ÿWPC÷ •¼­˜A[xC–uÞZñâ;×ΖâåÃàüYZdÏ~«ÑlÚét› g[Oq{ƒÁ¦Ó˜$«áErì×ük Qµù9ÜJœ-ÁNi‡VÎn&ø½™aê«êæBk:ü)ÓìÑÖ`9Œ ³œD µå‘{Æ’¯¶z&ñéŸ6ׂ=2¸Rð*ºtmüO¡i0Ó¥.:’~ž¢±›‹óÁ¹,ÔfY~²DyW]¼1Ò€£³{2%°ƒ›¬.[(î± ¿.ÇAÖŠüû~üSɺmoRìÈ7‚ \&È&4ä%^¦êx6Ïr1,ÑŠ'H? P7\°KÀœg^.³æn§ç„÷_ïI%Ì.íô_°üÚf´¿R¿î·úÞtd²ü28VMP +^º`?sR+´f–‹F1ÀõrÝ9½­EÖèˆñ«äîÒ¥^¬j`œ‰ý»œGV¾àŒìLsaY€5^®H.Õæ’™ªa$z5QZ­dïÓIÉÊɨÖkÆ´°¤ÎÔôåÛµK<©w*ºQˆ#P-Í-Yv‰”ƹ1úm=“¬¯á†0Ÿ‡ÏZ B´Ùï @¸öYÐÝ`+ý‚µôƒ(MâT½¯™eV_äoWû|Z#Y+–ƒÃsŸ M@b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë ä±N• 0D—ÛEêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêbìììììììììììììììììììììììììììììììììììì 0ëôôôô Bßß 0¤ü D3  D-Ó 0K ASKÆž 0¤d 0D A«L˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»¸–) (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖJ~'[£ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ÚÝ ƒR8F$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€X;LX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ô-¤òXX;LÔÔ_ÔAppellate€counsel€did€not€represent€the€defendant€at€trial.€€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒR8F$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€X;LX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ô-¤òXX;LÔIt€is€the€policy€of€this€court€not€to€reveal€the€name€of€a€minor€who€has€been€the€victim€of€a€sex€crime.- ù-(|G28F$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Jð»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X;LX»»Ô d(|3–$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Jð»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3–$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Jð»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Jð»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼Jð»»»ÔÑ8€;LXXdæ»»d8Ñà@HHìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@§§$ìàAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ ¾ Ðà@!ìàAPRIL€2000€SESSION€ˆÐ Ì ÐÔ‡X;LX»¼JðÔÌò òÔ#†¼Jð»XX;L¦#ÔÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€GERALD€W.€Ô_ÔMcCULLOUGHÔ_Ôó óÐ À ÐÓìÓÌÔ€X;LX»¼JðÔà@H H ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Bedford€CountyˆÐ Ü , Ðà@o o ìàNo.€14393€William€Charles€Lee,€Judge€ˆÐ   ÐÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E< ` A߈Ð Ž Þ  ÐÌà@³ ³ ìàNo.€M1999„01525„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€August€18,€2000€ˆÐ ƒÓ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<N` AßÐ OŸ  Ðó óÌThe€defendant,€Gerald€W.€Ô_ÔMcCulloughÔ_Ô,€was€convicted€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€The€trial€courtÐ D”  Ðimposed€a€twelve„year€sentence.€€In€this€appeal€of€right,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€courtÐ *z  Ðerred€by€allowing€proof€of€more€than€one€instance€of€sexual€misconduct€and€by€imposing€anÐ ` Ðexcessive€sentence.€€Because€the€sentence€was€not€excessive,€and€because€the€defendant€waived€theÐ öF Ðissue€of€the€admissibility€of€uncharged€sex€crimes,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.Ð Ü, ÐÌò òà@! ! ìàTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Affirmed.ó óˆÐ ¨ø ÐÌòòGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€óó€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJerry€L.€Smithóó€and€òòRobert€W.Ð tÄ ÐÔ_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð Zª ÐÌJohn€E.€Ô_ÔHerbisonÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€Tennessee€(on€appeal),€and€Andrew€Jackson€Ô_ÔDearingÔ_Ô,€III,€Ô_ÔShelbyvilleÔ_Ô,Ð &v ÐTennessee€(at€trial),€for€the€appellant,€Gerald€W.€Ô_ÔMcCulloughÔ_Ô.€€Ð  \ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter,€Marvin€E.€Clements,€Jr.,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ Ø( ÐGeneral,€and€Michael€David€Ô_ÔRandlesÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€ofÐ ¾ ÐTennessee.€€Ð ¤ô ÐÌà@55'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ p!À! ÐÌÓÓà  àThe€defendant€was€indicted€on€four€separate€counts:Ð <#Œ# ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àONE:à0¸ ` x` xàà0¸ x¸ xàOn€July€28,€1998,€engaging€in€unlawful€sexual€contactÐ %X % Ðwith€DT,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€less€than€13€years€of€age,€in€violation€ofÐ î%>!& ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„504;€ÐÔ&$"'xx ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTWO:à0¸ ` x` xàà0¸ x¸ xàOn€August€4,€1998,€engaging€in€unlawful€sexualÐ  (ð#) Ðcontact€with€€HT,€less€than€13€years€of€age,€inÐ †)Ö$* Ðviolation€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„504;€Ðl*¼%+xx ÐÐ R+¢&,ý ÐÔ_Ôà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTHREE:à0` x` xàOn€August€8,€1998,€engaging€in€unlawful€sexualÐ ° Ðcontact€with€JB,€less€than€13€years€of€age,€in€violationÐ –æ Ðof€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„504;€and€Ð|Ìxx ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àFOUR:à0` x` xàOn€August€8,€1998,€engaging€in€unlawful€sexualÐ H˜ Ðcontact€with€CB,€less€than€13€years€of€age,€inÐ . ~ Ðviolation€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„504.Ð dxx ÐÌAll€but€Count€One€were€severed€prior€to€trial€by€agreed€order.€€Ð à 0 ÐÌà  àIn€June€of€1998,€Roy€and€Tammy€Messick€moved€into€a€three€bedroom€mobile€home€in€theÐ ¬ ü  ÐViking€Trailer€Park€in€Unionville€with€their€four€children:€son€DT,€age€7;€daughter€HT,€age€6;€andÐ ’â  Ðtwo€other€daughters,€ages€4€and€3.€€One€month€later,€Ms.€Messick's€mother,€Eunice€York,€and€herÐ xÈ  Ðboyfriend,€Gerald€McCullough,€moved€into€the€mobile€home€to€live€with€the€Messick€family.€€TheÐ ^®  Ðthree€girls€slept€in€one€bedroom,€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Messick€were€in€a€second€bedroom,€and€the€defendantÐ D”  Ðand€Ms.€York€slept€in€the€third.€€DT€slept€in€the€livingroom.€€€Ð *z  ÐÌà  àOn€July€28,€Ms.€Messick's€friend,€Sheila€Geary,€who€lived€across€the€street,€walked€towardsÐ öF Ðthe€Messick€residence€to€visit.€€At€10:00€P.M.,€as€she€approached€the€door,€Ms.€Geary€lookedÐ Ü, Ðthrough€two€large€windows€in€the€living€room€and€observed€the€defendant,€seated€inside,Ð Â Ðmasturbating€in€the€presence€of€DT.€€The€blinds€were€open€and€a€lamp€lit€the€inside€of€the€livingÐ ¨ø Ðroom.€€Ms.€Geary€testified€that€the€defendant€"had€his€pants€undone,€and€he€had€his€thing€and€he€wasÐ ŽÞ Ðmasturbating€.€.€.€[a]nd€[DT]€was€standing€in€between€his€legs,€right€in€front€of€him."€€Ms.€GearyÐ tÄ Ðknocked€on€the€door€and€DT€unlocked€it,€at€which€point€Ms.€Geary€entered€the€residence€andÐ Zª Ðexclaimed€to€the€defendant,€"I€saw€what€you€have€done."€€Ms.€Geary€then€walked€to€the€Messicks'€Ð @ Ðbedroom€and€asked€Ms.€Messick€to€step€outside,€where€she€told€Ms.€Messick€what€she€had€seen.€Ð &v ÐAs€she€did€so,€the€defendant€paced€back€and€forth€in€the€living€room.€€Approximately€ten€days€later,Ð  \ ÐMs.€Geary€complained€to€Al€Cacatory,€the€landlord€of€the€trailer€park,€who€contacted€the€sheriff'sÐ òB Ðdepartment.€€Ms.€€Messick€was€aware€that€Ms.€Geary€had€arranged€for€the€landlord€to€make€the€call.€Ð Ø( ÐAt€the€time€of€the€offense,€the€defendant€and€Ms.€York€had€rented€a€residence€of€their€own€but€didÐ ¾ Ðnot€yet€have€electricity€and€other€services.€€By€the€time€Ms.€Geary€mentioned€the€incident€to€theÐ ¤ô Ðlandlord,€the€defendant€and€Ms.€York€had€moved€into€their€own€dwelling.Ð Š Ú ÐÌà  àThere€was€proof€at€trial€that€after€the€defendant's€arrest,€he€sent€letters€to€Ms.€York€addressedÐ V"¦! Ðto€the€Messick€residence.€€In€one€letter,€the€defendant€urged€Ms.€Messick€and€DT€"to€leave€town"Ð <#Œ" Ðso€as€to€miss€a€scheduled€court€hearing.€€The€letter€was€signed€"GX."€€Ð "$r# ÐÌà  àDT,€a€second€grader,€testified€that€the€defendant€"did€a€bad€thing€to€me."