ÿWPC#& …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 0ˆ@ 0DÈ P 0J\ 0T¦ 0^ú X 0h^ 0rÆ 0|8 0†´ 0: 1uÊ 0d? B£U>ÀB)þDC'U*j D3” AMÇÞ 0@òL2¯~v~-vÓ« AO~$ÆÍ$ 0D“% D/×% B&˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ mEnoEpqErs"etUuPvÓ€Ô¡¨ 3|x(8(2¨$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóMcCaryRickmanBordisClabo2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔH26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd< Œ 9p`(Arial'ÿÿdxd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÔÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌMay€30,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò BÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔÔ€)ÔThe€majority€concludes€the€jury€found€the€"elements€necessary€to€constitute€aggravatedÏrape€by€use€of€a€deadly€weapon."€€slip€op.€at€5.€€Neither€aggravated€rape€nor€spousal€rape€requires€thatÏthe€sexual€penetration€be€achieved€by€use€of€a€deadly€weapon.€€Both€offenses€only€require€that€theÏ"defendant€is€armed€with€a€weapon€or€any€article€used€or€fashioned€in€a€manner€to€lead€the€victimÏreasonably€to€believe€it€to€be€a€weapon."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€€39„13„502(a)(1),€507(b)(1)(A).€Ï"Deadly€weapon"€is€statutorily€defined€as€a€weapon€that€is€capable€of€causing€"death€or€serious€bodilyÏinjury."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(5)(A),(B).€Thus€for€spousal€rape,€it€is€not€necessary€that€theÏdog€was€capable€of€causing€serious€bodily€injury€or€death.€€All€that€is€necessary€is€that€the€victim€wasÏthreatened€by€the€dog€or€reasonably€believed€she€was€in€danger€from€the€dog.Ì ¥Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔÔ€)ÔNeither€party€has€contended€the€statement€was€admissible€as€a€fresh€complaint.€It€is€doubtfulÏif€this€complaint€was€made€soon€enough€after€the€attack€to€so€qualify.€€In€òòState€v.€Kendricksóó,€891ÏS.W.2d€597,€604€(Tenn.€1994),€our€supreme€court€held€that€"Tennessee€continues€to€require€theÏcomplaint€to€be€timely€...€but€whether€a€complaint€[is]€timely€depends€upon€an€assessment€of€all€theÏfacts€and€circumstances."€€The€statement€does€not€need€to€be€spontaneous€but€it€does€need€to€beÏtimely.€€òòId.óó€€A€statement€made€six€months€after€the€attack€is€not€timely.€€òòSeeóó€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€296ÏS.W.2d€832€(Tenn.€1956)€(statement€made€less€than€one€hour€after€incident€was€timely);€òòCarroll€v.ÏStateóó,€370€S.W.2d€523€(Tenn.€1963)€(statement€made€soon€after€incident€was€timely)€(both€casesÏcited€with€approval€in€òòKendricksóó,€891€S.W.2d€at€605.)€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€871€S.W.2d€492,€494Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(statement€made€eleven€months€after€the€offense€was€"stale€within€theÏmeaning€of€fresh€complaint.")€€More€importantly,€the€òòKendricksóó€rule€is€that€,€"[i]f€the€questioning€isÏclearly€leading€or€overly€suggestive,€...€the€resulting€statement€would€not,€in€all€likelihood,€be€theÏvictim's€product.€€Rather€it€would€be€questioner's€product.€€In€such€case,€the€statement€should,Ïobviously,€be€excluded."€€òòKendricksóó,€891€S.W.2d€at€605.€€Here,€the€questions€were€clearlyÏsuggestive.€€For€example,€the€following€exchange€occurred:ÌÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒQ:€€He€tied€your€arms€up.ÌA:€€Uh„huh.ÌQ:€€He€tied€your€ankles.ÌA:€€Yeah.ÌQ:€€He€pushed€you€on€the€floor.ÌA:€€Yeah.ÌQ:€€And€he€brought€the€dog€in?ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒIn€my€view,€the€statement€would€not€qualify€as€a€fresh€complaint.