ÿWPCå 1# ¾UNÉ % 0(w@E4…™¨U.° 0JÞ 0T( 0^| 0hÚ 0rB 0|´ 0†0 0¶ 1uF 0d» 0@ D3_ B’ U>¯ B)í DC AMY ¦ AQ© Æú 0DÀ 0D D/H Bw v~” vÓ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ òDóôDõDö÷øReùÓ€ìSï"ú úÿÿú,3|x%ä2¼A`ArialTT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd* &Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ùÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òJuly€18,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  Ý›Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ À ÒÑ\R AØ'\ќـ*ÙÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ ÔßR€'(&A1-j|!ÿ` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌà@ àJULY€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€No.€02C01„9608„CC„00269Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellee,à àà àà à)à àLAUDERDALE€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àò òHON.€JOSEPH€H.€WALKER,ÏJUDGEÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òJOE€L.€PATRICK,€SR.ó ó,à àà àà à)à à(Aggravated€Sexual€Battery)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellant.à àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEE;óóÌÌò òTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL(appeal€only)à àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌó ó203€Murrell€Streetà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌP.€O.€Box€1075à àà àà àÌDickson,€TN€37056„1075à àà àà àà àò òELLEN€H.€POLLACKó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌò òGARY€ANTRICANó óà àà àà àà àà à450€James€RobertsonÏParkwayÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àÌÌò òC.€MICHAEL€ROBBINSà àà àà àó óà àò òELIZABETH€T.€RICEó óÌò ò(at€trial€and€of€counsel€on€appeal)ó óà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà à302€Market€StreetÌ118€East€Market€Streetà àà àà àà àP.€O.€Box€302ÌP.€O.€Box€700à àà àà àà àà àSomerville,€TN€38068„0302ÌSomerville,€TN€38068„0700à àà àà àÌò òÌÌó óÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€ó óòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌò òóóAFFIRMEDó óòòÌÌÌò òóóJOE€G.€RILEY,€ÌJUDGEó óÌÌÌÌÌÌÑ7€¬·XXdðXXdð7ÑÌÌÌà@ àò òO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌÓÓó óà àDefendant,€Joe€L.€Patrick,€Sr.,€was€convicted€by€a€jury€in€the€LauderdaleÏCounty€Circuit€Court€of€the€offense€of€aggravated€sexual€battery€and€sentenced€toÏeight€(8)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€He€appeals€as€of€right€andÏpresents€the€following€issues€for€our€review:ÌÓÓà à1.€€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€conviction;ÌÌà à2.€€whether€the€victim€was€competent€to€testify€about€the€allegedÌà à€€€€€incident;ÌÌà à3.€€whether€the€victimððs€complaint€to€her€mother€was€properly€admitted;€andÌà àÌà à4.€€whether€the€trial€court€properly€instructed€the€jury€on€the€defense€of€Ìà à€€€€€intoxication.ÌÌÓÓWe€find€no€error€committed€by€the€trial€court;€therefore,€we€€AFFIRM€€the€judgment.€ÌÌà@ àò òòòFACTSóóó óÌÌà àAt€the€time€of€this€incident€in€January€1995,€the€female€victim€was€nine€(9)Ïyears€of€age.€€The€defendant€was€her€paternal€grandfather.€€The€stateððs€proofÏindicated€that€on€the€date€in€question€the€defendant€came€to€the€residence€of€theÏvictim€and€her€family€shortly€after€midnight.€€The€defendant€had€been€drinking,€andÏthe€victimððs€parents€allowed€the€defendant€to€stay€in€the€residence€that€eveningÏsince€the€defendant€had€no€other€place€to€go.€€Ìà àAt€approximately€4:00€a.m.€the€defendant€awoke€the€child€victim€when€heÏtouched€her€ð ðprivacyðð€and€ð ðbehind.ðð€€The€victim€told€him€to€stop,€and€the€defendantÏtold€her€not€to€tell€anyone€ð ðbecause€I€wonððt€do€it€anymore.ðð€€Ìà àThe€victim€was€scared€and€went€to€her€motherððs€bedroom€and€knocked.€ÏWhen€her€mother€asked€what€was€wrong,€the€victim€replied€ð ðnever€mind.ðð€€TheÏsame€morning€before€school€the€victim€told€her€mother€about€the€sexual€assault.ÌÌÌà àThe€defendant€testified€in€his€own€defense.€€He€stated€he€was€heavilyÏintoxicated€that€evening€and€had€very€little€recollection€as€to€his€activities.€€He,Ïnevertheless,€denied€that€he€sexually€assaulted€the€victim.€€ÌÌà@ àò òSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEÌÌó óà àDefendant€first€contends€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€theÏconviction€€for€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€In€Tennessee,€great€weight€is€given€toÏthe€result€reached€by€the€jury€in€a€criminal€trial.€€A€jury€verdict€accredits€the€state'sÏwitnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€state.€€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885ÏS.W.2d€797,€803€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).€ÏOn€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€andÏall€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€òòIdóó.;€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,Ï571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Moreover,€a€guilty€verdict€removes€theÏpresumption€of€innocence€which€the€appellant€enjoyed€at€trial€and€raises€aÏpresumption€of€guilt€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.Ï1973).€€The€appellant€has€the€burden€of€overcoming€this€presumption€of€guilt.€€òòIdóó.à àÌà àWhere€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged,€the€relevant€question€forÏan€appellate€court€is€whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÏessential€elements€of€the€crime€or€crimes€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€13(e);€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307€(1979);€òòState€v.€Abramsóó,€935ÏS.W.2d€399,€401€(Tenn.€1996).€The€weight€and€credibility€of€the€witnesses'Ïtestimony€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€the€triers€of€fact.€€òòState€v.ÏSheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€932€S.W.2d€1,€19Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).Ìà àAllowing€the€state€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€allÏreasonable€inferences€therefrom,€the€jury€could€rationally€conclude€beyond€aÍreasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€had€unlawful€sexual€contact€with€the€victimÏwho€was€less€than€thirteen€(13)€years€of€age,€and€the€defendant€actedÏintentionally.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„504(a)(4).€€The€jury€obviouslyÏaccredited€the€testimony€of€the€victim.€€The€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€theÏverdict.ÌÌà0 àà àò òà@ àòòCOMPETENCY€TO€TESTIFYó óóóÌÌà àDefendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€pre„trial€motion€toÏdismiss€the€indictment€based€upon€the€victimððs€incompetency€to€testify€about€theÏalleged€assault.€€More€specifically,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€victimððsÏtestimony€at€the€first€trial,€which€concluded€with€a€deadlocked€jury,€reveals€that€theÏvictim€did€not€have€sufficient€personal€knowledge€to€testify€about€the€allegedÏassault.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€602.€€Defendant€alleges€that€the€victimððs€testimony€atÏthe€first€trial€indicated€her€uncertainty€as€to€whether€or€not€this€was€a€dream.€€Ìà àFirstly,€we€note€that€the€proper€method€of€attacking€lack€of€personalÏknowledge€as€set€forth€in€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€602€is€not€pursuant€to€a€pre„trial€motion€toÏdismiss€the€indictment.€€The€indictment€is€not€faulty.€€Ìà àSecondly,€our€review€of€the€victimððs€testimony€at€the€first€trial€and€the€instantÏtrial€does€not€indicate€a€lack€of€personal€knowledge€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€602.€€AsÏnoted€by€the€trial€judge€in€overruling€the€motion€to€dismiss,€it€was€primarily€aÏquestion€for€the€jury€as€to€whether€the€offense€occurred€or€whether€the€victimÏdreamed€the€event.€€At€the€instant€trial€the€victim€insisted€the€event€occurred€andÍwas€not€a€dream.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ìà@ àò òòòHEARSAY€STATEMENTSó óóóÌÌà àDuring€the€direct€examination€of€the€child€victim,€the€prosecutor€asked€her€ifÏshe€told€anybody€about€this€incident€the€next€day€after€it€occurred.€€The€victimÏtestified€that€she€told€her€mother.€€The€victim€did€not€testify€as€to€what,€in€fact,€sheÏdid€tell€her€mother.€€The€state€also€elicited€from€the€victimððs€mother€during€herÏdirect€examination€that€the€child€reported€the€incident€to€her€the€morning€after€itsÏoccurrence.€€Again,€there€was€no€testimony€as€to€the€details€of€the€complaint.€€TheÏtrial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€this€testimony€was€to€be€considered€only€forÏcorroborative€purposes€relating€to€the€credibility€of€the€victim.€€Defendant€contendsÏthe€testimony€of€the€victim€and€her€mother€consisted€of€inadmissible€hearsayÏpursuant€to€òòState€v.€Livingstonóó,€907€S.W.2d€392€(Tenn.€1995).Ìà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€abolished€the€fresh€complaint€doctrine€as€itÏapplies€to€child€victims.€òò€Seeóó€òòState€v.€Livingstonóó,€907€S.W.2d€at€392.€€Similarly€toÏadult€victims,€the€fresh€complaint€doctrine€had€been€used€to€admit€statementsÏmade€by€child€victims€after€sexual€abuse€as€confirmation€of€their€credibility.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Brownóó,€871€S.W.2d€492,€493€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Since€juries€wouldÏnot€likely€make€the€same€presumptions€which€justify€the€retention€of€ð ðfreshÏcomplaintðð€with€adult€victims,€the€Court€abolished€the€fresh€complaint€doctrineÏentirely€and€held€it€did€not€apply€to€cases€involving€child€victims€of€abuse€„„„€sexualÏor€non„sexual.€òòLivingstonóó,€907€S.W.2d€at€399.€€Nevertheless,€the€Court€noted€thatÏevidence€in€the€nature€of€fresh€complaint€may€be€admissible€as€(1)€substantiveÍevidence€if€it€satisfies€some€hearsay€exception,€and€(2)€corroborative€evidence€if€itÏsatisfies€the€prior€consistent€statement€rule.€€òòIdóó.€at€395.Ìà àòòLivingstonóó€concerned€the€admissibility€of€testimony€of€a€third€party€whoÏtestified€as€to€the€victimððs€statements.€€In€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó€the€defendant€firstÏattacks€the€testimony€of€the€victim€herself€to€the€effect€that€she€reported€theÏincident.€€Firstly,€we€note€that€it€is€questionable€whether€this€testimony€wasÏhearsay€since€it€was€not€introduced€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€801(c).€€Ìà àEven€if€it€was€hearsay,€however,€its€admission€was€clearly€harmless.€ÏDuring€the€cross„examination€of€the€victim€by€defense€counsel,€it€was€implied€thatÏthe€victim€fabricated€this€allegation€since€it€was€only€a€dream.€€Although€a€priorÏconsistent€statement€is€not€admissible€on€direct€examination€absent€anÏimpeaching€attack€on€that€testimony,€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Meeksóó,€867€S.W.2d€361,€374Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€the€testimony€clearly€would€have€been€admissible€on€re„direct€examination€as€a€prior€consistent€statement.€€If€the€testimony€was€hearsayÏand€erroneously€admitted€on€direct€examination,€it€was€harmless€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€Ìà àThe€testimony€of€the€victimððs€mother€is€definitely€controlled€by€òòLivingstonóó.€ÏAs€noted,€however,€the€child€victimððs€testimony€had€been€subjected€to€anÏallegation€of€fabrication€before€the€mother€testified.€€Her€testimony€was€properlyÏadmitted€for€corroborative€purposes€as€a€prior€consistent€statement,€and€the€trialÏjudge€so€instructed€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Livingstonóó,€907€S.W.2d€at€395.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòJURY€INSTRUCTION€ON€INTOXICATIONóóó óÌÌà àDefendant€finally€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€his€writtenÏrequest€for€a€jury€instruction€relating€to€intoxication.€€We€disagree.Ìà àThe€special€request€submitted€by€defense€counsel€came€from€T.P.I.€„€Crim.Ï40.02€(4th€ed.€1995).€€However,€defense€counsel€omitted€various€portions€of€theÏpattern€charge.€€The€trial€court€gave€this€pattern€charge€which€included€certainÏlanguage€omitted€by€defense€counsel.€€The€jury€charge€as€given€by€the€trial€judgeÏwas€correct€in€all€respects.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àóóJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