€€He€recalled€thatÐ î%>!% Ðthe€defendant€touched€his€penis€more€than€once€and€that€he€had€turned€his€head€when€the€defendantÐ Ô&$"& Ðtried€to€persuade€him€to€look€at€his€penis.€€He€testified€that€on€one€occasion,€the€defendant€"tried€toÐ º' #' Ðmake€[him]€suck€it."€€DT€stated€that€he€refused.€€He€recalled€that€on€another€occasion,€while€he€wasÐ  (ð#( Ðin€bed,€the€defendant€got€into€the€bed€and€placed€his€penis€against€his€bottom;€DT€stated€that€he€hadÐ †)Ö$) Ðclothes€on€at€the€time€and€that€he€refused€the€defendant's€request€to€remove€his€pants.Ð l*¼%* ÐÌà  àDT€explained€that€the€defendant€got€in€bed€with€him€one€afternoon€after€school€and€that€Ms.Ð 8,ˆ', ÐYork€was€living€at€an€apartment€at€that€time.€€DT€recalled€that€the€Messicks€had€gone€to€the€racesÐ ° Ðthat€day.€€He€stated€that€the€day€before,€while€the€Messicks€had€gone€to€the€store,€the€defendant€hadÐ –æ Ðtried€to€show€him€his€penis.€€Later€in€his€testimony,€DT€conceded€that€the€event€may€have€occurredÐ |Ì Ðon€a€Saturday,€when€school€was€not€in€session.€€DT€claimed€that€the€defendant€"tried€to€make€[him]Ð b² Ðpull€down€[his]€pants,"€but€that€he€refused€and€the€defendant€did€not€touch€him.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àDT€also€remembered€the€night€that€Ms.€Geary€came€into€the€residence.€€He€testified€that€justÐ  d Ðbefore€Ms.€Geary€entered,€the€defendant€took€his€penis€out€of€his€pants.€€DT€denied,€however,€thatÐ ú J Ðthere€was€any€sexual€contact.€€DT€recalled€that€the€defendant€instructed€him€"not€to€tell€anybody€.Ð à 0 Ð.€.€because€he€didn't€want€to€get€in€trouble."€€Ð Æ   ÐÌà  àOn€redirect€examination,€DT€testified€that€he€would€not€allow€the€defendant€to€touch€hisÐ ’â  Ðpenis€and€that€he€refused€to€cooperate€on€the€day€the€defendant€asked€him€to€suck€his€penis.€€HeÐ xÈ  Ðstated€that€the€defendant€rubbed€his€penis€on€his€bottom€only€once.€€Ð ^®  ÐÌà  àOn€August€10,€1998,€Detective€David€Adams€of€the€Bedford€County€Sheriff's€Department,Ð *z  Ða€member€of€the€child€protective€investigative€team,€was€notified€of€the€incident€witnessed€by€Ms.Ð ` ÐGeary.€€He€and€other€officers€interviewed€the€Messicks,€DT,€and€Ms.€Geary,€and,€on€the€next€day,Ð öF Ðinterviewed€the€defendant.€€Chief€Deputy€Dale€Elliott€assisted€in€the€interview,€which€was€conductedÐ Ü, Ðat€the€sheriff's€department.€€In€the€initial€interview,€the€defendant€denied€any€type€of€inappropriateÐ Â Ðcontact€with€DT.€€Afterward,€the€defendant€was€placed€under€arrest.€€Before€being€taken€to€jail,€theÐ ¨ø Ðdefendant€asked€to€make€a€second€statement.€€Detective€Adams€testified€that€the€defendantÐ ŽÞ Ðacknowledged€that€he€had€asked€DT€to€touch€his€penis.€€When€asked€whether€he€had€rubbed€hisÐ tÄ Ðpenis€on€the€body€of€DT,€the€defendant€stated€that€he€could€not€remember€because€he€was€"usingÐ Zª Ðmarijuana€at€the€time€frame."€€Both€statements€were€tape€recorded.€Ð @ ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€evidence,€the€state€elected€to€rely€only€upon€the€instance€when€DTÐ  \ Ðclaimed€to€have€been€touched€on€the€bottom€by€the€defendant€while€in€the€bedroom.€€Ð òB ÐÌà  àInitially,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€state€improperly€elicited€evidence€of€at€least€fiveÐ ¾ Ðincidents€of€attempted€sexual€contact€between€the€defendant€and€DT.€€He€points€out€that€DT€testifiedÐ ¤ô Ðthat€he€touched€DT's€penis€"more€than€once"€and€that€he€wanted€DT€to€touch€his€penis€and€also€"triedÐ Š Ú Ðto€make€[DT]€suck€it."€€The€defendant€cites€testimony€by€DT€that€he€had€tried€(but€failed)€to€takeÐ p!À  ÐDT's€pants€off€and€that€he€had€already€touched€the€bottom€of€DT,€who€was€wearing€pants€at€the€time.€Ð V"¦! ÐBecause€the€defendant€did€not€object€at€trial€to€the€unindicted€instances€of€misconduct,€he€relies€uponÐ <#Œ" Ðthe€plain€error€doctrine€in€this€appeal.