ÿWPC6" …# VUHa %© 0(¯w@×4 + 0l: 0D¦ 1mê 0cW 0Jº 0T 0^X 0h¶ 0r 0| 0† 0’ 1u" 0d—û BU6 U *VB)€ D3©DCÜ AM 0@l¬ÇŒÎv~ZvÓØ 0w« 0Š" 0 ¬ 0´L 0Ç 0ÛÇ 0ï¢ AO‘ Æà 0D¦! D/ê! B"˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀäÌÀÀÌÀä0 <à09Z 0Courier (W1) RegularX($¡¡ rDstuvDwxEyz{Ó€·‚^!(3|x†((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóótuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;s˜$´´Ô2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à2 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$'ÿÿdxd))))7Border 1dd€-+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òFebruary€11,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ýÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€(ÔÔ€(ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóIt€is€the€policy€of€the€court€not€to€mention€minor€victims€by€name.Ì ‚Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€(ÔÔ€(ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóAlthough€charged€with€one€count€of€aggravated€sexual€battery€against€the€minor€TK,Ïthe€defendant€was€acquitted€of€this€charge.€€The€facts€surrounding€that€charge€have€not€beenÏincluded€in€the€opinion.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò(OÞ{$µµà0  àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b²D$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xÓñ$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒÆ‚$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿù…$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³¶4$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Ǫ»$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€'ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ÆXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€(ÔÞ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóó̜ـ€ÙßR€,.+A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›à@ àòòAT€KNOXVILLEóóÌà@ àAPRIL€1996€SESSIONÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#€03C01„9404„CR„00157Ìœà à›à àAppellee,à àà àœ*›à àANDERSON€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€James€B.€Scott,€JudgeÌJOHN€HAWS€BURRELL,à àà à*à à(Sexual€Battery,€Rape,€and€CoercionÌà àœà àAppellant.›à àà àœ*›à à€of€Witness)ÌÌòòFor€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àòòFor€Appellee:óóÌÓÓBilly€P.€Samsà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌAttorneyà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ122„A€Jefferson€CourtÌOak€Ridge,€TN€€37830à àà àà àEugene€J.€HoneaÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJan€Hicks€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAnderson€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àClinton,€TN€€37716ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€_________________ÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇà@ àòòOPINIONóóÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€defendant,€John€Haws€Burrell,€was€convicted€of€twelve€counts€ofÏsexual€battery,€three€counts€of€rape,€and€two€counts€of€coercion€of€a€witness.€€TheÏtrial€court€imposed€Range€I€sentences€of€one€year€for€each€of€the€sexual€batteryÏconvictions,€nine€years€for€each€of€the€rape€convictions,€and€three€years€for€each€ofÏthe€convictions€for€coercion€of€a€witness.€€The€trial€court€imposed€partialÏconsecutive€sentencing.€€We€calculate€the€effective€sentence€at€24€years.ÌÌà àà àIn€addition€to€his€challenge€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€theÏdefendant€presents€the€following€issues€in€this€appeal€of€right:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€à àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€Dr.ÏChristie€Lynn€to€testify€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(4);ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€à àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€certain€Ïphotographs€into€evidence;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€à àwhether€the€entire€testimony€of€a€state€witness,Ïwho€invoked€her€fifth€amendment€right€on€cross„examination,€should€have€been€stricken€or,€alternatively,Ïthe€defendant€granted€a€continuance;€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€à àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€a€motionÏto€recuse;€and€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)à àby€motion€to€remand€for€dismissal,€whether€theÏindictment€includes€allegations€of€the€requisite€mensÏrea.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àBecause€we€find€no€reversible€error,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt.€€ÌÌà àà àThirteen„year„old€HH€and€fourteen„year„old€SH× ƒ/ ××  ×€testified€that€theyÏhad€been€sexually€assaulted€by€the€defendant€during€September€and€October€ofÏ1991.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€They€also€claimed€that€the€defendant,€who€had€made€threatening€remarks,Ïinstructed€them€to€lie€to€the€authorities€about€the€events.ÌÌà àà àIn€December€of€1990,€HH€was€visiting€with€her€father,€Ray€Hoopes,€inÏthe€state€of€Utah.€€Her€mother,€divorced€from€her€father,€lived€in€Nevada.€€TheÏdefendant,€who€was€acquainted€with€Hoopes,€traveled€to€Utah€for€a€visit,€met€HH,Ïand€offered€to€œtake›€her€to€Tennessee€so€he€could€teach€her€about€computers€andÏprovide€her€with€a€œhome„school›€education.€€Upon€receiving€the€consent€of€herÏfather,€HH€moved€into€the€defendant's€townhouse.€€She€stayed€some€three€to€fourÏweeks€but€returned€to€Utah€when€the€defendant€failed€to€provide€home€schooling.ÌÌà àà àIn€April€of€1991,€the€defendant€returned€to€Utah,€informed€HH€that€heÏhad€the€home€school€ready€to€begin,€and€informed€her€that€if€she€came€to€live€withÏhim€he€might€buy€her€a€horse.€€He€also€asked€HH's€brother€and€sister€to€come€butÏthey€decided€to€wait€until€later.€€Upon€receiving€permission€from€Hoopes,€HHÏreturned€with€the€defendant€to€a€residence€in€Clinton,€Tennessee.€€The€defendant,Ïhowever,€neither€enrolled€HH€in€a€public€school€nor€provided€home€schooling.€ÏDuring€the€following€summer,€the€defendant€gave€HH€perfume€and€bought€her€twoÏhorses.€€HH's€brother,€CH,€moved€in€some€time€later.€€€ÌÌà àà àHH€testified€that€the€defendant€often€talked€about€sex€and€ownedÏadult€computer€games,€pornographic€videotapes,€vibrators,€and€brochures.€€SheÏstated€that€the€defendant€often€offered€her€the€use€of€vibrators€and€claimed€to€haveÏseen€the€defendant€masturbate€on€a€number€of€occasions.€€On€two€instances,€€HHÏwatched€videos€with€the€defendant€while€he€masturbated;€she€acknowledged,Ïhowever,€that€there€was€no€physical€contact€between€the€defendant€and€the€victimÏon€these€occasions.€€HH€also€testified€that€CH€had€watched€the€pornographicÏvideos€during€his€visit.€€Portions€of€the€videos€were€shown€to€the€jury.€€HH€claimedÏthe€defendant€had€offered€to€buy€sex„related€paraphernalia€from€advertisingÏbrochures;€she€stated€that€the€defendant,€who€liked€younger€girls,€had€used€theÍphrase,€"screw€'em€before€they're€eight€or€it's€too€late."€€HH€testified€that€theÏdefendant€told€the€victim€that€he€had€sent€her€father€money;€she€did€not€know€why.€ÌÌà àà àSH,€HH's€sister,€was€scheduled€to€visit€the€Clinton€residence€for€aboutÏthree€weeks€in€October€of€1991.€€HH€claimed€that€just€before€her€sister's€arrival,€sheÏagreed€to€masturbate€the€defendant€if€he€would€leave€her€sister€out€of€"sexualÏthings."€€HH€testified€that€she€used€her€hand€to€masturbate€the€defendant€on€fiveÏconsecutive€days€just€before€her€sister€arrived;€each€incident€lasted€between€fiveÏand€fifteen€minutes.€€After€SH€arrived,€HH€testified€that€she€placed€her€hands€on€theÏdefendant's€penis€on€four€more€occasions€in€order€to€provide€him€with€sexualÏgratification.€€She€also€claimed€that€the€defendant€performed€oral€sex€on€her€onÏthree€other€occasions€during€her€sister's€visit;€HH€testified€that€she€touched€theÏdefendant's€penis€on€each€of€these€occasions.€€HH€also€related€that€on€oneÏoccasion€she€and€SH€had€watched€a€pornographic€video€together.€€She€claimedÏthat€she€had€found€several€videotapes€that€the€defendant€had€made€of€their€sexualÏencounters€and,€with€the€help€of€SH,€destroyed€them.€€ÌÌà àà àSH€testified€that€the€defendant€talked€about€sex€all€the€time.€€SheÏclaimed€that€the€defendant€often€exposed€himself€and€that€she€had€discovered€theÏdefendant€masturbating€while€watching€his€pornographic€videos.€€SH€testified€thatÍshe€had€refused€to€watch.€€She€also€said€that€the€defendant€would€bet€with€theÏvictims€when€they€went€bowling;€if€the€girls€lost,€they€were€supposed€to€masturbateÏthe€defendant€and€if€the€girls€won,€the€defendant€had€to€give€them€money.€€ÌÌà àà àWhile€originally€claiming€that€she€had€no€sexual€contact€with€theÏdefendant,€SH€admitted€that€two€days€before€her€return€home€she€had€agreed€toÏmasturbate€the€defendant€for€five€minutes€in€return€for€money.€€SH€testified€that€theÏdefendant€provided€for€her€during€her€stay€in€this€state.€€On€October€24,€1991,€bothÏvictims€returned€to€their€mother's€home€in€Nevada.ÌÌà àà àSome€six€months€later€the€defendant€visited€with€the€victims€at€theirÏfather's€residence€in€Utah.€€The€victims€accepted€his€invitation€to€return€to€this€stateÏto€see€his€mare€give€birth€to€a€colt.€€After€their€arrival,€HH€and€SH€played€theÏ"rubber€band€game";€if€the€victims€could€flip€a€rubber€band€against€the€defendant'sÏpenis,€he€would€give€them€five€dollars.€€The€victims€took€several€pictures€of€theÏdefendant€masturbating€in€the€living€room.€€The€photographs€were€introduced€intoÏevidence.€€Each€testified€that€the€defendant€appeared€to€realize€they€were€takingÏthe€pictures.€€One€week€after€their€return€to€Tennessee,€the€Department€of€HumanÏœServices€(DHS)€received›€a€tip€and€investigated€for€sexual€abuse.€€After€givingÏstatements€against€the€defendant,€the€victims€were€placed€in€a€protectiveÍenvironment.ÌÌà àà àWhile€staying€at€the€youth€center€and€with€foster€parents,€the€victimsÏwent€to€a€public€skating€rink€every€Wednesday€and€Friday€night.€€On€one€occasion,Ïthe€defendant€saw€the€victims€and€asked€them€to€tell€authorities€that€nothing€hadÏhappened.€€The€owner€of€the€skating€rink€reported€the€incident.€€One€of€the€victimsÏoverheard€the€defendant,€when€confronted€by€the€foster€parents,€make€€a€threat,Ï"You€have€the€girls€in€jail€but€jails€can€burn€down";€the€owner€of€the€rink€heard€theÏdefendant€say€"something€about€burning€a€house€down."€ÌÌà àà àEach€of€the€victims€talked€about€the€treatment€they€received€fromÏDHS.€€They€understood€that€they€could€receive€up€to€$7,000.00€each€in€victim'sÏcompensation.€€They€testified€that€DHS€told€them€if€they€did€not€cooperate€that€theyÏwould€keep€them€until€they€were€18€years€old.€€HH€believed€that€this€only€meantÏthat€they€needed€to€answer€their€questions.€€The€defense€attempted€to€impeach€HHÏwith€an€earlier€affidavit€in€which€the€victims€claimed€to€have€been€intimidated€by€œtheÏDHS.›€€HH€testified€that€the€defendant€had€told€her€father€what€to€put€in€the€affidavitÏbefore€she€had€signed€the€document€in€the€presence€of€a€notary.€€Each€victimÏclaimed€that€their€signing€of€the€affidavit€would€keep€them€from€having€to€comeÏback€to€Tennessee€to€testify.€€Each€conceded€that€portions€of€the€affidavit€wereÍaccurate.€€For€example,€they€alleged€that€a€DHS€worker€had€called€HH€a€"bitch"Ïand€that€her€guardian€ad€litem€had€called€HH€a€"brat."€€HH€also€said€that€one€DHSÏworker€tricked€her€into€talking€about€some€things€by€telling€her€that€her€sister€hadÏalready€given€information€on€the€subject.€€While€acknowledging€that€she€had€atÏtimes€felt€intimidated€by€œthe€DHS›€and€other€state€officials,€HH€said€she€did€not€feelÏpressured€to€tell€the€authorities€about€the€defendant's€behavior.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€victims'€parents€filed€a€civil€lawsuit€against€œthe€DHS›€for€theirÏtreatment€of€SH€and€HH,€citing€the€department's€alleged€refusal€to€return€the€girls€toÏtheir€parents€when€requested.€€HH€acknowledged€having€signed€the€document€butÏclaimed€she€had€done€so€in€an€attempt€to€avoid€testifying.€€She€thought€that€theÏstate€would€not€need€her€testimony.€€HH€stated€that€the€complaint€contained€noÏallegations€that€the€sexual€assaults€occurred.€ÌÌà àà àVickie€Shoopman,€a€child€protective€services€worker€with€theÏDepartment€of€Human€Services,€and€Audra€Gibson,€the€investigator€for€the€districtÏattorney's€office,€initiated€the€investigation.€€The€defendant€initially€claimed€that€HHÏwas€his€daughter.€€On€the€following€day,€they€interviewed€the€victims€in€theÏpresence€of€Anderson€County€Detective€Penny€Baker.€€The€defendant€was€presentÏduring€portions€of€the€questioning€but€returned€to€work€before€the€interviews€wereÍfinished.€€Afterwards,€the€victims€were€removed€from€his€residence.€€ÌÌà àà àLater,€the€DHS€œworker€explained›€to€the€defendant€that€the€victimsÏwere€in€œDHS›€custody.€€The€defendant€was€advised€of€the€allegations€of€sexualÏabuse.€€Initially,€the€defendant€responded€that€"if€that€was€what€[HH]€and€[SH]€hadÏsaid€then€let€the€record€reflect€that."€€Later,€he€told€the€officers€that€the€victims€hadÏlearned€to€masturbate€from€their€mother;€he€explained€that€watching€the€victims€doÏso€had€influenced€his€behavior.€€The€defendant€told€officers€that€he€had€kissed€HHÏon€her€breasts€and€her€vagina€during€a€shower€but€denied€that€any€oral€sex€hadÏoccurred;€the€defendant€explained€that€a€kiss€on€the€cheek€from€HH€could€"almostÏbring€him€to€ejaculation."€€Detective€Baker€testified€that€the€defendant€had€admittedÏthat€HH€had€caused€his€ejaculation€by€touching€his€penis.€€Ms.€Gibson€recalled€thatÏthe€defendant€admitted€placing€HH's€hand€on€his€penis€and€having€shown€theÏpornographic€videos.€€ÌÌà àà àMs.€Shoopman€claimed€that€the€defendant€had€given€conflictingÏstatements€about€the€videos.€€She€recalled€that€the€defendant,€while€admitting€thatÏhe€had€given€the€victims€money€at€different€times,€denied€that€it€was€a€payoff€forÏsex.€€Ms.€Shoopman€described€the€defendant€as€generally€cooperative€during€theÏinterview.€€On€cross„examination,€she€acknowledged€that€she€had€once€describedÍHH€as€"acting€like€a€bitch."€€She€denied€ever€having€told€the€victims€that€they€couldÏbe€in€custody€until€they€were€18€years€old€if€they€did€not€cooperate.€€As€sheÏrecalled,€the€victims€were€returned€to€their€mother€in€late€June€or€July.€€Ms.ÏShoopman€claimed€that€the€civil€lawsuit€had€no€basis.ÌÌà àà àRR,€the€defendant's€twelve„year„old€neighbor,€testified€for€theÏdefense.€€He€stated€that€he€had€watched€the€pornographic€videos€with€HH€at€theÏdefendant's€house€when€no€one€else€was€there.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€victims'€father,€Ray€Hoopes,€also€testified€for€the€defense.€€HeÏstated€that€he€was€in€an€energy€systems€business€with€the€defendant€dating€back€toÏJune€of€1990.€€He€claimed€that€he€and€the€defendant€were€as€"close€as€brothers"Ïand€had€been€associated€with€the€Church€of€Jesus€Christ€of€Latter€Day€Saints,€theÏRighteous€Branch,€a€religious€group€that€had€broken€off€from€the€Mormon€church.€ÏHe€stated€that€his€daughters€had€changed€their€story€several€times€and€that€he€wasÏð ðashamed€of€them€for€their€dishonesty."€€Hoopes€was€dissatisfied€with€the€way€inÏwhich€his€daughters€had€been€treated€by€the€DHS€office€and€had€filed€a€lawsuitÏagainst€various€state€officials.€€A€father€of€five,€Hoopes€admitted€on€cross„examination€that€he€did€not€support€his€children,€that€he€had€not€had€a€regular€jobÏin€20€years,€that€he€had€received€money€from€the€defendant,€and€that€he€hadÍpreviously€been€convicted€of€six€counts€of€child€abuse€for€which€he€served€sixÏyears€in€jail.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant,€age€51,€testified€that€he€had€worked€for€Martin„Marietta€from€March€of€1966€to€May€of€1992.€€He€had€been€married€twice€andÏdivorced.€€He€claimed€that€he€had€become€acquainted€with€Mr.€Hoopes€through€aÏmutual€friend€and€visited€him€four€or€five€times€while€the€defendant€had€been€livingÏin€California.€€He€testified€that€he€had€met€the€victims€and€their€brother€CH€when€heÏwent€to€Utah€in€1990.€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€acknowledged€that€he€was€supposed€to€home€schoolÏthe€victims.€€He€claimed€that€he€had€sent€the€victim€œ[HH]€away›€because€he€did€notÏthink€it€looked€appropriate€for€just€the€two€of€them€to€be€living€in€the€residence.€€ÌÌà àà à€€The€defendant€claimed€that€œthe€DHS›€workers€originally€told€him€theÏgirls€had€been€removed€from€his€house€because€they€were€not€in€school.€€HeÏclaimed€that€he€was€shocked€when€he€learned€of€the€sexual€abuse€allegations.€€HeÏsaid€that€officials€informed€him€that€it€was€not€a€criminal€matter€but€that€they€neededÏto€get€some€information€from€him€to€assist€in€the€victims'€psychiatric€treatment.€€TheÏdefendant€claimed€that€when€asked€about€any€sexual€contact,€he€admitted€onlyÍone€brief€incident€of€nudity€in€the€bathroom€when€they€were€trying€to€hurry€to€getÏready.€€He€acknowledged€that€he€had€kissed€HH€when€they€were€being€silly€andÏthat€he€had€seen€the€girls€masturbating.€€He€denied€that€he€had€ever€told€DHSÏofficials€that€he€had€engaged€in€masturbation€and€claimed€that€he€had€repeatedlyÏasked€for€a€lawyer€during€the€interview.€€ÌÌà àà à€The€defendant€explained€that€the€pornographic€videos€belonged€toÏhis€ex„roommate.€€He€said€that€he€had€discovered€them€when€he€had€unpacked€hisÏcomputer€items€after€moving€to€Tennessee€and€intended€to€send€them€back.€€€TheÏdefendant€also€testified€that€he€had€caught€HH€and€his€neighbor€RR€watching€theÏvideos.€€After€that,€he€had€told€HH€that€they€were€off€limits.€€When€he€found€out€thatÏHH€and€her€brother€were€watching€the€videos€a€second€time,€he€locked€them€in€hisÏgun€cabinet€which€had€a€combination€lock.€€The€defendant€testified€that€CH€stoleÏseveral€items€during€his€visit.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€denied€having€engaged€in€any€sexual€activities€withÏthe€victims.€€He€introduced€business€records€to€show€that€he€was€out€of€town€onÏsome€of€the€dates€alleged€in€the€indictments.€€He€claimed€that€his€relationship€wasÏone€of€foster€parent€and€that€he€had€worked€with€HH€on€some€computerÏeducational€programs.€€ÌÌà àà àOn€cross„examination,€however,€the€defendant€conceded€that€he€hadÏnot€checked€into€all€the€requirements€for€home€schooling.€€The€defendant€admittedÏthat€he€had€sexual€discussions€with€HH,€explaining€that€he€wanted€her€toÏunderstand€some€of€her€own€behavior.€€He€also€acknowledged€that€he€believed€inÏplural€marriages€and€had€talked€with€the€victims€about€having€them€both€as€hisÏwives€at€some€point€in€the€future.€€The€defendant€believed€that€he€was€the€victim€ofÏa€conspiracy€of€"over„emotional€females€who€were€trying€to€lock€[him]€up"€in€anÏattempt€to€"shut€[him]€up€about€polygamy."€€The€defendant€also€suggested€that€stateÏgovernment€was€being€run€by€"communists"€and€would€protect€his€accusers.€ÌÌà àà àWhen€asked€about€the€incident€at€the€skating€rink,€the€defendantÏexplained€that€he€had€gone€out€there€to€see€the€girls€at€their€mother's€request.€€HeÏalso€said€that€he€took€the€victims'€dog€to€the€rink€in€case€they€wanted€to€see€it.€€HeÏacknowledged€that€the€owner€complained€about€his€talking€to€the€victims.€€He€saidÏthat€he€instructed€HH€and€SH€to€call€their€mother.€€As€they€left,€their€foster€parentÏtold€the€defendant€not€to€talk€to€them.€€He€claimed€that€he€said€he€"knew€about€thatÏjail€for€kids€that€[they€had]€down€there,€and€[that]€...€someone€ought€to€burn€such€aÏjail€down."€€He€denied€threatening€the€victims.€€ÌÌà àà àOn€appeal,€of€course,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€might€be€drawnÏtherefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€credibility€ofÏthe€witnesses,€the€weight€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€the€reconciliation€ofÏconflicts€in€the€proof€are€matters€entrusted€to€the€jury€as€triers€of€fact.€€òòByrge€v.ÏStateóó,€575€S.W.2d€292,€295€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€When€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence€is€challenged,€the€relevant€question€is€whether,€after€reviewing€theÏevidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€haveÏfound€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.ÏWilliamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€€€€ÌÌà àà àInitially,€we€note€that€the€date€or€time€of€the€offense€is€not€an€essentialÏelement€of€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€851€S.W.2d€134€(Tenn.€1993);€òòStateÏv.€Fearsóó,€659€S.W.2d€370€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983);€€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„13„207.€€The€defendant€was€convicted€of€twelve€counts€of€sexual€battery€andÏthree€counts€of€rape.€€Rape,€as€charged€in€the€indictment,€is€defined€as€theÏ"unlawful€sexual€penetration€of€a€victim€by€the€defendant€...€[where]€force€orÏcoercion€is€used€to€accomplish€the€act."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„503.€€SexualÏbattery,€as€charged€in€the€indictment,€is€"unlawful€sexual€contact€with€a€victim€by€theÏdefendant€or€the€defendant€by€a€victim€...€[where€force€or€coercion€is€used€toÍaccomplish€the€act]."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„505€(also€referring€to€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„13„503).€€Coercion,€as€used€in€the€statutes€dealing€with€sexual€offenses,Ïis€defined€in€part€as€"the€use€of€parental,€custodial,€or€official€authority€over€a€childÏless€than€fifteen€(15)€years€of€age."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„501(1).€€Each€sexualÏbattery€count€in€the€indictment€against€the€defendant€alleged€that€the€offenses€wereÏcommitted€through€the€use€of€custodial€authority.€€Two€of€the€counts€of€rapeÏcharged€that€the€acts€were€committed€by€coercion€while€one€count€charged€moreÏspecifically€that€the€acts€were€committed€by€custodial€authority.ÌÌà àà àSH€testified€that€she€masturbated€the€defendant€in€exchange€forÏmoney€two€days€before€leaving€Tennessee€on€October€24,€1991.€€She€stated€thatÏshe€had€no€other€family€or€friends€in€this€state€and€that€while€here€she€wasÏcompletely€dependent€on€the€defendant€for€her€support.€€In€our€view,€€this€evidenceÏis€sufficient€to€establish€the€sexual€battery€conviction€in€which€SH€was€the€victim.ÌÌà àà àThe€remaining€eleven€counts€of€sexual€battery€are€related€to€assaultsÏin€which€HH€was€the€victim.€€HH€testified€that€she€lived€with€the€defendant€and€wasÏtotally€dependent€on€him€to€provide€the€necessities€of€life.€€HH€specifically€testifiedÏthat€she€did€not€want€the€defendant€to€talk€about€or€do€things€of€a€sexual€natureÏafter€her€sister€arrived;€in€exchange€for€his€promise,€she€agreed€to€masturbate€theÍdefendant€on€five€separate€occasions€just€before€October€5,€1991.€€After€SHÏarrived,€HH€touched€the€defendant's€penis€on€four€more€occasions.€€There€wasÏtestimony€that€the€defendant€performed€oral€sex€on€her€on€three€other€instancesÏand€that€she€had€touched€the€defendant's€penis€on€each€event.€€In€our€view,€thisÏevidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€defendant's€convictions€on€the€rape€andÏsexual€battery€counts€involving€HH€as€the€victim.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€was€also€convicted€of€two€counts€of€coercion€of€aÏwitness.€€"A€person€commits€[this]€offense€[when],€by€means€of€coercion,€[he]€...Ïattempts€to€influence€a€witness€or€prospective€witness€in€an€official€proceeding€withÏintent€to€influence€the€witness€to€...€[t]estify€falsely[.]"€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„507(a)(1).€€Both€HH€and€SH€testified€that€after€they€were€taken€into€protectiveÏcustody€by€œDHS,›€the€defendant€approached€them€at€a€skating€rink€on€April€29,Ï1991,€and€asked€them€to€tell€the€authorities€that€nothing€had€happened.€€TheÏvictims€and€other€witnesses€testified€that€the€defendant€made€a€threateningÏstatement.€€Clearly,€this€evidence€supports€the€defendant's€convictions€for€coercionÏof€two€witnesses.ÌÌà@ àIÌà àà àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€admittedÍtestimony€by€the€physician€who€examined€the€victims.€€Rule€803(4),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€Ïprovides€that€the€following€is€not€excluded€by€the€rule€against€hearsay:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àStatements€made€for€the€purpose€of€medical€diagnosisÏand€treatment€describing€medical€history;€past€orÏpresent€symptoms,€pain,€or€sensations;€or€the€inceptionÏof€general€character€of€the€cause€or€external€sourceÏthereof€insofar€as€reasonably€pertinent€to€diagnosis€andÏtreatment.ÌÌÓÓOur€supreme€court€addressed€this€issue€in€òòState€v.€Livingstonóó,€907€S.W.2d€392,Ï396„97€(Tenn.€1995):ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àThe€rationale€for€the€medical€diagnosis€andÏtreatment€hearsay€exception€is€that€such€declarationsÏare€deemed€reliable€because€the€declarant€is€motivatedÏto€œtell›€the€truth;€that€is,€the€declarant€makes€the€statementÏfor€the€ultimate€purpose€of€receiving€proper€diagnosisÏand€treatment.€€Generally,€(1)€the€statement€must€beÏmade€for€medical€diagnosis€òòandóó€treatment;€(2)€theÏstatement€may€include€extensive€information€aboutÏsymptoms,€pain,€or€sensation;€and€(3)€the€statement€isÏadmissible€only€"insofar€as€reasonably€pertinent€toÏdiagnosis€and€treatment."€ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àThe€critical€issue€here€is€whether€statementsÏconcerning€òòfeelingsóó€about€the€abuse,€statementsÏòòidentifyingóó€the€abuser,€and€other€details€not€usuallyÏrelated€to€traditional€medical€diagnosis€and€treatmentÏnevertheless€fall€within€the€scope€of€Rule€803(4)....€€InÏòòState€v.€Ruckeróó,€the€court€noted€that€generally€"the€nameÏand€identity€of€the€perpetrator€is€not€consideredÏ'reasonably€pertinent€to€diagnosis€and€treatment.'"€€ÏHowever,€"the€name€or€identity€of€the€perpetrator€isÏ'reasonably€pertinent€to€diagnosis€and€treatment'€inÍchild€sexual€abuse€prosecutions€when€the€perpetrator€isÏa€member€of€the€victim's€immediate€household."€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àThe€òòRuckeróó€Court€relied€extensively€on€òòUnitedÏStates€v.€Renvilleóó,€779€F.2d€430€(8th€Cir.€1985),€theÏleading€case€on€Fed.€R.€Evid.€803(4).€€While€the€federalÏrule€differs€from€the€Tennessee€rule€in€that€the€federalÏrule€admits€statements€if€made€for€the€purposes€ofÏmedical€diagnosis€òòoróó€treatment,€in€all€other€respects,€theÏrules€are€identical.€€Finding€that€child€abuse€involvesÏemotional€and€psychological,€as€well€as€physical,€injuryÏand€that€the€physician€has€an€obligation€to€prevent€theÏchild€from€being€returned€to€the€abuser,€the€EighthÏCircuit€held€that€statements€which€identify€a€householdÏmember€as€the€abuser€are€reasonably€pertinent€toÏmedical€treatment€or€diagnosis.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àThe€Eighth€Circuit€emphasized,€however,€thatÏthere€must€be€"sufficient€indicia€of€the€declarant's€properÏmotivation€to€ensure€the€trustworthiness€of€herÏstatements€to€the€testifying€physician."€€Such€a€situationÏwould€exist€where€the€physician€"makes€clear€to€theÏvictim€that€the€inquiry€into€the€identity€of€the€abuser€isÏimportant€to€diagnosis€and€treatment,€and€the€victimÏmanifests€such€an€understanding."€ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àWe€adopt€the€reasoning€of€the€òòRuckeróó€Court€andÏfind€that€statements€made€to€a€physician€identifying€aÏperpetrator€who€is€a€member€of€the€child's€householdÏmay€be€reasonably€pertinent€to€proper€diagnosis€andÏtreatment€of€emotional€and€psychological€injury.ÌÌÓÓ(Citations€and€footnotes€œomitted).›ÌÌà àà àIn€the€most€recent€case€of€òòState€v.€Carl€Lee€McLeodóó,€_____€S.W.2dÍ_____,€No.€01S01„9509„CR„00170€œ(Tenn.,›€at€Nashville,€Oct.€14,€1996),€decidedÏwell€after€the€trial€in€this€case,€our€supreme€court€again€addressed€the€issue.€€TheÏcourt€held€that€a€jury€out€hearing€should€be€conducted€before€the€introduction€ofÏtestimony€as€to€diagnosis€and€treatment.€€It€can€be€admitted€"only€upon€anÏaffirmative€finding€that€the€conditions€described€in€the€rule€have€been€satisfied."€ÏœòòMcLeodóó,›€slip€op.€at€3.€€Trial€courts€are€to€consider€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[T]he€circumstances€surrounding€the€making€of€theÏstatement,€which€would€include€the€timing€of€theÏstatement€and€its€contents.€€If€the€trial€court€finds€that€theÏstatement€was€òòinappropriately€influenced€by€anotheróó,Ïthe€court€should€exclude€it€as€not€having€been€made€forÏthe€purpose€of€diagnosis€and€treatment.€€The€inquiry,Ïhowever,€will€vary€depending€on€the€facts€of€each€case.€ÏTo€illustrate:€(1)€the€trial€court€may€consider€whether€theÏchildððs€statement€was€òòin€response€to€suggestive€orÏleading€questionsóó;€and/or€(2)€the€trial€court€may€considerÏany€òòother€factor€that€may€affect€trustworthinessóó,€such€asÏa€bitter€custody€battle€or€family€feud.ÌÌòòIdóó.€at€8€(emphasis€added).€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àDr.€Christie€Lynn,€a€family€practitioner,€examined€the€victims€basedÏupon€a€referral€from€the€Anderson€County€Department€of€Human€Services.€€SheÏtestified€that€she€was€"one€of€the€identified€individuals€in€Knoxville€to€performÏforensic€evaluations€for€child€sexual€abuse€as€well€as€child€physical€abuse."€€AsÏpart€of€her€examinations,€Dr.€Lynn€asked€for€medical€histories:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[S]he€reported€that€the€sexual€perpetrator€was€anÏindividual€named€John€Burrell.€€She€described€him€asÏbeing€a€52€year€old€friend€of€the€family€[with€whom€theÏvictim€was€staying].ÌÌà@ à*€*€*ÌÌà8 àà8 àShe€described€digital,€vaginal€and€[penile]€contact€withÏpenetration.€€Oral,€genital€sexual€activities,€that€would€beÏboth€by€the€victim€and€by€the€perpetrator,€and€kissingÏinvolving€the€mouth€and€[the]€b[r]east.€€She€alsoÏdescribed€ejaculation.€€She€recalled€not€beingÏconcerned€about€pregnancy€because€the€allegedÏperpetrator€had€said€...€he€had€a€vasectomy....€ÌÌÓÓDr.€Lynn€further€testified€that€the€physical€exam€was€consistent€with€the€historyÏgiven€by€HH.€€She€recommended€that€HH€receive€counseling€for€her€psychologicalÏinjuries€and€that€she€be€placed€in€a€protective€environment.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€argues€that€Dr.€Lynn€is€essentially€a€"hired"€witness€forÏthe€DHS€and€should€not€be€allowed€to€testify€to€the€hearsay€evidence.€€He€arguesÏthat€Dr.€Lynn€never€really€treated€the€victim€and,€therefore,€the€"medical€diagnosisÏand€treatment"€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule€should€not€apply.€€ÌÌà àà àAlthough€there€was€no€suggestion€of€inappropriate€influence,€we€areÏconstrained€to€hold€the€statements€were€improperly€admitted.€€In€òòMcLeodóó,€ourÏsupreme€court€found€that€the€statements€made€during€an€examination€wereÍinadmissible€where€the€examination€was€for€œ"evaluative›€œpurposes"›€and€theÏexamination€was€arranged€by€DHS€one€month€after€the€abuse€was€œreported.€›€òòIdóó.€atÏœ13.›€€"By€definition,€a€distinction€exists€between€statements€made€for€diagnosis€andÏtreatment€and€those€made€for€evaluation.€€Statements€made€for€purposes€ofÏevaluation€are€less€likely€to€be€viewed€as€reliable€in€the€sense€that€they€may€haveÏbeen€affected€by€the€prospect€of€litigation."€€òòIdóó.€at€14.€€There€was€an€eight„monthÏdelay€between€the€series€of€offenses€and€the€examination€here.€€At€that€point,Ïprosecution€by€the€state€was€very€likely.€€Also,€Dr.€Lynn€described€her€experienceÏas€follows:€€Ìà8 àà8 àÓÓMy€experience€there€is€that€I€have€been€one€of€theÏidentified€individuals€in€Knoxville€to€perform€òòforensicÏevaluationsóó€for€child€sexual€abuse€as€well€as€childÏphysical€abuse.€€Iððm€recognized€as€a€person€capable€ofÏgiving€court€testimony.€€I€have€been€an€expert€witness€onÏmany€occasions.ÌÌÓÓ(Emphasis€added).€€Although€it€is€true€that€Dr.€Lynn€gave€œ"treatment"›€by€advisingÏthe€children€receive€psychological€counseling€and€not€be€around€the€defendant,ÏDr.€Lynnððs€own€statement€suggests€that€she€primarily€performed€a€òòforensicÏevaluationóó€for€the€purpose€of€gathering€evidence€rather€than€a€true€examination€forÏthe€purpose€of€diagnosis€and€treatment.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€error€in€òòState€v.€James€Youngóó,€the€companion€case€to€òòMcLeodóó,Íwas€found€to€be€harmless;€the€impact€of€the€testimony€here€was,€in€our€view,€alsoÏineffectual.€€òòIdóó.€at€14.€€The€victimsðð€testimony€was€clear€and€unwavering.€€Dr.€LynnððsÏstatement€was€largely€cumulative.€€It€is€unlikely€that€the€testimony€affected€theÏoutcome€of€the€trialòò.€€óóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).€€Thus€theÏadmission€of€the€testimony€was€harmless.€€ÌÌà@ àIIÌà àà àThe€defendant€next€challenges€the€admission€of€the€four€photographsÏcontained€in€exhibit€14.€€The€defendant's€brief€states€that€"the€photographsÏdepicted€the€[defendant]€in€an€apparent€act€of€masturbation."€€At€trial,€it€wasÏestablished€that€the€photos€were€taken€by€the€victims€in€April€of€1992.€€TheÏdefendant€objected€to€their€admission€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404€based€upon€theÏfact€that€the€indictment€only€covered€sexual€offenses€through€October€of€œ1991;€thus,Ïthe›€photos€were€taken€outside€the€time€frame€covered€by€the€indictment.€€The€trialÏcourt€allowed€the€jury€to€view€the€photographs€as€"material€in€regard€to€theÏrelationship€of€the€parties€and€also€corroborating€any€testimony€that€it€is€necessaryÏon€down€the€line."€€The€state€insists€that€the€exhibits€were€relevant€to€show€theÏnature€of€the€relationship€between€the€defendant€and€the€victims€and€to€show€theÏappearance€of€the€defendant.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€admissibility€of€photographs€is€generally€governed€by€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€403€and€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947€(Tenn.€1978).€€Photographs€must€beÏrelevant€and€their€probative€value€must€outweigh€any€prejudicial€effect.€€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€403;€œòòBanksóó,›€564€S.W.2d€at€950„51.€€Whether€to€admit€the€photographs€wouldÏbe€within€the€discretionary€authority€of€the€trial€court€and€would€not€be€reversedÏabsent€a€clear€showing€of€an€abuse.€€òòState€v.€Allenóó,€692€S.W.2d€651,€654€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1985).€€The€defendant€does€not€contest€the€admission€of€the€evidenceÏunder€Rule€403€and€instead€argues€that€the€photographs€were€introduced€asÏcharacter€evidence€to€show€that€the€defendant€was€acting€in€conformity€with€otherÏmisconduct.ÌÌà àà àRule€404(a),€more€restrictive€than€Rule€403€in€that€the€former€requiresÏprejudice€"substantially"€outweighing€the€probative€value,€before€the€testimony€isÏexcluded,€provides€that€evidence€of€a€person's€character€or€a€trait€of€character€isÏgenerally€not€admissible€for€the€purpose€of€proving€action€in€conformity€with€theÏcharacter€or€trait€on€a€particular€occasion.€€€Subsection€(b)€provides€as€follows:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àEvidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs,€or€acts€is€notÏadmissible€to€prove€the€character€of€a€person€in€order€toÏshow€action€in€conformity€with€the€character€trait.€€It€may,Ïhowever,€be€admissible€for€other€purposes.€€TheÏconditions€which€must€be€satisfied€before€allowing€suchÏevidence€are:ÌÌà8 àà8 à(1)à àThe€court€upon€request€must€hold€a€hearingÏoutside€the€jury's€presence;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)à àThe€court€must€determine€that€a€material€issueÏexists€other€than€conduct€conforming€with€a€characterÏtrait€and€must€upon€request€state€on€the€record€theÏmaterial€issue,€the€ruling,€and€the€reasons€for€admittingÏthe€evidence;€andÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)à àThe€court€must€exclude€the€evidence€if€itsÏprobative€value€is€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfairÏprejudice.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àGenerally,€this€rule€is€one€of€exclusion€but€there€are,€as€stated,Ïexceptions.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Partonóó,€694€S.W.2d€299€(Tenn.€1985);€òòBunch€v.€Stateóó,Ï605€S.W.2d€227€(Tenn.€1980);€òòCarroll€v.€Stateóó,€œ370›€S.W.2d€523€(1963);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóóÏòòState€v.€Rickmanóó,€876€S.W.2d€824€(Tenn.€1994)(favorably€citing€both€òòPartonóó€andÏòòBunchóó).€€Most€authorities€suggest€trial€courts€take€a€"restrictive€approach€of€404(b)Ï...€because€'other€act'€evidence€carries€a€significant€potential€for€unfairly€influencingÏa€jury."€€òòSeeóó€œNeil€P.€Cohen›œ,›€œet.€al.,€òòTennessee›€Law€of€œEvidenceóó›€ðð€404.7€at€œ170„71Ï(3d€ed.€1995).›€€That€best€explains€the€traditional€posture€of€the€courts€that€anyÏtestimony€of€prior€bad€acts€by€a€defendant,€when€used€as€substantive€evidence€ofÏguilt€of€the€crime€on€trial,€is€not€usually€permissible.€€œòòPartonóó,›€694€S.W.2d€at€302„03.€ÏThe€general€exceptions€to€the€rule€are€when€the€evidence€is€offered€to€prove€theÍmotive€of€the€defendant,€his€identity,€his€intent,€the€absence€of€mistake,€opportunity,Ïor€as€a€part€of€a€common€scheme€or€plan.€€œòòBunchóó,›€605€S.W.2d€at€229.ÌÌà àà àOn€appeal,€the€state€argues€that€the€photographs€were,€in€fact,Ïadmissible€to€show€the€relationship€between€the€defendant€and€the€victim€and€thatÏtheir€probative€value€substantially€outweighed€any€potential€danger€of€unfairÏprejudice.€ÌÌà àà àRecently,€our€supreme€court€spoke€on€the€dangers€of€admitting€intoÏevidence€prior,€sex„related,€bad€acts€in€the€context€of€a€child€victim.€€This€œpassage,›Ïœperhaps,›€illustrates€the€reason€for€the€rule:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àThe€general€rule€excluding€evidence€of€otherÏcrimes€[or€acts]€is€based€on€the€recognition€that€òòsuchÏevidence€easily€results€in€a€jury€improperly€convicting€aÏdefendant€for€his€or€her€bad€character€or€apparentÏpropensity€or€disposition€to€commit€a€crimeóó€regardless€ofÏthe€strength€of€the€evidence€concerning€the€offense€onÏtrial.€€Such€a€potential€particularity€exists€when€theÏconduct€or€acts€are€similar€to€the€crimes€on€trial.€€€€ÌÌà@ à*€*€*ÌÌà8 àà8 àœ[I]t›€òòis€clear€that€the€victim's€testimony€about€otherÏuncharged€sex€crimes€was€erroróó....€€òòMoreover,€theÏprejudice€resulting€from€[the€testimony€of€sex€crimes]Ïoutweighs€its€probative€valueóó....ÌòòÌÓÓœRickmanóó,›€876€S.W.2d€at€œ828,›€830€(emphasis€added)(citations€omitted).€€In€òòGetz€v.ÏStateóó,€538€A.2d€726€(Del.€l988),€a€case€cited€by€our€supreme€court€in€òòRickmanóó,€theÏDelaware€Supreme€Court€made€further€comment€upon€the€rationale€behind€theÏrule:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à"[W]e€are€no€more€inclined€to€endorse€[the€assumptionÏthat€a€defendant's€propensity€for€satisfying€sexual€needsÏis€so€unique€that€it€is€relevant€to€his€guilt]€than€we€are€toÏconsider€previous€crimes€of€theft€as€demonstrating€aÏlarcenous€disposition€and€thus€admissible€to€show€proofÏof€intent€to€commit€theft€on€a€given€occasion."ÌÌœòòRickmanóó,›€876€S.W.2d€at€829€(quoting€òòGetzóó,€538€A.2d€at€œ734)€(alteration€in€original).›€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àTraditionally,€courts€have€not€permitted€the€state€to€establish€throughÏacts€of€prior€misconduct€any€generalized€propensity€on€the€part€of€a€defendant€toÏcommit€crimes.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.góó.,€òòState€v.€Teagueóó,€645€S.W.2d€392€(Tenn.€1983).€€A€juryÏcannot€be€allowed€to€convict€a€defendant€for€bad€character€or€any€particularÏ"disposition€to€commit€a€crime€regardless€of€the€strength€of€the€evidenceÏconcerning€the€offense€on€trial."€€œòòRickmanóó,›€876€S.W.2d€at€828€(citing€òòAnderson€v.ÏStateóó,€œ56›€S.W.2d€731€(1933)).€€ÌÌà àà àHere,€the€state€attempts€to€distinguish€òòRickmanóó€on€the€basis€that€theÏacts€depicted€in€the€photographs€are€not€"prior"€bad€œacts;›€œinstead,€they›€œare€acts€›Ísubsequent€to€offenses€charged€in€the€indictment.€€Yet€the€term€"prior,"€in€ourÏassessment,€should€be€interpreted€as€prior€to€trial€rather€than€prior€to€the€offenses.€ÏThe€rule€itself€does€not€limit€its€application€to€"prior"€acts,€but€rather€states€that€itÏaddresses€itself€to€"other"€crimes,€wrongs,€or€acts.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404.€€TheÏreal€question€is€whether€the€other€acts€evidence€which€is€not€covered€by€theÏindictment€is€being€offered€as€character€evidence€and,€if€so,€whether€the€evidenceÏfalls€within€an€exception€to€the€rule€of€exclusion.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€in€this€case€occurred€prior€to€the€decision€in€òòRickmanóó.€€ThusÏspecific€guidance€on€the€issue€was€not€available€to€the€trial€judge.€€In€our€view,€theÏacts€depicted€in€the€photographs€were€similar€enough€in€nature€to€the€crimes€onÏtrial€to€raise€concern.€€œòòSeeóó€òògenerallyó󛀜òòRickmanóó,›€œ876€S.W.2d€at€828.›€€The€trial€courtÏcited€identification€as€a€basis€for€admission.€€The€photos,€however,€do€not€appear€toÏbe€related€to€the€identification€of€the€defendant;€that€was€not€really€an€issue€at€trial.€ÏœòòSeeóó€Tenn.›€R.€Evid.€404.€€The€photographs€of€the€defendant€in€the€act€ofÏmasturbation€qualified€as€prejudicial;€in€our€view,€part€of€œtheir›€value€to€the€state€wasÏto€establish€the€defendant's€disposition€toward€sexual€perversity.€€The€realÏquestion,€however,€was€whether€and€to€what€extent€the€defendant€had€physicalÏcontact€with€the€minor€victims.€€That€the€victims€were€able€to€take€four€relativelyÏclose„range€snapshots€with€a€flash€camera€suggests€a€level€of€intimacyÍcorroborative€of€their€testimony.€€That€the€photographs€could€be€taken€withoutÏobjection€touched€upon€both€the€defendant's€intent€and€the€absence€of€anyÏmistaken€touching.€€The€defendant€had€€claimed€accidental€contact€with€HH;€thatÏthe€defendant€permitted€such€intimate€photographs€months€later€by€the€same€victimÏtends€to€negate€that€claim.€€On€this€relatively€close€issue,€we€also€conclude€that€theÏprobative€value€did€outweigh€the€prejudice.€€Thus,€the€evidence€was€properlyÏadmitted.€€€€ÌÌà@ àIIIÌà àà àNext,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€should€have€stricken€theÏtestimony€of€HH€when€she€invoked€her€fifth€amendment€right€against€self„incrimination€during€cross„examination.€€Alternatively,€he€claims€he€should€haveÏbeen€granted€a€continuance€in€order€to€gather€extrinsic€evidence€of€the€œwitness's›Ïbias.€€Prior€to€trial,€the€defendant€discovered€that€HH€or€someone€in€her€householdÏmight€have€made€unauthorized€purchases€on€his€credit€card.€€The€court€denied€theÏdefendant's€request€for€a€continuance€for€the€purpose€of€gathering€evidence€to€linkÏHH€to€the€purchases€and€thereby€establish€possible€œwitness's›€œbias.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.›€R.ÏEvid.€616.€€When€asked€about€whether€she€would€answer€questions€about€theÏpurchases,€HH€invoked€her€fifth€amendment€right€against€self„incrimination€outsideÏthe€presence€of€the€jury.ÌÌà àà àThe€sixth€amendment€guarantees€a€criminal€defendant€the€right€toÏcross„examine€witnesses€against€him.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòDavis€v.€Alaskaóó,€415€U.S.€308Ï(1974).€€The€rights€of€confrontation€and€cross„examination€are€essential€to€a€fairÏtrial.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòPointer€v.€Texasóó,€380€U.S.€400€(1965).€€Rule€616,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,Ïprovides€that€"[a]€party€may€offer€evidence€by€cross„examination,€extrinsicÏevidence,€or€both,€that€a€witness€is€biased€in€favor€of€or€prejudiced€against€a€partyÏor€another€witness."€€Rule€611(b),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€provides€that€a€witness€"may€beÏcross„examined€on€any€matter€relevant€to€any€issue€in€the€case,€includingÏœcredibility."›€€ÌÌà àà àOn€the€other€hand,€trial€courts€have€a€duty€to€protect€the€fifthÏamendment€rights€of€witnesses€against€self„incrimination.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòAlford€v.ÏUnited€Statesóó,€282€U.S.€687€(1931).€€Rule€501,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€states€that€"[e]xceptÏas€otherwise€provided€by€constitution,€...€no€person€has€a€privilege€to€...€refuse€toÏdisclose€any€œmatter."›€€This€rule€permits€a€witness€to€refuse€to€disclose€any€matterÏupon€assertion€of€the€right€against€self„incrimination.€€ÌÌà àà àThis€court€has€previously€recognized,€however,€that€"the€right€of€a€co„defendant€...€to€exercise€his€Fifth€Amendment€privilege€against€self„incriminationÍhas€a€greater€force€than€the€right€of€a€mere€witness€to€the€same€privilege."€€òòState€v.ÏBakeróó,€751€S.W.2d€154,€161€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€However,€"where€theÏwitness€which€a€defendant€seeks€to€cross„examine€is€the€prosecution's€chiefÏwitness,€providing€the€crucial€link€in€the€prosecution's€case,€the€importance€of€fullÏcross„examination€is€necessarily€increased."€€òòState€v.€Horace€Charles€Corum€andÏAnthony€L.€Holmesóó,€No.€03C01„9301„CR„00028,€slip€op.€at€7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€atÏKnoxville,€Nov.€15,€œ1993)(citing€generally›€òòDavis€v.€Alaskaóó,€415€U.S.€308€œ(1974);›ÏòòUnited€States€v.€Nunezóó,€668€F.2d€1116€(10th€Cir.€1981)).ÌÌà àà àHere,€there€is€no€question€that€the€testimony€of€HH€was€essential€toÏthe€state's€case.€€The€trial€court€was€faced€with€a€difficult€decision€of€balancingÏthese€conflicting€constitutional€rights.€€We€have€previously€held,€however,€thatÏ"where€there€is€a€conflict€between€the€basic€right€of€a€defendant€to€compulsoryÏprocess€and€the€witness's€right€against€self„incrimination,€...€the€right€against€self„incrimination€is€the€stronger€and€paramount€right."€€òòState€v.€Dicksóó,€615€S.W.2d€126,Ï129€(Tenn.€1981).€€œWe›€œconclude€that›€the€trial€court€did€not€err€by€refusing€to€strikeÏthe€€victim's€testimony.€€œÌÌà àà àWe›€œalso€consider›€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€aÏcontinuance.€€At€first€look,€the€questions€of€possible€bias€appear€to€be€proper.€€InÍòòUnited€States€v.€Lyonsóó,€703€F.2d€815,€819€(5th€Cir.€1983),€the€court€held€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àWhen€a€prosecution€witness€invokes€the€fifthÏamendment€after€testifying€on€direct€examination,€theÏprivilege€against€self„incrimination€conflicts€with€theÏdefendant's€sixth€amendment€confrontation€rights.€€TheÏdefendant€is€deprived€of€his€right€to€inquire€into€theÏwitness'€credibility€through€cross„examination.€€òòIf€thisÏimpediment€to€cross„examination€creates€a€"substantialÏdanger€of€prejudice€by€depriving€[the€defendant]€of€theÏability€to€test€the€truth€of€the€witness's€direct€testimonyóó,"Ïrelief€is€warranted.ÌÌÓÓ(Emphasis€added).ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€argues€he€should€have€been€granted€a€continuance€inÏorder€to€gather€extrinsic€evidence€to€show€the€œwitness's›€bias.€€The€state€argues€thatÏthe€information€was€irrelevant€and€independent€of€whether€the€victim€was€biased€orÏprejudiced€against€the€defendant.€€Had€the€record€of€the€trial€been€betterÏdeveloped,€we€might€have€disagreed.€€The€state€prevails€only€because€the€exhibits,Ïsubmitted€pretrial€by€the€defendant,€never€connected€either€of€the€victims€to€theÏmisuse€of€the€defendant's€credit€card.€€The€transcript€of€the€hearing€on€the€motionÏfor€new€trial€was€not€included€in€the€record€on€appeal.€€We€must€presume€that€anyÏevidence€presented€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€failed€to€connect€theÏvictims€to€the€credit€card€fraud.€ÌÌà àà àWhile€the€law€is€well€settled€that€the€grant€or€denial€of€a€continuanceÏrests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€òòState€v.€Sealsóó,€735€S.W.2d€849,Ï853€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987),€the€trial€court€may€not€"abuse€[that]€discretion,€to€theÏprejudice€of€the€defendant."€€òòWoods€v.€Stateóó,€552€S.W.2d€782,€784€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1977);€òòFrazier€v.€Stateóó,€466€S.W.2d€535,€537€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1970).ÌÌà àà àIn€the€pretrial€jury„out€hearing,€defense€counsel€asked€HH€aboutÏ"certain€telephone€purchases€via€the€use€of€a€credit€card€belonging€to€theÏdefendant."€€Initially,€HH€indicated€that€she€was€willing€to€answer€questions€aboutÏthat,€saying€she€would€waive€her€fifth€amendment€rights.€€After€being€furtherÏadmonished€as€to€her€rights€by€the€trial€judge,€HH€changed€her€mind.€€The€trialÏcourt€ruled€that€he€would€allow€defense€counsel€"to€attack€her€credibility€but€not€in€aÏway€that€would€cause€her€to€incriminate€œherself."›€€It€then€ruled€that€this€was€not€"oneÏof€those€areas€that€bias€is€œavailable."›€€Defense€counsel€sought€a€continuance€"toÏproduce€the€extrinsic€evidence€referred€to€before€trial."€€The€state€argued€that€theÏextrinsic€evidence€was€not€admissible.€€Exhibit€1€includes€a€computer€printoutÏindicating€a€purchase€of€three€items€ordered€over€a€period€of€five€days€in€the€latterÏpart€of€1994€totaling€approximately€$375.00.€€Thereafter,€there€was€a€series€ofÏletters€from€a€bankcard€representative€allowing€the€defendant€credit,€apparently€forÏunauthorized€charges€in€excess€of€$1,000.00;€the€letters€were€dated€in€early€1993.€ÍShortly€thereafter,€the€defendant€asked€for€additional€credits€of€$320.14€forÏallegedly€unauthorized€credit€card€charges.€€ÌÌà àà àWitness€bias,€as€indicated,€would€have€been€a€viable€source€forÏcross„examination,€even€if€it€had€incriminated€HH.€€But€there€is€no€record€of€anyÏadditional€evidence€linking€HH€to€the€purchases€offered€at€the€hearing€on€theÏmotion€for€new€trial.€€The€defendant€merely€claimed€that€the€charges€arose€out€of€aÏresidence€in€Las€Vegas,€Nevada.€€He€asked€for€the€continuance,€we€must€assume,Ïfor€the€purpose€of€establishing€a€connection€with€one€of€the€victims.€€ÌÌà àà àIt€is€the€appellant's€duty€to€file€an€adequate€record€of€the€proceedingsÏin€order€to€convey€a€fair,€accurate€and€complete€account€of€what€transpired€withÏrespect€to€the€issues€presented€on€œappeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState›€v.€Hooperóó,€695€S.W.2d€€530Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985);€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€623€S.W.2d€129€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€ÏWithout€a€fully€developed€transcript€of€the€motion€for€new€trial,€this€court€mustÏpresume€that€the€evidence€supports€the€trial€court's€actions€and€rulings.€€òòState€v.ÏBaronóó,€659€S.W.2d€811,€815€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983);€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€669€S.W.2dÏ694,€699€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€Without€an€adequate€record,€this€court€isÏprecluded€from€considering€the€issues.€€œòòHooperóó,›€695€S.W.2d€at€537.€€ÌÌà àà àBecause€the€error€claimed€is€that€the€trial€court€improperly€denied€aÏmotion€for€continuance€and€the€record€does€not€sufficiently€establish€the€bias,€ourÏscope€of€review€is€limited€to€whether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion.€€WeÏcannot€find€that.€€€€€ÌÌà@ àIVÌà àà àAs€his€next€issue,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€should€haveÏgranted€his€motion€for€recusal.€€The€defendant€based€his€motion€on€the€trial€court'sÏpretrial€rulings;€on€appeal,€the€defendant€cites€the€trial€court's€refusal€to€grant€aÏcontinuance,€the€admission€of€exhibit€14€(photographs€showing€the€defendantÏmasturbating),€and€the€denial€of€counsel's€motion€to€withdraw€only€days€before€theÏtrial€was€set€as€evidence€of€the€trial€court's€bias.ÌÌà àà àWhether€recusal€is€necessary,€based€upon€the€alleged€bias€orÏprejudice€of€the€trial€judge,€rests€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòCaruthers€v.ÏStateóó,€814€S.W.2d€64,€67€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€A€judge€should€grant€a€motionÏfor€recusal€whenever€his€or€her€"impartiality€might€reasonably€be€questioned."€€ÏCode€of€Judicial€Conduct,€Canon€3(C);€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€10;€òòState€v.€Jimmy€D.ÏDillinghamóó,€No.€03C01„9110„CR„00319€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€FebruaryÏ3,€1993).€€This€court€will€not€interfere€with€the€trial€court's€discretion€unless€clearÍabuse€appears€on€the€face€of€the€record.€€œòòCaruthersóó,›€814€S.W.2d€at€67.ÌÌà àà àHere,€the€record€simply€does€not€support€the€defendant's€claims€ofÏbias€and€prejudice.€€The€only€basis€for€the€motion€to€recuse€was€the€trial€court'sÏrulings€on€legal€issues.€€Even€if€errors€had€occurred€in€the€conduct€of€the€trial,€thatÏwould€not€disqualify€the€trial€judge€from€the€case.€ÌÌà@ àVÌ€€€à àà àDuring€the€pendency€of€this€appeal,€the€defendant€filed€a€motion€forÏremand,€seeking€a€dismissal€of€all€charges€because€the€indictment€on€all€countsÏfailed€to€allege€the€requisite€mens€rea.€€The€defendant€relies€upon€the€holding€inÏòòState€v.€Roger€Dale€Hill,€Sr.óó,€No.€01C01„9508„CC„00267€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€atÏNashville,€June€20,€1996),€òòperm.€to€app.€filedóó,€Aug.€19,€1996.€€In€òòHillóó,€our€court€heldÏthat€an€indictment€that€alleged€the€defendant€"'did€unlawfully€sexually€penetrateÏ[M.H.]€a€person€less€than€thirteen€(13)€years€of€age,€in€violation€of€òòTennesseeóó€òòCodeóóÏòòAnnotatedóó€[ðð]€39„13„512'"€was€"fatally€defective€because€[the€indictment]€does€notÏallege€that€he€sexually€penetrated€[M.H.]€intentionally,€knowingly,€or€recklessly."€ÏòòHillóó,€slip€op.€at€5.€€The€defendant€argues€that€because€his€indictment€did€not€allegeÏthe€mens€rea,€all€convictions€must€be€reversed€and€the€charges€must€be€dismissed.€ÏWe€cannot€agree.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€our€view,€the€indictment€was€sufficient€to€give€the€defendant€noticeÏof€the€charges,€including€notice€of€the€mens€rea.€€Generally,€an€indictment€must€setÏforth€the€elements€of€the€offense.€€òòState€v.€Perkinsonóó,€867€S.W.2d€1,€5€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1992).€€It€is€settled€law€that€"[w]hen€the€indictment€or€presentment€fails€to€fullyÏstate€the€crime,€all€subsequent€proceedings€are€void."€€òòIdóó.€(citing€òòState€v.€Morganóó,Ï598€S.W.2d€796,€797€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979)).€€That€all€elements€of€the€offenseÏmust€be€alleged€is€"not€[a]€new€concept[]€in€Tennessee€jurisprudence."€€òòHillóó,€slip€op.Ïat€7€(citing€òòState€v.€Hughesóó,€371€S.W.2d€445€(Tenn.€1963);€òòState€v.€Cornellisonóó,€59ÏS.W.2d€514€(Tenn.€1933);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€612€S.W.2d€493,€497€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1980)).€€ÌÌà àà àOur€research€traces€this€requirement€to€the€early€1800's.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,ÏòòWhiteside€v.€Stateóó,€44€Tenn.€175€(1867);€òòPeek€v.€Stateóó,€21€Tenn.€78€(1840);€òòState€v.ÏPearceóó,€7€Tenn.€68€(1823).€€The€historical€significance€of€the€indictment€is€wellÏdocumented€in€the€federal€courts€as€well:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€general€...€and€universal€rule€...€is€that€all€theÏmaterial€facts€and€circumstances€embraced€in€theÏdefinition€of€the€offense€must€be€stated,€or€the€indictmentÏwill€be€defective.€€No€essential€element€of€the€crime€canÏbe€omitted€without€destroying€the€whole€pleading.€€TheÏomission€cannot€be€supplied€by€intendment€orÍimplication,€and€the€charge€must€be€made€directly,€andÏnot€inferentially,€or€by€way€of€recital.€€òòÌÌUnited€States€v.€Hessóó,€124€U.S.€483,€8€S.€Ct.€571,€573€(1888).€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àProvisions€of€state€and€federal€constitutions€guarantee€the€criminallyÏaccused€knowledge€of€"the€nature€and€cause€of€the€accusation."€€U.S.€Const.Ïamend.€VI;€Tenn.€Const.€art€I,€ðð€9.€€"Fair€and€reasonable€notice€of€the€chargesÏagainst€an€accused€is€a€fundamental€constitutional€requirement."€€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,Ï919€S.W.2d€305,€309€(Tenn.€1996).€€To€be€sufficient,€an€indictment€must€"inform€theÏdefendant€of€the€precise€charges;€...€must€enable€the€trial€court€upon€conviction€toÏenter€an€appropriate€judgment;€...€and€must€protect€[the]€defendant€against€doubleÏjeopardy."€€òòIdóó.€€As€a€matter€of€fairness,€the€constitutional€requirement€is€designed€toÏafford€the€criminally€accused€with€an€adequate€opportunity€to€prepare€any€defenseÏbefore€the€œtrial.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.góó.,›€òòPope€v.€Stateóó,€258€S.W.€775€(Tenn.€1923);€òòDaniel€v.ÏStateóó,€50€Tenn.€257€(1871).€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àObviously,€such€a€rigid€rule€can€cause€harsh€results.€€At€€œtimes,›Ïconvictions€must€be€set€aside€even€though€the€prosecution€has€gained€noÏadvantage:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àAt€common€law,€even€the€slightest€technicalÍdefect€might€fell€an€indictment.€€Sir€Matthew€HaleÏlamented€the€strictness€with€which€indictments€wereÏviewed€as€"a€blemish€and€inconvenience€of€the€law"Ïwhereby€"heinous€and€crying€offenses€escape€by€theseÏunseemly€niceties€to€the€reproach€of€the€law,€to€theÏshame€of€the€government,€and€to€the€encouragement€ofÏvillainy,€and€to€the€dishonour€of€God."€€2€Sir€MatthewÏHale,€òòThe€History€of€the€Pleas€of€the€Crownóó€193Ï(London,€E.€Rider€1800)(1716).€ÌÌòòÓÓUnited€States€v.€Wydermyeróó,€51€F.3d€319,€324€(2d€Cir.€1995).ÌÌà àà àIn€òòWydermyeróó,€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€violations€of€a€federalÏmoney€laundering€statute.€€Two€elements€of€the€offense€had€been€inadvertently€leftÏout€of€the€indictment.€€Six€months€after€the€verdicts€were€entered,€the€district€court,Ïòòsuaóó€òòsponteóó,€detected€the€deficiencies€and€dismissed€the€charges.€€On€directÏappeal,€the€Second€Circuit€ruled€that€the€indictments€were€sufficient;€"[t]he€scrutinyÏgiven€an€indictment€...€depends€on€the€timing€of€the€defendantððs€objection."€€òòIdóó.Ï(citing€òòUnited€States€v.€Thompsonóó,€356€F.2d€216,€225„26€(2d€Cir.€1965)).€€€Where€aÏchallenge€is€made€to€an€indictment€after€the€verdict€is€rendered,€"we€interpret€theÏindictment€liberally€in€favor€of€sufficiency,€absent€any€prejudice€to€the€defendant."€ÏòòIdóó.€€The€court€observed€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[T]he€courts€of€the€United€States€long€ago€withdrew€theirÏhospitality€toward€technical€claims€of€invalidity€of€anÏindictment€first€raised€after€trial,€absent€a€clear€showingÏof€substantial€prejudice€to€the€accused„„such€a€showingÍthat€the€indictment€is€so€obviously€defective€that€by€noÏreasonable€construction€can€it€be€said€to€charge€theÏoffense€for€which€conviction€was€had.ÌÌòòÓÓIdóó.€at€325.€€Few€courts€have€embraced€œsuch€a€lax€rule;€the€approach›€has€neverÏbeen€utilized€by€the€courts€of€this€state.€€Other€jurisdictions€have€found€thatÏreference€to€statutory€provisions€in€the€criminal€code€is€sufficient€to€give€theÏdefendant€notice€of€the€charges.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòPeople€v.€Del€Pilaróó,€576€N.Y.S.2d€346Ï(N.Y.€1991);€òòState€v.€Petroneóó,€468€N.W.2d€676€(Wis.€1991);€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€391ÏS.E.2d€415€(Ga.€Ct.€App.€œ1990)€òòcitedóó€òòinóó€òòState›€v.€Marshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532,€537Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€œ1993).›€€In€òòMarshallóó,€however,€this€court€specifically€rejected€thatÏview.€€œ870›€S.W.2d€at€537.€€That€rejection€was€based€upon€the€statutory€requirementÏthat€an€indictment€"state€the€facts€constituting€the€offense€in€ordinary€and€conciseÏlanguage€...€in€such€a€manner€as€to€enable€a€person€of€common€understanding€toÏknow€what€is€intended€...."€€òòIdóó.€(quoting€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„13„202).€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòMarshallóó,€the€indictment€alleged€"that€the€defendant€'did€possess,Ïwith€intent€to€sell,€a€controlled€substance€....'"€€òòIdóó.€at€536.€€The€defendant€argued€theÏindictment€was€fatal€for€failing€to€allege€that€the€possession€was€knowing.€€òòIdóó.€€ThisÏcourt€held€that€failure€to€specifically€allege€an€element€of€the€offense€is€not€fatal€"ifÏthe€elements€are€necessarily€implied€from€the€allegations€made."€€òòIdóó.€(citing€òòHagnerÍv.€United€Statesóó,€285€U.S.€427€(1932)).€€"By€alleging€that€the€defendant€possessedÏcocaine€which€he€intended€to€sell,€the€indictment€necessarily€implied€that€it€was€aÏknowing€possession."€€òòIdóó.€at€538.€€Thus,€the€conviction€was€upheld.€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòGrandi€v.€United€Statesóó,€262€F.€123€(6th€Cir.€1920),€which€theÏòòMarshallóó€court€cited€with€approval,€the€defendant€was€charged€with€possession€€ofÏstolen€goods.€€The€indictment€alleged€that€the€defendant€knowingly€received€stolenÏgoods€but€failed€to€specifically€allege€the€goods€were€in€fact€stolen.€€The€SixthÏCircuit€held€as€follows:€Ìà8 àà8 àÓÓThere€is€an€absence€of€such€specific€allegation.€€ButÏwhile€the€count€was€...€technically€subject€to€criticism,€yetÏin€view€of€the€frame€of€the€indictment€taken€as€a€whole,Ïplaintiff€in€error€could€not€well€have€been€misled€to€hisÏprejudice.€€The€count€fairly€informed€the€accused€of€theÏcharge€against€him,€and€sufficiently€so€to€enable€him€toÏprepare€his€defense€....€€òòThe€charge€that€defendant€knewÏthe€goods€to€have€been€stolen€naturally€implies€that€theÏgoods€had€been€in€fact€stolen.óó€€The€verdict€should€not€beÏreversed€on€account€of€a€defect€so€obviously€technicalÏand€unsubstantial.€€òòÌÌœGrandióó,›€262€F.€at€124€(emphasis€added)(citations€omitted).€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àIn€òòPhipps€v.€United€Statesóó,€251€F.€879€(4th€Cir.€1918),€€the€defendantÏwas€charged€with€conspiracy€against€the€United€States.€€An€element€of€the€offense,Íthe€intent€to€use€force,€was€not€alleged€in€the€indictment.€€òòIdóó.€at€880.€€The€FourthÏCircuit€held,€however,€that€the€allegation€that€the€act€was€done€"with€the€intent€ofÏengaging€in€armed€hostility€against€the€United€States€of€America€by€attacking€withÏforce€..."€was€sufficient€to€imply€the€element€of€intent€to€use€force.€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€ruling€in€òòMarshallóó€controls€here.€€If€the€offense€is€alleged€in€such€aÏway€that€the€defendant€cannot€fail€to€be€apprised€of€the€elements€of€the€offense,€theÏindictment€is€sufficient,€notwithstanding€the€fact€that€an€element€may€not€beÏspecifically€alleged.€€By€use€of€this€standard,€the€indictments€in€this€case€areÏsufficient.€€Counts€1,€2,€3,€4,€5,€6,€7,€9,€10,€12,€13,€and€16€all€charge€the€defendantÏwith€sexual€battery.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„505:Ìà8 àà8 àÓÓJohn€Haws€Burrell€...€did€then€and€there€unlawfully€andÏfeloniously€engage€in€unlawful€sexual€contact€with€[theÏvictim],€through€the€use€of€custodial€authority,€to€wit:€byÏhaving€[the€victim]€intentionally€touch€the€intimate€partsÏand€touch€clothing€covering€the€immediate€area€of€theÏintimate€parts€of€John€Haws€Burrell,€for€the€purpose€ofÏsexual€arousal€and€gratification€in€violation€of€TCA€39„13„505€....ÌÌÌÓÓÒ ä ÒÒ X ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓà àà àThe€statute€defines€sexual€battery€as€the€"unlawful€sexual€contact€withÏa€victim€by€the€defendant€or€the€defendant€by€a€victim€accompanied€by€any€of€theÏcircumstances€listed€in€ðð€39„13„503(a)."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„505.€€"If€theÍdefinition€of€an€offense€within€this€title€does€not€plainly€dispense€with€a€mentalÏelement,€intent,€knowledge,€or€recklessness€suffices€to€establish€the€culpableÏmental€state."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„301.€€Because€the€definition€of€sexualÏbattery€does€not€dispense€with€a€mental€element,€the€terms€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„11„301€apply.€€Thus,€the€indictment€must€allege€or€"necessarily€imply"€intent,Ïknowledge,€or€recklessness.€€In€our€view,€the€term€"feloniously"€necessarily€impliesÏa€reckless€mens€rea.€€Historically,€the€word€"feloniously"€has€meant€"'[p]roceedingÏfrom€an€evil€heart€or€purpose;€done€with€the€deliberate€intention€of€committing€aÏcrime.'"€€òòCharles€Gate€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9510„CC„00313€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€atÏKnoxville,€Aug.€16,€1996)(quoting€òòBlackððs€Law€œDictionaryó󛀜€617€(6th›€ed.€œ1990))(order›Ïdenying€a€motion€for€post„judgment€relief).€€"Feloniously"€also€means€"done€withÏthe€intent€to€commit€a€crime."€€òòIdóó.€(quoting€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€œ105›€S.W.€68,€70€œ(Tenn.Ï1907)).›€€Accordingly,€each€of€the€counts€gave€the€defendant€adequate€notice€of€theÏcharges.ÌÌà àà àCounts€15€and€17€charge€that€the€defendant€"did€then€and€thereÏunlawfully€by€means€of€coercion€attempt€to€influence€a€prospective€witness€...€toÏtestify€falsely€in€an€official€proceeding,€in€violation€of€TCA€39„16„507."€€TheÏdefinition€of€coercion€of€witnesses€does€not€dispense€with€a€mental€state€soÏintentionally,€knowingly,€or€recklessly€must€be€alleged€or€necessarily€implied.€€òòSeeóóÍTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„301.€€"Attempt€to€influence"€necessarily€implies€anÏintentional€act.€€"Attempt"€in€criminal€law€means€"[a]n€intent€to€commit€a€crimeÏcoupled€with€an€act€taken€toward€committing€the€offense."€€òòBlackððs€Law€œDictionaryó󛀜Ï127€(6th›€ed.€1990).€€Accordingly,€counts€15€and€17€are€sufficient.€€ÌÌà àà àCounts€8€and€14€allege€the€defendant€"did€then€and€there€unlawfullyÏengage€in€unlawful€sexual€penetration€of€[the€victim],€by€use€of€coercion,€inÏviolation€of€TCA€39„13„503€...."€€Count€11€alleges€the€defendant€"did€then€and€thereÏunlawfully€engage€in€unlawful€sexual€penetration€of€[the€victim],€through€the€use€ofÏcustodial€authority,€in€violation€of€TCA€39„13„503."€€Rape€is€defined€as€unlawfulÏsexual€penetration€of€a€victim€by€the€defendant€...€accompanied€by€any€of€theÏfollowing€circumstances:€œ...›€œ[f]orce›€or€coercion€is€used€to€accomplish€the€act."€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€œ39„13„503(a)(1).›€€Rape€under€the€circumstance€in€subpart€(1)€doesÏnot€dispense€with€a€mens€rea€so€the€act€must€be€done€intentionally,€knowingly,€orÏrecklessly.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„11„301.›€€ÌÌà àà àSexual€penetration€by€coercion€or€the€use€of€custodial€authorityÏnecessarily€implies€the€sexual€penetration€would€occur€intentionally€or€knowingly.€Ï"Coercion"€means€"threat€of€kidnaping,€extortion,€force€or€violence€to€be€performedÏimmediately€or€in€the€future€or€the€use€of€parental,€custodial,€or€official€authorityÍover€a€child€less€than€fifteen€(15)€years€of€age."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„501(1).€ÏIf€one€threatens€a€person€in€order€to€be€able€to€sexually€penetrate€that€person,€or€ifÏone€uses€custodial€authority€to€sexually€penetrate€that€person,€the€penetration€mustÏbe€intentional.€€In€our€view,€the€mens€rea€of€intent€is€necessarily€implied€in€theÏallegation.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€is€affirmed.€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€Judge€œÌÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDavid€H.€Welles,€JudgeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€œJudge›ÓÓ