ÿWPCl …JVUN  %î 0ôU:û w@5 4u ‰ ˜ 0J  0Tê 0^> 0hœ 0r 0|v 0†ò 0x 1u 0d}U>áU*U*IB)sDCœ AMߺ, Bæv~vÓ D3T 0@‡ AOÇÆ 0DÜ D/  BOc:\office\wpwin\template\opinion.wpt(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ßZ>$¡¡Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X³—XXXÔÓ  ÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ7€Å XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  Ñ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular XDYZD[\ e]^D_U`UaÓ€Ô¡¨ 3|xj2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ °Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌJulyÏ23,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€  Xd#ÑÑ#€  Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ý›œÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓßR€#$"A1-j|` à. `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌOCTOBER€1996€SESSIONÌÓ  Ӏ̀ÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà à€€€APPELLEE,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€01„C„01„9602„CC„00074Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àRutherford€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJames€K.€Clayton,€Jr.,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Aggravated€Sexual€Battery)ÌROBERT€SCOTT,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àAPPELLANT.à à)ÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌDicken€E.€Kidwellà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌAttorney€at€Lawà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ300€East€Vine€Streetà àà àà àà à500€Charlotte€AvenueÌMurfreesboro,€TN€37130à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0497Ì(Appeal€Only)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMichael€J.€Fahey,€IIÌGuy€R.€œDotson,›€Jr.à àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌAttorney€at€Lawà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ102€South€Maple€Streetà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌMurfreesboro,€TN€37130Ì(Trial€Only)à àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€C.€Whitesell,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à303€Rutherford€County€Judicial€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMurfreesboro,€TN€37130ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àThomas€F.€Jackson,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à303€Rutherford€County€Judicial€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMurfreesboro,€TN€37130ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:__________________________________ÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDED€FOR€A€NEW€TRIALÌÌÌJoe€B.€Jones,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌò òÓ  ÓÔ€„ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÓ  ÓÔ€XÔ€ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Robert€Scott€(defendant),€was€convicted€of€aggravated€sexualÏbattery,€a€Class€B€felony,€by€a€jury€of€his€peers.€€The€trial€court,€finding€the€defendant€toÏbe€a€standard€offender,€imposed€a€Range€I€sentence€consisting€of€confinement€of€eightÏ(8)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€In€this€Court,€the€defendant€raisesÏnumerous€issues.€€After€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€the€briefs€of€the€parties,€andÏthe€law€governing€the€issues€presented€for€review,€it€is€the€opinion€of€this€Court€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€should€be€reversed€and€this€cause€remanded€to€the€trialÏcourt€for€a€new€trial.€€The€trial€court€explicitly€expressed€dissatisfaction€with€the€verdictÏof€the€jury,€but€upheld€the€verdict€when€considering€the€matter€as€the€thirteenth€juror.Ìà àThis€is€the€second€appeal€in€this€case.€€Initially,€the€trial€court€granted€theÏdefendant€a€new€trial€because€the€state€failed€to€turn€over€exculpatory€evidence€beforeÏthe€trial.€€The€state€sought€and€was€granted€an€interlocutory€appeal.€€This€CourtÍreversed€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€remanded€the€cause€for€furtherÏproceedings.€€òòState€v.€Robert€Scottóó,€Rutherford€County€No.€01„C„01„9409„CC„00326Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€October€4,€1995).€€The€state€filed€a€post„opinion€motionÏseeking€clarification.€This€Court€limited€its€action€ð ðto€vacating€the€trial€courtððs€orderÏgranting€a€new€trial€and€to€remanding€this€cause€to€the€trial€court€for€its€furtherÏconsideration€and€complete€determination€of€the€motion€for€a€new€trial,€including€itsÏrole€as€the€thirteenth€juror.ðð€€The€trial€court€was€instructed€to€reinstate€the€verdict€of€theÏjury€if€it€denied€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€and€approved€the€juryððs€verdict€as€theÏthirteenth€juror.Ìà àOn€remand€the€trial€court€denied€the€defendantððs€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€TheÏcourt€reluctantly€approved€the€verdict€as€the€thirteenth€juror.€€When€ruling€upon€theÏverdict€of€the€jury,€the€trial€court€said:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ X ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌWell,€I€donððt€mind€telling€you,€Gentlemen,€that€this€case€hasÏcaused€me€more€concern,€I€guess,€than€any€case€I€haveÏever€tried.€€I€have€had€a€little€time€on€the€bench€where€IÏhave€tried€cases.ÌÌI€know€what€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€has€said.€€And€IÏhave€to€accept€what€they€have€said€as€being€correctÏbecause€I€donððt€believe€anyone€has€the€perfect€ability€to€seeÏthings€and€to€know€exactly€what€happened€with€theÏexception€of€the€people€that€were€there€at€the€time.ÌÌI€believed€Sissy€in€this€case.€€I€also€believed€Ms.€Scott,€andÏshe€testified€about€Mr.€Scottððs€problems€with€arthritis.€€IÏbelieved€the€doctor€when€he€testified.€€I€didnððt€go€into€that€atÏthe€first€motion.€€I€felt€like€the€State€had€fallen€down.€€Iððm€notÏgiving€counsel€for€the€defense€what€I€felt€like€wereÏexculpatory€statements€which€were€inconsistent€statementsÏwhich€would€bear€on€credibility.€€And€Iððm€sorry€I€donððt€recallÏexactly€what€was€covered€in€cross„examination.€€Some€ofÍthese€may€have€been.€€Itððs€been€awhile.ÌÌÓ  Ó*€*€*€*ÌÌÓ  ÓI€donððt€feel€that€.€.€.€the€Supreme€Court,€that€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals€expects€or€wants€nor€do€they€require€theÏJudge,€because€he€doesnððt€necessarily€agree€with€the€juryððsÏverdict,€to€set€it€aside.€€And€I€think€thatððs€why€they€require€theÏJudge€to€say,€one€is€the€verdict€supported€by€the€evidence.ÌÌIn€this€case,€as€I€pointed€out,€the€victim€in€the€case€testified.€ÏIn€the€argument€or€in€my€statements€when€it€was€hereÏbefore€indicated€that€I€had€some€„„€would€liked€to€haveÏheard€further€from€that€witness.€€But€I€did€not€take€part€in€theÏdeliberations€with€the€jury.€€I€donððt€know€what€theyÏconsidered€in€their€deliberations.€€And€I€can€certainlyÏunderstand€why€the€Supreme€Court€or€the€Court€ofÏAppeals,€Criminal€Appeals,€does€not€want€the€Judge€to€say,Ïwell,€they€just€„„€I€may€not€be€real€happy€with€the€verdict,€butÏI€do€„„€I€could€not€„„€I€cannot€in€good€conscious€say€that€theÏverdict€was€not€supported€by€the€evidence.ÌÌAnd€I€think€as€thirteenth€juror€when€the€verdict€is€supportedÏby€the€evidence€that€was€presented€at€the€trial,€and€theÏCourt€of€Appeals€has€ruled€as€they€did€in€what€I€felt€likeÏwere€mistakes,€I€donððt€see€that€I€have€any€alternative€but€toÏapprove€it.€€Let€the€appeal€process€proceed€from€here.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓBased€upon€a€reading€of€the€foregoing€statement€made€by€the€trial€court,€it€is€obviousÏthe€€trial€court€was€confused€regarding€its€duty€when€acting€as€the€thirteenth€juror.Ìà àThe€thirteenth€juror€rule€was€a€part€of€this€stateððs€jurisprudence€for€years.€€InÏ1978,€the€Supreme€Court€abolished€this€common€law€rule.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571ÏS.W.2d€832€(Tenn.€1978).€€Later,€the€Supreme€Court€refused€to€reinstate€the€rule.€ÏòòState€v.€Adkinsóó,€786€S.W.2d€642€(Tenn.1990);€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€692€S.W.2d€412Ï(Tenn.€1985).€€In€1991,€the€thirteenth€juror€rule€was€reinstated€as€Rule€33(f),ÏTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€This€rule€states:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ X ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌThe€trial€court€may€grant€a€new€trial€following€a€verdict€ofÏguilty€if€it€disagrees€with€the€jury€about€the€weight€of€theÏevidence.€€If€the€trial€court€grants€a€new€trial€because€theÏverdict€is€contrary€to€the€weight€of€the€evidence,€uponÏrequest€of€either€party€the€new€trial€shall€be€conducted€by€aÏdifferent€judge.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓThe€Supreme€Court€has€referred€to€this€rule€as€the€ð ðmodern€day€equivalent€to€theÏððthirteenth€juror€rule.ðððð€òòState€v.€Blantonóó,€926€S.W.2d€953,€958€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€ruleÏserves€two€purposes.€€First,€it€acts€as€a€safeguard€against€errors€committed€by€the€jury.€ÏòòState€v.€Dankworthóó,€919€S.W.2d€52,€55€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Second,€it€prevents€aÏmiscarriage€of€justice€by€the€jury€in€reaching€the€verdict€it€reports€to€the€court.€€òòIdóó.Ìà àTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€33(f)€imposes€upon€the€trial€court€ð ðtheÏmandatory€duty€to€serve€as€the€thirteenth€juror€in€every€criminal€case.ðð€€òòState€v.€Carteróó,Ï896€S.W.2d€119,€122€(Tenn.€1995).€€Moreover,€the€trial€courtððs€approval€of€the€juryððsÏverdict€as€thirteenth€juror€is€essential€to€the€imposition€of€a€valid€judgment.€€òòIdóó.Ìà àWhen€acting€as€thirteenth€juror,€the€trial€court€must€independently€weigh€theÏevidence€and€assess€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses€based€upon€the€observations€ofÏthe€court€during€the€trial.€€òòDankworthóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€56.€€The€trial€court€sees€theÏwitnesses€face€to€face,€hears€the€witnesses€testify,€and€observes€the€witnessesððÏdemeanor.€€òòIdóó.€€In€weighing€the€evidence,€the€trial€court€must€consider€the€evidenceÏadduced€during€the€trial,€consider€any€exhibits€introduced,€reconcile€the€conflictingÏevidence,€and€determine€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses.€€òòDankworthóó,€919€S.W.2d€atÏ55.€€The€trial€court€must€be€personally€satisfied€with€the€verdict.€€If€the€trial€court€is€notÏsatisfied€with€the€verdict,€it€is€the€duty€of€the€trial€court€to€grant€the€accused€a€new€trial.Ìà àIt€is€clear€the€trial€court€felt€a€new€trial€should€be€granted€based€upon€hisÏdissatisfaction€with€the€testimony€of€the€victim€who€apparently€had€given€conflictingÏstatements.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€was€not€satisfied€with€the€verdict.€€However,€theÏstatements€made€by€the€trial€court€illustrate€the€court€misunderstood€its€authority€andÏduty€as€the€thirteenth€juror.€€Thus,€this€Court€must€grant€the€defendant€a€new€trial.€ÏòòState€v.€Moatsóó,€906€S.W.2d€431,€434„35€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€remaining€issues€are€mootÏgiven€the€disposition€made€in€this€case.€€This€Court€does€not€render€advisory€opinions.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€JOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌœÌCONCUR:›Ì̛̜Ì_________________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€WILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGE̛̜ÌÌÌ_________________________________________Ì€€€€€€J.€STEVEN€STAFFORD,€SPECIAL€JUDGE€€€€€€ÌÌÌÌ