ÿWPC¥& …# VUNa %¯ 0 (µ4Ýñb 0ª 0D² ö þ  w$ 2 0J: 0T„ Ø U:à 0^ 0hx 0rà 0|R 0†Î 0T 1uä 0dY B½U>ÚB)DCAU *„ AM®ÞûIÙM"o 0@þ D3>£q¦õºv~¯vÓ- AO%ÆO% 0D& D/Y& Bˆ&˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡Ô¡¨ ½¬ @ d3|xõ- ù-(Z(2‹!$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝòòÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XoåXàXÔà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó0µ¶D·¸D¹ºD»¼D½¾¿DÀÁDÂÃÄÅÆDÇ\eÈUÉUÊeËÌeÍeÎÏeÐDÑÔDÕÖD×DØÜÞáDâãeäeåæeçr‚èé eêëDìÓ€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular2, 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`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd< Œ 9p`(Arial€3,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÔÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÔ€-ÔÔ€-ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€-XÔÌÌMay€30,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ?Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝòòÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€-Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTestimony€indicates€that€the€appellant€became€fetishly›€aroused€when€viewing€sexualÏintercourse€between€his€dog€and€his€wife.Ì CÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝòòÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€-Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€appellant€manipulated€the€dog's€penis€until€the€dog€became€aroused.€€He€thenÏplaced€the€dog's€penis€inside€his€wife's€vagina.Ì …Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝòòÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€-Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€appellant€gave€a€statement€where€he€admitted€that€his€wife€had€sexual€intercourseÏwith€his€dog.€€He,€however,€maintainedÌÌà8 à.€.€.€it€was€a€mutual€consent€thing.€€It€was€my€idea€but€I€didn't€force€her€to€do€it.€€WeÏhad€been€drinking€and€watching€a€dirty€movie€and€I€said€something€about€it.€€[She]Ïsaid€"[t]hat›'s€nasty"€and€I€said€nasty€is€only€in€your€mind,€why€don't€you€try€it.€€SheÏsaid€okay€and€she€went€outside€and€got€the€dog.€.€.€.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxd ™Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝòòÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€-Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý"A€person€does€not€commit€[aggravated€rape,€rape,€aggravated€sexual€battery,€sexualÏbattery,€or€statutory€rape]€if€the€victim€is€the€legal€spouse€of€the€perpetrator.€.€.€."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€39„13„507(a)€(1991).Ì œÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝòòÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€-Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€appellant€on€three€occasions,€forced€a€large€dog€onto€his€approximately€68€poundÏwife.€€He€manipulated€the€dog's€penis€into€her€vagina.€€The€victim€testified€that€the€dog€was,Ïapparently,€angered.€€The€dog€attempted€to€bite€the€appellant€and€did€scratch€the€victim.€€A€largeÏdog,€under€these€circumstances,€is€quite€capable€of€causing€serious€bodily€injury.€€A€rational€trierÏof€fact€could,€and€indeed€did€in€this€case,€find€the€dog€to€be€a€dangerous€weapon.€€à àÌ ëÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝòòÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€-Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€proffered€evidence€was€also€inadmissible€to€show€a€propensity€to€fabricate€aÏcomplaint€of€rape€with€a€dog.€€Whether€sexual€contact€occurred€was€not€a€disputed€issue.€€TheÏappellant€admitted€that€the€sexual€behavior€occurred.€€His€position,€however,€was€that€the€sexualÏbehavior€was€consensual.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€3‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€*ÔÝ  Ý›Ò 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ќـ€ÙÔ€-ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€./,A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÓ ` ܆XDp”X Óà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€à à€€€€àQ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÓ` °‡XDp”XÓà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à ààQ àà àSEPTEMBER€1996€SESSIONó óÌÌÌÌò òÓ ` ®DÓÌÓ` cÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àó ó)€ÌÓ ` ¸ cÓà àà à)€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9512„CC„00404€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àAppellee,à à)Ìà àà à)€Lawrence€CountyÌV.€€€€€€€à à)Ìà àà à)€Honorable€Jim€T.€Hamilton,€JudgeÌò òà àó óà à)ò òÌTERRY€ALLEN€DOMINY,ó óà à)€(Spousal€Rape€„€3€counts)à àà à)€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àAppellant.à à)ÌÌÌÌÌÓ` ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌShara€A.€Flacyà àCharles€W.€BursonÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àAttorney€General€&€Reporter€ÌÌWilliam€C.€Brightà àMichael€E.€MooreÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àSolicitor€GeneralÌP.O.€Box€1208ÌPulaski,€TN€38478à àGordon€W.€SmithÌà àAssociate€Solicitor€GeneralÌà à500€Charlotte€AvenueÌà àNashville,€TN€37243„0497ÌÌà àT.€Michael€BottomsÌà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àP.O.€Box€459Ìà àœLawrenceburg›,€TN€38464Ìà àÌà àStella€L.€œHargrove›€andÌà àJames€G.€White€IIÌà àAssistant€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌà àMaury€County€Courthouse€AnnexÌà àColumbia,€TN€38401ÌÌà àÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€___________________ÌÌÌò òREVERSED€AND€REMANDED€FOR€SENTENCINGÌó óÌÌò òPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,ó óÌJudgeÌÌò òÔ  ÔÓ ` ¸ pÓÔ  ÔÌà àà ààQ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÑ  ÑÑ7€ÆXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÓÓÌÓ ` °§XÓà àA€jury€convicted€the€appellant,€Terry€Allen€Dominy,€of€three€counts€ofÏaggravated€rape.€€He€was€sentenced€to€twenty„five€years€on€each€count.€€TheÏsentences€were€ordered€to€run€consecutively.€€He€raises€seventeen€issues€onÏappeal.€€Upon€review,€we€reverse€and€remand€for€substitution€of€three€spousalÏrape€convictions€and€sentencing.ÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓFACTSóóó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€asked€his€wife€to€have€sexual€intercourse€with€his€dog.œ× ƒ0 ××  ×›€ÏWhen€she€refused,€he€bound€her€wrists€and€ankles€with€duct€tape.€€He€placed€aÍstrip€of€tape€across€her€mouth.€€He€then€forced€his€dog€to€have€sexualÏintercourse€with€his€wife.× ƒ1 ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€appellant's€wife€testified.€€She€stated€that€the€appellant€had€beenÏdrinking€and€smoking€"dope"€prior€to€the€assault.€€She€was€"scared."€€She€statedÏthat€the€insertion€of€the€dog's€penis€hurt€her€vagina.€€The€assault€continued€forÏ"ten€to€fifteen€minutes."€€She€further€stated€that€the€appellant€laughed€while€hisÏdog€was€penetrating€her.ÌÌà àOn€two€other€occasions,€the€appellant€forced€his€wife€to€have€sexualÏintercourse€with€his€dog.€€On€the€second€occasion,€the€appellant€begged€hisÏwife€to€have€sexual€intercourse€with€the€dog.€€She€refused,€so€he€slapped€herÏand€bound€her€with€duct€tape.€€Prior€to€the€third€assault,€the€appellant's€wife€had€Ìhidden€the€duct€tape.€€The€appellant€searched€for,€but€was€unable€to€find,€theÏtape.