ÿWPC@( …# VU>a %Ÿ 0´¥UBY U:› 4Õ é ø w@ 0ø@ 0D8 0J| 0TÆ 0^ 0hx 0rà 0|R 0†Î 0T 1uäU,Y 0d…U,éU6U.KU *yB)£DCÌ D3 BB AM_ 0@¬ ìÃ÷ºv~JvÓÈ AO›&Æê& 0D°' D/ô' B#(˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <@ˆÐ9Z &Courier RegularX(Œí½$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€äžXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑTR[  AØ'Legal[  AØ'Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÔ€XXXXXÔ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regularà~| 3|xŠ, v,w,Ux,Uy,Ez,U{,|,},~,,Ó€(¨(3?$¤¤Ý ƒí½!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€¥BXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑTR[  AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÔ€XΦXXXÔÝ  Ýà ¸ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd++++'ÿÿdxd d€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ` °˜XÓÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òAprilÏ3,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ¹Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ` °˜XÓÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€'ôÔ€€The€defendant€argues€that€the€delay€violated€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial€and€that€SixthÏAmendment€speedy€trial€considerations€should€be€applied€to€the€pre„indictment›€delay€that€occurred€inÏthis€case.€€We€note€that€ð ð[œt]he›€delay€between€the€commission€of€an€offense€and€the€commencement€ofÏproceedings€does€not€violate€an€accusedððs€constitutional€right€to€a€speedy€trial.ðð€€òòDykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€atÏ255.€€Furthermore,€speedy€trial€principles€are€not€applicable€in€such€a€situation€and,€instead,€theÏconsideration€is€whether€an€accusedððs€Fifth€Amendment€right€to€due€process€is€violated€by€theÏpreindictment€delay.€€òòIdóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó,€òòState€v.€Harold€Winter€Grayóó,€No.€œ01S01›„9411„CR„00138,€Wilson€Co.Ï(Tenn.€Feb.€26,€1996)(for€publication).Ì †Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ` °˜XÓÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Ô€'ôÔWe€note€that€the€preliminary€hearing€transcript€is€not€included€in€the€record€before€us.€€ItÏis€the€duty€of€the€defendant€to€prepare€a€fair,€accurate€and€complete€record€on€appeal€to€enable€review.€ÏT.R.A.P.€24.€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op 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€%ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€&&Xd#ÑÑ#€&&Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ` °˜XÓÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÙ€€ÙÑ  ÑÑ ° ÑßL€,.);+'h|` à. `€€Lß›à8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€DECEMBER€SESSION,€1993ÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,à àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9307„CR„00206Ìà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àHawkins€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€James€E.ÏBeckner,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà à)ÌWILLIAM€JEFFERY€CARICO,à à)à à(Aggravated€Rape)Ìà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àòòà àFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌBurkett€C.€McInturff€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àœà àCharles›€W.€BursonÌ132€Broad€Street€€à àà àà àà àAttorney€General€ofÏTennesseeÌKingsport,€TN€€37660€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àandÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àJeannie€Kaess€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneral€of€TennesseeÌà àà àà àà àà à450€JamesÏRobertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TNÏ37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àC.€Berkeley€Bell,€Jr.€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€AttorneyÏGeneralà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àDoug€Godbee€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€General€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àHawkins€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àRogersville,€TN€€37857ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:_______________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌ€€€€€€ÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÓӜǛà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€œNó óóóÌ›Ìà àThe€defendant,€William€Jeffery€Carico,€appeals€as€of€right€from€hisÏconviction€by€a€jury€in€the€Hawkins€County€Criminal€Court€for€aggravated€rape,€a€ClassÏA€felony.€€The€defendant€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€to€twenty„fiveÏyears€in€the€custody€of€the€Department€of€Correction.€€The€following€issues€areÏpresented€for€our€review:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 à(1)€€whether€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€theÏdefendant's€conviction,ÌÌà8 àœ(2)€whether›€the€œnine„year›€delay€between€the€offense€and€itsÏprosecution€was€unconstitutional,ÌÌà àœ(3)€whether›€the€defendant€was€given€proper€noticeÌà àof€the€date€of€the€offense€by€the€indictment€and€its€Ìà àsubsequent€amendment,€ÌÌà àœ(4)€whether›€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€suppress€Ìà àstatements€that€the€defendant€gave€to€the€Tennessee€Ìà àDepartment€of€Human€Services€and€Counseling€and€Ìà àConsultation€Services,ÌÌà àœ(5)€whether›€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€victim€Ìà àto€testify€concerning€alleged€offenses€that€occurred€eight€Ìà àto€ten€years€prior€to€the€indictment€in€this€case€in€spite€Ìà àof€rules€regarding€fresh€complaint€and€staleness,ÌÌà8 àœ(6)€whether›€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€allow€theÏvictim€to€be€cross„examined€about€making€similarÏaccusations€against€another€person,Ìà8 àÌà8 àœ(7)€whether›€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€victim€andÏher€mother€to€testify€regarding€the€manner€in€which€theyÏarrived€at€the€date€of€the€offense,ÌÌà8 àœ(8)€whether›€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€instructions€regardingÏthe€significance€of€the€date€of€the€offense€as€charged€in€theÏindictment,ÌÌà8 àœ(9)€whether›€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€instructions€thatÏemphasized€the€date€of€the€offense€as€œJanuary›€1985,€ÌÌà8 àœ(10)€whether›€the€trial€court€imposed€an€excessive€sentenceÏby€improperly€balancing€the€enhancement€œa›nd€mitigatingÏfactors,€and€ÌÌà8 àœ(11)€whether›€the€accumulation€of€the€errors€combined€toÏdeprive€the€defendant€of€a€fair,€public,€speedy€andÏconstitutional€trial.ÌÓÓà àÌÓ  Óà àThe€indictment€alleged€that€on€an€unnamed€day€in€July€1983,€theÏdefendant€unlawfully€penetrated€his€step„daughter,€who€was€less€than€thirteen€yearsÏold,€by€forcing€her€to€perform€fellatio.€€Teresa€Fletcher,€a€counselor€with€a€sexualÏoffender€treatment€program€called€Counseling€and€Consultation€Services€(CCS),Ïtestified€that€the€defendant€came€to€her€office€seeking€help€on€March€2,€1992.€€SheÏstated€that€she€told€the€defendant€of€her€mandatory€duty€to€report€œincidents›€of€known€orÏsuspected€child€abuse€and€that€he€signed€a€waiver€of€confidentiality€before€beingÏinterviewed.€€She€testified€that€the€defendant€told€her€that€he€was€having€problemsÏbecause€he€had€begun€fondling€his€step„daughter€in€1983,€when€she€wasÏapproximately€ten€years€old,€and€that€he€wanted€to€take€some€responsibility€for€hisÏactions.€€She€recounted€that€the€defendant€told€her€that€for€a€period€of€at€least€oneÏyear,€he€had€fondled€the€victim's€vaginal€area€over€and€under€her€clothing€and€thenÏmasturbated.€€She€stated€that€he€also€told€her€that€when€the€victim€reported€him€to€theÍauthorities,€he€denied€the€allegations.