### IN THE S UP REME COURT OF TENNESS EE AT KNOXVI LLE Se pte m be r 2004 S es sio n

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. STEP HEN L. DE NTO N App e al b y pe r m iss ion fro mth e Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als ,

Crim inal Cou rt of McM inn County Nos. 98-535 to 98- 539, 98-694 to 98- 705, 99-244, 99-246 R. Ste ven Bebb, Ju dge

No. E2000-02615-SC-R11- CD - F iled Novem ber 15, 2004

The de fendant, a phy sician, wa s char g ed in three separ ate indictments with a total of twe nty sexual of fe ns e s in vo lvi ng e le ve n d if fe re nt v ic tim s. Th e c ou nts c ha rg e d in the ind ic tme nts we re a lle g e d to have oc curr ed over

a time span of six y ear s. The trial c ourt denied the defe ndant’s pre- trial motion to sever the coun t s for se parate trials and g rante d the State’s motion to consolidate all three indictments f

or a single trial. The defe ndant was subseque ntly found g uiltyof one c ount of sexual battery by an authority

fig ure, six counts o f s ex u al b at t ery , and thre e counts of a ssault. He wa s acquitted on thre e counts of rape and three counts of sex ual battery

. The de fendant then prese nted

sever al issues on appe al, including : (1) that the trial court err ed in de ny ing the motion to sever the of fe ns e s; and(2 ) that th e de fe nd a nt was impr op e rl y c on vic te d o f s e xua l batte ry by a n auth ority fig ure. The Court of C riminal Appea ls held, among other thing s, that the trial court erre d in deny ing the motion to sever. Howe ver, the Court f ound this e rror to be harmless and ther efor e af firmed the convictions. The Court of Criminal Appe als also held that t h e d ef endant’s conviction for se x ual battery by an authority fig ure was proper as a phy sician fell within the ambit of the applica ble statute. For the rea sons stated here in, w e hold that the failure to sever the counts ag ainst the defe ndant was

reve rsible err or, and there fore we reve rse the convictions. Further, we hold that a phy sician is not an authority

fig ure as contemplated under Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 39-13-527 (2003) and there fore the def

endant’ s conviction under this statute was improper . Acc ording ly , the judg ment of the Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls i s r e ve rs e d, a ndthe c a se re ma nd e d f or ne w t ri a ls.

Tenn. R. App . P . 11 Appli cation for P erm ission to Appeal; Judg m e nt

of t he Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als Affir m e d in P ar t, Re ve r se d in P ar t, and Re m ande d.

W I L L I AM M. B ARKE R , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which F RAN K F. D R OW OT A , III
, C.J
., E. R I L EY A NDE R S ON and J ANI CE M. H OL DER , J J ., and J.S . (Steve) D aniel, SJ ., joined.

D. Mitchell Bry an t , Cleveland, Te nnessee , and Victoria B . Eig er, N ew Yor k, New Y ork, for

the appellant, Stephen L . Denton.T hi s i ndi ct ment al s o cha r ged t wo count s of i l l ega l l y pre s cr i bi ng Schedul e I V dru gs i n v i ol at i on of T enn es s ee 1

C o d e A nno t at ed s ect i o ns 5 3

- 1 1

- 3 0 8 and 53

- 1 1

- 4 0 1

. T hese co unt s were l at er di smi ss ed and are not i ncl ud ed wi t hi n our d i scus si o n.

-2- Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Michael E. Moore, Sol icitor Gene ral; Mar k A. Fulks, Assistant Attorney

Gene ral; Jerry

N. Estes, District Attorney Gene ral; and William W . Reedy and Amy Reedy , Assistant District Attorney s Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION F AC TS

T h e d e f e n d a n t , D r

. S t e p h e n D e n t o n , w a s a p h y s i c i a n p r a c t i c i n g i n A t h e n s , T e n n e s s e e

. In 1998 a patient complained t o authorities that the def endant ha d acte d improperly during a phy sical examination, including inappropriately touching the patient’s brea st and g enital are a. L ocal police
, joined by the Tenne ssee B ureau of I nvestig ation (TB I ), launc hed an inve stigation. An underc over TB I a g e nt, Pa tr ic e Sc he rm e rh orn, po se d a s a frie ndof the c omp la ini ng patie nt, Am a nd a Pr itc he tt, and the two wome n returne d to the defe ndant’s office on J uly 30, 1998. Pritchett car ried a video

c a me ra c on c e a le d inhe r p ur se fo r the pu rp os e of re c or din g the de fe nd a nt’ s c on du c t du ri ng the vis it. Whil e A g e n t S c h e r me rh o r n w a it e d o u ts id e , Prit c h e tt a n d th e d e f

e n d a n t w e n t i n to a n e xa mi n ation room. Pritchett compl ai n ed o f a rash, and the de fendant proce eded to pe rform an examination, during which he touc hed Pritchett’s br ea s t s , ru bbed ag ainst her leg , massag ed her shoulders, and discussed the possibilityof himself and Pritche tt having a romantic e ncounter

. Following this i n ci d en t , Age n tS ch er m er h o rn , p o s i n g as “Teresa Price,” made a

n appointment with the defe ndant, ostensibl y s ee k i n g m edical treatment. During this visit on August 17, 1998, Scherme rhorn c arried a video c amer a conc eale d in her purse along with an au dio transmitter. Scherme rhorn c omplained of sinus problems, and the defe ndant examined he r throat, ear s, nose, and the g lands in her throat. Ag ent S ch erme rhorn pr ocee ded to ask the de fendant if he would be int e re ste d ina ro ma nti c lia iso n invo lvi ng he rs e lf, Prit c he tt, a nd the de fe nd a nt. He e xpre sse d in te re st and beg an to massag e Schermerhorn’ s neck and back. T he def endant asked if they

could all meet i n a h o t e l r o o mf

o r s e v e r a l h o u r s

. W h e n t h e d e f e n d a n t a t t e m p t e d t o k i s s h e r , s h e p u s h e d h i ma w a y. Th e de fe nd a nt the n p re sse d his bod y a g a ins t Sc he rm e rh orn, kis se d h e r o n th e ne c k, a ndbe g a n to a sk her que stions of a sexual nature. He told Schermerhorn that h e l i k ed kinky sex, “the kinkier the be tte r. ” Me a nw hil e , th e de fe nd a nt r ub be d h is h a nd

on Sc he rm e rh orn’ s th ig h u nti l sh e pu shedhis hand aw ay . T h e d efendant then wr ote Schermerhorn a presc ription and she lef

t, returning to the Athens Police De partment to re port the incident to other of fice rs involved in the investig ation.

The ne x t day , based upon the se incidents, the c ase w as pre sented to t he Gr and Jury and an indictment returne d ag ainst the defe ndant cha rg ing him with one c ount of rape , one count of sexual battery by an authority fig ure, and one count of sexual battery

. The defe ndant was a rre sted later that 1 day at his office by

Detec tive Bill Matthews of the Athens Police De partment and Ag ent T.J . J ordan-3-

of the TB I . Following the ar rest, the de fendant’s office was sea rche d, and the de fenda n t was qu e sti on e d b y

the arr e sti ng of

fi c e rs

.
Whe n n e ws sp re a d o f the arr e st, oth e r w ome n b e g ant o c o m efo rw ardwi th c omp la int s a g a ins t the de fe nd a nt. Th e se ne w c omp la int s w e re inv e sti g a te d a nda se c on d indi c tme nt w a s su bs e qu e ntl y returne d ag ainst the defe ndant on Novembe r 17, 1998, cha rg ing him with thr ee counts of ra pe, eig ht counts of sexual battery

and one c ount of at tempted ra pe. The offe nses alleg ed in this indictment inv olv e d fi ve ot her patie nts of the de fe nd a nt: Jami e Hu nt, Me lis sa Ma rt in, Kathy

Ritn e r, De ssi e Ellis, and Bre nda Mullinax

.
Stil l more women c ontinued to come forwar d with complaints, and a third indictment was returne d ag ainst the defendant on Marc h 16, 1999. This indictment char g ed the defendant with four

c ou nts of se xua l batte ry

a ndon e c ou nt of ra

pe inv olv ing fo ur mor e fe ma le patie nts : Caro ly n G rant, Sh ar o n Ro b e r ts , A p r il M ar ti n , a n d Sa n d r a H ar le y

. I n a ll
, th e d e f

e n d a n t w a s c h ar g e d w ith tw e n ty s e xrelated offe nses involving e leven differe nt victims. The victims wer e all patients of the defe ndant

a ndrang e d ina g e fr om s even tee n to fo rt y -s ix y e ars of a g e . T he tim e pe ri oddu ri ng wh ic h th e se crimes we re a lleg ed to have be en committed cove red six y ear s. The ea rliest incident involved Sandra Har ley and occur

red in N ovember of 1992. The other incidents occ urre d betwee n April 1996 and Aug ust 1998.

Prior to trial, the State moved the trial c ourt, pursuant to Rules 8 an d 13 of the Te nnessee Rules of Criminal Procedure , to consolidate all counts contained within the thr ee indictments for a single trial

. T h e d efendant objec ted and subseque ntly filed a motion, pursuant to Rule 14 of the Te nn e sse e Rul e s o f C ri min a l Pr ocedur e, to se ve r a ll c ou nts a s to e a c h v ic tim . H ow e ve r, prior to trial the def

endant a g ree d that the cha rg es involving Pritche tt and Scherme rhorn c ould be tried toge ther. As to the other

counts, the def

endant r equeste d a separate jury trial be held f or ea ch alleg ed victim, in which all char g es re lated to that victim would be tried.

At a pre -trial hea

ring on this issue, the State pointed out the fac tual simil arities among the char g es and a

rg ued that consolidation wa s proper as ea ch crim e “constit utes a fing erprint” of the de fe nd a nt andthe sim ila

ri tie s e xhibi te d th e de fe nd a nt’ s “ c ro wn ing mod us op e rand i.” Th e c ou rt a lso revie wed videota

pes showing eac h victim’s statement to police and the rec orded v i s i t s to the defe ndant’s off

ice by Pritchett and Scherme rhorn. The trial court ag ree d with the State’s ar g ument for c onsolidation, stating there was a “pattern involved” to the ac ts and that, consider ed all toge ther, they “told a story .” Thus, the motion to sever was denied, and the indictments w ere consolidated for

a sin g le tr ia l.

Th e c a se pr oc e e de d to tr ia l in Ap ri l, 200 0, du ri ng the c ou rs e of wh ic h s e ve ra l of the vic tim s,
a lon g wi th i nv e sti g a tin g la w en fo rc e me nt of fi c e rs a ndoth e r w itn e sse s, of fe re d te sti mon y . T he fi rs t witness for the State w as Sandra Har ley , who testified conc erning the eve nts of a visit to the de fe nd a nt’ s o ff

ic e in No ve mbe r of 19 92

. Ha rl e y state d tha t, at that time , she wa s e ig hte e n y e ars old

a ndha d d e liv e re d a

ba by e arl ie r i n th e y e ar. She we nt to the de fe nd a nt d ue to “ so me so rt of fe ma le problem.” The defe ndant had be en her doctor since she wa s fourtee n y ear s ol d
, an d s h e had seen-4-

him as a patient on numer ous occa sions. On this vi sit, after hearing her complaints, the defe ndant asked he r to undres s fr om the waist down, with him leaving the room while she did so. Ha rley testified that she lay down on the examination table with her fe et in stirrups and a she et cove ring her. When the defe ndant re enter ed the r oom, he pushed on h er ab d o m en , then inserted f irst one, then another , fing er into her

vag ina and then removed them. The def endant then be g an to massag e her clitoris and aske d her if it hurt. At this point, Har ley stated she stopped the examination and stepped off the ta ble. She quickly

put on he r shorts, g rabbe d her pur se in one ha nd and her shoes in the other, and immediately

left the off

ice. Ha rley went dire ctly

to her fat h er’s house and told him what had ha pp e ne d. Sub se qu e ntl y , th e po lic e we re c a lle d, a ndHa rl e y sp ok e to an of

fi c e r, wh o mad e a

re po rt

. Har ley t h en we n t t o the emer g ency room at a loc al hospital where a ra pe examination was perf ormed. Ha

rley testified that she ne ver he ard a n y t h i n g el s e about the c ase and never took any other a ction until 1998, when she lea rned the defe ndant had be en ar rested. A t that time, she g ave a stateme nt to Detective Matthews and Ag ent J ordan c oncerning the 1992 incident.

J ames L ander s, Sandra Ha rley ’s father, testified that Harle y had ar rived at his house, crying and shaking , following her a ppointment with the defendant in 1 9 9 2

. W i t h i n a fe w minutes of hearing H arle y ’s desc ription of the incident, L ander s went to see the defe ndant and a sked him what he had done to his daug hter. The defe ndant stated all he had done was “ mash on her stomac h” and write he r a pr escription.

Melissa Martin, the sec ond victim to testi fy , s t at ed s he first saw the def endant in 1997 seek ing tr e a tme nt f

or low e r b a c k p a in s he wa s e xpe ri e nc ing fo llo wi ng a n auto mob ile a c c ide nt. During this visi t, the defe ndan t t old Martin she wa s pretty and had a

pretty smile and pretty

hair. Martin testified that the de fendant “mashed a round” on her ba ck and la id his head on her shoulder while he listened w ith a stethoscope. Ma rtin thought it unusual for the defe ndant to place his head on her shoulder

like this. On her sec ond visit t o the def endant’s office , Martin said that the defe ndant sat in a c hair a nd she could see that the d ef en d an t h ad “like, an ere ction on him.” The defe ndant rolled the chair

up close to Martin, and she could fe el the def endant’ s ere ct penis touching h erl eg.

Martin furthe r testified that, during an appointment in May of 1998, the de fendant ag ain had a noticea ble er ection and r

ubbed it ag ainst her leg

. T h e d ef en dant also aske d her to stand up a nd unbutton her pants and, a s she did so, he we nt over to the door and locked it. The de fendant stood behind Martin and ran his hands up her shirt, massag ing and rubbing her ba ck, and a sked her if she had any o n e at home to do that. The de fendant then ran his hands dow n her pa nts, massag ed her buttocks, and plac ed his hand be tween he r leg s. Martin testified the de fendant then “stuck his fing er in my bottom,” at which point she pulled up he r pants and told him “it’s not hurting there .” The

e xam e nd e d a

br up tly , a ndMa

rt in l e ft , im me diate ly

g oin g to s e e he r m oth e r. Ma rt in te sti fi e d s he tol d her mother
, Doris Delzell, about the incident a nd also consulted her attorney the next day . Howeve r, Martin stated she did not pursue the matter be cause she wa s afr aid no one would be lieve her . I t was not until the defendant was arr ested in 1998 that Martin came forward and reported her alleg ations to police.-5-

Do r is D e lz e ll te s ti f

ie d th a t, a f

te r M ar ti n r e late d th e e v e n ts o f h e r v is it to th e d e f

endant’ s of fi c e , D e lze ll w a nte d to c on fr on t the de fe nd a nt. Ho we ve r, sh e de c ide d n ot t o d o s o w he n M art in ag ree d to speak to her

attorney , Randy

Roge rs, about the incide nt.
Roge rs testified that he w as alre ady re p rese nting Ma

rtin in a civil case arising out of the automobile acc ident in which Martin had injure d her back. Roge rs s tated that Martin told hi m that sh e didno t w a nt t o c onti nue se e ing the de fe nd a nt a s h e r d oc tor . Wh e n Ro g e rs ur g e d h e r t o
rec onsider, Martin became distraug ht and told him wha t h ad occur red at her last visit with the defe ndant. Rog ers then sug g ested “ some reme dies” such as filing a civil suit and reporting the incident to police.
Caroly n Gra nt testified that she wa s living in McMinn County in 1996 and 1997 and wa s assig ned the de fendant as her phy sician throug h TennCar e. Gr ant testifi ed t h at s h e saw the defe ndant eve ry

other wee k during this period due to pain in her back and abdomen. She sa id she felt uncomfortable with some of the defe ndant’s ac tions and comments during these visits. Grant stated the de fendant would ho l d an d s queeze he r bre asts while he listened to he r hea rt. The defe ndant would also roll his chair be tween he r leg s and “r ub his ge nitalia on [her] knees” while he had an e rec tion. Grant testified that this happene d on every visit

. Du ring her la st visit , Gra nt testified that the def

endant hug g ed her

and kissed her on the neck “in a way no doctor should eve r be kis sin g y ou on the ne c k. ” Th e de fe nd a nt a lso g a ve his pa g e r n umb e r t o G rant, te lli ng he r that if sh e ne e de d to talk to som e on e the y c ou ld g e t tog e the r fo r dr ink s. Gr a nt te sti fi e d tha t, fo llo wi ng thi s la st v isi t, s he c on ta c te d la w e nf or c e me nt a

uth oriti e s b ut n oth ing c a me of he r r e po rt . I t wa s n ot u nti l 1998, when Gr ant hea

rd that the de fendant had bee n arr ested, that she a g ain ca me forw ard and g ave
a state me nt t o th e inv e sti g a tin g of fi c e rs

.
Sharon Roberts testified that she beg an see ing the defe ndant a s h e r p h y sician bec ause she was experiencing back pain and the defe ndant was the onl y TennCar e approved doctor in the are a taking

ne w p a tie nts . Ro be rt s te sti fi e d th a t th e de fe nd a nt r a n h is ha nd s insi de the ba c k of he r p a nts wh ile

exam in in g h e r b a c k

. Ro b e r ts to ld th e d e f e n d a n t to mo v e h is h a n d a n d “ th a t’ s n o t w h e r e myback hurt[s] .” The defe ndant complied with her reque st at t hat t ime. Howeve r, Roberts testified that he

c on tin ua lly

didoth e r thin g s th a t ma de he r f e e l un c omf

orta ble . Sh e te sti fi e d th a t th e de fe nd a nt w ou ld alway s place his hand on her brea st w hile listening to he r heart with a stethoscope a nd would tell her she looked pre tty

and sm elled good. Roberts also noticed that the defendant would not do anything inappropriate i f Roberts’ daug hter a ccompa nied her into the examination room. R oberts continued to see the de fendant professionally until he was ar

rested.

Br enda Mullinax testified that she is forty -six y ear s old with three childre n and two g randc hildren. Mulli n ax s o u gh t treatment from the def endant on only

one occ asion, J anuary

29, 1997, to g et her

cholester ol chec ked. During this visit, Mull inax t estified that the de fendant sat on a chair, rolled it up betwee n her leg s, and attempted to put his “privates” on her le g s. The def endant also continuously

rubbed his ha n d s o n Mullinax ’s leg s during this ex amination. L ater , Mullinax complained to a nur se about the defendant’s actions. The nurse told her to spea k to another w oman wh o w or ke d inthe of

fi c e if sh e wante d to lodg e a c omp la int

. Mu lli na x te sti fi e d tha t she sp ok e to-6-

this woman two day s later a nd complained a bout the incident. Howe ver, she did not report it to the police at that time as she was a fra id no o n e would believe her. It was not until she saw that the defe ndant had be en ar

rested that Mulli nax came for war d to authorities.
Kathy Ritner testified that she ha d pre v iouslybeen se x ually assaulted while se rving in the Na vy . T his inc ide nt h a d tr aumatize d h e r andc a us e d h e r t o le a ve the Na vy on me dic a l r e tir e me nt. Fol lo wi ng her milita

ry se rv ic e , s he mov e d to Te nn e sse e wh e re sh e fi rs t sa w the de fe nd a nt i n No ve mbe r o f 1 99 7. Ritn e r t e sti fi e d th a t she ha d be e n p re sc ri be d s e ve ra l ty pe s o f anti -d e pr e ssants and nerve medication while in the Navy and had come to the def endant to continue the treatment and

me dic a tio n. Ritn e r t e sti fi e d th a t du ri ng he r v isi ts, the de fe nd a nt w ou ld p la c e his ha ndon he r b re a sts

. During one visit in which she complained of back pain, Rit ner testified the defe ndant ran his hands down her back and “kept g oing until he was into my private a rea .” The defe ndant would also rub

a g a ins t he r l e g , a ndon so me vis its Ritn e r c ou ld t e ll t hat he wa s se xua lly aro us e d. L a te r, Ritn e r t old the de fe nd a nt that sh e wi sh e d to sto p s e e ing him a ndwa s g oin g to f

inda no the r d oc tor

. At that po int
, acc ording to Ritner, the def endant be came ag itated, and Ritner be came scar ed to be locke d in a room with him. On her last visit, Ritner testified that the def endant plac ed his hands on her brea st, in her

rec tum, and near

her va g ina; all of which, a ccor d i n g t o Ritner, was unne cessa ry . Ritner told her husband about these incidents but did not inform police until after the de fendant was ar rested on the oth e r c ha rg e s.

