, he sa id he had last smoked marijuana about three wee ks ear lier. These statements were i rr el evant to the issues at hand in this procee ding a nd should have be en re dacte d. Howeve r, there was no e mphasis place d on these admissi ons and in the context of the entire tria l, we cann ot say that the admission violated a substantial rig ht or, in our view, af fec ted the judg ment. We theref ore de em this as harmless err or. Tenn. R. Crim. Proc. 36(b).

I n t h e ea rly stag e of the interrog ation, the def endant state d that he wa s a pra cticing h o mo s e xu a l an d c u rr e n tl y h a d n o s ig n if

ic a n t p ar tn e r

. L a te r

in th e in te r v ie w , h e ap p e ar e d to mi n im iz e this as p ec t o f h is life. He state d that he had only threehomosex ual experienc es and did not like the m.

The de fenda nt now contends that these statements re vealing his homosex uality wer e irre le v a n t an d u n f

a irly p r e ju d ic e d h im

. We w o u lda g r e e th a t, s tan d in g a lo n e , th e f a c t th a t the de fe nd a nt i s a

ho mos e xua l do e s n ot t e ndto e sta bli sh his g uil t on the se of

fe ns e s. Th is c ou rt

in S ta te v. Ronald J enning s, C.C.A. N o

. 2 4 7 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knox ville, Sept. 7, 1989), 1989 Tenn. Crim. Ap p

. LE X I S 6 4 6
, * 7
, a d d r e s s e d th e is s u e o f a ll o w in g c r o s s

- e xa mi n a ti o n o f a d efe ndant

conce rning his homosex uality . We stated then that “[t] he evide ntiary fac t of t h e appellant’s homosex uality

did not constitut e evide nce of a prior ba d act. I t was rather a n evidentiary truth about his person, his phy sical being .”

I n light of othe r evide nce introduced
, we c onclude that the de fenda nt’s homosex ual status

wa s r e le va nt and adm issib le . E vid e nc e c on c e rn ing a c ri min a l de fe nd a nt’ s c ha ra c te r m a y

be c ome admissible w hen it log ically tends to pr ove materia l issues which fall into one of the fo l l o wi ng

c a te g orie s: ( 1) the us e of

mot ive a ndc omm on sc he me or plan to est abli sh ide nti ty ; ( 2) to e sta bli sh the def endant’ s intent in commit ting the of fense at trial; and (3) to rebut a c lai m o f mistake or

acc ident if asserted as a defe nse. State v. Thac ker, 164 S.W .3d 208, 239-40 (Te nn. 2005). He re, the defe ndant claimed he inadvertently forg ot to zip his pant’s fly afte r using the bathroom. The fa ct that the def endant wa s sexuallyattrac ted t o males made this claim of mistake less probable . The lang uage of

Tenne ssee Rule of E vidence 403 strong ly sug g ests that rele vant evidenc e should be

a dmi tte d if the ba la nc e be tw e e n th e pr ob a tiv e va lue a nd the pr e jud ic ia l e ff

e c t is c los e . Se e Ne ill P. Coh e n, e t a l., T enn essee L a w o f E vid e nc e § 4 03 .4 a t 4- 61 (5 th e d. 20 05 ). Un de r the fa c ts o f this

c a se , w e c on c lud e that th e de fe nd a nt’ s a dmi ssi on of his ho mos e xua lit y

is r e le va nt.

The re dacte d version of the defe ndant’s interrog ation deleted the def endant’ s statements that he had been the victim of sexual mol estation. To the extent that the defe ndant now objec ts to the de le tio n o f h is o ff

e r t o ta ke a po ly g ra ph , w e do no t a g re e that th e de le tio n w a s e rr or. B e c a us e-8-

poly g raph r esults have c onsistentl y b ee n v i ewed as inhere ntly unreliable and inadmissible, so too is a defe ndant’s off

er to submi t to a poly g raph. State v. H artman, 42 S.W.3d 44, 61 (Tenn. 2001).

There b ei n g n o re v er s i b l e e rr o r, t h e d ef en d an t ’s j u d gm en t s o f c o n v i ct i o n ar e h er eb y af fi rmed.

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