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€-‚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'\ќـ€ÙÔ€)ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€+,(A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌÌà@ àœòòAT€NASHVILLEóó›ÌÌà@ àSEPTEMBER€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#€01C01„9512„CC„00404€ÌÌà àAppellee,à àà àà à*à àLAWRENCE€COUNTYÌÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€Jim€T.€Hamilton,€JudgeÌÌTERRY€ALLEN€DOMINY,à àà à*à à(Spousal€Rape„3€Counts)ÌÌà àAppellant.à àà àà à*ÌÔ€&ÔÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òÓ  ÓÔ€)ÔDISSENTING€OPINIONÓ  Óó óóóà àà àI€fully€agree€with€the€majority's€conclusionÏthat€our€court€has€the€authority€to€modify€the€convictions€from€aggravated€rape€toÏspousal€rape.€€Given€that€excellent€resolution€of€the€primary€issue,€it€is€tempting€toÏconcur€in€the€modification€of€the€convictions€without€contextualized€review€of€otherÏissues.€€In€my€view,€however,€there€were€other€errors:€€(1)€€by€allowing€intoÏevidence€the€full€content€of€the€victim's€taped€statement;€and€(2)€by€refusing€toÏadmit€evidence€that€the€victim€previously€had€accused€her€brother€of€personallyÏcommitting€this€same€unusual€crime.€€Because€the€legitimacy€of€the€chargesÏdepends€entirely€upon€the€credibility€of€the€victim,€I€cannot€conclude€that€the€errorsÏhad€no€effect€upon€the€verdict.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Kendricksóó,€891€S.W.2d€597,€604Í(Tenn.€1994)€(where€"[t]he€essential€issue€was€credibility,"€erroneous€introductionÏof€evidence€was€not€harmless);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).ÌÌà àà àInitially,€the€defendant€had€adequate€notice€that€he€faced€charges€forÏspousal€rape.€€The€indictments€charged€aggravated€rape.€€In€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919ÏS.W.2d€305€(Tenn.€1996),€the€defendant€was€indicted€for€attempted€first€degreeÏÑ7€LÖXXdðXXdð7Ñmurder.€€òòId.óó€at€312.€€Our€supreme€court€held€that€"[t]his€indictment€...€could€...€formÏthe€basis€for€a€conviction,€if€the€evidence€is€sufficient€for€that€offense,€for€anyÏoffenses€which€are€lesser€grades€or€classes€of€attempted€first€degree€murder€...€orÏfor€any€lesser€included€offenses...."€€òòId.óó€€Because€spousal€rape€is€a€lesser€gradeÏoffense€of€aggravated€rape,€the€indictment€charging€aggravated€rape€was€sufficientÏfor€a€conviction€of€spousal€rape.ÌÌà àà àFurthermore,€the€majority's€modification€of€the€convictions€has€notÏprecluded€the€right€to€a€jury€trial.€€Because€the€defendant€was€found€guilty€ofÏaggravated€rape,€the€jury€determined€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€sexualÏpenetration€was€accompanied€by€"[f]orce€or€coercion€...€and€the€defendant€[was]Ïarmed€with€a€weapon€or€any€article€used€or€fashioned€in€a€manner€to€lead€theÏvictim€€reasonably€to€believe€it€to€be€a€weapon."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„502(a)(1).€€Spousal€rape€is€the€"unlawful€sexual€penetration€of€one€spouse€by€theÍother€[and]...[t]he€defendant€is€armed€with€a€weapon€or€any€article€used€orÏfashioned€in€a€manner€to€lead€the€victim€to€reasonably€believe€it€to€be€a€weapon."€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„507(b)(1)(A).€€The€only€remaining€element€of€spousalÏrape€is€the€legal€marriage.€€Their€marriage€certificate€was€evidence€at€trial.€€Thus€aÏmodification€rather€than€a€retrial€would€have€been€warranted,€absent€other€error.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Thorntonóó,€730€S.W.2d€309€(Tenn.€1987)€(reducing€first€degree€murderÏconviction€to€voluntary€manslaughter€where€evidence€insufficient€for€first€degreeÏmurder€but€overwhelmingly€established€manslaughter).× ƒ. ××  ×€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€contended€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowingÏthe€jury€to€hear€an€audiotape€of€the€victim's€interview€with€the€Department€ofÏHuman€Services.€€The€majority€concludes€"the€issues€regarding€the€DHS€tape€areÏeither€meritless€or€have€been€waived."€€slip€op.€at€9.€€On€August€2,€1994,€more€thanÏsix€months€after€the€last€assault€and€less€than€a€month€after€the€indictment,€theÏvictim€gave€a€statement€to€DHS.€€The€defendant€used€portions€of€the€statement€toÍcross„examine€the€victim:€€ÌÒ ä ÒÒ X ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓQ:€€Didn't€you€have€a€conversation,€with€your€motherÏbeing€present,€and€Mr.€Workman€and€Mrs.€Mickie€PierceÏof€D.H.S.,€and€it€was€taped€with€a€tape€recorder,€andÏthey€tape€recorded€what€you€told€them?ÌÌA:€€(No€response)ÌÌQ:€€Do€you€remember€that€happening?ÌÌA:€€No.€€I€don't€remember€it.€€ÌÌQ:€€Now,€when€you€testified€about€this€February€incident,Ïyou€said€it€happened€in€the€living€room€on€the€floor,Ïdidn't€you?ÌÌA:€€Yes.ÌÌQ:€€And€you€told€Mrs.€Pierce€and€Mr.€Workman€back€inÏAugust€that€it€happened€on€the€couch.€€€Do€youÏremember€telling€them€that?ÌÌA:€€Yes.€€With€the€dog.ÌÌQ:€€You€didn't€tell€them€anything€about€it€happening€onÏthe€floor,€or€anything€happening€on€the€floor,€on€the€thirdÏevent,€in€this€transcript,€did€you?ÌÌA:€€No.ÌÌQ:€€And€when€you€talked€to€them,€back€in€August,€youÏtold€about€how€your€husband€left€you€for€almost€an€hour„„45€minutes€each€time„„and€left€the€house.€€Got€in€the€carÏand€left.€€And€you€didn't€make€any€attempt€to€leave€atÏthat€time,€did€you?ÌÌA:€€I€went€out€there€in€the€horse€field.ÌÌÓ  Ó***ÌÓ  ÓQ:€€Isn't€it€true€that€you€told€Mickie€Pierce,€back€inÏAugust,€when€you€talked€about€your€husband,€you€said,Ï"I€tried€to€scare€him,€you€know?"ÌÌA:€€Yes.ÌÌQ:€€So,€how€did€you€try€to€scare€him?€€By€bringing€theseÏfalse€charges€against€him?ÌÌÓ  Ó***ÌÓ  ÓÌQ:€€How€did€you€try€to€scare€him?€€You€told€Mrs.€PierceÏyou€tried€to€scare€him.€€What€did€you€do?ÌÌA:€€He€gonna€hit€me.ÌÌQ:€€What€did€you€do€to€try€to€scare€him?ÌÌA:€€I€can't€understand.ÌÌQ:€€Well.€You€agree€you€told€her€that.€€You€told€Mrs.ÏPierce€that€you€tried€to€scare€your€husband,€Terry,ÏRight?ÌÌA:€€Yeah,€I'm€scared€of€Terry.€€Yes,€I€am.ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌà àà àLater€in€the€trial,€when€the€victim€was€no€longer€present,€€the€stateÏcalled€Mickie€Pierce,€who€conducted€the€interview.€€Ms.€Pierce€authenticated€theÏaudio€cassette€of€the€interview,€which€was€then€played€in€its€entirety.€€TheÍtranscription€is€twenty„eight€pages€of€text.€€The€statement€includes€her€detailedÏaccounting€of€each€of€the€three€assaults;€she€did€not€refer€to€the€occurrences€as€onÏthe€floor.€€The€victim€contended€that€€the€defendant€routinely€raped€and€beat€herÏand,€on€less€frequent€occasions,€attempted€to€starve€her.€€The€interview€wasÏconducted€at€the€request€of€the€District€Attorney.€€Many€of€the€questions€suggestedÏan€answer€supportive€of€the€state's€theory.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€objected€to€the€tape€on€hearsay€grounds€and€arguedÏthat,€at€worst,€the€jury€should€be€limited€to€the€portions€referred€to€on€the€prior€cross„examination€of€the€victim.€€A€cross„examination€may€open€the€door€to€other€parts€ofÏthe€statement.€€In€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€797€S.W.2d€589€(Tenn.€1990),€our€supreme€courtÏcited€the€following€rule:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€general€rule€is,€subject€to€certain€exceptions,€thatÏevidence€of€prior€consistent€statements€òòmay€not€be€usedÏto€rehabilitate€an€impeached€witnessóó.