€€He€then€physically€and€verbally€assaulted€his€wife€until€she€submitted€to€Ìhaving€sexual€intercourse€with€his€dog.€€The€appellant€had€sexual€intercourseÏwith€the€victim€after€the€dog€finished.œ× ƒ2 ××  ×›ÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓLIMITED€SPOUSAL€EXCLUSION€TO€RAPEóóó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€evidence€is€legally€insufficient€to€support€aÏconviction€for€aggravated€rape.€€He€maintains€that€because€he€was€married€toÏthe€victim,€he€cannot€be€convicted€of€aggravated€rape.€€The€state€concedes€thatÏthe€appellant€was€married€to€the€victim€and€that€his€conviction€for€aggravatedÏrape€cannot€stand.€€Regrettably,€due€to€these€sordid€facts,€we€must€agree€withÏthe€state's€concession.€€€€ÌÌà àPursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„507(a),€one€cannot€commitÏaggravated€rape€or€rape€if€the€victim€is€his€or€her€legal€spouse.× ƒ7 ××  ×€€€The€appellantÏis€correct€in€his€contention€that€Tennessee's€spousal€exclusion€statute€providesÏhim€with€immunity€from€both€rape€and€aggravated€rape€prosecution.€€The€recordÏcontains€an€abundance€of€proof€showing€the€appellant€and€the€victim€wereÏmarried.€€Moreover,€the€state€stipulates€to€this€fact.€€Accordingly,€the€appellant'sÏconvictions€for€aggravated€rape€are€reversed.€€We€will€now€address€what€crimesÏthe€appellant€did€commit.€€€ÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓÌÌÌSPOUSAL€RAPEÌÓ  Óóóó óÌà àAlthough€the€appellant's€actions€cannot€constitute€aggravated€rape,€hisÏunlawful€sexual€penetration€of€a€spouse€may,€however,€constitute€spousal€rape.€ÏSpousal€rape€is€defined€as:ÌÓÓà8 à[T]he€unlawful€sexual€penetration€of€one€spouse€by€the€otherÏwhere:Ìà8 àà à(A)€€The€defendant€is€armed€with€a€weapon€or€any€articleÏused€or€fashioned€in€a€manner€to€lead€the€victim€to€reasonablyÏbelieve€it€to€be€a€weapon;Ìà àà8 à(B)€€The€defendant€causes€serious€bodily€injury€to€theÏvictim;€orÌà8 àà à(C)€€The€spouses€are€living€apart€and€one€(1)€of€them€hasÏfiled€for€separate€maintenance€or€divorce.ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„507€(b)(1)€(1991).ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant€contends€that€he€cannot€be€convicted€of€an€offense€whichÏis€not€charged€in€the€indictment€or€which€is€not€a€lesser€included€offense€of€theÏindicted€charge.€€Because€spousal€rape€is€not€a€lesser€included€offense€ofÏaggravated€rape,€he€claims€that€the€most€he€can€be€convicted€of€is€the€lesserÏincluded€offense€of€simple€assault.€€We€disagree.€€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€is€correct€in€his€contention€that€spousal€rape€is€not€a€lesserÏincluded€offense€of€aggravated€rape.€€A€spousal€rape€conviction€requires€proofÏof€a€legal€marriage€between€the€accused€and€the€victim,€an€element€notÏrequired€for€an€aggravated€rape€conviction.€€However,€spousal€rape€is€a€lesserÍgrade€of€aggravated€rape.€€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€305,€313„14€(Tenn.Ï1996).€€€In€òòTrustyóó,€our€Supreme€Court€held€that€a€lesser€grade€of€an€indictedÏoffense€may€form€the€basis€for€a€conviction€as€long€as€there€is€evidence€in€theÏrecord€to€support€a€conviction€on€the€greater€offense.€€òòIdóó.€€€ÌÌà àThis€Court€finds€that€the€appellant€can€be€and€is€convicted€of€three€countsÏof€spousal€rape.€€A€jury€found€that€the€appellant€had€committed€all€of€theÏelements€necessary€to€constitute€aggravated€rape€by€use€of€a€deadly€weapon.× ƒ8 ××  ×€ÏThe€record€contains€an€abundance€of€evidence€proving€the€appellant€and€theÏvictim€were€legally€married.€€Furthermore,€the€state€concedes€that€they€wereÏmarried.€€Therefore,€we€find€the€appellant€guilty€of€three€counts€of€spousal€rape.