ÿWPC³< …U:V % 0Ü–4r † 0 • 0Dµ 0Jù 0TC D3— 0^Ê 0h( 0r 0| 0†~ 0 1u”U ,  R5 0d‡U,ëU*B)ADCj AM­åúkß[Jߥò„dv×Ú! B±#‡Î#ÕU( 0@**j*ßn,xM.v~Å1vÓC3 AO9Æe9 0ø+: 0D#< D/g< B–<, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ3x23|x’(Ð(3@˜$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝÑ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€<¹XXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô****'ÿÿdxd2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernHçèéêëìíîïðñòóôõö÷øùúûüýþÿÔtxÔ\°LN P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÛÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òDe…cemberÏ13,Ï1995ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó aÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À<¹XXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€appellant€also€pled€guilty€to€driving€under€the€influence€and€drivingÏon€a€revoked€license.€€These€convictions€are€not€at€issue€in€this€appeal.Ì QÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝConsistent€with€the€policy€of€this€court,€we€will€withhold€the€identity€ofÏyoung€children€involved€in€sexual€abuse€cases,€identifying€them€only€by€theirÏinitials.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Schimpfóó,€782€S.W.2d€188,€òònoteóó€1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).Ì ÕÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAt€the€hearing€on€the€appellant's€motion€for€severance,€the€appellantÏargued€that€Counts€One,€Two,€and€Three€involved€three€different€victims,Ïoccurred€at€different€times,€and€would€be€highly€prejudicial€to€the€appellant€ifÏpresented€in€the€same€trial.€€The€appellant€also€contended€that€the€facts€of€oneÏcount€would€not€be€admissible€in€the€trials€of€the€others.€€The€State€respondedÏthat€Counts€One,€Two,€and€Three€all€involved€family€members€of€the€appellant,Ïand€that€they€involved€"essentially€the€same€period€of€time."€€In€summarilyÏordering€the€three€counts€to€be€tried€jointly,€the€trial€court€offered€no€explanationÏfor€its€ruling.Ì èÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSeeóó€€òòMcKnightóó,€900€S.W.2d€36,€51€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€("TheÏdistinctive€design€in€the€commission€of€a€series€of€crimes€may€serve€as€theÏbasis€for€either€admitting€evidence€of€other€crimes€or€having€consolidatedÏtrials.").€€òòCf.óó€€òòHallockóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€292€("[T]he€mere€existence€of€a€commonÏscheme€or€plan€is€not€a€proper€justification€for€admitting€evidence€of€otherÏcrimes.")Ì ZÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough€a€hearing€was€held€as€to€the€appellant's€motion€to€sever,€weÏfind€that€the€hearing€complied,€minimally€at€best,€with€Rule€404(b)€requirements,Ïi.e.,€no€evidence€was€presented,€no€finding€was€made€as€to€a€material€issue,€noÏbalancing€test€was€completed.Ì ÍÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€this€holding€does€not€reflect€that€the€same€result€wouldÏnecessarily€occur€in€a€"date€specific"€indictment.Ì d }Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€trial€court€correctly€admitted€this€statement€as€corroborativeÏtestimony€pursuant€to€the€"fresh€complaint€doctrine."€€However,€we€find€itÏnecessary€to€note€that,€upon€retrial,€this€statement€will€not€be€admissible€as€ourÏsupreme€court€recently€abandoned€the€"fresh€complaint€doctrine"€as€to€childÏvictims.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Livingstonóó,€No.€01S01„9305„CR„00077€(Tenn.€Sept.€5,Ï1995).€€The€supreme€court€in€òòLivingstonóó€€reasoned€that€"unlike€the€presumptionÏregarding€adult€victims,€juries€do€not€necessarily€presume€that€childrenÏfabricate,€nor€do€they€presume€that€a€child€will€complain€immediately,"€Ïtherefore,€"[t]he€historic€premises€which€supported€our€retention€of€the€rule€inÏadult€victim€cases€simply€do€not€support€the€application€of€the€doctrine€in€childÏvictim€cases."€€òòIdóó.Ì ËÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€the€record€indicates€that€the€appellant€never€objected€atÏany€time€to€the€admissibility€of€such€evidence.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò úÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€record€indicates€that€neither€the€State€nor€the€appellant€offered€anyÏevidence€at€the€sentencing€hearing€other€than€the€trial€record€and€the€pre„sentence€report.Ì ÕÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€at,€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€State€did€not€request€norÏdid€they€argue€for€application€of€enhancement€factor€(6).Ì nÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(5)€provides€for€consecutive€sentencesÏwhen€Ìà8 àa€defendant€is€convicted€of€two€or€more€statutory€offensesÏinvolving€sexual€abuse€of€a€minor€with€consideration€of€theÏaggravating€circumstances€arising€from€the€relationship€betweenÏthe€defendant€and€the€victim€or€victims€.€.€.ÌIn€the€present€case,€the€fact€that€the€appellant€was€the€grandfather€of€the€victimsÏand€the€fact€that€the€abuse€occurred€over€an€extended€period€of€time€serve€asÏadequate€aggravating€factors€to€impose€consecutive€sentences.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(Ð3™o$¢¢Ý ƒ`!ÝÑÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ7€<¹XXdæXXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýò òà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÙ€€ÙßL€"#!;+'h|%m` O `€€Lßà@ àMAY€SESSION,€1995Ìó óÌÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€02C01„9501„CC„00008Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHARDIN€COUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€ò òC.€CreedÏMcGinleyó ó,€JudgeÌò òRICHARD€J.€HOYTó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Aggravated€Rape,Ï2€counts;Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)à àAggravatedÏSexual€Battery)Ìà àÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌò òRichard€W.€DeBerryà àà àà àCharles€W.ÏBursonó óÌAsst.€District€Public€Defenderà àà àAttorney€GeneralÏand€ReporterÌP.€O.€Box€663à àÌCamden,€TN€€38320à àà àà àò òClinton€J.€Morganó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneralà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òG.€Robert€Radfordó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òJohn€Overtonó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMain€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSavannah,€TN€38372ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌò òREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÌÇÓÓà@ àòòò òOPINIONÌÌà àóóó óThe€appellant,€Richard€J.€Hoyt,€was€convicted€of€two€counts€ofÏaggravated€rape€and€one€count€of€aggravated€sexual€battery€after€a€jury€trial€inÏthe€Circuit€Court€of€Hardin€County.× ƒ$ ××  ×€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€appellant€toÏtwenty„five€years€for€each€aggravated€rape€conviction€and€twelve€years€for€theÏaggravated€sexual€battery€conviction.€€The€court€ordered€the€sentences€to€runÏconsecutively,€resulting€in€an€effective€sentence€of€sixty„two€years.€€In€thisÏappeal€as€of€right,€the€appellant€raises€four€issues€for€our€review.€€First,€theÏappellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€to€sustain€any€of€the€threeÏconvictions.€€Second,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failingÏto€sever€the€three€counts€of€the€indictment.€€Third,€the€appellant€argues€that€theÏindividual€sentences€were€excessive€and€based€upon€improper€enhancementÏfactors.€€Finally,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€orderingÏconsecutive€sentences.ÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àòòò òI.€€Factual€Backgroundóóó óÌà àThe€offenses€which€give€rise€to€the€appellant's€convictions€are:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓCount€One,€aggravated€rape€of€AL× ƒ% ××  ×€during€the€periodÏbetween€November€1,€1992€and€February€7,€1994;ÌÌCount€Two,€aggravated€rape€of€RL€during€the€periodÏbetween€November€1,€1992€and€February€7,€1994;€andÌÌCount€Three,€aggravated€sexual€battery€of€KB€during€theÏperiod€between€July€1,€1993€and€February€7,€1994.ÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓÌÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àOn€the€dates€these€offenses€occurred,€the€appellant€was€married€to€theÏvictims'€grandmother.€€€All€three€of€the€victims€were€minors€under€the€age€ofÏthirteen.€€Two€of€the€victims,€AL€and€RL,€who€are€brother€and€sister€and€are€theÏgrandchildren€of€the€appellant,€lived€with€the€appellant€and€his€wife€in€HardinÏCounty.€€The€other€victim,€KB,€the€stepgrandchild€of€the€appellant,€lived€with€herÏmother€in€Lewis€County.ÌÌà àThe€following€facts€were€developed€as€to€each€of€the€three€counts:ÌÌà@ àòòò òA.€€Count€Oneóóó óÌÌà àAs€to€the€first€count€of€aggravated€rape,€AL,€who€was€eight€years€old€atÏthe€time€of€the€trial,€testified€that€she€lived€with€her€grandmother€and€theÏappellant€in€1993.€€AL€stated€that€on€one€occasion,€while€in€the€bathroom€at€theÍappellant's€home,€the€appellant€told€her€to€"suck€[her]€brother's€private"€and€toldÏher€brother€€to€"suck€[her]€private."€€AL€also€testified€that€on€at€least€one€occasionÏthe€appellant€forced€her€to€"suck€his€private"€and€that€he€"licked€[her]€private."€ÏAL€stated€that€the€appellant€told€her€that€he€would€kill€her€mother€if€she€toldÏanyone.ÌÌà@ àòòò òB.€€Count€Twoó óÌóóÌà àAs€to€the€second€count€of€aggravated€rape,€RL,€who€was€nine€years€ofÏage€at€the€time€of€the€trial,€testified€that€he€also€lived€with€his€grandmother€andÏthe€appellant€during€the€1993€school€year.€€RL€stated€that€the€appellant€madeÏhim€"suck€[the€appellant's]€private"€at€times€when€his€grandmother€was€not€at€ÌÌhome,€and€that€the€appellant€"sucked€[his]€private."€€RL€testified€that€theÏappellant€had€been€doing€these€things€for€several€years.ÌÌà@ àòòò òC.€€Count€Threeóóó óÌÌà àAs€to€the€charge€of€aggravated€sexual€battery,€KB,€who€was€eleven€yearsÏold€at€the€time€of€the€trial,€testified€that€in€February€1993,€she,€her€mother,€andÏher€younger€sister€visited€the€appellant€and€his€wife€to€celebrate€the€appellant'sÏbirthday.€€KB€and€the€appellant€were€sitting€in€her€mother's€van€as€KB,€herÍmother,€and€her€sister€were€getting€ready€to€leave.€€KB€testified€that,€as€she€satÏin€the€van,€the€appellant€put€his€hand€to€her€breast€area€and€"tickled"€her,€andÏ"french€kissed"€her€on€the€mouth.€€KB€stated€that€on€a€prior€occasion€theÏappellant€had€"messed"€with€her€breast€while€he€was€tickling€her.€€KB's€motherÏtestified€that€on€their€way€home€that€day,€KB€told€her€what€had€happened.€€TheÏnext€day,€KB's€mother€and€KB's€aunt€(AL€and€RL's€mother)€took€KB€and€theÏother€children€to€the€public€welfare€office,€where€they€spoke€with€a€lady€aboutÏincidents€of€sexual€abuse€involving€the€appellant.€€Elaine€Brown,€an€employeeÏof€the€Department€of€Human€Services,€corroborated€the€mother's€testimony.ÌÌà àKB's€younger€sister,€who€was€eight€years€old€at€the€time€of€the€trial,Ïtestified€that€she€was€in€the€van€during€the€incident€and€saw€the€appellant€reachÏdown€KB's€shirt.€€According€to€the€younger€sister,€as€the€appellant€reachedÏdown€KB's€shirt,€he€exclaimed,€"[o]ops,€you€ain't€got€a€bra€on."ÌÌà àÌà àLowel€Morgan,€a€neighbor€of€the€appellant,€testified€for€the€defense.€ÏMorgan€testified€that€he€had€known€the€appellant€for€about€ten€months,€and€thatÏhe€had€given€excess€milk€from€his€dairy€cows€to€the€appellant€on€severalÏoccasions.€€Morgan€stated€that€he€never€saw€anything€out€of€the€ordinary€whenÏhe€was€at€the€appellant's€home,€and€that€the€appellant's€wife€was€usually€there.ÌÌà àMaintaining€his€innocence,€the€appellant€testified€in€his€own€defense.€ÏThe€appellant€testified€that€the€children€were€being€"coached"€by€their€parentsÏand€his€ex„wife€in€order€to€obtain€the€appellant's€money€and€property.€€TheÏappellant€added€that€KB's€mother€had€"filed€a€lawsuit€for€$250,000"€against€him.ÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€proof,€the€jury€found€the€appellant€guilty€of€allÏthree€counts.€€After€conducting€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€sentencedÏthe€appellant€as€a€Range€I€offender€to€the€maximum€sentences€for€each€offense:Ïtwenty„five€years€for€each€aggravated€rape€conviction€and€twelve€years€for€theÏaggravated€sexual€battery€conviction.€€The€trial€court€also€ordered€that€theÏsentences€be€served€consecutively.€€The€appellant€now€appeals€from€theÏconvictions€and€the€sentences.ÌÌà@ àò òII.€€òòSufficiency€of€the€Evidenceóóó óÌÌà àThe€appellant€first€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€to€sustain€aÏconviction€for€any€of€the€three€offenses.€€The€appellant's€argument€is€threefold.€ÏFirst,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€victims€were€"coached€to€make€theÏstatements€against€him€by€his€ex„wife€and€her€daughters€for€financial€reasons."€ÏSecond,€the€appellant€argues€that€inconsistencies€in€the€testimony€of€KB€andÏher€sister€"indicate[s]€that€they€were€inventing€the€testimony€about€the€allegedÏincident."€€Finally,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€testimony€of€AL€did€notÍestablish€the€element€of€penetration.€These€arguments€are€without€merit.ÌÌÌà àA€jury€conviction€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€with€which€aÏdefendant€is€initially€cloaked€and€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt,€so€that€on€appealÏa€convicted€defendant€has€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€the€evidence€isÏinsufficient.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€In€determiningÏthe€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€does€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€theÏevidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€On€appeal,Ïthe€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€allÏreasonable€or€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.ÏHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).€€It€is€the€appellate€court's€duty€to€affirmÏthe€conviction€if€the€evidence,€viewed€under€these€standards,€was€sufficient€forÏany€rational€trier€of€fact€to€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€offensesÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€317,€99€S.Ct.Ï2781,€2789€(1979);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994);€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€13(e).ÌÌà@ àò òA.ó óÌÌà àWe€first€address€the€appellant's€contentions€that€the€victims€wereÏ"coached,"€and€that€inconsistencies€in€the€testimony€of€KB€and€her€sisterÍindicate€that€they€were€inventing€their€testimony.€€The€jury€is€the€primaryÏinstrument€of€justice€to€determine€the€weight€and€credibility€to€be€given€to€theÏtestimony€of€the€witnesses.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€A€jury€verdict,Ïsupported€by€the€trial€court,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€theÏState€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State's€theory.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,Ï657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983).€€Thus€by€returning€a€verdict€of€guilty,€the€juryÏrejected€the€appellant's€contentions€regarding€the€untruthfulness€of€the€victims.€ÏWe€can€find€no€reason€to€interfere€with€the€jury's€finding.ÌÌà@ àò òB.ó óÌÌà àWe€next€address€the€appellant's€contention€that€the€testimony€of€AL€didÏnot€establish€the€element€of€penetration€under€Count€One.€€The€appellantÏargues€that€AL€"testified€that€the€defendant€told€her€to€do€things€to€private€parts,Ïbut€she€does€(sic)€not€testify€as€to€any€penetration€by€the€defendant."ÌÌà àSexual€penetration€necessary€to€establish€rape€includes€cunnilingus.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„501€(7)€(1991).€€In€the€instant€case,€the€trial€courtÏdefined€cunnilingus€to€the€jury€as€"an€act€of€sexual€perversion€committed€byÏplacing€the€mouth€or€tongue€on€or€in€the€vagina€of€another."€€This€definition€isÏvirtually€identical€to€the€definition€of€cunnilingus€that€has€been€approved€by€thisÏcourt.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Michael€Warren€Evansóó,€No€02C01„9306„CC„00124€(Tenn.ÍCrim.€App.€at€Jackson,€March€2,€1994),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.1994);€ÏòòState€v.€Karl€E.€Vanderbiltóó,€No.€70€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€April€8,€1992),Ïòòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.1992)€(defining€"cunnilingus"€as€"a€sexualÏactivity€involving€oral€contact€with€the€female€genitals").€€ÌÌà àAn€examination€of€the€record€reveals€the€following€testimony€during€theÏdirect€examination€of€AL:ÌÓÓà8 àQ.€€What€is€your€private;€what€do€you€mean€when€you€say€that€?Ìà8 àA.€€Between€my€legs.Ìà8 àQ.€€He€had€you€and€your€brother,€you€say,€lick€each€other'sÏprivate?Ìà8 àA.€€He€told€my€brother€to€suck€mine€and€me€to€lick€my€brother's.Ìà8 àQ.€€Now,€did€he€ever€do€anything€to€you€with€his€private?Ìà8 àA.€€He€told€me€to€suck€his€private€òòand€he€licked€mineóó.ÌÌÌÓÓThis€testimony€clearly€establishes€that€the€appellant€performed€cunnilingus€onÏAL.€€Therefore,€a€rational€juror€could€have€found€that€the€appellant€penetratedÏAL.ÌÌà@ àò òIII.€€òòSeveranceóóó óÌÌà àPrior€to€trial,€the€appellant€moved€the€court€to€sever€all€counts€of€theÏindictment.€€In€response€to€the€appellant's€motion,€the€trial€court€severed€CountsÏFour€and€Five€for€driving€under€the€influence€and€driving€on€a€revoked€licenseÍbut€ruled€that€all€remaining€counts€(One,€Two€and€Three)€would€be€tried€jointly.× ƒ& ××  ×€ÏThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€so€ruling.ÌÌà àIn€reviewing€the€trial€court's€denial€of€the€appellant's€motion€to€severÏunder€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€14,€this€court€must€first€determine,€as€a€matter€of€law,Ïwhether€the€joinder€of€Counts€One,€Two,€and€Three€were€proper€under€Tenn.€R.ÏCrim.€P.€8(b).€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€8(b)€permits€two€or€more€offenses€to€be€joined€inÏthe€same€indictment€in€separate€counts€if€the€offenses€"constitute€parts€of€aÏcommon€scheme€or€plan€or€if€they€are€of€the€same€or€similar€character."€ÏHowever,€under€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€14(b)(1),€a€defendant€is€entitled€to€severanceÏof€two€or€more€offenses€that€have€been€joined€or€consolidated€for€trial€unless€(1)Ïthe€offenses€are€part€of€a€common€scheme€or€plan€òòandóó€(2)€the€evidence€of€oneÏwould€be€admissible€in€the€State's€case„in„chief€upon€the€trial€of€the€other.€€ÌÌà àThe€first€prong€of€Rule€14(b)(1)€requires€the€trial€court€to€find€a€commonÏscheme€or€plan.€€A€common€scheme€or€plan€for€severance€purposes€is€theÍsame€as€a€common€scheme€or€plan€for€evidentiary€purposes.€€òòHallockóó,€875ÏS.W.2d€at€289„290€(citing€òòState€v.€Peacockóó,€638€S.W.2d€837€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1982)).€€There€are€three€categories€of€"common€scheme€or€plan"€evidence.€ÏThese€include€(1)€distinctive€designs,€or€signature€crimes;€(2)€a€larger,Ïcontinuing€plan€or€conspiracy;€and€(3)€the€same€transaction.€€N.€Cohen,ÏòòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€ðð€404.11€(2nd€ed.€1990).€€ÌÌà àTo€fall€within€the€first€category€of€"distinctive€design€or€signature,"€€similarÏcrimes€committed€by€the€defendant€"are€admissible€to€show€the€defendant'sÏòòmodus€operandióó€€from€which€it€may€be€inferred€that€the€defendant€probablyÏcommitted€the€nearly€identical€crime€for€which€he€or€she€is€on€trial."€€òòIdóó.€ÏHowever,€the€òòmodus€operandióó€must€be€so€unique€and€distinctive€as€to€be€like€aÏsignature,€i.e.,€it€must€be€probative€of€the€defendant's€identity.€€òòHallockóó,€875ÏS.W.2d€at€290.€€To€determine€whether€certain€crimes€fit€into€this€category,€"theÏtest€is€not€whether€there€was€evidence€that€a€defendant€committed€both€crimes,Ïbut€whether€there€was€a€unique€method€used€in€committing€the€crimes."€€òòYoungÏv.€Stateóó,€566€S.W.2d€895,€898€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€òòE.g.óó,€€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,Ï189€Tenn.€635,€227€S.W.2d€8,€11€(1950).ÌÌà àThe€second€category,€"continuing€plan€or€conspiracy,"€involves€not€theÏsimilarity€between€the€crimes,€but€the€common€goal€or€purpose€at€which€theyÏare€directed.€€N.€Cohen,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€ðð€404.11€(2nd€ed.€1990).Ô% € Ô€ÍIn€such€circumstance,€the€proof€sought€is€of€a€working€plan,€operating€towardsÏthe€future€with€such€force€as€to€make€probable€the€crime€for€which€the€defendantÏis€on€trial.€€òòIdóó.€€(citing€òòWigmore€on€Evidence€249€(Cóóhadbourn€rev.€1979)).€€òòE.g.óó,€ÏòòState€v.€Brownóó,€823€S.W.2d€576,€585€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àFinally,€to€qualify€within€the€"same€transaction€category,"€the€crimes€mustÏoccur€within€a€single€criminal€episode.€€òòHallockóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€290.€€ThisÏcategory€allows€proof€of€acts€occurring€before€and€after€the€offense€at€issue€toÏbe€admitted€to€provide€the€trier€of€fact€with€"the€full€story."€€N.€Cohen,€òòTennesseeÏLaw€of€Evidenceóó,€ðð€404.11€(2nd€ed.€1990).€€òòE.g.óó,€€òòState€v.€Payneóó,€791€S.W.2dÏ10,€16€(Tenn.€1990).ÌÌà àThe€second€prong€of€Rule€14(b)(1)€involves€the€admissibility€of€theÏevidence€of€one€crime€in€the€trial€of€the€other.€€Evidence€that€the€accusedÏcommitted€crimes€independent€of€those€for€which€he€is€on€trial€is€generallyÏinadmissible€because€such€evidence€lacks€relevance€and€invites€the€finder€ofÏfact€to€infer€guilt€from€propensity.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€€However,€evidence€ofÏother€crimes,€wrongs,€or€acts€may€be€admissible€for€other€purposes.€€òòIdóó.€€Tenn.ÏR.€Evid.€404(b)€sets€forth€€"conditions€which€must€be€satisfied€before€admittingÏsuch€evidence."€€ÌÌà àTherefore,€for€€purposes€of€severance€under€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€14(b)(1),Íthe€trial€court€is€required€to€hold€a€pre„trial€hearing.€€òòSee€generallyóó€€òòState€v.ÏBigbeeóó,€€885€S.W.2d€797,€806€(Tenn.€1994);€€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,Ï732€(Tenn.€1994);€€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€144,€150€(Tenn.€1992).€€DuringÏthis€hearing,€the€trial€court€must€determine€that€evidence€of€prior€crimes€or€badÏacts€is€relevant€to€a€material€issue€other€than€character.€€òòIdóó.€€Although€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€404(b)€does€not€explicitly€list€such€exceptions,€as€does€its€federalÏcounterpart,€case€law€has€defined€issues€to€which€other€crimes€evidence€mayÏbe€relevant.€€Thus,€evidence€of€other€crimes€may€be€admissible€to€show€(1)Ïmotive;€(2)€intent;€(3)€guilty€knowledge;€(4)€identity€of€the€defendant;€(5)€absenceÏof€mistake€or€accident;€or€(6)€a€common€scheme€or€plan€for€commission€of€twoÏor€more€crimes€so€related€to€each€other€that€proof€of€one€tends€to€establish€theÏother.× ƒ' ××  ×€€€òòCollard€v.€Stateóó,€526€S.W.2d€112,€114€(Tenn.€1975).€€If€the€courtÏdetermines€that€the€evidence€is€relevant€to€some€other€issue,€the€trial€court€mustÏstate€on€the€record€the€specific€issue€to€which€the€evidence€is€relevant.€€òòBigbeeóó,€Ï885€S.W.2d€at€806.€€Finally,€the€trial€court€must€Ó` °…Xu•XÓconduct€a€balancing€testÏweighing€the€probative€value€of€such€evidence€against€its€unfair€prejudicialÏeffect.€€òòState€v.€McKnightóó,€900€S.W.2d€36,€51€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€òòperm.€toÏappeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1995).€€This€court€inòò€McKnightóó,€900€S.W.2d€at€51,€set€outÍfactors€to€consider€when€conducting€this€balancing€test.€€These€factors€include€".Ï.€.€€the€likelihood€the€defendant€committed€the€other€crimes,€and€the€degree€of€itsÏrelevance."€òòIdóó.€€The€court€also€added€that€"[t]he€similarility€of€the€acts€makes€theÏprobative€value€particularly€significant."€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àTherefore,€€before€two€or€more€offenses€may€properly€be€joined€underÏRule€8(b)€in€the€same€indictment,€Rule€14(b)(1)€requires€that€the€trial€court€(1)Ïfind€that€the€offenses€are€part€of€a€common€scheme€or€plan,€and€(2)€comply€withÏthe€procedural€requirements€of€Tenn.€Rule€Evid.€404(b).€ÌÌà@ àò òA.€€Counts€One€and€Twoó óÌÌà àIn€the€first€two€counts€of€the€indictment€against€the€appellant,€theÏappellant€was€charged€with€the€rape€of€AL€and€RL.€€AL€and€RL€are€sister€andÏbrother€and€lived€in€the€same€household€as€the€appellant€at€the€time€theÏoffenses€occurred.€€The€circumstances€surrounding€the€two€offenses€are€similar.€ÏBoth€offenses€involved€oral€penetration€and€€occurred€in€the€appellant's€homeÏat€times€when€the€victims'€grandmother€was€not€present€and€the€appellant€wasÏthe€sole€caretaker€of€the€children.€€Both€victims€are€around€the€same€age.€€€€ÌÌà àThe€similarities€between€these€offenses€are€sufficient€to€establish€aÏdistinctive€design,€i.e.€òòmodus€operandi,€óóthus€establishing€a€common€plan€orÍscheme.€òòSee€e.g.óó,€€òòMcKnightóó,€900€S.W.2d€at€52;€òòState€v.€Edwardsóó,€868€S.W.2dÏ682€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€€òòState€v.€Woodenóó,€658€S.W.2d€553€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1983);€€òòWhite€v.€Stateóó,€533€S.W.2d€735€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975).€€AlthoughÏthere€are€some€differences€between€the€two€offenses,€it€is€not€necessary€that€theÏtwo€crimes€be€identical€in€every€detail.€€òòBunch€v.€Stateóó,€605€S.W.2d€227,€231Ï(Tenn.€1980).€€Moreover,€the€similarities€far€outweigh€these€differences.€€Thus,Ïthe€first€prong€of€Rule€14€(b)(1)€is€met.ÌÌÌà àIn€order€to€comply€with€the€requirements€of€the€second€prong,€the€trialÏcourt€was€required€to€conduct€a€hearing€to€determine€if€evidence€of€one€offenseÏis€relevant€to€a€material€issue€in€the€trial€of€the€other€offense€and€to€determineÏwhether€the€probative€value€of€such€evidence€outweighs€any€prejudicial€effect.€ÏIn€the€instant€case,€the€trial€court€failed€to€conduct€such€a€hearing.× ƒ( ××  ×€€Rather€thanÏremand€for€a€404(b)€hearing,€we€elect€to€complete€this€analysis€as€the€victims'Ïtestimony€is€contained€in€the€record€before€us.ÌÌà àAs€we€have€previously€determined,€the€evidence€of€the€offense€againstÏAL€and€the€offense€against€RL€involves€a€common€plan€or€scheme.€€As€such,Íthe€evidence€of€each€offense€addresses€an€issue€relevant€to€the€other€offenseÏand€is€therefore€admissible€in€the€trial€of€the€other.€€However,€in€a€matter€of€firstÏimpression,€we€hold€that€the€joinder€of€these€counts€would€unduly€prejudice€theÏappellant€at€trial.€€The€"open€dated"€indictment€(November€1992€to€FebruaryÏ1994),€in€the€present€case,€permits€the€State's€introduction€of€other€unindictedÏsexual€crimes€or€bad€acts€by€the€appellant€in€its€case„in„chief.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.ÏRickmanóó,€876€S.W.2d€824,€829€(Tenn.€1994).€€Because€there€are€two€countsÏinvolving€two€different€victims,€evidence€of€multiple€sexual€offenses€would€beÏadmissible€under€each€count.€€€Thus,€the€"taint"€of€such€evidence€introducedÏunder€one€count€would€bolster€the€second€joined€offense€and€vice€versa.€ÏAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€probative€value€in€the€introduction€of€aÏcommon€scheme€is€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€in€the€joinderÏof€Counts€One€and€Two.€€In€so€holding,€we€conclude€that€Counts€One€and€TwoÏmust€be€severed€under€the€facts€presented.× ƒ) ××  ×€€€€ÌÌò òà@ àB.€€Count€Threeó óÌÌà àThe€final€count€of€the€indictment€against€the€appellant€was€theÏaggravated€sexual€battery€of€KB.€€The€circumstances€surrounding€this€offenseÏare€dissimilar€from€the€offenses€in€Counts€One€and€Two.€€Unlike€the€other€twoÍvictims,€KB€did€not€live€in€the€same€household€as€the€appellant.€€KB€was€notÏunder€the€"parental€supervision"€of€the€appellant€as€were€the€other€two€victims.€ÏOther€adults€were€at€the€residence€when€this€offense€occurred.€€The€recordÏindicates€that€the€dates€on€which€the€crimes€against€AL€and€RL€were€committedÏwere€never€identified€and€could€have€occurred€at€any€time€during€a€sixteenÏmonth€period.€€In€contrast,€the€evidence€establishes€that€the€crime€against€KBÏoccurred€on€the€date€of€February€7,€1994.€€Thus,€we€are€unable€to€conclude€thatÏthis€offense€was€closely€connected€in€time€to€the€offenses€charged€in€CountsÏOne€and€Two.€€Most€importantly,€the€unlawful€sexual€contact€alleged€in€CountÏThree€consisted€of€the€ÌÌappellant€fondling€the€breast€of€KB€and€kissing€her,€a€pattern€of€sexualÏmisconduct€wholly€different€from€that€alleged€in€Counts€One€and€Two.€€ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Diesóó,€829€S.W.2d€706€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991),€we€were€facedÏwith€a€similar€situation.€€In€òòDiesóó,€we€held:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓAlthough€there€are€similarities€in€that€both€victims€were€nearÏthe€same€age,€they€were€not€both€residing€in€the€house;€theÏacts€occurred€at€least€four€months€apart;€and,€the€allegedÏsexual€acts€were€not€particularly€similar.€€One€victim€relatedÏthat€the€defendant€had€rubbed€her€"private€parts"€and€onÏanother€occasion€had€"licked€her€panties."€€The€other€victimÏtestified€that€the€defendant€"started€kissing€her€on€herÏforehead€and€playing€with€her€middle€section.€€We€do€notÏagree€that€this€constituted€a€common€scheme€or€plan€norÏthat€the€economics€of€the€case€would€prohibit€a€severance.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓ829€S.W.2d€at€709.ÌÌà àIn€accordance€with€our€holding€in€òòDiesóó,€we€conclude€that€the€offenseÏalleged€in€Count€Three€was€not€part€of€a€common€scheme€or€plan€inÏconjunction€with€Counts€One€and€Two.€€In€complying€with€the€requirements€ofÏ404(b),€we€also€conclude€that€the€evidence€elicited€in€support€of€Count€ThreeÏwould€not€be€admissible€in€separate€trials€for€Counts€One€and€Two,€and€that€theÏprejudicial€effect€of€such€evidence€outweighs€any€probative€value.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.ÏBurchfieldóó,€664€S.W.2d€284,€286€(Tenn.€1984).€€In€the€present€case,€theÏtestimony€of€KB€bolstered€the€testimony€of€the€other€two€victims.€€Failure€toÏsever,€under€these€circumstances,€invited€reliance€upon€the€propensity€notion.€ÏTherefore,€we€hold€that€the€appellant€was€unduly€prejudiced€by€the€joinder€ofÏCount€Three€with€Counts€One€and€Two€of€the€indictment.€€As€a€result,€we€mustÏremand€all€three€counts€for€new€trials.ÌÌÌÌà@ àòòò òIV.€€Plain€Erroróóó óÌÌà àBefore€we€consider€the€appellant's€sentencing€issues,€we€are€compelled,Íin€the€interest€of€judicial€efficiency,€to€discuss€issues€resulting€from€the€timeÏframes€set€forth€in€the€indictment€and€the€proof€offered€at€trial.€€The€indictmentÏcharges€that€the€appellant€"during€a€period€between€November€1,€1992€andÏFebruary€7,€1994"€committed€the€offense€of€aggravated€rape€against€AL;€that€theÏappellant€"during€a€period€between€November€1,€1992€and€February€7,€1994"Ïcommitted€the€offense€of€aggravated€rape€against€RL;€and€that€the€appellantÏ"during€a€period€of€time€between€July€1,€1993€and€February€7,€1994"€committedÏthe€offense€of€aggravated€sexual€battery€against€KB.€€ÌÌà àMoreover,€the€testimony€offered€at€trial€did€not€establish€any€particularÏdate€or€event,€but€revealed€that€each€of€the€offenses€took€place€more€than€onceÏwithin€the€indicted€period€of€time.€€AL€stated€that,€on€most€occasions,€theÏappellant€performed€oral€sex€on€her,€and€he€made€her€perform€oral€sex€on€him.€ÏAL€testified€that€"[o]ne€time€[the€appellant]€did€it€in€my€grandma's€bathroom.€€AndÏthe€rest€of€the€time€he€did€it€in€my€cousin's€room."€€However,€AL€testified€that€onÏone€occasion€the€appellant€made€her€and€RL€perform€oral€sex€on€each€other.€ÏThis€event€occurred€in€the€bathroom.€€€RL€testified€that€when€his€grandmotherÏwas€not€home,€the€appellant€would€"make€me€suck€his€private."€€RL€stated€thatÏthese€acts€occurred€"in€the€bathroom€and€in€his€bedroom."€€Additionally,€€RLÏindicated€that€the€appellant€had€committed€these€acts€over€a€period€of€years.€ÏKB€testified€only€as€to€one€other€incident€involving€the€appellant.€€She€statedÏthat€the€touching€"happened€in€February€and€then€it€happened€one€other€time."€ÍAt€trial,€KB€could€not€remember€exactly€when€the€other€incident€occurred,€butÏshe€ÌÌÌtestified€that€both€offenses€involved€"messing€with€her€breast."€€KB's€motherÏtestified€that€KB€stated,€"Mom€this€ain't€the€first€time€its€happened."× ƒ+ ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€general€rule€is€that€this€court€does€not€consider€issues€that€are€notÏraised€in€the€trial€court,€however,€plain€error€is€a€proper€consideration€for€anÏappellate€court€whether€properly€assigned€or€not.€€òòState€v.€Ogleóó,€666€S.W.2d€58,Ï60€(Tenn.€1984);€€òòsee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Claboóó,€No.€03C01„9307CR„00217€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Jan.€12,€1995).€€Moreover,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(b)€statesÏthat€an€error€affecting€"the€substantial€rights€of€the€accused€may€be€noticed€atÏany€time€where€necessary€to€do€substantial€justice."€€ÌÌò òà@ àòòA.€€Plain€Error€Review:€Election€of€Offensesóóó óÌÌà àThe€courts€of€this€state€have€consistently€held€that€when€evidenceÏsuggests€that€a€defendant€has€committed€multiple€sex€crimes€against€a€victim,Ïand€the€crimes€are€charged€in€a€single€count,€the€court€òòmustóó€require€the€State€toÏelect€the€particular€offense€for€which€a€conviction€is€sought.€€òòShelton€v.€Stateóó,Ï851€S.W.2d€134,€136€(Tenn.€1993);€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€762€S.W.2d€135,€137Ï(Tenn.€1988);€€òòBurlison€v.€Stateóó,€501€S.W.2d€801,€804€(Tenn.€1973).€€In€fact,€theÏ"requirement€of€election€is€fundamental,€immediately€touching€on€theÏconstitutional€rights€of€the€accused."€€òòSheltonóó,€851€S.W.2d€at€137.€€Thus,€the€trialÏcourt€must€require€the€prosecution€to€elect€offenses€even€absent€a€request€fromÏthe€defendant.€€òòBurlisonóó,€501€S.W.2d€at€804.€€òòBurlisonóó€set€forth€three€reasons€forÏthe€election€requirement:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓ[f]irst,€to€enable€the€defendant€to€prepare€for€and€make€hisÏdefense€to€the€specific€charge;€second,€to€protect€him€fromÏdouble€jeopardy€by€individualization€of€the€issue;€and€third,Ïso€that€the€jury's€verdict€may€not€be€a€matter€of€choiceÏbetween€offenses,€some€jurors€convicting€on€one€offenseÏand€others,€another.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓòòBurlisonóó,€501€S.W.2d€at€803.ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€it€is€clear€that€although€the€indictment€charged€the€appellantÏwith€one€distinct€sexual€offense€against€each€victim,€the€evidence€suggestedÏmultiple€offenses€against€each€victim.€€At€trial,€each€victim€described€numerousÍoccasions€on€which€the€appellant€committed€unlawful€acts.€€Under€theseÏcircumstances,€the€court€should€have€required€the€State€to€elect€one€of€theseÏincidents€to€rely€upon€for€a€conviction.€€The€court's€failure€to€do€so€abridged€theÏappellant's€constitutional€right€to€a€unanimous€jury€verdict,€and€therefore,€alsoÏmandates€a€reversal€of€the€appellant's€conviction.ÌÌÌò òà@ àòòB.€€Plain€Error€Review:€404(b):€€Prior€Bad€Actsóóó óÌÌà àTennessee€recognizes€a€narrow€rule€relating€to€the€admissibility€ofÏevidence€of€other€sex€crimes.€€This€rule€admits€prior€sex€crimes€into€evidenceÏwhen€an€indictment€is€not€time€specific,€and€when€the€evidence€relates€to€sexÏcrimes€that€allegedly€occurred€during€the€time€charged€in€the€indictment.€€òòStateÏv.€Rickmanóó,€876€S.W.2d€824,€829€(Tenn.€1994);€€òòsee€alsoóó,€€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€Ï851€S.W.2d€134,€136€(Tenn.€1993);€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€€762€S.W.2d€135,€137Ï(Tenn.€1988).€€Unlike€evidence€of€prior€crimes€excluded€by€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï404(b),€evidence€of€a€prior€sex€crime€that€is€necessarily€included€within€theÏcharge€of€the€indictment€is€also€neccessarily€relevant€to€the€issues€being€triedÏand,€therefore,€is€admissible.€€òòRickmanóó,€€876€S.W.2d€at€829.€€Thus,€AL's,€RL's,Ïand€KB's€testimony€relating€to€other€sexual€incidents€within€the€indicted€timeÏperiod€would€be€admissible€assuming€an€election€of€offenses€is€made.€€ÌÌà à€The€introduction€of€other€incidents€of€sexual€crimes€occurring€òòwithinóó€theÏindicted€period€requires€an€election€of€offenses;€likewise,€the€introduction€ofÏother€sexual€crimes€òòoutsideóó€the€indicted€period€or€in€a€"date€specific"€indictmentÏrequires€compliance€with€Rule€404(b)€procedures.€€As€noted,€RL€testified€toÏincidents€of€sexual€crimes€by€the€appellant€occurring€prior€to€November€of€1992Ïand,€thus,€outside€the€indicted€time€frame.€€RL€indicated€during€his€testimonyÏthat€the€illicit€acts€were€continuous€over€a€period€of€years,€occurring€throughoutÏseveral€states€including€California,€Texas€and€Tennessee.€€In€accordance€withÏ404(b),€the€trial€court€was€required€to€hold€a€jury„out€hearing€to€determine€theÏadmissibility€of€RL's€assertion€of€bad€acts€occurring€outside€the€indicted€period.€ÏThe€record€demonstrates€that€no€hearing€was€held.× ƒ, ××  ×€€Additionally,€we€cannotÏconclude€that€this€evidence€would€have€been€admissible€as€a€404(b)€exception.€ÏMoreover,€we€conclude€that€RL's€testimony€as€to€these€additional€crimes€isÏmore€prejudicial€than€probative.€€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€the€trial€courtÏcommitted€error€in€admitting€this€evidence.ÌÌà@ àòòò òV.€€Sentencing€Issuesó óóóÌÌà àAlthough€we€need€not€address€the€appellant's€sentencing€issues€as€weÏhave€determined€that€this€case€must€be€reversed€and€remanded,€we€elect€to€ÌÌaddress€errors€in€the€sentencing€court's€application€of€enhancement€factors€forÏthe€purpose€of€retrial.ÌÌò òà@ àA.€€Application€of€Enhancement€Factorsó óÌÌà àReview,€by€this€court,€of€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€aÏsentence€is€òòde€novoóó€with€a€presumption€that€the€determination€made€by€the€trialÏcourt€is€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1990).€€This€presumptionÏapplies€as€the€record€demonstrates€that€the€sentencing€court€properlyÏconsidered€relevant€sentencing€principles.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2dÏ166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€court€sentenced€the€appellant€to€theÏmaximum€penalty€for€each€offense,€ordering€all€offenses€to€run€consecutively.€ÏThe€sentencing€court€found€no€mitigating€factors,€but€found€five€enhancementÏfactors.€€The€court€found€that€the€evidence€established€that:€the€appellant€has€aÏ"prior€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€thoseÏnecessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range,"€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1)Ï(Supp.€1994);€€"the€offense€involved€more€than€one€victim,"€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„114(3);€€"the€personal€injuries€inflicted€upon€or€the€amount€of€damage€toÏthe€property€sustained€by€or€taken€from€the€victim€was€particularly€great,"€€Tenn.ÍCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(6);€€€"the€offense€involved€a€victim€and€was€committedÏto€gratify€the€defendant's€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement,"€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„114(7);€and€€"the€defendant€abused€a€position€of€public€or€private€trust,"€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„114(15).× ƒ. ××  ×ÌÌà àIt€is€a€well€established€principle€that€an€enhancement€factor€may€not€beÏused€to€increase€a€sentence€within€the€appropriate€range€unless€the€factor€isÏestablished€by€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Melvinóó,€No.€01„C„01„9307„CR00214Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€June€28,€1995);€€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Rainesóó,€882ÏS.W.2d€376,€385„85€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€871€S.W.2d€492,Ï495€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€In€the€case€before€us,€the€record€does€not€supportÏthe€use€of€enhancement€factors€(3),€(6),€and€(7).Ì€Ìà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(3)€allows€for€enhancement€when€theÏoffense€involves€more€than€one€victim€within€the€indicted€offense.€€TheÏsentencing€court€erroneously€applied€this€enhancement€factor,€since€there€wereÏseparate€convictions€for€each€victim.€€òòState€v.€Lambertóó,€741€S.W.2d€127,€134Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(6)€provides€for€enhancement€if€theÏpersonal€injuries€to€the€victim€were€great.€€The€sentencing€judge€found€thatÏ"from€reading€the€record€.€.€.€and€listening€to€the€testimony€of€these€youngÏchildren,€as€well€as€the€victim€impact€statements€.€.€.€€that€the€emotional€traumaÏthat€has€been€visited€upon€these€very€young€victims€by€this€person's€criminalÏacts€and€criminal€nature€is€tremendous.€€These€children€will€bear€the€scars€inÏeach€of€these€cases€of€this€man's€activities€for€the€rest€of€their€life."€€The€victimÏimpact€statements€included€in€the€pre„sentence€report€reveal€that€the€victimsÏwere€undergoing€counseling€and€that€their€mothers€predicted€that€theseÏchildren€would€never€be€able€to€have€normal€relationships€in€the€future.€Ï"Personal€injury"€as€expressed€in€enhancement€factor€(6)€encompassesÏemotional€and€psychological€injuries€as€well€as€physical€injuries€sustained€byÏthe€victim.€€òòMelvinóó,€No.€01„C„01„9307„CR00214€(citing€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€891ÏS.W.2d€922€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994).€ÏHowever,€before€this€factor€may€be€applied,€the€State€has€the€burden€ofÏestablishing€that€the€emotional€injuries€and€psychological€scarring€areÏ"particularly€great."€€òòIdóó.€€In€order€to€prove€that€the€injuries€are€particularly€greatÏand/or€will€endure€"for€the€rest€of€[the€victim's]€life,"€the€State€must€offer€expertÏtestimony€to€that€effect.€€òòIdóó.€€(quoting€€òòState€v.€Sternaóó,€No.€01„C„019007CR00163€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€July€24,€1991),€òòperm.€toÏappeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€Dec.€2,€1991)).€€ÌÌà àThere€is€little€question€that€rape€is€a€serious€offense€which€is€injurious€toÏboth€the€body€and€mind€of€the€victim.€€Consequently,€the€legislature€saw€fit€toÏenhance€the€punishment€of€the€crime€of€rape€when€a€child€is€involved.€€òòState€v.ÏEmbryóó,€No.€03C01„9411„CR00402€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Aug.€4,Ï1995).€€As€the€legislature€has€already€enhanced€the€punishment€for€suchÏoffenses,€in€order€to€apply€enhancement€factor€(6)€in€aggravated€rape€cases,Ïthe€State€must€show€that€the€injuries€sustained€by€the€victims€in€this€case€wereÏgreater€than€those€which€ordinarily€result€from€this€serious€offense.€€òòMelvinóó,€No.Ï01„C„01„9307„CR00214;€òòState€v.€Salazaróó,€No.€02C01„9105CR00098€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Jan.€15,€1992).€€Under€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€weÏconclude€that€the€State€has€failed€to€show€that€these€children€suffered€greaterÏinjuries€than€that€which€is€ordinarily€involved€in€such€offenses.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€Accordingly,Ïthis€enhancement€factor€cannot€be€applied.ÌÌà àThe€sentencing€court€also€applied€enhancement€factor€(7)€providing€forÏenhancement€when€the€offense€was€committed€to€satisfy€the€defendant's€desireÏfor€pleasure.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(7).€€In€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€864€S.W.2dÏ31,€34„35€(Tenn.€1993),€our€supreme€court€rejected€the€proposition€that,€"as€aÏmatter€of€law,€every€rape€is€implicitly€committed€for€the€purpose€of€pleasure€orÏexcitement."€€The€supreme€court€noted€that€not€all€such€crimes€are€committed€forÍpleasure,€but€rather€may€be€motivated€by€acts€of€brutality,€revenge,€punishment,Ïintimidation,€et.€al.€€òòIdóó.€€Thus,€even€though€this€enhancement€factor€may€beÏapplied€to€such€cases,€the€State€has€the€burden€of€demonstrating€the€rape€asÏbeing€sexually€motivated.€€òòIdóó.€€In€the€case€before€us,€the€record€is€again€void€ofÏany€showing€by€the€State€as€to€the€particular€motivation€for€the€appellant'sÏconduct.€€Absent€any€such€proof,€we€conclude€that€this€enhancement€factor€isÏinapplicable.ÌÌÌà à€When€determining€the€length€of€a€sentence,€the€court€must€presume€thatÏthe€minimum€sentence€within€the€range€is€applicable.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210€(1990).€€However,€if€there€are€no€mitigating€factors,€the€court€may€set€theÏsentence€above€the€minimum€in€that€range€and€may€also€determine€the€weightÏapplicable€to€each€enhancement€factor.€€òòIdóó.€€From€a€review€of€the€record,€weÏconclude€that€the€sentencing€court€erroneously€applied€enhancement€factorsÏ(3),€(6),€and€(7).€€However,€the€sentencing€court€was€correct€in€its€finding€ofÏenhancement€factors€(1)€and€(15).€€We€also€conclude€that€application€of€theÏmitigating€factors€was€correctly€denied.€ÌÌà àDue€to€the€elimination€of€three€enhancement€factors€and€the€weightÏafforded€the€remaining€factors,€we€conclude€that€modification€of€the€appellant'sÏsentences€are€necessary.€€Although€academic€at€this€point,€but€for€purposes€ofÍretrial,€we€would€impose€sentences€of€twenty€years€for€each€of€the€aggravatedÏrape€convictions€and€a€ten€year€sentence€for€the€aggravated€sexual€batteryÏconviction.ÌÌÌà àAdditionally,€the€appellant€contends€that€consecutive€sentencing€was€notÏproper€in€this€case.€€We€disagree.€€The€record€reflects€that€the€trial€court€Ìproperly€applied€consecutive€sentences€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(5)Ï(1990).× ƒ0 ××  ×€€Therefore,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€stated€herein,€we€reverse€the€appellant's€convictions€andÏremand€this€case€for€retrials€consistent€with€this€opinion.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò òDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌó óÌ__________________________________Ìò òWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€Judgeó ó