€€However,€she€testified€that€the€defendant€statedÏthat€after€he€and€the€victim's€mother,€Vanessa€Hartsock,€separated€in€October€1991,€heÏadmitted€to€the€victimððs€mother€that€he€had€abused€the€victim.€€ÌÌà àMs.€Fletcher€stated€that€after€interviewing€the€defendant€on€March€2,Ï1992,€she€contacted€Rita€Parris€of€the€Washington€County€Department€of€HumanÏServices€(DHS).€€Ms.€Parris€testified€that€the€defendant€also€called€her€on€the€sameÏday€to€schedule€an€œinterview.€›€Ms.€Parris€contacted€Kenneth€Peterson,€an€investigatorÏwith€the€Washington€County€Sheriff's€Department,€and€requested€that€he€attend€theÏinterview.€€She€stated€that€the€defendant€told€her€that€he€had€touched€the€victim'sÏbreasts€and€genitals€underneath€her€clothing€approximately€six€times.€€She€alsoÏtestified€that€the€defendant€said€that€the€incidents€occurred€from€1983€to€1984€whenÏthe€victim€was€approximately€ten€or€eleven€years€old€and€that€the€incidents€alwaysÏtook€place€while€the€victim's€mother€was€at€work.€€ÌÌà àMs.€Parris€testified€that€the€defendant€said€the€abuse€had€been€reportedÏsometime€in€1984€to€Sarah€Morelock€of€the€DHS,€but€the€investigation€was€dismissedÏwhen€the€victim€recanted€the€allegations.€€She€testified€that€the€defendant€stated€thatÏthe€victim€had€possibly€recanted€at€her€mother's€suggestion.€€She€stated€that€theÏdefendant€also€told€her€that€the€abuse€was€again€reported€in€1990€when€the€victim€toldÏher€natural€father€about€the€abuse.€€Ms.€Parris€stated€that€the€defendant€was€afraid€thatÏhe€might€be€arrested.€ÌÌà àKenneth€Peterson€testified€that€he€participated€in€the€interview€of€theÏdefendant€on€March€2,€1992.€€He€stated€that€he€identified€himself€as€an€investigatorÏwith€the€Washington€County€Sheriff's€Department€and€informed€the€defendant€that€heÏwas€not€under€arrest€and€was€free€to€leave€the€interview€at€any€time.€€InvestigatorÏPeterson's€testimony€regarding€the€defendant's€version€of€events€was€essentially€theÏsame€as€that€of€Ms.€Parris.€€Investigator€Peterson€stated€that€he€gave€his€notes€from€theÏinterview€with€the€defendant€to€the€Hawkins€County€Sheriff's€Department€and€had€noÏfurther€contact€with€the€defendant€after€the€interview.€€ÌÌà àGary€Wiseman,€a€Sergeant€with€the€Washington€County€Sheriff'sÏDepartment,€testified€that€he€also€conducted€interviews€for€CCS€on€a€private€part„timeÏbasis.€€He€stated€that€he€conducted€a€taped€interview€of€the€defendant€on€July€24,Ï1992,€for€CCS€as€part€of€the€assessment€process€for€admission€into€the€treatmentÏprogram.€€Sergeant€Wiseman€stated€that€he€informed€the€defendant€that€he€was€free€toÏrefuse€to€answer€any€questions€or€to€leave€at€any€time.€€The€defendant€told€SergeantÏWiseman€that€he€began€fondling€the€victim's€breasts€and€vagina€when€she€wasÏapproximately€eight€or€nine€years€old.€€Sergeant€Wiseman€testified€that€the€defendantÏstated€that€the€incidents€occurred€no€more€than€ten€times.€€In€response€to€SergeantÏWiseman's€question,€the€defendant€also€admitted€that€he€held€the€victim's€head€andÏforced€her€to€fellate€him€approximately€four€times.€€The€defendant€said€he€did€variousÏthings€to€keep€the€victim€from€telling€anyone€about€the€abuse,€such€as€allowing€her€toÍdrink€beer.€€Sergeant€Wiseman€stated€that€the€defendant€reported€that€the€abuseÏstopped€in€1986.€€ÌÌà àMichael€Adler,€the€Clinical€Director€of€CCS,€testified€that€the€defendantÏcompleted€a€self„report€sexual€interest€inventory€test€on€March€26,€œ1992,›€in€which€heÏindicated€that€he€had€touched€a€child's€genitals€in€a€sexual€manner€approximately€fiveÏto€ten€times.€€Mr.€Alder€also€conducted€a€clinical€interview€of€the€defendant€on€July€27,Ï1992.€€He€testified€that€in€the€interview,€the€defendant€stated€that€he€had€becomeÏsexually€aroused€while€wrestling€with€the€victim€when€she€was€eight€or€nine€years€old.€ÏThe€defendant€said€that€he€then€began€to€fondle€the€victim's€breasts€and€vagina€overÏher€clothing,€and€then€under€her€clothing.€€Mr.€Alder€testified€that€the€defendantÏreported€digitally€penetrating€the€victim,€performing€oral€sex€on€the€victim,€and€holdingÏthe€victim's€head€to€make€her€perform€oral€sex€on€him.€€Mr.€Adler€stated€that€theÏdefendant€also€reported€that€he€watched€the€victim€bathe€and€undress€and€hadÏmasturbated€with€her€underwear.€€ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Mr.€Alder€testified€that€at€his€last€meeting€with€theÏdefendant€on€August€8,€1992,€he€informed€the€defendant€that€his€assessment€reflectedÏa€need€for€in„patient€treatment.€€He€stated€that€the€defendant€chose€not€to€follow€hisÏrecommendation€of€in„patient€treatment€and,€thus,€had€no€further€contact€with€CCS.€€ÌÌà àSarah€Morelock,€a€DHS€Field€Supervisor,€testified€that€she€investigatedÏthe€victim's€allegations€against€the€defendant€in€May€1985.€€She€stated€that€sheÏsubstantiated€the€fact€that€the€victim€had€been€sexually€abused€and€reported€herÏfindings€to€the€œdistrict›€œattorney's›€office.€€Ms.€Morelock's€report€listed€the€victim'sÏallegations€and€stated€that€the€abuse€occurred€while€the€victim's€mother€was€at€work.€ÏThe€report€also€stated€that€the€defendant€had€denied€the€abuse€and€that€the€defendantÏand€the€victim's€mother€felt€that€the€victim€lied€about€the€abuse€in€order€to€break€upÏtheir€marriage.€€Ms.€Morelock€testified€that€she€recommended€that€the€case€be€keptÏopen€for€child€protective€services€for€six€months,€but€she€could€not€testify€as€to€whatÏoccurred€after€her€report€was€made€because€she€did€not€conduct€the€follow„upÏinvestigation€and€all€of€the€pre„1988€files€had€been€destroyed€due€to€a€lack€ofÏadequate€storage€space€at€the€DHS€office.ÌÌà àVanessa€Hartsock,€the€victim's€mother,€testified€that€she€and€theÏdefendant€were€married€from€May€1980€until€August€1992.€€She€stated€that€the€familyÏmoved€into€a€white€house€in€Hawkins€County€in€the€spring€of€1984€and€theÏdefendant's€daughter€from€a€previous€marriage€came€to€live€with€them€in€OctoberÏ1984.€€She€said€that€during€1984€and€1985,€she€usually€worked€on€œweeknights›€andÏweekend€days€and€evenings.€€She€stated€that€she€began€working€every€Sunday€inÏOctober€1984.€€ÌÌà àMs.€Hartsock€testified€that€Ms.€Morelock€informed€her€of€the€victim'sÏallegations€in€May€1985.€€She€stated€that€she€was€very€scared€and€angry€because€sheÏcould€not€believe€that€the€abuse€had€occurred.€€She€recounted€that€the€defendant€leftÏtheir€home€for€approximately€eight€weeks€after€Ms.€Morelock's€visit.€€During€this€time,Ïshe€stated€that€she€cried€in€front€of€the€victim€on€a€daily€basis€and€told€her€that€theÏdefendant€would€go€to€jail€and€the€family€would€not€be€able€to€live€if€she€continued€toÏsay€that€he€had€abused€her.€€She€admitted€that€she€also€asked€the€victim€if€the€abuseÏhad€not€just€been€a€bad€dream.€€ÌÌà àThe€victim's€mother€testified€that€sometime€after€Christmas€œ1984,›€sheÏcalled€œthe€defendant€from›€work€œone›€Sunday€afternoon€and€argued€with€him€when€sheÏlearned€that€he€and€their€daughters€were€taking€a€nap€in€the€same€bed.€€The€victim'sÏmother€testified€that€the€victim€told€her€about€the€defendant's€abuse€again€on€OctoberÏ25,€œ1991,›€and€that€the€defendant€moved€out€the€following€day.€€She€stated€that€theÏvictim€said€that€she€was€scared€to€be€around€the€defendant€and€could€not€hide€theÏabuse€any€longer.€€She€testified€that€she€met€with€the€defendant€after€he€had€movedÏout€and€that€he€said€that€he€had€abused€the€victim,€but€that€he€wanted€to€get€help.€€ÌÌ€€à àThe€final€witness€presented€in€the€stateððs€case€was€the€victim,€who€wasÏeighteen€years€old€at€the€time€of€trial.€€She€testified€that€she€moved€into€a€white€houseÏin€Hawkins€County€in€July€1984€with€her€mother€and€the€defendant.€€She€stated€thatÏafter€moving€to€Hawkins€County,€the€defendant€began€to€fondle€her€breasts€andÍbetween€her€legs€through€her€clothing.€€He€then€began€removing€her€clothing€andÏdigitally€penetrating€her.€€She€testified€that€she€would€try€to€get€away€from€theÏdefendant€but€he€would€hold€her€down.€€She€stated€that€he€would€kiss€her€and€stick€hisÏtongue€inside€her€mouth.€€The€victim€also€testified€that€the€defendant€would€watch€herÏwhile€she€showered.€ÌÌà àThe€victim€testified€that€the€defendant€began€taking€naps€with€the€victimÏand€her€stepsister€on€Sundays€in€January€1985.€€She€stated€that€when€her€stepsisterÏfell€asleep,€the€defendant€would€begin€kissing€and€hugging€her.€€She€testified€that€heÏthen€would€hold€her€head€down€and€force€her€to€perform€fellatio€on€him.€€During€theÏincidents€of€abuse,€the€defendant€would€tell€the€victim€that€her€mother€would€be€angryÏif€she€found€out€and€explained€to€the€victim€that€he€only€wanted€to€love€her.ÌÌà à€€The€victim€testified€that€she€told€her€third€grade€teacher€about€theÏdefendant's€abuse€in€May€1985€and€that€Sarah€Morelock€of€DHS€came€to€her€house.€ÏShe€stated€she€was€under€a€lot€of€pressure€because€her€mother€was€very€upset€andÏkept€suggesting€to€the€victim€that€the€abuse€had€occurred€in€the€victim's€œdreams.›€€œThe›Ïvictim€testified€that€her€mother€also€told€her€that€she€wanted€the€family€to€be€togetherÏand€that€she€would€not€hurt€her€own€father€by€making€such€accusations.€€The€victimÏtestified€that€for€her€mother,€she€told€Ms.€Morelock€that€the€abuse€had€occurred€in€aÏdream.€€€€Ìà àÌà àThe€victim€stated€that€the€defendant€did€not€abuse€her€again€until€sheÏand€her€family€moved€to€an€apartment€in€August€1985.€€She€testified€that€the€defendantÏagain€began€to€kiss€and€to€penetrate€her€digitally.€€The€defendant€stopped€when€sheÏrefused€to€do€it€anymore€and€threatened€to€kill€him.€€The€victim€stated€that€after€theÏabuse€stopped,€she€tried€to€act€as€if€nothing€had€happened€and€to€treat€the€defendantÏas€a€father.€€However,€she€testified€that€when€she€began€having€nightmares€in€1991,Ïshe€told€her€biological€father€and€grandparents€about€the€abuse€because€she€realizedÏthat€she€needed€help.€€The€victim€admitted€on€cross„examination€that€she€knew€theÏdefendant€and€her€mother€were€having€marital€problems€and€that€the€defendant€wasÏhaving€an€affair€when€she€reported€the€abuse€in€the€fall€of€1991.€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€testified€that€his€daughter€from€a€previous€marriage€cameÏto€live€with€the€family€in€the€fall€of€1984.€€He€stated€that€the€family€began€to€experienceÏproblems€because€the€victim€was€jealous€of€his€daughter.€€The€defendant€denied€anyÏinappropriate€physical€contact€with€the€victim,€stating€that€he€only€demonstratedÏfatherly€affection€toward€her.€€He€stated€that€he€was€shocked€when€the€victim€firstÏalleged€that€he€had€abused€her€and€told€his€wife€and€Ms.€Morelock€that€he€had€notÏdone€anything€to€the€victim.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€stated€that€he€went€to€CCS€because€he€had€moved€out€ofÏthe€home€and€his€wife€would€not€talk€to€him€about€a€reconciliation€until€he€gotÏtreatment.€€He€testified€that€after€several€months€of€not€having€a€home€or€family,€heÍfinally€allowed€his€wife€to€persuade€him€to€schedule€an€appointment€with€CCS.€€HeÏstated€that€he€was€interviewed€by€Ms.€Fletcher€on€March€œ2nd›€and€that€he€said€he€hadÏfondled€the€victim€because€he€knew€he€could€not€get€into€the€treatment€programÏwithout€making€some€type€of€admission.€€Ms.€Fletcher€suggested€that€he€go€to€DHS€inÏorder€to€find€out€if€charges€were€going€to€be€brought€against€him€and€to€explain€that€hisÏdaughter€was€living€with€him.€€He€stated€that€when€he€spoke€to€Ms.€Parris€and€Mr.ÏPeterson,€he€began€to€feel€trapped.€€Approximately€one€week€later,€DHS€took€hisÏdaughter€into€protective€custody.€€The€defendant€testified€that€he€only€said€that€he€hadÏfondled€the€victim€and€engaged€in€oral€sex€with€her€in€order€to€get€his€family€backÏtogether.€€ÌÌà àRichard€Stooksbury€and€Barry€Miller€both€testified€as€to€the€defendant'sÏgood€character.€€Mr.€Stooksbury€also€stated€that€if€the€defendant€had€admitted€abusingÏthe€victim,€it€was€because€he€wanted€to€get€his€family€back€together.€€The€defendantÏwas€convicted€based€upon€the€foregoing€evidence.ÌÌà@ àò òIó óÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€hisÏconviction€because€there€was€no€credible€evidence€that€he€committed€aggravatedÏrape€in€January€1985.€€Also,€he€contends€that€although€he€admitted€makingÏincriminating€œÌstatements›€to€Mr.€Adler€and€Sergeant€Wiseman,€he€explained€that€he€is€not€guilty€andÏthat€he€only€made€those€statements€in€order€to€get€his€family€back.€€ÌÌà àOur€standard€of€review€when€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€isÏquestioned€on€appeal€is€"whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€prosecution,€òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,Ï319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979).€€This€means€that€we€may€not€reweigh€the€evidence,Ïbut€must€presume€that€the€jury€has€resolved€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€and€drawn€allÏreasonable€inferences€from€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,Ï676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1978).€ÌÌà àAt€the€time€of€the€commission€of€the€offense,€aggravated€rape€wasÏdefined,€in€pertinent€part,€as€the€ð ðunlawful€sexual€penetration€of€another€[when]€theÏvictim€is€less€than€thirteen€(13)€years€of€age.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€œ39„2„603(a)(4)€(1982).›€€AfterÏhearing€the€testimony€at€trial,€the€jury€rejected€the€defendant's€theory€of€events€andÏchose€instead€to€believe€the€state's€witnesses.€€The€victim€testified€that€the€defendantÏbegan€sexually€abusing€her€in€July€1984.€€She€stated€that€he€began€forcing€her€toÏperform€fellatio€on€him€in€January€1985.€€Both€Sergeant€Wiseman€and€Mr.€AdlerÏtestified€that€the€defendant€admitted€that€he€began€fondling€the€victim's€breasts€andÏvaginal€area€when€she€was€approximately€eight€or€nine€years€old€and€thenÍprogressed€to€forcing€the€victim€to€fellate€him.€€Sergeant€Wiseman€also€testified€thatÏthe€defendant€stated€that€he€stopped€abusing€the€victim€in€1986.€€We€are€not€in€aÏposition€to€reweigh€the€evidence€or€to€draw€our€own€conclusions€as€to€whichÏwitnesses€to€accredit.€€The€defendant€contends€that€he€only€admitted€sexually€abusingÏthe€victim€because€his€wife€would€not€consider€a€reconciliation€with€him€until€heÏobtained€treatment.€€However,€based€upon€the€facts€in€the€record,€the€jury€could€andÏdid€find€that€the€defendant€committed€aggravated€rape€against€the€victim€in€JanuaryÏ1985.€€We€conclude€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€defendant'sÏconviction€for€aggravated€rape.€ÌÌà@ àò òIIó óÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€his€prosecution€for€this€offenseÏapproximately€nine€years€after€it€occurred€resulted€in€an€unreasonable€delay€inÏviolation€of€his€constitutional€rights€under€the€Fifth€and€Sixth€Amendmentsœ× ƒ/ ××  ×›€to€the€U.S.ÏConstitution€and€Article€1€ðððð€8€and€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€The€state€arguesÏthat€the€defendant€has€not€shown€that€the€delay€was€attributable€to€the€state,€that€heÏwas€prejudiced€by€the€delay€or€that€the€state€intentionally€delayed€the€prosecution€toÍgain€a€tactical€advantage.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),Ïòòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990).ÌÌà àIn€òòDykesóó,€this€court€œused›€a€three„prong€test€œto›€œdetermine›€whether€œtheÏdefendant€was›€entitled€to€relief€based€upon€a€delay€between€the€commission€of€anÏoffense€and€the€initiation€of€adversarial€proceedings.€€This€court€held€that€an€accusedÏmust€prove€that€there€was€a€delay,€that€the€accused€sustained€actual€prejudice€by€theÏdelay,€and€that€the€State€caused€the€delay€in€order€to€gain€tactical€advantage€over€orÏto€harass€the€œaccused.€€òòDykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€at€256.Ì›ÌÔ€'ôÔà àÔ€'XÔHowever,€recently€in€òòGrayóó,€our€supreme€court€discussed€the€differenceÏbetween€the€œpre„indictment›€delay€that€occurred€in€òòDykesóó€and€the€pre„accusatorialÏdelay€that€occurs€between€the€alleged€commission€of€an€offense€and€its€disclosure€toÏlaw€enforcement€authorities.€€œIt›€œstated›€that€the€òòDykesóó€three„pronged€test€wasÏinapplicable€to€pre„accusatorial€delay€and€held€that€ð ðthe€trial€court€must€consider€theÏlength€of€the€delay,€the€reason€for€the€delay,€and€the€degree€of€prejudice,€if€any,€to€theÏaccusedðð€in€determining€whether€a€defendantððs€due€process€rights€were€violated€by€aÏpre„accusatorial€delay.€€Slip€op.€at€11„12.€€The€court€held€that€a€œforty„two„year›€delayÏbetween€the€commission€of€the€offense€and€its€disclosure€to€the€authorities€prejudicedÏthe€defendantððs€ability€to€obtain€witnesses,€the€victimððs€ability€to€recall€dates€and€theÏdefendantððs€ability€to€establish€an€alibi€defense€resulting€in€a€violation€of€theÏdefendantððs€due€process€rights.€€Slip€op.€at€12.€€€€€ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€the€defendant€was€indicted€in€1993€for€acts€alleged€to€haveÏoccurred€in€1983.€€The€allegations€were€reported€to€DHS€in€1985€but€the€case€was€notÏprosecuted€at€that€time€because€the€victim€recanted€her€statements.€€When€theÏdefendant€sought€counseling€in€1992,€the€counseling€center€reported€his€statements€toÏthe€sheriffððs€department€and€an€investigation€ensued€leading€to€the€defendantððsÏindictment.€€ÌÌà àThe€facts€of€this€case€have€elements€of€both€œpre„indictment›€delay€casesÏand€pre„accusatorial€delay€cases.€€However,€we€need€not€decide€which€analysis€isÏappropriate€to€this€case€because,€although€we€recognize€the€rather€lengthy€delayÏbetween€the€offense€and€the€indictment€in€this€case,€we€also€conclude€that€theÏdefendant€has€not€shown€how€he€was€prejudiced€by€this€delay.€€œGiven›€these€facts,€weÏconclude€that€the€defendantððs€right€to€due€process€was€not€violated€by€the€delay€in€thisÏcase.€Ì€€€€ÌœÌ›à àà@ àò òIIIó óÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€indictment€fails€to€grant€proper€notice€ofÏthe€date€of€the€offense.€€The€indictment,€issued€January€11,€1993,€alleges€that€theÏoffense€occurred€in€July€1983.€€The€trial€court€granted€a€motion€for€bill€of€particulars€onÏJanuary€27,€œ1993,›€and€ordered€the€state€to€be€more€specific€as€to€the€date€of€theÍoffense.€€The€state€responded€on€February€19,€œ1993,›€by€filing€a€motion€to€amend€theÏindictment€to€allege€the€date€of€the€offense€as€January€1985.€€On€February€24,€1993,Ïthe€first€day€of€trial,€the€trial€court€overruled€the€state's€motion€to€amend€but€ruled€that€itÏwould€allow€the€jury€to€find€that€the€offense€occurred€on€a€date€other€than€July€1983Ïbecause€the€date€of€the€offense€was€not€an€essential€element€of€the€crime.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.Ïðð€40„13„207€(time€of€offense€need€not€be€alleged€in€indictment€ð ðunless€the€time€is€aÏmaterial€ingredient€in€the€offenseðð).€€At€the€opening€of€trial€proceedings,€the€trial€courtÏinstructed€the€jury€that€"if€you€find€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendantÏcommitted€a€criminal€offense,€you€can€find€that€it€occurred€on€some€time€other€than€theÏon€or€about€time€that€is€alleged€in€the€indictment."€€ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€662€S.W.2d€590,€592€(Tenn.€1984),€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€outlined€the€rule€regarding€variations€between€the€indictment€and€theÏproof€at€trial:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àUnless€substantial€rights€of€the€defendant€are€affected€by€aÏvariance,€he€has€suffered€no€harm,€and€a€variance€does€notÏprejudice€the€defendantððs€substantial€rights€(1)€if€theÏindictment€sufficiently€informs€the€defendant€of€the€chargesÏagainst€him€so€that€he€may€prepare€his€defense€and€not€beÏmisled€or€surprised€at€trial,€and€(2)€if€the€variance€is€notÏsuch€that€it€will€present€a€danger€that€the€defendant€may€beÏprosecuted€a€second€time€for€the€same€offense;€all€otherÏvariances€must€be€considered€to€be€harmless€error.€Ìà àÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòSeeóó€òòalsoóó,€òòState€v.€œClabo›óó,€905€S.W.2d€197€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.Ï1995).Ìà àÌà àIn€this€case,€substantial€rights€of€the€defendant€were€not€affected€by€theÏvariance.€€The€defendant€was€adequately€informed€of€the€change€in€the€date€five€daysÏbefore€trial.€€The€defendant€knew€the€time€period€that€the€state€would€seek€to€proveÏand€was€not€surprised€at€trial.€€Also,€the€indictment€adequately€informed€the€defendantÏof€the€alleged€act€that€the€state€would€seek€to€prove€in€establishing€the€aggravatedÏrape.€€The€state€did€not€mislead€the€defendant€at€trial€and€presented€proof€that€the€actÏoccurred€in€January€1985€as€well€as€proof€relative€to€how€the€victim€arrived€at€thatÏdate.Ìà àÌà àFinally,€the€variance€in€dates€did€not€prevent€the€defendant€fromÏpresenting€a€defense.€€The€victim€testified€that€the€defendant€forced€her€to€fellate€himÏon€a€Sunday€in€January€1985€when€her€mother€was€at€work.€€The€defendantððsÏstatement€to€Sergeant€Wiseman€indicated€that€he€had€forced€the€victim€to€fellate€himÏapproximately€four€times€and€that€his€abuse€of€the€victim€stopped€in€1986.€€TheÏdefendant€also€told€authorities€that€the€abuse€always€occurred€while€the€victimððsÏmother€was€at€work.€€The€defendant€never€attempted€to€present€an€alibi€defense.€€TheÏvariance€resulted€in€no€harm€to€his€ability€to€prepare€his€defense.€€Furthermore,€sinceÏtime€is€not€an€essential€element€of€aggravated€rape,€ð ðthe€time€of€the€commission€of€theÏoffense€averred€in€the€indictment€is€not€material€and€proof€is€not€confined€to€the€timeÏcharged.ðð€€òòState€v.€Westóó,€737€S.W.2d€790,€793€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.Í1987)(citing€òòSullivan€v.€Stateóó,€513€S.W.2d€152€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974)).€€Therefore,Ïwe€conclude€that€the€variance€in€the€date€of€the€offense€was€harmless€in€this€case.€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà@ àò òIVó óÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€suppress€theÏincriminating€statements€that€he€gave€to€DHS€and€CCS.€€He€argues€that€he€onlyÏadmitted€that€he€had€sexually€abused€the€victim€in€order€to€reunite€his€family.€€Also,€heÏcontends€that€he€was€coerced€into€making€incriminating€statements€because€theÏinterviewers€with€DHS€and€CCS€insisted€that€he€sign€waivers€and€pretended€to€beÏhelping€him.€€ÌÌà àThe€record€shows€that€the€defendant€voluntarily€contacted€both€CCS€andÏDHS€and€scheduled€interviews.€€At€his€first€interview€with€Ms.€Fletcher€at€CCS,€heÏsigned€a€waiver€of€confidentiality,€in€which€he€acknowledged€that€he€had€no€rights€ofÏconfidentiality€and€gave€permission€to€the€personnel€at€CCS€to€report€any€occurrenceÏof€sexual€abuse€to€the€proper€authorities.€€Ms.€Fletcher€also€testified€that€she€informedÏthe€defendant€of€her€mandatory€duty€to€report€any€known€or€suspected€child€abuse€toÏthe€proper€authorities.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€37„1„605.€€Mr.€Adler€of€CCS€testified€that€heÏexplained€the€contents€of€the€waiver€of€confidentiality€to€the€defendant.€€He€stated€thatÏhe€told€the€defendant€that€anything€he€said€could€be€used€against€him€in€court€and€thatÏany€abuse€could€be€reported€to€DHS.€€When€Sergeant€Wiseman€interviewed€theÏdefendant€for€CCS,€he€began€by€informing€the€defendant€that€he€was€free€to€leave€atÍany€time€or€to€refuse€to€answer€any€questions.€€Also,€Investigator€Peterson€testified€thatÏhe€participated€in€the€defendant's€interview€with€Ms.€Parris€at€DHS.€€He€stated€that€heÏidentified€himself€to€the€defendant€as€an€investigator€with€the€sheriff's€department€andÏinformed€the€defendant€that€he€was€not€under€arrest€and€was€free€to€leave€at€any€timeÏduring€the€interview.€€ÌÌà àAt€the€pretrial€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€overruled€theÏdefendant's€motion€to€suppress€his€statements.€€The€trial€court€found€that€theÏdefendant€had€signed€a€waiver€of€confidentiality,€in€addition€to€the€fact€that€there€is€noÏevidentiary€privilege€for€communications€between€a€professional€and€his€patientÏregarding€child€sexual€abuse.€€T.C.A.€ðð€37„1„614.€€Also,€the€trial€court€found€that€theÏdefendant€voluntarily€submitted€to€interviews€at€DHS€and€CCS,€that€he€was€not€underÏarrest€and€that€he€was€free€to€leave€at€any€time.€€ÌÌà àThe€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€after€an€evidentiary€hearing€onÏa€motion€to€suppress€have€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict€and,€thus,€are€binding€upon€thisÏcourt€unless€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€against€these€facts.€ÏòòState€v.€Aucoinóó,€756€S.W.2d€705,€710€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€489€U.S.Ï1084€(1989).€€In€this€case,€the€defendant€was€clearly€not€in€custody€when€he€made€theÏstatements€in€question.€€He€voluntarily€went€to€CCS€and€DHS€and€made€theÏadmissions€of€sexual€abuse€against€the€victim€with€the€knowledge€that€anything€heÏsaid€could€be€reported€to€the€authorities.€€Based€upon€the€foregoing,€there€was€ampleÍevidence€to€support€the€trial€court's€denial€of€the€defendant's€motion€to€suppress.€€WeÏconclude€that€the€defendantððs€statements€were€properly€admitted.€ÌÌà@ àò òVó ó€€Ìà àThe€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€his€motion€inÏlimine€and€permitting€the€victim€to€testify€regarding€instances€of€sexual€abuse€by€theÏdefendant.€€At€a€pretrial€motion€hearing,€the€defendant€argued€that€the€victimððsÏtestimony€was€unreliable€based€upon€her€recanting€the€allegation€in€1985€coupledÏwith€the€fact€that€she€continued€to€live€with€her€mother€and€the€defendant€until€1992,Ïwhen€the€allegations€came€to€light€once€again.€€The€trial€court€overruled€theÏdefendantððs€motion€to€exclude€the€victimððs€testimony€and€held€that€the€defendant€couldÏimpeach€the€victim€with€facts€surrounding€the€recantation€and€her€continued€stay€withÏher€mother€and€the€defendant.€€At€trial,€the€defendant€did€not€object€to€the€victimððsÏtestimony.€€On€appeal,€the€defendant€asserts€once€again€that€the€victimððs€testimony€isÏnot€€fresh€complaint€and€that€it€is€stale€due€to€the€eight„year€delay€between€the€1985Ïcomplaint€and€the€prosecution.ÌÌà àInitially,€we€believe€that€the€trial€court€properly€allowed€the€victim€to€testifyÏregarding€the€sexual€abuse€that€occurred€several€years€before€the€prosecution€of€theÏcase€and€was€the€subject€of€the€indictment.€€The€victimððs€recantation€and€continuedÏresidence€with€the€defendant€after€1985€was€probative€of€her€credibility,€but€did€notÏrender€her€testimony€so€unreliable€as€to€warrant€suppression€of€her€testimony.€ÍFurthermore,€we€conclude€that€the€eight„year€delay€between€the€occurrence€of€theÏsexual€abuse€and€the€prosecution€goes€to€the€weight€of€the€testimony€and€does€notÏrender€the€testimony€inadmissible.€€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€the€victimððs€testimony€is€not€freshÏcomplaint€because€of€its€staleness.€€At€the€time€of€the€defendantððs€trial,€the€fresh„complaint€doctrine€allowed€the€fact€and€the€details€of€a€rape€complaint,€made€in€aÏreasonable€time€after€the€rape,€to€be€admitted€during€the€stateððs€case„in„chief.€€òòSeeóó€ÏòòPhillips€v.€Stateóó,€28€Tenn.€(1€Hum.)€246€(1848).€€Later,€in€òòState€v.€Kendricksóó,€891ÏS.W.2d€597,€603€(Tenn.€1994),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€clarified€the€fresh„complaint€doctrine€in€òòadultóó€rape€cases€to€allow€only€the€fact,€but€not€the€details,€of€aÏcomplaint€to€be€admitted€during€the€stateððs€case„in„chief.€€Then,€in€òòState€v.€Livingstonóó,Ï907€S.W.2d€392,€395€(Tenn.€1995),€the€court€held€that€the€fresh„complaint€doctrineÏdoes€not€apply€to€òòchildóó€rape€cases€and€that€neither€the€fact€nor€the€details€of€aÏcomplaint€are€admissible€in€the€stateððs€case„in„chief.€€However,€the€same€evidenceÏmay€be€admissible€as€substantive€evidence€if€it€satisfies€a€hearsay€exception€or€asÏcorroborative€evidence€as€a€prior€consistent€statement.€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àFirst€and€foremost,€we€note€that€the€fact€that€the€defendant€failed€to€objectÏto€the€evidence€at€trial€on€the€ground€of€fresh€complaint€effectively€constitutes€a€waiver.€ÏIn€any€event,€we€conclude€that€reversible€error€did€not€occur.€€At€trial,€the€defendantððsÏstatements€to€CCS€and€DHS€personnel€were€admitted,€each€referring€to€the€victimððsÍ1985€report€of€sexual€abuse€and€subsequent€recantation.€€The€state€also€presentedÏthe€testimony€of€a€DHS€investigator€and€the€victimððs€mother€regarding€the€1985Ïinvestigation,€including€the€fact€that€the€victim€reported€the€abuse€and€then€recanted.ÏThese€witnesses€did€not€testify€about€the€details€of€any€œcomplaint.›€€Finally,€the€victimÏtestified€about€her€1985€report€and€recantation.€€However,€the€only€testimonyÏconcerning€the€details€of€the€abuse€occurred€œin›€the€defendantððs€admissions€and€theÏvictimððs€direct€recollection€of€the€abuse.€€ÌÌà àThus,€although€the€1985€complaint€was€admitted€through€the€stateððsÏcase„in„chief€œin›€apparent€violation€of€òòLivingstonóó,€it€was€initially€admitted€withoutÏobjection€through€the€defendantððs€own€statements.€€Also,€the€fact€that€a€complaint€wasÏmade€in€1985€is€inextricably€tied€to€the€victimððs€recantation,€an€event€that€inevitablyÏwould€have€been€admitted€through€the€defendantððs€cross„examination€of€the€victim.€ÏUnder€all€of€these€circumstances,€we€conclude€that€not€only€was€this€issue€waived,€theÏadmission€of€the€1985€complaint€was€not€reversible€error.ÌÌ€€€ò òà@ àVI€Ìà àó óThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€allow€theÏvictim€to€be€cross„examined€about€falsely€making€similar€accusations€against€anotherÏperson.€€Although€the€defendant€admits€that€he€does€not€know€whether€the€victimÏfalsely€accused€another€man€of€sexual€misconduct€and€could€not€offer€any€proof€at€trialÍto€support€his€allegation,€he€asserts€that€the€jury€should€have€been€able€to€decide€if€theÏvictim€made€such€a€false€accusation.€ÌÌà àAt€trial,€defense€counsel€attempted€to€ask€the€victim€if€she€had€previouslyÏaccused€another€man€of€sexually€abusing€her.€€In€a€bench€conference€outside€theÏhearing€of€the€jury,€defense€counsel€asserted€that€the€victim€had€accused€her€uncle€ofÏthe€same€misconduct.€€However,€defense€counsel€did€not€know€when€the€accusationÏwas€made€nor€whether€any€investigation€was€ever€conducted.€€Defense€counsel€statedÏthat€the€victim€testified€at€the€preliminary€hearing€that€she€was€waiting€for€her€aunt€toÏdie€in€order€to€"burn"€her€uncle€because€he€had€done€the€same€thing€to€her.€€The€trialÏcourt€read€the€preliminary€hearing€transcript× ƒ0 ××  ×€and€stated€that€it€agreed€that€the€cross„examination€would€be€relevant€to€the€victimððs€credibility€if€defense€counsel€could€showÏthat€the€victim€falsely€accused€somebody.€€The€trial€court€then€sustained€the€stateððsÏobjection€to€questioning€related€to€the€victimððs€accusations€against€her€uncle.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€sought€to€impeach€the€victimððs€credibility€by€showing€thatÏshe€had€falsely€accused€her€uncle€of€sexual€abuse.€€Generally,€ð ð[a]€witness€may€beÏcross„examined€on€any€matter€relevant€to€any€issue€in€the€case,€including€credibility.ðð€ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€611.€€However,€in€this€case,€the€defendant€had€no€knowledge€or€proofÍthat€the€victimððs€allegation€against€her€uncle€was€actually€false,€did€not€know€when€theÏaccusation€was€made€or€if€the€accusation€was€ever€investigated.€€Under€theseÏcircumstances,€we€conclude€that€there€was€no€reasonable€factual€basis€for€the€cross„examination,€in€terms€of€making€it€relevant€to€the€victimððs€credibility,€and€that€the€trialÏcourt€properly€limited€the€questioning.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401,€402€and€608(b).€€Also,Ïas€far€as€the€testimony€would€relate€to€the€victimððs€animosity€toward€anyone€who€sheÏclaimed€had€abused€her,€the€defendant€had€already€elicited€testimony€from€the€victimÏthat€she€hated€the€defendant€for€this€reason.€€Therefore,€there€was€no€reversible€errorÏin€the€limitation€of€the€cross„examination.ÌÌà@ àò òVIIó óÌà àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€victim€andÏher€mother€to€testify€regarding€how€they€arrived€at€the€date€of€the€offense.€The€stateÏargues€that€the€testimony€was€relevant€to€show€how€the€victim€determined€the€date€ofÏthe€offense€and€that€the€defendant€was€not€prejudiced€by€the€testimony.€€In€this€case,Ïthe€specific€date€of€the€offense€is€not€essential€proof€of€the€offense€nor€is€it€necessaryÏfor€the€imposition€of€any€defense€raised€at€trial.€€The€law€only€requires€the€state€toÏprove€that€the€offense€occurred€prior€to€the€finding€of€the€indictment€and€within€anyÏapplicable€statute€of€limitations.€€òòState€v.€Howseóó,€634€S.W.2d€652,€657€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1982);€€òòSullivanóó,€513€S.W.2d€at€155.€€However,€the€testimony€was€quite€relevantÏto€the€victimððs€credibility€in€terms€of€showing€that€she€was€not€inventing€the€date€of€theÏoffense.€€We€conclude€that€the€testimony€was€admitted€properly.€€Ìò òÌà@ àVIII€and€IXó óÌà àIn€two€related€issues,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€courtÏerroneously€instructed€the€jury€regarding€the€significance€of€the€date€of€the€offense€asÏcharged€in€the€indictment€and€regarding€the€state's€theory€of€when€the€offenseÏoccurred.€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€as€follows:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àThe€indictment€in€this€case€alleges€the€time€of€the€offense€toÏbe€on€or€about€the€òò€€€€€€€óó€day€of€July,€1983.€€The€term€ð ðon€orÏaboutðð€is€merely€a€best€estimate€by€the€State€of€TennesseeÏas€to€the€time€of€the€alleged€offense.€€The€proof€in€this€causeÏmay€include€earlier€or€later€events€and€the€State€ofÏTennessee€is€not€confined€to€the€time€charged€in€theÏindictment€so€long€as€the€proof€is€reasonably€related€to€theÏtime€alleged€in€the€indictment.€€The€time€at€which€theÏoffense€was€committed€need€not€be€stated€in€the€indictment,Ïbut€the€offense€may€be€alleged€to€have€been€committed€onÏa€date€before€the€finding€thereof,€or€generally€before€theÏfindings€of€the€indictment€unless€time€is€a€materialÏingredient€in€the€offense.ÌÌà8 àThe€rule€is€that€the€offense€must€be€proved€to€have€beenÏcommitted€prior€to€the€finding€of€the€indictment€and€withinÏthe€time€specified€by€any€applicable€statute€of€limitations;Ïand,€except€where€a€special€date€is€essential€or€time€is€ofÏthe€essence€of€the€offense,€the€time€of€the€commission€ofÏthe€offense€averred€in€the€indictment€is€not€material€andÏproof€is€not€confined€to€the€time€charged.€€€€Ìà à€€€€Ìà à.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àYou€have€heard€evidence€of€other€sexual€acts€committed€byÏthe€defendant€upon€the€alleged€victim.€€These€areÏadmissible€for€your€consideration€as€to€whether€or€not€theyÏshow€the€conduct€of€the€defendant€toward€the€alleged€victimÍand€whether€or€not€they€corroborate€the€evidence€of€theÏoffense€charged€in€the€indictment.ÌÌà8 àHowever,€your€verdict€must€be€as€to€only€one€occurrence.€€IfÏyou€find€the€defendant€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÏyour€verdict€cannot€include€more€than€one€offense.ÌÌà8 àIt€is€the€Stateððs€theory€that€the€first€offense€of€ð ðfellatio,ðð€theÏsubject€of€this€indictment,€occurred€on€a€Sunday€in€January,Ï1985,€at€the€white€house€in€Church€Hill,€Hawkins€County,ÏTennessee.€€If€you€agree€with€the€Stateððs€theory€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€and€find€the€defendant€guilty€ofÏAggravated€Rape€you€should€go€further€in€your€verdict€andÏwrite€out€that€you€find€the€offense€charged€in€the€indictmentÏoccurred€ð ðthe€first€time€the€defendant€had€fellatio€with€theÏvictim€which€was€on€a€Sunday€in€January,€1985,€at€theÏwhite€house€in€Church€Hill,€Hawkins€County,€Tennessee.ððÌÌà8 àThe€verdict€must€represent€the€considered€judgment€ofÏeach€juror.€€In€order€to€return€a€verdict,€it€is€necessary€thatÏeach€juror€agree€thereto.€€Your€verdict€must€be€unanimous.ÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌThe€defendant€contends€that€the€instructions€were€confusing€to€the€jury€and€that€theÏJanuary€1985€date€was€not€reasonably€related€to€the€July€1983€date€charged€in€theÏindictment.€€The€defendant€also€argues€that€the€court€improperly€emphasized€theÏJanuary€1985€date€in€its€instructions€regarding€the€stateððs€theory€of€the€case,Ïespecially€in€light€of€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€stateððs€motion€to€amend€theÏindictment.ÌÌà àThe€trial€courtððs€instructions€regarding€the€significance€of€the€date€of€theÏoffense€were€accurate€and€appropriate€statements€of€the€applicable€law€in€this€case.ÏòòSeeóó€òòHowseóó,€634€S.W.2d€at€657.€€Contrary€to€the€defendantððs€assertion€that€he€reliedÍupon€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€stateððs€motion€to€amend€the€indictment€as€anÏindication€that€January€1985€was€not€the€time€of€the€offense,€the€record€reveals€that€theÏtrial€court,€in€denying€the€motion€to€amend,€made€it€clear€to€the€parties€that€the€date€ofÏthe€offense€was€not€essential€and€all€that€was€necessary€is€that€the€act€occurred€beforeÏthe€finding€of€the€indictment.€€Furthermore,€in€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€851€S.W.2d€134,€137Ï(Tenn.€1993)€(citations€omitted),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€held€that€ð ð[a]Ïdefendantððs€right€to€a€unanimous€jury€before€conviction€requires€the€trial€court€to€takeÏprecautions€to€ensure€that€the€jury€deliberates€over€the€particular€charged€offense,Ïinstead€of€creating€a€ððpatchwork€verdictðð€based€on€different€offenses€in€evidence.ðð€€InÏthis€case,€the€instructions€to€the€jury€regarding€the€stateððs€theory€of€the€case€wereÏaimed€at€ensuring€such€a€unanimous€verdict.€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€notÏerr€in€instructing€the€jury.€€€ÌÌà@ àò òXó óÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€imposed€an€excessiveÏsentence.€€He€was€convicted€of€aggravated€rape,€a€Class€A€felony,€which€carries€aÏpossible€punishment€of€fifteen€to€twenty„five€years€as€a€Range€I€standard€offenderÏunder€the€1989€Sentencing€Act.€€The€defendant€was€sentenced€to€the€maximum€ofÏtwenty„five€years€to€be€served€in€the€custody€of€the€Department€of€Correction.€€TheÏdefendant's€brief€offers€no€guidance€regarding€which€enhancement€factors€wereÏerroneously€applied€and€only€argues€that€the€defendant€should€have€received€theÏminimum€sentence€based€upon€his€good€reputation,€lack€of€a€criminal€record,€collegeÍeducation,€status€as€a€military€officer€and€regular€employment.€€The€state€argues€thatÏthe€maximum€sentence€is€appropriate.€€From€our€review€of€the€record,€we€concludeÏthat€the€trial€court€failed€to€consider€the€defendantððs€sentence€under€both€the€1982€andÏ1989€Sentencing€Acts€as€required€by€òòState€v.€Pearsonóó,€858€S.W.2d€879€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà àT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„117(b)€states€that€ð ð[u]nless€prohibited€by€the€United€StatesÏor€Tennessee€Constitution,€any€person€sentenced€on€or€after€November€1,€1989,€forÏan€offense€committed€between€July€1,€1982€and€November€1,€1989,€shall€beÏsentenced€under€the€provisions€of€this€chapter€[the€1989€Sentencing€Act].ðð€€TheÏoffense€in€this€case€occurred€in€January€1985€and€the€sentence€was€imposed€inÏFebruary€1993.€€In€òòPearsonóó,€our€supreme€court€imposed€a€constitutional€requirementÏupon€offenses€committed€prior€to€November€1,€1989,€but€sentenced€after€that€date.€ÏThe€court€concluded€that,€in€order€to€avoid€an€òòexóó€òòpostóó€òòfactoóó€violation,€the€trial€courtÏmust€calculate€the€proper€sentence€under€both€the€1982€and€the€1989€SentencingÏActs€and€then€impose€the€least€severe€sentence.€€òòPearsonóó,€858€S.W.2d€at€884.€€€ÌÌà àThe€record€reflects€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€consider€the€defendantððsÏsentence€separately€under€both€acts.€€In€imposing€the€sentence,€the€trial€court€stated:€ÌÓ  Óà8 àÓÓMr.€Carico,€the€jury€has€convicted€you€of€Aggravated€Rape,Ïand€even€though€when€these€offenses€were€committed€theÏpunishment€was€life€imprisonment€.€.€.€.€€You€are€entitled€toÏbe€sentenced€under€the€new€sentencing€law,€and€the€rangeÏthere€is€from€a€minimum€of€fifteen€(15)€years€to€a€maximumÏof€twenty„five€(25)€years.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓThe€trial€court€proceeded€to€sentence€the€defendant€under€the€1989€Sentencing€ActÏand€made€no€findings€relative€to€the€1982€Sentencing€Act.€€We€must€now€determineÏthe€appropriate€sentence€under€each€act€and€impose€the€least€severe€sentence.€€€ÌÌà àAs€previously€stated,€the€offense€in€this€case€occurred€in€January€1985.€ÏAt€that€time,€aggravated€rape€was€a€Class€X€felony€that€carried€a€range€of€punishmentÏof€twenty€years€to€life.€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„2„603(b)€and€(c)€(1982).€€In€calculating€a€sentenceÏunder€the€1982€Act,€a€life€sentence€was€ð ðpresumed€to€be€sixty€(60)€years.ðð€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„109(d)€(1982).€€Because€the€defendant€qualifies€as€a€Range€I€offender€under€theÏ1982€Act,€his€sentence€range€would€be€twenty€to€forty€years.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„109(a)Ï(1982).ÌÌà àPursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„118,€an€aggravated€rape€committed€prior€toÏNovember€1,€1989€is€classified€as€a€Class€A€felony€for€1989€sentencing€purposes.€ÏThe€defendant€qualifies€as€a€standard€offender€and€would€be€sentenced€as€a€Range€IÏoffender€under€the€1989€Act.€€Therefore,€his€possible€range€of€punishment€would€beÏfifteen€to€twenty„five€years.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(1).Ì€Ìà àUnder€the€1989€Act,€appellate€review€of€sentencing€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€on€theÏrecord€with€a€presumption€that€the€trial€court's€determinations€are€correct.€€T.C.A.€ððððÏ40„35„401(d)€and€„402(d).€€As€the€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€to€theseÍsections€note,€the€burden€is€now€on€the€appealing€party€to€show€that€the€sentencing€isÏimproper.€€This€means€that€if€the€trial€court€follows€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,Ïmakes€findings€of€fact€that€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record€and€gives€dueÏconsideration€and€proper€application€of€the€factors€and€principles€that€are€relevant€toÏsentencing€under€the€1989€Sentencing€Act,€we€may€not€disturb€the€sentence€even€if€aÏdifferent€result€were€preferred.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1991).ÌÌà àHowever,€"the€presumption€of€correctness€which€accompanies€the€trialÏcourt's€action€is€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trialÏcourt€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€ÏòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€this€respect,€for€the€purpose€ofÏmeaningful€appellate€review,€ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àthe€trial€court€must€place€on€the€record€its€reasons€forÏarriving€at€the€final€sentencing€decision,€identify€theÏmitigating€and€enhancement€factors€found,€state€the€specificÏfacts€supporting€each€enhancement€factor€found,€andÏarticulate€how€the€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors€haveÏbeen€evaluated€and€balanced€in€determining€the€sentence.ÏT.C.A.€ðððð€40„35„210(f)(1990).€ÌÌÓÓòòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€599€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌÓ  Óà àAlso,€in€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€under€either€act,€we€must€considerÏ(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing,€(2)€theÍpresentence€report,€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencingÏalternatives,€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct,€(5)€anyÏmitigating€or€statutory€enhancement€factors,€(6)€any€statement€that€the€defendant€madeÏon€his€own€behalf€and€(7)€the€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€T.C.A.€ðððð€œ40„35„102,Ì›€„103€and€„210;€òòseeóó€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€168;€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229€(Tenn.Ï1986).€€€€€ÌÌà àUnder€the€1989€Act,€the€sentence€to€be€imposed€by€the€trial€court€isÏpresumptively€the€minimum€in€the€range€unless€there€are€enhancement€factorsÏpresent.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210€(c).€€Procedurally,€the€trial€court€is€to€increase€theÏsentence€within€the€range€based€upon€the€existence€of€enhancement€factors€and,Ïthen,€reduce€the€sentence€as€appropriate€for€any€mitigating€factors.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210(d)€and€(e).€€The€weight€to€be€afforded€an€existing€factor€is€left€to€the€trial€courtððsÏdiscretion€so€long€as€it€complies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€the€1989ÏSentencing€Act€and€its€findings€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments;€òòMossóó,€727€S.W.2d€at€237;€òòseeóó€òòAshbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€Unlike€the€1989€Act,€the€1982€Act€€does€not€provide€for€aÏpresumptive€minimum€sentence.€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€applied€the€following€enhancement€factors€as€listed€inÏT.C.A.€ðð€œ40„35„114€(1990):›ÌÓÓà àà à(1)€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminalÌà àà àconvictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€Ìà àà ànecessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range,ÌÌà àà à(6)€the€personal€injuries€inflicted€upon€the€victimÌà àà àwere€particularly€great,ÌÌà àà à(7)€the€offense€was€committed€to€gratify€the€defendantððsÌà àà àdesire€for€pleasure€or€excitement,ÌÌà àà à(15)€the€defendant€abused€a€position€of€private€trust,€and€ÌÌà àà à(16)€the€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€underÌà àà àwhich€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€was€great.€ÌÓÓÌThe€trial€court€properly€enhanced€the€defendantððs€sentence€based€upon€his€history€ofÏcriminal€behavior.€€The€trial€court€found€that€there€were€numerous€other€offenses€fromÏfondling€to€penetration.€€They€were€repeated€offenses€that€occurred€over€two€years€forÏwhich€the€defendant€was€not€charged.€€Such€a€history€of€criminal€behavior€qualifies€forÏenhancement€under€T.C.A.€ðððð€40„35„111(1)€(1982)€and€„114(1)€œ(1990).›ÌÌà àRegarding€enhancement€for€particularly€great€personal€injury,€the€trialÏcourt€found€that€ð ðit€was€obvious€.€.€.€that€there€has€been€a€lot€of€damage€to€[the€victim],Ïand€her€thinking,€as€well€as€hatred.€€Thereððs€a€lot€of€guilt,€and€embarrassment.€.€.€sheððsÏstill€a€child.€.€.€.€it€seems€to€me€that€a€combination€of€those€things€is,€in€fact,€great€injuryÏto€her.ðð€€There€was€some€testimony€from€the€victim€and€her€mother€regardingÏnightmares€from€which€the€victim€still€suffers.€€However,€this€court€has€recognized€thatÏð ðclearly,€rape€is€injurious€òòperóó€òòseóó€to€the€body€and€mind€of€the€victim.€€In€this€regard,€theÍlegislature€has€seen€fit€to€enhance€the€offense€of€aggravated€rape€if€a€child€isÏinvolved.ðð€€òòState€v.€Lorenzo€Puente€Salazaróó,€No.€02C01„9105„CR„00098,€Shelby€Co.,Ïslip€op.€at€7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Jan.€15,€1992).€€Similar€to€this€case,€the€six„year„oldÏvictim€in€òòSalazaróó€also€experienced€recurring€nightmares€as€a€result€of€the€rape.€€YetÏthis€court€held€that€the€record€was€insufficient€to€show€that€the€mental€disturbance€wasÏgreater€than€that€which€is€ordinarily€involved€in€an€aggravated€rape€case€and,Ïtherefore,€the€record€did€not€support€a€finding€of€òòparticularlyóó€great€injuries.€€òòSalazaróó,Ïslip€op.€at€8.€€òòButóó€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€891€S.W.2d€922,€930€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòappóó.Ïòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994)€(victim€of€aggravated€rape€who€was€unable€to€enter€her€homeÏalone,€arose€every€thirty€minutes€each€night€to€make€sure€her€windows€and€doorsÏwere€locked€and€underwent€extensive€counseling€sustained€emotional€injuriesÏbeyond€those€of€a€typical€rape€victim).€€We€conclude€that€the€record€in€this€case€isÏinsufficient€to€support€the€application€of€enhancement€for€particularly€great€injuries.€ÏT.C.A.€ðððð€40„35„111(6)€œ(1982)›€andÌ€„114(6)€œ(1990).›€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àRegarding€enhancement€because€the€offense€was€committed€forÏgratification,€the€trial€court€acknowledged€that€not€all€rape€cases€involve€gratification,Ïbut€concluded,€though,€that€it€was€obviously€the€purpose€in€this€case.€€In€òòState€v.ÏAdamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€31,€34„35€(Tenn.€1993),€our€supreme€court€held€that€gratificationÏis€not€an€essential€element€of€rape€and€enhancement€factor€(7)€could€be€appliedÏwhere€the€evidence€demonstrates€that€the€rape€was€motivated€by€the€defendantððsÍdesire€for€pleasure€or€excitement.€€In€this€case,€there€was€substantial€evidence€toÏsupport€the€application€of€this€enhancement€factor.€€The€defendant€reported€that€heÏbecame€sexually€aroused€by€wrestling€with€the€victim€when€she€was€eight€or€nineÏyears€old,€which€eventually€escalated€to€fondling€and€penetration.€€The€defendant€alsoÏreported€that€he€would€often€watch€the€victim€undress€and€bathe€and€that€he€wouldÏmasturbate€in€her€underwear.€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€court€correctly€applied€thisÏfactor.€€T.C.A.€ðððð€40„35„111(7)€(1982)€and€„114(7)€œ(1990).›€€€€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€also€enhanced€the€defendantððs€sentence€because€theÏoffense€involved€an€abuse€of€a€position€of€private€trust.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(7)€œ(1990).›€ÏWe€note€that€this€factor€did€not€exist€under€the€1982€Act.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„111(1982).€€However,€under€òòPearsonóó,€we€are€still€required€to€consider€its€applicationÏunder€the€1989€Act.€€òòSeeóó€òòPearsonóó,€858€S.W.2d€at€884€(calculate€the€appropriateÏsentence€under€each€act,€òòinóó€òòitsóó€òòentiretyóó,€to€prevent€an€òòex€postóó€òòfactoóó€violation).€€WeÏconclude€that,€under€the€1989€Act,€this€factor€is€appropriate€in€this€case.€€TheÏdefendant€was€the€victimððs€stepfather.€€He€had€primary€care€and€control€of€the€victimÏwhile€her€mother€worked€many€nights€and€weekends.€€It€was€during€this€time€while€theÏmother€was€at€work€that€the€defendant€would€sexually€abuse€the€victim.€€We€agree€withÏthe€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€this€is€a€substantial€enhancement€factor€in€this€case.€Ìò òÌà àó óThe€trial€court€enhanced€the€defendantððs€sentence€because€the€crimeÏwas€committed€under€circumstances€in€which€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€was€great.€ÍT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(16).€€This€factor€also€did€not€exist€as€a€statutory€enhancementÏfactor€under€the€1982€Act,€òòseeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„111(1982),€but€we€will€consider€itsÏapplication€under€the€1989€Act.€€òòPearsonóó,€858€S.W.2d€at€884.€€In€òòSmithóó,€891€S.W.2d€atÏ930,€this€court€held€that€a€trial€court€should€not€apply€this€factor€to€enhance€a€sentenceÏfor€aggravated€rape€absent€extraordinary€circumstances€because€the€legislature€hasÏalready€recognized€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€in€enhancing€the€offense€andÏsentence€to€an€aggravated€one.€€In€òòSmithóó,€the€defendant€entered€the€victimððs€bedroomÏwindow€late€at€night.€€When€the€victim€realized€that€she€could€not€resist€the€defendantÏwithout€being€killed,€she€asked€that€the€defendant€penetrate€her€vagina€rather€than€herÏrectum€and€he€complied.€€We€held€that€there€were€no€exceptional€circumstances€toÏwarrant€application€of€factor€(16).€€òòIdóó.€€In€this€case,€the€defendant€held€the€victimððs€headÏwhile€he€forced€her€to€fellate€him.€€We€conclude€that€there€was€no€greater€a€potentialÏfor€bodily€injury€in€this€case€than€in€any€other€aggravated€rape€case€involving€a€childÏand€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€applied€this€factor€to€enhance€the€defendantððsÏsentence.€€€€€€ò òÌÌà àó óTwo€enhancement€factors€exist€under€the€1982€Act:€the€defendant€has€a€Ïprevious€history€of€criminal€behavior€and€the€offense€was€committed€to€gratify€theÏdefendantððs€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„111(1)€and€(7)€(1982).€ÏAs€stated€earlier,€the€possible€sentence€under€the€1982€Act€ranges€from€twenty€to€fortyÏyears€without€a€presumptive€sentence.€€In€light€of€the€enhancement€factors€present€andÏthe€weight€of€the€evidence€supporting€them,€primarily€regarding€the€history€of€sexualÍabuse€proven€but€not€charged,€we€conclude€that€thirty€years€is€an€appropriateÏsentence€under€the€1982€Act.ÌÌà àUnder€the€1989€Act,€the€range€of€punishment€is€fifteen€to€twenty„fiveÏyears€with€a€presumptive€minimum€sentence.€€The€record€supports€the€enhancementÏof€the€defendantððs€sentence€based€upon€his€history€of€criminal€behavior€and€the€factÏthat€the€offense€was€committed€to€gratify€his€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement.€€T.C.A.€ððÏ40„35„114(1)€and€(7)€œ(1990).›€€Under€the€1989€Act,€the€record€also€supportsÏenhancement€for€abuse€of€a€position€of€trust.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(4)€œ(1990).›€€WeÏconclude€that€the€record€supports€the€imposition€of€the€maximum€Range€I€sentenceÏunder€the€1989€Act.€€Therefore,€the€less€onerous€sentence€is€the€one€computed€underÏthe€1989€Act.€€In€light€of€the€applicable€enhancement€factors€and€our€analysis€underÏòòPearsonóó,€we€conclude€that€the€twenty„five„year€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€courtÏwas€appropriate.€€€ÌÌà à€€€€€€ò òà@ àXIó óÌà àIn€the€defendant's€final€issue,€he€contends€that€the€accumulation€of€errorsÏcombined€to€deprive€him€of€a€fair,€public,€speedy€and€constitutional€trial.€€Based€uponÏour€findings€on€the€foregoing€issues,€we€conclude€that€the€defendant€was€not€deprivedÏof€a€fair,€public,€speedy€and€constitutional€trial€through€any€combination€of€errors.ÌÌà àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€the€judgmentÏof€conviction€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌÌœÇCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌÌