ÿWPCÙ D# ÈUNÓ %! 0 ('4Oc 0ˆrbúw  0D dd 0Ddƨ AOn 0D½ 0@ 0JA 0T‹ 0^ß B= 0hZ D3 U@õ D/5 0rd BÖ 0|ó 0†o 0õ 1u… U,ú 0d& U,Š U>¶ U*ô B)DCG AMŠý×$ÔoøYgÈÀv~ˆvÓ˜HP LaserJet 4/4MHPPCL5E,,,,0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡¨vÙ @ d3|x. (8(2R$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-( Ó€) * (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ݃Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô$$$$'ÿÿdxd ɸ·`(ZapfCalligr BTTT**'÷ÿ dxd2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔüÿP Pd2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô !"%)+,- ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d::::7Border 1dd;Cþÿ << Gÿÿ óÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€/ÔÔ€8ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€8ÔÓ  ÓÔ€9ÔÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€9XÔó óÌò òÔ€9¼ÔAugust€2,€1996ó óÔ€9XÔÌÌò òCecil€Crowson,€Jr.Ô€'Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€'ÂÔÔ€9ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellate€Court€Clerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€'ÔÔ€'XÔ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€/ÔÔ€8ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€9ÔÔ€9ôÔIt€is€our€policy€not€to€reveal€the€victim's€name.Ì eÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€/ÔÔ€8ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€9ÔÔ€9ôÔWe€note€that€aggravated€sexual€battery€proscribes€ð ðunlawful€sexual€contactðð€with€theÏvictim.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„504€(1991).€€Attempted€aggravated€rape€proscribes€attemptedÏð ðunlawful€sexual€penetrationðð€of€a€victim.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„12„101€and€39„13„502€(1991).€ÏThese€forms€of€contact€are€distinguished€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„501€(1991).€€€Ì OÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€/ÔÔ€8ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€9ÔÔ€9ôÔòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Anthonyóó,€No.€01C01„9504„CC„00115€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Feb.€13,€1996)Ï(statement€made€approximately€thirty„five€minutes€after€the€incident)€and€òòState€v.€Winfreyóó,€No.Ï02C01„9210„CC„00235€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Feb.€23,€1994)€(statements€made€one€to€two€hoursÏafter€rape€attack€were€admissible€where€the€victim€was€still€visibly€nervous).Ì ¾Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€/ÔÔ€8ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€9ÔÔ€9ôÔAlthough€not€specifically€raised€by€the€appellant,€we€recognize€that€the€elicitation€byÏNorthern€of€the€basis€for€the€victimððs€condition€did€not€affect€the€admissibility€of€ð ðexcitedÏutteranceðð€testimony.€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€/ÔÓ&€77X„d&ÓÑ#€77Xd#ÑÔ€8ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€9ԛр ÑÑ7€ݧXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  Ñœ›à àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€ÙÓ  ÓœßL€<=;;+'h|÷þÄâ `€€Lß›ÌÓ  ÓAT€JACKSONÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  ÓMAY€1996€SESSIONó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌà àÓ ` ®DÓò òÌÓ` cÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àó ó)€ÌÓ ` ¸ cÓà àà à)€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9505„CC„00141€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€à àAppellee/Cross„Appellant,à à)Ìà àà à)€Madison€CountyÌV.€€€€€€€à à)Ìà àà à)€Hon.€Franklin€Murchison,€JudgeÌò òà àó óà à)ò òÌDAVID€BINION,€€€€€€ó óà à)€(Attempted€Aggravated€Rape,Ìà àà à)€Aggravated€Sexual€Battery)€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àAppellant/Cross„Appellee.à à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ` ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌJan€R.€Patterson€à àCharles€W.€BursonÌ225€West€Baltimore,€Suite€Bà àAttorney€General€&€Reporter€ÌJackson,€TN€€€38301Ì€€€(On€Appeal)à àWilliam€David€Bridgers€Ìà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌGeorge€Morton€Googeà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ227€West€Baltimoreà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌJackson,€TN€€€38301Ì(At€Trial€and€Of€Counsel€à àJerry€WoodallÌ€On€Appeal)à àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àDon€Allen€€€€€€€Ìà àAsst.€Dist.€Attorney€GeneralÌà àP.O.€Box€2825€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àJackson,€TN€€€38302ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€___________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌó óÌÌò òPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,ó óÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÑ  ÑÌÌÌà@ àò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌà àÌÌÓ ` °§XÓÓÓà àTheÔ  Ô€appellant,€David€Binion,€was€convicted€by€a€jury€on€one€count€eachÏof€attempt€to€commit€aggravated€rape,€aggravated€sexual€battery,€especiallyÏaggravated€kidnapping,€and€possession€of€a€deadly€weapon€with€the€intent€toÏemploy€it€in€the€commission€of€a€felony.€€Approximately€two€weeks€later,€byÏagreement€of€the€parties,€the€conviction€for€possession€of€a€deadly€weapon€wasÏdismissed.€€Sentenced€as€a€Range€II€offender,€the€appellant€receivedÏconcurrent€twenty„year€sentences€in€the€attempt€to€commit€aggravated€rape€andÏaggravated€sexual€battery€convictions.€€Just€over€two€months€later,€the€trial€courtÏdismissed€the€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€conviction.€€ÌÌà àIn€this€appeal,€the€appellant€raises€four€issues€for€review€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà0 àà0 à1.à0 àWhether€the€convictions€for€both€attempted€aggravated€rapeÏand€aggravated€sexual€battery€which€allegedly€arose€out€ofÏthe€same€course€of€conduct€violate€the€principles€of€doubleÏjeopardy,€merger,€and€duplicity.ÌÌà0 àà0 à2.à0 àWhether€the€trial€court€properly€dismissed€the€aggravatedÏkidnapping€as€incidental€to€the€sexual€offense.ÌÌà0 àà0 à3.à0 àWhether€testimony€from€third€parties€regarding€the€victimððsÏstatements€about€the€sexual€incident€was€improperlyÏadmitted€into€evidence.ÌÌà0 àà0 à4.à0 àWhether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€ruling€that€aÏFlorida€felony€conviction€would€be€admissible€forÏimpeachment€purposes€should€the€appellant€choose€toÏtestify.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓThe€state€cross€appeals€challenging€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€the€aggravatedÏkidnapping€conviction.€€Following€our€review,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt.€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àThe€testimony€at€trial€indicated€that€the€appellant€drove€to€KatriniaÏNorthernððs€house€where€he€spoke€with€the€fifteen„year„old€victim× ƒ> ××  ×€and€Katrinia.€ÏThe€victim€knew€the€appellant€since€he€was€dating€her€cousin.€€After€conversingÏbriefly,€the€appellant€asked€the€victim€if€she€would€like€to€accompany€him€to€aÏfriendððs€house.€€The€victim€answered€affirmatively.ÌÌà àSome€distance€away,€the€appellant€turned€into€œa›€road€leading€to€the€dragÏstrip.€€When€they€reached€an€abandoned€driveway,€the€appellant€backed€into€itÍand€stopped€the€car.€€The€appellant€turned€to€the€victim€and€said,€ð ðWe€are€fixingÏto€f€_€_€k€right€now.ðð€€The€victim€jumped€out€of€the€car€and€ran€toward€œa€house›Ïlocated€a€distance€up€the€road.€€The€appellant€caught€the€victim,€put€her€in€aÏheadlock,€and€pulled€her€back€to€the€car.€€Brandishing€a€pocketknife,€theÏappellant€told€the€victim€to€stop€screaming€or€he€would€ð ðstick€[her]€and€throwÏ[her]€in€the€river.ðð€€The€victim€said€the€appellant€held€the€knife€close€to€her€throatÏas€he€made€his€demands.€€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€ordered€the€crying€victim€to€strip€from€the€waist€down€andÏlie€in€the€back€seat€of€the€car.€€With€the€victim€lying€on€her€back,€the€appellantÏpulled€his€pants€and€underwear€down€and€climbed€on€top€of€her.€€The€appellantÏrubbed€the€victimððs€breast€through€her€shirt€while€rubbing€his€penis€in€anÏapparent€attempt€to€get€an€erection.€€The€victim€continued€to€cry€and€asked€theÏvictim€to€stop.€€The€appellant€œeventually€stopped›€œbefore€achieving€penetrationÏand›€told€the€victim€to€redress.€€ÌÌà àThey€then€drove€to€Katrinia's€house,€and€the€victim€stayed€there.€€KatriniaÏsaid€that€the€victim€was€shaking€and€began€to€cry.€€Eventually€the€victim€told€herÏwhat€the€appellant€had€done.€€At€Katriniaððs€insistence,€the€victim,€still€crying€andÏupset,€told€her€mother€what€had€happened.€€Her€mother€went€to€the€neighborððsÏhouse€across€the€street€and€called€the€police.€€Approximately€one€hour€later,€theÏvictimððs€cousin,€Henrietta€Jones,€telephoned€the€victimððs€mother€to€tell€her€sheÍhad€confronted€the€appellant€about€the€allegations.€€The€appellant€admitted€toÏJones€that€he€did€it€because€he€was€ð ðabout€two„thirds€into€the€wind.ðð€€ÌÌà@ àò òI.€€MERGER€OF€CONVICTIONSó ó€€€€€€€Ìà àIn€his€first€issue,€the€appellant€argues€that€his€convictions€for€attemptedÏaggravated€rape€and€aggravated€sexual€battery€should€have€been€merged.€€HeÏargues€that€aggravated€rape€necessarily€includes€aggravated€sexual€battery.€ÏWe€disagree.ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Banesóó,€874€S.W.2d€73€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€this€CourtÏstated€that€ð ð[u]nder€some€circumstances€the€offense€of€aggravated€rape€andÏaggravated€sexual€battery€...€would€support€separate€charges€and€separateÏconvictions."€€òòIdóó.€at€79„80.€€ð ðThe€determination€requires€an€analysis€of€theÏallegations€of€the€indictment,€the€proof,€and€the€elements€of€the€offense.ðð€€òòIdóó.€atÏ80.€€The€Court€said€that€the€ð ðoperative€question€is€whether€the€evidenceÏsupports€separate€convictions."€€òòIdóó.€at€81.€€In€òòBanesóó€the€appellant€was€chargedÏwith€both€aggravated€rape€and€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€However,€the€proofÏestablished€only€that€the€appellant€had€œhad€sexual›€intercourse€with€the€minorÏvictim.€€Under€the€facts€in€òòBanesóó,€the€Court€concluded€that€because€aggravatedÏsexual€battery€was€a€lesser€included€offense€of€aggravated€rape,€the€lesserÏcharge€should€have€been€merged€with€the€greater€charge.€€We€find€that€òòBanesóóÏis€distinguishable.ÌÌà àIn€the€instant€case,€the€appellant€was€indicted€and€eventually€convictedÏon€one€count€each€of€attempt€to€commit€aggravated€rape€and€aggravatedÏsexual€battery.€€As€set€forth€by€the€state,€the€elements€of€attempted€aggravatedÏrape€are:€(1)€that€the€appellant€attempted€to€unlawfully€sexually€penetrate€theÏvictim;€(2)€that€the€appellant€used€force€or€coercion€in€his€attempt€to€accomplishÏthe€act;€(3)€that€the€appellant€was€armed€with€a€weapon;€and€(4)€that€theÏappellantððs€actions€constituted€a€ð ðsubstantial€stepðð€toward€achieving€saidÏpenetration€of€the€victim.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„12„101€&€39„13„502€(1991).€ÏThe€jury€heard€testimony€that€when€the€appellant€stopped€the€car€he€told€theÏvictim,€ð ðWe€are€fixing€to€f€_€_€œ›œk›€.ðð€€When€the€victim€tried€to€escape,€the€appellantÏdragged€her€back€to€his€vehicle.€€He€then€ordered€the€victim€to€take€off€herÏshorts€and€panties€and€lie€down€in€the€backseat.€€The€appellant€removed€hisÏclothing€and€got€on€top€of€the€victim.€€Though€attempting€to€get€an€erection€byÏfondling€his€penis,€the€appellant€was€unsuccessful€in€doing€so.€€Thus,€it€wasÏreasonable€for€the€jury€to€conclude€from€this€set€of€facts€that€the€appellantÏattempted€to€rape€the€victim.€ÌÌà àThe€elements€of€aggravated€sexual€battery€are:€(1)€that€the€appellantÏunlawfully€touched€the€victimððs€intimate€parts€or€the€clothing€covering€theÏimmediate€area€of€the€victimððs€intimate€parts;€(2)€that€the€touching€can€beÏreasonably€construed€as€being€for€the€purpose€of€sexual€arousal€or€gratification;Ï(3)€that€the€touching€was€accomplished€through€force;€and€(4)€that€the€appellantÏwas€armed€with€a€weapon.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„501(2)€&€(6)€and€39„13„504(a)€(1991).× ƒ? ××  ×€€The€proof€showed€that€while€the€appellant€was€on€top€of€theÏvictim€in€the€backseat€of€his€automobile,€he€rubbed€the€victimððs€breast€throughÏher€clothing.€€The€testimony€of€the€victim€indicated€that€the€touching€wasÏpurposeful€and€not€accidental.€€Under€these€facts,€it€was€reasonable€for€the€juryÏto€conclude€that€the€touching€was€for€sexual€arousal.€€The€victim€testified€thatÏthe€appellant€placed€the€knife€nearby€in€the€floorboard€while€committing€theÏoffenses.€ÌÌà àWhile€in€òòBanesóó€the€jury€heard€proof€of€one€act€of€sexual€penetration€andÏcould€choose€either€the€greater€or€lesser€offense,€in€the€present€case€the€juryÏheard€testimony€of€both€œ"touching"›€and€attempted€œ"penetration."›€€As€described€inÏfootnote€two,€these€offenses€require€a€distinguishable€type€of€contact€with€aÏvictim€as€enumerated€by€the€legislature.€€The€appellant€could€haveÏaccomplished€the€attempted€aggravated€rape€without€touching€the€victimððsÏbreast.€€We€€find€that€the€proof€in€this€case€clearly€and€separately€supports€bothÏconvictions.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€when€it€refused€to€merge€them.€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.Ì€€€€€€€€Ìà àThe€appellant€also€claims€that€the€principles€of€double€jeopardy€andÏduplicity€have€been€violated.€€Because€the€aggravated€sexual€battery€andÍattempted€aggravated€rape€occurred€within€a€relatively€close€proximity,€we€willÏbriefly€address€the€appellantððs€concerns.ÌÌà àIn€this€context,€the€double€jeopardy€clause€protects€against€multipleÏpunishments€for€the€same€offense.€€òòState€v.€Phillipsóó,€òò€€€óó€S.W.2d€òò€€€óó,€No.€02S01„9502„CC„00013€(Tenn.€June€10,€1996)€citing€òòNorth€Carolina€v.€Pearceóó,€395ÏU.S.€711,€717€(1969).€€œIn›€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€538€(Tenn.Ï1994)€our€Supreme€Court€held€that€multiple€convictions€do€not€violate€theÏdouble€jeopardy€clause€if€ð ð[t]he€statutory€elements€of€the€two€offenses€areÏdifferent,€and€neither€offense€is€included€in€the€other.ðð€€The€ð ðsame€elementsðð€testÏof€òòUnited€States€v.€Dixonóó,€509€U.S.€688€(1993),€requires€the€court€to€determineÏwhether€each€offense€contains€an€element€not€contained€in€the€other.€€If€such€anÏelement€is€present€then€punishment€for€each€offense€does€not€offend€œdouble›Ïœjeopardy€principles.›€€ÌÌà àAs€set€out€above,€the€legislature€clearly€distinguished€two€separate€typesÏof€contact€that€are€required€for€the€respective€offenses€of€aggravated€sexualÏbattery€and€attempted€aggravated€rape.€€We€find€no€double€jeopardy€problem.ÌÌà àThe€appellantððs€final€complaint€involves€the€issue€of€duplicity.€€DuplicityÏinvolves€dividing€conduct€into€two€separate€offenses€out€of€a€single€offense.€€AsÏset€out€in€òòPhillipsóó,€òòsupraóó,€a€number€of€general€principles€determine€whetherÏoffenses€are€ð ðstackedðð€so€as€to€be€duplicitous€(or€œmultiplicitous›):ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 à1.à0 àA€single€offense€may€not€be€divided€intoÏseparate€parts;€generally,€a€single€wrongfulÏact€may€not€furnish€the€basis€for€more€thanÏone€criminal€prosecution;ÌÌà8 àà8 à2.à0 àIf€each€offense€charged€requires€proof€of€a€factÏnot€required€in€proving€the€other,€the€offensesÏare€not€multiplicitous;€andÌÌà8 àà8 à3.à0 àWhere€time€and€location€separate€andÏdistinguish€the€commission€of€the€offenses,€theÏoffenses€cannot€be€said€to€have€arisen€out€of€aÏsingle€wrongful€act.ÌÌÌÓÓòòPhillipsóó,€slip€op.€at€6„7€(citations€omitted).€ÌÌà àAs€we€established€above,€the€offenses€of€aggravated€sexual€battery€andÏattempted€aggravated€rape€require€proof€of€facts€not€used€to€prove€the€other.€ÏThus,€these€offenses€are€not€duplicitous.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òII.€€œòòANTHONY›óó€ISSUEó ó€€€€€€€€€à àÌà àIssue€two€is€more€properly€classified€as€the€stateððs€issue€in€its€crossÏappeal.€€The€state€argues€that€the€trial€court€errantly€dismissed€the€especiallyÏaggravated€kidnapping€conviction.€€The€appellant€agrees€with€the€trial€courtððsÏdismissal.€€ÌÌà àThe€record€indicates€that€the€trial€judge€dismissed€the€conviction€findingÏthat€the€kidnapping€was€ð ðessentially€incidentalðð€to€the€attempted€aggravatedÏrape€pursuant€to€the€holding€in€òòState€v.€Anthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€299€(Tenn.€1991).€ÍIn€òòAnthonyóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€held€that€where€the€appellant€isÏcharged€with€kidnapping€in€conjunction€with€another€felony,€the€court€mustÏdetermine:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àwhether€the€confinement,€movement,€or€detention€isÏessentially€incidental€to€the€accompanying€felonyÏand€is€not,€therefore,€sufficient€to€support€a€separateÏconviction€for€kidnapping,€or€whether€it€is€significantÏenough,€in€and€of€itself,€to€warrant€independentÏprosecution€and€is,€therefore,€sufficient€to€supportÏsuch€a€conviction.ÌÌÌòòAnthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€306.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThough€the€facts€are€somewhat€sketchy€as€to€the€particulars€of€theÏattempted€escape€of€the€victim,€we€are€unable€to€conclude€under€these€factsÏthat€the€appellantððs€actions€constituted€a€separate€charge€for€kidnapping.€€TheÏappellantððs€intention€on€the€day€in€question€was€to€rape€the€victim.€€The€factsÏcause€us€to€conclude€that€the€kidnapping€was€essentially€incidental€to€theÏattempted€aggravated€rape.€€ÌÌà àThe€stateððs€argument€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òIII.€€ADMISSION€OF€THIRD€PARTY€STATEMENTSÌó óà àThe€appellantððs€third€complaint€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€thirdÏparties€to€give€ð ðfresh€complaintðð€testimony.€€Specifically,€he€challenges€theÏtestimony€of€Katrinia€Northern,€Marilyn€Cole€(victimððs€mother),€and€HenriettaÏJones.€€ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Livingstonóó,€907€S.W.2d€392,€395€(Tenn.€1995),€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€held€that€fresh€complaint€testimony€is€inadmissible€in€childÏsexual€abuse€cases.€€However,€it€concluded€that€ð ðevidence€in€the€nature€ofÏfresh„complaint€may€be€admissible€as€substantive€evidence€if€it€satisfies€someÏhearsay€exception....ðð€€òòIdóó.€(citing€excited€utterance€and€statement€of€existingÏmental,€emotional€or€physical€condition€as€examples).ÌÌÌÌà@ àA.€€Excited€UtteranceÌà àThe€testimonies€of€Katrinia€Northern€and€Marilyn€Cole€were€essentiallyÏidentical.€€Katrinia€Northern€testified€that€the€victim€returned€to€her€houseÏapproximately€thirty€minutes€after€leaving€with€the€appellant.€€Northern€said€theÏvictim€was€shaking€and€began€to€cry€when€she€asked€her€what€was€wrong.€€TheÏvictim€told€Northern€that€the€appellant€had€attempted€to€rape€her€and€describedÏthe€incident.€€Northern€told€the€victim€she€should€tell€her€mother€what€hadÏhappened.€€ÌÌà àNorthern€and€the€victim€went€directly€to€Marilyn€Coleððs€house€and€recitedÏthe€specifics€of€the€incident.€€Cole€also€testified€that€the€victim€was€upset€andÏcrying€and€that€she€looked€scared.€€ÌÌà àA€statement€is€admitted€as€substantive€evidence,€as€an€exception€to€theÏhearsay€rule,€if€the€statement€ð ðrelat[es]€to€a€startling€event€or€condition€madeÏwhile€the€declarant€was€under€the€stress€of€excitement€caused€by€the€event€orÏcondition.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(2).€€In€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1,€9€(Tenn.Ï1993)€our€Supreme€Court€stated€that€the€ð ðultimate€testðð€for€determining€theÏadmissibility€of€such€a€statement€is€ð ðspontaneity€and€logical€relation€to€the€mainÏevent€and€where€an€act€or€declaration€springs€out€of€the€transaction€while€theÏparties€are€still€laboring€under€the€excitement€and€strain€of€the€circumstancesÏand€at€a€time€so€near€it€as€to€preclude€the€idea€of€deliberation€and€fabrication.ðð€€ÌÌà àWe€find€that€the€requisites€of€Rule€803(2)€have€been€met.€€The€attemptedÏrape€described€by€the€victim€certainly€qualified€as€a€ð ðstartling€event.ðð€€Further,Ïthe€evidence€illustrates€the€victimððs€continuing€excitement€and€strain€thatÏresulted€from€the€incident.€€Finally,€the€thirty€to€forty„five€minute€time€lapseÏgreatly€diminished€any€likelihood€of€deliberation€and€fabrication€where€no€proofÏexists€to€support€either.× ƒ@ ××  ×€€We€conclude€that€the€testimony€of€both€witnesses€wasÏproperly€admitted.× ƒA ××  ×Ì€œ›Ìà@ àB.€€Admission€by€Party„OpponentÌà àThe€appellantððs€complaint€against€the€testimony€of€Henrietta€Jones€isÏmisguided.€€Jones€testified€of€a€telephone€conversation€she€had€with€theÏappellant€shortly€after€the€incident.€€During€the€conversation,€Jones€told€theÏappellant€what€was€being€said€about€the€incident.€€The€appellant€respondedÏthat€he€had€done€it€but€that€he€was€ð ðtwo„thirds€in€the€wind.ðð€€œHe›€complains€thatÏthe€testimony€was€hearsay€and€pursuant€to€òòLivingstonóó€should€not€have€beenÏadmitted.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àAn€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule€provides€for€the€admission€of€ð ð[a]Ïstatement€offered€against€a€party€that€is€(A)€the€partyððs€own€statement€in€eitherÏan€individual€or€a€representative€capacity....ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(1.2).€€€WithoutÏquestion€this€exception€covers€the€appellantððs€statement€made€to€Ms.€Jones.€ÏThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌà@ àò òIV.€€ADMISSIBILITY€OF€PRIOR€FLORIDA€CONVICTIONó óÌà àIn€his€final€issue,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€itÏruled€that€a€1993€Florida€conviction€for€delivery€of€cocaine€would€be€admissibleÏfor€impeachment€purposes€should€the€appellant€choose€to€testify.€€Specifically,Ïhe€makes€three€challenges€to€the€trial€judgeððs€decision.€€First,€he€asserts€that€theÏcrime€did€not€involve€dishonesty;€therefore,€it€was€not€probative.€€Secondly,€heÏargues€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€assumed€the€Florida€conviction€was€aÍfelony.€€Finally,€the€appellant€claims€that€an€error€in€the€notice€of€impeachmentÏshould€have€prevented€questioning€as€to€the€Florida€conviction.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà@ àA.Ìà àEvidence€that€the€witness€has€been€convicted€of€a€crime€may€be€admittedÏif:ÌÓÓà0 àà0 à1.€€the€state€gives€the€accused€reasonable€written€notice€of€theÏimpeaching€conviction€before€trial;ÌÌà0 àà0 à2.€€the€court,€upon€request,€determines€that€the€convictionððsÏprobative€value€on€credibility€outweighs€its€unfair€prejudicial€effectÏon€the€substantive€issues;€andÌÌà0 àà0 à3.€€the€court€must€rule€on€the€admissibility€of€such€proof€prior€to€theÏtestimony€of€the€accused.€€ÌÌÌÓÓTenn.€R.€Evid.€609(a)(3).€€The€rule€also€requires€that€the€offense€be€punishableÏby€death€or€more€than€one€year€imprisonment€or,€if€not,€be€a€crime€involvingÏdishonesty€or€false€statement.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609(a)(2).€€Further,€the€convictionÏis€admissible€only€if€a€period€of€ten€years€has€not€elapsed€between€the€date€ofÏrelease€from€confinement€and€commencement€of€the€action€or€prosecution.€ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€609(b).ÌÌà àIt€is€undisputed€that€the€state€filed€a€written€notice€of€its€intent€to€use€theÏappellantððs€prior€convictions€for€impeachment€purposes.€€Prior€to€the€appellantððsÏproof,€the€trial€court€conducted€a€jury„out€hearing€to€determine€the€admissibilityÏof€the€appellantððs€prior€convictions.€€Following€the€discussion,€the€trial€judgeÍruled€that€the€state€could€use€a€1987€conviction€for€fraudulent€breach€of€trustÏand€a€1993€conviction€for€delivery€and€sale€of€cocaine.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€judge€did€not€state€on€the€record€the€reasons€for€his€holding.€ÏHowever,€upon€our€review,€we€agree€with€the€judgeððs€conclusion.€€BothÏconvictions€were€probative€and€could€have€been€used€to€impeach€the€appellantÏshould€he€have€chosen€to€testify.€€ÌÌà@ àB.Ìà àAlthough€the€trial€judge€should€have€confirmed€the€classification€of€theÏFlorida€drug€offense€prior€to€his€ruling,€we€find€that€because€the€FloridaÏconviction€was€indeed€a€felony,€it€would€have€been€admissible€against€theÏappellant.€€òòSeeóó€œððð𛜀893.03,€893.13(1)(a)(1)€&€893.13(e)(1),€Fla.€Stat.›€œ(1991).›€€AsÏsuch,€the€appellantððs€decision€is€not€affected€by€the€actions€of€the€trial€court.€ÌÌà@ àC.Ìà àIn€his€final€subissue,€the€appellant€argues€that€because€the€wrong€FloridaÏcounty€was€listed€in€the€notice€of€impeachment€as€to€drug€conviction,€he€couldÏnot€have€been€questioned€about€that€conviction.€€We€disagree.€€The€recordÏindicates€that€the€notice€listed€the€proper€type€of€conviction€and€that€it€occurredÏin€Florida.€€This€information€served€the€purpose€of€putting€the€appellant€onÏnotice€of€its€intended€use.€€œAlthough€we€do€not€condone€such€errors,€we€find€thatÍunder€the€facts€of€this€case,€it›€is€of€little€or€no€consequence€that€the€wrongÏcounty€of€conviction€was€listed€on€the€notice.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òCONCLUSIONó óÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is,€in€all€respects,€affirmed.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJOE€B.€JONES,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€Judgeò ò€ó ó