State of Tennessee v. Mark A. Schiefelbein

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

February 14, 2006 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MARK A. SCHIEFELBEIN

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Williamson County

No. I-1102-427 Russ Heldman, Judge

No. M2005-00166-CCA-R3-CD and

No. M2005-02370-CCA-R10-CO

Filed February 8, 2007

A Williamson County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Mark A. Schiefelbein, of seven

counts of aggravated sexual battery and one count of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of

a minor. The trial court imposed a 12-year sentence for each conviction and ordered consecutive

service, thereby yielding an effective sentence of 96 years. Aggrieved of the convictions and

sentences, the defendant appeals and raises the following issues: (1) the trial court erred by failing

to require the State to furnish discovery materials to the defendant; (2) the trial court committed

reversible error by configuring courtroom seating to shield the public from viewing certain exhibits;

(3) the trial court improperly instructed the jury, sua sponte, to disregard certain truthful testimony

of the defendant; (4) the trial court’s repeated questioning of State’s witnesses created an appearance

of judicial bias and improperly bolstered the State’s case; (5) the trial court committed reversible

error in excluding defense-proffered medical testimony that a physical examination of the victim

rebutted the occurrence of sexual penetration, contact, or injury; (6) the trial court permitted the

introduction of inadmissible and highly prejudicial hearsay and opinion testimony; (7) the trial court

erroneously permitted the State to examine the defendant about his knowledge that a “voice stress

analysis” could detect stress in an individual’s voice; (8) the trial court erroneously instructed the

jury that the defendant could be guilty of aggravated sexual battery if he acted intentionally,

knowingly, or “recklessly”; (9) the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that the State could

prove the mental state for aggravated sexual battery in the disjunctive by showing that the defendant

acted intentionally, knowingly, “or” recklessly; (10) the trial judge should be disqualified from

further involvement in the case; and (11) the defendant’s effective sentence is excessive, illegal, and

unconstitutional. As an adjunct to the issues raised on direct appeal, the defendant also pursues

Appellate Procedure Rule 10 interlocutory review to bar future prosecution of three related child-

rape charges that were severed, over his objection, from trial of the aggravated sexual battery and

especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor offenses. After thorough review of the record

and careful consideration of the parties briefs, their oral arguments, and the applicable law, we hold

that none of the errors require reversal of the defendant’s convictions for aggravated sexual battery

or for aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. However, we hold that the incarcerative 96-years’

sentence is inconsistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing and does not provide a fair

sense of predictability of the criminal law and its sanctions; therefore, we modify the defendant’s

effective sentence from 96 years to 36 years. We order that the trial judge who presided at trial is

disqualified from conducting any further proceedings in this cause. Finally, we dismiss the child-

rape offenses, as improperly severed, and hold that further prosecution on such charges is barred by

principles of double jeopardy.1

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 & 10; Judgments of the Circuit Court are Affirmed in Part as Modified;

Reversed in Part.

JAMES CURWOOD WITT , JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ROBERT W.

WEDEMEYER, J., joined. GARY W. WADE, P.J., not participating.

David L. Raybin, Nashville, Tennessee (on motion for new trial and on appeal); and Patrick Johnson,

Nashville, Tennessee (at trial), for the Appellant, Mark A. Schiefelbein.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General & Reporter; Benjamin A. Ball, Assistant Attorney General;

Ronald L. Davis, District Attorney General; and Mary Katharine White, Assistant District Attorney

General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

On November 12, 2002, the Williamson County Grand Jury indicted the defendant

on three counts of child rape, see T.C.A.2 § 39-13-522 (2006) (“Rape of a child is the unlawful

sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant or the defendant by a victim, if such victim is less

than thirteen (13) years of age.”), seven counts of aggravated sexual battery, see id. § 39-13-

504(a)(4) (“Aggravated sexual battery is unlawful sexual contact with a victim by the defendant or

the defendant by a victim accompanied by any of the following circumstances: . . . (4) The victim

is less than thirteen (13) years of age.”), and one count of especially aggravated sexual exploitation

of a minor,3 see id. § 39-17-1005 (“It is unlawful for a person to knowingly promote, employ, use,

assist, transport or permit a minor to participate in the performance or in the production of material

which includes the minor engaging in: (1) Sexual activity; or (2) Simulated sexual activity that is

patently offensive.”). All charged offenses involved the same victim.

1

W e remand for clerical correction one of the judgments. See Footnote 3.

2

The definitive style guide for legal citation in the United States is T H E B LU EB O O K : A U N IFO RM S Y STEM O F

C ITATIO N (Columbia Law Review Ass’n et. al. eds., 18 th ed. 2005). The current 18 th edition directs that local citation

rules take precedence over Bluebook rules. For Tennessee, T H E B LUEBOOK references “Tenn. Code Ann. § 1-2-101(a)

(2003) (‘cite as’).” That Code section provides as follows: “This compilation of the laws of the state is to be designated

as the ‘Tennessee Code’ and the annotated edition of the code provided for by chapter 1 of this title shall be designated

as ‘Tennessee Code Annotated’ and abbreviated and cited ‘T.C.A.’” Henceforth, the author of this opinion will employ

“T.C.A.” in citation sentences and citation clauses.

3

The indictment and the judgment list the incorrect code section for this charge. They list section 39-17-105

instead of section 39-17-1005. See T.C.A. §§ 39-17-105 (charge for use of public toilet facility prohibited), -1005

(2006). On remand, the trial court shall amend this judgment.

-2-

On July 7, 2003, the first day of trial, the State moved to sever the three child rape

counts. The trial court granted the motion, over defense objection, and five days later, the jury

convicted the defendant of the remaining charges. Following the sentencing hearing, the trial court

sentenced the defendant to an effective incarcerative sentence of 96 years. The defendant filed a

timely notice of appeal.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the proof at trial showed that B.R.,4

born June 15, 1990, practiced gymnastics at Let It Shine Gymnastics in Franklin, Tennessee, where

she was coached by the defendant. When the defendant opened his own gymnasium, Esprit

Gymnastics,5 in late 2000, B.R. and five other female students left Let It Shine Gymnastics to

continue under the defendant’s tutelage. The defendant referred to these 6 students as his “six pack.”

B.R. testified that she was the defendant’s “favorite” student, and he developed a

close social relationship with B.R.’s family. He regularly joined them for dinner, movies, hockey

games, holidays, and church services. The defendant received Christmas and birthday presents from

the victim’s family, and he bought presents for B.R., her mother, and her younger sister. B.R.

testified that she had received other gifts from the defendant, and her fellow students “start[ed] not

liking [her] and it made [her] sad.”

During the summer of 2001, B.R. practiced gymnastics five days a week, and the

following school year, she practiced four days a week. Typically, B.R. would wake at 6:15 a.m., and

she would attend school from 8:30 a.m. until 3:15 p.m. Afterwards, she would practice gymnastics

for approximately five hours, until approximately 9:00 p.m. when she would go home, complete her

homework, and retire to sleep at 11:00 p.m.

The State’s evidence showed that all of the charged offenses occurred during B.R.’s

practice sessions at the gymnasium between the summer of 2001 and September of 2002. Evidence

described Esprit Gymnastics’s gymnasium and office layouts. The victim testified that the defendant

touched her vagina while she was stretching on the “regular” floor6 and on the rod floor, and he

touched her breasts and made her touch his penis while they were in his office. B.R. explained that

the majority of the touching took place on the rod floor. The rod floor is approximately one foot

higher than the concrete regular floor, and carpet separates it from the concrete. B.R. said, “[I]t’s

. . . a strip of floor[,] and it is very bouncy and easier to tumble on.” B.R. and other State witnesses

4

To protect the identity of minor victims of sex crimes, it is the policy of this court to refer to the victims by

their initials.

5

The trial transcripts incorrectly refer to Esprit Gymnastics as “Espirit Gymnastics.” We will use the correct

spelling “Esprit.”

6

W e glean from the record that the “regular” floor is the large floor marked with boundary lines where gymnasts

perform tumbling and floor exercises.

-3-

testified that a cabinet stood in an opening in the office wall.7 From the parent-viewing area,

individuals could see into the office through this opening if they leaned over the cabinet. The office

also had a door.

B.R. stated that six to seven other students were present without their parents when

the defendant touched her. The defendant stretched the students in a certain order, and he stretched

them behind a purple and white mat. In the beginning, the defendant stretched B.R. first, but then

he started stretching her last. She explained that on some occasions, he would stretch her twice,

before and after the other students. She stated that the defendant would touch her after he stretched

the other students and while the other students performed exercises on the bars and the trampolines.

B.R. recounted that the defendant first touched her vagina, over her leotard, while she

was doing a frog stretch.8 He pressed his hand onto her buttocks during the stretch and placed his

fingers between her legs, onto her vagina. B.R. gave various estimates of the number of times she

was touched. At trial she testified that the defendant touched her in this fashion over her leotard

eight to 10 times. B.R. also stated that he touched her under her leotard during this stretch “a bunch

of times.” She recalled telling Brentwood Police Department Detective Adrian Breedlove, the case’s

lead detective, that the defendant had touched her vagina under her leotard approximately 30 times.

She explained at trial that she was “distraught” during the interview with Detective Breedlove, and

the defendant touched her under her leotard 15 to 17 times.

The defendant also touched B.R.’s vagina and had her pull aside her leotard during

the straddle stretch9 while she was training for level seven10 competitions. She testified that the

defendant told her that he needed to see her vagina so he would know where not to touch her. B.R.

complied because the defendant “gets really mad very easily.” After she would pull her leotard

aside, he then asked to touch her vagina to determine how it felt, so he would not touch her again.

B.R. stated that she allowed him to touch her “[b]ecause he would get angry and [she] was his

favorite and [she] didn’t want him angry at [her].” B.R. and the defendant would then negotiate how

many seconds he could touch her vagina, but he would count very slowly to extend the actual

7

B.R. testified that this opening was “patched . . . up.” During the defendant’s proof, Rob Tallman, a home

builder, testified that the defendant asked him in June of 2002 to fill in the opening. He stated that in late August or early

September the defendant enclosed the opening and asked him to finish the drywall.

8

W e discern from the record that for a frog stretch, a gymnast lies on his or her stomach and puts his or her feet

together. The knees splay to each side of the body, and the goal is for the entire body to be flat against the floor. B.R.

demonstrated this stretch for the jury.

9

W e discern that for a straddle stretch, a gymnast sits with his or her legs in a V-shape. The goal of this stretch

is to have the legs wide and straight to the floor. B.R. also demonstrated this stretch for the jury.

10

B.R.’s mother testified that B.R. began training for level seven in the summer of 2001. B.R. testified that the

sport of gymnastics is organized into 10 levels. Gymnasts begin competing at level four, and as they master harder skills,

they compete at higher levels. The elite level exceeds the tenth level, and at this stage, gymnasts possess the skills

necessary to compete in the Olympic Games.

-4-

touching time. B.R. testified that he touched her with his “pointer finger,” and she mimicked his

finger’s movement for the jury.

During the straddle stretch, the defendant would ask B.R. to rate on a scale of one to

10 how the touching made her feel. At first, B.R. told the defendant “zero because it didn’t feel good

to [her]. It made [her] feel violated.” When the defendant accused her of lying, she provided a

number to prevent him from becoming angry. B.R. explained that the defendant touched her vagina

“basically every time” she did the stretch.

B.R. testified that the defendant routinely videotaped the students’ “tricks,” and he

videotaped B.R.’s vagina twice while she did the straddle stretch. On the first occasion, he told B.R.

that he had an idea that she would hate. Then he asked her if he could videotape her vagina, and she

“finally gave in because [she] didn’t like him being angry at [her].” The defendant directed B.R. to

pull aside her leotard, and he placed the camera on the rod floor, positioned it in front of her, and

videotaped her vagina. After this first videotaping, the defendant claimed that the previous tape

“didn’t turn out” and that he needed to videotape her a second time. He told B.R. that he needed to

move her leotard. At first, she refused, but eventually, she pulled her leotard aside. After she moved

her leotard, the defendant adjusted its position, and B.R. held it in place. The defendant placed the

camera on the rod floor and videotaped himself touching B.R.’s vagina. She testified that his finger

was “shaky.” Sometime later, the defendant assured B.R. that he had destroyed these videotapes.

He told her that he burned the film in a tuna can, and he smashed the remaining plastic parts with

a hammer. He then threw the tuna can and the plastic in the trash.

After Thanksgiving of 2001, the defendant made B.R. touch his penis twice in the

same day. B.R. stated that these incidents occurred in the winter because she remembered the

defendant wearing “black squishy pants,” and he only wore long pants in the winter. She

remembered telling Detective Breedlove that the defendant wore “quilted shorts” when this occurred,

but she testified at trial that now she “remember[s] clearly it was black pants.” First, while near the

uneven bars, the defendant asked B.R. to put her hand in his pocket because he had a “treat” for her.

She refused, but later, while in his office, he made B.R. put her “hand in his pocket and squeeze his

penis.” The second time the defendant made B.R. touch his penis was later that same day. After he

went to the restroom, he went to his office and called for B.R. She testified that she did not want to

go into his office “because [she] thought something like that was going to happen.” When she

entered the office, the defendant exposed his penis. B.R. turned her head, and the defendant said,

“You can touch it and squeeze it.” B.R. told the defendant that she did not want to touch his penis,

but he grabbed her hand and made her touch it. She demonstrated for the jury the motion that the

defendant instructed her to make. She stated that the defendant’s penis looked “swollen,” “purple,”

and “red,” and it felt “hard” and “squishy.”11

The defendant later apologized to B.R. He told her that he would buy her anything

she wanted because he made her touch his penis. B.R. told him that she wanted a teddy bear, but

11

The record is unclear whether the office door was closed during these offenses.

-5-

she testified that she “was just kidding.” The defendant gave B.R. a teddy bear, and B.R. told her

mother that he gave it to her for helping coach other students.

In May 2002, the defendant touched B.R.’s breasts. She remembered that it was May

because her mother noticed that she was starting to develop breasts on May 1. Her mother told her

to remember this important date and to tell the defendant about her development. When B.R. told

the defendant, he asked to see and touch her breasts. While in the defendant’s office with the door

closed, B.R. pulled her leotard aside, and the defendant touched her breasts. B.R. explained that her

back was to the door and that the defendant was facing her.

In June 2002, B.R. began complaining of back pain. In the evenings, B.R.’s mother

would place ice on B.R.’s back and give her Advil. B.R. continued to practice gymnastics during

the following weeks although her back pain did not subside. B.R.’s mother testified that B.R. had

“a couple of especially hard workouts,” and she testified to one in particular. On July 1 or 2, the

defendant telephoned B.R.’s mother and told her that B.R. needed to quit gymnastics because B.R.

would not follow his instructions. She spoke with B.R. that evening, and B.R. told her that the

defendant became angry when she refused to do back handsprings on the high beam because her

back hurt. The defendant became enraged and left the gymnasium for approximately one and one-

half hours. A 17-year-old gymnast supervised the students in his absence. B.R. informed her mother

that she did not enjoy gymnastics and that she wanted to quit. B.R. testified that the touching was

the real reason she wanted to quit.

B.R.’s mother admitted that she enjoyed watching her daughter practice gymnastics

and compete, but she testified that she supported B.R.’s decision to quit. Therefore, she called the

defendant the next day and told him that B.R. would not be attending practice and wanted to quit

gymnastics. That evening, the defendant and Mia Yabut, B.R.’s friend and practice partner, drove

to B.R.’s home in the tumble bus.12 B.R. joined them in the tumble bus, and B.R. told the defendant

she wanted to quit because she no longer enjoyed practicing gymnastics. B.R. testified that the

defendant made Miss Yabut leave the bus and then asked if she wanted to quit because he was

touching her. She confirmed that the true reason for quitting was the touching. The defendant told

B.R. that he would not touch her again. At some point, the defendant and B.R. went inside the

house. B.R., her mother, and the defendant went to B.R.’s bedroom. The defendant begged B.R.

not to quit gymnastics, and he cried. No decision was reached at that time.

Later in July, the defendant, B.R., and her parents met at the gymnasium again to

discuss whether she would quit. B.R.’s mother testified that she wanted B.R. “to quit for the right

reason.” She did not want B.R. to quit because she was scared to do a trick or had a bad practice.

B.R.’s mother testified that at the meeting, B.R. was “defiant, like [she] had never seen her before.”

B.R. testified that her mother encouraged her to try again. Her mother left the office because she was

frustrated regarding B.R.’s defiant behavior and wanted her daughter to quit for, what she

12

According to the defendant’s testimony, a tumble bus is a school bus with removed seats and miniature

gymnastics equipment.

-6-

considered, an “appropriate reason.” At this meeting, they failed to decide whether B.R. would

continue practicing gymnastics.

While the defendant, B.R., and her parents continued to discuss B.R.’s involvement

with gymnastics, a doctor examined B.R.’s back. The doctor determined that B.R. had fractured the

L-5 vertebrae, and he prescribed that she wear a back brace for at least three months. The doctor

later extended the time to four months. While B.R. wore the brace, she did not practice gymnastics.

Instead, she worked sporadically at the gymnasium concession stand.

On September 7 or 8, 2002, the defendant went to B.R.’s house for dinner. After

dinner, the defendant, B.R., and her two sisters searched for the family dog. During the search,

B.R.’s oldest sister told the defendant that B.R. thought a certain young boy was cute. The defendant

teased B.R., and she struck him in the head. B.R. explained at trial that she hit him because of the

teasing and her pent-up anger from the touching.

After finding the dog and returning to the house, the defendant told B.R.’s mother that

he was “extremely angry” with B.R., that she had hit him, and that he was going to leave “before he

lost his cool.” B.R.’s mother testified that she asked B.R. why she struck the defendant and why the

defendant grew angry at B.R. “over seemingly insignificant things.” B.R. told her mother that she

had many reasons for hitting the defendant. Finally, B.R.’s mother asked, “[I]s he touching you

inappropriately?” B.R. answered that he had touched her inappropriately. At trial, B.R. testified,

over objection, that after she told her mother, her mother commented that “she kind of felt like

something like that was going on.”

B.R.’s mother testified that she hugged B.R. and told her that it would never happen

again. When she asked, B.R. where the defendant touched her, B.R. replied, “[h]er private spot.”

B.R. testified that she finally told her mother “[b]ecause [she] couldn’t bear having it inside [her].”

She stated that on several occasions, the defendant would tell her not to tell anyone because he

“would get in trouble.” B.R. believed she would “get in trouble for telling because [she] thought he

would get angry at [her].”

The next morning B.R.’s parents contacted the police. B.R. and her parents met with

Detective Breedlove at the Brentwood Police Department on September 10, 2002. Detective

Breedlove conducted B.R.’s interview in a conference room equipped with video and audio

recording devices, which he used to record the interview.13 B.R.’s parents observed the interview

on a closed circuit television. B.R.’s mother testified, over objection, that “[she] knew that [B.R.]

was being totally honest. [B.R.] was telling [Detective Breedlove] exactly what happened.” She

further testified that B.R. acted “somber,” but at times, she acted “silly, . . . not like herself at all.”

13

The videotape was shown to the jury during Detective Breedlove’s direct examination testimony.

-7-

Detective Breedlove described B.R.’s demeanor as sometimes being “happy” and

“friendly,” but she then acted “stoic” and “flat.” B.R. looked down and softened her voice when she

described “sensitive subjects,” and she “shudder[ed]” while describing certain incidents.

Detective Breedlove attended a second interview with B.R. Over objection, he

testified that B.R.’s statements during the interviews and at trial regarding where the defendant

touched her, when he touched her, and where she was while the defendant touched her were

consistent. He explained that B.R. did not remember dates or the specific number of times the

defendant touched her vagina, but she never wavered from her story.

Detective Breedlove testified on cross-examination that although B.R. varied the

number of times that the defendant touched her vagina, he believed her testimony was consistent for

a child. Detective Breedlove admitted that B.R. made a mistake when she told him that the

defendant was wearing shorts when he exposed his penis. Detective Breedlove stated that after that

mistake, B.R. consistently stated that the defendant was wearing black pants. He agreed, however,

that B.R.’s testimony was “fairly inconsistent” regarding whether the defendant held the video

camera or whether it was on the ground while he filmed B.R.’s vagina in the straddle-stretch

position.

Subsequent to the September 10, 2002 interview, Detective Breedlove obtained

search warrants for Esprit Gymnastics and the defendant’s residence. On the evening of September

11 and prior to executing the warrants, Detective Breedlove visited B.R.’s home. With her parents’

permission, B.R. agreed to place a “perp phone call” to the defendant. Detective Breedlove testified

that the purpose of the telephone call was to gather information and possibly an admission from the

defendant. In the presence of her parents and Detective Breedlove, B.R. telephoned the defendant

at the gymnasium, and Detective Breedlove recorded the conversation.

During Detective Breedlove’s testimony, the State played the recorded conversation

for the jury and entered a transcript of the conversation into evidence. During this conversation,

B.R. told the defendant that she was worried about him touching her “private spots.” The defendant

responded, “No, I’m not going to do that.” B.R. also told the defendant that she was worried about

the videotapes. The defendant stated, “There [are] no video tapes.” The two then argued over

whether there are tapes of her “private spot.” Then, the defendant stated, “I have no idea what you’re

talking about . . . .” B.R. replied, “You, just promise me you destroyed them, okay?” The defendant

stated, “Whatever.” After this response, they changed the subject, and at one point, the defendant

spoke with B.R.’s mother. He failed to mention B.R.’s allegations. Eventually, the defendant spoke

with B.R. again, and the telephone conversation ended without further discussion of the offenses.

After recording the telephone conversation, Detective Breedlove and other Brentwood

Police Department personnel executed the search warrant first on Esprit Gymnastics and then on the

defendant’s residence. Initially, the defendant gave his consent to search the gymnasium, but he later

revoked consent. Detective Breedlove produced the warrant, and the police searched the

-8-

gymnasium. After this search, the defendant followed the police to his residence, and it was

searched.

The police seized approximately 79 videotapes from the gymnasium and the

defendant’s residence. Detective Breedlove and two members of Project Alert,14 viewed all 79 tapes.

None of the 79 videotapes contained footage of B.R.’s uncovered vagina made while she performed

the straddle stretch. Of the 79 videotapes, 25 were digital VHS tapes. Detective Breedlove testified

that the 25 digital tapes contained practice routines of the defendant’s students. Five of the 25 digital

tapes, labeled A through E, focused on B.R.; the defendant focused the camera on “all three . . . of

the victim’s private areas.” Detective Breedlove stated that the defendant “zoomed” the camera in

on B.R.’s clothed vaginal area more than 200 times. He explained that some shots occurred when

B.R. did a gymnastic skill, but many times, the defendant “zoomed” in on B.R.’s vaginal area when

she was not doing anything of a “gymnastics nature.”

In tape A, the defendant “zoomed” the camera in on B.R.’s vaginal area 81 times.

In tape B, he focused on her vaginal area 84 times. In one of the 84 shots, B.R. was pushing a mat

underneath another student doing a skill on the trampoline. At this point, her legs obstructed a view

of her vaginal area. Detective Breedlove testified that as the defendant “zoomed” in on B.R., he

stated her name and that she “better get that in, you’re totally blowing it now.” She placed the mat

a couple more times, and the defendant stated her name again and said “hang on to the mat and get

it in like you used to, please.” B.R. changed positions making her vaginal area visible, and the

defendant said, “better, thank you” and then stated the victim’s name. Detective Breedlove testified

that during another shot of B.R. on tape B, while she was lying down, the defendant was distracted

by someone. He told the person to “give [him] a second” as he “zoomed” the camera in on B.R.’s

vaginal area. Detective Breedlove testified that the defendant focused on B.R.’s vaginal area 69

times in tape C, five times in tape D, and three times in tape E.

At trial, Lucy Fox, a judge and member of USA Gymnastics, the country’s gymnastics

governing body, reviewed several portions of videotape A. Referring to the “handstand straddle

down” position, she stated that there is no gymnastic purpose for “zooming in” on the gymnast’s

vaginal area. She asserted that there was no gymnastic purpose for focusing on the gymnast’s

vaginal area when she pushed the mat under another gymnast who was flipping on the trampoline.

Ms. Fox continually asserted the lack of any gymnastic purpose for each of the scenes she viewed.

Regarding spotting and stretching techniques, Ms. Fox explained that professional

members of USA Gymnastics must pass a safety certification test based upon the USA Gymnastics

Safety Handbook. The Handbook lists regulations for equipment and spotting techniques. Ms. Fox

read the Handbook’s “Hand Spotting” section into the record.

14

Project Alert is a section of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The members are mainly

retired law enforcement officers. This organization assists police departments with investigations.

-9-

Hand spotting refers to a method of spotting where a coach places his

or her hands on the gymnast, and lifts and manipulates and/or

supports the gymnast in mastering a skill. Warning and consent

documents should refer to the act of hand spotting and what it means.

All spotting should result in minimal touching support, and athletes

should be informed about the potential for touching while being

spotted. Unnecessary touching should not be used particularly when

the spotter is male and the gymnast is female. Gymnast and parents

should be aware that from time to time a slip may occur and the

gymnast will be touched on the buttocks, crotch or chest. The coach

and gymnast should understand such touching is at a minimum and

should not occur repeatedly.

If the coach or instructor accidentally touches one of these areas,

he/she should be sensitive to the situation and indicate that the touch

was an accident by a brief apology and then return to instructions.

When a coach/instructor is performing a rescue type spot, then

concern about touching a private area is obviously trivial in

comparison to the consequence of the unprotected fall.

Ms. Fox also explained that the private parts, the crotch, buttocks, and chest, are “no

zones.” She stated that there is no reason to touch the no zones, except possibly for a rescue spot.

Rescue spotting is when the coach will “grab” the gymnast to protect him or her from injury. The

coach prevents the gymnast from hitting his or her head, or the coach stops the gymnast’s rotation.

Ms. Fox further explained how a gymnast performs a frog stretch, and she

demonstrated the proper placement of the coach’s hands while hand spotting in the stretch. She

stated that “[n]o coach should place [his or her] fingers . . . between an athlete’s legs.” She testified

that frog stretching is not related to rescue spotting.

Ms. Fox also testified that a coach should not place his or her fingers between a

gymnast’s legs while the gymnast performs the straddle stretch. She stated that the coach’s fingers

should be placed “towards [the gymnast’s] legs diagonally or . . . straight up towards [the gymnast’s]

head along [his or her] back.” The hands should never rest on the inner thigh area.

On cross-examination, Ms. Fox explained that when a gymnast performs the frog

stretch, a coach should place his or her hand “midway down [the gymnast’s] tush,” but “not cupping

[the gymnast’s] tushes.” She stated that this is an exception to the “no zone” rule, but a coach should

never touch the vaginal area of a student. Ms. Fox explained that TOPS testing, testing for gymnasts

training for the elite track, examines gymnasts’ strength and flexibility. During this testing, coaches

take several measurements, one being from the gymnast’s hip bone to the floor while in a split. She

admitted that the coach touches the vaginal area, the hip bones, but the coach does not touch the

vagina or the inner thigh. Ms. Fox testified that pictures of the cat leap position would show the

-10-

crotch area, but it would also show the legs and feet for positional purposes. Finally, she stated that

neither a student nor a coach would benefit gymnastically from watching videotapes that only show

a gymnast’s crotch.

On October 2, 2002, personnel at Our Kids Center evaluated B.R. Phyllis Thompson,

a licensed social worker, testified at trial. She obtained B.R.’s medical history and explained the

process of the medical examination. Ms. Thompson stated that this initial interview dictates the

invasiveness of the physical examination.

Ms. Thompson testified that B.R. told her that she was having nightmares about the

defendant. When Ms. Thompson asked her what the defendant did to her, B.R. replied that he

touched her “private spot” many times. B.R. further stated that the defendant touched “the part she

pees from - with his finger.” B.R. was unsure whether he touched the inside or outside of her vagina.

Ms. Thompson testified that B.R. stated that she felt pain when the defendant touched her “private

spot,” but B.R. did not bleed during or after the contact.

B.R. told Ms. Thompson that the defendant touched her breasts and made her touch

his penis. She demonstrated the motion that she made during the contact and stated that nothing

came out of the defendant’s penis. Ms. Thompson testified that she failed to ask B.R. if she saw the

defendant’s penis.

After the grand jury indicted the defendant, Detective Breedlove, accompanied by

other officers, arrested him at Esprit Gymnastics.

At trial, the defendant called seven witnesses, including the victim, and he testified

on his own behalf. Three witnesses, Edmund Yabut, M.D., Dee Ann Melton, and Michelle Day,

whose children practiced under the defendant, testified concerning the defendant’s good character.

They also described his coaching style as “aggressive,” “intense,” or “devoted” and explained that

the defendant did not have a policy that limited parents’ access to the gymnasium floor or the

defendant’s office. Defense witness, Rob Tallman, who also was a parent of a student, testified

concerning the opening in the defendant’s office wall. In addition, the defendant called Brentwood

Police Department Corporal Melissa Westbrook, who conducted the initial interview of the victim.

Mia Yabut, Edmund Yabut’s daughter and B.R.’s practice partner, testified on the defendant’s

behalf.

The defendant testified that he moved to Tennessee from California after accepting

a job as the director of the girls’ team program at Let It Shine Gymnastics. While coaching at Let

It Shine, he moved B.R. into his training group, and soon after the regrouping, he met B.R.’s family.

After coaching six months at Let It Shine Gymnastics, the defendant was fired,

according to him, because he and the owner disagreed over the running of the girls’ team program.

Instead of returning to California, the defendant opened his own gymnasium, Esprit Gymnastics, at

the request and with the help of three families, the Yabuts, Yepezs, and Meltons. B.R.’s family

-11-

joined the efforts by contributing money. On December 8, 2000, B.R. and the other “six pack”

members, Mia Yabut, Lilly and Andy Yapez, Jordan Melton, and Catherine Traxler began training

at Esprit Gymnastics under the defendant’s tutelage.

The defendant described B.R. and his relationship with her. He testified that B.R. had

“ability in gymnastics.” In addition, he stated that she was fearful, and this fear hindered her

gymnastic development. The defendant said that B.R. was not “tough” and that none of the girls

were, and as a coach, he had to “maximize [the girls’] strengths; . . . minimize their weaknesses.”

Thus, he described his coaching style as “aggressive.” The defendant admitted that he developed

more of a friendship with B.R. than the other girls because he “was over at [her] house more.” He

stated that this friendship interfered with his coaching and may have caused other students to quit

practicing at his gymnasium.

Four defense witnesses, Dr. Yabut, Miss Yabut, Ms. Melton, and Ms. Day, described

the defendant’s and B.R.’s relationship. Doctor Yabut testified that B.R. “grabbed [the defendant’s]

attention all of the time.” He stated that the relationship did not concern him until his daughter

complained of a lack of attention from the defendant. Doctor Yabut also testified that he thought

the female students had “crush[es]” on the defendant and that his daughter was jealous of B.R. Miss

Yabut confirmed her father’s opinion and admitted that she was “a little jealous of [B.R.’s]

attention.” She testified that the defendant would talk to B.R. more than he would the other students.

Another defense witness at trial, Ms. Day, described the relationship, and she testified that she

thought B.R. “had a little bit of a crush on [the defendant].” She testified that B.R. would walk up

to the defendant and put her arms around his shoulders, or she would sit down with him and engage

in conversation. Ms. Day testified that the defendant would ignore B.R., undrape her arm, and direct

her to go perform a skill. Ms. Melton testified that B.R. “had a crush on [the defendant].” She

testified that B.R. adored the defendant, and “[i]t was obnoxious” and “a huge annoyance.”

The defendant testified to the size and layout of the gymnasium and office area. He

stated that from the parent viewing area, all areas of the gymnasium were visible except the

bathrooms and a portion of the rod floor where the hot water heater sits. He also explained that the

office door would not close or lock, and he described the opening in the office wall, testifying that

the opening was “90 inches tall or so, 65 inches wide.” The defendant stated that he was never in

his office alone with the door closed with B.R. or with any other student. Rob Tallman testified that

in late August or early September the defendant closed the opening and asked him to finish the

drywall.

The defendant denied touching B.R.’s vagina while she performed the frog stretch.

He explained that the purpose of the stretch is to gain strength and flexibility, mainly for balance

beam skills. He elucidated that frog stretches affect “hip turnout” and pelvic tilt. When students

perform the frog stretch, coaches forcefully push downward on the buttocks to increase the stretch.

The defendant stated that during the stretch, the student’s hips rotate and the private area is

underneath him or her “flat on the ground.” He explained that “there is really nowhere for [a coach’s

-12-

fingers] to go.” Thus, he asserted that he never knowingly or accidentally touched B.R.’s vagina

during the frog stretch.

Ms. Melton, Ms. Day, and Miss Yabut testified regarding stretching. Ms. Melton

testified that a mat was “not necessarily” in the vicinity of the stretching. Both Ms. Melton and Ms.

Day testified that neither one became alarmed when watching the defendant stretch B.R. Miss Yabut

testified that she and other students practiced on the trampoline while the defendant stretched B.R.

on the rod floor. She testified that she would watch the defendant stretch B.R. because she was

jealous of the attention the defendant showed B.R. Miss Yabut also stated that she never saw the

defendant inappropriately touch B.R. during the stretches.

The defense called B.R. to clarify where she was located on the rod floor when the

defendant touched and filmed her vagina as she performed the straddle stretch. B.R. used a diagram

she had drawn in a previous interview and identified the front of the gymnasium on the diagram.

According to the diagram, her feet pointed toward the right wall.

On cross-examination, the State asked further questions regarding her location, and

B.R. testified that she drew the diagram “from . . . if you look down.” She further testified that her

back was to the wall with mirrors. We discern from the record that the mirrored wall is the left wall

of the gymnasium.

The defendant explained that B.R. had a fear of doing certain skills on the beam,

namely the back walk over and the back handspring. On July 1, 2002, B.R. was scared to perform

the back handspring, so the defendant explained that as part of his coaching strategy, he left the

gymnasium. He stated that if he “remove[d himself] from the environment,” then B.R. would want

to perform the skill. He left a 17-year-old coach in charge of the students while he shopped at Home

Depot. At this point, he telephoned B.R.’s mother and reported the incident. Upon returning to the

gymnasium, he learned that B.R. had performed the skill, and at his request, she demonstrated it

twice more.

Although Ms. Melton did not witness this incident, she testified to its occurrence.15

She then testified that “B.R. was crushed because [the defendant] basically chose gymnastics over

what she thought their relationship was.” She explained that from that day forward, B.R. did not

look at or speak to the defendant. She testified that B.R. made excuses for why she could no longer

participate in gymnastics, and Ms. Melton testified that B.R.’s back injury, in her opinion, was not

legitimate.

15

Ms. Melton testified to the incident on direct examination. On cross-examination, the State elicited that she

had not personally witnessed the event. The State moved to strike her prior testimony. W hile the trial court and counsel

discussed the motion, Ms. Melton interrupted them four times, and the court had to instruct her to stop testifying. The

trial court then denied the State’s motion.

-13-

The defendant testified that B.R.’s mother telephoned him on July 2, 2002, and

informed him that B.R. would not be attending practice. On July 3, the defendant and Mia Yabut

arrived at B.R.’s home in the tumble bus. The defendant stated that Miss Yabut and B.R. played in

the tumble bus while he showed B.R.’s mother the tumble bus’s new generator, which B.R.’s mother

had purchased. After B.R.’s mother returned inside the home, the defendant, Miss Yabut, and B.R.

remained on the bus until Miss Yabut announced that she was going inside. Miss Yabut testified

at trial that she left the bus “[b]ecause [she] thought they wanted to talk alone for a while.” The

defendant and B.R. then talked about her quitting gymnastics. The defendant testified that he

encouraged her to keep participating. He stated that the conversation “centered around” “another

skill on bars that she was particularly fearful of.” He testified that B.R. never told him that she

wanted to quit because he was sexually abusing her.

After Miss Yabut returned to the bus, the three went inside B.R.’s house. In B.R.’s

bedroom, the defendant, B.R., and her mother discussed her future in gymnastics. The defendant

stated that he, B.R.’s mother, and B.R. all cried during the conversation, and he did not testify

whether B.R. made a decision to quit that night. The defendant, B.R., and her parents continued to

discuss her gymnastics future throughout July, August, and September.

Defense witness Corporal Westbrook’s testimony regarded her September 9, 2002

interview with B.R. Corporal Westbrook was the first Brentwood Police Department employee to

interview B.R. after her parents contacted the police. Corporal Westbrook explained that she was

the initial responding officer, and she did not question B.R. “per se.” Eight days after the interview

and at the request of Detective Breedlove, Corporal Westbrook wrote a supplemental report of this

interview. She testified that B.R. told her that the defendant touched her breasts and vagina. She

further testified that her report stated that “[B.R.] advised that [the defendant] had touched her

breasts several times, too.”

On cross-examination, Corporal Westbrook testified that the interview’s purpose was

to determine whether to investigate the allegations further. She stated that she wrote the report from

cursory notes, and B.R.’s description of the breast touching “was just more fleeting than anything.”

The defense called B.R. to testify regarding this issue, and B.R. stated that she told

Corporal Westbrook that the defendant touched her breast “once for sure.” She further testified, “I

think I said several for him touching my vagina. I never said - I don’t think I said several for him

touching my breasts.”

Two days after the September 9, 2002 interview, B.R. telephoned the defendant at

the gymnasium. The defendant stated that he was teaching class at the time of the telephone call.

He explained that during the conversation, he was preoccupied with his students. When B.R. told

him that she was worried about him “[t]ouching [her] in [her] private spots,” the defendant replied,

“No, I’m not going to do that.” He further testified that he “had never done that.” The defendant

explained that he was “shocked” by the comment and uncertain how to react. At trial, he denied

filming and touching B.R.’s vagina, and he stated that he ended the telephone conversation with

-14-

“[w]hatever” because he refused to continue this conversation over the telephone. The defendant

then spoke with B.R.’s mother. He explained at trial that he failed to discuss B.R.’s allegations with

her mother because it was inappropriate to do so over the telephone.

On cross-examination, the State played the audiotape of the telephone call for the

jury. The defendant agreed that on direct examination he testified that he “was shocked and caught

off guard” by B.R.’s allegations during the telephone call. After hearing the audiotape, the defendant

testified that “[s]hock and caught off guard may not be distinguishable in [a person’s] voice.”

Shortly after B.R. placed the September 11, 2002 telephone call, the police entered

the gymnasium and spoke with the defendant in his office. After another coach finished the

students’ workouts and they left, the police searched the gymnasium. Afterwards, the defendant

followed the police officers to his apartment where they continued searching. Because of the

searches, the defendant explained that he never had the opportunity to discuss the allegations with

B.R. and her mother. He agreed that the police seized several videotapes filmed by him.

At trial on cross-examination, Ms. Melton viewed, we surmise from the record,

videotape A. She agreed that the videotape showed her daughter’s crotch area while she was not

performing a gymnastic skill, and Ms. Melton testified that the defendant “is really interested in

anatomy.” She testified that the defendant’s purpose was to analyze “hip placement.” Ms. Melton

further testified that during the investigation, Detective Breedlove showed her a videotape with a

close-up shot of her daughter’s crotch,16 and “maybe [she] did” tell Detective Breedlove that portions

of the videotape were inappropriate. However, she testified that the videotape she viewed at trial

did not “bother [her] whatsoever.”

She viewed another scene on videotape A that showed a close-up of B.R.’s vaginal

area and buttocks while she pushed a mat under another student performing a trick on the trampoline.

Ms. Melton testified that the defendant would not film his students other than for gymnastics

purposes. In response to Ms. Melton’s answer, the State showed Ms. Melton two other scenes on

the videotape outside of the jury’s presence. Once the jury returned, Ms. Melton described what she

saw. She testified that the scene showed the gymnasium’s bathroom, and it showed that the

defendant walked to the toilet, pulled down his shorts, sat on the toilet, and then wiped himself from

the front. In the next scene, Ms. Melton agreed that the video camera was wrapped in a black

material, and there was a hole in the material for the lens. She stated that “someone” came into the

camera’s view. When the State asked her if she noticed that the person’s clothing changed to a

“nude shade,” she replied, “I’m not putting it together. I’m really not.” She admitted that the person

sat down on the toilet as the defendant did in the previous scene, but she stated that she was not sure

whether the person reached for toilet paper. After testifying to the contents of these scenes, she still

contended that the defendant “wouldn’t tape the girls for any other purpose other than gymnastics.”

16

The record is unclear whether the videotape she viewed with Detective Breedlove was videotape A.

-15-

At trial, the defendant also reviewed portions of the videotapes. First, the defendant

explained that the shots were of B.R.’s “pelvic area,” not vaginal area. He commented that the

focusing on B.R.’s pelvic area while she pushed a mat under another gymnast served gymnastic

purposes, including the study of biomechanics, teaching tools for students, and teaching tools for

coaches. He disagreed with Ms. Fox’s testimony that the videotapes serve no gymnastic purpose and

explained that he is a “minority in the coaching community” because of his “cutting edge”

techniques. The defendant stated that the purpose of the close-up, pelvic shots of B.R. while she

stood at the wall was to teach her the “Staulder press.” He further explained that B.R. cannot

perform a “Salto up,” so he instructed her to perform “Salto downs.” By focusing the camera on her

pelvic area when she performs certain skills, he could analyze whether B.R.’s body position was

biomechanically correct, namely her pelvic tilt.

At the end of his direct examination testimony, the defendant denied touching and

filming B.R.’s vagina for sexual gratification purposes. He further denied touching her breasts for

sexual gratification.

Regarding the bathroom scenes in videotape A, the defendant testified on cross-

examination that he filmed the first scene on July 21, 2001, at 10:43 p.m. He admitted that the

camera sat on a “drawer thing” in the bathroom of the gymnasium. He agreed that he paced in the

camera’s view, and then he walked to the toilet, pulled down his shorts, sat on the toilet, and then

wiped himself from the front. The defendant further agreed that he filmed the second bathroom

scene a few hours later at 4:26 a.m. He admitted that he surrounded the camera with black trash

bags, the roll of extra trash bags being visible in the scene, and there was a hole for the lens. The

defendant did not admit that he took his clothes off when the State asked him if he became “totally

skin colored,” but he agreed that he sat on the toilet and wiped himself from the front. After this

portion of testimony, the State showed the videotape to the jury. The defendant contended that he

did not attempt to covertly videotape students in the bathroom; he testified that he videotaped

himself.

In rebuttal, the State called Andy Yepez, a former member of the “six pack,” and she

testified that the defendant stretched B.R. differently from the other students. The defendant placed

his hands on B.R.’s buttocks instead of “on the side” of the back, as he did with every other student.

Miss Yepez testified that when he stretched B.R., her view was frequently obstructed by a mat, and

parents usually were not present. She admitted that the defendant stretched all students behind the

mat and on the same place on the rod floor, but he stretched B.R. longer than he did the other

students. The defendant stretched her for 30 seconds to one minute, but he stretched B.R. for

approximately 10 minutes.

The State also called Nancy Westman, mother of one of defendant’s former students.

Ms. Westman described the defendant’s and B.R.’s relationship. She testified that the defendant

“favored” B.R.; “[h]e spent more time with her, and he hugged [B.R.] more than the other students.”

Ms. Westman stated that “[t]hey gave each other back rubs,” and the defendant did not do this with

other students. She testified to one occasion when the defendant and B.R. were tickling each other.

-16-

Ms. Westman described the interaction as “a boyfriend/girlfriend type relationship, like 16 year olds

would act when [they’re] dating.”

Ms. Westman also described an interaction between B.R. and the defendant while

they, along with other gymnasts and their family members, were on a 15-passenger van in San Diego,

California. Ms. Westman testified that she and Ms. Melton sat behind B.R.’s mother and in front

of B.R. and the defendant. She heard B.R. “kind of squirming,” and B.R. said, “[N]o, [the

defendant’s name], no, just on my face.” Ms. Westman turned around and observed the defendant

tickling B.R.’s face. He then rubbed down her arm, eventually onto her leg and thigh. Ms. Westman

testified that she heard B.R. state to just touch her face several times. She stated that she “felt

uncomfortable,” so she “nudged” Ms. Melton, who looked at them and then, according to Ms.

Westman, shook and put her head down. When Ms. Westman heard B.R. say it again, she “turned

around completely in [her] seat.” She testified that she looked at him and “gave him a look, like

what are you doing.” Ms. Westman testified that she did not mention the incident to him on the van

because she did not want “to get into a big scene.”

In surrebuttal, the defendant called Ms. Melton, and she testified regarding the San

Diego incident. Ms. Melton testified that the defendant touched B.R.’s face and arms in a “playful”

manner; she described the interaction between the two as “child’s play.” She stated that B.R. would

tell the defendant to stop and that B.R. “was being silly.” Ms. Melton testified that there was

nothing “sexual” about the actions.

At the close of all proof, the State elected certain offenses. We summarize the

election as follows:

Count Charge Location/Time

1 Aggravated sexual battery First time defendant touched B.R.’s vaginal

area over her leotard during frog stretches on

the rod floor

2 Aggravated sexual battery First time defendant touched B.R.’s vaginal

area under her leotard during frog stretches on

the rod floor

3 Aggravated sexual battery Time when defendant touched B.R.’s vaginal

area under her leotard while in a straddle

stretch on the rod floor and defendant and

B.R. negotiated the length of the touching

4 Aggravated sexual battery May 2002 when the defendant touched B.R.’s

breast with his hand while in the gymnasium’s

office

-17-

5 Aggravated sexual battery Time when defendant made B.R. touch his

penis with her hand while in the gymnasium’s

office

6 Aggravated sexual battery Time when defendant made B.R. touch his

penis with her hand through his pocket while

in the gymnasium’s office

7 Aggravated sexual battery Time when defendant touched B.R.’s vaginal

area while he videotaped her vaginal area on

the rod floor

8 Especially aggravated sexual Time when defendant touched B.R.’s vaginal

exploitation of a minor area while he videotaped her vaginal area on

the rod floor.17

The jury deliberated and found the defendant guilty of all State-elected offenses.

I. DISCOVERY RELATED COMPLAINTS

The defendant’s first appellate complaint is that unreasonable restrictions on defense

access to discovery materials violated Criminal Procedure Rule 16 and his right to counsel

guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the

Tennessee Constitution. The defendant identifies the discovery materials as (1) approximately 25

videotapes seized from his home when officers executed a search warrant, (2) information extracted

from his home computer, and (3) an audiotape of a telephone conversation between the defendant

and the victim. Insisting that the materials were “pornographic,” prosecution counsel refused to copy

or duplicate them for the defendant and, instead, required the defense to appear personally at the

police department to review the materials. The trial court sanctioned the State’s restrictions on

discovery and ruled that the evidence could be viewed only at the police department at a mutually

convenient time and that the tapes would not be copied.

Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(F) provides,

Documents and Objects. – Upon a defendant’s request, the

state shall permit the defendant to inspect and copy or photograph

books, papers, documents, photographs, tangible objects, buildings,

or places, or copies or portions thereof, if the item is within the state’s

possession, custody, or control and:

17

Counts are numbered according to the State’s Election, which was included in the jury instructions. They are

not numbered according to the original indictment.

-18-

(i) the item is material to preparing the defense;

(ii) the government intends to use the item in its case-

in-chief at trial; or

(iii) the item was obtained from or belongs to the

defendant.

Tenn. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(F).18

The language of Rule 16(a)(1)(F) is straightforward, and the State’s duty is

mandatory. Upon request, “the state shall permit” inspection and copying. Id. (emphasis added).

In State v. Richard Allen Butler, No. E2004-00359-CCA-R9-CD, slip op. at 10-13 (Tenn. Crim.

App., Knoxville, Mar. 30, 2005), perm. app. denied (Tenn. 2005), the court rejected the State’s

argument that copying and disseminating discovery materials containing alleged child pornography

would violate Tennessee’s exploitation of a minor statute.

Our review of the record leaves us at a loss to discern a valid basis for the discovery

restrictions, which were prompted ostensibly by the State’s claim that the materials were

pornographic and would revictimize the victim. Nothing in the audiotape of the conversation

between the defendant and the victim is remotely pornographic, and the State asked the victim to

assist with the investigation by placing the telephone call. The materials extracted from the

defendant’s computer depict individuals other than the victim, and at the sentencing hearing

Detective Breedlove insisted that he was not representing to the court that the images contained

unlawful pornography. Regarding the videotapes, the trial court articulated its ruling in the

following fashion:

[T]he Court has before it the motion of defendant to compel the State

to produce copies of videotapes.

The case in this state is that the prosecution is not required to

reveal its entire file in a particular case, but is required to disclose

evidence favorable to the defendant that if suppressed would deprive

the accused of a fair trial.

....

18

Effective July 1, 2006, the T ennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure were “reformatted.” As part of that

undertaking, numerous sections and/or subparts of various rules were renumbered. Previously, the section of Rule 16

that addressed discovery of documents and objects was (a)(1)(C). Discovery of tangible objects now appears in section

(a)(1)(F). See Compiler’s Notes, Tenn. R. Crim. P. (effective July 1, 2006).

-19-

The Court is of the opinion that the law in this state is – is that

that which must be disclosed is that to ensure a fair trial, the

procedure proffered by the State, in this Court’s judgment, affords the

defendant a fair trial and this is how the Court would like the order to

read: That the defendant may inspect the video – the 12 videotapes

at issue at the police department, at a mutually convenient time, in a

room, provided a private room, at which time defense counsel may

view the tapes, but the Court is not allowing the tapes to be copied

and disseminated at this time.

. . . [D]efense counsel shall not disclose the contents pending

further orders of the court. Any expert . . . [and] any parent of any

student that defense counsel may bring to the viewing is also under

the same Protective Order.

The trial court misapprehended the requirements of Rule 16. Its reference to the

State’s obligation to disclose evidence favorable to the defendant that, if suppressed, would deprive

the accused of a fair trial is a classic statement of the prosecution’s constitutional duty to disclose

exculpatory evidence. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963). In addition to

that obligation, however, Rule 16(a)(1)(F) requires the State to permit inspection and copying of

certain tangible items without regard to the exculpatory nature of the discovery materials. Evidently,

the trial court regarded its authority as restrained only by the amorphous “fair trial” regimen, thereby

failing to recognize that Rule 16, itself, strikes a considered balance and is quite specific in

delineating the State’s mandatory obligations to produce certain discovery materials.19

We note that on appeal the State makes no effort to defend the discovery restrictions

and argues, instead, that no reversible error has been demonstrated. On that point, we agree.

Although the “potential” for prejudice from such restrictions is readily evident, reversible error

requires more palpable harm.

For example, the defendant argues that his attorney “wasted hours of his time

traveling back and forth to view tapes he could have reviewed at his convenience in his office” and

that defense counsel “never did get to see all of the tapes because of the restrictions imposed by the

Court.” A party who fails to take reasonably available steps to mitigate the harmful effect of an

error, however, is not entitled to use the error to obtain relief on appeal. See Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a).

There is no evidence in the record that the defendant sought a trial continuance to afford additional

time to complete his review of the videotapes. Similarly, wasted attorney time, without a

19

The nondisclosure portion of the trial court’s order regarding defense counsel, any defense expert, and any

parent is not objectionable, see State v. Richard Allen Butler, No. E2004-00359-CCA-R9-CD, slip op. at 12-13 (Tenn.

Crim. App., Knoxville, Mar. 30, 2005), perm. app. denied (Tenn. 2005), and indeed defense counsel stated on the record

that he acquiesced to those restrictions provided copies of the discovery materials were given to defense counsel.

-20-

demonstrable showing of prejudice to the client’s defense, as opposed to the attorney’s “bottom

line,” does not rise to the level of reversible error.

The defendant also maintains that he “wanted to have experts examine the tapes[,]

but the financial situation was such that they could not afford to have experts travel to Brentwood

to view these tapes.” This bare assertion made during the hearing on the defense motion to compel

access to discovery materials is inadequate in our opinion to demonstrate the requisite harmful

prejudice. In the hearing on the motion for new trial, the trial court should not have rebuffed the

defendant’s proffer of testimony from trial counsel, but we fail to discern, at any rate, how trial

counsel’s testimony could or would have established reversible error predicated on specific expert

testimony that was prohibitively expensive to obtain.

The failure to supply the defendant with a copy of the audio taped conversation

between the victim and the defendant is, from this record, indefensible. At one point, prosecution

counsel mentioned, somewhat in passing, that the police department did not have the equipment

required to duplicate a microcassette tape recording, to which defense counsel retorted that the

detective “can go to Radio Shack and buy a plug that you can plug between two tape recorders that

cost you $2.95.” At any rate, the customary need for a copy of the audio cassette recording is to

permit a comparison with the transcript that the State intends to offer at trial. In that fashion, any

transcription inaccuracies or disputes can be resolved pretrial. In the present case, the defense does

not point to any such inaccuracies with the State’s furnished transcript or other specific prejudice

warranting relief on appeal.

In conclusion, we decline the defense’s invitation to find per se reversible error. No

doubt error in the discovery process occurred in this case, and the defendant’s frustration with the

discovery gauntlet is palpable from the record on appeal. However, we are not persuaded that the

defense has established the requisite prejudice for entitlement to a new trial.

II. PUBLIC TRIAL

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution20 and Article I, Section 9 of

the Tennessee Constitution afford an accused the right to a “public trial.” See In re Oliver, 333 U.S.

257, 68 S. Ct. 499 (1948); State v. Sams, 802 S.W.2d 635 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). This right is

regarded as “a shared right of the accused and the public, the common concern being the assurance

of fairness.” Press Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 7, 106 S. Ct. 2735, 2739 (1986).

“Transparency,” it has been said, “is essential to maintaining public respect for the criminal justice

system, ensuring its integrity, and protecting the rights of the accused.” Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84,

99, 123 S. Ct. 1140, 1150 (2003). The right to a public trial is not absolute, however, and in certain

20

An enlightening exposition of the legal pedigree undergirding the right to public trial appears in Richmond

Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 100 S. Ct. 2814 (1980) (tracing the origins of the right from “back beyond

reliable historical records” in the “days before the Norman Conquest” to the judicial systems of colonial America).

-21-

cases must yield to other rights or interests. See Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 45, 104 S. Ct. 2210,

2215 (1984).

The defendant in this case constructs an argument that his due process and public trial

guarantees under the federal and state constitutions were abridged because the trial judge excluded

the public from viewing the videotapes of gymnastics which showed the victim. The public was

excluded, the defendant insists, because when the videotapes were identified and played, the trial

judge forced the public spectators on numerous occasions to “shift” to another part of the courtroom

to ensure that they could not see the evidence. The State, for its part, does not dispute that the trial

judge screened the media and public from viewing videotapes of the victim by arranging the

courtroom so that only the jury, witnesses, the defendant, and attorneys could see the videotapes.

Instead, the State maintains that the defendant waived the issue by failing to object and, indeed, by

being the instigator of the seating arrangement. The State also asserts that the trial judge’s actions

conformed to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 30(C)(1) which forbids media coverage in any judicial

proceeding “of a witness, party, or victim who is a minor.” Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 30(C)(1).

We begin by examining the context in which this issue arose. In a jury-out hearing

during Detective Breedlove’s testimony, the parties and the court discussed various aspects of how

and what portions of the videotapes would be played for the jury. Defense counsel addressed the

trial court as follows:

MR. JOHNSON: Your Honor, please, one of the reasons that

in an earlier hearing General White raised about providing copies to

us was the potential revictimization of the victim if it got released

outside. I know there [are] members of the public sitting out there,

and they are obviously interested in the tapes. And what is – is it

Your Honor’s intention for them also to be allowed to see the tapes

in light of the General’s objection that she didn’t want the victim to

be revictimized by this? Or does the public have the right to see the

video tapes? . . .

GENERAL WHITE: The public has a right to be in the

courtroom. There is no provision from barring them from being in

the courtroom. I will defer to the court on the other issue whether or

not Your Honor wants to make them sit down. But I know that in

these type of cases there’s always public in the courtroom and there

is no provision in the law to bar them from a public courtroom.

MR. JOHNSON: As I indicated earlier my only concern was

that earlier the General had argued against us getting copies based on

the potential for revictimizing the victim, by letting other people

outside of the immediate parties see these video tapes.

-22-

THE COURT: All right. I guess I’ll first start with the media.

Who here is from the media? Stand up. All right, and ma’am you’re

the last person from the media that is here?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: They are out in the hallway.

THE COURT: In the hallway? You’re with whom?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: With Channel 4.

THE COURT: You’re with Channel 4. Probably, the other

media folks ought to come in here because I am just going to ask y’all

what y’all want and that will tell me what I need to decide. . . .

....

THE COURT: I appreciate you bringing that up, Mr.

Johnson, that was very nice. Okay. Is that everybody? We got

Channel 4, we got FOX 17. . . . So 4 and 17. Now 2 and 5 are not

here, they were here yesterday.

....

THE COURT: Right, I was going to let y’all sit over there

and you can hear and watch the jury, but Mr. Johnson has a good

point, we don’t want a, quote revictimization, or alleged

revictimization of alleged victim at this time. This case is in progress

and it is hard enough as it is. So but the rule – I’m giving deference

to Supreme Court Rule 30, so I’m wondering if you have any problem

with it, sitting over here and not watching this?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I would just say if the public

at large is allowed to watch, we should be allowed to watch too. . . .

That would be my only argument.

THE COURT: I can make a decision about the public at large

without asking. I think Mr. Johnson has a good point. I don’t want

to see this child or another child, we used the term revictimized and

. . . I’m also by saying that that I am recognizing that the defendant is

presumed innocent . . . . So by saying all that I’m ruling that I’m

going to ask the public and media, you may stay in the courtroom

during this process but I don’t want you seeing this video tape. You

can hear about it, but I don’t want you watching it at this time. So

-23-

maybe if I can get you all over in that section. Thanks. So the

camera and the audio pickup is off.

....

THE COURT: Once we start we need to have a deputy posted

at the door and stop them until a break. . . . So, why don’t I get the

court officers to go out there and see if there is anyone [who] wants

to be in the courtroom now, they need to come in . . . . Mr. Johnson,

if you want to weigh in on any of these instructions up to now, you

may. Do have any objection to the way the Court has handled it up

to now.

MR. JOHNSON: No, Your Honor.

The trial transcripts also reflect several additional times when the court directed members of the

audience to move.

We are not persuaded initially that a complete or partial closure of the courtroom

occurred in this case.

A complete closure has the effect of excluding everyone from the

courtroom with the exception of the parties, the attorneys, court

personnel, and the witnesses. A complete closure may be for the

entire trial or proceeding, or a portion of the proceedings such as the

testimony of a particular witness. A partial closure results in the

exclusion of certain members of the public while other members of

the public are permitted to remain in the courtroom.

Sams, 802 S.W.2d at 639. No members of the media or public were barred from the courtroom in

this case, and the State noted specifically on the record that the public had a right to be in the

courtroom. To be sure, the trial court arranged the courtroom to screen the media and public from

viewing videotapes of the victim, but courtroom spectators often are disadvantaged in viewing trial

exhibits as they are offered and introduced. Furthermore, the record discloses that the only media

objection was couched in terms of equal treatment for the media and the public. See Wilbert Rogers

v. State, No. W2004-00654-CCA-R3-PC, slip op. at 3-4 (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, Feb. 22, 2005)

(declining to find closure of judicial proceedings because trial judge had his court open, even though

other courts were apparently closed due to weather; weather-related closing of other court-rooms did

not result in denial of a public trial).

The defense cites to no authority describing what happened in this case as a complete

or partial closure of trial proceedings. However, even if the right to a public trial was somehow

implicated, we believe the issue is resolved by the defendant’s failures to object to the trial court’s

-24-

actions or otherwise make known his concern. Therefore, we conclude that the defendant waived

his right to a public trial to the extent that what occurred can even be characterized as a “closure.”

State v. Tizard, 897 S.W.2d 732 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (finding waiver when defendant failed to

object to trial court’s exclusion of journalism students during the cross-examination of the victim

involving vulgar references to masturbation).

The defendant insists that he did not waive any rights and that the State has taken

“completely out of context” his negative response to the trial court’s inquiry whether he objected “to

the way the Court has handled it up to now.” We disagree; from the transcript, it is altogether

reasonable to conclude that a waiver occurred. At any rate, even if the trial court and defense

counsel were discussing some other matter, such as instructions to the media, the record plainly

discloses that the defense did not object when the seating arrangement was being discussed at an

earlier point. Finally, even if the defense broached the subject tongue-in-cheek to highlight the

inequity of the trial court’s restrictions on defense discovery, the defense was not thereby relieved

of the obligation of formally objecting to the seating arrangement orchestrated by the trial court.

In summary, the defendant is not entitled to a new trial regarding any claimed

violation of his right to a public trial.

III. JURY INSTRUCTION REGARDING DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY

In his third issue, the defendant complains that the trial court improperly impeached

him and struck his testimony, violating his Due Process rights and obstructing the jury’s Sixth

Amendment factfinding function. He predicates his complaint on the following portion of the State’s

cross-examination of him:

Q. And this has been - you have been to the Brentwood Police

Department several times with [defense counsel]; is that correct?

A. I have been to the Brentwood Police Department with [defense

counsel] on several occasions.

Q. And you’ve looked at videotapes?

A. I was unable to look at the videotapes in their entirety because of

the strict rules that the Court put on us.

Later during the defendant’s cross-examination, the court held a jury-out hearing on

another issue, and after this hearing, but before the jury returned, the court sua sponte proposed a

curative instruction regarding the defendant’s comment that he “was unable to look at the videotapes

in their entirety because of the strict rules that the Court put on [him].” The judge explained, “On

appeal, an argument in the record like that, that the court of appeals may assume that’s true because

he wasn’t corrected on the record.” Defense counsel replied, “I have no problem with putting that

-25-

on the record, except for the fact that I don’t want that to be construed as my agreeing to Your

Honor’s protective order.” The trial judge then asked if the jury should be instructed to disregard

the statement as being unresponsive, and defense counsel answered, “Yes.” When the jury returned,

the court instructed them “to disregard any comment that the defendant made in his testimony

concerning any alleged denial of access to tapes by the Brentwood Police Department prior to today.”

On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court’s instruction was error. We

decline the defendant’s request for relief on this basis because he created his own predicament both

by failing to object at the appropriate time and by inviting the court to do the very thing of which he

now complains. See Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a). This court is loath to place a trial court in error when

the party complaining on appeal failed to take corrective action with respect to any error which

allegedly occurred below, and we are particularly loath to do so where the complaining party

affirmatively acquiesced in the trial court’s action. See id. (nothing in rule requires “relief be granted

to a party responsible for an error or who failed to take whatever action was reasonably available to

prevent or nullify the harmful effect of an error”). This issue is waived.

IV. TRIAL COURT’S QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES

The defendant claims that the trial judge was biased and improperly asked questions

of State witnesses that bolstered their testimony and “constituted prohibited judicial comment.” See

Tenn. Const. art. VI, § 9. Responding to the State’s contention that he waived the issue, the

defendant asserts that the trial judge’s questioning constituted plain error.

The Tennessee Constitution prohibits judges from making any comment “with respect

to matters of fact.” Tenn. Const. art. VI, § 9; State v. Suttles, 767 S.W.2d 403, 406 (Tenn. 1989).

The aim of this rule is to avoid giving “the jury any impression as to [the judge’s] feelings or to make

any statement which might reflect upon the weight or credibility of evidence or which might sway

the jury.” Suttles, 767 S.W.2d at 407; see State v. Brown, 823 S.W.2d 576 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).

“It is natural that jurors should be anxious to know the mind of the Court, and follow it; therefore,

a Court cannot be too cautious in [its] inquiries.” McDonald v. State, 89 Tenn. 161, 164, 14 S.W.

487, 488 (Tenn. 1890).

That said, our Tennessee Rules of Evidence specifically permit the interrogation of

witnesses by the trial judge:

(b) Interrogation by Court. The Court may interrogate witnesses.

(c) Objections. Objections . . . to interrogation by [the court] may be

made at the time or at the next available opportunity when the jury

is not present.

Tenn. R. Evid. 614(b), (c). So long as the inquiry is impartial, trial courts may ask questions to

either clarify a point or to supply any omission. See Collins v. State, 220 Tenn. 275, 416 S.W.2d 766

-26-

(Tenn. 1967); Parker v. State, 132 Tenn. 327, 178 S.W. 438 (Tenn. 1915). Also, our rules entrust

to the trial court the power to “exercise appropriate control over the presentation of evidence and

conduct of the trial when necessary to avoid abuse by counsel.” Tenn. R. Evid. 611(a).

Furthermore, Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 36(a) states that appellate relief

is generally not available when a party has “failed to take whatever action was reasonably available

to prevent or nullify the harmful effect of any error.” Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a); see State v. Sims, 45

S.W.3d 1, 16 (Tenn. 2001). The failure to make a contemporaneous objection constitutes a waiver

of the issue on appeal.

Before discussing the specific testimony at issue, we note, as the State points out, that

the defendant failed to object, move for a mistrial, or otherwise complain before the trial court began

its examination of the witnesses, during the course of its examinations, or during “the next available

opportunity when the jury [was] not present.”21 Tenn. R. Evid. 614(c); see Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a);

Tenn. R. Evid. 103(a)(1); State v. Jenkins, 733 S.W.2d 528, 532 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987).

Therefore, this issue, with regard to each of the four examinations, has been waived. Failing to

object constitutes a procedural default for which relief may not be obtained absent the existence of

plain error. See Teague v. State, 772 S.W.2d 915, 926 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988); State v. Killebrew,

760 S.W.2d 228, 235 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988).

A. Appellate Review of Plain Error

Before an error is recognized as plain error, it must be “plain” and must affect a

“substantial right” of the accused. The term “plain” equates to “clear” or “obvious.” See United

States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734, 113 S. Ct. 1770, 1777 (1993). Plain error is not error that is

simply conspicuous; rather, it is especially egregious error that strikes at the fairness, integrity, or

public reputation of judicial proceedings. See State v. Wooden, 658 S.W.2d 553, 559 (Tenn. Crim.

App. 1983).

21

After defense counsel’s redirect examination of B.R. but prior to the trial judge’s questioning of B.R., the trial

judge asked for a bench conference. The record fails to reflect what transpired, and immediately after the bench

conference, the trial judge asked B.R the questions that are the subject of this issue.

Neither during nor after the trial judge’s examination of B.R. did defense counsel object. It is unclear from the

record whether defense counsel objected during the inaudible bench conference. It is well settled that when a party seeks

appellate review, there is a duty to prepare a record which conveys a fair, accurate and complete account of what

transpired with respect to the issues forming the basis of the appeal. See State v. Ballard, 855 S.W .2d 557, 561 (Tenn.

1993) (holding failure to include transcript precludes appellate review); State v. Oody, 823 S.W.2d 554, 559 (Tenn.

Crim. App. 1991) (holding trial court’s ruling presumed correct in the absence of an adequate record on appeal). W hen

the record is incomplete and does not contain the relevant information documenting an issue presented for review, or

portions of the record upon which the party relies, an appellate court is precluded from considering the issue. See State

v. Roberts, 755 S.W .2d 833, 836 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). Absent the necessary relevant material in the record, we

cannot find that defense counsel objected to the trial court’s questioning of B.R.

-27-

In State v. Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d 626 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994), this court defined

“substantial right” as a right of “fundamental proportions in the indictment process, a right to the

proof of every element of the offense and . . . constitutional in nature.” Id. at 639. In that case, this

court established five factors to be applied in determining whether an error is plain:

(a) the record must clearly establish what occurred in the trial court;

(b) a clear and unequivocal rule of law must have been breached;

(c) a substantial right of the accused must have been adversely affected;

(d) the accused [must not have waived] the issue for tactical reasons; and

(e) consideration of the error must be “necessary to do substantial justice.”

Id. at 641-42 (footnotes omitted). Our supreme court characterized the Adkisson test as a “clear and

meaningful standard” and emphasized that each of the five factors must be present before an error

qualifies as plain error. State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274, 282-83 (Tenn. 2000).

B. Questioning of the Victim

Although B.R. testified during the State’s case-in-chief, the defendant recalled B.R.

to the stand in his defense. During her testimony, the trial judge held a bench conference, but the

record fails to reflect what transpired. Afterwards, the trial judge advised B.R. that the court was

going to ask questions, and the trial judge reminded her that she was under oath. The following

exchange then ensued:

Q. [B.R.], what you have called inappropriate that [the defendant]

has done to you, have you made any of these things up?

A. No.

Q. Has anyone told you what to say against him?

A. No.

Q. Or has anyone coached you to say things against him about the

inappropriate things?

A. No.

Q. Anybody coached you to say that things were inappropriate that

he did to you?

-28-

A. I don’t understand the question very well.

Q. Okay. By the word “coached,” I meant basically told you what to

say or how to say it against him.

A. No.

Q. Thank you. Now, you all have follow-up on any of these three or

four questions, if you’d like.

The State then asked a few follow-up questions regarding whether she was told to tell

the truth and whether she was telling the truth. B.R. answered affirmatively. The State previously

had asked a similar question on its direct examination of B.R. In that instance, the State asked,

“[B.R.], would you make this up just so you could get out of going to gymnastics?” B.R. replied,

“No, I could never make up something like this.”

In applying the Adkisson plain error factors in this case, our analysis ends after factor

one, “the record must clearly establish what occurred in the trial court.” 899 S.W.2d at 641. In the

present case, the record is silent as to what transpired during the bench conference held immediately

prior to the trial judge questioning B.R. This court may not speculate as to what was discussed,

whether defense counsel objected to such questioning, whether defense counsel failed to object for

tactical reasons, see Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d at 641-42 (“[T]he accused [must not have waived] the

issue for tactical reasons”), whether defense counsel requested such questioning, or whether the

bench conference regarded another issue. Therefore, because the first factor in Adkisson is not

satisfied, we do not find plain error.

C. Questioning of State’s Gymnastics Expert

The trial judge also questioned the State’s gymnastics expert, Ms. Fox. The trial

judge inquired, “In your opinion, ma’am, should a gym instructor obtain parental consent before

videotaping a participant.” Ms. Fox replied, “Not if it’s a legitimate video for training purposes.”

The defendant claims that this question was biased and improper. The trial judge asked this “one

follow-up question” after several questions from the jury.

We decline to find plain error because “a clear and unequivocal rule of law” has not

been breached and because the defendant’s substantial rights have not been adversely affected.

Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d at 641. The defendant claims that this question amounted to a judicial

comment, violating Tennessee Constitution Article 6, section 9. See Tenn. Const. art. VI, § 9. In

our view, the question did not amount to a comment on the evidence. The record does not contain

any indication of the trial court’s opinion of the evidence, and the jury was properly informed that

it had complete fact-finding authority.

-29-

D. Questioning of Victim’s Mother

The defendant also claims that the trial judge improperly asked B.R.’s mother a

question that bolstered B.R.’s testimony. After re-cross examination, the trial court allowed the jury

to submit in writing proposed questions to the witness. The prosecution and defense counsel silently

read each submitted question. The trial judge inquired outside the hearing of the jury whether there

were any objections, and both parties replied, “No, Your Honor.” Thus, the trial judge read each

question to B.R.’s mother, and she answered each one in turn. The defendant now claims that the

last question was improper. The trial judge asked, “Do you know if [B.R.] shared her story about

[the defendant] with any of her friends at any time?” B.R.’s mother answered, “Yes, she has.”

Again, the trial court has discretion to interrogate witnesses, Tenn. R. Evid. 614(b),

and in the present case, the trial court examined B.R.’s mother by asking jury-submitted questions.22

22

Regarding such questions, Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 24.1(c) provides:

Juror Questions of W itnesses. – In the court’s discretion, the court may permit a

juror to ask a question of a witness. The following procedures apply:

(1) W ritten Submission of Questions. – The juror shall put the questions in writing

and submit it to the judge through a court officer at the end of a witness’s testimony.

A juror’s question shall be anonymous and the juror’s name shall not be included

in the question.

(2) Procedure After Submission. – The judge shall review all such questions and,

outside the hearing of the jury, shall consult the parties about whether the question

should be asked. The judge may ask the juror’s question in whole or part and may

change the wording of the question before asking it. The judge may permit counsel

to ask the question in its original or amended form in whole or part.

(3) Jury Instructions. – W hen juror questions are permitted, the court shall instruct

jurors early in the trial about the mechanics of asking a question and to give no

meaning to the fact that the judge chose not to ask a questions or altered the

wording of a question submitted by a juror.

(4) Retaining Questions for Record. – All jurors’ questions – whether

approved or disapproved by the court – shall be retained for the record.

Tenn. R. Crim. P. 24.1(c).

This rule became effective July 1, 2006, as part of a comprehensive “reformatting” of all of the Criminal

Procedure Rules. See Compiler’s Notes. An earlier version of Rule 24.1 provided:

Juror Questions of W itnesses. – In the court’s discretion, a juror desiring to

propound a question to a witness may be permitted to do so. The juror must put the

question in written form and submit it to the judge through a court officer at the end

of a witness’s testimony. The judge shall review all such questions and, outside the

hearing of the jury, shall consult the parties about whether the question should be

(continued...)

-30-

See State v. Robert Bacon, No. 03C01-9608-CR-00308, slip op. at 32 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville,

Jan. 8, 1998) (concluding that the trial judge, in asking two questions submitted by the jury, did not

comment on the evidence such that it violated the defendant’s rights).

We see nothing in the judge’s questioning which would leave an improper impression

with the jury as to his feelings about the evidence, and the judge made no statements which would

reflect upon the weight or credibility of the evidence, including B.R.’s testimony; thus, we find that

this contention provides no basis for a reversal because the question did not amount to a judicial

comment and did not adversely affect the defendant’s rights.

E. Questioning of State’s Social Worker

Last, the defendant claims that the trial judge asked improper questions of State

witness Ms. Thompson, the licensed clinical social worker with Our Kids Center. After cross-

examination and before questions from the jury, the trial judge asked Ms. Thompson several

questions, as follows:

Q. Ma’am, you used the word “pain” in one of your answers.

A. Yes.

Q. How many times was there a report by the child of experiencing

“pain,” using that word.

A. I did not ask her quantitative.

Q. How many times in your notes or your recollection was that word

used in the context of the touching?

A. Of the medical? Basically, I just said was there any - did you

experience any pain or have any bleeding?

Q. An the answer was?

22

(...continued)

propounded. The judge, in his or her discretion, may ask the juror’s question in

whole or part and may change the wording of the juror’s question before

propounding it to the witness . . . .

Tenn. R. Crim. P. 24.1(c).

The earlier version took effect on July 1, 2003, and governed the defendant’s trial which commenced July 7,

2003.

-31-

A. She said that there was no bleeding, and she felt pain when he

touched her private spot.

We again decline to find plain error. In answering a question on direct examination,

Ms. Thompson testified that B.R. told her she experienced pain when the defendant touched her

“private spot.” Neither the State nor the defendant questioned Ms. Thompson further about this

statement. The trial court’s question was cumulative and did not adversely affect the defendant’s

rights.

V. VICTIM’S MEDICAL REPORT

Relying on his rights to present a defense and to a fair trial, the defendant complains

that the trial court erroneously refused to allow his defense expert to testify regarding the findings

of a medical examination indicating that the victim had no physical injuries. The State claims that

the evidence was irrelevant and that the examination could neither confirm nor exclude any sexual

contact between the defendant and the victim.

As quoted in the preceding issue, the record reflects that when Ms. Thompson, a

licensed clinical social worker, interviewed the victim, the victim reported that she experienced some

“pain” when the defendant touched her but no bleeding. The trial court became involved in

questioning the witness and asked how many times the victim had reported experiencing pain and

how many times the word “pain” appeared in the witness’s notes. Ms. Thompson responded that

she did not ask the victim how many times pain was involved; rather, the victim told her that she felt

pain when the defendant touched her “private spot.”

At the conclusion of the State’s case-in-chief, the defendant proffered the testimony

of Dr. Edmond Yabut, a board certified emergency physician. Doctor Yabut was offered as an expert

in pediatrics, and the defense wanted Dr. Yabut to testify that the victim’s references to pain when

the defendant touched her would be consistent only with an injury to the hymen and that a physical

examination of the victim had revealed no such injury. The testimony, the defense insisted, was

relevant to the veracity of the victim.

The State cross-examined Dr. Yabut on the proffer. Doctor Yabut was unaware that

the victim told Detective Breedlove that she experienced no pain. Doctor Yabut testified that pain

is a “very objective finding.” He opined that if the defendant had just touched the victim’s “majora

and the minora,” no injury would be expected.

The trial court questioned the parties whether “pain” was a disputed factual issue.

The State insisted that whether the victim experienced pain was a collateral matter for which

extrinsic proof should not be admitted. The defense admitted that causing pain is not an element of

aggravated sexual battery or exploitation of a minor. The trial court then excluded Dr. Yabut’s

testimony finding that it would not substantially assist the trier of fact to determine a fact in issue.

-32-

On appeal, the State attaches significance to the medical report of the victim’s

examination having not been admitted or authenticated. The State argues that because the defendant

did not seek to introduce the report into evidence, the defendant was prohibited from eliciting Dr.

Yabut’s testimony regarding the report. We disagree.

The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an

opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the

expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by

experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon

the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.

Tenn. R. Evid. 703. At any rate, the trial court’s exclusion of Dr. Yabut’s testimony was not based

on the admissibility of the medical report; the trial court did not regard the victim’s pain or lack

thereof to be a fact in issue and did not regard Dr. Yabut’s testimony as substantially assisting the

trier of fact to determine a fact in issue.

All evidence, including expert testimony, must be relevant. Tenn. R. Evid. 402.

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

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

without the evidence.” Id. 401. Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is

“substantially outweighed” by the danger of unfair prejudice. Id. 403.

The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Rules 702 and 703 of the

Tennessee Rules of Evidence. McDaniel v. CSX Transp., Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257 (Tenn. 1997). Rule

702 addresses the need for expert testimony and the qualifications of the expert: “If scientific,

technical, or other specialized knowledge will substantially assist the trier of fact to understand the

evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,

experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” Tenn. R.

Evid. 702. Its counterpart, Rule 703, focuses on the reliability of expert opinion testimony.

Generally, the admissibility of expert testimony is a matter entrusted to the sound discretion of the

trial court, and there can be no reversal on appeal absent clear abuse of that discretion. State v.

Ballard, 855 S.W.2d 557, 562 (Tenn. 1993).

The defendant argues that Dr. Yabut’s expert testimony rebutted the State’s case and

impeached the credibility of Ms. Thompson and lay witnesses, including the victim. From our

review of the record, Dr. Yabut’s testimony would not have significantly impeached the victim’s

credibility inasmuch as the victim did not testify about any touching involving pain. Ms.

Thompson’s credibility would not have been impeached; her testimony simply related what the

victim had said. Other trial testimony had shown that the victim made inconsistent statements at

different times.

It is troubling that the State elicited from Ms. Thompson the victim’s report of

experiencing some pain, that the trial court then questioned Ms. Thompson about the same matter,

-33-

and that the State later argued that whether the victim experienced pain was a collateral matter. It

strikes us that the State and the trial court share responsibility for opening this line of questioning

and that the defense was thereby entitled to explore the same area. To be sure, Dr. Yabut’s testimony

appears marginally relevant, but that assessment goes to the weight, not the admissibility, of his

testimony. Even so, we are convinced that any error in disallowing Dr. Yabut’s testimony is

harmless. By its own terms, the medical report, which is present in the record, indicated that the

victim’s examination neither confirmed or ruled out the possibility of any type of sexual contact.

For these reasons, the defendant is not entitled to a new trial on this claim.

VI. COMPULSORY JOINDER AND DOUBLE JEOPARDY

In an issue raised in a Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10 interlocutory appeal,

joined on appeal with the defendant’s Rule 3 issues, the defendant complains that the trial court

should not have severed the three child rape counts, over his objection, on the morning that trial

began. He insists that the trial court procedurally erred in considering the motion and that the State’s

motivation for seeking severance was to gain an improper tactical advantage.23 As a result, he argues

and that a future trial on the severed rape charges is barred by the compulsory joinder provisions of

the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure and by state and federal constitutional double-jeopardy

guarantees. The State counters that the trial court properly severed the rape charges because they

were not part of the same criminal episode as the other charges and because severance was necessary

to promote a fair determination of the defendant’s guilt or innocence of each offense.

A. Consolidation and Severance of Offenses

We can quickly dispose of the defendant’s procedural objection to the timing of the

State’s motion. From the record before us, it does not appear that the defendant objected to the

motion as untimely. That argument is, therefore, waived. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 14(b)(2)(A); Tenn.

R. App. P. 36(a).

Turning next to the substance of the State’s motion, the written motion to sever states,

in its entirety, the following:

Comes now the State of Tennessee, by and through the office

of the District Attorney General, pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 13,

and State v. Leath, No. 01C01-9511-CC-00392 (Tenn. Crim. App.

1998) (attached), and moves this Honorable Court to sever the rape

counts from all other offenses in the related case.

23

Although the defendant impugns the State’s motive in seeking to sever the child rape counts on the basis of

gaining an unfair tactical advantage in the trial of the aggravated sexual battery charges, we do not discern from the

defendant’s presentation and analysis of this issue on appeal that he is asserting reversible error in connection with his

aggravated sexual battery convictions. W e, accordingly, confine our review to the question whether a future trial on the

severed rape charges is barred.

-34-

This motion, to say the least, is uninformative, and the transcript of the severance hearing provides

marginal enlightenment. We discern that the State supported its severance request on the basis that

the videotapes depicting the victim would be relevant to the aggravated sexual battery counts but less

probative of the child rape counts. The defendant argued against severance based on judicial

economy and the victim’s expected testimony intertwining both types of offenses. The trial court

ruled,

Now in this case, the Court finds that the motion to sever[] is

well taken and shall be sustained. Noted defendant’s objection. The

Court finds that it is deemed appropriate to promote a fair

determination of the defendant’s guilt or innocence in each offense

pursuant to Rule 14(b)(2)(A) (inaudible) discretion in that regard. So

those three counts will be severed.

We begin by noting that each count in the charging instrument in this case alleges a

time frame of “May 2001 through June 2002, inclusive.” The State-supplied bill of particulars

described the child rape offenses in Counts One, Three, and Five of the original charging

instrument24 in the following terms:

Count 1

Date of the offense: after the Fall Fiesta held November 10, 2001 but

before Christmas of 2001 on a date the victim attended gymnastics.

Time of the offense: unknown

Location of the offense: on the “rod floor” of Esprit Gymnastics

located at 7106 Crossroads Blvd., Suite 226, Brentwood, Williamson

County, Tennessee

Nature of the offense: digital penetration

....

Count 3

Date of the offense: Fall of 2001 before the Fall Fiesta held on

November 10, 2001 on a date that the victim attended gymnastics.

Time of the offense: unknown.

24

After the three child rape charges were severed from the trial, the remaining counts were renumbered and

submitted to the jury. In this issue, our references are to the numberings of counts in the original charging instrument.

-35-

Location of the offense: on the “rod floor” of Esprit Gymnasium

located at 7106 Crossroads Blvd., Suite 226, Brentwood, Williamson

County, Tennessee

Nature of the offense: digital penetration

....

Count 5

Date of the offense: June of 2001 through March of 2002 on a date

that the victim attended gymnastics.

Time of the offense: unknown

Location of the offense: on the “rod floor” of Esprit Gymnasium

located at 7106 Crossroads Blvd., Suite 226, Brentwood, Williamson

County, Tennessee

Nature of the offense: digital penetration

The State-supplied bill of particulars for the aggravated sexual battery offenses in Counts Two, Four,

and Six of the original charging instrument mirrored the particulars for Counts One, Three, and Five.

That is, the State particularized the offense in Count Two in terms identical to Count One, including

listing the nature of the offense as digital penetration; it particularized the aggravated sexual battery

offense in Count Four in terms identical to Count Three, including listing the nature of the offense

as digital penetration; it particularized the aggravated sexual battery offense in Count Six in terms

identical to Count Five, including listing the nature of the offense as digital penetration.

Trial court rulings addressing joinder and severance of offenses, pursuant to Rules

of Criminal Procedure 8, 13, and 14, are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Goodwin, 143

S.W.3d 771, 780 (Tenn. 2004); Spicer v. State, 12 S.W.3d 438, 442 (Tenn. 2000). As such, a trial

court’s decision to consolidate or to sever offenses will not be reversed unless the “court applied an

incorrect legal standard, or reached a decision which is against logic or reasoning that caused an

injustice to the party complaining.” State v. Shirley, 6 S.W.3d 243, 247 (Tenn. 1999) (quoting State

v. Shuck, 953 S.W.2d 662, 669 (Tenn.1997)).

Aggravated sexual battery of a child under 13 years of age, T.C.A. § 39-13-504(a)(4)

(2006), is a lesser included offense of rape of a child, id. § 39-13-522. See State v. Elkins, 108

S.W.2d 231, 237 (Tenn. 2003). Thus, the aggravated sexual battery charges in Counts Two, Four,

and Six may well be lesser included offenses of the child rape charges set forth in Counts One,

Three, and Five. Although it is unnecessary to allege lesser included offenses as separate counts in

-36-

an indictment, structuring an indictment in such a manner is not prohibited. See State v. Banes, 874

S.W.2d 73, 80 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993).

The rape counts, however, are subject to mandatory joinder with the corresponding

aggravated sexual battery counts. Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a)(1) mandates joinder

of the offenses, as alleged, arising from the “same conduct or aris[ing] from the same criminal

episode.”25 See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 8(a)(1)(A) (two or more offenses shall be joined in the same

indictment if they are “based on the same conduct or arise from the same criminal episode”); Banes,

874 S.W.2d at 80 n.7. Accordingly, the defense is correct that, as worded, Counts One and Two,

Counts Two and Three, and Counts Four and Five met the criteria for mandatory joinder.26

Now, we must determine whether the trial court erred in severing the mandatorily

joined child rape offenses from the offenses alleged in Counts Two, Four, and Six. Criminal

Procedure Rule 8(a)(2) provides that a “defendant shall not be subject to separate trials for multiple

offenses [qualifying for mandatory joinder] unless they are severed pursuant to Rule 14.” Tenn. R.

Crim. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). Rule 14 provides that either the State or the defendant may

obtain a severance of offenses that have been mandatorily joined when “appropriate to promote a

fair determination of the defendant’s guilt or innocence of each offense.” Id. 14(b)(2)(A). The

State’s professed concern that the videotapes might not be probative of the rape charges is

insufficient to warrant severance, particularly considering that the defendant opposed the severance,

thereby accepting the risk the videotapes might pose to the rape charges. Furthermore, the State has

not articulated why a limiting instruction to the jury would not have preserved a fair determination

of the defendant’s guilt or innocence of each offense.

Finally, it strikes us that permitting the State to sever offenses in this manner is akin

to the condemned practice “by some prosecuting attorneys of ‘saving back’ one or more charges

arising from the same conduct or from the same criminal episode.” Id. 8(a), Committee Comments;

see State v. King, 717 S.W.2d 306, 307-08 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986) (second indictment after trial

was prevented by Rule 8, which prevented multiple trials on charges arising from the same conduct

or from the same criminal episode). As the supreme court explained in State v. Carruthers, 35

S.W.3d 516 (Tenn. 2000),

25

W e reject the State’s argument on appeal that the defendant failed to demonstrate that each count was part

of the same criminal episode. We are not persuaded, in the context of charges originally consolidated in a single

indictment and when it is the State’s desire to alter the status quo by a severance of offenses, that the burden is on the

defendant to make such a showing. At any rate, the State’s particulars, as worded, appear to speak in lesser-included-

offense terms, in which case it would be incumbent upon the State to demonstrate otherwise.

26

Even so, the relationship of Counts One through Six to the remaining five counts fall within the realm of

permissive joinder of offenses in Criminal Procedure Rule 8(b) based on partaking “of the same or similar character.”

See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 8(b)(1), (2) (two or more offenses may be joined in the same indictment if the offenses “constitute

parts of a common scheme or plan” or if they “are of the same or similar character”).

-37-

. . . The purpose of Rule 8 is to promote efficient administration of

justice and to protect the rights of the accused. The rule clearly

permits a subsequently returned indictment to be joined with a

previous indictment where the alleged offenses relate to the same

criminal episode. See King v. State, 717 S.W.2d 306 (Tenn. Crim.

App. 1986). This practice, however, does have certain limitations

which, as the comments note, safeguard an accused against

prosecutorial abuse. For example, a prosecutor cannot simply decide

to “save” charges on other offenses arising out of the same conduct

until after a trial is had on the original charges. Obviously, this would

result in multiple trials and prejudice the defendant. This concern,

however, is not present in the case at hand because the subsequent

indictments were returned well before the start of trial.

Id. at 573.

In summary, we hold that because of the rule-based severance errors in this case, the

defendant may not be subjected to a separate trial for the child rape offenses. See King, 717 S.W.2d

at 307-08 (remedy is to bar second trial).

B. Double Jeopardy

Independent of the rules of criminal procedure, the severance ruling in this case has

a constitutional dimension to which we now turn our attention.

The state and federal constitutions both provide that no person shall, for the same

offense, be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. U.S. Const. amend. V; Tenn. Const. art. I, § 10.

Our supreme court has held that double jeopardy protects a defendant from (1) reprosecution for the

same crime after an acquittal, (2) reprosecution for the same crime after a conviction, and (3)

multiple punishments for the same offense. State v. Denton, 938 S.W.2d 373, 378 (Tenn. 1996); see

also North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717, 89 S. Ct. 2072, 2076 (1969), overruled on other

grounds by Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794, 109 S. Ct. 2201 (1989). As we shall explain, in this

case double jeopardy bars the State from prosecuting the defendant on the three severed rape charges.

The State is permitted to, and often finds it necessary to, allege broad time frames for

a claimed offense when, for example, the “exact” date of the offense cannot be shown. In that

situation, however, the rights of an accused to a unanimous jury verdict and to double jeopardy

protection must be scrupulously observed. The usual precaution to assure jury unanimity is to

require an election of offenses at the close of the proof. See, e.g., State v. McCary, 119 S.W.3d 226,

241 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003); Burlison v. State, 501 S.W.2d 801, 804 (Tenn. 1973). Protection from

a subsequent prosecution, under the double jeopardy clause, attaches to the time frame alleged in the

indictment or perhaps that is more narrowly specified in a bill of particulars. State v. Anderson, 748

S.W.2d 201, 203 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985) (“defendant would be protected from a subsequent

-38-

prosecution, under the double jeopardy clause, for any claimed offense against an alleged victim in

an indictment which specified the offense occurred within the times alleged in the indictment”),

overruled on other grounds in State v. Shelton, 851 S.W.2d 134, 138 (Tenn. 1993); see State v. Steve

Mosley, No. 01C01-9211-CC-00345, slip op. at 12 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Sept. 9, 1993)

(dismissing defendant’s concern that he could be prosecuted for the same drug offense based on

double jeopardy protection for offense within times alleged in the indictment); State v. Kenneth N.

Godwin, No. 87-91-III, slip op. at 6 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, May 24, 1988) (holding on double

jeopardy grounds that defendant could never again be prosecuted for any sexual offense against the

victim committed during the years 1983 and 1984); see also State v Shropshire, 45 S.W.3d 64, 71

(Tenn. Crim. App. 2000) (purpose of the bill of particulars is to provide the accused with sufficient

information about the offense alleged in the indictment to permit the accused (a) to prepare a

defense, (b) to avoid prejudicial surprise at trial, and (c) to enable the accused to preserve a plea of

double jeopardy).

The foregoing constitutional principles dictate the conclusion that double jeopardy

bars the State in this case from subsequently prosecuting the defendant for the rape offenses set out

in Counts One, Three, and Five of indictment, which are included both within the broad time frame

alleged in the indictment and the time frame specified in the bill of particulars.

Accordingly, we hold that retrial on Counts One, Three, and Five is barred by both

the Rules of Criminal Procedure and constitutional double-jeopardy principles.

VII. EVIDENCE CHALLENGES

The defendant claims that on five specific occasions, the trial court permitted the

State to introduce prohibited hearsay and opinion testimony. In addition, the defendant contends that

the trial court, on four separate occasions, excluded legitimate defense evidence. We discuss each

occasion in turn.

A. Victim’s Hearsay Testimony

On direct examination, B.R. testified that when her mother asked her if the defendant

had touched her inappropriately, she replied, “Yes mom, he did.” B.R. further testified, “And I told

her and she was - she was - she kind of felt like something like that was going on.” The State then

asked, “Did your mom tell you that after you told her?” When defense counsel objected on hearsay

grounds, the State argued that the evidence was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted but

to clarify B.R.’s previous statement. The trial court allowed B.R. to answer the question, and B.R.

testified that her mother did tell her that she felt “that something was happening.”

We first address our standard of review of the trial court’s ruling on the hearsay issue.

“‘Hearsay’ is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or

hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Tenn. R. Evid. 801(c).

Hearsay is not admissible unless admission is authorized by the evidence rules or by other

controlling provisions of law. Id. 802; see id. 803 (establishing hearsay exceptions that do not

-39-

depend upon a showing of declarant’s unavailability); id. 804 (establishing hearsay exceptions that

depend upon a showing of declarant’s unavailability). Accordingly, a trial court’s ruling on whether

a statement is hearsay is a question of law, and the appellate court reviews the issue de novo without

a presumption of correctness. See Shelia Rae Gibbs v. Robin Media Group, No. M1999-00820-

COA-R3-CV, slip op. at 3 (Tenn. Ct. App., Nashville, Aug. 25, 2000); Russell v. Crutchfield, 988

S.W.2d 168, 170 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).

The victim’s statement is suggestive of hearsay. Moreover, if we adopted the State’s

argument that the statement was not offered for its truth but that it “illustrat[ed] the victim’s basis

of knowledge about her mother’s suspicions,” then the statement is not relevant according to

Tennessee Rule of Evidence 401. See Tenn. R. Evid. 401 (“‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence

having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination

of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”); id. 402

(“Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.”). In most cases, if a statement is not offered for

its truth, an issue of relevancy is prompted. In the present case, B.R. testified that her mother had

suspicions, and the State asked B.R. if her mother told her of those suspicions to clarify her

testimony. The basis of B.R.’s knowledge about her mother’s suspicions is inadmissible as

irrelevant to whether the defendant sexually abused B.R. However, because the statement is not

central to the case and not damaging to the defendant, we hold the error is harmless. See Tenn. R.

Crim. P. 52(a); Tenn. R. App. P. 36(b).

B. Detective Breedlove’s Opinion Testimony

Detective Breedlove testified that he was present for two interviews with B.R. prior

to trial and that he was present during her testimony at trial. The State asked, “Detective, when you

reflect on all three of those interviews [sic] were her statements regarding the incidents involving

[the defendant] consistent or inconsistent?” Defense counsel objected, stating that Detective

Breedlove was not entitled to give his opinion in that regard. The State argued that because B.R’s

credibility was attacked on cross-examination, the State could ask about her statements’ consistency.

The State further argued that a lay witness, with “personal knowledge or personal observation,” may

express his or her opinion, if that opinion “would assist the jury in the ultimate decision of fact.”

The trial court overruled the objection and stated that the criteria in Tennessee Rule of Evidence 701

had been met. Therefore, Detective Breedlove testified that B.R.’s three statements were consistent.

Furthermore, he stated that “she told the same thing over and over again.”

The defendant claims on appeal that the trial court erred in admitting this evidence

because “no rule of criminal procedure or rule of evidence allows a lay witness to give an opinion

as to the consistency or inconsistency of someone else’s statement.” The defendant makes the

blanket statement that the testimony “constitutes hearsay, violates the expert opinion rule, invades

the function of the jury and is unknown as an evidentiary proposition.” The only authority cited in

his brief, however, is Tennessee Rules of Evidence 801 and 803. See Tenn. R. Evid. 801, 803. At

trial, the defendant objected on lay opinion grounds only, and in the motion for a new trial and on

appeal, a party is bound by the ground asserted when the party objected at trial, State v. Adkisson,

-40-

899 S.W.2d 626, 634-635 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994); see also Tenn. R. Evid. 103(a)(1) (“Error may

not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the

party is affected, and . . . [i]n case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion

to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection if the specific ground was not

apparent from the context.”). Therefore, the only claim that survives the trial process regards Rule

701, opinion testimony by a lay witness. See Tenn. R. Evid. 701.

However, the defendant fails to cite authority to support his claim based on Rule 701.

Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(a)(7) states, “The brief of the appellant shall contain . .

. [a]n argument . . . with citations to the authorities and appropriate references to the record (which

may be quoted verbatim) relied on . . . .” Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a)(7). Furthermore, Tennessee Court

of Criminal Appeals Rule 10(b) states, “Issues which are not supported by argument, citation to

authorities, or appropriate references to the record will be treated as waived in this court.” Tenn. Ct.

Crim. App. R. 10(b). Therefore, the defendant waived this issue.

C. B.R.’s Mother’s Opinion Testimony of B.R.’s Truthfulness

B.R.’s mother testified that she observed Detective Breedlove’s September 10, 2002

interview of B.R. At trial on direct examination, the following occurred:

Q. During the course of that interview, did anything strike you about

[B.R.’s] demeanor?

A. Her demeanor?

Q. While she was discussing things?

A. While she was discussing things that were happening, that had

happened to her, it - I just felt sick. I knew that she was being totally

honest. She was telling him exactly what happened.

Defense counsel objected, stating that the jury must decide if B.R. was being truthful. The trial court

stated that the answer responded to a “question about demeanor.” Defense counsel argued that the

answer exceeded the scope of the question. The trial court overruled the objection, and B.R.’s

mother further testified that she felt B.R. acted “somber,” “uncomfortable,” “awkward,” “silly, and

not like herself at all.”

The defendant claims that the trial court erred by admitting B.R.’s mother’s

testimony; however, we decline to reach the merits of this issue because the defendant waived it by

failing to cite to authority in his brief. See Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a)(7); Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 10(b).

The defendant states that “this [testimony] is an opinion as to the veracity or credibility of another

person” and that “[t]his sort of testimony is an opinion not permitted by a lay witness,” yet he fails

to cite any rule or case law to support his contention. Therefore, the issue is waived.

-41-

D. B.R.’s Mother’s Opinion Testimony of B.R.’s Reluctance to Disclose

On B.R.’s mother’s redirect examination, the State asked, “Why do you think [B.R.]

didn’t tell you?” Defense counsel objected on speculation grounds. The State decided to rephrase

the question after “build[ing] a foundation.” B.R.’s mother described her “close relationship” with

her daughter, testifying that she had insight into her daughter’s behavior. The State then asked, “Do

you feel that that insight may help the jury understand why [B.R.] didn’t disclose at an earlier time?”

Defense counsel again objected on speculation grounds and improper lay opinion testimony. The

trial court overruled the objection based on Tennessee Rule of Evidence 701. B.R.’s mother then

answered the question, stating that B.R. “was afraid.”

On appeal, the defendant merely states that this evidence was speculation testimony

without citing any authority, and he argues that it constituted improper lay opinion testimony under

Tennessee Rule of Evidence 701. See Tenn. R. Evid. 701. Lay witnesses may give testimony in the

form of an opinion where the testimony is “(1) rationally based on the perception of the witness and

(2) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’s testimony or the determination of a fact in

issue.” Id. 701(a). The testimony is not objectionable merely because it embraces an ultimate issue

before the jury. Tenn. R. Evid. 704. However, the admission of lay opinion testimony is limited to

those situations wherein the jury could not readily draw its own conclusions on the ultimate issue,

without the aid of the witness’s opinion testimony. Blackburn v. Murphy, 737 S.W.2d 529, 533

(Tenn. 1987). Put another way, the lay witness may express an opinion to describe her observations

if that is the only way in which she can effectively communicate her observations to the jury. State

v. Brown, 836 S.W.2d 530, 550 (Tenn. 1992). When the admission or exclusion of opinion evidence

is challenged on appeal, it is reviewable only for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., State v. Gray, 960

S.W.2d 598, 606 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).

Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing B.R.’s mother’s

testimony. Her opinion was rationally based on her perception and helpful to a clear understanding

of her testimony. The State adequately built a foundation, demonstrating the close relationship

between B.R. and her mother and the latter’s insights into B.R.’s behavior. Furthermore, defense

counsel ably attacked B.R.’s credibility on cross-examination and clearly pointed out to the jury that

B.R. waited months before telling her mother of the abuse. B.R. testified that she did not

immediately tell her mother because she was afraid that she would get in trouble. B.R.’s mother’s

opinion reiterated the victim’s testimony.

E. Defendant’s Excluded Testimony

1. Defendant’s Statements Regarding Gymnastic Routines

During defense counsel’s cross examination of B.R., the following exchange took

place:

-42-

Q. Now [B.R.], during this time before you got injured were there

some routines that you were having problems with?

A. What do you mean by routines?

Q. Some skills?

A. Yes.

Q. What was that?

A. Back handspring.

Q. The back handspring?

A. On the beam.

Q. On the beam?

A. Yes.

Q. [The defendant] had told you, did he not, if you couldn’t do that -

A. (Inaudible).

Q. That you could not move on to the next level?

The State objected on hearsay grounds, and defense counsel argued that the question goes to B.R.’s

state of mind, “her motivation.” The State responded that the question must go to the declarant’s

state of mind, and the trial court sustained the objection.

After the ruling, cross-examination continued, as follows:

Q. Did you have trouble doing – what did you call it, the back –

A. Handspring.

Q. Back handspring?

A. Yes.

Q. And you could not move on to the next level until you did that;

right?

-43-

A. Right.

Q. How long had you been trying to do that? And I understand it is

a very hard routine?

A. A very long time.

Q. It’s hard; isn’t it?

A. Yes.

Q. But you couldn’t move up to the next level until after you got that

done; right?

A. Right.

The defendant contends that “[t]his question and answer was designed to show the

state of mind and effect that the statement had on the alleged victim.” He further argues that the trial

court “erroneously sustained the objection as being ‘hearsay.’” The defendant, however, fails to cite

authority in his brief. Therefore, he waived the issue. See Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a)(7) (“The brief of

the appellant shall contain . . . [a]n argument . . . with citations to the authorities and appropriate

references to the record (which may be quoted verbatim) relied on . . . .”); Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R.

10(b) (“Issues which are not supported by argument, citation to authorities, or appropriate references

to the record will be treated as waived in this court.”).

Waiver aside, we will discuss the issue to elaborate on an evidentiary point stated

earlier. Again, “‘[h]earsay’ is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at

the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted,” Tenn. R. Evid.

801(c), and it is not admissible unless admission is authorized by the evidence rules or by other

controlling provisions of law, id. 802. A trial court’s ruling on whether a statement is hearsay is a

question of law, and the appellate court reviews the issue de novo without a presumption of

correctness. See Shelia Rae Gibbs, slip op. at 3; Russell, 988 S.W.2d at 170.

Here, the statement that the defendant told B.R. she could not move to the next

gymnastic level unless she could perform the back handspring was not offered for its truth. Instead,

we surmise that the defendant offered the evidence to show circumstantially that friction developed

between B.R. and the defendant regarding gymnastic skills. Hearing that the defendant told B.R. that

she may not advance in her sport, the jury could have inferred that the defendant’s and B.R.’s

relationship was strained for reasons other than sexual abuse. Thus, the importance of the statement

lies in the fact that it was said, not its truth. Because the statement was not hearsay and was relevant,

it was admissible.

-44-

That being said, however, we find that the error in not admitting the statement was

harmless. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(a); Tenn. R. App. P. 36(b). After the trial court sustained the

State’s objection, defense counsel ably elicited from B.R. that she was aware that if she failed to do

the skill, then she would fail to advance to the next gymnastic level. Furthermore, the jury heard

testimony that the defendant had become so angry when B.R. refused to do the back handspring that

he left the gymnasium. From this evidence, the jury could likewise infer that the defendant’s and

B.R.’s relationship was strained for reasons other than sexual abuse. Because the testimony is

essentially the same, “considering the whole record,” this error did not prejudice the defendant, and

we find, therefore, the error harmless. Tenn. R. App. P. 36(b); see Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(a).

2. Defendant’s Statements Regarding Digital Camera

On direct examination, the defendant testified that the police seized several

videotapes, including digital tapes, from his apartment. When asked “[w]hat tape was in the digital

camera,” the defendant replied:

Well, what happened was, is that [Detective Breedlove] asked

some questions: Are we going to see any pornographic something or

another. I don’t even remember exactly what he said.

And I said: I don’t believe so.

And he said: Well, can we just play it?

So I went over there and showed him how to play it.

The State objected on hearsay grounds, and the trial court sustained the objection, instructing the jury

to disregard what the defendant told Detective Breedlove.

In the defendant’s brief, he claims that his statement was not hearsay because it “was

designed to deal with issues concerning what [he] knew or information he told the detective

himself.” We refuse to reach the merits of this issue because the defendant, again, failed to cite

authority and therefore waived the issue. See Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a)(7); Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R.

10(b).

3. Defendant’s Statements Denying Guilt

Also on direct examination, the defendant testified that after the search of his

apartment, he accompanied Detective Breedlove to the police department and gave a statement.

Then defense counsel asked, “In that statement, did you admit – .” The State interrupted defense

counsel and objected on hearsay grounds. The trial court instructed defense counsel to finish his

question, and defense counsel inquired, “In your conversation with Detective Breedlove, did you

-45-

admit to any inappropriate touching of [B.R.]?” The State renewed its objection, and the trial court

sustained the objection.

The defendant argues, rather confusingly, that “[g]iven the nature of the questions

about the conversation and as to what [the defendant] said and what the detective said, the fact that

[the defendant] denied his guilt was clearly not hearsay.” The defendant cites no authority in his

argument; thus, he waived the issue. See Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a)(7); Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 10(b).

F. Ms. Melton’s Excluded Testimony

On direct examination, Ms. Melton testified that in July of 2002, B.R. was afraid to

do a back handspring on the beam. Ms. Melton testified that the defendant “got really tough on her”

and that B.R. “was crushed.” Ms. Melton stated that B.R.’s mother “was mad and upset with [the

defendant].” At this point, the State objected on hearsay grounds, and the trial court sustained the

objection, instructing the jury to disregard the statement regarding B.R.’s mother. Ms. Melton then

testified that from that day forward, B.R. refused to look at the defendant, hug him, or talk to him.

She testified that B.R. “kept coming up with excuse, after excuse, after excuse, of why she didn’t -

couldn’t do gymnastics.” Ms. Melton testified that the back injury may have been legitimate, but

she did not believe that it was. She testified, “I just never believed it was, not by the way her parents

responded or anything else.” The State objected, stating no basis, and the trial court sustained the

objection.

On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erroneously sustained the

objections and “failed to permit [Ms. Melton] to testify as to conversations that she had with the

alleged victim which expressed the victim’s demeanor.” The defendant also claims that Ms.

Melton’s testimony on this issue was critical to impeach B.R.’s testimony. First, we recognize that

the record does not evidence any conversations between Ms. Melton and the victim regarding this

issue. Ms. Melton admitted on cross-examination that she did not personally witness the occurrence

in July 2002. Second, the defendant failed to cite authority in his argument, and therefore, he waived

the issue. See Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a)(7); Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 10(b).

VIII. IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT

The defendant contends that the trial court erred by allowing the State to improperly

cross-examine him regarding voice stress analysis relating to his voice on the “perp phone call.” The

following testimony transpired on cross-examination:

Q. Wouldn’t you agree that someone that is shocked or caught off

guard, that fact can be detected in their voice?

A. I wouldn’t necessarily agree with that.

Q. Have you ever heard of voice stress analysis?

-46-

A. I’ve heard of the concept. I’ve heard of it, yes.

Q. Are you aware that people can take a recording like this and

determine whether or not someone is under stress, similar to that of

a lie detector?

A. I don’t know anything about it.

Defense counsel objected to this line of questioning on relevance grounds, and the

State argued, “It’s relevant if [the defendant] is aware of [voice stress analysis] and still believes that

stress cannot be heard in someone’s voice.” The trial court overruled the objection, and the

defendant stated that he was not aware that law enforcement agencies could use this tool to detect

distress in a person’s voice.

To be sure, the propriety, scope, manner, and control of cross-examination rests

within the sound discretion of the trial court. See State v. Hutchison, 898 S.W.2d 161, 172 (Tenn.

1994); State v. Barnard, 899 S.W.2d 617, 624 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). Absent a clear abuse of this

discretion that results in manifest prejudice to the accused, this court will not interfere with the trial

court’s exercise of its discretion on matters pertaining to the examination of witnesses. State v.

Johnson, 670 S.W.2d 634, 636 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984). In addition, “[a] witness may be cross-

examined on any matter relevant to any issue in the case, including credibility.” Tenn. R. Evid.

611(b).

In the present case, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in allowing cross-

examination regarding “voice stress analysis” because it was irrelevant similar to how polygraph

evidence is irrelevant. See State v. Damron, 151 S.W.3d 510, 515 (Tenn. 2004) (stating that

“polygraph test results, testimony concerning such results, and testimony concerning a defendant’s

willingness or refusal to submit to a polygraph test are inadmissible”). In our opinion, the State’s

cross-examination was misleading, factually incorrect, and irrelevant; it should not have been

allowed.

From reported case law on the subject of voice stress analysis, we glean the following:

The premise on which voice stress analysis is based is that all speech

is comprised of t[wo] components. The first are fundamental

frequencies determined mainly by laryngeal structures. The second

are formant frequencies that are produced when air is passed through

the vocal tract. Voice stress analysis analysts believe speech also

produces an inaudible FM signal, or micro-tremor, of 8 to 14 Hz.

The belief is that this signal’s presence is greatest during normal

speech and dampened when a person is placed under stress. A voice

stress instrument is designed to monitor and display the variance in

microtremors as a person responds to specific questions.

-47-

Smith v. State, 797 So.2d 503, 524 n.5 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000). Additional enlightenment on the

subject appears in United States v. Traficant, 566 F. Supp. 1046, 1046 (E.D. Ohio 1983).

. . . Voice stress analyzers and psychological stress evaluators (PSE)

detect and measure subaudible microtremors in a person’s voice. The

amount of stress imposed on the speaker is alleged to affect the

microtremors in his voice. The stress is allegedly produced by the

speaker’s deception. The first psychological stress evaluator was

marketed in 1971. Reportedly, it was developed as a covert lie

detection device which could be used without the attachment of

sensors (as are necessary with polygraph tests) and hence could be

employed without the knowledge of the subject being tested.

....

. . . The opinion of at least one researcher in the field is that

there have been very few well-controlled studies of the reliability of

voice stress analysis; and none of these studies have shown that voice

stress analyzers are effective in detecting deception. Several studies

revealed that PSE testing results yielded an accuracy rate only slightly

higher than, and in some cases lower than, chance expectancy rates.

566 F. Supp at 1046-47. See Virgin Islands v. Leycock,19 V.I. 59 (D. Virgin Ils. 1982) (commenting

that the test is “probably viewed by courts with even greater disdain than lie detector (polygraph)

tests”).

Against this background, prosecution counsel’s assertion “that people can take a

recording like this and determine whether or not someone is under stress, similar to that of a lie

detector” imports to the jury some notion of infallibility that simply does not exist. We fail to detect

any relevancy to this misleading line of questioning about an unreliable analysis with no proven track

record of accuracy. We reject outright the State’s argument that the voice stress analysis questions

were relevant to impeach the defendant’s credibility. The defendant simply maintained that he

“wouldn’t necessarily agree with” the State’s assertion “that someone that [sic] is shocked or caught

off guard, that fact can be detected in their voice.” This court, most assuredly, disputes the State’s

assertion; indeed, this court has found nothing to support the state’s factual assertion.

The question thus becomes whether the improper cross-examination constitutes

reversible error. We believe it does not. In our view, the improper cross-examination neither

“affirmatively appear[s] to have affected the result of the trial on the merits,” Tenn. R. Crim. P.

52(a), nor “involve[s] a substantial right” of the defendant, Tenn. R. App. P. 36(b).

-48-

VIII. AND IX. JURY INSTRUCTION

The defendant raises two issues regarding the same jury instruction. The instruction

given by the trial court, in pertinent part, is as follows:

For you to find the defendant guilty of [aggravated sexual battery],

the State must have – must have proven, beyond a reasonable doubt,

the existence of the following essential elements: (1) The defendant

had unlawful sexual contact with the alleged victim, in which the

defendant intentionally touched the alleged victim’s intimate parts, or

the clothing covering the immediate area of the alleged victim’s

intimate parts; or the alleged victim had unlawful sexual contact with

the defendant in which the victim intentionally touched the

defendant’s or any other person’s intimate parts or the clothing

covering the immediate area of the defendant’s, or any other person’s

intimate parts; and that the alleged victim was less than 13 years of

age, and that the defendant acted either intentionally, knowingly or

recklessly.

(Emphasis added.)

“[The] defendant has a constitutional right to a correct and complete charge of the

law.” State v. Teel, 793 S.W.2d 236, 249 (Tenn. 1990). The trial court must describe each element

of an offense and define the element in connection with that offense. See State v. Cravens, 764

S.W.2d 754, 756 (Tenn. 1989). A charge is prejudicial error if it fails to “submit the legal issues or

if it misleads the jury as to the applicable law.” State v. Hodges, 944 S.W.2d 346, 352 (Tenn. 1997).

First, the defendant states that “recklessness” modifies the age of the victim and that

the trial court failed to explain that the mens rea of recklessness was only applicable to this element

and not the nature of conduct element. Thus, he argues that the instruction violates the burden of

proof requirement, see T.C.A. § 39-11-201 (2006), his federal and state due process rights, and his

rights to a jury trial because the instruction stated that aggravated sexual battery could be committed

if the “defendant acted either intentionally, knowingly or recklessly.”

Second, the defendant states that the trial court instructed the jury that the State could

prove the required mental state for aggravated sexual battery in the disjunctive. He contends that

the use of the disjunctive “allowed a verdict to be returned which was not unanimous . . . in violation

of [his] federal and state rights to a jury trial and the right to a unanimous verdict.”

Similar to the disjunctive jury instruction in State v. Chester Wayne Walters, No.

M2003-03019-CCA-R3-CD, slip op. at 12-15 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Oct. 4, 2004), the

present case’s jury instruction specifically stated that it required the jury to find that the sexual

contact was intentional. See State v. Faulkner, 154 S.W.3d 48, 58-59 (Tenn. 2005) (stating that the

-49-

court is not convinced that inclusion of an instruction defining the nature-of-conduct and

circumstances-surrounding-conduct is an error of constitutional dimension when the instruction also

includes the correct result-of-conduct definition). Further, the defendant’s reliance on State v. Deji

A. Ogundiya is not convincing, see No. M2002-03099-CCA-R3-CD, slip op. at 6-7 (Tenn. Crim.

App., Nashville, Feb. 19, 2004), because this court did not state that the trial court’s instructions

constituted reversible error. We instructed that upon retrial for other reasons, the trial court should

instruct the jury carefully regarding the mens rea for each element of the offense. Id. This court

noted that the trial court did not instruct the jury clearly as to the mens rea of each element of sexual

battery and did not explain to the jury that the recklessness mens rea only applied to the victim’s lack

of consent element. Id. Unlike Deji A. Ogundiya, the trial court’s instruction in the present case did

not constitute reversible error.

X. RECUSAL OF TRIAL JUDGE

The defendant claims that the denial of his motion to disqualify the trial judge was

error. Prior to the scheduled hearing on the defendant’s motion for new trial, substitute counsel, who

appeared in the case after the conclusion of the trial, filed a written motion seeking the trial judge’s

recusal. Apparently, this motion was reviewed by the court along with the motion for new trial and

other pending motions. The recusal issue did not receive any specific attention in the hearing

conducted by the court, and the court apparently disposed of the recusal issue, along with other

issues, by generally stating that such “other matters” were overruled.

The primary ground for disqualification cited by the defendant in his recusal motion

was the trial judge’s attempt to have the defendant’s trial counsel, who withdrew following the trial,

disciplined by the Board of Professional Responsibility. Based upon exhibits attached to the recusal

motion, the defendant’s trial attorney was interviewed by television reporters following the return

of the jury’s guilty verdicts in the present case. In the course of the interview and in response to

questions posed by the reporters, counsel stated that an appeal would ensue and that the grounds for

the appeal would include the trial court’s ruling on the admission into evidence of the videotape of

the defendant in the gymnasium’s restroom. Counsel opined that the ruling was “wrong” and would

be the basis of reversal. The trial judge essentially complained to the Board of Professional

Responsibility that counsel’s statements had impugned the judge’s integrity, but after counsel

responded to the complaint, the Board dismissed the complaint. In his motion to disqualify the trial

judge, the defendant claimed that the judge’s actions in seeking disciplinary sanctions against his

trial attorney, along with his restrictive rulings on pretrial disclosure and his interrogation of

witnesses during trial, bespoke a prejudice against the defendant that warranted disqualification.

The issue of a trial judge’s recusal based upon alleged bias or prejudice rests within

the discretion of the trial court. Caruthers v. State, 814 S.W.2d 64, 67 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).

A judge should grant a motion for recusal whenever his or her “impartiality might reasonably be

questioned.” Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3(E)(1); see State v. McCary, 119 S.W.3d 226, 260

(Tenn. Crim. App. 2003). This court will not interfere with the trial court’s discretion unless clear

-50-

abuse appears on the face of the record. Owens v. State, 13 S.W.3d 742, 757 (Tenn. Crim. App.

1999); Caruthers, 814 S.W.2d at 67.

Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10, Canon 3(E)(1) provides that “[a] judge shall

disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be

questioned, including but not limited to instances where [] the judge has a personal bias or prejudice

concerning a party.” Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10, Canon 3(E)(1)(a), (b). In response to a disqualification

motion, the judge should not only examine “subjective bias” but should also inquire whether the

judge’s impartiality might be reasonably questioned under an “objective standard.” State v. Connors,

995 S.W.2d 146, 149 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). The latter standard “‘takes into account that

disqualification is required if there is an appearance of partiality to the reasonable observer, and it

precludes a judge from avoiding recusal merely by avowing his or her impartiality.’” State v.

Conway, 77 S.W.3d 213, 225 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) (quoting Connors, 886 S.W.2d at 149).

In the present case, we are struck by a combination of events: (1) the judge’s punitive

reaction toward trial counsel’s relatively benign, though extrajudicial, comments about trial error;

(2) the judge’s failure to place on the record his findings and reasons for denying the motion to

recuse; (3) the judge’s restrictions on the defendant’s right of discovery; and (4) the judge’s

credibility-bolstering examination of the victim-witness, though itself unworthy of a reversal.

To elaborate, first, the judge’s questioning of the victim during her trial testimony

could appear to be for the purpose of eliciting her disavowals that her testimony was influenced or

coached. Second, the reaction to counsel’s post-trial comments evinces, at worst, an antipathy

toward the defense or the defense attorney and, at best, a pharisaical attitude toward dissent that

might tend to chill all but the most intrepid advocacy. Last, against this backdrop, we would have

hoped

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.