Jami e Hu nt so ug ht tr e a tme nt fr om the de fe nd a nt in Au g us t 19 97 c omp la ini ng of c he st p a in fo llo wi ng a n auto mob ile a c c ide nt. Hu nt t e sti fi e d th at, aft e r i nf ormin g the de fe nd a nt o f h e r c he st pain, the def

endant use d a stethoscope to list en to her chest. How ever , the defendant told Hunt he could not hear

her he art a nd asked he r to remove h er s h i rt an d bra. H unt testified that, afte r she

remove d her clothing, the defe ndant put dow n the stethoscope and held her brea sts, lifted them, and rubbed the m in what Hunt described as “a sex ual rub.” The defenda nt beg an to prepare Hunt for a n EKG b u t c o n ti n u e d to ru b H u n t’ s b r e a s ts a n d th ig h s a ll th e w h il e , a n d th e d e f e n d a n t a ls o in s e r ted a fing er inside Hunt’ s vag ina. Hunt testified that af ter this visit she told her mother- in-law what had

occur red and also later told her attorne y . Hunt also contac ted the medica l board re g arding the de fe nd a nt b ut t oo k n o f

urthe r ac tio n unti l sh e le arn e d a bo ut the oth e r c ha

rg e s a g a ins t th e de fe nd a nt.

Amanda Pritche tt testified that she was se ventee n y ear s old and rec ently marrie d when she soug ht treatment fr om the defe ndant i n J uly 1998. Pritchett told the defendant that she had ringw orm jus t be low he r b e lly bu tto n. Pr itc he tt t e sti fi e d th e de fe nd a nt b e g a n th e e xam b y lis te nin g to h e r c he st with a stethoscope and that h e p l ac ed h i s hand on her brea st while doing so. The defe ndant

c omp lim e nte d Pr itc he tt on ho w pr e tty sh e wa s, te lli ng he r sh e c ou ld be a “ Pla y bo y mod e l.” Pr itc he tt testified that the def

endant leaned over

ver y cl o se to her and rea ched a round to listen to her bac k, and as he did so, Pritchett could f ee l t h e d ef

en d ant’s erec t penis pressing ag ainst her leg . The defe ndant then told Prit chett to pull her pa nts down so he could see the ring worm. Pritchett re plied that he could se e it without pulli ng down h er p an ts because it was rig ht below her belly button; howeve r Pritchett did undo the first button of her pants. Pritchett testified that the def endant then pulled her pants down further , ran his hands dow n inside h er pants, and put his finge rs inside her vag ina lips. Pritchett told the defendant that “ther e was no ring worm down ther e,” and the def endant-7-

brusquely told her to pull up her pants. The defe ndant then wr ote Pritchett a pre scription and she left. Pritchett testified that she ha d been on the verg e of cry ing dur ing the exam and had neve r bee n
so scar ed.
Pritchett immediately

went and inf

orme d her mother

of what had happe ned. Thre e day s later, Pr itc he tt r e po rt e d the inc ide nt to De te c tiv e Matth e ws of the Athe ns Pol ic e De pa rt me nt. I t w a s th is complaint that led to the investigation of the defe ndant. Wit h the assistance of the TB I , a plan wa s develope d wher eby

Pritchett and Age nt Scherme rhorn, using t he fictiti ous name of “ Tere sa Price,” would return to the de fendant’s office with a conc eale d video ca mera to rec ord the visit.

Th is i nv e sti g a tory

vis it w a s a c c omp lis he d o n July 30 , 1 99 8, wi th P ri tc hett compla ini ng to the de fe nd a nt o f a ras h on he r n e c k. Pr itc he tt t e sti fi e d th a t onthi s o c c a sio n th e de fe nd a nt a g a in place d his hand on her brea st while l istening to he r che st. Pritchett testified she had be en instructed by investigators as to the ty

pe of c onversation to carry on with the defe ndant, so she beg an to a sk the de fe nd a nt que sti on s re g ard ing he r pr e vio us vis it. Pr itc he tt r e c a lle d a sking the de fe nd a nt i f h e re a lly tho ug ht P ri tc he tt c ou ld b e a Pla y bo y mod e l. Th e de fe nd a nt re pli e d, “ Ye a h, y ou ha ve g re a t f e a tur e s” and beg an to massag e Pritchett’s shoulders. L ater in the visit, P ritchett and the defe ndant discussed the possibilit y

of themselves se cre tly

meeting somewher e for a romantic encounte r. The videotape

o f t h i s v i s i tw a s v i e w e d b y t h e j u r y.
Ag ent Patrice Scherme rhorn of the TB I testified that she posed as a friend of Pritchett’s and went to the de fe ndant as pa rt of the investig ation. Scherme rhorn made an appointment with the defe ndant for A ug ust 17, 1998, ostensibly seeking treatment for sinus pain. Schermerhorn c arried

a c on c e a le d vide o re c or de r w ithhe r d uring thi s v isi t. S c he rm e rh orn te sti fi e d th a t du ri ng the c ou rs e of the e x am she c ommented to the def en d an t , “I hear y ou might wa nt to go out with Mandy and I [ sic ] one tim e ,” re fe rring to Amand a Pr itc he tt a s “ Ma nd y .” Th e de fe nd a nt r e sp on de d a ff ir ma tiv e ly

an d t h ey d i s cu s s ed t h e d et ai l s o f s u ch a m ee t i n g. M ea n wh i l e, t h e d ef en d an th ad b egu n t o m as s age Scherme rhorn’ s neck and shoulders. Scherme rhorn testified that the def endant then tried to hug and kis s h e r, bu t sh e pu sh e d h im a way

. Sc he rm e rh orn a lso te sti fi e d that the de fe nd a nt pla c e d h is g ro in ag ainst her kne e and “ started moving back and forth.” Scherme rhorn state d that the def endant ha d

an er ection as he did this.

L ater d u ri n g t h i s v i s i t , t h e d ef

en d an tas k ed S ch er m er h o rn i f s h e l i k ed s ex t o y s

. S ch er m erhor n testified that the def

endant told her he liked “sex, kinky sex, the kinkier the better.” Scherme rhorn also stated that the de fendant told her he ha d his favorite se x toy with him, at which point the de fe nd a nt “ op e ne d u p h is m ou th, stu c k o ut h is t on g ue , a ndfl ic ke d it a t me .” Th e de fe nd a nt a lso

re po rt e dly

tol d Sc he rm e rh orn th a t the ne xt tim e sh e vis ite d th e of fi c e wi th P ri tc he tt the y

c ou ld a ll g o in to a ro om t og e the r. Th e jury the n r e vie we d th e vid e ota pe of thi s v isi t.

Detec tive Bill Matthews of the Athens Police De partment testified that Ama n d a Pr itc hett and he r h us ba ndc a me to the po lic e de pa rt me nt i n July

of 19 98 to r e po rt

the e vents of

Pr itc he tt’ s f

ir st vi si t w it h t he d efen dan t. Upo n h eari ng P ri tch ett ’s a ll egati on s, Det ect ive M atth e ws c ontac ted th e TBI for assistance and was put in touch with T BI Ag ent T.J

. J ordan, who helped pl an t h e u n d ercover-8-

vis its to the de fe nd a nt’ s o ff ic e la te r c on du c ted by

Pr itc he tt a ndSc he rm e rh orn. F oll ow ing the se visits, Detective Matthew s testified that he prese nted the ca se to a g rand jury and the f irst indictment char g ing the defe ndant was r eturne d.

Detec tive Matthews testified that as soon as the indictment w as issued, he, along with Ag ent J ordan, w ent to the def

endant’ s office and ar

rested him. De tective Matthews testified that, af ter the

arr e st, the y a dv ise d the de fe nd a nt of his Mir a nd a ri g hts a nd qu e sti on e d him

. I t was du ri ng this int e rv ie w, De te c tiv e Matth e ws te sti fi e d, that th e de fend a nt a dmi tte d to ha vin g ina pp ro pria te ly touched f emale patients before and that he had “hunched on fema le patients’ leg s.” The de fendant stated, howe ver, that he did not have a problem, he j u s t got car

ried a way sometimes. Detec tive Matth e ws a lso re port e d th a t th e de fe nd a nt a dmi tte d to ha vin g ha d c on se ns ua l se x withfe ma le patients in his of

fice and to having ere ctions while touching fema le patients’ br easts and g enitalia.

Ag ent T.J. J ordan of

the TB I also testified co n cerning the interview with the defe ndant fo llo wi ng his arr e st. Ag e nt Jord a n tes tif ie d th a t th e de fe nd a nt a dmi tte d to ha vin g se xua l c on ta c t w ith fema le patients and that some of the conta ct was “ non-cons en sual or unwa nted or unsolicited or

so me thi ng a lon g tho se lin e s. ” Simi lar to the te sti mon y of De te c tiv e Matth e ws , A g e nt Jor da n a lso te sti fi e d th a t th e de fe nd a nt a dmi tte d du ri ng qu e sti on ing to “ hu nc hin g ” on fe ma le patie nts a ndto having an er ection while doing so.

The fir st witness to testifyfor the de fense was Dr. Michae l Hood, a pra cticing phy sician fr om Newport, Tennesse e. Dr . Hood testified as t o t h e s tandar d of ca re r equire d of male doc tors

c on du c tin g e xami natio ns of fe ma le patie nts . D r. Ho od te sti fi e d th a t th e pr e se nc e of a nu rs e is “ pr e tty much ac cepte d as being nece ssary during a pelvic e x am.” Howeve r, Dr. Hood also testified that such

wa s n ot the c a se wi th br e a st e xams , statin g that he do e s no t ha ve a nu rs e pr e se nt d uring br e a st e xams about eig hty

perc ent o f t he time. Dr. H ood testified that he of ten sits on a rolling stool when examining patients and that occa sionally his “private a

rea ” would come in c ontact with a patient’s le g

. Al so , Dr

. Ho od te sti fi e d that it wa s so me tim e s ne c e ssa ry to ma nip ulate a fe ma le patie nt’ s b re a st when using a stethoscope . Dr. Hood further explained that during an examination of a patient’s bac k or spine it was ofte n nece ssary to press on or “ palpate” the patient’s lowe r bac k, including the are a
near the coc cy x which is very near the rectum. Dr. Hood testified that it was often esse ntial to do a

rec tal ex am i n ati on, including dig itally penetr ating the re ctum, of a pe rson complaining of a ba ck injury

.
Dr. Hood a lso reviewe d medical f iles of some of the victims and testified that, in his opini on, it would have bee n proper for a doctor to pa lpate the lowe r bac k of both Melissa Martin and K athy Ritner during an examination. Dr. Hood also testified that he had revie wed the E KG performed on J amie Hunt and opine d that it was not consistent with what would be ex pecte d from a person be ing sexuallyassaulted at the time. Howeve r, on cross-e x amination, Dr. Hood did a dmit that seve ral of the ac ts a lleg ed by the victims we re not pa rt of normal medical protocol and would not usually be do ne ba se d u po n th e ty

pe s o f p hy sic a l c omp la int s th e patie nts ha d p re se nte d to the de fe nd a nt.-9-

T h e d e f e n d a n t , D r

. S t e p h e n D e n t o n , t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e w a s o r i g i n a l l y f r o m L o u d o n C o u n t y, Te nn e sse e ; ha d g ra du ate d f ro m me dic a l sc ho ol i n 1 97 1; andha d th e re a ft e r b e e n o n a cti ve du ty in the Un ite d State s Ai r F or c e un til 19 81

. Th e de fe nd a nt mov e d to A the ns , T e nn e sse e in 1 98 1 a ndfi rs t worke d at Athens Reg ional Hospital and later beg an his ow n private prac tice in 1987. The de fendant te sti fi e d th a t by

19 98 he ha d o ve r f

ive t ho us and act iv e patie nt f ile s a ndwa s se e ing up to s ixty patients a da y . The de fendant denied eve r touching any of the victims for se x ual g ratification and stated that he ne ver intentionally put his g enitalia on any of the victims. The de fendant testified, “I

w o u l d n ’ tc a l l a n y o f t h e m l i ar s , I w o u l d s a y t h a t p e rh ap s i n t h e i r m i n d t h e y p e r c e i v e d i tt h a tw a y, but that’s not what was be ing done .”
During his direct examination, the defe ndant attempted to explain his act ions toward ea ch victim. The defe ndant testified, in re g ard to Car oly n Grant, that he had to touch he r bre ast to listen to her he art. The defe ndant denied e ver inserting his finge r into Sandra Ha rley ’s vag ina. He de nied touching Br enda Mullinax for the purpose of sexual gr atification. The defe ndant re viewed the EKG

c h ar to f J a m i e H u n t a n d t e s t i f

i e d t h a ti tw a s n o tc o n s i s t e n tw i t h t h a to f a p a t i e n tu n d e r

s tr e s s

. In explaining his actions towar d Kathy Ritner, the def

endant testified that it was medically nece ssary to palpate he r lower

back, ne ar he r re ctal ar ea, i n o rder to properly diag nose her

condition. The defe ndant also testified that it wa s nece ssary to touch the bre asts of Sharon Roberts in order to listen to her hear

t, and he denied doing so for sexual g ratification. The defe ndant opined that Roberts may have believed otherwise but “ that’s not w hat occur red.” Reg arding Melissa Martin, the de fendant explained that she had a bulg ing disc in her ba ck and the ref ore it wa s nece ssary

to palpate ve ry

low

on he r b a c k, inc lud ing he r b utt oc ks

. Turning to his treatment of Amanda Pritchett, the def endant testified he had tre ated he r and other memb e r s o f

h e r f a mi ly f o r a n u mb e r o f y e ar s

. H e d e n ie d e v e r

to u c h in g Prit c h e tt

f o r s e xu al g ratification. The defe ndant de n ied rubbing Pritchett’s vag inal lips and offe red that Pritchett’s

re c oll e c tio n w a s mi sta

ke n if sh e be lie ve d othe rw ise

. As fo r P ri tc he tt’ s a lle g a tio ns that he imp ro pe rl y touched he r bre ast, the def endant testified that he had very extensive training in c ardia c surg ery and

car diology

and ther efor e he w ould “take much more int ere st in li stening to y our hea rt than any one else in town.”

I n rec alling his e ncounter with Patrice Sche rmerhorn
, who posed a s “Ter esa Price ,” the defe ndant s aid he was surprised during her visit when Sche rmerhorn told him, “I ’m here to chat.” The de fendant testified that Scherme rhorn told him she was a “party g irl” and a

friend of Amanda Pritchett. He also rec alled viewing the videotape of Scherme rhorn’ s visit and acknowledg ed that he was embarra ssed by

his behavior on the ta

pe. The defe ndant apolog ized to his family and off ere d no excuse for his conduc t toward Sche rmerhorn.

The de fendant next testified conc erning the eve nts on the day of his arr est. He r elated how he wa s arr ested at his office by Detec tive Matthews and A g ent J ordan and taken, in handc uffs, to the justice ce n te r

f o r q u e s ti o n in g

. T h e d e f

e n d a n t d e n ie d e v e r

te ll in g th e o f

f ic e r s th a t h e h a d touc hedT hi s co nvi ct i o n was l at er r eversed b y t he C o urt of C ri m i nal A p p eal s fo r fai l ure t o i nst ruct t he jur y on t he 2

d efense of

co nsent

. T he Stat e d i d not ap p eal t he revers al
, and we d o not co nsi d er i t f urt her.

-10- fe ma le patie nts fo r se xua l gr a tif ic a tio n. Th e de fe nd a nt a lso de nie d th a t he ha d “ hu nc he d” on fe ma le patients’ leg s or had made unwanted a dvance s.

Other w itnesses testify ing f or t he defense included Karen Franklin, a nurse e mploy ed by the defe ndant during much of the time at issue. Fr anklin testified that she re membere d J amie Hunt as be ing c a lm wh e n sh e un de rw e nt the EK G a nd a lso that the de fe nd a nt wa s ve ry tho rou gh in

c on du c tin g c ard ia c e xami nations and often dis c ov e re d h e art murmur s in patie nts . Frank lin a lso

r e c al l e d B r e n da Mu lli na x co mpl a ini ng abo ut the de fe nd a nt’ s c on du c t. Frank lin te sti fi e d th a t sh e tol d the of fi c e ma na g e r a

bo ut M ull inax’s c omp la int s. Th e de fe nd a nt’ s daug hte r, Ste ph a nie De nto n, a lso testified, offe ring that the def endant wa s “a ve ry

aff ectionate person” and al s o a “ve ry touchy person.” Severa l char acte r wit n es s es also testified to the def endant’ s g ood reputation in the

c o m m u n i t y.

B a se d o n th is e vid e nc e , th e de fe nd a nt w a s c on vic te d of : se xua l batte ry on Am a nd a

Pr itc he tt (committed during her f

irst visit to the defe ndant); sexual battery by an authority fig ure on A manda Pritchett (for the second incident in which she ca rried the conce aled c amer a); a ssault on Ag ent Patrice Sche rmerhorn; sexual battery on J amie Hunt; two counts of a ssault on Melissa Martin; two 2
counts of sexual battery on Kathy Ritner; se x ual battery on Br enda Mullinax; and sex ual battery on Sha ro n Ro be rt s. Th e jury

a c qu itt e d th e de fe nd a nt o n th re e c ha rg e s o f r ape inv olv ing Jami e Hu nt, Melissa Martin and Sand ra Ha rl ey and also a cquitted on three counts of sexual battery involving Kathy Ritn e r andCaro ly n G rant.

AN AL YSI S

I. Consolid ation and Severanceof O ff enses

Stan dard of Revie w

Dec isions concerning c onsolidation and sever ance of off enses pursuant to Rules of Criminal Procedur e 8(b) , 13 and 14(b) (1) will be reviewe d for an abuse of discretion. State v. Toliver, 117 S

. W

. 3 d 2 1 6
, 2 3 1 ( T e n n

. 2 0 0 3 ) ; S p i c e r v

. S t a t e , 1 2 S

. W

. 3 d 4 3 8
, 4 4 2 ( T e n n

. 2 0 0 0 ) ; S t a t e v

. S h i r l e y, 6 S.W .3d 243, 247 (Tenn. 1999) . An abuse of discre tion in this c ontext implies that the trial court applied an inc orre ct leg al standar d or re ache d a dec ision ag ainst logic or rea soning which ca used an injusti ce to the c omplaining pa rty . Spicer, 12 S.W.3d at 443; S hirley , S.W .3d at 247.

Tennessee Rules of Crim inal Procedure 8, 13 and 14-11-

Consolidation of mul tiple offense s ag ainst a single defe ndant for a single trial is gove rned by Rules 8, 13, and 14 of the Te nnessee Rules of Criminal Proc edure

. The interac tion of these rule s h a s b e e n p r e v io u s ly a n a ly ze d b y th is Co u r t in a r e c e n t li n e o f c a s e s

. Se e St a te v

. T o li v e r, 117 S.W. 3d21 6 ( Te nn . 2 00 3) (i nv olv ing a de fe nd a nt c ha

rg e d w ith c hil d a

bu se in t wo se parate indictments, with the trial court consolidating these indictments for a single trial); Spicer v. State, 12 S.W .3d 438 (Tenn. 2000) (def endant ch ar ged u nder two se parate indictments which we re
c on so lid a te d ina

sin g le tr ial); S tat e v. Mo or e , 6 S.W. 3d23 5 ( Te nn . 1 99 9) (i nv olv ing a sin g le ind i ct m en tch ar gi n g m u l t i p l e o ff en s es , wi t h t h e d ef

en d an tre q u es t i n g t h at ce rt ain offenses be se vere d

a ndtr ie d s e pa

rate ly ); State v. Shi rl e y , 6 S.W. 3d 24 3 (T e nn . 199 9) (d e fe nd a nt ch arg e d w ith mul tip le

o f f e n s e s i n s i n g l e i n d i c t m e n ta n d r e q u e s t e d o f f e n s e s b e tr i e d s e p ar a t e l y)

. In t h e c a s e b e f o r e u s t o d a y, the de fe nd a nt w a s c ha

rg e d w ithmul tip le of

fe ns e s in e a c h o f thr e e se pa rate ind ic tme nts , a ndthe se ind ic tme nts we re the n c on so lid a te d a ndfo r a sin g le tria l.

Rule 8(b ) of the Tennesse e Rules of Criminal Procedur e provide s that “[t] wo or more offe nses may

be joined in the same indictment, pr esentment, or information, with e ach of fense stated in a sepa rate count or consolidated pursua nt to Rul e 13 if the of fense s constitute parts of a common scheme or plan or if

they are of the same or si milar cha rac ter.” Tenn. R. Crim. P. 8(b). Rule 13(a) g ive s th e tr ia l c ou rt the op tio n to c on so lid a te tw o o r m or e ind ic tme nts fo r t ri a l if the of fe ns e s c ou ld have been joined in a si ng le i ndictment pursuant to Rule 8(b). Tenn. R. Crim P. 13(a)

. Rule 13(b) allows the trial court the option of severing o ff en ses for trial if either the prosec ution or the de fe nd a nt co uld ha ve ob ta ine d a sev e ranc e un de r Rule 14

. Te nn . R. Crim. P. 13( b)

. F ina lly , Ru le 14 pr ov ide s th a t w he re “ tw o o r m or e of fe ns e s h a ve be e n jo ine d o r c on so lid a te d f or tr ia l pu rs ua nt t o Rule 8(b), the defe ndant shall have a right to a seve ranc e of the offe nses unless the off enses a re pa rt of a c ommon scheme or pla n and the evidenc e of one wou l d b e ad m i s s i b le upon the trial of the others.” T enn. R. Crim P. 14(b)(1) (e mphasis added)

.

I n short, these rule s interac t to allow the prosec ution, unde r Rule 8(b), to c onsolidate similar char g es ag ainst one def

endant into one indictment and to be hear d in one trial. Also, the prosec ution

c a n r e q u e s t th e tria l c o u r t t o c o n s o li d a te , p u r s u a n t t o Ru le 1 3
, o th e r in d ic tm e n ts f

o r tria l i f th ey constitute parts of the same “c ommon scheme or plan” or ar e the “ same or similar” crimes a s others with which the defenda nt is charg ed. Howe ver, if the defe ndant objects to consolidation or moves to sever the offe nses for trial, then Rule 14(b)( 1) plac es the burde n on the prosec ution to show that the offe nses ar e part of a c ommon scheme or pla n and th e ev i d en ce o f each c rime would be admissible in the trial of the other. Spicer, 12 S.W .3d at 443. Thus, under Rule 14(b)( 1), in addition to sho wi n g t hat the off

enses a re pa rt of a c ommon scheme or pla n, there is also a question of evidentiary admissibili ty

that must be addre ssed. I d. at 445 (c iting Moore , 6 S.W .3d at 239 (Te nn. 1999)). The ref

ore, be fore consolidation is proper the trial court must c onclude that: (1) the offe nses
are part of a

common scheme or plan; (2) evidenc e of eac h offe nse is r eleva nt to some materia l issue in the trial of all the other offe nses, Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b) (2); and ( 3) the pr o b at ive value of the evidenc e of othe r off

enses is not outweig hed by the pre judicial eff

ect that a dmission would have on the def endant, Te nn. R. Evid. 404(b)(3); Spicer , 12 S.W .3d at 445 (c itations omi tted). For example, evidenc e of othe r off

enses that tends to show a defendant’s char acte r or propensity is ge nera lly

not admissible, as it invit es the fa ct-finde r to infer g uilt from propensity . Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b).A s we st at ed in S p i cer, a m o t i o n to co nsol i d at e o f fenses i s t y p i cal l y a pre- t ri al m o t i o n wi t h evi d ence t end i ng 3

t o s u ppor t or n eg at e t h e pr opr i et y of c on s ol i dat i on b ei ng pr es en t ed at a pr e- t r i al h ea r i n g

. Spi ce r , 12 S. W

. 3d a t 445. C ons equen t l y , i n r evi ewi ng t he t rial c o urt ’ s deci s i on t o cons ol i dat e t he offens es , we nec es s ar i l y l oo k t o t he evi dence
p res ent ed at t he p re- t ri al heari ng, “ al o ng wi t h t he t ri al co urt ’ s f i nd i ngs o f fa c t and co ncl usi o ns o f l aw, t o de t erm i ne wh et h er t h e t r i al c ou r t a bu s ed i t s di s cr et i on by i mpr oper l y j oi n i n g t h e of fen s es

. ” I d.

-12- Ho we ve r, su c h e vid e nc e ma y be a dmi ssi ble fo r o the r p ur po se s su c h a s to pr ov e mot ive , in te nt, identity , the absenc e of mistake or acc ident, or the exis tence of a lar g er c ontinuing plan. See Toliver, 117 S.W .3d at 230 (c iting State v. Gilliland, 22 S.W .3d 266, 271 n.6 (Tenn. 2000) ).

Com m on Schem e or Plan

Tu rn ing to the fi rs t pa

rt of the te st u nd e r R ule 14 (b ), the re are thr e e ty pe s o f c omm on sc he me
or plan e vid e nc e : ( 1) of

fe ns e s th a t r e ve a l a

dis tin c tiv e de sign or

are so sim ila

r a s to c on sti tut e “sig nature ” crimes; (2) off enses that a

re pa rt of a la rg er, c ontinuing plan or

con spiracy ; and (3) offe nses that ar e all part of the same c riminal transact ion. Shirley , 6 S.W .3d at 248. The pa rties ag ree that the offe nses charg ed against the defendant are not all part of the same c riminal transac tion. Th e re fo re , b e fo re c on so lid a tio n is pro pe r the of fe ns e s must fa ll into on e of the oth e r t wo c a te g orie s. 3 Th e State a sse rt s, fo r the fi rs t tim e in thi s Cou rt , that the of fe ns e s c ha

rg e d a g a ins t th e De fe nd a nt f a ll

un de r the se c on d c a te g ory , a s th e y are pa rt of a larg e r, c on tin uin g plan. I nit ia lly ho we ve r, in b oth the trial court and the Court of Criminal Appea ls, the State relie d on the distinctive desig n or “sig nature ” crimes cate g ory to support c onsolidating the offe nses. The State arg ued at the pr e-tria l h e ar in g th a t th e c r im e s a ll e g e d a g a in s t th e d e f e n d a n t w e r e s o f

a c tu a ll y s im il ar a s to “ c o n s ti tu te [] a fi n ger p ri n t ” of the de fendant and exhibit his “crow ning modus ope randi.” The trial c ourt ag ree d, ho ldi ng that th e of

fe ns e s, wh e n c on sid e re d to g e the r, “ tol d a story .” We w ill a dd re ss b otharg ume nts

. We have pr eviously

held that the test for finding “sig nature ” crimes is “‘ not whether there

wa s evi de nc e that a def

e nd a nt co mmi tte d b othc ri me s, bu t w he the r the re wa s a unique method used in c ommitt ing the crimes.’ ” Moore, 6 S.W .3d at 241 (quoting Young v. State, 566 S.W .2d 895, 898 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 78 ))

. Un de r su c h c ir c ums ta nc e s, ‘“ the mod us op e rand i e mpl oy e d mus t be so unique and distinctive as to be like a signature.” ’ I d. at 240 (quoting State v. Carter
, 714 S.W .2d 241, 245 (Tenn. 1986) ). The e vidence of the other offe nses must have such unusua l particularities and be ‘“ so unique that proof that the de fendant committed the othe r off ense f airly tends to establish that he also c ommitt ed the of

fense with which he is c harg ed.”’ I d. (quoting Bunc h v. State, 665 S.W .2d 227, 231 (Tenn. 1980) ). Howe ver, simply beca use the de fendant may

have c ommitt ed a se ries of

c ri me s ‘ “ do e s n ot me a n th a t th e y are pa rt of a c omm on sc he me or

plan. ” ’ I d. a t 24 1 ( qu oti ng State v. Peacoc k, 638 S.W .2d 837, 840 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982) ).

We do not fi n d t h e o ff

enses here a

re so f actua lly unique or distinctive as to constitute the de fend ant ’s modus op e rand i. Wh ile the re are c e rt a inl y sim ila ri tie s a mon g the a lle g a tio ns , th e se sim ila ri tie s ar e simply that all of the inc ide nts we re se xua l a ssa ult s b y a ph y sic ia n a g a ins t a

patie nt. Ev e n th ou g h th e de fe nd a nt i s al leged to ha ve tou c he d th e wo me n ina se xua l ma nn e r w hil e examining them in his office , the circ umstances of eac h encounte r ar e not “so unique and distinctive as to allow one to c onclude that if [the def endant] committed [ one] offense , then he also must have-13-

c omm itt e d th e [oth e r] of

fe ns e s a s we ll. ” Mo or e , 6 S. W.3 d at 24 1- 42 . N oth ing make s th e se a c ts s o unique “that r easona

ble men can conclude that it would not likely be employ ed by differ ent per sons.” Tolliver, 117 S.W.3d at 229. Theref ore, the offe nses do not ev i d en ce a dis tinctive desig n nor ar e they “sig nature ” crimes of the def endant.

Furthermore , even a ssuming ar g uendo that these offe nses wer e all “sig nature crimes,” they sti ll c ou ld n ot b e c on so li dat ed un less e vid e nc e of on e wa s a dmi ssi ble up on the tr ia l of the oth e rs

. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 14(b)(1). I ndeed, w e have previously held that when the theory of common scheme or plan is g rounded upon a distinctive de sign or “sig nature ” crime, usually the only rea son to allow admission of other off enses is to establish the identity of the def endant. Moore , 6 S.W .3d

a t 23 9. I n th e c a sebe fo re us ide nti ty is not a n issu e

. Th e re fo re , inst e a d of u sin g the sig natur e c ri me theory to establish that the defendant was the perpetrator of t he crimes, the State appa rently soug ht

c on so lid a tio n of the of

fe ns e s simp ly in an e ff

ort to bo lst e r the te sti mon y of e a c h in div idu a l vi c tim throug h the accumulated testim ony conce rning other unrelated alleg ations. For instanc e, at the pr etrial hea ring , the State ar g ued for consolidating the offe nses by stating that there was no way for the victims “to [ be] corrobor ate[d] based upon the ac tual treatment give n beca use of that one o n one situation that the doctor put them in.” The State a lso seemed to admit as much at trial when the prosec utor stated that what made one of the victims believable was the “ pattern” of crimes alleg ed

a g a ins t th e de fe nd a nt. Th e re fo re , th e of fe ns e s a re no t mat eri ally

re le va nt t o e a c h o the r e xce pt t o sh ow the jury

that th e de fe nd a nt h a s b e e n c ha rg e d w ith a

string of sim ila r c ri me s. Suc h p ro pe ns ity

e vid e nc e inf

ri ng e s o n the de fe nd a nt’ s rig ht to a fa ir tr ia l by inv iti ng “ the tr ie r of fa c t to imp ro pe rl y inf e r that th e de fe nd a nt h a s a pr op e ns ity to c omm it c ri me s. ” I d. a t 23 9; s e e a lso Te nn . R. Ev id 404(b).

The State a lso arg ues, for the first time i n t h is Court, that the defendant’s acts c onstitut e a
co m m o n s ch em e o r p l an b ec au s e t h eyar e p ar to f al ar ger , co n t i n u i n g p l an o r c o n s p i ra cy

. Al t h o u gh the crimes all involved sexual mi sconduct a nd contained some similarities, a larg er, c ontinuing plan or conspira cy

“involves not the similarity betwee n the crimes, b u t [ ra t h er ] the common g oal or purpose at which they

are direc ted.” State v. Hoyt, 928 S.W .2d 935, 943 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995)

ov e rr ule d on othe r g ro un ds , Spic e r, 12 S.W. 3d a t 447. Th e State su bmi ts that th e de fe nd a nt’ s a c ts

wer e par t of a lar g er pla n that had one single g oal – that of a chieving sexual release . The a rg ument that sex crimes can be construed as part of a continuing plan or conspiracy mere ly by the fa ct that they are committed for sex ual gratification has previously been rejec ted. S ee Moor e, 6 S.W.3d at 240 (stating that two offe nses of child rape do not cre ate a larg er c onspiracy ); State v. Hallock, 875 S.W .2d 285, 290 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) (holding that mere fac t that crimes we re c ommitt ed for sexual gratificatio n i s i nsufficie nt to constitut e a c ontinuing plan or conspirac y ). A lar g er pla n or
c on sp ir a c y

in this c on te xt co nte mpl a te s c ri me s c omm itt e d in f urthe ranc e of

a plan th a t ha s a

re a dil y distinguishable g oal, not simplya string of similar offe nses. The State ha s offe red no evidenc e that the de fe nd a nt h a d a

wo rking plan o pe ratin g tow ard s th e fu tur e su c h a s to make pr ob able the c ri me with which the def

endant is cha

rg ed. See H oy t, 928 S.W .2d at 943. There fore , the offe nses cha rg ed

a g a ins t th e de fe nd a nt a

re no t pa rt of a larg e r, c on tin uin g plan o r c on sp ir a c y . A c c or din g ly , b e c aus e the offe nses ar e not “sig nature ” crimes or part of a larg er, continuing plan or conspirac y , we hold that-14-

the offe nses alleg ed ag ainst the defe ndant do not constitute a common sche me or plan and the tria l

c ou rt e rr e d inde nying the de fe nd a nt’ s mo tio n to se ve r the of fe ns e s f or tr ia l.

II. Har m le ss E r r orAna lys is

Ha vin g fo un d th a t the tr ia l cou rt e rr e d in re fu sin g to se ve r the of fe ns e s for tr ia l, w e no w mus t evaluate the re cord to de termine if this err or appea rs to have a ffirmatively

aff ecte d the outcome of the tr ia l. T e nn . R. Cr im. P. 5 2( a ); Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 3 6( b) . Wh eth er a tr ia l c ou rt sh ou ld g rant a

sever ance under Te nnessee Rule of C riminal Procedur e 14(b) (1) involves primarily an evide ntiary question, theref

ore, “ the ef

fec t of a de nial of that rig ht is weig hed by the s ame standard as other nonconst itutional evidentiary err ors: the def

endant must show that the er ror pr obably

aff ecte d the judgme nt before reve rsal is appropriate.” Moor e, 6 S.W

. 3 d at 242. Although the defe ndant was convicted of

assault upon Patrice Scherme rhorn, that c onviction was later reve rsed by the Court of Cr imi na l Ap pe a ls a nd we do no t c on sid e r it in this a na ly sis

. There fore
, we consider the de fenda nt’s other c onvictions, namely : one count of se x ual battery by an authority fig ure; six counts of sexual battery ; and two counts of a ssault.

We h a ve he ld that the “ lin e be tw e e n h arm le ss andpr e jud ic ia l e rr or

is i n d ir e c t pr op ortio n to t h e d egr ee . . . by

which proof

exceeds the standa

rd re quired to convic t . . . .” D e lk v . State, 590 S.W .2d 435, 442 (Tenn. 1979) ; see a lso Spi cer , 12 S.W .3d at 447- 4 8

. The State a rg ues that the failure to se ver the offe nses was harmless as the evidenc e prese nted ag ainst the defe nd an t was
overw helming. Further, the State submits that the jury ’s finding the def endant not g uiltyon six of the c ha rg e s a ndg uil ty

of le sse r i nc lud e d o ff

e ns e s o n f ive oth e rs sh ow s th a t th e jury ind e pe nd e ntl y evaluated ea ch charg e. The defenda nt counter s that the evidenc e in support of the c onvictions was far from overw helming. Also, the defe ndant ar g ues that admission of irre levant evide nce of other offe nses is inherently

prejudicia l as it creates a temptation for the jury to convict based solely

on a defe ndant’s prope nsityto commit crimes.

The e vidence prese nted ag ainst the defe ndant at trial co n s i s ted of the te stimonyof nine of the victims, testimonyof the father of one victim, testim ony of t h e mother and attorney of one

v ic ti m, te s ti mo n y b y th e in v e s ti g a ti n g o f f ic e r s , a n d tw o v id e o ta

p e s o f u n d e r c o v e r v is it s to the defe ndant’s off

ice. Ea ch victim testified that the def endant h ad t ouched the m sex ually and made improper or distasteful comments during their visits. The videotapes showe d the def endant touching Amanda Pr i t ch et t and Patrice Scherme rhorn a nd also eng ag ing in intimate conve rsation. Additional l y , De t ec tive Mathews a nd Ag ent J ordan te stified that the def endant a dmitted during questioning that he had inappr opriately touched f

emale patients’ brea sts and g enitals, that he ha d

ma de un wante d s e xua l a dv a nc e s, a ndthat he ha d p re vio us ly “ hu nc he d” on fe ma le patie nts ’ l e g s.

This e vidence
, taken by itself, could be considere d more than suf ficient to convic t. Howeve r, other e vidence was pres en t ed in s upport of the de fendant that miti g ated the State’ s case . Severa l char acte r witnesses t es t i fi ed to the def endant’ s g ood reputation. A nurse testified that one of the victim s , Ja mi e H u n t, h a d b e e n c a lm d u r in g th e ti me s h e a ll e g e d th e a s s a u lt h a d o c c u rr e d

. T he defe ndant’s daug hter testified that the defe ndan t wa s an af fec tionate and a

“very touchy ” per son.T he defendan t al s o rai s ed t he i s s ue on appeal t hat t he enh anc ement of hi s s ent enc e by t he t r i al cour t was 4

u n con s t i t ut i o nal u n der t h e r ec en t U n i t ed St at es Su pr eme Cour t de ci s i on i n B l ak el y v

. W as h i n g t on , 124 S. Ct

. 2531 ( 2004)

. H owe v er , a s w e h av e r ev er s ed t h e def en dan t ’ s c on v i ct i on s , t h e s en t en ci n g i s s u e i s re n der ed m oot an d we do

n o t ad d re ss it.

-15- A phy sician, Dr. Mic hael Hood, of fer ed his opinion reg arding the prope r st an d ard of car e, ea ch victim’s medical diag nosis and treatment, and the appropriateness of the de fendant’s actions. Dr. Hood testified that occ asionally his ow n “private are a” would contac t a patient while performing an examination and that it was sometimes nece ssary to manipulate a f

emale patient’s bre ast when using a stethoscope . Dr. Hood a lso ex plained t h e n ec es sityof touching the lower back and buttocks of patients complaining of back pain. The defenda nt himself also testified and de nied touching any of the victims for sexual gr atification. He offe red e x planations fo r m an y of his actions towar d the women, addr essed e ach vic tim’s alleg ations independe n tly , and attempted to e x plain the medica l

nece ssityfor most of his ac tions.

Whe n c o n s i d e re d a s a

wh ole , th e e vid e nc e a dd uc e d at tria l, w hil e c le arl y su ff ic ie nt t o c on vic t, was not over whelming . The e vidence supporting six of the convictions consisted sol el y o f the victims’ testimony . Other tha n the videotape of Amanda Pritchett’s visit, no phy sical evide nce w as produce d that tended to support any of the a lleg ations. Although the defe ndant and Dr . Hood offe red

me dic a l r e a so ns to e xpla in ma ny of the de fe nd a nt’ s a c tio ns , the re wa s li ttl e c ha nc e that th e jury c ou ld ha ve fu lly

a ndfair ly

c on sid e re d th e se a lte rn a tiv e e xpla nati ons c on sid e ri ng the arr a y of mul tip le char g es and te stimonythat hung in the backdr op as ea ch p articula r off ense w as pre sented by

the State.

We can nev er k n ow how evide nce that should not have bee n admitted truly aff ecte d the minds of the jury members. The victims a nd alleg ations wer e so numerous that one ca n n ev er be sure what evidence tipped the sca les reg arding any particula r char g e. I t is hig hly

unlikely that the jury wa s n ot i nf

lue nc e d inso me way

by the sh e e r v olu me of

te sti mon y

re la tin g to o the r c ha

rges. Under these circumstance s, common sense tells us that the jury probably believed the defe ndant had a prope nsityto commit such acts and that e ach vic tim’s testim ony was made more c redible by simil ar te stimonycoming from the others. For these re asons, we f

ind that the err or in consolidating the of fe ns e s mor e pr ob ably than not af fe c te d the ve rd ic ts an d wa s n ot h arm le ss. Th e re fo re , w e ho ld that th e de fe nd a nt’ s c on vic tio ns mus t be va c a te d a ndthe c a se re mand e d f or se pa rate tr ia ls. 4

III. Tennessee Code Annotated sec tion 39-13-527: Sexual Batter y by an Au thority F igure

Ha vin g fo un d th a t f

a ilu re to seve r the of

fe ns e s w a s r e ve rs ibl e e rr or , it is a lso ne c e ssa

ry to dete r mi n e th e p r o p e r a

p p li c a ti o n o f T e n n e s s e e Co d e A n n o tate d s e c ti o n 3 9

- 1 3

- 5 2 7 ( 2 0 0 3 )

. I n the pr e se nt c a se we mus t de te rm ine wh e the r a m e dic a l do c tor , b y virtue of his or he r p ro fe ssi on a l st a tus , falls within the amb it

o f T e n n e s s e eCo d eA n n o ta

te d section 39-13- 527(2003), whic h prohibits sex ual battery by an “a uthority fig ure.” The ke y

issue is whether a

doctor e x erc ises “super visory or dis c ipl ina ry po we r” ov e r a

patie nt d ue to the ph y sic ia n’ s p ro fe ssi on a l st a tus . T his is an is su e of fi rs t impression for this Court.-16-

Be cause the statute does not def ine either “authority

fig ure” or “super visory

or disciplinary power ,” we must rely

on principles of statutory

construction to asc erta in their meaning s. We review questions of statutory

construction de novo with no presumption of corr ectne ss g iven t o the lower courts’ c onclusions. State v. Walls, 62 S.W .3d 119, 121 (Tenn. 2001) ; State v. Alford, 970 S.W.2d 944, 945 (Tenn. 1998) . Courts are to look to the plain lang uag e of a statute and g iv e eff

ect to the ordinary meaning of the wor ds. State v. J enning s, 130 S.W .3d 43, 46 (Tenn. 2004) ; Cohen v. Cohen, 937 S.W .2d 823, 827 (Tenn. 1996)

. We pr esume that the leg islature purposef ully chose e ach w ord used in a statute a nd that eac h word c onvey s a spec ifi c purpose and mea ning. See J enning s, 130 S.W .3d at 46; Bry ant v. Genc o Stamping & Mfg . Co., 33 S.W .3d 761, 765 (Tenn. 2000) . Further,

we m u s t‘“ as ce rt ai n an d ca rr y o u tt h e l egi s l at u re ’s i n t en twi t h o u tu n d u l y re s tri ct i n g o r e x p an d i n g a statute’s cove rag e bey ond its int ended sc ope.”’ J enning s, 130 S.W .3d at 46 (quoti n g L avin v. Jord a n, 16 S.W. 3d36 2, 36 5 ( Te nn . 2 00 0) ). On ly if the plain la ng ua g e of a

statut e is ambi g uo us mus t

we loo k bey on d th e statut ory la ng ua g e to d e te rm ine the le g isl a tur e ’s int e nt. I d. Ho we ve r, in criminal ca ses, all ambig uities will b e re s olved in favor of the de fendant. State v. Roge rs, 992 S.W .2d 393, 400 (Tenn. 1999)

.
Sex ual battery by an authority fig ure is define d in Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ction 39-13- 52 7 ( 20 03 ), wh ic h s ta te s, in p art : (a) Sex ual battery by an authority fig ure is unlawful sexual contac t with a victim by the def endant or

the def endant by

a victim acc ompan i ed b ythe following

c ir c ums ta nc e s: (1) The victim was, at t he ti me of the offense, thi rtee n (13) y ear s of age or older but less than eig hteen ( 18) y ear s of ag e; and e ither (A) T he def

endant ha d, at the time of the offe nse, super visory or disciplinary power over the victim by virtue of the defendant’s le g al, profe ssional or occ upational status and used such pow er to a ccomplish the sexual contact; or (B ) T he de fe nd a nt h a d, a t th e tim e of the of fe ns e , pa re nta l or c us tod ia l auth ority

ov e r the vic tim

a ndus e d s uc h auth ority

to a c c omp lis h th e se xua l c on ta c t.

The de fendant was ch ar ged under this statute based upon his status as the phy sician of Amanda Pritche tt and the fa ct that Pritchett was se venteen y ea rs o ld at the time she alleg ed the defe ndant sexuallyassaulted her. The defe ndant appeals his conviction, arg uing that the statute does

no t r e a c h me dic a l do c tor s a s th e y do no t e xer c ise “ su pe rv iso ry or dis c ipl ina ry po we r” ov e r p a tie nts

. The State, in re sponse, ar g ues that the statute applies t o doctors because they exercise c ontrol over patie nts ’ bo die s, dir e c t patie nts du ri ng e xami natio ns to un dr e ss or e xpos e the mse lve s f

or dia g no sis
, and patients know the y

must acquiesce to such direc tions in order to obtain treatment.

At the ou tse t, it is c e ntr a lly

imp orta nt t o o ur

a na ly sis to n ote that se c tio n 3 9- 13 -5 27 on ly applies if the victim is betwee n the ag es of thirtee n and eig hteen. Since its enac tment in 1997, there hav e been rel a tiv e ly

fe w p ro se c uti on s b a se d u po n th is s ta tut e , a ndthe se ha ve , f or the mos t pa

rt ,Se e St at e v

. Par k s , N o. M 2003- 02002- CC A- R3- CD
, 2004 W L 1936404 ( T en n

. Cr i m. App. Au g

. 30, 2004) 5 ( de fe n da n t w a s v i c t i m’ s s t e pf a t h e r ) ; St a t e v

. Poi n t e r , N o. M 20 03

- 00 89 3- CCA- R3- CD, 20 04 W L 60 34 19 ( T e n n

. Cr i m. App. M ar ch 26, 2004) ( def en dan t w as v i ct i m’ s s t epfat h er ) ; St at e v

. Rai n ey , J r

. , N o. M 2001- 01870- CC A- R3- CD
, 2003 W L 21302993 ( T en n

. Cr i m. App. J u n e 6, 2003) ( def en dan t w as t h e v i ct i m’ s scho o l p ri n ci pal a n d c oac h ) pe r m. a pp. den i ed ( T en n

. , N ov

. 3, 2003); T en n

. D ept

. of C h i l dr en ’ s Ser v i ce s v. H of f mey er , N o. M 2002- 00076- CO A- R3- JV, 2003 W L 1 0 9 2 7 7 9 (T enn. C t. A p p . M a r. 1 3
, 20 0 3 ) ( d efend ant was t he vi ct i m ’ s f at her); J. W

. ex rel

. Jeana W at t s v. M aury C o unt y , N o

. M 2 0 0 1

- 0 2 7 6 8

- C O A -R 3 -C V , 20 0 3 W L 1 0 1 8 1 3 8 (T enn. C t

. A p p

. M ar. 11
, 20 0 3 ) ( d efend ant was t he

v i ct i m’ s s ch ool r es ou r ce of f i ce r ) ; St at e v

. M cGi l l
, N o. E2001- 01074- CC A- R3- CD
, 2002 W L 707936 ( T en n

. Cr i m. App. Apr

. 24, 2002) ( def

en dan t w as t h e v i ct i m’ s t ea ch er )
, perm. ap p

. d eni ed ( T en n

. , Se pt

. 9, 2002) ; St at e v

. M i l l er , N o. E 2 0 0 0

- 0 1 8 6 7

- C C A

- R 3

- C D
, 20 0 1 W L 9 5 7 4 6 4 ( T enn. C ri m

. A p p

. A ug. 2 3
, 20 0 1 ) ( d efend ant was t he vi ct i m ’ s f at her)
p erm

. ap p

. de ni ed (T enn. , F eb

. 2 5
, 2 0 0 2 ); S t at e v. T ri vet t e, N o

. E 1 9 9 9

- 0 0 9 4 4

- C C A

- R 3

- C D
, 20 0 0 W L 1 4 7 0 5 3 0 (T enn. C ri m

. A p p

. O ct

. 4, 20 0 0 ) ( d efend ant was vi ct i m ’ s co usi n).

S e e , e.g , Ju lie G a n tz , S ta te S ta tuto ry P re c lus io n o f W ro n g ful B irth R e lief: A T ro u b ling R e -W riting o f a 6

W o m an’ s R i ght t o C ho o se and t he D o ct o r- P at i ent R el at i o nshi p , 4 V a. J. So c. P o l ’ y & L. 7 9 5 (19 9 7 ).

I d. a t 799. 7

-17- involved pare nts, teache rs, coa ches, or relatives of the victim. Such positions car ry with them an 5 i n h e r e n t p o w e r t o e x e r c i s e au t h o r i t y o v e r a d o l e s c e n t s t h a ti s n o tl i k e w i s e e x e r c i s e d o v e r a d u l t s

. In contra st, we find no such distinction can be made bet we en ad u l ts and adolesc ents in the phy sician/patient relationship. Whil e an adolesc ent m ay fee l compelled to follow a doc tor’s orde rs for he alth purposes, just as an a dult p at i en t m i gh t als o, this is a far c ry from the pe rsuasive, dis c ipl ina ry c on dit ion s pres ent fo r a do le sc e nts in o the r s e tti ng s. I n th e us ua l c ou rs e of e ve nts , adolesc ents are require d to be under the direc t supervision of par ents, teac hers, c oache s, or school officia ls; they

do not have a ny

choice in the matter, a nd there fore the opportunity for a buse is much g reater. I t is these situations that w e fi n d t h e s t atut e see ks to address a nd not that of a patient voluntarily

seeking treatment and advice from a phy sician.

Further, be fore the statute is applicable , a def endant must exercise “ supervisory or disciplinary

power ” over

the victim. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 13-527 (2003). Ordinary meaning s of “discipline” include: (1) order based on obedienc e to a uthority , and (2) punishment meant to corr ect or train. See Webster’s I I

New Riverside Dictionary 198 (Revised e d. 1996). “D isciplinary power ,” the refore, wo uldbe the po we r t o d e ma ndob e die nc e thr ou g h th e us e or thr e a t of pu nis hme nt. Cle arl y , d oc tor s d o n ot h a ve the po we r t o d e ma nd ob e dience th roug h th e thr e a t of pu nis hme nt. Howeve r, “supervisory ” is a more ambig uous term. Obviously it must mean somethin g d i fferent than “disciplinary ” or othe rwise its inclusion in the s tatute would be superfluous. Acc ording to the dictionary definition, to “supervise” is to “[t ]o di rec t and inspect the work, a ctions, or per formanc e of: overse e.” I d. at 678. “Super visory power ” would ther efor e mea n the power to direct the a ctions of anothe r. Without question, docto rs often direct the a ctions of their patients, and patients often comply . Howeve r, doctors do not, simply by virtue of their

profe ssional status, possess an inhere nt power or authority

to do so.
Traditionally
, d o ct o rs were g rante d g reat defe renc e in direc ting their patients and making decisions for the m. Doctors of ten treated patients like childre n, and the patients ac cepte d this role. 6 7 Howeve r, the mode rn i deal view s the profe ssional relationship much diffe rently , with the doctorI d. a t 801. 8

See T enn. C o d e A nn. § 4 0

- 3 5

- 1 1 4 (16 ) (20 0 3 ) (l i st i ng an ab use of a po si t i o n of p ub l i c o r pri vat e t rus t as o ne 9

o f sev e ra l en h a n c e m e n t fa c to rs tha t a tria l co u rt m a y a p p ly i n c rim ina l se n te n c ing ).

S e e , e .g., A rk

. C o d e A n n

. § 5 -1 4 -1 2 4 (a )( 2 ) (2 0 0 3 ) (p e rs o n c o m m its first d e g re e se x u a l as sa u lt if the vic tim 10

i s a c h i l d a n d t h e per s on i s i n a pos i t i on of t r u s t or a u t h or i t y ov er t he vi ct i m ); M i ss

. Code An n

. § 97- 3- 95 ( 1998) ( def en dan t h ol ds a pos i t i on of t r u s t or au t h or i t y ov er a c h i l d) ; St at e v

. M ar cu m, 811 P. 2d 963, 965 ( W as h

. Ct

. App. 1991) (holdi ng i n a chi l d m o l est at i o n case t hat a po si t i o n of t rus t and a po si t i o n of aut ho ri t y are not t he same thi ng).

-18- tr e a tin g the patie nt m or e a s a c lie nt andpla c ing the ult imate c on tr ol an d de c isi on makin g abil ity in the ha nd s o f the patie nt. Whil e the re ma y be a g re a t de a l of trus t in he re nt i n th is r e la tio ns hip , w ith 8

ma ny patie nts g ivi ng g re a t de fe re nc e to the ir do c tor s’ re c omm e nd a tio ns , th e a uth ority a ndpo we r t o control the re lationship ult imately rests with the patient. The ref ore, w e do not b el i eve the term

“ su pe rv iso ry

po we r” c omf

orta bly de sc ri be s th e vo lun tary

de fe re nc e o f

t e ng i v e nt o p h y s i c i an s b y

t h e ir patients.

We also find it instructive t hat the ce ntral purpose of sec tion 39-13-527 is to prohibit sex ual b a t t e r y b y a n “ au t h o r i t y f i g u r e

. ” S e e T e n n

. C o d e A n n

. § 3 9

- 1 3

- 5 2 7 ( 2 0 0 3 )

. T h e t e r m“ a u t h o r i t y” is s us c e pti ble to m or e than o ne me a nin g ; w ith a c c e pte d d e fi nit ion s in c lud ing : th e po we r t o command, dete rmine, influenc e or judg e; authorization or rig ht; and also, an e x pert in a g iven field. Webster’s I I New Riverside Dictionary 48 (Revised e d. 1996). It has also bee n define d as the rig ht

an d p o we r t o co m m an d
, en fo rc e l aw s , ex ac t o b ed i en ce , d et er m i n e o r j u d ge. T h e A m er i ca n He ri t age Di c tio na ry of the En gli sh L a ng ua g e 89 (1 0 e d. 19 81 ). I n a ff irmin g the de fe nd a nt’ s c on vic tio ns , th ho we ve r, the Cou rt

of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls c ha

ra c te ri zed the re la tio ns hip be tw e e n d oc tor a ndpatie nt, not as o n e o f au t hority , but as one of g reat trust. Si milarly , it has been state d that “[t] here is an inhere nt trust and confide nce which a patient see king me dical ca re pla ces in the phy sician and upon wh ic h a patie nt r e lie s in a llo wi ng the ph y sic ia n a c c e ss to the mos t int imate pa rt s o f the bo dy .” State

v. Ti zar d, 89 7 S .W .2 d 732, 74 3 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 94 ). We a re in c omp le te a g re e me nt that a doctor holds a position of g reat tr ust w ith his or her patients. Howeve r, sec tion 39-13-527 does not addre ss positi ons of trust; instead, it imposes criminal liability on those who abuse their position as authority fig ures. It is particularl y re v ea l i n g on this point that at the time sec tion 39-13-527 was

enac ted an a

buse of a position of trust was already addre ssed i n the Tennessee Code as a sente ncing enhanc ement fa ctor in criminal cases. There fore, t h e Genera l Assembly must have viewe d a 9 position of authority

as being differ ent from a position of trust, o r t here would have be en no nee d to enac t section 39-13-527. A ccording ly , a position of trust is not sy nony mous with a position of authority
, and a phy sician is not an “authority fig ure” as that term is ordinarily define d. 10

Acc ording ly , we hold that Te nnessee Code Annotated se ction 39-13-527 ( 2 0 0 3) wa s not int e nd e d to app ly

to the ph y sic ia n/p a tie nt re la tio ns hip

. Al so , f or the re a so ns state d a

bo ve , w e ho ld that phy sicians do not exercise supe rvisory or di sciplinary power over patients merely from the f

act of the phy sician’s prof

essional or oc cupational status.-19- CO NC LU SION

I n summary , we hold that the tria l court abuse d i t s d i s cretion in deny ing the defe ndant’s motion to s ever

the offe nses for trial. The off enses we re not part of a common scheme or pl an nor would evidenc e of one have be en admissible upon trial of the others. We also hold that this error appea rs to have affirmatively aff ecte d the verdicts and wa s not harmless. Additionally , we hold that Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 3 9- 13 -5 27 (2 00 3) is n ot a pp lic able to ph y sic ia ns me re ly be c aus e of the ir pr of e ssi on a l st a tus a ndthe re fo re the de fe nd ant was ina pp ro pria te ly

c ha rg e d u nd e r this statute. Acc ording ly
, the judgme nt of the Court of Criminal Appea ls is reverse d, and the de fendant’s

c o n v i c t i o n s a n d s e n t e n c e s v a c a t e d

. T h i s c a s e i s r e m a n d e d t o t h e tr i a l c o u r t f o r n e w tr i a l s

. In

a c c or da nc e wi th the de fe nd a nt’ s o ri g ina l mo tio n to se ve r the of fe ns e s, a se pa rate tr ia l wi ll b e he ld for e ach a lleg ed victim, with all char g es re lating to that a lleg ed victim being hear d at that time.

Costs of this appea l are assessed a g ainst the State of Te nnessee

.

______________________________ WI LL I AM M. B AR KE R, JUS TI CE