€€...€€The€State€[is]Ïallowed€to€place€in€proper€context€supposedlyÏinconsistent€statements€brought€into€evidence€byÏdefendant.€€Where€specific€questions€and€answers€takenÏout€of€context€do€not€convey€the€true€picture€of€the€priorÏstatement€alleged€to€be€inconsistent,€it€is€unfair€to€permitÏreference€to€isolated,€unexplained€responses€by€theÏwitness€and€there€is€no€error€in€allowing€the€statementsÏto€be€placed€in€context.€€ÌòòÌœId.óó›€at€593„94€(emphasis€added).€ÓÓUnder€this€rule,€the€state€should€be€allowed€toÍ"convey€the€true€picture€of€the€prior€statement€alleged€to€be€inconsistent";€however,Ïthe€rule,€in€my€view,€does€not€form€a€basis€for€permitting€subjects€not€a€part€of€theÏcross„examination.€€These€facts€are€almost€identical€to€òòState€v.€Braggsóó,€604€S.W.2dÏ883€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€In€òòBraggsóó,€the€defendant€cross„examined€the€victimÏwith€a€statement€she€had€given€the€police;× ƒ/ ××  ×€thereafter,€the€assistant€district€attorneyÏgeneral€"offered€the€entire€statement,€which€when€read€in€its€entirety€reflect[ed]€noÏsignificant€inconsistencies€...."€€òòId.óó€at€885.€€This€court€found€error:ÌÌÒ ä ÒÒ X ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àAlthough€prior€inconsistent€statements€of€aÏwitness€may€be€admissible€for€impeachment€purposes,Ïthe€general€rule,€subject€to€certain€exceptions,€is€thatÏevidence€of€prior€consistent€statements€may€not€be€usedÏto€rehabilitate€the€impeached€witness.Ò 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓòòId.óóÌÌà àà àIn€my€view,€the€state€should€have€been€allowed€to€place€the€allegedÏinconsistencies€into€context;€however,€the€remaining€portions€of€the€statementÏshould€have€been€excluded€as€hearsay.€€"If€extrinsic€evidence€of€a€priorÏinconsistent€statement€is€used,€the€trial€court€has€the€discretion€to€screen€it€andÏexcise€irrelevant€or€otherwise€inadmissible€portions.€€This€will€prevent€the€jury€fromÏbeing€exposed€to€inadmissible€proof."€€Neil€P.€Cohen,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,Ïðð€613.4€(3d€Ed.€1995).€€The€trial€court€should€have€redacted€significant€portions€ofÏthe€tape;€it€was€error€not€to€do€so.€€ÌÔ% € Ôà àÌà àà àNext,€the€defendant€argues€that€he€should€have€been€allowed€toÏcross„examine€the€victim€about€a€prior€claim€that€her€brothers€raped€her€by€use€of€aÏdog.€€The€majority€has€reasoned€that€the€defendant€has€not€established€a€priorÏpattern€of€conduct€and€that€a€"prior€nonconsensual€act"€is€not€evidence€of€consentÏin€this€case.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€dispute€was€whether€the€rapes€ever€took€place.€€WhileÏacknowledging€that€the€dog€was€involved€in€their€sexual€activities,€the€defendantÏclaimed€the€victim€was€a€willing€participant.€€The€defendant€claimed€this€particularÏactivity€had€occurred€twice,€the€last€time€being€four€months€before€the€victimÏclaimed€€the€first€assault€occurred.€€The€state's€case€depended€upon€the€credibilityÏof€the€victim.€€Outside€of€the€presence€of€the€jury,€the€victim€testified€that€when€sheÏwas€thirteen,€one€of€her€brothers€forced€her€to€have€intercourse€with€a€dog.€€SheÏalso€claimed€that€her€brothers€had€raped€her€and€that€she€had€become€pregnant.€ÏHer€brothers€denied€the€accusations.€€Apparently,€the€matters€were€not€prosecuted.€ÏThe€trial€court€refused€to€allow€the€defendant€to€cross„examine€the€victim€aboutÏthese€prior€allegations.€€The€defendant€contended€that€if€the€victim€had€made€falseÏallegations€in€the€past€against€her€brothers,€those€facts€would€be€relevant€in€thisÏtrial.€€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòState€v.€Reidóó,€882€S.W.2d€423,€427€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€thisÏcourt€ruled€that€"it€was€error€for€the€trial€court€to€prohibit€the€defendant€from€cross„examining€the€[female]€victim"€about€criminal€charges€against€her€son;€the€victimÏhad€offered€to€drop€the€charges€against€the€defendant€in€exchange€for€dismissal€ofÏthe€charges€against€her€son.€€These€facts€were€adjudged€to€have€possiblyÏmotivated€the€victim€to€testify€falsely€against€the€defendant.€€In€òòReidóó,€the€onlyÍquestion€was€whether€the€victim€or€the€defendant€had€testified€truthfully€about€theÏevents.€€This€court€ruled€that€because€the€impeachment€of€the€victim€would€be€soÏsignificant€to€the€issue€of€guilt€that€the€trial€court,€when€it€excluded€the€evidence,Ï"went€beyond€reasonable€limits€given€the€importance€of€the€victim€as€a€witness."€€òòId.óóÏat€430.€ÌÌà àà àThe€policy€behind€the€rape€shield€statute€is€to€protect€victims€of€rapeÏfrom€"unnecessary,€degrading,€and€embarrassing€invasion€of€sexual€privacy."€ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€412€Advisory€Commission€Comment€[1991].€€That€legislation€mustÏbe€considered€as€a€part€of€my€separate€analysis.€€The€rationale€for€the€statute€doesÏrecognize€that€there€are€exceptional€circumstances€when€"the€accused€can€onlyÏhave€a€fair€trial€if€permitted€to€introduce€evidence€of€the€alleged€victim's€sexualÏhistory."€€òòId.óó€€This€policy€follows€that€expressed€in€òòOlden€v.€Kentuckyóó,€488€U.S.€227Ï(1988).€€In€òòOldenóó,€the€defendant€wanted€to€cross„examine€the€victim€about€herÏrelationship€with€a€man.€€The€defendant€contended€that€there€was€a€motive€for€theÏvictim€to€lie€in€order€to€protect€her€present€relationship.€€The€trial€court€denied€theÏcross„examination€and€the€appellate€court€affirmed€stating€that€"the€petitioner'sÏright€to€effective€cross„examination€was€outweighed€by€the€danger€that€revealingÏ[the€victim's]€inter„racial€relationship€would€prejudice€the€jury€against€her."€€òòId.óó€atÏ232.€€The€Supreme€Court€reversed€stating€that€"[t]he€Kentucky€Court€of€AppealsÍfailed€to€accord€proper€weight€to€petitioner's€Sixth€Amendment€right€'to€beÏconfronted€with€the€witnesses€against€him.'"€€òòId.óó€at€231.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€my€view,€whether€or€not€the€victim€had€been€raped€before€wouldÏhave€no€probative€value€for€the€jury€in€this€case;€however,€the€fact€that€the€victimÏmay€have€made€false€accusations€in€the€prior€instance€goes€to€the€core€of€herÏcredibility.€€There€is€a€likelihood€that€the€defense€should€have€been€allowed€toÏcross„examine€the€victim€about€her€past€allegations.€€Yet€the€trial€court€did€not€allowÏthe€defense€to€offer€proof€outside€the€jury's€presence€for€the€appellate€record.€€ThisÏcourt€has€held€in€the€past€that€trial€courts€do€not€have€to€allow€such€an€offer€of€proofÏwhere€there€is€no€basis€to€believe€that€the€evidence€is€relevant.€€òòAlley€v.€Stateóó,€882ÏS.W.2d€810,€816€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€If,€however,€the€court€cannotÏconclusively€determine€that€the€evidence€is€irrelevant,€€"it€is€error€to€exclude€anyÏreasonable€offer€which€demonstrates€the€...€general€import€of€the€excludedÏevidence."€€òòId.óó€€Because€of€the€possible€merit€to€the€claim,€I€believe€the€trial€courtÏhere€should€have€allowed€an€offer€of€proof.€€In€my€opinion,€the€failure€to€allow€thatÏwas€error.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€my€opinion,€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€evidentiary€errors€wouldÏordinarily€warrant€a€new€trial.€€ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€Judge€