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р"$r# ÐÌà  àThe€state€submits€that€the€issue€has€been€waived,€not€only€because€there€was€noÐ î%>!% Ðcontemporaneous€objection€to€the€testimony,€but€also€because€the€ground€was€not€included€in€theÐ Ô&$"& Ðmotion€for€new€trial.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);€òòState€v.€Killibrewóó,€760Ð º' #' ÐS.W.2d€228,€235€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€Ð  (ð#( ÐÐ †)Ö$) Ðà  àTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€404(a)€provides€that€"[e]vidence€of€a€person's€character€or€traitÐ ° Ðof€character€is€not€admissible€for€the€purpose€of€proving€action€in€conformity€with€the€character€orÐ –æ Ðtrait"€absent€exceptional€circumstances.€€Rule€404(b)€provides€as€follows:€€Ð |Ì ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àEvidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs,€or€acts€is€not€admissible€to€proveÐ H˜ Ðthe€character€of€a€person€in€order€to€show€action€in€conformity€withÐ . ~ Ðthe€character€trait.€€It€may,€however,€be€admissible€for€other€purposes.€Ð  d ÐThe€conditions€which€must€be€satisfied€before€allowing€such€evidenceÐ ú J Ðare:Ðà 0` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)à ¸ àThe€court€upon€request€must€hold€a€hearing€outside€the€jury'sÐ ¬ ü  Ðpresence;Ð’â ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)à ¸ àThe€court€must€determine€that€a€material€issue€exists€otherÐ ^®  Ðthan€conduct€conforming€with€a€character€trait€and€must€upon€requestÐ D”  Ðstate€on€the€record€the€material€issue,€the€ruling,€and€the€reasons€forÐ *z  Ðadmitting€the€evidence;€andÐ`` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(3)à ¸ àThe€court€must€exclude€the€evidence€if€its€probative€value€isÐ Ü, Ðoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.ÐÂ` x` x ÐÌà  àGenerally,€this€rule€is€one€of€exclusion€but€there€are,€as€stated,€exceptions.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð ŽÞ ÐPartonóó,€694€S.W.2d€299€(Tenn.€1985);€òòBunch€v.€Stateóó,€605€S.W.2d€227€(Tenn.€1980);€òòCarroll€v.Ð tÄ ÐStateóó,€370€S.W.2d€523€(Tenn.€1963);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Rickmanóó,€876€S.W.2d€824€(Tenn.€1994)Ð Zª Ð(favorably€citing€both€òòPartonóó€and€òòBunchóó).€€Most€authorities€suggest€trial€courts€take€a€"restrictiveÐ @ Ðapproach€[to]€404(b)€.€.€.€because€'other€act'€evidence€carries€a€significant€potential€for€unfairlyÐ &v Ðinfluencing€a€jury."€€òòSeeóó€Neil€P.€Cohen,€et€al.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€404.7,€at€170„71€(3dÐ  \ Ðed.€1995).€€That€best€explains€the€traditional€posture€of€the€courts€that€any€testimony€of€prior€bad€actsÐ òB Ðby€a€defendant,€when€used€as€substantive€evidence€of€guilt€of€the€crime€on€trial,€is€not€usuallyÐ Ø( Ðadmissible.€€òòPartonóó,€694€S.W.2d€at€302„03.€€The€general€exceptions€to€the€rule€are€when€the€evidenceÐ ¾ Ðis€offered€to€prove€the€motive,€identity,€or€intent€of€the€defendant,€the€absence€of€mistake,Ð ¤ô Ðopportunity,€or€a€common€scheme€or€plan.€€òòBunchóó,€605€S.W.2d€at€229;€òòseeóó€òòLaird€v.€Stateóó,€565Ð Š Ú ÐS.W.2d€38€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€One€authority€suggests€that€the€"completion€of€the€story"€mayÐ p!À  Ðalso€be€a€relevant€basis€for€admission€under€Rule€404(b).€€Cohen,€et€al.,€ðð€404.6,€at€169.€€Recently,Ð V"¦! Ðin€òòState€v.€Gillelandóó,€____€S.W.3d€____€(Tenn.€2000),€our€supreme€court€observed€that€"if€theÐ <#Œ" Ðcontextual€evidence€is€relevant€to€an€issue€other€than€criminal€propensity€and€its€probative€value€isÐ "$r# Ðnot€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€then€the€evidence€may€be€properly€admitted."€€Ð %X $ ÐÌà  àOur€supreme€court€has€spoken€on€the€dangers€of€admitting€into€evidence€prior€sex„relatedÐ Ô&$"& Ðbad€acts€in€the€context€of€a€case€involving€a€child€victim.€€The€following€passage,€perhaps,€bestÐ º' #' Ðillustrates€the€reason€for€the€rule:€€Ð  (ð#( ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€general€rule€excluding€evidence€of€other€crimes€[or€acts]Ð l*¼%* Ðis€based€on€the€recognition€that€such€evidence€easily€results€in€a€juryÐ R+¢&+ Ðimproperly€convicting€a€defendant€for€his€or€her€bad€character€orÐ 8,ˆ', Ðapparent€propensity€or€disposition€to€commit€a€crime€regardless€of€theÐ ° Ðstrength€of€the€evidence€concerning€the€offense€on€trial.€€Such€aÐ –æ Ðpotential€particularity€exists€when€the€conduct€or€acts€are€similar€toÐ |Ì Ðthe€crimes€on€trial.€€€€Ðb²` x` x Ðà@$$(ìà*€*€*ˆÐ H˜ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[I]t€is€clear€that€the€victim's€testimony€about€other€uncharged€sexÐ . ~ Ðcrimes€was€error.€.€.€.€€òòMoreover,€the€prejudice€resulting€from€[theÐ  d Ðtestimony€regarding€uncharged€sex€crimes]€outweighs€its€probativeÐ ú J Ðvalueóó.€.€.€.Ðà 0` x` x ÐòòÌRickmanóó,€876€S.W.2d€at€828€and€830€(emphasis€added)€(citations€omitted).€€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌà  àIn€òòGetz€v.€Stateóó,€538€A.2d€726€(Del.€l988),€a€case€cited€by€our€supreme€court€in€òòRickmanóó,Ð xÈ  Ðthe€Delaware€Supreme€Court€made€further€comment€upon€the€rationale€behind€the€rule:Ð ^®  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à"[W]e€are€no€more€inclined€to€endorse€[the€assumption€that€aÐ *z  Ðdefendant's€propensity€for€satisfying€sexual€needs€is€so€unique€that€itÐ ` Ðis€relevant€to€his€guilt]€than€we€are€to€consider€previous€crimes€ofÐ öF Ðtheft€as€demonstrating€a€larcenous€disposition€and€thus€admissible€toÐ Ü, Ðshow€proof€of€intent€to€commit€theft€on€a€given€occasion."ÐÂ` x` x ÐÌòòRickmanóó,€876€S.W.2d€at€829€(quoting€òòGetzóó,€538€A.2d€at€734)€(alteration€in€original).€€Ð ŽÞ ÐÌà  àTraditionally,€courts€have€not€permitted€the€prosecution€to€establish€through€acts€of€priorÐ Zª Ðmisconduct€any€generalized€propensity€on€the€part€of€a€defendant€to€commit€crimes.€€òòSee€e.góó.,€òòStateÐ @ Ðv.€Teagueóó,€645€S.W.2d€392€(Tenn.€1983).€€A€jury€cannot€be€allowed€to€convict€a€defendant€for€badÐ &v Ðcharacter€or€any€particular€"disposition€to€commit€a€crime€regardless€of€the€strength€of€the€evidenceÐ  \ Ðconcerning€the€offense€on€trial."€€òòRickmanóó,€876€S.W.2d€at€828€(citing€òòAnderson€v.€Stateóó,€56€S.W.2dÐ òB Ð731€(1933)).€Ð Ø( ÐÌà  àIn€òòRickmanóó,€the€supreme€court€did€acknowledge€a€special€exception€allowing€for€theÐ ¤ô Ðadmission€of€evidence€of€other€sex€crimes€when€the€indictment€is€not€time„specific€and€when€theÐ Š Ú Ðevidence€relates€to€sex€crimes€that€occurred€within€the€period€charged€in€the€indictment.€€876€S.W.2dÐ p!À  Ðat€829.€€In€these€instances,€the€state€must€elect€the€particular€incident€for€which€a€conviction€isÐ V"¦! Ðsought.€€òòId.óó€€The€rationale€for€the€exception€is€that€"evidence€of€a€prior€sex€crime€that€is€necessarilyÐ <#Œ" Ðincluded€within€the€charge€of€the€indictment€is€also€necessarily€relevant€to€the€issues€being€tried€and,Ð "$r# Ðtherefore,€is€admissible."€€òòId.óó€€In€òòRickmanóó,€our€supreme€court€concluded€that€the€victim's€testimonyÐ %X $ Ðabout€other€uncharged€sex€crimes€was€erroneous€and€that€prejudice€resulting€from€the€testimonyÐ î%>!% Ðoutweighed€its€probative€value.€€òòId.óó€at€830.€€Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€makes€a€persuasive€argument€on€appeal€that€the€admission€of€the€unindictedÐ  (ð#( Ðinstances€of€sexual€misconduct€was€erroneous.€€He€relies€on€the€plain€error€doctrine€for€two€reasons.€Ð †)Ö$) ÐFirst,€there€was€no€contemporaneous€objection€and€second,€the€issue€was€not€included€in€the€motionÐ l*¼%* Ðfor€new€trial.€€Generally,€the€failure€to€raise€an€issue€in€a€motion€for€new€trial€results€in€a€waiver.€Ð R+¢&+ ÐRule€3(e)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€provides€that€for€appeals€"in€all€cases€triedÐ 8,ˆ', Ðby€a€jury,€no€issue€presented€for€review€shall€be€predicated€upon€error€in€the€admission€or€exclusionÐ ° Ðof€evidence,€jury€instructions€granted€or€refused,€.€.€.€or€other€ground€upon€which€a€new€trial€isÐ –æ Ðsought,€unless€the€same€was€specifically€stated€in€a€motion€for€a€new€trial;€otherwise€such€issues€willÐ |Ì Ðbe€treated€as€waived."€€Ð b² ÐÌà  àWhether€properly€assigned€or€not,€however,€this€court€may€consider€plain€error€upon€theÐ . ~ Ðrecord.€€òòState€v.€Ogleóó,€666€S.W.2d€58€(Tenn.€1984).€€Before€an€error€may€be€so€recognized€pursuantÐ  d Ðto€Rule€52(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€the€error€must€be€"plain"€and€it€mustÐ ú J Ðaffect€a€"substantial€right"€of€the€accused.€€The€word€"plain"€is€synonymous€with€"clear"€orÐ à 0 Ðequivalently€"obvious."€€òòUnited€States€v.€Olanoóó,€507€U.S.€725,€732€(1993).€€Plain€error€is€not€merelyÐ Æ   Ðerror€that€is€conspicuous.€€Plain€error€is€especially€egregious€error€that€strikes€at€the€"fairness,Ð ¬ ü  Ðintegrity,€or€public€reputation€of€judicial€proceedings."€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Woodenóó,€658€S.W.2d€553,€559Ð ’â  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€In€òòState€v.€Adkissonóó,€899€S.W.2d€626,€639€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€thisÐ xÈ  Ðcourt€defined€"substantial€right"€as€a€right€of€"fundamental€proportions€in€the€indictment€process,Ð ^®  Ða€right€to€the€proof€of€every€element€of€the€offense€and€.€.€.€constitutional€in€nature."€€In€that€case,Ð D”  Ðthis€court€established€five€factors€to€be€applied€in€determining€whether€an€error€is€plain:€€Ð *z  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(a)à0¸ ` x` xàThe€record€must€clearly€establish€what€occurred€in€the€trialÐ öF Ðcourt;€ÐÜ,¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(b)à0¸ ` x` xàa€clear€and€unequivocal€rule€of€law€must€have€been€breached;€Ð¨ø¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(c)à0¸ ` x` xàa€substantial€right€of€the€accused€must€have€been€adverselyÐ tÄ Ðaffected;€ÐZª¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(d)à0¸ ` x` xàthe€accused€did€not€waive€the€issue€for€tactical€reasons;€and€Ð&v¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(e)à0¸ ` x` xàconsideration€of€the€error€is€"necessary€to€do€substantialÐ òB Ðjustice."ÐØ(¸ x¸ x ÐÌòòId.óó€at€641.€€Ð ¤ô ÐÌà  àThe€òòAdkissonóó€test€was€recently€formally€adopted€by€our€supreme€court,€which€characterizedÐ p!À  Ðthe€test€as€a€"clear€and€meaningful€standard"€and€emphasized€that€all€five€factors€must€be€establishedÐ V"¦! Ðbefore€a€trial€error€will€be€considered€as€plain€error.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€____€S.W.3d€____€(Tenn.€2000),Ð <#Œ" ÐNo.€12495,€2000€WL€872830€(June€30,€2000).€€Ð "$r# ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€the€testimony€of€DT,€only€seven€years€old,€was€not€as€strong€as€the€state€mightÐ î%>!% Ðhave€preferred.€€For€example,€the€victim€believed€that€school€was€in€session€at€the€time€of€the€offenseÐ Ô&$"& Ðand€that€the€incident€occurred€after€a€day€at€school.€€Other€testimony€by€him€contradicted€that.€€Ms.Ð º' #' ÐGeary€and€the€other€witnesses€at€the€trial€established€that€the€incident€had€to€have€occurred€duringÐ  (ð#( Ðthe€summer€when€school€was€not€in€session.€€DT€denied€that€he€cooperated€with€the€defendant€andÐ †)Ö$) Ðthen€recalled€only€the€one€instance€which€had€occurred€in€his€bed.€€That€is,€DT€did€not€testify€thatÐ l*¼%* Ðthe€defendant€touched€his€genitals€or€that€he€touched€the€defendant's€genitals.€€While€he€alluded€toÐ R+¢&+ Ð"more€than€one"€incident€of€sexual€aggression€on€the€part€of€the€defendant,€his€testimony,€in€the€lightÐ 8,ˆ', Ðmost€favorable€to€the€state,€was€that€only€the€one€instance€of€actual€sexual€contact€had€occurred.€€DTÐ ° Ðstated€that€he€was€in€bed,€fully€clothed,€when€the€defendant€pressed€his€penis€against€the€clothingÐ –æ Ðcovering€his€bottom.€€Except€for€the€specific€incident€that€occurred€in€the€bed€of€DT,€there€was€littleÐ |Ì Ðupon€which€to€base€a€felony€conviction.Ð b² ÐÌà  àBy€the€application€of€the€factors€established€in€òòAdkissonóó,€it€is€our€view€that€the€error€here€didÐ . ~ Ðnot€rise€to€the€level€of€plain€or€obvious€error.€€Initially,€while€our€supreme€court€has€been€consistentÐ  d Ðin€the€general€exclusion€of€uncharged€sex€crime€testimony,€the€issue€was€not€argued€at€all€during€theÐ ú J Ðtrial.€€Thus€the€record€is€not€sufficiently€developed€for€a€complete€analysis.€€Appellate€counsel€didÐ à 0 Ðnot€try€the€case,€so€he€is€at€a€disadvantage,€as€are€we,€in€evaluating€the€issue€in€hindsight.€€ForÐ Æ   Ðexample,€it€is€possible€that€trial€counsel€for€the€defendant€chose€not€to€object€or€to€otherwise€waiveÐ ¬ ü  Ðthe€issue€for€tactical€reasons.€€Had€the€state€been€less€specific€in€the€indictment€as€to€dates€and€timesÐ ’â  Ðof€the€contact,€the€other€references€in€the€testimony€to€sexual€impropriety€on€the€part€of€theÐ xÈ  Ðdefendant€might€have€been€admissible€under€the€special€exception€recognized€in€òòRickmanóó.€€The€stateÐ ^®  Ðdid€not€have€the€opportunity€to€offer€legitimate€reasons€for€one€of€the€several€exceptions€to€RuleÐ D”  Ð404(b).€€The€reference€to€other€possible€sex€crimes€is€not€nearly€so€significant€in€this€case€as€in€òòStateÐ *z  Ðv.€McCaryóó,€922€S.W.2d€511€(Tenn.€1996),€or€òòState€v.€Woodcockóó,€922€S.W.2d€904€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ` ÐApp.€1995).€€Moreover,€DT€testified€that€he€refused€to€cooperate€with€the€defendant's€advances€andÐ öF Ðhad€only€marginal€contact€through€clothing€on€the€one€occasion.€€Finally,€the€trial€court€did€requireÐ Ü, Ðan€election€on€the€part€of€the€state€to€assure€a€unanimous€verdict€on€the€specific€incident€in€DT'sÐ Â Ðbedroom.€€On€balance,€the€factors€weigh€against€a€determination€of€plain€error.€€In€consequence,€theÐ ¨ø Ðissue€must€be€treated€as€having€been€waived€for€failure€to€present€the€ground€in€the€motion€for€newÐ ŽÞ Ðtrial.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àNext,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€12„year€sentence€is€excessive.€€Despite€a€prior€criminalÐ @ Ðhistory,€the€defendant€qualified€as€a€Range€I€offender,€subject€to€a€sentence€of€8€to€12€years.€€TheÐ &v Ðdefendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€apply€as€a€mitigating€factor€Tenn.€CodeÐ  \ ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„113(1):Ð òB Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€defendant's€criminal€conduct€neither€caused€nor€threatenedÐ Ø( Ðserious€bodily€injury.о` x` x ÐÌà  àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€it€is€theÐ Š Ú Ðduty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€byÐ p!À  Ðthe€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€uponÐ V"¦! Ðthe€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€allÐ <#Œ" Ðrelevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.Ð "$r# ÐJonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597€(Tenn.€1994).€€"If€the€trial€court€applies€inappropriate€factors€or€otherwiseÐ %X $ Ðfails€to€follow€the€1989€Sentencing€Act,€the€presumption€of€correctness€falls."€€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€854Ð î%>!% ÐS.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€The€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€provide€thatÐ Ô&$"& Ðthe€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€show€the€impropriety€of€the€sentence.€€Ð º' #' ÐÌà  àOur€review€requires€an€analysis€of€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€andÐ †)Ö$) Ðsentencing€hearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€the€argumentsÐ l*¼%* Ðof€counsel€relative€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense;€(5)€anyÐ R+¢&+ Ðmitigating€or€enhancing€factors;€(6)€any€statements€made€by€the€defendant€in€his€own€behalf;€andÐ 8,ˆ', Ð(7)€the€defendant's€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,Ð ° Є210;€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€The€record€in€this€caseÐ –æ Ðdemonstrates€that€the€trial€court€made€adequate€findings€of€fact.€Ð |Ì ÐÌà  àIf€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€this€court€may€notÐ H˜ Ðmodify€the€sentence€even€if€it€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2dÐ . ~ Ð785€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€The€presumption€of€correctness€is,€however,€"conditioned€upon€theÐ  d Ðaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€sentencing€principles€and€relevantÐ ú J Ðfacts€and€circumstances."€€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€The€trial€court€must€place€on€the€record€theÐ à 0 Ðreasons€for€the€sentence.€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597€(Tenn.€1994).€€Ð Æ   ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€found€the€following€enhancement€factors:Ð ’â  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)à0¸ ` x` xàThat€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminalÐ ^®  Ðconvictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€thoseÐ D”  Ðnecessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range;€Ð*z ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(8)à0¸ ` x` xàThat€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€toÐ öF Ðcomply€with€the€conditions€of€his€sentence€involving€releaseÐ Ü, Ðin€the€community;€Ð¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà0¸ ` x` xàà ` à(13)(A)That€the€felony€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€onÐ ŽÞ Ðbail€if€the€release€is€from€a€prior€felony€conviction;€and€Ðtĸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(15)à0¸ ` x` xàThat€the€defendant€abused€a€position€of€public€or€private€trust.Ð@¸ x¸ x ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àWhile€many€of€his€prior€convictions€were€several€years€old,€the€defendant€did€have€ten€priorÐ Ø( Ðfelony€offenses€according€to€the€pre„sentence€report.€€He€also€admitted€to€using€marijuana.€€The€trialÐ ¾ Ðcourt€placed€significant€weight€upon€the€defendant's€prior€criminal€record€in€determining€that€theÐ ¤ô Ðmaximum€sentence€was€appropriate.€€Because€the€defendant€had€twice€violated€the€conditions€of€hisÐ Š Ú Ðparole,€the€trial€court€had€a€basis€for€the€application€of€factor€(8).€€Moreover,€he€was€on€bail€on€twoÐ p!À  Ðfelony€charges€at€the€time€that€he€was€convicted€of€this€offense.€€Thus,€(13)(A)€applied.€€Finally,€asÐ V"¦! Ðthe€boyfriend€of€DT's€grandmother,€he€had€been€allowed€to€share€the€Messick€residence.€€TheÐ <#Œ" Ðdefendant€was€entrusted€with€some€level€of€supervision€over€the€seven„year„old€victim,€as€the€onlyÐ "$r# Ðadult€left€in€the€trailer€with€the€child€on€this€occasion.Ð %X $ ÐÌà  àIn€our€view,€the€trial€court€properly€applied€each€and€every€enhancement€factor.€€While€itÐ Ô&$"& Ðmay€be€true€that€the€defendant's€conduct€did€not€cause€serious€bodily€injury,€that€factor€would€haveÐ º' #' Ðlittle€weight€in€light€of€the€considerable€weight€given€each€of€the€enhancement€factors.€€In€our€view,Ð  (ð#( Ðthe€trial€court€did€not€err€in€imposing€the€maximum€sentence.€€Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌÌÐ 8,ˆ', Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð ° Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGE€