ÿWPCN' …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0lN 0Dº U.þ , 0J4 0T~ 0^Ò 0h0 0r˜ 0| 0†† 0 1uœ U, 0d= D3¡ BÔ 0@ñU,1U>]B)›DCÄ AM,TM€aÍå.Ev~XvÓÖ AO©%Æø% 0D¾& D/' B1'˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- YeZe[\V]^D_U`DaPbÓ€ÍvË  Z ‹3|xmHM((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó%ä2¼A`ArialTT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ! ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ++++'ÿÿdxd d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d00007Border 1dd€-1Cþÿ << Gÿÿ "Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òJune€14,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó CÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ôÔEffective€July€1,€1995,€the€legislature€added€the€element€that€the€penetration€was€accomplished€à0 àwithout€consent:€ð ð(2)€The€sexual€penetration€is€accomplished€without€the€consent€of€the€victim€and€theÏdefendant€knows€or€has€reason€to€know€at€the€time€of€the€penetration€that€the€victim€did€not€consent€.€.€.€.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„503€(Supp.€1995).Ì WÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ôÔThe€rape€shield€statute€was€first€enacted€at€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„2445.€€TheÏà àlaw€was€later€found€at€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„17„119€and€read€as€follows:ÌÌà0 àà8 à40„17„119€Admissibility€of€prior€consensual€sexual€activity.€„„Specific€instances€ofÏprior€consensual€sexual€activity€between€the€victim€and€any€person€other€than€theÏoffender€shall€not€be€admitted€into€evidence€in€prosecutions€under€ðððð€39„2„601„„39„2„607€and€39„2„612,€provided,€however,€that€when€consent€by€the€victim€is€atÏissue,€such€evidence€may€be€admitted€if€it€is€first€established€to€the€court€outsideÏthe€presence€of€the€jury€and€spectators€by€the€method€of€clearing€the€courtroomÏthat€such€activity€shows€such€a€relation€to€the€conduct€involved€in€the€case€on€theÏpart€of€the€victim€that€is€relevant€to€the€issue€of€consent.ÌÌà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„17„119€(1982).Ì ÛÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ôÔThe€Sixth€Amendment,€applied€to€the€states€through€the€Fourteenth€Amendment,€guarantees€a€à0 àdefendant€a€fair€trial€by€providing€him€with€the€right€to€cross„examine€all€witnesses€against€him.€€òòSeeóóÏòòChambers€v.€Mississippióó,€410€U.S.€284,€295€(1973).Ì ;Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ôÔFederal€Rule€412€disallows€evidence€ð ðoffered€to€prove€that€any€alleged€victim€engaged€in€otherÏà0 àsexual€behavior,ðð€of€evidence€ð ðoffered€to€prove€any€alleged€victimððs€sexual€predisposition.ðð€€Fed.ÏR.€Evid.€412(a).€€The€rule€allows€some€evidence€to€be€admitted€if€it€is:ÌÌà8 àà8 à(A)€evidence€of€specific€instances€of€sexual€behavior€by€the€alleged€victimÏoffered€to€prove€that€a€person€other€than€the€accused€was€the€source€ofÏsemen,€injury€or€other€physical€evidence;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(B)€evidence€of€specific€instances€of€sexual€behavior€by€the€alleged€victimÏwith€respect€to€the€person€accused€of€the€sexual€misconduct€offered€byÏthe€accused€to€prove€consent€or€by€the€prosecution;€andÌÌà8 àà8 à(C)€evidence€the€exclusion€of€which€would€violate€the€constitutional€rightsÏof€the€defendant.ÌÌà àFed.€R.€Evid.€412(b).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÓ&€..X„d&ÓÑ#€..Xd#ÑÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€/ŠÔÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ћрÑÑ7€vXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙœßL€231;+'h|` Å `€€Lß›ÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌJANUARY€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.Ï03C01„9505„CR„00141Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHAMILTON€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€DOUGLAS€A.€MEYERó óÌò òSTEPHEN€TRACY€SHELINE,ó óà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)ó óà à(Rape)ÌÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌCRIMINAL€COURT€OF€HAMILTON€COUNTYÌó óÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌDONALD€MART€LASLEYà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌ8857€Dayton€Pike,€Suite€Dà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌSoddy„Daisy,€TN€37379Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àDARIAN€B.€TAYLORÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àGARY€D.€GERBITZÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àREBECCA€STERNÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCity„County€Courts€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà à600€Market€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€37402„1972ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€ °Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€ ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€Defendant,€Stephen€Sheline,€brings€this€appeal€as€of€right€from€a€juryÏverdict€convicting€him€of€rape.€€He€was€sentenced€to€eight€years€of€splitÏconfinement,€with€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€to€be€served€in€theÏcounty€workhouse€and€seven€years€on€supervised€probation.€€He€appeals€thisÏconviction.€€We€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€argues€the€following€issues€for€our€review:€(1)€That€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€disallowing€the€testimony€of€three€witnesses€under€TennesseeÏRule€of€Evidence€412,€the€rape€shield€law;€(2)€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏprohibiting€the€Defendant€from€introducing€physician€testimony€on€the€bloodÏalcohol€level€of€the€victim€at€the€time€of€the€incident,€when€the€testimony€shouldÏhave€been€allowed€to€impeach€the€victimððs€credibility€under€Tennessee€Rule€ofÏEvidence€617;€(3)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€a€witness€for€theÏprosecution€to€testify€as€to€a€conversation€she€and€the€victim€had€about€theÏrape€immediately€after€the€incident€under€either€a€fresh€complaint€or€excitedÏutterance€theory;€(4)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€prohibiting€the€Defendant€fromÏadequately€presenting€his€case€as€provided€by€the€Due€Process€Clauses€andÏthe€Fifth€Amendment€of€the€Tennessee€and€United€States€Constitutions,Íspecifically€by€charging€the€jury€with€all€of€the€lesser€included€offenses€of€rapeÏand€by€refusing€to€allow€the€defense€counsel€to€play€a€tape€of€the€preliminaryÏhearing€for€the€purpose€of€impeaching€the€testimony€of€the€victim;€and€(5)€thatÏthe€evidence€was€not€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€of€rape€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€ÌÌÓ  Óà àò òI.€€Factsó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àLate€on€the€night€of€August€26,€1993,€the€victim€was€introduced€to€theÏDefendant€in€a€Chattanooga€bar€called€ð ðYesterdayððs.ðð€€Both€the€Defendant€andÏthe€victim€were€twenty„three„year„old€students€at€the€University€of€Tennessee€inÏChattanooga€at€the€time€of€the€incident.€€Earlier€that€evening,€the€victim€andÏseveral€girlfriends€had€been€to€another€local€bar€where€œthe€victim›€drank€a€coupleÏof€beers.€€œThey€then›€drove€to€Yesterdayððs.€€The€victim€testified€that€œthe€victim›Ïoften€went€to€Yesterdayððs€to€socialize.€€The€victim€arrived€there€at€approximatelyÏ11:30€p.m.,€and€she€testified€that€she€drank€two€or€three€more€beers€while€sheÏwas€there.€€ÌÌà àThe€victim€testified€that€she€knew€the€Defendant€by€sight€because€sheÏhad€previously€seen€him€at€school€and€at€other€social€functions.€€She€testifiedÏthat€she€told€her€friend€Ray€that€she€thought€the€Defendant€was€ð ðcute.ðð€€TheÍDefendant€testified€that€Ray€introduced€him€to€the€victim€and€told€the€DefendantÏthat€the€victim€ð ðthought€he€was€cute€and€that€she€wanted€to€kissðð€him.€€TheÏDefendant€testified€that€for€the€rest€of€the€night,€the€victim€would€hug€and€talk€toÏhim€whenever€he€was€in€her€vicinity.€€The€victim,€however,€testified€that€afterÏtalking€to€Ray,€she€did€not€talk€to€the€Defendant€again€until€thirty€minutes€laterÏwhen€he€approached€her€and€asked€her€for€a€ride€home.€€The€victim€said€thatÏshe€agreed,€thinking€that€she€would€drop€him€off€at€the€fraternity€house€whereÏhe€lived.ÌÌà àDuring€the€drive€home,€the€Defendant€explained€that€he€was€no€longerÏstaying€at€the€fraternity€house.€€The€victim€offered€to€let€the€Defendant€spend€theÏnight€at€her€apartment€which€she€shared€with€three€other€roommates.€€From€thisÏpoint,€the€testimony€of€the€Defendant€and€the€victim€differs€significantly.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€testified€that€the€victim€approached€him€outside€ofÏYesterdayððs€after€the€bar€closed€and€asked€him€if€he€wanted€a€ride,€to€which€heÏagreed.€€He€said€that€after€they€arrived€at€the€victimððs€apartment,€they€went€intoÏthe€bedroom.€€The€Defendant€sat€down€on€the€bed€while€the€victim€went€intoÏthe€bathroom.€€She€returned€a€few€minutes€later,€and€the€two€began€kissingÏand€touching€each€other.€€The€Defendant€said€that€she€took€off€his€shirt,€and€heÏremoved€hers.€€He€then€performed€oral€sex€on€her€for€several€minutes.€€TheÍDefendant€pulled€down€the€victimððs€underwear€and€penetrated€her€with€hisÏpenis€for€about€fifteen€seconds.€€He€said€that€the€victim€then€said,€ð ðI€donððt€thinkÏwe€can€do€this€anymore.ðð€€The€Defendant€said€that€he€then€stopped€havingÏintercourse€with€the€victim,€but€that€they€kissed€for€another€ten€to€fifteen€minutes.€€ÏHe€said€that€they€cuddled€for€a€short€time€before€he€fell€asleep.ÌÌà àThe€victim€testified€that€she€told€the€Defendant€he€could€spend€the€night€atÏher€apartment.€€She€said€that€when€they€arrived€there,€she€checked€theÏmessages€on€her€answering€service.€€When€she€hung€up€the€telephone,€theÏDefendant€came€over€to€her,€pushed€her€up€against€a€wall,€and€attempted€toÏpull€up€her€skirt.€€The€victim€told€the€Defendant€that€he€could€sleep€on€the€couch,Ïand€that€blankets€and€pillows€were€already€there€for€him€to€use.€€She€then€wentÏinto€her€bedroom€and€shut€the€door.ÌÌà àThe€victim€testified€that€she€went€into€the€bathroom€to€change€her€tampon,Ïbecause€she€was€menstruating.€€When€she€emerged€from€the€bathroom,€theÏDefendant€was€standing€in€her€bedroom.€€He€had€taken€off€his€shirt€and€wasÏonly€wearing€his€pants.€€The€victim€testified€that€the€Defendant€put€her€down€onÏthe€bed€and€pulled€up€her€skirt.€€She€fought€him€and€tried€to€ð ðwiggle€out€fromÏunderneath€him.ðð€€The€Defendant€tried€to€pull€her€underwear€over€to€one€side,Ïand€she€told€him€to€leave€her€alone€because€she€was€having€her€period.€€SheÍsaid€that€the€Defendant€stopped,€but€as€she€was€getting€up,€he€rolled€back€onÏtop€of€her€and€pulled€her€panties€over€to€the€side.€€He€then€placed€his€penisÏinside€her€vagina.€€The€œvictim›€said€that€the€penetration€hurt€her€because€theÏtampon€was€still€in€her€vagina.€€She€said€that€she€told€the€Defedndant€to€stop,Ïbut€he€held€her€hands€down€at€her€sides€and€was€trying€to€keep€her€legsÏpinned€down€with€his€legs.€€The€penetration€did€not€last€long,€and€theÏDefendant€did€not€ejaculate.Ìà à€Ìà àThe€victim€testified€that€she€got€up,€ran€from€her€apartment,€and€knockedÏon€neighboring€apartment€doors€to€seek€help.€€She€went€upstairs€to€a€friendððsÏapartment€where€she€called€her€friend,€Stacy€Price.€€Stacyððs€boyfriend,€Tray,Ïanswered€the€phone,€and€she€told€him€that€she€needed€help.€€Stacy€testifiedÏthat€the€victim€was€crying€hysterically€and€kept€saying,€ð ðCome€get€him€out€of€myÏapartment,€heððs€trying€to€kiss€me.ðð€€Stacy€and€Tray€tried€to€calm€the€œvictim,›€andÏthey€told€her€that€they€would€contact€a€friend€named€Boyd,€who€lived€next€doorÏto€the€victim,€to€have€him€help.€€The€victim€then€left€that€friendððs€apartment€whenÏshe€saw€another€friend,€Mike€Robb,€returning€to€his€apartment€nearby.€€€Ìà àÌà àAt€this€point,€Boyd€arrived€and€told€her€to€go€into€his€apartment€and€stayÏwith€hisœ€›fianceeœ,›€Nancy€Fogle.€€Boyd€Patterson€testified€that€the€victim€appearedÏto€be€confused€and€upset€and€said,€ð ðGet€him€out€of€my€apartment.ðð€€€PattersonÍand€Robb€then€went€to€the€victimððs€apartment€to€search€for€what€they€believedÏmay€have€been€an€intruder.€€They€saw€the€Defendant€sleeping€in€the€victimððsÏbed€wearing€only€his€boxer€shorts.€€Both€men€knew€the€Defendant,€so€they€leftÏhim€sleeping€and€returned€to€ask€the€victim€who€she€wanted€out€of€theÏapartment.€€She€told€them€that€it€was€the€Defendant€that€she€wanted€out€of€herÏapartment.€€Patterson€and€Robb€returned€to€the€victimððs€apartment,€woke€theÏDefendant,€and€handed€him€his€clothes.€€They€testified€that€the€DefendantÏappeared€to€have€been€drinking.€€They€then€drove€him€back€to€the€fraternityÏhouse.€€During€the€drive,€the€Defendant€said,€ð ðShe€came€on€to€me.ðð€€AfterÏdropping€off€the€Defendant,€they€returned€to€Pattersonððs€apartment€to€wait€forÏthe€police.ÌÌà àAfter€talking€to€the€police,€the€victim€went€to€Erlanger€Medical€CenterÏwhere€a€rape€kit€and€examination€was€performed€by€Dr.€Stacy€Boyd.€€Dr.€BoydÏtestified€that€the€victim€had€not€suffered€external€trauma,€nor€was€there€anyÏindication€that€force€had€been€used.€€The€internal€examination€revealed€aÏwadded€up€tampon€that€had€been€pushed€into€the€victimððs€vagina.€€TheÏtampon€was€removed€and€placed€in€a€specimen€bag€in€the€rape€kit.€€The€rapeÏkit€was€not€submitted€to€laboratory€analysis,€however,€because€the€DefendantÏfully€admitted€to€having€sexual€intercourse€with€the€victim.ÌÌÇÓ  Óò òII.€€Sufficiency€of€the€EvidenceÌó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant€first€contends€that€the€evidence€is€not€sufficient€to€supportÏa€verdict€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€because€the€elements€of€force€andÏlack€of€consent€were€not€proven€by€the€State.€€ÌÌà à€When€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,Ïthis€court€must€review€the€record€to€determine€if€the€evidence€adduced€during€theÏtrial€was€sufficient€"to€support€the€findings€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt."€€T.R.A.P.€13(e).€€This€rule€is€applicable€to€findings€of€guiltÏpredicated€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€ofÏdirect€and€circumstantial€evidence.€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).ÌÌà àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€does€not€reweighÏor€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1978).€€Nor€may€this€court€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€ofÏfact€from€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286ÏS.W.2d€856,€859€(Tenn.€1956).€€This€court€is€required€to€afford€the€State€ofÏTennessee€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€recordÍas€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€fromÏthe€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Herrodóó,€754€S.W.2d€627,€632€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€ÌÌà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€andÏvalue€to€be€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€theÏevidence,€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754ÏS.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€In€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474Ï(Tenn.€1973),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€said,€"A€guilty€verdict€by€the€jury,Ïapproved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€theÏState€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€theory€of€the€State."€€òòIdóó.€at€476.ÌÌà àAt€the€time€of€the€incident€described€herein,€rape€was€defined€as€unlawfulÏsexual€penetration€accomplished€by€force€or€coercion.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„15„503× ƒ4 ××  ×.€€The€jury€was€presented€with€two€conflicting€stories€as€to€whatÏhappened€on€the€night€of€the€incident.€€The€victim€testified€that€the€DefendantÏpenetrated€her€vagina€and€that€force€was€used€to€accomplish€the€act.€€TheÏphysician€who€examined€the€victim€testified€that€the€tampon€the€victim€wasÏwearing€had€been€compressed,€indicating€that€something€entered€the€vagina.€ÏThe€physician,€however,€also€testified€that€he€found€no€physical€trauma€to€theÍpatient€indicating€force.€€Thus,€the€only€evidence€of€forced€penetration€was€theÏcrushed€tampon€and€the€victimððs€testimony.ÌÌà àThe€jury€obviously€accredited€the€testimony€of€the€victim€and€the€StateððsÏwitnesses.€€In€viewing€this€testimony€and€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€State,€the€record€supports€a€finding€of€the€elements€of€rape.€ÏThus,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€in€the€record€sustains€a€verdict€of€guiltÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€€ÌÓ  ÓÓÓò òIII.€€Exclusion€of€Testimony€Ìon€the€Victimððs€Blood€Alcohol€Leveló óÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌà àWe€will€next€address€the€issue€of€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€barringÏthe€Defendant€from€introducing€testimony€on€the€blood€alcohol€level€of€the€victimÏat€the€time€of€the€incident.ÌÌà àTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€617€provides€that€ð ð[a]€party€may€offerÏevidence€that€a€witness€suffered€from€impaired€capacity€at€the€time€of€anÏoccurrence€or€testimony.ðð€€Generally,€questions€regarding€the€witnessððs€alcoholÏuse€are€allowed€if€the€proof€relates€to€the€witnessððs€capacity€to€observe,€record,Ïrecall,€or€describe€accurately€the€events€about€which€the€witness€testified.€€€€Ì€Ìà àThe€Defendant€contends€that€the€State€opened€the€door€to€the€level€of€theÏvictimððs€intoxication€by€asking€her€whether€she€considered€herself€to€be€drunkÏwhen€she€left€the€bar,€thus€he€had€the€right€to€question€the€physician€who€sawÏthe€victim€on€the€details€of€the€victimððs€blood€alcohol€level€at€the€time€the€offenseÏoccurred.€€The€trial€court€would€not€let€the€physician€testify€as€to€what€level€isÏconsidered€ð ðlegally€drunk,ðð€nor€was€he€allowed€to€testify€as€to€the€approximateÏblood€alcohol€level€the€victim€had€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€if€the€evidence€had€been€admitted,€the€juryÏcould€have€concluded€that€the€victim€inadvertently€forgot€to€remove€the€tamponÏprior€to€intercourse€because€she€was€so€intoxicated.€€Subsequently,€when€sheÏrealized€that€she€could€not€remove€the€tampon€without€medical€assistance,€sheÏfabricated€the€rape€story€to€hide€how€she€had€acted€while€intoxicated.€€€ÌÌà àAt€trial,€the€defense€sought€to€introduce€evidence€of€the€victimððs€intoxicationÏon€the€night€of€the€incident€through€Dr.€David€Wharton,€an€emergency€roomÏphysician€who€examined€the€victim€shortly€after€the€incident€occurred.€Dr.ÏWharton€was€certified€as€a€medical€expert€and€testified€about€the€results€of€theÏphysical€examination.€€He€testified€that€at€5:35€a.m.,€several€hours€after€theÏincident,€the€victim€had€a€blood€alcohol€level€of€.066.€€The€trial€court€allowed€thisÍtestimony,€but€instructed€the€jury€to€disregard€the€doctorððs€statement€that€.10Ïwould€be€considered€ð ðlegally€drunk.ðð€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€is€given€wide€discretion€in€ruling€on€the€propriety,€scope,Ïmanner,€and€control€of€the€examination€of€witnesses.€€òòCoffee€v.€Stateóó,€188ÏTenn.€1,€216€S.W.2d€702,€703€(1948).€€The€trial€courtððs€rulings€will€not€beÏdisturbed€on€appeal,€absent€a€finding€that€the€trial€court€abused€that€discretion.€ÏòòId.óó€€€€The€court€ruled€that€Dr.€Wharton€was€not€qualified€to€testify€as€to€whatÏblood€alcohol€level€would€be€considered€ð ðlegally€drunk,ðð€nor€was€he€correct€inÏmaking€that€statement.€€Tennesseeððs€statutory€laws€do€not€designate€whatÏblood€alcohol€level€is€œð ðlegally›€œdrunk.ð𛀀The€code€does,€however,€permit€inferencesÏto€be€drawn€when€a€personððs€blood€alcohol€level€reaches€certain€percentages.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„408.€€Thus,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€trialÏcourt€abused€his€discretion€in€prohibiting€the€physician€from€testifying€at€whatÏpoint€a€person€is€ð ðlegally€drunk.ððÌÌà àThe€Defendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€prohibited€the€Ïwitness€from€testifying€as€to€what€the€victimððs€blood€alcohol€level€was€at€theÏtime€of€the€incident.€€Dr.€Wharton€testified€that€alcohol€is€metabolized€by€theÏbody€at€the€rate€of€ten€to€twenty€units€per€hour,€although€this€rate€is€relative€toÏseveral€factors,€such€as€how€much€the€person€drinks€or€whether€the€personÍwas€taking€other€medications.€€The€State€objected€to€Dr.€Whartonððs€testimonyÏon€what€the€victimððs€blood€alcohol€level€would€have€been€at€the€time€of€theÏincident€because€he€did€not€have€knowledge€of€all€the€relevant€factors€that€couldÏhave€affected€how€fast€the€alcohol€was€metabolized.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€held€two€sidebar€conferences€on€this€issue.€€However,Ïthese€conferences€were€out€of€the€hearing€of€the€court€reporter€and€not€includedÏin€the€record.€€After€the€second€bench€conference,€the€trial€court€apparentlyÏprohibited€the€defense€from€questioning€Dr.€Wharton€concerning€the€rate€atÏwhich€the€alcohol€in€the€victimððs€blood€dissipated.€€The€€witness€was,€however,Ïallowed€to€testify€that€the€victimððs€blood€alcohol€level€would€have€been€higher€atÏan€earlier€point€in€the€evening.€€ÌÌà à€€Again,€the€trial€court€has€wide€discretion€in€permitting€the€scope€ofÏexamination€of€a€witness.€€Based€on€the€record€before€us,€we€cannot€concludeÏthat€the€trial€court€erred€in€disallowing€the€defense€witness€to€extrapolate€on€theÏvictimððs€blood€alcohol€level€earlier€in€the€evening€when€the€witness€admittedly€didÏnot€have€all€of€the€information€relevant€to€making€such€a€determination.€€TheÏwitness€was€allowed€to€testify€that€the€victimððs€blood€alcohol€level€wasÏprobably€higher€earlier€in€the€evening;€thus,€evidence€of€the€victimððs€possibleÏimpairment€was€admitted€into€the€record€for€the€jury€to€consider.€We€concludeÍthat€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€his€discretion€in€limiting€the€physicianððs€testimonyÏon€this€issue.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€improperly€excluded€theÏtestimony€of€two€witnesses,€Gordon€Colbaugh,€a€security€guard€at€the€victimððsÏapartment€complex,€and,€Kay€Lloyd€Price,€the€victimððs€mother.€During€an€offer€ofÏproof,€Colbaugh€testified€that€he€had€once€quieted€a€loud€party€at€the€victimððsÏapartment€and€that€he€had€seen€other€parties€there€that€lasted€until€two€in€theÏmorning.€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€this€testimony€was€not€material.€€€The€trial€courtÏalso€sustained€the€Stateððs€objections€when€the€defense€questioned€the€victimððsÏmother€as€to€whether€the€victim€was€the€ð ðwild€oneðð€of€her€children€and€as€toÏwhat€the€motherððs€reaction€was€when€she€discovered€the€victim€had€a€tattoo.€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€has€not€cited€any€reasons€or€authority€as€to€why€thisÏevidence€should€have€been€admitted.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€theÏtestimony€of€both€witnesses€was€not€relevant€and€was€properly€excludedÏunder€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€403.€ÌÌÓ  Óò òIV.€€Other€Assignments€of€Error€by€the€Trial€Courtó ó€€ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€ð ðthe€trial€court€erred€in€a€number€of€rulingsÏwhich€prohibited€the€Defendant€from€presenting€his€case€which€had€theÏcumulative€effect€of€denying€Defendant€a€fair€trial€in€violation€of€the€due€process€Ïand€right€of€confrontation€clauses€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€and€the€UnitedÏStates€Constitution.ðð€€The€Defendant€makes€a€general€complaint€that€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€charging€the€jury€with€all€of€the€lesser€included€offenses€over€theÏobjections€of€defense€counsel€and€that€the€court€erred€in€refusing€to€allow€theÏdefense€to€play€the€tape€of€the€preliminary€hearing€to€impeach€the€testimony€ofÏthe€victim.€€Although€the€Defendant€complains€of€these€matters,€he€does€notÏexplain€how€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€courtððs€actions,€and€he€neither€articulatesÏany€reasons€to€support€his€theory€nor€cites€any€applicable€rules€or€case€law.ÌÌà àGenerally,€an€issue€is€waived€when€the€defendant€fails€to€cite€reasons€toÏsupport€a€conclusory€statement.€€Tenn.€Ct.€of€Crim.€App.€R.€10(b);€T.R.A.P.Ï27(a)(7).€€Notwithstanding€the€technical€waiver,€we€will€address€these€issuesÏon€their€merits.ÌÌÓ  ÓA.€€Preliminary€Hearing€TapeÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant€alleges€error€because€the€trial€court€did€not€allow€him€toÏplay€a€tape€of€the€victimððs€prior€testimony.€€The€victim€apparently€respondedÍdifferently€at€trial€than€she€had€at€the€preliminary€hearing€to€a€question€posed€byÏdefense€counsel.€€The€portion€of€the€transcript€complained€about€reads€asÏfollows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àQ:€(by€defense€counsel):€A€minute€ago,€Miss€Stern€askedÏyou€about€this€comment€you€made€in€the€bar€to€Mr.€Haynes,Ïwhoððs€a€friend€of€yours€and€of€Steveððs€that€you€thought€he€wasÏcute,€and€Miss€Stern€asked€you€if€you€said€that€you€wanted€toÏkiss€him€and€you€said€no?Ìà8 àà àA:€(by€the€victim):€Right.Ìà8 àà àQ:€Is€that€right?Ìà8 àà àA:€(Moves€head€in€affirmative€response.)Ìà8 àà àQ:€Do€you€remember€your€hearing€in€the€preliminary€hearing,Ïand€at€that€point€I€asked€you€specifically,€ð ðBut€you€did€tell€this€friendÏof€his€that€you€thought€he€was€cute€and€that€you€wanted€to€kissÏhim,ðð€and€you€said,€ð ðYesðð;€is€that€not€true?Ìà8 àà àA:€I€was€answering€to€the€ð ðyou€thought€he€was€cute.ððÌà8 àà àQ:€But€my€question€was€very€specific,€was€it€not?€€I€askedÏyou,€did€I€not,€ð ðOkay.€€But€you€did€tell€this€friend€of€his€that€youÏthought€he€was€cute€and€that€you€wanted€to€kiss€him,ðð€and€youÏsaid,€ð ðYesðð?Ìà àA:€(Nods€head€in€affirmative€response.)Ìà àQ:€Now,€what€is€true?Ìà àà8 àA:€I€said€that€I€thought€he€was€cute.Ìà àà8 àQ:€And€you€wanted€to€kiss€him?Ìà àà8 àA:€I€didnððt€say€that.Ìà àà8 àQ:€You€didnððt€say€that?Ìà àà8 àA:€No.Ìà àà8 àQ:€Well,€why€would€you€admit€that€you€said€it€in€theÏpreliminary€hearing?Ìà àà8 àA:€When€we€sat€in€here€in€the€preliminary€hearing,€youÏwere,€you€were€being„„Ìà àà8 àQ:€I€just€want€the€truth€and€the€truth€is€that€you„„Ìà àà8 àMS.€STERN:€Your€Honor,€he€asked€her€why€she€saidÏit.€€She€gets€to€answer.Ìà àà8 àA:€When€you€were,€when€you€were„„when€we€hadÏthe€preliminary€hearing,€you€were€asking€questionsÍand€pausing€and€then€asking€more,€and€you€wereÏasking€me,€you€were€making€it„„I€wanted€to€leave.€€IÏanswered€yes,€that€I€thought€he€was€cute.Ìà àà8 àQ:€But€you€also€said€you€wanted€to€kiss€him?Ìà àà8 àA:€Well,€I€didnððt€answer€yes€to€that€part.Ìà àÌà8 àà8 àMR.€GROVES:€Well,€Your€Honor,€could€I€ask€that„„Ìà àà8 àMS.€STERN:€Your€Honor,€sheððs€answered€andÏexplained.Ìà àà8 àTHE€COURT:€Yes.Ìà àà8 àMR.€GROVES:€I€would€like€to€play€that€tape€to€theÏjury€of€that€hearing.Ìà àà8 àTHE€COURT:€Well,€I€think€youððve€made€the€statementÏœthat€that›ððs€what€she€said€to€you,€so€I€think€the€juryÏunderstands€that.ÌÓÓÌà àDefense€counsel€was€obviously€pointing€out€the€discrepancy€in€theÏvictimððs€testimony€at€the€preliminary€hearing€and€at€trial.€€He€sought€to€play€theÏtape€of€the€preliminary€hearing€to€emphatically€illuminate€that€discrepancy.€ÏApparently,€however,€the€trial€court€found€the€playing€of€the€tape€would€beÏcumulative€evidence€on€a€point€that€had€already€been€made.€€As€the€StateÏsuggests,€Rule€403€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€permits€the€exclusionÏof€relevant€evidence€if€its€probative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€by€theÏdanger€of€ð ðundue€delay,€waste€of€time,€or€needless€presentation€of€cumulativeÏevidence.ðð€€€We€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€judge€abused€his€discretion€byÏprecluding€the€defense€from€playing€the€tape€of€the€preliminary€hearing€when€theÏdiscrepancy€in€the€victimððs€testimony€had€already€come€before€the€jury.ÌÌÓ  ÓB.€€Jury€Instructions€Charging€Lesser€Included€OffensesÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Defendant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€charging€all€of€theÏlesser€included€offenses€of€rape,€including€attempted€rape,€sexual€battery,Ïattempted€sexual€battery€and€assault.€€ÌÌà àTrial€courts€are€not€required€to€charge€the€jury€on€a€lesser€included€offenseÏwhen€the€record€is€devoid€of€any€evidence€to€support€an€inference€of€guilt€of€theÏlesser€offense.€€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€œ550›€(Tenn.€1994).€ÏHowever,€a€trial€judge€has€a€mandatory€duty€to€charge€a€lesser€includedÏoffense,€whether€requested€or€not,€if€the€facts€so€justify.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„110(a);€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€889€S.W.2d€225,€230€(Tenn.€Crim.€œApp.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóóÏòòappealó󛀜òòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.€1996).›€Thus,€when€there€is€some€evidence€uponÏwhich€reasonable€minds€could€convict€the€Defendant€of€a€particular€lesserÏoffense,€the€court€is€required€to€instruct€the€jury€on€that€offense.€€òòJohnson€v.ÏStateóó,€531€S.W.2d€558,€559€(Tenn.€1975);€òòseeóó€òòTaylor€v.€Stateóó,€212€Tenn.€187,Ï369€S.W.2d€386€(1963)€(trial€judge€is€required€to€make€affirmative€instructions€onÏevery€issue€raised€by€the€proof).€ÌÌà àThe€State€requested€that€the€trial€court€instruct€on€the€lesser€includedÏoffenses,€and€the€trial€judge€granted€that€motion€over€the€Defendantððs€objection.€ÍOn€the€Defendantððs€motion€for€a€judgment€of€acquittal,€the€trial€judge€denied€theÏmotion€saying€that€a€factual€basis€existed€on€which€a€jury€could€convict€of€theÏoffense€of€rape€or€any€of€the€lesser€included€offenses.€€ÌÌà àIn€reviewing€the€record,€we€cannot€say€that€no€evidence€existed€toÏsupport€a€finding€of€the€lesser€included€offenses€charged€by€the€trial€court.€ÏTherefore,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€so€instructing€the€jury.€ÏThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€€€€€ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓò òV.€Trial€Courtððs€Admission€of€ÌWitness€Testimony€Under€Fresh€Complaint€Ìor€Excited€Utterance€Theoriesó óÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌà àThe€Defendant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€improperly€allowed€intoÏevidence€testimony€of€the€victimððs€conversation€with€Nancy€Fogle€shortly€afterÏthe€incident.€€The€Defendant€contends€that€the€testimony€was€not€admissibleÏunder€either€the€fresh€complaint€theory€or€the€excited€utterance€exception€to€theÏhearsay€rule,€and€the€trial€court€erroneously€allowed€the€testimony€into€evidenceÏunder€these€theories.ÌÌà àThe€testimony€at€issue€was€that€of€witness€Nancy€Fogle,€theÏacquaintance€of€the€victim€who€was€with€her€after€the€incident€until€the€policeÍarrived.€€The€witness€testified€regarding€the€victimððs€upset€and€shaken€stateÏwhen€she€arrived€at€the€witnessððs€apartment.€€The€witness€then€testified€as€toÏwhat€the€victim€told€her:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à[MS.€FOGLE]:€It€was€kind€of€awkward€because€we€reallyÏdidnððt€know€each€other.€€I€sat€her€down€on€the€couch€and,€youÏknow,€I€was€sitting€next€to€her.€€I€was€just€trying€to€calm€her€downÏto€see€what€was€wrong€with€her,€and€she€was€just€like€„„€she€hadÏher€hands€on€her€knees€and€she€was€just€like,€just,€ð ðHe€put€hisÏknees€in€between€mine€and€I€couldnððt€get€them€closed.ðð€Ì€Ì€€€€à8 àà àMS.€STERN:€Okay.€What€else€did€she€say?ÌÌà8 àà àA:€And€I€started€to€cry€because€I€sensed€then€what€hadÏhappened.€€And€she€said€that€he€put€his€knees€between€hers€andÏshe€couldnððt€get€her€legs€closed,€and€he€pulled€her€panties€aside.€ÏShe€had€on€a€long€wrap€skirt,€her€blouse€was€tucked€in€andÏeverything€and€she€„„€I€was€just€like€freaking€out€that€she€wasÏtelling€me€this.ÌÌà8 àà àQ:€Was€she€saying€who€had€done€that€to€her?ÌÌà8 àà àA:€I€donððt€recall€hearing€a€name€at€that€point.€€That€reallyÏwasnððt€„„€and€I€was€just€like€so€„„€you€know,€what€had€happened,ÏI€was€just€trying€to€see€if€I€was€reading€her€correctly,€and€she€wasÏjust€like,€ð ðI€canððt€believe€he€put€it€inside€me,ðð€and€she€was€afraid.€ÏShe€wanted€to€go€take€a€shower€and€she€wanted€to€go€to€theÏbathroom.€€She€said€she€was€on€her€period€and€that€.€.€.ÌÓÓÌà àThe€State€argued€that€this€testimony€was€admissible€under€both€the€freshÏcomplaint€and€excited€utterance€theories.€€The€trial€court€allowed€the€testimony,Ïwithout€stating€for€the€record€the€basis€for€admitting€the€evidence.€€At€the€hearingÍon€the€Defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial,€the€court€cited€the€excited€utteranceÏexception€as€the€basis€for€admitting€the€evidence.€€ÌÌà àThe€State€argues€that€the€evidence€was€properly€admitted€under€eitherÏtheory.€€The€testimony€qualified€as€fresh€complaint€because€the€victim€talked€toÏthe€witness€minutes€after€the€event€occurred€and€did€not€give€a€detailedÏstatement€of€the€events.€€The€State€contends€that€the€testimony€was€alsoÏadmissible€as€an€excited€utterance,€because€the€victim€was€still€under€theÏstress€of€excitement€caused€by€the€incident€when€she€talked€to€the€witness.€ÏFogle€testified€that€the€victim€was€visibly€upset,€crying,€and€shaking€at€the€timeÏshe€made€the€statement.€€€à àÌÌà àUnder€the€fresh€complaint€doctrine,€the€law€allows€a€complaint€made€by€aÏrape€victim€to€a€third€person€soon€after€the€incident€to€be€admitted€as€evidence„in„chief€for€the€purpose€of€corroborating€the€victimððs€trial€testimony.€€In€òòState€v.ÏKendricksóó,€891€S.W.2d€597€(Tenn.€1994),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€tracedÏthe€evolution€of€the€doctrine€in€this€state€and€clearly€redefined€its€parameters.€ÏContrary€to€the€Defendantððs€assertions€in€this€case,€the€òòKendricksóó€court€held€thatÏthe€fresh€complaint€doctrine€had€survived€the€passage€of€the€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Evidence€and€remained€a€viable€theory€under€which€evidence€could€beÏadmitted.€€òòId.óó€at€600,€603„04.€ÌÌà àIn€òòKendricksóó,€the€supreme€court€set€forth€three€criteria€for€allowing€evidenceÏunder€the€doctrine€of€fresh€complaint:€(1)€the€òòfactóó€of€the€complaint,€which€mayÏinclude€the€nature€of€the€complaint€and€the€identity€of€the€wrongdoer,€remainsÏadmissible€in€the€Stateððs€case„in„chief,€but€the€òòdetailsóó€of€the€incident€may€not€beÏpresented€before€the€victimððs€credibility€is€attacked;€(2)€the€complaint€must€beÏtimely,€but€it€need€not€be€contemporaneous€with€the€underlying€event;€and€(3)€aÏstatement€can€be€a€fresh€complaint€even€if€made€in€response€to€questions€byÏlaw€enforcement€officers,€provided€the€questioning€was€general€and€neitherÏcoercive€nor€suggestive.€€òòId.óó€at€603„04,€606.€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àÌà àUnder€this€criteria,€we€conclude€that€the€victimððs€statements€to€the€witnessÏwere€admissible€under€the€doctrine€of€fresh€complaint.€€The€statements,€madeÏshortly€after€the€alleged€incident,€were€indeed€timely.€€The€witnessððs€testimony€atÏtrial€during€the€Stateððs€case„in„chief€included€the€òòfactóó€of€the€complaint,€whichÏmainly€described€the€nature€of€what€happened€to€the€victim,€rather€than€being€aÏdetailed€account€of€the€events.€€Additionally,€in€this€instance,€even€the€details€ofÏthe€complaint€would€be€admissible€because€the€victimððs€credibility€had€alreadyÏbeen€attacked€on€cross„examination€before€Fogle€testified.€€ÌÌà àThe€victimððs€statements€were€also€admissible€under€the€excited€utteranceÏtheory.€€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€803(2)€governs€the€admission€of€excitedÏutterances.€€To€qualify€as€an€excited€utterance,€a€statement€must€be€ð ðrelating€toÏa€startling€event€or€condition€made€while€the€declarant€was€under€the€stress€ofÏexcitement€caused€by€the€event€or€condition.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(2).€€TheÏdeclarant€must€have€made€the€statement€in€an€excited€state€because€of€aÏstartling€event,€and€ð ðnormal€reflective€thought€processes€must€be€renderedÏœinoperative.ð𛀀œòòState€v.€Paytonóó,€782€S.W.2d€490,€494€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.Ïòòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.€€(Tenn.€1989).€€Also,›€the€statement€must€have€been€aÏspontaneous€reaction€to€the€occurrence,€not€the€ð ðresult€of€reflective€thought.ðð€€òòId.ó󀀜̛à àThe€witness€described€the€victim€as€crying,€shaking,€and€being€upset€atÏthe€time€she€made€the€statements€to€the€witness.€€These€statements€wereÏmade€shortly€after€the€event,€and€the€victim€was€obviously€still€under€the€ð ðstressÏof€excitementðð€caused€by€the€incident.€€Thus,€these€statements€were€clearlyÏadmissible€under€the€excited€utterance€exception.€€Based€on€our€analysis€ofÏthese€issues,€we€conclude€that€the€statements€were€properly€admitted€underÏeither€theory€set€forth€by€the€State.€€ÌÌÓ  Óò òVI.€€Exclusion€of€Testimony€Under€the€Rape€Shield€Ruleó óÌÓ  Ó€€€€€Ìà àWe€will€finally€address€the€issue€of€whether€the€trial€court€improperlyÏexcluded€the€testimony€of€three€witnesses€under€Tennesseeððs€rape€shieldÏprovision€found€at€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€412.€€ÌÌà àUnder€traditional€common€law€rules,€a€rape€victim€could€be€questionedÏconcerning€prior€sexual€history€or€reputation.€€Such€questioning€was€oftenÏirrelevant€to€the€case€at€hand€and€served€merely€to€degrade€or€unnecessarilyÏharass€the€victim€by€exposing€any€evidence€of€unchastity.€€Other€goals€ofÏdefense€counsel€in€revealing€this€information€were€to€cast€doubt€on€theÏprosecutrixððs€credibility€by€rendering€her€unworthy€of€belief€or€to€make€the€juryÏbelieve€that€a€womanððs€unchaste€character€would€make€consent€more€likely.€€ÌÌà àBecause€of€the€inevitable€invasion€into€their€sexual€privacy,€victims€wereÏless€likely€to€report€sexual€offenses€or€testify€about€them€at€trial.€€The€conduct€ofÏharassing€the€victim€during€rape€trials€came€under€widespread€criticism€in€theÏ1970's.€€Consequently,€states€progressively€began€enacting€ððrape€shield€laws,ððÏwhich€deny€a€defendant€in€a€sexual€assault€case€the€opportunity€to€examine€aÏcomplainant€concerning€her€prior€sexual€conduct€except€under€a€limited€numberÏof€circumstances.€€ÌÌà àTennessee€followed€this€emerging€trend€and€enacted€a€rape€shieldÏstatute€in€1975.× ƒ5 ××  ×€€Tennesseeððs€rape€shield€statute€was€established€to€ð ðeliminateÏthe€unjustified€besmirching€of€a€womanððs€reputation€by€examining€her€priorÏsexual€activities€when€such€testimony€is€of€highly€dubious€relevance€to€theÏissue€of€her€later€consent€and€credibility.ðð€€òòShockley€v.€Stateóó,€585€S.W.2d€645,Ï648€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€The€statute€required€the€defense€to€make€an€offerÏof€proof€in€a€jury„out€hearing€in€which€the€trial€court€could€rule€on€the€admissibilityÏof€the€evidence.€ÌÌà àTennesseeððs€rape€shield€statute€withstood€several€attacks€and€generallyÏpassed€constitutional€muster,€even€when€the€challengers€contended€that€theÏstatute€was€unconstitutional€because€it€denied€a€defendant€his€SixthÍAmendment€right€to€confront€witnesses.× ƒ6 ××  ×€€In€òòBell€v.€Harrisonóó,€670€F.2d€656€(6thÏCir.€1982),€the€defendant€brought€a€federal€habeas€corpus€action€challengingÏthe€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€allow€him€to€question€the€victim€on€cross„examinationÏabout€prior€relationships€with€other€men.€€The€defendant€asserted€that€in€soÏlimiting€his€cross„examination€of€the€victim,€the€trial€court€improperly€infringed€onÏhis€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€confront€and€cross„examine€the€adverse€witness.€ÏòòId.óó€at€658.€€The€appellate€court€held€that,€in€determining€whether€to€admit€theÏvictimððs€prior€sexual€conduct,€the€trial€court€should€balance€ð ðthe€probative€valueÏof€the€evidence€in€light€of€the€defendantððs€right€of€confrontation€against€theÏpotential€embarrassment€to€the€victim€in€light€of€the€danger€of€prejudice€and€ofÏthe€policies€under€the€statute.ðð€€òòId.óó€€ÌÌà àTwo€other€cases€sought€review€as€to€whether€the€Tennessee€statuteÏwas€unconstitutional.€€In€òòShockley€v.€Stateóó,€the€victim€claimed€that€she€hadÏbecome€pregnant€as€a€result€of€being€raped€by€the€accused.€€585€S.W.2d€645.€ÏThe€trial€court€allowed€evidence€of€the€victimððs€pregnancy,€but€barred€theÏDefendant€from€introducing€evidence€that€he€was€not€the€person€whoÏimpregnated€her.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€reversed€the€trial€court,€holdingÏthat€in€situations€in€which€the€rape€shield€act€violated€the€defendantððs€SixthÍAmendment€right€of€confrontation€and€to€present€witnesses€in€his€favor,€theÏstatute€would€be€inapplicable.€€òòId.óó€at€651.ÌÌà àThis€court€again€found€the€statute€to€be€constitutional€in€òòState€v.ÏMarquadisóó,€649€S.W.2d€15€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€œ1982),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.Ï(Tenn.€1983).›€€Recognizing€that€the€need€to€exclude€immaterial€and€irrelevantÏevidence€should€not€result€in€an€abridgement€of€an€accusedððs€right€ofÏconfrontation,€the€court€again€said€that€no€constitutional€violation€exists€inÏprecluding€a€defendant€from€introducing€evidence€of€the€victimððs€prior€sexualÏconduct€if€the€evidence€is€only€intended€to€attack€the€victimððs€credibility.€€òòId.óó€at€17.€€ÌÌà àTennesseeððs€rape€shield€law€was€significantly€different€from€the€oneÏutilized€in€federal€courts.€€There,€Federal€Rule€of€Evidence€412,€rather€than€aÏstatute,€governed€the€admissibility€of€evidence€to€show€the€character€of€a€rapeÏvictim.€€Although€Tennesseeððs€rape€shield€statute€limited€the€admissibility€of€pastÏsexual€conduct€between€the€victim€and€others,€the€law€provided€no€exclusion€ofÏevidence€of€past€sexual€conduct€between€the€victim€and€the€accused.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€Ô€ XÔððÔ€ ŠÔ€40„17„119€(repealed€1991).€€The€federal€rule,€on€the€other€hand,Ïstringently€excluded€the€prior€sexual€conduct€of€the€victim,€allowing€evidence€ofÏthe€conduct€of€a€victim€with€a€person€other€than€the€defendant€only€on€the€issueÏof€whether€the€defendant€was€source€of€semen€or€injury,€and€allowing€evidenceÍof€the€victimððs€conduct€with€the€defendant€only€on€the€issue€of€consent.€€Fed.€R.ÏEvid.€412.€€€€€ÌÌà àIn€1991,€Tennessee€repealed€the€rape€shield€statute,€and€subsequentlyÏreplaced€it€by€adding€the€more€comprehensive€Rule€412€to€the€TennesseeÏRules€of€Evidence,€a€rule€somewhat€more€similar€to€its€federal€counterpart.× ƒ7 ××  ×€ÏRule€412€is€to€be€applied€in€lieu€of€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€404(a)(2)Ï(character€of€crime€victim)€for€the€crimes€of€aggravated€rape,€rape,€aggravatedÏsexual€battery,€sexual€battery,€spousal€sexual€offenses,€or€the€attempt€toÏcommit€any€such€offense.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€412€and€Advisory€CommissionÏComment.€€The€rule€provides€in€part:ÌÌÓÓ€€à0 àà àà0 àà àà0 àà àà àò ò(c)€Specific€Instances€of€Conduct.ó ó€€Evidence€of€specific€instances€of€aÏvictimððs€sexual€behavior€is€inadmissible€unless€admitted€in€accordanceÏwith€the€procedures€in€subdivision€(d)€of€this€rule,€and€the€evidence€is:Ìà0 àà àà0 àà àà0 àà àÌà8 à(1)€Required€by€the€Tennessee€or€United€States€Constitution,€orÌÌà0 àà àà à(2)€Offered€by€the€defendant€on€the€issue€of€credibility€of€the€victim,Ïprovided€the€prosecutor€or€victim€has€presented€evidence€as€to€theÏvictimððs€sexual€behavior,€and€only€to€the€extent€needed€to€rebut€theÏspecific€evidence€presented€by€the€prosecutor€or€victim,€or€ÌÌà0 àà àà à(3)€If€the€sexual€behavior€was€with€the€accused,€on€the€issue€of€consent,€ÏorÌà0 àà àÌà à(4)€If€the€sexual€behavior€was€with€persons€other€than€the€accused,€ÌÌà8 àà à(I)€to€rebut€or€explain€scientific€or€medical€evidence,€orÌÌà8 àà à(ii)€to€prove€or€explain€the€source€of€semen,€injury,€disease,Ïor€knowledge€of€sexual€matters,€orÌÌà8 àà à(iii)€to€prove€òòconsent€if€the€evidence€is€of€a€pattern€of€sexualÏbehavior€so€distinctive€and€so€closely€resembling€the€accusedððsÏversion€of€the€alleged€encounter€with€the€victim€that€it€tends€to€proveÏthat€the€victim€consented€to€the€act€charged€or€behaved€in€such€aÏmanner€as€to€lead€the€defendant€reasonably€to€believe€that€theÏvictim€consentedóó.€ÌÌÓÓTenn.€R.€Evid.€412(c)€(emphasis€added).Ìà àÌà àRule€412€strikes€a€resounding€balance€between€the€interests€of€theÏaccused€in€getting€a€fair€trial€and€fully€presenting€his€defense€and€the€interests€of€Ïensuring€that€the€victim€does€not€suffer€an€unnecessary,€degrading,€andÏembarrassing€invasion€of€sexual€privacy.€€òòId.óó€at€Advisory€CommissionÍComments.€€€Thus,€the€rule€continues€to€exclude€dissimilar€and€remote€conductÏand€does€not€allow€into€evidence€totally€irrelevant€prior€sexual€activities.€ÌÌà àAlthough€the€need€to€keep€the€victim€in€a€rape€case€from€being€put€on€trialÏis€of€paramount€concern,€the€competing€interest€of€allowing€the€defendant€theÏSixth€Amendment€right€to€confrontation€is€also€of€great€importance.€Rape€shieldÏstatutes€should€not€be€used€to€exclude€highly€relevant€evidence€or€to€violate€theÏdefendantððs€right€of€confrontation€or€any€other€constitutional€right.€€òòBell€v.€Harrisonóó,Ï670€F.2d€at€658.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€improperly€excluded€theÏtestimony€of€Rich€Burns€and€Eric€Gray,€and€certain€portions€of€testimony€fromÏGary€Jindrak€under€Rule€412.€€He€argues€that€the€testimony€of€Burns€and€GrayÏshould€have€been€admissible€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€412€(c)(4)(iii)€becauseÏthe€testimony€was€highly€relevant€to€the€issue€of€consent€and€involved€sexualÏacts€with€the€victim€that€demonstrated€a€pattern€of€sexual€behavior€closelyÏresembling€the€Defendantððs€version€of€events.€€ÌÌà àRich€Burns€testified€during€an€offer€of€proof€that€he€was€a€former€boyfriendÏof€the€victim.€€He€started€dating€the€victim€and€engaged€in€sexual€relations€withÏher€soon€afterward.€€He€testified€that€they€grew€apart€when€commuting€to€seeÍeach€other€and€that€they€broke€up€when€the€victim€told€him€that€she€kissedÏsomeone€at€a€party€the€night€before.€€The€Defendant€contends€that€thisÏtestimony€should€have€been€allowed€to€bolster€his€testimony€and€that€ofÏwitness€Eric€Gray.€€Ìà àLikewise,€the€Defendant€proposes€that€the€testimony€of€Eric€Gray€wasÏadmissible€evidence.€€Gray€had€two€sexual€encounters€with€the€victim€duringÏthe€time€that€she€was€dating€Burns.€€Grayððs€proffered€testimony€was€that€heÏknew€the€victim€from€college.€€One€night,€he€and€the€victim€were€at€a€local€bar,Ïand€both€had€been€drinking€heavily.€€They€went€back€to€Grayððs€apartment€andÏhad€sexual€relations.€€On€the€second€occasion,€he€and€the€victim€went€to€aÏbasketball€game€and€a€fraternity€party€before€returning€to€the€victimððs€apartmentÏwhere€they€had€sexual€relations.€€Both€had€been€drinking,€but€not€heavily.Ì€€€Ìà àSpecifically,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€testimony€of€these€twoÏwitnesses€should€have€been€allowed€under€the€rape€shield€rule€to€proveÏconsent€because€each€is€evidence€of€a€distinctive€pattern,€so€resembling€theÏDefendantððs€version€of€the€story€that€it€tends€to€prove€that€the€victim€consentedÏto€sexual€relations€with€the€Defendant.€€ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€the€testimony€of€Rich€Burns,€we€disagree.€€His€testimonyÏis€the€very€type€that€is€intended€to€be€excluded€by€the€rape€shield€rule.€€HeÍmaintained€a€relationship€with€the€victim€for€some€period€of€time.€€Their€sexualÏconduct€is€irrelevant€to€the€issue€of€consent,€because€it€was€part€of€a€long„termÏrelationship€very€different€to€the€situation€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€in€which€theÏvictim€allegedly€had€sexual€relations€with€someone€she€had€just€met.€€AnyÏtestimony€regarding€the€victimððs€relationship,€sexual€or€otherwise,€with€a€formerÏboyfriend€is€an€unnecessary€invasion€into€the€victimððs€privacy.€€This€evidenceÏwas€properly€excluded.€€ÌÌà àWhether€the€testimony€of€Eric€Gray€should€have€been€excluded€poses€aÏmore€difficult€question.€€The€first€incident€of€behavior€closely€resembles€theÏDefendantððs€version€of€events€in€that€the€victim€knew€Gray€somewhat€remotely,Ïmet€him€at€a€bar,€was€drinking€heavily,€and€had€sexual€relations€with€him€laterÏthat€night.€€By€the€time€of€their€second€sexual€encounter,€however,€Gray€testifiedÏthat€they€had€become€good€friends.€€ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€first€encounter€should€have€been€admitted€intoÏevidence.€€Rule€412€allows€acts€with€third€parties€to€prove€consent€if€theÏconduct€fits€a€distinctive€pattern,€and€the€acts€are€so€similar€to€the€defendantððsÏversion€of€the€offense€that€they€tend€to€corroborate€his€story.€€The€evidence€ofÏthe€first€sexual€encounter€with€Gray€is€relative€to€the€issue€of€consent€becauseÏthe€factual€scenario€so€closely€resembles€the€Defendantððs€version€of€the€factsÍthat€it€constitutes€one€episode€of€a€distinctive€pattern€in€which€the€victim€met€anÏacquaintance€at€a€bar,€was€drinking,€and€eventually€had€sexual€relations€withÏthat€person.€€This€encounter€is€also€similar€to€the€events€described€by€witnessÏGary€Jindrak,€and€these€two€encounters€taken€in€conjunction€with€theÏDefendantððs€version€of€the€facts,€constitute€a€distinctive€pattern.ÌÌà àUnder€this€same€rationale,€we€conclude€that€the€testimony€of€Gary€JindrakÏshould€also€have€been€admitted.€€Jindrak€testified€during€an€offer€of€proof€thatÏthe€victim€approached€him€at€the€bar€on€the€evening€in€question,€shortly€beforeÏshe€left€with€the€Defendant.€€They€talked,€she€put€her€arm€around€him€andÏkissed€him,€and€later€asked€him€if€he€wanted€to€go€home€with€her,€which€theÏwitness€declined€to€do.€€The€trial€court€precluded€the€testimony€under€the€rapeÏshield€rule€without€stating€his€reasoning€on€the€record.ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€excluding€the€testimony€of€JindrakÏbecause€this€highly€relevant€testimony€is€the€very€kind€of€evidence€allowedÏunder€section€(c)(4)(iii)€of€the€rule.€€Surely€the€jury€should€have€been€given€theÏopportunity€to€hear€Jindrakððs€claim€that€the€victim€propositioned€him€immediatelyÏbefore€offering€to€give€the€Defendant€a€ride€home.€€When€consent€is€theÏdeterminative€issue€in€a€rape€trial€and€the€juryððs€decision€turns€on€the€weightÏthey€are€placing€on€the€testimony€of€a€victim€and€the€accused,€the€jury€shouldÍhear€the€relevant€evidence€that€has€a€direct€bearing€on€the€issue€of€consent.€ÏWhile€the€jurors€may€not€choose€to€accept€these€facts€as€true,€they€are€entitledÏto€hear€proof€of€the€defense€theory€so€they€can€make€an€informed€judgment€onÏthe€weight€to€place€on€both€the€victimððs€and€the€defendantððs€testimony.€ÏAllowing€Jindrakððs€testimony€into€evidence€does€not€mean€that€the€victimÏparticipated€in€consensual€sex€with€the€Defendant;€however,€the€jury€should€beÏallowed€to€consider€this€evidence€in€determining€the€weight€to€give€theÏwitnessesðð€testimony.€ÌÌà àAlthough€the€rape€shield€rule€was€created€to€protect€the€unnecessaryÏinvasion€into€a€victimððs€privacy,€the€rule€was€not€designed€to€do€so€at€theÏexpense€of€a€defendantððs€constitutional€rights.€Under€Tennesseeððs€Rule€412,Ïeven€though€evidence€of€the€victimððs€prior€sexual€behavior€can€be€admitted,€anÏindiscriminate€admission€of€totally€irrelevant€prior€sexual€conduct€is€not€allowed.€ÏThus,€as€we€previously€noted,€remote€and€dissimilar€conduct€is€not€allowed,€andÏthe€victim€is€afforded€protection€from€an€unnecessary€and€irrelevant€intrusion€intoÏher€private€life.€€However,€we€must€also€be€cognizant€that€the€rule€does€notÏallow€an€indiscriminate€òòexclusionóó€of€evidence€of€the€victimððs€prior€sexualÏbehavior;€rather,€the€rule€provides€protection€for€the€defendant€as€well€byÏallowing€such€evidence€of€the€victimððs€prior€sexual€behavior€if€specificÏcircumstances€are€met.€€ÌÌà àThe€Advisory€Commission€Comment€following€Rule€412€distinctly€notesÏthat€specific€acts€of€the€victim€are€admissible€when€required€by€the€UnitedÏStates€or€Tennessee€Constitutions.€€A€trial€court€should€carefully€determineÏwhether€the€proffered€evidence€of€the€victimððs€prior€sexual€behavior€falls€withinÏthe€parameters€of€the€rape€shield€rule€before€allowing€it€into€evidence.€ÌÌà à€€We€conclude€that€the€testimony€of€Gary€Jindrak€and€part€of€theÏtestimony€of€Eric€Burns€was€erroneously€excluded€under€the€rape€shield€lawÏthereby€denying€the€Defendant€his€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€confront€and€cross„examine€witnesses€and€to€present€witnesses€in€his€defense.Ìà àÌ€à àThe€Defendant€cites€a€Wisconsin€case,€òòState€v.€Voneshóó,€401€œN.W.2dÏ170€(Wis.€App.€1986),€in€alternatively€arguing€that€Jinkdrakððs€testimony€did€notÏconstitute€evidence€of€ð ðsexual€behaviorðð€as€defined€by€Rule€412(a).€€TheÏDefendant€contends€that€the€victimððs€conduct€with€Jindrak€does€not€fall€within€theÏpurview€of€the€rape€shield€law€because€the€language€of€Rule€412€only€appliesÏto€ð ðphysical,€sexual€acts,ðð€not€kissing€or€conversation,€and€therefore,€shouldÏhave€been€admitted.€€ÌÌà àIn€òòVoneshóó,€the€Wisconsin€court€held€that€sexual€conduct€does€not€includeÏthe€act€of€writing€about€sexual€desires€or€activities€and,€therefore,€was€not€theÏtype€of€conduct€protected€by€the€rape€shield€law.€€€The€Wisconsin€rape€shieldÏlaw€defined€ð ðsexual€conductðð€as€ð ðany€conduct€or€behavior€relating€to€sexualÏactivities€of€the€complaining€witness,€including,€but€not€limited€to€prior€experienceÏof€sexual€intercourse€or€sexual€contact,€use€of€contraceptives,€livingÏarrangements€and€lifestyle.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€173.€€Although€the€Wisconsin€courtÏspecifically€defined€what€conduct€would€fall€within€the€realm€of€ð ðsexual€conduct,ððÏwe€do€not€believe€those€same€guidelines€apply€to€the€Tennessee€rape€shieldÏrule.ÌÌà à€Rule€412€disallows€any€evidence€of€ð ðsexual€behavior,ðð€which€is€definedÏas€ð ðsexual€activity€of€the€alleged€victim€other€than€the€sexual€act€at€issue€in€theÏcase.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€412(a).€€Jindrak€testified€during€the€offer€of€proof€that€theÏvictim€kissed€him,€put€her€arm€around€him,€and€invited€him€home€with€her.€€WeÏcan€only€conclude€that€this€type€of€conduct€in€this€situation€is€the€ð ðsexualÏbehaviorðð€that€Rule€412€intends€to€exclude.€€The€Defendantððs€argument€on€thisÏissue€is,€therefore,€without€merit.€€€€ÌÌÓ  Óà àWe€conclude€that€the€exclusion€of€the€two€witnessesðð€testimony€under€theÏrape€shield€law€was€error€resulting€in€a€deprivation€of€the€DefendantððsÍconstitutional€rights.€€An€error€of€constitutional€dimensions€will€not€necessarilyÏrequire€a€reversal€if€the€reviewing€court€determines€that€the€error€was€harmlessÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòChapman€v.€Californiaóó,€386€U.S.€18€(1967);€òòStateÏv.€Cookóó,€816€S.W.2d€322€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€this€case,€we€cannot€conclude€thatÏthe€errors€were€harmless€because€they€went€to€the€core€of€the€defenseððs€theoryÏof€consent.€€ÌÌà àTherefore,€we€must€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€remand€thisÏcase€for€a€new€trial.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGEÇÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÔ€ XÔÑ7€vXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  Ñà àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌà@ àJANUARY€1995€SESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9505„CR„00141ó óÌà àà àAppellee,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHAMILTON€COUNTYó óÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€DOUGLAS€A.€MEYER€,ÌSTEPHEN€TRACY€SHELINE,à àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óAppellant.ò òà àà àà à)à àó ó(Rape)ò òÌó óÌÌÌà@ àDISSENTÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àI€respectfully€dissent€from€the€majorityððs€holding€that€Grayððs€testimonyÏabout€his€first€sexual€encounter€with€the€victim,€and€Jindrakððs€testimony€about€hisÏcontact€with€the€victim€earlier€on€the€evening€in€question,€are€admissible€under€theÏRape€Shield€Rule,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€412.€€I€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€this€testimonyÏshould€not€have€been€admitted.ÌÌà àà àThe€Rape€Shield€Rule€permits€the€defendant€to€introduce€evidenceÏabout€the€victimððs€sexual€history€with€other€persons€in€order€to€prove€consent€underÍvery€limited€circumstances.€€First,€the€evidence€must€be€of€ð ðòòspecific€instancesóó€of€[the]Ïvictimððs€sexual€behavior€.€.€.€€with€òòpersonsóó€other€than€the€defendant.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï412(c)(4)€(emphasis€added).€€The€Ruleððs€use€of€the€plural€in€both€the€wordsÏð ðinstancesðð€and€ð ðpersonsðð€is€significant€because€the€second€requirement€of€the€RuleÏis€that€the€evidence€be€of€a€ð ðpatternðð€of€ð ðdistinctiveðð€sexual€behavior.€€The€wordÏð ðpatternðð€denotes€multiple€incidents.€€Thus,€to€meet€the€stringent€tests€of€Rule€412,€theÏdefendant€must€proffer€admissible€testimony€from€more€than€one€witness,€aboutÏmore€than€one€incident.ÌÌà àà àNext,€the€testimony€proffered€by€the€defendant€must€be€evidence€of€aÏð ðpattern€of€sexual€behavior€so€distinctive€and€so€closely€resembling€the€defendantððsÏversion€of€the€alleged€encounter€with€the€victim€that€it€tends€to€prove€that€the€victimÏconsented€to€the€act€charged€or€behaved€in€such€a€manner€as€to€lead€the€defendantÏreasonably€to€believe€that€the€victim€consented.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€412€(c)(4)(iii).€€WhileÏð ðso€distinctive€and€so€closely€resemblingðð€is€not€defined€in€the€Rule,€the€AdvisoryÏCommission€Comments€describe€this€provision€as€pertaining€to€ð ðsignature€cases.ðð€ÌÌà àà àGrayððs€testimony€about€his€first€sexual€encounter€with€the€victim€isÏdeficient€with€respect€to€Rule€412's€requirements€in€several€respects.€€First,€there€isÏnothing€ð ðdistinctiveðð€about€the€victimððs€behavior€with€Gray.€€If€the€victimððs€behaviorÍwith€Gray€is€ð ðdistinctive,ðð€then€every€woman€who€has€ð ðfirst€dateðð€sex€with€a€man€sheÏmeets€in€a€bar€is€engaging€in€ð ðdistinctiveðð€sexual€behavior.€€Approve€of€it€or€not,€thisÏconduct€cannot€be€considered€ð ðdistinctive.ððÌÌà àà àOf€course,€this€is€not€to€say€that€such€behavior€cannot€becomeÏdistinctive€under€certain€circumstances.€€For€instance,€over€the€course€of€a€month,€aÏwoman€frequents€the€same€bar€one€or€more€evenings€a€week.€€Each€time€she€isÏthere,€she€singles€out€a€potential€partner,€drinks€with€him,€and€spends€a€significantÏamount€of€time€engaging€in€both€verbal€and€physical€flirting€with€him.€€Eventually,Ïshe€asks€to€be€driven€home,€invites€the€gentleman€into€her€abode,€and€then€engagesÏin€consensual€sex.€€She€declines€any€further€encounters€with€this€man.€€Arguably,Ïthis€behavior€contains€a€number€of€distinctive€elements:€the€ð ðpick„upðð€always€occursÏin€the€same€place€and€in€the€same€manner;€the€sex€always€occurs€in€the€same€place;Ïand€the€relationships€are€limited€to€ð ðone„night€stands.ðð€€Repeated€often€enough,€thisÏbehavior€would€satisfy€the€requirement€of€a€ð ðòòpatternóó€of€sexual€behaviorðð€which€isÏð ðdistinctive.ðð€€Where€a€defendant€engaged€in€sex€under€circumstances€fitting€theÏwomanððs€usual€scenario,€testimony€from€other€men€with€whom€she€engaged€in€sexÏunder€the€same€circumstances€would€be€admissible€under€Rule€412€on€the€issue€ofÏconsent.ÌÌà àà àAnother€problem€with€Grayððs€testimony€is€that,€alone,€it€does€notÏestablish€any€ð ðpattern.ðð€€Yet€the€defendant€proffers€no€testimony€from€other€men€withÏwhom€the€victim€actually€had€sex€under€circumstances€similar€to€his€own.€€Again,€theÏRule€contemplates€the€admission€of€òòmultipleóó€incidents:€not€single,€isolated€ones.€€ToÏestablish€the€required€pattern,€a€defendant€must€offer€testimony€from€more€than€oneÏpartner€with€whom€the€victim€had€consensual€sex€in€situations€which€very€closelyÏresemble€his€own.ÌÌà àà àFinally,€Grayððs€first€encounter€with€the€victim€does€not€ð ðcloselyððÏresemble€the€defendantððs€encounter€with€him.€€Importantly,€Grayððs€first€sex€with€theÏvictim€occurred€at€his€home.€€The€defendantððs€encounter€with€the€victim,€on€the€otherÏhand,€occurred€at€her€place€of€residence.€€That€a€woman€consents€to€have€sex€at€herÏdateððs€residence€does€not€tend€to€prove€that€she€would€consent€to€have€sex€with€aÏdifferent€person€at€her€own€residence.ÌÌà àà àI€would€hold€that€none€of€Grayððs€testimony€was€admissible€under€RuleÏ412.ÌÌà àà àJindrakððs€proffered€testimony€was€that€the€victim€approached€him€at€theÏsame€bar€on€the€same€evening€in€question,€talked€with€him,€put€her€arm€around€him,Íkissed€him€and€eventually€asked€him€if€he€would€like€to€go€home€with€her.€€JindrakÏdeclined€the€victimððs€alleged€offer.€€The€majority€rules€this€testimony€admissible,Ïfinding€it€to€be€ð ðhighly€relevant€testimony€[of]€the€very€kind€of€evidence€allowed€underÏsection€(c)(4)(iii)€of€the€rule.ðð€€The€defendant€also€argues€in€the€alternative€thatÏJindrakððs€testimony€does€not€trigger€Rule€412,€and€is€therefore€admissible€underÏRule€401,€because€it€doees€not€constitute€evidence€of€a€specific€instance€of€theÏvictimððs€ð ðsexual€behavior.ðð€€The€majority€rejects€this€argument,€but€in€doing€so€itÏinconsistently€refers€to€this€testimony€as€involving€ð ðthe€ððsexual€behaviorðð€that€RuleÏ412€intends€to€exclude.ðð€€I€agree€that€it€is€the€type€of€conduct€which€Rule€412€intendsÏto€exclude,€but€my€analysis€differs€significantly€from€that€of€the€majority.ÌÌà àà àThe€only€way€that€Jindrakððs€testimony€is€even€arguably€relevant€is€toÏassume€that€the€victim€would€have€consented€to€sexual€intercourse€with€him€had€heÏaccepted€her€invitation€to€go€home€with€her.€€The€majority€is€apparently€willing€toÏmake€this€assumption.€€I€am€not.€€We€must€acknowledge€the€possibility€that,€even€ifÏthe€victim€intended€to€have€sex€with€Jindrak€at€the€time€she€offered€him€a€ride,€sheÏmay€have€changed€her€mind€by€the€time€they€arrived€at€their€destination.€€We€mustÏalso€acknowledge€the€possibility€that€the€victim€may€have€consensually€engaged€inÏsome€sexual€activities€with€Jindrak,€but€not€others.€€The€defendantððs€story€is€that€theÏvictim€engaged€in€consensual€intercourse€with€him.€€If€she€had€engaged€only€inÍsome€sexual€activities€with€Jindrak,€and€refused€to€engage€in€intercourse,€surely€theÏmajority€would€not€find€the€victimððs€encounter€with€Jindrak€to€ð ðso€closely€resembl[e]Ïthe€defendantððsðð€that€it€would€be€admissible.€€In€fact,€in€this€scenario,€it€is€likely€thatÏthe€defendant€would€be€trying€to€keep€Jindrakððs€testimony€out.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€wants€to€offer€Grayððs€and€Jindrakððs€accounts€of€theirÏencounters€with€the€victim€for€one€purpose€and€one€purpose€only:€to€prove€that,€sinceÏshe€said€yes€to€them,€then€she€must€have€said€yes€to€him,€as€well.€€Yet€this€is€the€veryÏargument€which€Rule€412€is€designed€to€prevent.€€Only€where€the€victim€hasÏengaged€in€a€series€of€ð ðsignatureðð€encounters€is€this€outdated€and€soundlyÏdiscredited€notion€deemed€appropriate.€€We€have€no€such€signature€encountersÏhere.ÌÌà àà àRape€shield€laws€are€designed€to€permit€women€to€assist€in€theÏprosecution€of€their€rapists€without€fear€that€their€past€acts€of€consensual€sex€will€beÏused€as€a€weapon€against€them.€€By€its€very€structure,€Rule€412€sets€forth€theÏparticular€type€of€past€conduct€by€a€victim€with€other€persons€that€is€deemed€relevantÏto€determining€whether€she€also€consented€to€have€sex€with€the€defendant.€€If€theÏevidence€is€not€of€this€particular€type€of€conduct,€but€is€still€being€proffered€by€theÍdefendant€in€an€attempt€to€prove€ð ðshe€said€yes€to€him,€therefore€she€said€yes€to€me,Ïtoo,ðð€then€it€is€simply€not€admissible.ÌÌà àà àWe€would€arrive€at€the€same€conclusion€if€we€accepted€the€defendantððsÏargument€that€Jindrakððs€testimony€does€not€trigger€Rule€412€because€it€does€notÏinvolve€a€specific€instance€of€the€victimððs€sexual€behavior€as€defined€in€Rule€412.€ÏUnder€the€combined€rubric€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€401,€402€and€403,Ïthe€argument€in€favor€of€admissibility€is€that€Jindrakððs€testimony€is€relevent€to€proveÏthat€the€victim€was€actively€seeking€a€sexual€encounter.€€The€argument€againstÏadmissibility€is€that€the€victimððs€alleged€willingness€to€engage€in€sex€with€Jindrak€isÏhardly€evidence€of€her€willingness€to€engage€in€sex€with€the€defendant,€and€that€anyÏprobative€value€at€all€that€attaches€to€Jindrakððs€testimony€is€substantially€outweighedÏby€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€On€balance,€even€assuming€that€JindrakððsÏtestimony€tends€to€prove€that€the€victim€consented€to€have€sex€with€him,€thisÏevidence€is€not€relevant€to€prove€that€the€victim€thereby€consented€to€have€sex€withÏthe€defendant.€€Rule€412€supports€the€concept€that,€ordinarily,€sexual€partners€areÏsimply€not€that€fungible.ÌÌà àà àFinally,€giving€the€majority€the€benefit€of€the€doubt€that€the€Gray€andÏJindrak€testimony€is€arguably€admissible,€the€trial€court€properly€considered€theÍproffered€evidence€and€ruled€it€inadmissible.€€With€respect€to€Grayððs€testimony,€theÏdefendantððs€lawyer€argued,€ð ðI€think€it€shows€promiscuity€on€her€part€and€we€feel€likeÏthat€weððre€entitled€to€go€into€this€in€our€proof.ðð€€The€trial€court€correctly€responded,Ïð ðNo,€I€donððt€think€itððs€„„€itððs€not€promiscuity€thatððs€the€issue.€€Really€the€issue€is€whetherÏor€not€that€evidence€is€a€pattern€of€sexual€behavior€so€distinctive€and€so€closelyÏresembling€the€accusedððs€version€of€the€alleged€encounter€with€the€victim€that€[it]Ïtends€to€prove€the€victim€consented€to€the€act.€€I€donððt€think€it€does.ðð€€With€respect€toÏJindrakððs€testimony,€the€trial€court€simply€said,€ð ðThat€testimony€is€precluded€by€theÏrape€shield€[rule].ððÌÌà àAs€this€Court€has€previously€held,€ð ðThe€question€of€whether€evidence€isÏadmissible€rests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court;€and€this€Court€will€notÏinterfere€with€the€exercise€of€this€discretion€unless€clear€abuse€appears€on€the€faceÏof€the€record.ðð€€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€885€S.W.2d€357,€361€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€No€suchÏclear€abuse€appears€on€the€face€of€the€record€in€this€case.€€The€trial€court€heard€theÏoffers€of€proof€and€made€a€proper€analysis€under€our€rules€of€evidence.€€I€wouldÏaffirm€the€trial€courtððs€rulings.ÌÌà àà àI€would€hold€that€the€trial€court€properly€excluded€all€testimony€fromÏGray€and€Jindrak,€and€that€the€defendantððs€conviction€should€be€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€HÔ% € Ô.€PEAY,€JudgeÔ€ ŠÔ