€ÏWe€remand€to€the€trial€court€for€sentencing€on€three€counts€of€spousal€rape,Ïwhich€judgments€are€substituted€for€the€aggravated€rape€convictions.€€ò òÌó óÌò òòòÓ  ÓJUDGMENT€OF€ACQUITTAL€AND€DEFENSE€INSTRUCTIONóóó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€judge€erred€in€overruling€his€motion€forÏjudgment€on€the€aggravated€rape€convictions.€€The€appellant's€third€issueÏasserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€instruct€the€jury€that€legal€marriageÍwas€an€absolute€defense€to€aggravated€rape.€€Our€reversal€of€the€aggravatedÏrape€convictions€renders€these€issues€moot.ÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓFAILURE€TO€SPECIFY€MENTAL€ELEMENTóóó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€indictment€failed€to€specify€a€requisiteÏmental€element€of€aggravated€rape.€€He,€therefore,€contends€that€the€indictmentÏis€invalid€and€the€trial€court€lacked€jurisdiction€to€try€him.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àThe€requisite€mental€element€of€aggravated€rape€is€intentional,€knowing,Ïor€reckless.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„301(c)€(1991).€€Mental€elements€may€beÏimplied.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532,€538€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)Ï(holding€intention€to€sell€language€necessarily€implied€knowing€possession).ÌÌà àThe€appellant€was€charged€with€three€counts€of€aggravated€rape.€€TheÏindictment€alleged€that€the€appellant:ÌÓÓà8 àdid€unlawfully,€forcibly,€or€coercively,€while€armed€with€a€weaponÏor€article€used€or€fashioned€in€a€manner€to€lead€[the€victim]Ïreasonably€to€believe€it€to€be€a€weapon,€sexually€penetrate€[theÏvictim]€in€violation€of€T.C.A.€39„13„502,€all€of€which€is€against€theÏpeace€and€dignity€of€the€State€of€Tennessee.ÌÌÓÓOne€acting€forcibly€acts€intentionally.€€Accordingly,€one€could€infer€from€theÏlanguage€in€the€indictment€that€if€the€appellant€forcibly€raped€the€victim,€heÏintentionally€raped€the€victim.€€The€requisite€mental€element€has€been€implied.€ÏNotwithstanding€mootness,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ò òÌÌòòÓ  ÓTRIAL€JUDGE€RESIDING€IN€HOME€OWNED€BY€PROSECUTINGÏATTORNEYóóó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€judge€erred€in€failing€to€disclose€thatÏhe€resided,€during€trial,€in€a€residence€owned€by€the€prosecuting€attorney.€€HeÏcontends€that€the€trial€judge€should€have€recused€himself.ÌÌà àThe€prosecuting€attorney€owned€a€farm€in€the€area€on€which€there€wereÏapparently€four€separate€residences.€€The€trial€judge€stayed€at€one€of€thoseÏresidences€during€the€trial.€€He€paid€the€utility€bill,€telephone€bill,€and€cable€billÏincurred€during€his€stay.ÌÌà àJudges€are€to€avoid€the€appearance€of€impropriety.€€Tenn.€R.€Supr.€Ct.,ÏRule€10.€€Residing€on€a€prosecuting€attorney's€property€during€trial€creates€anÏappearance€of€impropriety.€€Trial€judges€should€refrain€from€such€activity.€€EvenÏif€the€situation€is€innocent,€it€appears€improper.€€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€frames€the€issue€as€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€The€appellant,Ïhowever,€has€not€provided€this€Court€with€a€transcript€of€the€recusal€motion.€€We€Ìmust€presume€that€the€trial€court€ruled€correctly€when€the€record€we€are€Ìreviewing€is€incomplete.€€òòState€v.€Mathewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€784€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1990).€€Notwithstanding€waiver,€we€are€unable€to€find,€under€a€plain€errorÍanalysis,€that€the€appellant€was€prejudiced€by€the€trial€judge's€actions.€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓEVIDENCE€OF€PRIOR€RAPEóóó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€judge€committed€reversible€error€inÏrefusing€to€allow€a€complete€offer€of€proof.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àAt€trial,€appellant's€counsel€moved€to€offer€evidence€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.,€Rule€412.€€The€trial€judge€permitted€the€appellant€to€call€several€witnessesÏin€making€his€offer€of€proof.€€The€victim€was€called€as€a€witness.€€The€appellant'sÏcounsel€asked€her€if€she€was€raped€by€her€brothers€when€she€was€thirteenÏyears€old.€€The€victim€responded€affirmatively.€€Counsel€asked€her€whether€aÏdog€was€used€in€the€rape.€€She€again€responded€affirmatively.€€Counsel€thenÏasked€whether€the€dog€was€placed€on€top€of€her.€€The€state€objected.€€The€courtÏrefused€to€allow€counsel€to€continue.ÌÌà àThe€victim's€brothers€testified€in€the€appellant's€offer€of€proof.€€J.€B.Ïdenied€having€knowledge€of€his€sister€being€raped€when€she€was€a€teenager.€ÏW.€B.€also€denied€having€knowledge€of€the€alleged€rape.€€W.€B.€was€then€askedÏwhether€his€sister€would€be€lying€if€she€said€that€he€raped€her€with€a€dog€whenÏshe€was€thirteen.€€He€responded,€"I€don't€know.€€Did€she€say€that?"ÌÌà àThe€appellant€maintains€that€he€was€erroneously€prevented€from€makingÏa€complete€offer€of€proof.€€In€a€related€issue,€the€appellant€asserts€that€he€shouldÏhave€been€allowed€to€offer€evidence,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€Rule€412(b)Ïand€(c),€of€the€victim's€prior€rape.€€He€argues€that€the€evidence€was€bothÏrelevant€and€admissible€as€impeachment€evidence.ÌÌà àRule€412€permits€introduction€of€a€victim's€sexual€history€to€prove€consentÏunder€very€limited€circumstances.€€First,€the€evidence€must€be€of€"specificÏòòinstancesóó€of€[the]€victim's€sexual€behavior€.€.€.€with€òòpersonsóó€other€than€theÏaccused."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€Rule€412(c)(4)€(emphasis€added).€€Both€"instances"Ïand€"persons"€are€plural.€€The€plural€form€is€significant€because€Rule€412Ïrequires€that€the€evidence€be€of€a€"pattern"€of€sexual€behavior.€€Accordingly,€toÏsatisfy€the€stringent€requirements€of€Rule€412,€the€appellant€must€profferÏadmissible€testimony€from€multiple€witnesses€relating€multiple€incidents€ofÏsexual€behavior.ÌÌà àThe€appellant's€offer€of€proof€referred€to€a€single€prior€incident€of€sexualÏbehavior.€€This€single€incident€did€not€establish€a€pattern€of€conduct€as€requiredÏby€Rule€412.€€Moreover,€the€victim€testified€that€the€prior€sexual€behavior€wasÏnonconsensual.€€Evidence€of€the€prior€nonconsensual€act€did€not€prove€consentÍto€the€instant€charged€acts.€€The€evidence€was,€therefore,€not€admissible€asÏRule€412€impeachment€evidence€on€the€issue€of€consent.× ƒ9 ××  ×ÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓPRIOR€STATEMENTóóó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€argues€that€a€statement€he€made€to€the€police€should€haveÏbeen€excluded€from€trial.€€He€argues€that€the€statement€showed€a€prior€bad€actÏand€that€the€state€failed€to€provide€proper€notice€to€introduce€the€statement.€€WeÏdisagree.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€provided€the€police€with€a€written€statement.€€TheÏstatement€was€in€response€to€the€question,€"What€can€you€tell€me€about€theÏallegations€that€you€forced€your€wife€to€have€sex€with€your€dog?"€€The€appellantÏresponded:ÌÓÓà8 àYes,€but€it€was€a€mutual€consent€thing.€€It€was€my€idea€but€I€didn'tÏforce€her€to€do€it.€€We€had€been€drinking€and€watching€a€dirtyÏmovie€and€I€said€something€about€it.€€[The€victim]€said€"That'sÏnasty"€and€I€said€nasty€is€only€in€your€mind,€why€don't€you€try€it.€ÏShe€said€okay€and€she€went€outside€and€got€the€dog.€€She€laidÏback€on€the€couch€and€the€dog€licked€her€and€she€had€an€orgasm.€ÏWithin€five€minutes€I€had€sex€with€her.€€I€would€rather€she€do€it€withÏmy€dog€than€a€friend€because€the€dog€don't€know€any€better.€€TheÏfirst€time€it€happened€was€at€her€mother's€house€on€New€Year'sÏabout€four€months€before€we€were€married.€€The€other€time€wasÏAugust€of€1993€at€our€house€in€Leoma.€€I€never€forced€her€to€do€it.ÌÌÓÓThe€statement€was€reduced€to€writing€and€introduced€at€trial.ÌÌà àThe€statement€was€admissible€as€a€party„opponent€admission.€€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.,€Rule€803.€€Moreover,€exculpatory€statements,€proven€false,€evidence€aÏconsciousness€of€guilt.€€The€statement€was,€therefore,€both€relevant€andÏadmissible.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓVICTIM'S€TAPED€STATEMENTóóó óÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€appellant€next€assigns€error€in€the€trial€court's€decision€to€allow€theÏjury€to€hear€an€audiotape€of€the€victim's€interview€with€the€Department€of€HumanÏServices€(DHS).€€He€argues€that€the€tape€was€inadmissible€hearsay€andÏcontained€"prejudicial€assertions."€€In€the€alternative,€he€argues€that€if€the€tapeÏhad€been€admissible,€certain€prejudicial€information€should€have€beenÏredacted.ÌÌà àThe€record€indicates€that€on€cross„examination,€the€appellant's€counselÏopened€the€door€for€the€tape's€admission.€€The€appellant€did€not€raiseÏobjections€on€the€grounds€that€the€tape€contained€evidence€of€prior€bad€acts€orÏwas€improper€bolstering.€€Moreover,€the€appellant's€counsel€did€not€request€aÏredaction.€€Accordingly,€the€issues€regarding€the€DHS€tape€are€either€meritlessÏor€have€been€waived.ÌÌÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓEXCESSIVE€SENTENCEóóó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€argues€that€his€sentence€was€excessive€and€thatÏconsecutive€sentences€were€improper.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€was€sentenced€on€three€counts€of€aggravated€rape,€aÏClass€A€felony.€€We€have€reversed€those€convictions€and€found€the€appellantÏguilty€of€three€counts€of€spousal€rape.€€Spousal€rape€is€punishable€as€a€Class€CÏfelony.€€The€case€is,€therefore,€remanded€for€sentencing€on€the€spousal€rapeÏconvictions.€€The€trial€court€will€decide€whether€the€new€sentences€shall€runÏconsecutively.€€ÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓPHOTOGRAPHSóóó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€next€assigns€error€in€the€trial€judge's€admission€ofÏphotographs.€€He€argues€that€the€photographs€were€prejudicial€and€irrelevant.€ÏWe€disagree.ÌÌà àThe€admissibility€of€photographs€rests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€theÏtrial€court.€€The€trial€court's€decision€shall€not€be€overturned€unless€itÏaffirmatively€appears€that€the€admission€has€affected€the€results€of€the€trial.€ÍòòState€v.€Melsonóó,€638€S.W.2d€342,€365€€(Tenn.€1982);€€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòUnited€States€v.ÏBradyóó,€595€F.2d€359,€361€(6th€Cir.€1979).€€"The€trend€of€modern€authority€is€toÏvest€more€discretion€in€the€trial€court€in€this€respect."€€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564ÏS.W.2d€947,€949€(Tenn.€1978).€€Moreover,€we€cannot€substitute€our€judgmentÏfor€that€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Weaveróó,€No.€4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Jan.€3,€1985).€ÏTo€overturn€in€the€absence€of€an€affirmative€finding€of€abuse€of€discretion€andÏprejudice,€we€merely€supplant€the€trial€judge's€judgment€with€that€of€our€own.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€has€not€affirmatively€demonstrated€that€admission€of€theÏphotographic€evidence€prejudiced€the€jury's€verdict.€€The€photographs€depictedÏthe€victim's€emaciated€condition.€€They€corroborated€the€victim's€testimony€thatÏthe€appellant€would€not€let€her€eat€and€that€she€was€too€weak€to€resist€theÏsexual€assaults.ÌÌà àòòBanksóó€recognizes€the€"policy€of€liberality€in€the€admission€of€evidence€inÏboth€civil€and€criminal€cases,€including€the€admission€of€photographs."€€òòBanksóó,Ï564€S.W.2d€at€949.€€The€trial€court€weighs€the€probative€value€againstÏprejudicial€effect.€€We€cannot€substitute€our€judgment€for€that€of€the€trial€court€orÏdeclare€error€absent€a€finding€that€the€trial€judge€abused€his€discretion.€€òòMelsonóó,Ï638€S.W.2d€at€365.ÌÌà àWe€have€reviewed€both€the€record€and€the€photographs.€€We€find€neitherÏan€abuse€of€discretion€nor€prejudice.€€This€issue€is€devoid€of€merit.ÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓEVIDENCE€OF€THE€ALLEGED€STARVATIONóóó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€next€assigns€error€in€the€trial€court's€decision€to€allow€theÏjury€to€hear€evidence€that€the€appellant€withheld€food€from€the€victim.€€HeÏargues€€(1)€that€the€evidence€constituted€prior€bad€acts€and€the€state€failed€to€fileÏa€written€notice€of€intent€to€use€the€evidence,€and€(2)€that€the€evidence€wasÏirrelevant€and€its€probative€value€was€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfairÏprejudice.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓIó óÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€appellant€raises€the€issue€of€written€notice€compliance€for€the€firstÏtime€on€appeal.€€This€issue€is€waived.ÌÌÌò òÓ  ÓIIó óÌÌÓ  Óà àEvidence€of€other€crimes€or€wrongs€is€inadmissible€to€show€propensity.€ÏSuch€evidence€may€be€admissible,€however,€to€show€identity,€motive,€commonÏscheme€or€plan,€intent,€or€rebuttal€of€accident€or€mistake.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€RuleÏ404(b)€and€Advisory€Commission€Comments.ÌÌà àThe€evidence€is€admissible€under€Rule€404(b).€€The€evidence€wasÏrelevant€to€show€intent.€€A€reasonable€inference€exists€that€the€appellantÏintentionally€starved€the€victim€to€keep€her€weak€and€undernourished.€€In€aÏweakened€state,€the€victim€would€be€unable€to€resist€his€assaults.€€TheÏappellant€has€not€shown€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€admitting€theÏevidence.ÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓEVIDENCE€OF€THREATS€AND€VERBAL€ABUSEóóó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€permitting€testimony€thatÏthe€appellant€threatened€and€verbally€abused€the€victim.€€Testimony€revealedÏthat€the€appellant€threatened€to€kill€the€victim€if€she€sought€a€divorce.€€TheÏappellant€asserts€that€the€testimony€was€inadmissible€evidence€of€other€wrongsÏbecause:€€(1)€€no€written€notice€was€provided,€(2)€€the€evidence€was€within€theÏpurview€of€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€Rule€404(b),€and€(3)€the€probative€value€wasÏoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.ÌÌà àWe€have€reviewed€the€record.€€No€objections€were€raised€concerningÏcompliance€with€a€written€notice€requirement.€€Substantively,€we€are€unable€toÏstate€that€the€trial€judge€abused€his€discretion€in€admitting€the€evidence.€ÏMoreover,€in€light€of€the€evidence,€error,€if€any,€was€harmless.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓINTRODUCTION€OF€THE€CALENDARóóó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€permitting€theÏintroduction€of€the€victim's€calendar.€€The€victim€had€inscribed€the€word€"dog"€onÏthe€dates€in€which€the€alleged€sexual€assaults€occurred.€€The€appellantÏmaintains€that€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€Rule€16,€he€should€have€beenÏallowed€to€examine€the€original€calendar€prior€to€trial.€€He€also€asserts€that€theÏevidence€is€inadmissible€hearsay.ÌÌà àThe€state€argues€that€a€copy€of€the€original€calendar€was€provided€to€theÏappellant€prior€to€trial.€€The€state€alleges€that€the€appellant's€trial€counsel€did€notÏobject€to€being€provided€with€copies.€€The€record€does€not€indicate€that€defenseÏcounsel€found€this€arrangement€unsatisfactory.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€has€not€demonstrated€prejudice.€€The€witness€testified€thatÏshe€was€raped€on€the€dates€marked€on€the€calendar.€€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓEXCULPATORY€EVIDENCEó óóóÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€appellant€alleges€that€exculpatory€evidence€was€withheld€from€theÏdefense.€€Specifically,€he€claims€that€a€videotape€depicting€the€victim€and€theÍdog€showed€that€the€dog€was€not€a€deadly€weapon.€€He€claims€that€thisÏvideotape€was€"probably"€in€the€possession€of€the€victim€or€her€family€andÏshould€have€been€turned€over€to€the€defense.ÌÌà àThe€record€is€devoid€of€any€proof€that€the€videotape€was€in€either€theÏstate's€or€the€victim's€possession.€€We€find€no€affirmative€evidence€that€the€stateÏsuppressed€the€videotape.€€The€appellant€has€not€demonstrated€that€theÏevidence€was€favorable.€€Moreover,€we€find€it€questionable€whether€theÏevidence€was€material.€€The€record€shows€that€a€male€dog€may€possess€a€greatÏdisposition€yet€turn€dangerously€violent€when€the€animal's€genitalia€areÏmanipulated€in€the€manner€testified€to€in€this€case.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓIMPROPER€COMMENTS€TO€THE€JURYóóó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant's€last€issue€argues€that€the€bailiff€made€improperÏcomments€to€the€jury€during€deliberations.€€While€deliberating,€the€juryÏrequested€several€exhibits.€€Defense€counsel€objected,€and€the€trial€judgeÏdenied€the€jury's€request.€€The€appellant€claims€that€the€jury€foreperson€thenÏinformed€the€jurors€that€they€could€not€examine€exhibits€because€the€defenseÏhad€objected.ÌÌà àThe€appellant's€unfounded€assertion€appears€to€be€purely€speculative.€ÏThe€claim€is€not€supported€by€the€record.€€Neither€the€jury€foreperson€nor€anyÍjuror€testified€that€the€foreperson€made€the€objectionable€statement.€€The€trialÏjudge€found€that€the€bailiff€did€not€communicate€improperly€with€the€jury.€€TheÏevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€this€finding.€€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONÌÓ  ÓÌà àó óóóWhen€our€General€Assembly€debated€the€limited€spousal€exclusion€bill,Ïwe€are€sure€that€they€never€contemplated€as€bizarre€a€set€of€facts€as€we€haveÏhere.€€One€cannot€imagine€the€base,€vile,€and€inhumane€acts€that€the€appellantÏperpetrated€upon€his€wife.€€We€are€also€certain€that€the€legislature€would€wantÏthis€type€of€criminal€conduct€to€be€punishable€as€more€than€a€Class€C€felony.€ÏHopefully,€our€legislature€will€address€this€issue€and€assess€an€appropriateÏpenalty€for€this€wicked€conduct.€€òòò òÌÌà àóóó óThe€appellant€is€convicted€of€three€counts€of€spousal€rape€for€theÏreproachable€crimes€he€committed€against€his€wife.€€He€will€be€sentenced€forÏthese€crimes€by€the€trial€court€and€judgment€will€be€entered€accordingly.€€ÌinadmissableÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌL.€T.€LAFFERTY,€Special€Judge