ÿWPCR /c>¶À¾Dý×~`Ší„˜—¦üðU6ó"êlÅÉÄ¡À›® G‘æ_ÿ îE_C#$á rÈh@B× ^#ÇY©aÊJ ‡¢[€=-»ú×£ §NogÑÜ/§ U,cãUÚ6lÎÇo¶ÿ”Ü44 »Ì*¹$B}ØŠ¨QX¡ —ÔQwˆš¦Œâ¾ó01”L|´åÔâÔ³úëÌ_-«]ÕžèѲØ]«ºs{ -‰¾R>0 ‚ÅúU÷ÆfOçþ5ê'¦i‚Av @J‚úÅRê¶ó¿ü[„2üê_w¢5pŒb¨Q(geïÊÄéŽñè&%\¿ý#€ÈÙÙC»Q²I¶Y›ÉÒéÉvÉn edÝU4Ê(¾k —Lkþ8Ø“¡’·j°ž÷,æ5¦QÜnØ!\ Ÿ†P›IV‡¼AJb›ñ”~Œ\ƒ†Cí lZœ±ú__3"ª»ž½¶T‚OÏžžZæß6Bûh¼ÆgÈhÕ˲>6[K¸c7º~ob#Á\ % N# 0ˆ% U(N­ û û z Ò} zO ÒÉ ^ › w§ Æ« Æq Æ7Æý4ÃN×ÙèEê mì 0DbGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG 0ëOOOO B:: 0¤W D3û D-. 0K[[ AS¦Æù 0¤¿ 0Dc A«§˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptä©J)â Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5q\;'ðI¦k1,†¥3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2úû$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€·Ô»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÅLò»»Ô d(|3($££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€·Ô»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3($¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€·Ô»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€·Ô»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼·Ô»»»ÔÑ8€º3XXdð»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îðg·ÔÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼·Ô»îîðg #ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€August€22,€2000Ð X ÐÔ‡Xº3X»¼·ÔÔÌò òÔ#†¼·Ô»XXº3 #ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€òòóóCHARLES€SHERMAN€THAXTONÔ‡Xº3X»¼·ÔÔó óÐ  ` ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ  h Ðà@@øøìàNo.€63427€€€€€€Ray€L.€Jenkins,€JudgeÐ  X ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<×` AßÐ Ø(  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E1999„02091„CCA„R3„CD€Ð ×'  ÐOctober€10,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ Ç  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<¶` AßÐ ·  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant€appeals€his€convictions€for€two€counts€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€He€contends€€thatÐ ¶ Ðthe€trial€court€erred€(1)€by€allowing€rebuttal€testimony€of€a€prior€consistent€statement€and€(2)€byÐ ¦ö Ðfailing€to€give€a€limiting€instruction.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð –æ ÐÓÆÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€R.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Affirmedó óÐ vÆ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼·Ô»àXº3Ÿ#ÔÔ‡Xº3X.¼·ÔÔJoseph€M.€Tipton,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€H.€Wellesóó€and€òòRobertÐ V¦ ÐW.€Wedemeyer,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð F– ÐÌMark€E.€Stephens,€District€Public€Defender,€and€David€Gall,€Assistant€District€Public€Defender,€forÐ &v Ðthe€appellant,€Charles€Sherman€Thaxton.Ð f ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€R.€Stephen€Jobe,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð öF ÐRandall€E.€Nichols,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Charme€J.€Knight,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ æ6 ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð Ö& ÐÓ­ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼·Ô»XXº3Ü#ÔÔ‡Xº3X»¼·ÔÔÐ ¶!  ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€defendant,€Charles€Sherman€Thaxton,€appeals€as€of€right€his€convictions€for€two€countsÐ –#æ" Ðof€aggravated€sexual€battery€against€his€stepdaughter.€€The€trial€court€allowed€Department€ofÐ †$Ö# ÐChildrenððs€Services€Investigator€Debbie€Green€to€testify€regarding€statements€the€victim€made€to€her.€Ð v%Æ $ ÐThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€because€(1)€Ms.€Greenððs€testimony€was€anÐ f&¶!% Ðinadmissible€prior€consistent€statement€and€(2)€it€failed€to€give€a€limiting€instruction€to€the€jury€asÐ V'¦"& Ðto€the€effect€of€the€prior€consistent€statement.Ð F(–#' ÐÔ#†¼·Ô»XXº3Ý #ÔÔ‡Xº3X»¼·ÔÔ€€Ð 6)†$( Ðà  àAt€trial,€Knoxville€Police€Department€Officer€Gary€Anders€testified€as€follows:€€On€May€16,Ð &*v%) Ð1997,€acting€upon€Investigator€Starr€Perrinððs€request,€he€interviewed€the€defendant.€€He€read€theÐ +f&* Ðdefendant€his€òòMirandaóó€rights,€and€the€defendant€signed€a€waiver.€€The€defendant€stated€that€he€hadÐ ,V'+ Ðâ âentered€the€victimððs€bedroom€on€two€occasions€and€fondled€her€vaginal€area€while€she€was€in€bed.€Ð ö,F(,ý6 ÐThe€defendant€denied€that€the€victim€touched€his€penis.€€Officer€Anders€wrote€the€defendantððsÐ ° Ðstatements€in€a€report,€which€he€sent€to€Investigator€Perrin.€€Ð  ð Ðâ âÌà  àKnoxville€Police€Department€Investigator€Starr€Perrin€testified€as€follows:€€On€May€12,€1997,Ð €Ð Ðthe€Department€of€Childrenððs€Services€(DCS)€Ô#†¼·Ô»XXº3ß #ÔÔ‡Xº3X»¼·ÔÔnotified€her€of€a€complaint€of€sexual€abuse.€€On€MayÐ pÀ Ð14,€1997,€DCS€Investigator€Debbie€Green€interviewed€the€victim,€which€Investigator€Perrin€observedÐ ` ° Ðfrom€behind€a€two„way€mirror.€€She€then€contacted€the€defendant,€who€agreed€to€meet€her€on€MayÐ P   Ð16,€1997,€for€questioning.€€At€the€interview,€she€read€the€defendant€his€òòMirandaóó€rights,€and€he€signedÐ @  Ða€waiver.€€After€talking€to€the€defendant€for€twenty€minutes,€she€asked€Officer€Anders€to€talk€withÐ 0 € Ðhim.€€She€waited€in€her€office€while€Officer€Anders€questioned€the€defendant.€€After€about€an€hour,Ð  p  ÐOfficer€Anders€came€to€her€office€and€told€her€that€the€defendant€wanted€to€speak€to€her.€€When€sheÐ `  Ðreturned€to€the€interview€room,€the€defendant€made€the€following€statement:Ð P  ÐÌà8  àI€did€fondle€[the€victim]€on€at€least€two€separate€occasions.€€One€time€under€herÐ à0  Ðclothes€and€another€time€over€her€clothes.€€I€also€had€her€touch€my€penis€on€oneÐ Ð  Ðoccasion€over€my€clothes,€undershorts.€€This€happened€on€Cook€Drive€within€the€lastÐ À Ðtwo€months€(1997).€€I€canððt€remember€the€first€time,€only€that€it€was€downstairs€inÐ ° Ðthe€living€room€at€night.€€She€told€me€to€quit€and€I€quit.€€The€second€time€wasÐ  ð Ðupstairs,€she€was€getting€out€of€the€tub€going€to€her€bedroom,€I€touched€her€in€theÐ à Ðhallway,€she€had€no€clothes€on,€just€panties.€€This€was€after€Christmas,€and€Easter,Ð €Ð Ðjust€before€Easter.€€I€did€know€her€age€was€eight€years€old.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌBecause€the€defendant€did€not€want€to€write€his€statement€down,€Investigator€Perrin€wrote€it€for€him,Ð P  Ðand€the€defendant€signed€it.€€On€cross„examination,€she€stated€that€she€did€not€tape€the€interview.Ð @ ÐÌà  àNora€Thaxton,€the€defendantððs€wife€and€the€victimððs€mother,€testified€as€follows:€€She€andÐ  p Ðher€three€children€lived€with€the€defendant€when€the€sexual€abuse€Ô#†¼·Ô»XXº3²#ÔÔ‡Xº3X»¼·ÔÔoccurred.€€The€defendant€helpedÐ ` Ðcare€for€her€children,€which€included€supervising€their€baths€and€putting€them€to€bed.€€The€first€timeÐ P Ðthat€she€heard€about€the€abuse€was€when€she€received€a€call€from€the€Boys€and€Girls€Club.€€WhenÐ ð@ Ðshe€went€to€the€club,€the€victim€told€her€that€the€defendant€had€been€touching€her,€but€she€did€notÐ à0 Ðdiscuss€the€details.€€The€victim€asked€her€on€several€occasions€what€would€happen€if€she€lied.€Ð Ð  ÐHowever,€when€she€asked€the€victim€if€she€had€lied,€the€victim€said€that€she€had€not.Ð À! ÐÌà  àThe€victim€testified€as€follows:€€In€March€through€May€of€1997,€she€lived€with€her€mother,Ð  #ð! Ðtwo€siblings,€and€the€defendant.€€She€said€that€on€more€than€one€occasion€when€she€was€in€herÐ $à" Ðbedroom,€the€defendant€touched€her€front,€bottom€private€parts.€€When€she€told€the€defendant€to€stop,Ð €%Ð # Ðhe€did.Ô#†¼·Ô»XXº3b#ÔÔ‡Xº3X»¼·ÔÔ€€She€did€not€remember€if€this€occurred€at€night,€if€it€was€under€or€over€her€clothes,€or€ifÐ p&À!$ Ðanyone€else€was€in€the€room.€€She€also€did€not€remember€if€the€defendant€ever€made€her€touch€hisÐ `'°"% Ðprivate€parts.Ð P( #& ÐÌà  àThe€victim€testified€that€she€told€one€of€her€teachers,€Mr.€Cruze,€about€the€defendant€touchingÐ 0*€%( Ðher.€€She€also€told€Ms.€Carol€and€Ms.€Angie,€who€worked€at€the€Boys€and€Girls€Club.€€Ms.€AngieÐ  +p&) Ðcalled€the€victimððs€mother,€and€when€she€arrived€at€the€club,€the€victim€told€her€about€the€defendantÐ ,`'* Ðtouching€her.€€The€victim€also€talked€to€a€woman€from€DCS€about€the€touching.€€She€did€notÐ ° Ðremember€if€she€gave€any€of€these€people€more€details€about€the€touching.€€€Ð  ð ÐÌà  àOn€cross„examination,€the€victim€said€that€a€friend€at€school€told€her€that€she€had€beenÐ €Ð Ðtouched€improperly.€€She€encouraged€the€friend€to€tell€Mr.€Cruze,€and€she€went€with€her€to€tell€him.€Ð pÀ ÐThe€victim€did€not€tell€Mr.€Cruze€at€this€time€that€she€had€been€touched.€€When€she€did€tell€Mr.Ð ` ° ÐCruze€about€the€defendant€touching€her,€it€made€her€worry€that€her€mother€would€be€mad€at€her.€€TheÐ P   Ðvictim€said€that€she€knew€her€mother€would€still€love€her€even€if€she€told€a€lie.€€She€admitted€thatÐ @  Ðshe€told€a€neighbor€that€the€defendant€never€touched€her.€€However,€she€said€that€because€she€wasÐ 0 € Ðtired€of€everyone€asking€her€about€it.€€Ð  p  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€testified€as€follows:€€He€helped€his€wife€care€for€her€children,€includingÐ P  Ðputting€them€to€bed.€€When€Investigator€Perrin€interviewed€him,€he€told€her€that€he€did€not€touch€theÐ ð@  Ðvictim.€€At€some€point,€she€left€and€Officer€Anders€questioned€him.€€He€told€Officer€Anders€that€heÐ à0  Ðdid€not€touch€the€victim€sexually.€€When€he€told€Officer€Anders€that€he€touched€her€private€parts,Ð Ð  ÐOfficer€Anders€would€not€allow€him€to€explain€that€he€was€referring€to€times€when€he€gave€her€aÐ À Ðbath€or€when€he€put€medicine€on€rashes€which€she€developed.€€Ô#†¼·Ô»XXº3Œ#ÔÔ‡Xº3X»¼·ÔÔHe€never€told€Officer€Anders€that€heÐ ° Ðwent€into€the€victimððs€bedroom€and€fondled€her.€€On€cross„examination,€he€acknowledged€that€theÐ  ð Ðvoluntary€statement€of€facts€contained€his€signature€and€initials,€but€he€insisted€that€he€signed€andÐ à Ðinitialed€a€blank€sheet€of€paper.€€He€suggested€that€the€written€statement€must€have€been€added€later.€Ð €Ð ÐHe€stated€that€Investigator€Perrin,€Officer€Anders,€and€the€victim€were€lying.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àAngie€Tucker€of€the€Boys€and€Girls€Club€of€Greater€Knoxville€testified€that€on€May€8,€1997,Ð P  Ðthe€victim€told€her€that€the€defendant€had€been€touching€her.€€Ms.€Tucker€said€that€she€called€theÐ @ Ðvictimððs€mother,€to€whom€the€victim€told€the€same€story.Ð 0€ ÐÌà  àDebbie€Green,€an€investigator€for€DCS,€testified€as€follows:€€She€interviewed€the€victim€onÐ ` ÐMay€12,€1997,€and€the€victim€told€her€the€following:€€One€Friday€night€when€she€was€in€bed€asleep,Ð P Ðthe€defendant€came€into€her€room,€got€into€her€bed,€and€rubbed€her€vaginal€area€over€her€panties.€Ð ð@ ÐThe€defendant€pulled€down€his€pants€to€his€knees€and€took€her€hand€and€made€her€rub€his€penis€overÐ à0 Ðhis€underwear.€€She€thought€that€this€lasted€for€ten€to€fifteen€minutes€until€she€heard€a€knock€at€theÐ Ð  Ðfront€door.€€At€that€point,€the€defendant€told€her€not€to€tell€anyone€and€left€the€room.€€Ð À! ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€that€Ms.€Greenððs€testimonyÐ  #ð! Ðwas€admissible€as€a€prior€consistent€statement.€€When€the€state€asked€her€what€the€victim€said€in€theÐ $à" Ðinterview,€the€defendant€objected€on€hearsay€grounds.€€The€state€responded€that€it€was€a€priorÐ €%Ð # Ðconsistent€statement€and€admissible€because€the€victimððs€credibility€had€been€sufficiently€attacked.€Ð p&À!$ ÐThe€trial€court€ruled€that€the€testimony€was€admissible€as€a€prior€consistent€statement€because€thereÐ `'°"% Ðhad€been€an€allegation€of€recent€fabrication.€ò òó óÐ P( #& Ðà  à€Ô#†¼·Ô»XXº3¹&#ÔÔ‡Xº3X»¼·ÔÔ€€Ð @)$' Ðà  àGenerally,€prior€consistent€statements€are€not€admissible€to€bolster€a€witnessððs€credibility.€Ð 0*€%( ÐòòState€v.€Hodgeóó,€989€S.W.2d€717,€725€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998)€(citing€òòState€v.€Braggsóó,€604€S.W.2dÐ  +p&) Ð883,€885€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980)).€€However,€three€exceptions€to€this€general€rule€exist.€€First,€aÐ ,`'* Ðð ðprior€consistent€statement€may€be€admissible€.€.€.€to€rehabilitate€a€witness€when€insinuations€ofÐ ° Ðrecent€fabrication€have€been€made€or€when€deliberate€falsehood€has€been€implied.ðð€€òòState€v.€Bentonóó,Ð  ð Ð759€S.W.2d€427,€433€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€In€such€a€situation,€a€prior€consistent€statement€isÐ à Ðallowed€to€show€that€the€trial€testimony€is€consistent€with€what€the€witness€said€when€no€influenceÐ €Ð Ðor€motive€to€lie€existed.€€òòState€v.€Suttonóó,€155€Tenn.€200,€204,€291€S.W.€1069,€1070€(1927).€Second,Ð pÀ Ða€prior€consistent€statement€may€be€admissible€when€a€witness€is€impeached€through€the€introductionÐ ` ° Ðof€a€prior€inconsistent€statement€that€suggests€that€the€witnessððs€testimony€was€either€fabricated€orÐ P   Ðbased€upon€faulty€recollection.€€òòState€v.€Meeksóó,€867€S.W.2d€361,€374€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ô#†¼·Ô»XXº3Ò/#ÔÔ‡Xº3X»¼·ÔÔÐ @  ÐMoreover,€ð ðthe€impeaching€attack€which€allows€for€corroboration€may€occur€during€cross„Ð 0 € Ðexamination€of€the€witness€.€.€.€.€òòóó€Under€such€circumstances,€the€[witnessððs]€statement€made€beforeÐ  p  Ðthe€inconsistent€statement€but€which€was€consistent€with€his€trial€testimonyðð€is€admissible€toÐ `  Ðrehabilitate€the€witness.€€òòId.óó€(citations€omitted).€€Third,€a€prior€inconsistent€statement€may€beÐ P  Ðadmissible€when€a€witnessððs€prior€statement€is€used€out€of€context€to€cross„examine€the€witness.€Ð ð@  ÐòòState€v.€Boydóó,€797€S.W.2d€589,€593„94€(Tenn.€1990).€€Ð à0  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€prior€consistent€statement€was€inadmissible.€€However,€we€Ð À Ðnote€that€the€defendant€addressed€only€the€first€and€third€exceptions€in€his€brief.€€The€state€contendsÐ ° Ðthat€both€the€first€and€second€exceptions€apply,€making€the€statement€admissible.€€The€defendantÐ  ð Ðargues€that€the€first€exception€does€not€apply€because€he€attacked€the€victimððs€testimony€as€anÐ à Ðòòoriginalóó€fabrication,€not€as€a€òòrecentóó€fabrication.€€The€defendant€alleged€at€trial€that€the€victimððs€initialÐ €Ð Ðstory€was€false€and€that€the€motive€to€testify€falsely,€the€victimððs€sympathy€for€a€classmate,€aroseÐ pÀ Ðbefore€her€initial€disclosure.€€The€state€argues,€however,€that€the€defendant€also€attacked€the€victimððsÐ `° Ðtestimony€as€a€fabrication€because€she€was€afraid€to€withdraw€her€statements€and€tell€the€truth€atÐ P  Ðtrial.€€The€state€asserts€that€this€motive€ð!ð€the€victimððs€fear€of€withdrawing€her€false€allegations€ð!ðÐ @ Ðcame€into€existence€after€her€initial€disclosure,€and,€therefore,€the€victimððs€statement€to€Ms.€GreenÐ 0€ Ðoccurred€prior€to€the€existence€of€this€motive.€€We€disagree.€€The€defendant€attacked€the€victimððsÐ  p Ðtestimony€by€suggesting€that€the€allegation€was€a€lie€from€the€beginning.€€While€the€defendant€askedÐ ` Ðthe€victim€whether€she€knew€ð ðright€now€what€[she]€should€do,ðð€this€does€not€imply€that€she€wasÐ P Ðrecently€influenced€or€had€a€new€motive€to€fabricate€her€testimony.€€Therefore,€the€prior€consistentÐ ð@ Ðstatement€was€not€admissible€under€the€first€exception.€€Ð à0 ÐÌà  àHowever,€the€victimððs€prior€consistent€statement€is€admissible€under€the€second€exception.€Ð À! ÐIn€the€present€case,€her€testimony€was€attacked€on€cross„examination€with€a€prior€inconsistentÐ °"  Ðstatement€about€her€telling€a€neighbor€that€the€defendant€did€not€touch€her.€€Once€impeached€by€thisÐ  #ð! Ðprior€inconsistent€statement,€a€consistent€statement€made€before€the€inconsistent€one€becomesÐ $à" Ðadmissible€to€refute€the€impeachment.€€òòMeeksóó,€867€S.W.2d€at€374.€€Here,€the€state€offered€Ms.Ð €%Ð # ÐGreenððs€testimony€for€this€purpose.€€Thus,€Ms.€Greenððs€testimony€regarding€the€prior€consistentÐ p&À!$ Ðstatement€was€admissible€if€the€statement€was€made€before€the€inconsistent€one.€€While€the€recordÐ `'°"% Ðshows€that€Ms.€Green€interviewed€the€victim€on€May€12,€1997,€just€a€few€days€after€the€victimððs€Ð P( #& Ðinitial€disclosure,€it€does€not€indicate€when€the€victim€made€the€inconsistent€statement€to€herÐ @)$' Ðneighbor.€€However,€the€victim€did€state€that€she€made€the€inconsistent€statement€because€she€wasÐ 0*€%( Ðâ âtired€of€people€asking€her€about€the€incidents.€€This,€along€with€the€absence€of€a€contrary€argumentÐ  +p&) Ðfrom€the€defendant,€indicates€that€the€interview€with€Ms.€Green€occurred€before€the€victimððsÐ ° Ðinconsistent€statement.€€Therefore,€the€prior€consistent€statement€was€properly€admitted.Ð  ð Ðâ âÌà  àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€even€if€the€prior€consistent€statement€was€admissible,€the€trialÐ €Ð Ðcourt€erred€by€failing€to€give€a€limiting€instruction€as€to€its€effect.€€A€review€of€the€record€revealsÐ pÀ Ðthat€the€defendant€did€not€request€a€limiting€instruction.€€Generally,€if€such€an€instruction€is€notÐ ` ° Ðrequested,€then€the€issue€is€waived.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€105;€Ô#†¼·Ô»XXº3e5#ÔÔ‡Xº3X»¼·ÔÔòòState€v.€Smithóó,€24€S.W.3d€274,€279Ð P   Ð(Tenn.€2000);€òòState€v.€Robinsonóó,€òòóó971€S.W.2d€30,€43€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€We€note,€though,€thatÐ @  Ðin€the€case€of€the€admission€of€a€prior€inconsistent€statement€for€impeachment€purposes,€a€limitingÐ 0 € Ðinstruction€should€be€given,€Ô#†¼·Ô»XXº3RG#ÔÔ‡Xº3X»¼·ÔÔeven€when€not€requested,€if€the€stateððs€proof€is€weak€and€the€prior€Ð  p  Ðstatement€is€very€damaging.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Reeceóó,€637€S.W.2d€858,€861€(Tenn.€1982).€€òòóóEven€if,€forÐ `  Ðargumentððs€sake,€we€were€to€apply€that€principle€to€the€present€circumstance,€it€would€avail€theÐ P  Ðdefendant€nothing.€€The€stateððs€proof,€which€included€the€victimððs€testimony€as€well€as€theÐ ð@  Ðdefendantððs€voluntary€confessionÔ#†¼·Ô»XXº3éH#ÔÔ‡Xº3X»¼·ÔÔ,€is€not€weak.€€€We€do€not€consider€the€statement€very€damagingÐ à0  Ðwhen€viewed€relative€to€the€other€evidence.€€Therefore,€the€defendant€has€waived€this€issue.€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àBased€upon€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€isÐ ° Ðaffirmed.Ð  ð ÐòòóóÔ#†¼·Ô»XXº3K#ÔÔ€Xº3X»¼·ÔÔÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð `° Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGE