ÿWPCÁ …# V %a 0(gbw@—4×ë 0‹ú 0D… U:É 0J 0TM 0^¡ 0hÿ 0rg 0|Ù 0†U 0Û 1uk à U,è 0dU,xU*¤B)Î B÷DC AMW D3¤×åï 0@ÔåäùîÝv~ËvÓI AOÆk 0D1 D/u B¤˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 X($¡¡- ù- ·D¸¹Dº»D¼½{¾E¿ÀÓ€5tt "|xË(G2Y$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôظôXXÔ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J 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`(Arial% Line 7 d d&&&&7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ'''''ÿÿdxd Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òMarch€20,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ÛÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€%ôÔÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„101.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ÛÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€%ôÔÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„506.Ì ÚÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€%ôÔÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„156.Ì äÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€%ôÔÝ  ÝòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„1„105.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€$$X„d&ÓÑ#€$$Xd#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ћрÑÑ7€AêXXdêdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÔ€%ŠÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙœßL€)+(;+'h|` Å `€€Lß›ÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌJANUARY€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€œTENNESSEE,›à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.Ï01C01„9507„CC„00208Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àMCMINN€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€MAYO€L.€MASHBURNó óÌò òDAVID€BROCK,ó óà àà àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àœò ò)à àó ó(Statutory€Rape,€Assault,€and›Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)ó óà àœContributing›€to€the€DelinquencyÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àof€a€Minor)ò òÌó óÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌCRIMINAL€COURT€OF€MCMINN€COUNTYó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌRANDY€G.€ROGERSà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌP.O.€Box€507à àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌAthens,€TN€37371„0507Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àEUGENE€J.€HONEAÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àTIMOTHY€F.€BEHANÌà àà àà àà àà àà àLegal€AssistantÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€N.€ESTESÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€647Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAthens,€TN€37303ÌÌÌœOPINION›€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€REVERSEDÌAND€DISMISSED€IN€PARTÌœÌDAVID›€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÑ , ÑÑ   ÑÑ  ÑÑ€& u` ÑÓ  ÓÔ€%°Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€%XÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÔ€%ŠÔà àThis€is€an€appeal€as€of€right€pursuant€to€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Appellate€Procedure.€€The€Defendant€was€convicted€on€a€jury€verdict€of€twoÏcounts€of€assault,× ƒ, ××  ×€two€counts€of€statutory€rape,× ƒ. ××  ×€and€four€counts€of€contributingÏto€the€delinquency€of€a€minor.× ƒ/ ××  ×ÌÌà àThese€charges€arose€from€certain€alleged€conduct€of€the€DefendantÏinvolving€five€separate€œfemale€victims›€who€ranged€in€ages€from€fourteen€toÏseventeen€years€old.€€All€of€the€activities€were€alleged€to€have€occurred€œat€timesÏwhile›€the€victims€were€visiting€the€Defendant€in€his€œhome€during›€a€two€or€threeÏmonth€time€frame.€€The€victims€were€friends€or€acquaintances€of€the€Defendant.€ÏApparently,€other€members€of€the€victimsðð€families€were€also€friends€orÏacquaintances€of€the€Defendantððs.€€The€Defendant€was€indicted€on€an€eleven„count€indictment€charging€him€with€three€counts€of€statutory€rape,€three€counts€ofÏsexual€battery€and€five€counts€of€contributing€to€the€delinquency€of€a€minor.€€TheÍcontributing€to€the€delinquency€of€a€minor€charges€grew€out€of€allegations€thatÏthe€Defendant€provided€the€minors€with€alcohol€and€cigarettes.€€Because€theÏDefendant€does€not€challenge€the€legal€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence€orÏraise€any€sentencing€issues€on€this€appeal,€we€see€no€need€to€address€theÏfacts€in€any€detail.ÌÑ  ÑÌà àThe€Defendant€argues€three€issues€on€appeal:€(1)€On€the€statutory€rapeÏcharges,€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€and€refusing€to€include€in€the€juryÏcharge€the€statutory€defense€of€the€victimððs€promiscuity,€codified€at€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€39„13„506(b)€(repealed€1994);€(2)€that€the€trial€judgeÏerred€by€not€removing€a€juror€when€the€juror€disclosed€that€he€was€related€toÏone€of€the€alleged€victims€and€thus€disqualified€from€serving,× ƒ0 ××  ×€even€though€theÏDefendant€did€not€object€to€the€juror€œserving;›€and€(3)€that€the€trial€judge€erred€byÏòòsuaóó€òòsponteóó€reopening€the€proof€after€the€defense€had€rested,€and€by€furtherÏpersonally€recalling€the€Defendant€to€the€stand€over€his€objection€so€that€the€trialÏjudge€could€ask€him€his€age,€because€the€record€contained€no€proof€that€theÏDefendant€was€more€than€four€years€older€than€the€alleged€victim€of€theÏstatutory€rape.ÌÌà àAt€all€times€relevant,€the€crime€of€statutory€rape€was€codified€as€follows:Ìà8 àÓÓStatutory€Rape€„€(a)€Statutory€Rape€is€sexual€penetration€of€aÏvictim€by€the€defendant€or€the€defendant€by€the€victim€when€theÏvictim€is€at€least€thirteen€(13)€but€less€than€eighteen€(18)€years€ofÏage€and€the€defendant€is€at€least€four€(4)€years€older€than€theÏvictim.Ìà8 àà à(b)€It€is€a€defense€to€prosecution€under€this€section€that€theÏvictim€was€at€the€time€of€the€alleged€offense€at€least€fourteen€(14)Ïyears€of€age€and€had,€prior€to€the€time€of€the€alleged€offense,Ïengaged€promiscuously€in€sexual€penetration.ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„506€(subsection€(b)€was€repealed€in€1994).ÌÌÌà@ àI.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€Defendant€first€argues€that€the€trial€judge€erred€by€refusing€to€includeÏin€the€jury€charge€the€defense€which€was€codified€in€subsection€(b)€referred€toÏabove.€€No€testimony€or€other€evidence€was€presented€that€the€victim€had,€priorÏto€the€time€of€the€alleged€offense,€engaged€promiscuously€in€sexual€penetration.€ÏIn€fact,€there€is€no€evidence€in€this€record€that€the€victim€had€engaged€in€sexualÏpenetration€at€all€prior€to€the€alleged€intercourse€with€the€Defendant.€€TheÏDefendant€acknowledges€the€lack€of€evidence€in€the€œrecord,›€but€argues€thatÏbecause€there€was€evidence€that€the€victim€had€been€a€teenage€runaway,€hadÏused€cocaine,€liquor€and€other€drugs,€smoked€cigarettes€and€came€to€theÏDefendantððs€house€to€get€money€and€œliquor,›€and€that€she€admitted€that€sheÏengaged€in€sex€with€the€Defendant€for€money,€œthe›€jury€should€have€beenÏallowed€to€infer€that€this€victim€had,€prior€to€the€time€of€this€offense,€engagedÍpromiscuously€in€sexual€penetration.€€We€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€judgeÏerred€by€refusing€to€charge€the€jury€concerning€this€statutory€defense.€€There€isÏsimply€no€proof€in€this€record€that€the€victim€engaged€in€sexual€penetration€withÏanyone€other€than€the€Defendant.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@ àII.ÌÌà àDuring€jury€selection,€one€of€the€jurors€stated€that€one€of€the€allegedÏvictims€ð ðmay€be€far€off€kin.€.€.€€I€debated€on€that.€€Itððs€my€uncleððs€daughterððsÏdaughter.ðð€€The€juror€stated€that€this€relationship€would€have€no€bearing€on€hisÏability€to€serve€as€a€juror.€€Defense€counsel€stated€to€this€juror,€ð ðyou€brought€upÏthat€you€did€know€œ[one›€of€the€œvictims›œ]›€and€maybe€branch€water€kin,€as€I€call€it.€ÏIððm€kin€to€half€the€people€down€in€Brushy€Creek,€if€you€go€back€far€enough€.€.€.ðð€€ÌÌà àOur€law€provides€that€ð ðno€person€can€act€as€a€juror€in€any€case€in€whichÏthe€person€is€interested,€or€when€either€of€the€parties€is€connected€with€theÏperson€by€affinity€or€consanguinity,€within€the€sixth€degree,€computing€by€theÏcivil€law,€except€by€consent€of€all€the€parties.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„1„105.ÌÌà àThe€common€law€rules€governing€challenges€to€juror€qualifications€fall€intoÏtwo€general€categories:€(1)€propter€defectum€or€(2)€propter€affectum.€€òòPartin€v.ÍHendersonóó,€686€S.W.2d€587,€589€(Tenn.€App.€œ1984),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,Ïòòidóó.€(Tenn.€1985).›€€Objections€based€upon€general€disqualifications,€such€asÏalienage,€family€relationship,€or€statutory€mandate,€are€within€the€propterÏdefectum€class€and,€as€such,€are€considered€waived€if€not€made€prior€to€theÏswearing€of€the€jury.€€òòMurphy€v.€Stateóó,€560€S.W.2d€414,€415€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ïœ1977),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.€1978).›€€œÌ›Ìà àWhile€the€Defendant€suggests€that€the€juror€failed€to€disclose€the€nature€ofÏhis€blood€relationship€to€the€alleged€victim,€the€record€does€not€support€thisÏconclusion€and€reflects€that€the€juror€fully€disclosed€the€relationship.€€As€we€haveÏstated,€defense€counsel€mentioned€the€relationship€during€the€jury€selectionÏprocess.€€Furthermore,€the€Defendant€does€not€argue€that€the€juror€was€biased.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€concedes€that€this€assignment€of€error€is€generallyÏconsidered€waived€under€the€circumstances€of€this€case.€€He€argues€that€thisÏcourt€should€ð ðengage€a€new€ruleðð€which€would€mandate€that€the€trial€judgeÏremove€such€a€juror€in€a€criminal€case.€€We€see€no€reason€to€do€so.€€TheÏDefendant€waived€any€objection€to€this€juror€serving€and€in€effect,€consented€toÏsame.€€Furthermore,€we€find€no€prejudice.ÌÌà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àIII.à àÌÌà àThe€Defendant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€interfered€with€theÏDefendantððs€right€to€a€fair€trial€because€the€judge€òòsuaóó€òòsponteóó€reopened€theÏproof€after€the€Defendant€had€rested€his€case,€recalled€the€Defendant€to€theÏstand€over€his€objection,€and€asked€the€Defendant€how€old€he€was€when€noÏproof€had€been€placed€in€the€record€concerning€the€Defendantððs€age.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€presented€evidence€and€testified€in€his€own€defense,Ïdenying€any€improper€conduct.€€After€the€Defendant€rested€his€case,€the€courtÏannounced€a€recess.€€During€this€recess,€the€Defendant€moved€to€dismissÏcertain€of€the€contributing€to€the€delinquency€of€a€minor€charges€and€requestedÏthat€the€judge€charge€as€a€defense€subsection€(b)€of€the€statutory€rape€statuteÏwhich€we€have€addressed€earlier€in€this€opinion.€€The€judge€overruled€theÏdefense€motions€and€then€asked€both€the€assistant€district€attorney€general€andÏdefense€counsel€if€ð ðyou€all€have€anything€else?ðð€€Both€attorneys€responded€thatÏthey€did€not.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€judge€then€pointed€out€that€he€did€not€believe€there€was€anything€Ïin€the€evidence€concerning€the€age€of€the€Defendant.€€The€defense€attorney€thenÍmoved€the€court€for€a€judgment€of€acquittal€with€regard€to€the€counts€of€statutoryÏrape€in€that€ð ðthere€is€no€way€this€jury€has€heard€any€proof€that€he€is€at€theÏrequisite€age€to€have€been€shown€to€have€committed€statutory€rapeðð€(i.e.€atÏleast€four€years€older€than€the€victim).€The€assistant€district€attorney€argued€thatÏthe€jury€could€ð ðreasonably€infer€from€just€looking€at€him€that€he€is€at€least€fourÏyears€older€than€any€of€the€girls€testifying.ðð€€To€this€argument€the€judge€repliedÏð ðlooks€to€me€like€if€you€could€take€that€approach,€you€could€take€the€approachÏthat€I€could€take€judicial€notice€that€heððs€such€and€such€an€age.ðð€€ÌÌà àThe€judge€then€stated€ð ðIððm€gonna€recall€him€myself€„„€Iððm€not€going€to€grantÏyour€motion.€€Anybody€got€anything€else?ðð€€Defense€counsel€objected€to€theÏjudge€recalling€the€Defendant€or€opening€the€proof€stating,€ð ðI€just€object€to€it€and€IÏdonððt€think€itððs€the€proper€procedure€to€do€it.ðð€€The€court€overruled€the€objection.ÌÌà àThe€jury€was€brought€back€into€the€courtroom€at€which€time€the€judgeÏasked€the€Defendant€how€old€he€was€and€the€Defendant€responded€that€heÏwas€fifty€years€old.€€The€judge€then€asked€the€attorneys€if€they€had€anythingÏfurther€and€both€attorneys€responded€that€they€did€not.ÌÌà àAlthough€the€Defendant€acknowledges€that€his€ð ðmere€presenceðð€in€theÏcourtroom€may€have€been€some€circumstantial€evidence€of€his€age,€he€arguesÍthat€for€the€court€to€reopen€the€proof€after€the€Defendant€had€rested€his€caseÏand€made€his€motion€for€a€verdict€of€acquittal€ð ðwas€egregious€to€the€concept€ofÏfundamental€justice.ðð€€He€correctly€points€out€that€but€for€the€response€which€theÏDefendant€made€to€the€judgeððs€question,€the€record€is€void€of€any€evidence€ofÏthe€Defendantððs€age.€€The€Defendant€argues€that€the€procedure€utilized€by€theÏtrial€judge€violated€the€Defendantððs€right€to€ð ðfundamental€fairness€in€his€criminalÏtrial.ðð€€He€argues€that€the€trial€judge€abused€his€discretion€in€allowing€the€proof€toÏbe€reopened€in€order€to€present€evidence€of€an€essential€element€of€the€crimeÏwith€which€the€Defendant€was€charged.€€He€argues€that€the€trial€judgeððs€actionÏin€personally€asking€the€Defendant€a€question€that€established€an€essentialÏelement€of€the€crime€was€ð ðclearly€beyond€the€dividing€line.ðð€€He€argues€that€theÏtrial€judge€erred€when€he€forced€ð ða€Defendant€back€on€the€stand€to€answerÏquestions€relative€to€his€guilt.ððÌÌà àThe€State€argues€that€it€was€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge€whetherÏto€allow€the€State€to€reopen€its€proof.€€The€State€further€argues€that€the€recordÏreflects€no€abuse€of€discretion€on€the€part€of€the€trial€judge€in€allowing€the€proofÏto€be€reopened.€€The€State€argues€that€one€reason€for€allowing€the€trial€courtÏwide€discretion€in€reopening€the€proof€is€to€allow€additional€evidence€to€beÏpresented€when€the€State,€through€oversight€or€neglect,€has€failed€to€prove€anÏelement€of€the€offense.€€The€State€argues€that€the€trial€judge€did€not€err€or€abuseÍhis€discretion€when€the€judge€personally€questioned€the€Defendant€because€theÏquestion€asked€did€not€indicate€the€courtððs€opinion€as€to€the€guilt€or€innocence€ofÏthe€Defendant,€and€the€examination€was€very€brief€and€impartial.€€The€StateÏargues€that€ð ðby€calling€the€Defendant€back€to€the€stand€to€ask€him€only€hisÏage,ðð€the€court€merely€clarified€the€record€without€reflecting€an€opinion€as€to€theÏguilt€or€innocence€of€the€accused.ÌÌà àAs€the€State€correctly€argues,€the€decision€of€whether€to€reopen€the€proofÏfor€further€evidence€is€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€and€the€decision€of€theÏtrial€court€will€not€be€set€aside€unless€there€is€a€showing€that€an€injustice€hasÏbeen€done.€€òòState€v.€Bellóó,€690€œS.W.2d›€879,€882€(Tenn.€Crim.€œApp.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóóÏòòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.›€1985).€€However,€this€record€reflects€that€the€trial€courtÏdid€not€ð ðallowðð€the€State€to€reopen€its€proof.€€Even€after€the€trial€judge€advisedÏthe€State€that€he€felt€the€proof€was€lacking€on€an€essential€element€of€the€crime,Ïthe€State€did€not€move€the€court€to€allow€it€to€reopen€the€proof.€€The€StateððsÏattorney€argued€that€he€thought€there€was€sufficient€circumstantial€proof€of€theÏDefendantððs€age€in€the€record.€€The€trial€judge€apparently€disagreed€with€theÏprosecutor€on€that€point€and€œsaid,›€ð ðIððm€gonna€recall€him€myself.ðð€€We€emphasizeÏthat€this€is€not€a€situation€in€which€the€State€requested€the€trial€judge€to€allowÏproof€to€be€reopened€to€submit€evidence€which€had€been€omitted€throughÏoversight.€€The€State€apparently€decided€that€the€Defendantððs€presence€in€theÍcourtroom€was€sufficient€proof€of€his€age.€€The€trial€judge€disagreed€andÏannounced€òòsuaóó€òòsponteóó€that€he€would€recall€the€Defendant€himself€to€the€standÏto€question€him€and€establish€proof€of€the€Defendantððs€age,€an€essentialÏelement€of€the€offense.ÌÌà àAs€our€supreme€court€stated€long€ago,€ð ðit€is€essential€that€trials€shall€beÏmanaged€fairly,€and€that€trial€judges€shall€not€only€be€just€to€both€sides,€but€thatÏthey€shall€observe€in€their€demeanor€an€even€tenor,€so€that€an€impartial€state€ofÏmind€may€be€apparent€to€òòallóó€concerned.ðð€€òòParker€v.€Stateóó,€132€Tenn.€327,€178ÏœS.W.›€438€(1915)€(emphasis€added).ÌÌà àA€trial€court€judge€should€exercise€his€right€to€call€and€examine€a€witnessÏwith€great€care,€and€should€do€so€only€when€it€may€be€necessary€to€avoid€aÏmiscarriage€of€justice.€€òòCoffee€v.€Stateóó,€216€S.W.2d€702€(Tenn.€1948).€€ð ðTheÏcourt,€must,€however,€be€scrupulously€careful€not€to€indicate€to€the€jury€itsÏopinion€as€to€the€guilt€or€innocence€of€the€accused,€especially€in€examining€theÏaccused€himself,€which€would€be€not€only€improper,€but€prejudicial€error.ðð€€òòIdóó.€Ïð ð[The]€trial€judge€should€examine€witnesses€only€in€rare€instances€and€then€onlyÏœby›€a€few€questions€necessary€to€clear€up€the€situation,€it€being€better€toÏsuggest€to€counsel€the€additional€information€desired,€and€let€him€ask€theÏquestions.ðð€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àHere,€after€the€defense€had€rested,€the€trial€judge€pointed€out€to€theÏassistant€district€attorney,€what€the€judge€noted€was€a€shortcoming€in€theÏevidence.€€The€assistant€district€attorney€apparently€determined€to€let€the€caseÏgo€to€the€jury€on€the€evidence€which€had€been€presented.€€Without€even€aÏrequest€from€the€State,€the€trial€judge€announced€that€he€was€going€to€recall€theÏDefendant€to€the€witness€stand€himself.€€Over€the€Defendantððs€objection,€theÏtrial€judge€asked€the€Defendant€the€question€that€placed€in€the€record€the€onlyÏevidence€to€support€the€juryððs€finding€of€an€essential€element€of€the€offense.€€WeÏmust€conclude€that€the€trial€judge€abused€his€discretion€by€òòsuaóó€òòsponteóóÏreopening€the€proof,€calling€the€Defendant€back€to€the€witness€stand,€andÏasking€the€Defendant€a€question.€€ÌÌà àWe,€therefore,€conclude€that€the€Defendantððs€two€convictions€for€statutoryÏrape€must€be€reversed€and€those€charges€dismissed.€€The€Defendantððs€twoÏconvictions€for€assault€and€four€convictions€for€contributing€to€the€delinquency€ofÏa€minor€are€affirmed.ÌÌà àThis€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€œfor›€the€purpose€of€entering€anÏorder€consistent€herewith.ÌœÌÌÓÓ›à àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌœÌÌÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌœÌ___________________________________›ÌJOE€œB.€›JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGE