ÿWPCU …# VUNa %¯ 0(µLÝb) w@1 4q … 0Æ” 0DZ U:ž Ø 0Jà 0T* 0^~ 0hÜ 0rD 0|¶ 0†2 0¸ 1uH 0d½ B!U>>U *|B)¦DCÏ AM D3_’w¨ 0@v~_vÓÝ AO°Æÿ 0DÅ D/  B8˜HP LaserJet 4M PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLlÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT- ù- ÌEÍÎÏEÐÑEÒÓEÔÕÓ€U”$3|xà(v(2ôÿ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X×›XXXÔÔ€ô(ÑôXX×›Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ'ÿÿdxd Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òMay€26,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó mÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€&ÔÔ€&ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ms.€Mullinex€actually€testified€that€Appellant€showed€her€the€pornographic€movie€when€she€wasÏð ðfive€or€sixðð€which€would€have€been€in€1982€or€1983.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€%ŠÔÔ€&ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€¦3XXdìXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€)+(A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌOCTOBER€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9704„CC„00160Ìà àà àà àà àà àó ó)Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àSEVIER€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€BEN€W.€HOOPER,€IIó óÌò òKEITH€E.€HODGE,à àó óà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Direct€Appeal€„€Aggravated€RapeÏand€à àà àà àà àà à)à àAggravated€Sexual€Battery)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌCHARLES€I.€POOLEà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌ133€Commerce€Streetà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌSevierville,€TN€37862Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àMARVIN€E.€CLEMENTS,€JR.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAL€SCHMUTZER,€JR.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSTEVEN€R.€HAWKINSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSevier€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSevierville,€TN€37862ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇÓ  Óò òòòÔ€&„ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€&ŠÔÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌà àOn€August€20,€1996€a€Sevier€County€jury€convicted€Appellant,€KeithÏHodge,€of€nine€counts€of€aggravated€rape€and€two€counts€of€aggravatedÏsexual€battery.€After€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€sentenced€Appellant€toÏtwenty€years€imprisonment€for€each€aggravated€rape€conviction€and€ten€yearsÏimprisonment€for€each€aggravated€sexual€battery€conviction.€Three€of€the€twentyÏyear€sentences€were€to€be€served€consecutively,€all€other€sentences€were€to€beÏserved€concurrently,€for€an€aggregate€sentence€of€sixty€years€to€be€served€as€aÏRange€I€standard€offender.€After€the€trial€court€denied€Appellantððs€motion€for€aÏnew€trial,€Appellant€filed€this€appeal,€challenging€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€InÏthis€appeal,€Appellant€presents€several€issues€for€review,€specifically:ÌÌÓÓà0 à1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€advise€the€jury€that€the€StateÏhad€made€an€election€of€which€allegation€of€sexual€abuse€it€would€relyÏupon€in€its€proof€for€each€of€the€several€charges€set€out€in€the€indictment;Ìà0 à2)€whether€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€error€by€failing€to€advise€theÏjury€that€they€must€reach€a€unanimous€verdict€as€to€one€particular€incidentÏfor€each€of€the€counts€set€forth€in€the€indictment;à àÌà0 à3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€permitting€the€€introduction€of€evidence€ofÏuncharged€illegal€sexual€contact€prior€to€the€time€period€alleged€in€theÏindictment€between€Appellant€and€the€victim€in€this€case,€Tina€HeltonÏMullinex;Ìà0 à4)€whether€the€Stateððs€closing€argument€which€contained€the€ð ðmissingÏwitness€argument,ðð€references€to€uncharged€criminal€conduct,€and€theÏprosecutorððs€personal€beliefs€and€opinions€constituted€reversible€error;Ìà0 à5)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€permitting€the€introduction€of€the€victimððsÏprior€consistent€statements;€and,Ìà0 à6)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€at€the€sentencing€hearing€in€permitting€theÏtestimony€of€three€women€who€testified€Appellant€had€abused€each€ofÏthem.ÌÌÓÓà àAfter€a€careful€review€of€the€record,€we€must€reverse€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court€and€remand€this€case€for€a€new€trial.ÌÌÌò òà@ àFACTSó óÌà àAppellant€and€the€victim,€Tina€Helton€Mullinex,€had€a€lengthy€historyÏbefore€the€prosecution€of€this€case.€Appellant€was€married€to€Ms.€MullinexððsÏaunt,€and€had€three€children€with€her:€Linda,€Michael,€and€Teresa.€Teresa€andÏTina€were€very€close€friends,€a€relationship€that€was€shaped€in€part€by€the€factÏTeresa€was€disabled.€Teresa€was€born€with€a€condition€which€caused€herÏbones€to€be€very€brittle€and€to€break€easily.€Because€of€this€condition,€she€wasÏconfined€to€a€wheelchair€and€needed€constant€care.€Ms.€Mullinex€spent€everyÏsummer€from€the€time€she€was€five€years€old€until€she€was€twelve€withÏAppellantððs€family,€visiting€her€cousin€Teresa.€ÌÌà àAccording€to€the€Stateððs€theory,€Appellant€began€abusing€Ms.€MullinexÏwhen€she€was€five€or€six€years€old,€touching€her€breasts€and€kissing€her.€Ms.ÏMullinex€related€that€in€1982€or€1983€when€she€was€5€or€6,€Appellant€forced€herÏto€watch€a€pornographic€movie€entitled€ð ðDr.€Stormðð€with€him,€during€which€heÍforced€her€to€touch€him€and€he€touched€her.€€€Ms.€Mullinex€testified€thatÏAppellant€abused€her€almost€every€day€when€she€was€in€his€home.€SheÏrecalled€specific€instances€(though€she€was€unable€to€provide€dates)€when€heÏabused€her€during€the€summers€of€1984,€1986,€1988,€1989€and€during€theÏThanksgiving€holiday€of€1987.ÌÌà àOne€night€in€the€summer€of€1984,€Ms.€Mullinex€was€sleeping€on€a€palletÏon€the€floor€of€Teresaððs€room,€when€Appellant€came€into€the€room€and€laidÏdown€on€the€pallet€behind€her.€Appellant€began€kissing€her;€he€pulled€herÏclothing€down€half„way€and€inserted€his€finger€into€her€vagina.€Ms.€MullinexÏtestified€that€she€remembered€that€on€this€night,€Teresa€woke€up€and€asked€herÏfather€what€he€was€doing€and€that€Appellant€replied€that€he€was€checking€theÏair€in€Teresaððs€wheelchair€tires.€Teresa€testified€that€she€did€not€recall€such€anÏincident.ÌÌà àMs.€Mullinex€testified€that€during€the€summer€of€1985,€Appellant€wouldÏmake€her€meet€him€in€the€garage€after€everyone€else€in€the€house€was€asleep.ÏHe€would€pull€his€pants€half„way€down€and€make€her€stimulate€his€penis,€heÏwould€then€make€her€perform€fellatio,€instructing€her€to€ð ðlick€back€and€forth€on€it.ððÏWhen€he€ejaculated,€he€would€either€put€his€semen€on€his€stomach€and€makeÏher€wipe€it€off€or€put€it€on€her€stomach€and€he€would€wipe€it€off.ÌÌà àShe€also€related€that€in€the€summer€of€1986,€Appellant€told€her€to€comeÏinto€his€bedroom.€When€she€met€him€there,€he€took€off€her€clothes€and€startedÏkissing€her.€They€both€performed€oral€sex€on€each€other.€€In€the€summer€ofÏ1987,€the€abuse€continued€as€before,€only€Appellant€attempted€intercourse€withÏMs.€Mullinex.€She€told€Appellant€that€it€hurt,€and€he€quit,€though€a€little€of€hisÏpenis€did€enter€her€vagina.€During€Thanksgiving€of€1987,€Ms.€Mullinexððs€familyÏcame€to€Appellantððs€house€to€celebrate€the€holiday.€Ms.€Mullinex€slept€on€theÏfloor€on€a€pallet€between€the€living€room€and€the€den€with€her€cousin€Lee€Ann.ÏAfter€everyone€was€in€bed,€Appellant€laid€down€beside€her€and€put€his€finger€inÏher€vagina.€Ms.€Mullinex€pinched€Lee€Ann€until€Lee€Ann€woke€up€and€sawÏwhat€was€happening.ÌÌà àIn€the€summer€of€1988,€Appellant€had€a€mattress€in€the€garage€where€heÏwould€meet€Ms.€Mullinex.€He€penetrated€her€with€his€fingers€and€his€penis,€andÏmade€her€perform€fellatio.€While€this€was€happening€the€rest€of€the€family€wasÏin€the€house,€unaware€of€the€events€taking€place€in€the€garage.€In€the€summerÏof€1989,€Appellant€would€meet€Ms.€Mullinex€in€the€garage€or€the€basement€andÏcontinue€abusing€her.ÌÌà àIt€was€not€until€after€the€summer€of€1989€that€Ms.€Mullinex€informed€anÏadult€about€the€abuse.€Sometime€in€the€fall€of€1989,€Ms.€Mullinex€told€aÏcounselor€at€her€school,€a€Ms.€Clemens,€about€the€abuse.€No€investigationÏwas€made€regarding€the€complaint.ÌÌò òà@ àI.€ELECTION€OF€OFFENSESó óÌà àIn€his€first€allegation€of€error,€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏfailing€to€inform€the€jury€that€the€State€had€made€an€election€as€to€which€set€ofÏfacts€it€would€use€to€support€each€count€of€the€indictment.€The€trial€court€ruledÏthat€the€State,€through€its€presentation€of€proof,€had€made€an€election€as€toÏspecific€incidents€of€abuse€upon€which€the€jury€would€be€asked€to€findÏAppellant€guilty€of€aggravated€rape.ò ò€€ó óWe€disagree.€Because€election€involvesÏAppellantððs€constitutional€rights€to€protection€against€double€jeopardy€and€to€aÏunanimous€jury€verdict,€we€will€consider€the€issue€of€election€under€the€doctrine€ofÏplain€error€even€though€the€issue€was€not€presented€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏLeathóó,€C.C.A.€No.01„C01„9511„CC„00393,€Macon€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏNashville,€February€10,€1998)(holding€that€error€involving€election€is€plain€error).ÌÌà àThe€right€to€jury€unanimity€involves€not€only€the€requirement€that€the€juryÏbe€unanimous€as€to€which€offense€constitutes€the€crime€for€which€a€defendantÏis€convicted,€but€also€the€right€to€unanimity€among€the€jury€members€as€to€theÍspecific€act€which€constituted€the€offense.€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€823€S.W.2d€576,€582Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€A€trial€court€has€the€duty€of€requiring€the€State€to€electÏthe€particular€act€upon€which€it€relies€for€conviction€and€to€instruct€the€jury€so€thatÏthe€verdict€of€each€juror€will€be€united€as€to€one€offense.€òòBurlison€v.€Stateóó,€501ÏS.W.2d€801,€804€(Tenn.€1973).€When€the€State€presents€proof€on€manyÏoffenses€within€an€alleged€time€period,€but€neglects€election,€the€jury€is€allowedÏto€ð ðreach€into€the€brimming€bag€of€offenses€and€pull€out€one€for€each€count.ððòòÏLeathóó,€C.C.A.€NO.01„C01„9511„CC„00393€at€11€(òòcitingóó€òòTidwell€v.€Stateóó,€922ÏS.W.2d€497€(Tenn.€1996)).ÌÌà àIn€the€matter€òòsub€judiceóó,€in€all€but€two€of€the€counts,€the€State€eitherÏdrafted€the€indictment€to€reflect€a€specific€sexual€act€or€presented€proof€regardingÏa€specific€incident€when€the€penetration€was€said€to€occur,€thereby€ensuring€aÏunanimous€jury€verdict.€However€in€counts€two€and€four€of€indictment€6401,Ïwhich€alleged€that€Appellant€ð ðpenetratedðð€Ms.€Mullinex€in€the€summers€of€1985Ïand€1987,€respectively,€the€State€failed€to€elect,€and€presented€proof€only€thatÏmultiple€incidences€occurred€during€those€summers.€ð ðA€conviction€that€is€notÏunanimous€as€to€the€defendantððs€specific€illegal€action€is€no€more€justifiable€thanÏa€conviction€by€a€jury€that€is€not€unanimous€on€a€specific€count.ðð€òòLeathóó,€C.C.A.ÏNO.01„C01„9511„CC„00393€at€11€(òòcitingóó€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€823€S.W.2d€576,€583Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991)€(òòquotingóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Berosóó,€833€F.2d€455,€462€(3dÍCir.€1987))).€Therefore,€we€must€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€as€toÏthese€two€counts.Ìà àCounts€two€and€four€of€indictment€5531€both€allege:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[T]hat€[the€defendant]€in€œthe›€summer€of€1988€.€.€.€didÏunlawfully€and€feloniously€sexually€penetrate€.€.€.€[the€Ïvictim]€a€child€less€that€thirteen€(13)€years€of€age,€byÏinserting€his€finger€into€her€vagina€.€.€..ððÌÌÓÓHowever,€at€trial€the€State€presented€proof€of€only€one€incident€of€digitalÏpenetration€during€the€summer€of€1988.€€Although€the€proof€is€sufficient€to€sustain€œ›Ïœa€single€count›€with€respect€to€this€incident€count€four€of€indictment€5531€must€beÏœreversed›€and€dismissed€for€insufficient€evidence.€€See,€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36ÌÌÓ  Óò òII.€JURY€INSTRUCTIONS€ON€ELECTION.ÌÓ  Óó óà àAs€noted€earlier,€Appellant€complains€that€the€trial€court€did€notÏadequately€instruct€the€jury€as€to€the€requirement€of€unanimity€on€a€particular€setÏof€facts€alleged€to€constitute€the€criminal€act.€€Where€the€State€presentsÏevidence€of€numerous€offenses,€the€trial€court€must€augment€the€general€juryÏunanimity€instruction€to€insure€that€the€jury€understands€its€duty€to€agreeÏunanimously€to€a€particular€set€of€facts.€€A€skeletal€jury€instruction€of€unanimityÏferments€a€strong€possibility€of€a€composite€jury€verdict€in€violation€of€anÏappellantððs€constitutional€rights.€€òòId.óó€at€12€(òòcitingóó€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€823€S.W.2d€atÏ583;€òòState€v.€Forbesóó,€918€S.W.2d€431,€447€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)).ÌÌà àIn€all€but€counts€two€and€four€of€indictment€6401,€the€State€through€itsÏpresentation€of€proof€elected€a€specific€type€of€penetration€or€incident€so€as€toÏensure€a€unanimous€jury€verdict.€€Therefore,€the€need€to€augment€the€skeletalÏunanimity€instruction€was€not€triggered.€€However,€it€was€error€to€fail€to€instructÏthe€jury€in€accordance€with€òòLeathóó,€òòBrownóó€and€òòForbesóó€on€counts€two€and€four€ofÏindictment€6401.€€This€error€also€warrants€a€new€trial€with€respect€to€thoseÏcharges.ò òÌà@ àIII.€PRIOR€UNCHARGED€ILLEGAL€CONDUCTó óÌà àIn€his€next€assignment€of€error,€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏallowing€the€State€to€present€testimony€regarding€incidents€between€AppellantÏand€Ms.€Mullinex€which€were€outside€the€time€frame€of€the€indictment.€TheÏearliest€date€set€forth€in€the€presentment€against€Appellant€is€found€in€Count€1Ïof€case€no.€6401€which€charges€Appellant€with€the€sexual€penetration€of€Ms.ÏMullinex€Helton€during€ð ðthe€summer€of€1984.ðð€However,€the€Stateððs€first€witness,ÏTina€Helton€Mullinex,€herself,€€began€the€trial€recounting€an€incident€whichÏoccurred€when€she€was€ð ðfive€or€sixðð,€in€1982€or€1983.€She€testified€thatÏAppellant€forced€for€to€watch€a€pornographic€movie€entitled€ð ðDr.€Stormðð€andÏð ðtouchedðð€her€and€forced€her€to€ð ðtouchðð€him.€The€defense€made€an€objection€thatÏthe€incident€she€related€was€outside€the€scope€of€the€indictment€and€in€violationÏof€the€motion€to€disclose€uncharged€criminal€conduct€and€a€motion€in€limineÍregarding€uncharged€sexual€conduct.€The€trial€court€nevertheless€allowed€theÏtestimony€into€evidence.€€The€State€also€presented€the€testimony€of€Candy€LeeÏAnn€Buchanan,€who€testified€that€Appellant€showed€her€a€pornographic€videoÏwith€the€same€content€as€the€video€Ms.€Mullinex€testified€she€was€shown€atÏthe€age€of€five.ÌÓÓ€ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Rickmanóó,€the€Supreme€Court€held€that:ÌÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` Òtestimony€of€the€victim€about€other€prior€unindicted€sexÏcrimes€allegedly€committed€by€the€defendant€upon€theÏvictim€does€not€corroborate€the€testimony€of€the€victim€thatÏhe€or€she€suffered€the€attack€for€which€the€defendant€isÏthen€being€tried.€Moreover,€the€prejudice€resulting€fromÏsuch€testimony€outweighs€its€probative€value.ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌ876€S.W.2d€824,€830€(Tenn.€1994).€€It€is€obvious,€therefore,€that€testimonyÏconcerning€the€alleged€sexual€abuse€of€Ms.€Mullinex€committed€before€theÏearliest€date€charged€in€the€indictment€was€erroneously€admitted€into€evidence.ÌÌà àThe€holding€in€òòRickmanóó€does€allow€for€a€narrow€exception€which€wouldÏpermit€evidence€of€uncharged€crimes€allegedly€committed€within€the€time€frame€ofÏevents€described€in€an€open€dated€indictment.€€òòId.óó€at€829.€€However,€Ms.ÏBuchananððs€testimony€regarding€the€pornographic€video€she€was€allegedlyÏshown€in€no€way€related€to€the€time€frame€alleged€in€the€indictment€and€wasÏlikewise€improperly€admitted€into€evidence.ÌÌà àThe€State€does€not€dispute€the€fact€that€the€admission€into€evidence€ofÏthe€testimony€described€above€was€error,€but€the€State€maintains€that€the€errorÏwas€harmless.€€See€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).€€BecauseÏthere€is€substantial€evidence€of€Appellantððs€guilt€in€this€record,€this€error,€standingÏalone,€would€not€warrant€a€reversal€of€the€convictions€in€this€case.€€However,Ïthis€error€coupled€with€the€prosecutorððs€improper€comments€compels€us,€for€theÏreasons€discussed€òòinfraóó.,€to€afford€Appellant€a€new€trial€on€the€remaining€countsÏagainst€him.à àÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òIV.€PROSECUTION€ARGUMENTÌÓ  Óó óà àAppellant€complains€that€the€State€€improperly€argued€the€ð ðmissingÏwitnessðð€doctrine,€€referred€to€uncharged€criminal€activity€outside€the€scope€of€theÏindictment,€and€€interjected€personal€beliefs€and€opinions.€In€òòState€v.€Philpottóó,Ïthis€Court€set€out€factors€to€be€considered€in€making€the€determination€whether€aÏprosecutor's€improper€conduct€could€have€affected€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€ofÏthe€defendant.€€€These€factors€are€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌà à1.€the€conduct€complained€of€in€light€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€theÏcase;ÌÌà à2.€the€curative€measures€undertaken;ÌÌà à3.€the€intent€of€the€prosecutor€in€making€the€improper€remarks;ÌÌà à4.€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€and€any€other€errors€in€theÏrecord;€and,ÌÌà à5.€the€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€case.€€ÌÓÓÌòòState€v.€Philpottóó,€882€S.W.2d€394,€408€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)(òòcitingóó€€òòJudge€v.ÏStateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976)).We€consider€eachÏallegation€in€turn.ò òÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓA.€MISSING€WITNESSó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€improperly€permitted€the€State€toÏargue€the€ð ðmissing€witness€argumentðð€during€closing€argument.€It€is€well€settledÏthat,€ð ðAs€a€predicate€for€comment€on€a€missing€witness,€the€evidence€mustÏshow€that€the€witness€had€knowledge€of€material€facts,€that€a€relationshipÏexists€between€the€witness€and€the€party€that€would€naturally€incline€theÏwitness€to€favor€the€party,€and€that€the€missing€witness€was€available€to€theÏprocess€of€the€Court€for€the€trial.ðð€€òòDelk€v.€Stateóó,€590€S.W.2d€435,€440€(Tenn.Ï1979).ÌÌà à€In€the€matter€òòsub€judiceóó,€the€witness€to€whom€the€State€made€repeatedÏreference€was€Peggy€Ihsan,€who€was€Appellantððs€wife€during€the€years€listedÏon€the€indictments.€During€argument,€when€the€State€first€made€reference€to€Ms.ÏIhsan,€Appellant€objected€and€the€trial€court€gave€the€following€instruction€to€theÏjury:ÌÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓ  ÓÓÓà àLadies€and€gentlemen€of€the€jury,€these€areÏarguments€that€you€are€hearing€and€have€heard.€I€will€tellÏyou€now,€and€will€tell€you€again€in€a€few€minutes,€thisÏcase€is€decided€solely€on€the€evidence€that€comes€fromÏthe€witness€stand.€You€will€notice€that€neither€of€theseÏattorneys€have€been€sworn,€and€put€on€the€witnessÏstand.€What€they€are€presenting€to€you€is€argument.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àDonððt€let€me€take€away€from€you€the€fact€thatÏargument€is€designed€to€be€helpful€to€you.€Thatððs€theÏreason€we€have€it.€Each€side€wants€to€present€to€youÏtheir€theory€of€the€case.€All€I€want€you€to€remember€is€thatÏargument€is€not€evidence,€but€it€is€certainly€something€thatÏyou€should€consider€in€helping€decide€this€case.ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÌÓÓà àThis€instruction€did€not€address€the€central€problem€with€the€StateððsÏargument.€In€fact,€after€the€instruction€the€prosecutor€continued€to€imply€thatÏAppellantððs€failure€to€call€Ms.€Ihsan€was€due€to€what€her€testimony€would€haveÏbeen.€The€prosecutorððs€argument€continued:ÌÓÓÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓ  ÓLadies€and€gentlemen€of€the€jury,€I€think€you€can€see€theÏpoint€with€regard€to€that€when€Mr.€Poole€stands€up€andÍcalls€witness€after€witness€after€witness€that€lived€in€thatÏhouse.€All€Iððm€asking€is€why€didnððt€he€call€the€wife€thatÏshared€the€bedroom€with€this€defendant.€I€donððt€knowÏwhat€she€would€say,€but€why€didnððt€he€call€her,€the€oneÏwho€shared€the€bedroom€with€this€defendant?ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÌÓÓBecause€no€proof€had€been€presented€that€Ms.€Ihsan€fell€into€the€category€of€aÏmissing€witness,€the€Stateððs€argument€clearly€constituted€error.ÌÌà àConcluding€that€the€remarks€were€in€error,€we€must€move€to€the€issue€ofÏharm€to€Appellant.€Considering€the€òòPhilpottóó€factors€one€at€a€time,€we€begin€byÏconsidering€the€conduct€complained€of€in€light€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€ofÏthe€case.€The€prosecutorððs€argument€regarding€the€absence€of€Ms.€Ihsan€wasÏsignificant€in€light€of€the€facts€presented€at€trial.€Ms.€Mullinex€testified€that€much€ofÏAppellantððs€illegal€conduct€occurred€at€night€when€the€rest€of€the€householdÏassumed€he€was€asleep€in€bed€with€his€wife.€The€defense€called€variousÏhousehold€members€to€rebut€this€notion.€€The€implication€that€Ms.€Ihsan€was€notÏcalled€because€she€would€have€given€testimony€adverse€to€Appellant€wasÏclear.€ÌÌà àFurther,€the€curative€measures€undertaken€by€the€trial€court€were€cursoryÏat€best€and€did€not€stop€the€Stateððs€reference€to€the€failure€of€the€defense€to€callÏMs.€Ihsan.€The€courtððs€instruction€to€the€jury€did€nothing€to€correct€the€improperÍargument,€but€rather€highlighted€for€the€jury€that€such€remarks€could€beÏconsidered€in€its€deliberation.ÌÌà àThe€prosecutor€in€this€matter€clearly€knew€that€his€argument€wasÏimproper.€He€realized€that€no€foundation€for€such€an€argument€had€been€made.ÏSurely,€in€investigating€the€case€during€the€preparation€for€trial,€the€prosecutorÏlearned€that€Ms.€Ihsan€lived€beyond€the€jurisdiction€of€the€court.€Even€if€the€StateÏdid€not€have€actual€knowledge€of€that€fact,€the€district€attorney€certainly€wasÏaware€that€he€was€required€to€put€forth€a€showing€of€the€witnessðð€availability€toÏthe€defense€before€such€an€argument€could€properly€be€made.€Further,€the€StateÏwaited€until€its€final€closing,€an€argument€to€which€the€defense€would€not€haveÏthe€opportunity€to€answer,€to€spring€this€ð ðmissing€witness€argument.ðð€€SuchÏtiming€creates€at€least€the€appearance€of€an€intentional€interjection€of€improperÏargument€into€the€trial.ÌÌà àThe€cumulative€effect€of€this€error€must€be€regarded€in€conjunction€with€theÏother€error€discussed€below€in€the€analysis€of€Appellantððs€issues€concerning€theÏargument€of€uncharged€criminal€conduct€and€the€interjection€of€the€prosecutorððsÏpersonal€beliefs€and€opinions.ÌÌÓ  Óò òB.€UNCHARGED€CRIMINAL€CONDUCTó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€also€complains€that€in€closing€argument€the€State€madeÏrepeated€references€to€prior€uncharged€conduct€outside€the€scope€of€theÏindictment.€Appellant€failed€to€object€at€trial€to€the€argument€regarding€the€priorÏuncharged€conduct.ò ò€ó ó€Therefore,€this€issue€ordinarily€would€be€waived.€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€36(a).€However,€in€light€of€our€concern€that€improper€argumentÏprevented€Appellant€from€receiving€a€fair€trial,€we€address€this€issue€on€the€ÌÌmerits.€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(b).€Appellant€specifically€contends€that€theÏState€erred€in€arguing€that:ÌÓÓÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓ  ÓTina€told€you€with€regard€to€this€indictment€that€in€theÏsummer€of€ðð89€that€he€showed€her€a€movie,€a€video.× ƒ, ××  ×ÏShe€said€the€name€of€it€was€Doctor€Storm,€and€she€saidÏit€showed€sexual€activity,€and€the€one€thing€that€stuck€outÏin€her€mind,€that€little€girlððs€mind,€is€she€said€sheÏremembered€a€girl€being€nude,€and€on€all€fours€on€kneesÏand€her€hands,€and€man€entering€her€from€behind,€andÏthere€were€some€pearls€„„€I€believe€she€said€pearls€„„Ïthat€the€guy€had€in€this€girlððs€mouth.€That€stuck€out€in€herÏmind,€and€she€remembered€that,€and€said€Uncle€KeithÏplayed€that€for€her.ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÌÓÓà àAs€discussed€earlier,€Appellant€objected€early€in€the€trial€to€the€introductionÏof€evidence€relating€to€events€outside€the€time€span€of€the€indictment.€The€trialÏcourt€allowed€the€evidence€mentioned€in€closing€argument€into€evidence€overÏAppellantððs€objection.€Because€we€held€that€the€admission€of€this€evidenceÍwas€erroneous,€we€also€hold€that€it€was€error€to€allow€argument€regarding€thisÏevidence.€We€must€therefore€consider€the€òòPhilpottóó€factors€in€deciding€whether€thisÏerror€affected€the€result€of€the€trial.ÌÌà àAlthough€this€argument€by€the€prosecuting€attorney,€when€taken€in€theÏcontext€of€the€Stateððs€closing€argument€as€a€whole,€appears€to€be€an€attemptÏto€recount€the€evidence€presented€at€trial,€the€cumulative€effect€of€this€error€whenÏviewed€in€light€of€the€improper€ð ðmissing€witness€argumentðð€seems€fairly€serious.ÏNot€only€was€inadmissible€evidence€presented€to€the€jury,€the€prosecutionÏcompounded€that€error€by€presenting€argument€based€on€that€evidence.€TheÏcombination€of€these€two€improper€arguments€may€have€served€to€divert€theÏjuryððs€attention€from€admissible€reliable€evidence€to€inadmissible€evidence€andÏspeculation.ÌÌà àNo€curative€measures€were€undertaken€by€the€trial€court.€€This€wasÏperhaps€the€result€of€the€defenseððs€failure€to€object.€However,€in€light€of€the€trialÏcourtððs€erroneous€admission€of€evidence€regarding€the€video€tape€incident,€anyÏobjection€by€the€defense€probably€would€have€been€overruled.€€The€trial€courtÏdid€not€instruct€the€jury€that€it€should€not€consider€this€improper€argument,€leavingÏthe€impression€that€this€argument€was€a€valid€consideration€for€the€verdict.ÌÌà àÌÓ  Óò òC.€PROSECUTORððS€PERSONAL€BELIEFS€AND€OPINIONSó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àAppellant€also€alleges€that€the€State€improperly€interjected€the€DistrictÏAttorneyððs€personal€opinions€and€feelings€into€the€closing€argument.€AppellantÏobjected€twice€to€the€Stateððs€comments€and€his€objections€were€sustained.€TheÏquestion€presented€is€whether€the€argument€so€tainted€the€trial€that€the€verdictÏcannot€be€relied€upon.€€€It€is€impossible€to€say€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€thatÏit€did€not.ÌÌà àThe€portions€of€the€prosecutorððs€argument€to€which€Appellant€objectsÏcame€at€the€end€of€the€Stateððs€initial€closing€argument:€ð ðI€donððt€know€how€manyÏfolks€were€in€the€house€when€it€happened.€I€donððt€know€if€everytime€little€TeresaÏwas€in€the€bedroom,€but€I€know€where€Keith€Hodge€was.€Tina€told€me€whereÏhe€was€when€she€was€abused.ðð€And€again€in€the€Stateððs€final€closingÏargument:ÌÓÓÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓ  ÓI€guarantee€the€City€of€Gatlinburg€gives€vacation€days...€IÏbelieve€my€daddy€hung€the€moon,€Weððve€had€ourÏproblems,€but€I€love€my€daddy,€and€I€would€neverÏbelieve€something€like€that€about€my€daddy.€But€youÏknow,€the€last€to€know€is€your€family,€especially€whenÏyouððre€talking€about€child€sexual€abuse.€ThereððsÏpreachers€been€guilty€of€this,€thereððs€boy€scout€leadersÏthat€have€been€guilty€of€this....Well,€Iððll€tell€you€whatððs€notÍrational€is€child€abuse.€You€know,€that€doesnððt€makeÏsense,€but€I€know€it€happens....She€said,€ð ðTina€went€intoÏthe€restroom€with€some€boys€and€come€out€and€said,€ððIÏgave€him€a€blow€job.ðððð€A€twelve€year€old€girl.€I€think€itÏreflected€more€on€her€than€it€did€little€Tina€for€telling€a€storyÏlike€that€she€took€her€to€a€party€like€that,€her€two€or€threeÏor€four€years€older.ðð€ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  Óà àÌÓÓà àFollowing€Appellantððs€objections,€the€trial€court€admonished€the€juryÏsaying:ÌÓÓÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓ  ÓThese€are€arguments€that€you€are€hearing€and€haveÏheard.€I€will€tell€you€now,€and€will€tell€you€again€in€a€fewÏminutes,€this€case€is€decided€solely€on€the€evidence€thatÏcomes€from€the€witnessðð€stand.€You€will€notice€that€neitherÏof€these€attorneys€have€been€sworn,€and€put€on€theÏwitness€stand.€What€they€are€presenting€to€you€isÏargument....All€I€want€you€to€remember€is€that€argument€isÏnot€evidence,€but€it€is€certainly€something€that€you€shouldÏconsider€in€helping€decide€this€case.ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÌà àÌÌà àThe€law€is€clear€on€this€point:ÌÌà àà8 à(T)he€prosecutor€is€an€advocate,€and€is€entitled€toÏpursue€his€role€with€thoroughness€and€vigor.€But,€asÏset€out€in€Justice€Southerlandððs€classic€opinion€inÏòòBerger€v.€United€Statesóó,€295€U.S.€78,€88,€55€S.Ct.€629,Ï633,€79€L.Ed.€1314€(1935),€the€prosecutor€also€actsÏ[as]:ÌÌà àà8 àà8 àà8 à...the€representative€not€ofÏan€ordinary€party€to€aÏcontroversy,€but€of€aÏsovereignty€whoseÏobligation€to€governÏimpartially€is€as€compellingÏas€its€obligation€to€govern€atÍall;€and€whose€interest,Ïtherefore,€in€a€criminalÏprosecution€is€not€that€it€shallÏwin€a€case,€but€that€justiceÏshall€be€done.€€As€such,€heÏis€in€a€peculiar€and€veryÏdefinite€sense€the€servant€ofÏthe€law,€the€two€fold€aim€ofÏwhich€is€that€guilt€shall€notÏescape€or€innocence€suffer.€ÏHe€may€prosecute€withÏearnestness€and€vigor,Ïindeed€he€should€do€so.€ÏBut,€while€he€may€strikeÏhard€blows,€he€is€not€atÏliberty€to€strike€foul€ones.€€ItÏis€as€much€his€duty€to€refrainÏfrom€improper€methodsÏcalculated€to€produce€aÏwrongful€conviction€as€it€is€toÏuse€every€legitimate€meansÏto€bring€about€a€just€one.€€ItÏis€fair€to€say€that€theÏaverage€jury,€in€a€greater€orÏlesser€degree,€hasÏconfidence€that€theseÏobligations,€which€so€plainlyÏrest€upon€the€prosecutingÏattorney,€will€be€faithfullyÏobserved.€€Consequently,Ïimproper€suggestions,Ïinsinuations,€and€especiallyÏassertions€of€personalÏknowledge€are€apt€to€carryÏmuch€weight€against€theÏaccused€when€they€shouldÏproperly€carry€none.ÌÌÓÓòòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344„45€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).ÌÌà àThe€conduct€of€the€prosecuting€attorney€went€beyond€the€bounds€ofÏproper€argument.€€In€light€of€the€trust€with€which€the€jury€views€the€attorneys€forÏthe€State,€we€cannot€find€that€the€impermissible€comments€did€not€influence€theÏjuryððs€verdict.ÌÌà àIn€light€of€the€cumulative€effect€of€all€the€improper€remarks€made€by€theÏprosecutor€during€closing€argument,€we€cannot€say€that€these€errors€did€notÏimpermissibly€infect€Appellantððs€trial€with€unfair€prejudice.€€Therefore€we€findÏAppellant€must€be€afforded€a€new€trial€as€to€all€charges€against€him.ÌÌÌÓ  Óò òV.€€INTRODUCTION€OF€PRIOR€CONSISTENT€STATEMENTSó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€the€testimony€ofÏtwo€school€officials€to€whom€Ms.€Mullinex€reported€the€abuse€by€Appellant.€It€isÏtrue€that€ordinarily€prior€consistent€statement€of€a€witness€are€not€admissible€toÏbolster€the€witnessðð€credibility.€òòState€v.€Braggsóó,€604€S.W.2d€883,€885€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1980).€However,€ð ðprior€consistent€statements€may€be€admissible...toÏrehabilitate€a€witness€when€insinuations€of€recent€fabrication€have€been€made,Ïor€when€deliberate€falsehood€has€been€implied.€òòState€v.€Bentonóó,€759€S.W.2dÏ427,€433€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€Before€prior€consistent€statements€may€beÏadmissible,€the€witnessðð€testimony€must€have€been€assailed€or€attacked€to€theÍextent€that€the€witnessðð€testimony€needs€rehabilitating.€òòBentonóó,€759€S.W.2d€atÏ434.€In€the€matter€òòsub€judiceóó,€during€cross„examination,€the€defense€repeatedlyÏasked€Ms.€Mullinex€whether€she€ever€told€anyone€of€the€abuse€and€whetherÏshe€told€all€the€details€she€related€at€trial€to€the€people€she€told€earlier.€TheÏtestimony€of€Mr.€Townsend€and€Ms.€Hughes€was€properly€admitted€to€showÏthat€Tina€Helton€Mullinex€did€tell€about€the€abuse.€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  Óò òVI.€EVIDENCE€AT€SENTENCING€HEARINGó óÌÓ  Óà àFinally,€Appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€receiving€testimonyÏat€the€sentencing€hearing€regarding€Appellantððs€molestation€of€three€womenÏother€than€Tina€Helton€Mullinex.€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„13„204Ïpermits,€at€a€sentencing€hearing,€evidence€"as€to€any€matter€that€the€courtÏdeems€relevant€to€the€punishment,"€including€(but€not€limited€to)€"the€nature€andÏcircumstances€of€the€crime."€€€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€731€(Tenn.Ï1994).€Evidence€is€relative€to€the€punishment,€and€thus€admissible€at€theÏsentencing€hearing,€only€if€it€is€relevant€to€an€aggravating€circumstance,€or€to€aÏmitigating€factor€raised€by€the€defendant.€€€€òòState€v.€Batesóó,€804€S.W.2d€868Ï(Tenn.€1991)(òòcitingóó€òòState€v.€Cozzolinoóó,€584€S.W.2d€765,€768€(Tenn.€1979)).€TheÏtestimony€of€these€witnesses€was€properly€admitted€to€show€that€AppellantÏhad€a€€history€of€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€that€necessary€to€establish€theÏappropriate€range.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1).€This€issue€is€without€merit.à àÌÌà àTherefore,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed€and€remanded€for€aÏnew€trial€on€all€counts€except€count€four€of€indictment€5531€which€is€dismissedÏfor€the€reasons€stated€hereinabove.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€œPRESIDING€JUDGE›ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌœ›