ÿWPCµ 9†ù—e’cØXñ‘>dÒ+‚_ r“ Á]9#nœz®nÆ·4NgÔ˜;q…654’P^h~`N¼˜Zc›4gkjfüð¡¿ {q6ºo/jÅÙosâ_[»è¯¸Œ%æj¨Ì’· vOްžñnVÍh¹l¤Ö—tÁñÚ 4µW¨)X¨_ºÙS¶MuÆ5¦ŽWßÜrN/³þ?¯ÂttÙ,¼O‹‘¡áU½–0Û•Ü­ÿlÙKDkV=_/³ñŸ»Ÿ¼Yá“‘Ï=ˆá®ðkõ»¿ ‘L†¥ë‹®©â¬RÄÅsL>×rƒT¬•±âAX"-XÉ~OLTõ­ºì"<ûøžNjû€:?OÌ¥yÊ)ï÷¤ÆªV2~ÀUaÈž)“³äÎb'Ä÷äíçöƒr#óp¶ÅNúq„¢…ìL{¿Ühô#.9Mðe{ù3 ® ùL0ô]ÞËtm!Â1W‡°“ )“8óí4qìmËlt©xäΫY°Kìbx=Ï3{4 Ï3Kƒ ƒ¢/9¯çØ^Ú"œj7b‚ UA^¾.öØÐCƒH6ù•Cp+†öMl¥ÿö¿óR*·À¶sÄf EXVQ Ÿe¼Ø; w®0¨H’O ÈØ ÑÜ…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ U:Í U : w@A 4 • å¤ 0ˆ‰ 0D U:U ] U:ì-&¬S|ÿk{U>æ$U:,<få¢U:‡™ÁU:ZU:”U:ÎU:U:BBBBBB B|||| D3™™™ 0DÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ AOÆ__ 0D% D/i B˜˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial Regular,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular êDëDìíDîïDðñ eòÓ€üuM%v3|xþ ÛÔ€ Xà/XXXÔÔ€ …+ X Xà/ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ Xà/X  …+ÔÐ  ÐÌJuly€29,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó(8(2¨$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular SÝ ƒ ¨$ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€XúîXXXÔÔ€XúîXXXúîÔÔ€ôõéôXXúîÔInstead€of€testifying€verbally€about€these€details,€the€victim€wrote€answers€on€a€machine€thatÐ `  Ðdisplayed€her€responses€to€the€jury., øð AZ"Arial Regular #Ñ#€Xÿÿd#Ñ ¢Ý ƒ ¨$ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€XúîXXXÔÔ‡XúîXXXúîÔÔ€ôõéôXXúîÔDefense€counsel€filed€an€excellent€brief€on€this€issue.€€Despite€the€adverse€ruling€on€thisÐ `  Ðissue,€the€content€of€the€argument€has€truly€been€of€assistance€to€the€court.€€€€€€Ô#†ôõéôôôõé~#Ô rÝ ƒ ¨$ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ XúîXXXÔÔ€XúîXX XúîÔÔ€ôõéôXXúîÔThe€defendant€does€not€challenge€the€admissibility€of€the€PCR€testing€which€showed€thatÐ `  Ðblood€on€the€defendant's€shorts€contained€DNA€matching€that€of€the€victim. aÝ ƒ ¨$ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡XîXXXÔÔ‡ò¥ÓòXXîÔÔ#†òÄ òòò¥Ó_#ÔÔ‡ò¥Óò òòÄÔThe€first€four€criteria€are€found€in€òòGrayóó.€€A€fifth€category€in€òòGrayóó,€based€on€a€specific€numberÐ `  Ðof€prior€felony€convictions,€may€enhance€the€sentence€range€but€is€no€longer€a€listed€criterion.€€òòSeeóóÐ  ¾ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.Ô#†òÄ òòò¥ÓÀ#ÔÔ‡ò»è ò òòÄÔ<@ˆÐ9Z &Courier Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular 2Ý ƒ ¨$ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Xà/XXXÔÔ‡X +XXXà/ÔÔ‡ôãÞôXX +ÔIt€is€the€policy€of€this€court€not€to€divulge€the€names€of€minors€who€are€victims€of€sexualÐ `  Ðabuse. ÛÔ€Xà/XXXÔÔ€…+ XXà/ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€Xà/X …+ÔÐ  ÐÌJuly€28,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ý ƒ ¨$ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€XúîXXXÔÔ€ôõéôXXúîÔThis€ruling€perhaps€explains€why€the€appellant€has€not€challenged€the€admissibility€of€theÐ `  ÐPCR€DNA€testing€of€the€blood€on€his€shorts.€€Those€test€results€indicated€the€blood€on€the€appellant'sÏshorts€came€from€the€victim., øð AZ"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d&&&&'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý›Ñ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€X +XXXÔòòÔ‡Xà/XXX +ÔÔ‡Š ŠXXà/ÔÓ  ÓÑ€úÑIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÐ `  ÐÌà@@ÙÙ*ÚàòòAT€NASHVILLEóóÐ P ð ÐÌñòñœñòññüññòñßr€ *<,(j 8` `€€@E B ` 8ttxPX@ ð  rßñòññüññüñßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@E B ` 8ttxPX@ ð  rßñüññòñ›ñòñà@@··&ÚàNOVEMBER€1998€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à ì à*à D àC.C.A.€#€¢01C01£„9708„CR„00331Ð  À ЀÌà Œ àà ä àAppellee,à ” àà ì à*à D àDavidson€CountyÐ °  ÐÌ¢VS£.à Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à*à D àHon.€Cheryl€Blackburn,€JudgeÐ    ÐÌRANDALL€SCOTT,à ” àà ì à*à D à(Rape€of€a€Child;€Aggravated€SexualÐ ð  Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D à€Battery)Ìà Œ àà ä àAppellant.à ” àà ì à*Ð à€ ÐÌÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó:à < àà ” àà ì àòòà D àFor€Appelleeóó:Ð À` Ðà Œ àÌJeffrey€A.€DeVasherà ” àà ì à¢à D àJohn€Knox€Walkup£Ð °P ÐAssistant€Public€Defenderà ì àà D àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ ¨H Т£1202€Stahlman€BuildingÌNashville,€TN€€37201à ” àà ì ࢣà D ࢣKim€R.€HelperÐ ˜!8 Ð(on€appeal)à ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ "0 Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌJ.€Michael€Engleà < àà ” àà ì àà D àCordell€Hull€Buildingà ¤ àÐ €$  ÐAssistant€Public€Defenderà ì àà D àNashville,€TN€€37243à ¤ àÐ x% Ð1202€Stahlman€Buildingà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àà ô àà L àÐ p& ÐNashville,€TN€€37201à ” àà ì àà D àWilliam€ReedÐ h' Ð(at€trial€and€on€appeal)à ” àà ì àà D àRoger€MooreÐ `(  Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àAssistant€District€Attorneys€Generalà T$ àÐ X)ø! Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àWashington€SquareÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àSuite€500Ìà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D à222€Second€Avenue,€NorthÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àNashville,€TN€€37201„1649à ü! àà T$ àÐ 8-Ø#% Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àÌÌÌ¢£ÌÌOPINION€FILED:_____________________ÌÔ#†ŠõŠŠŠ Ê#ÔÔ‡Š ŠŠŠõÔÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÔ#†ŠõŠŠŠ r #ÔÔ‡Š ŠŠŠõÔÔ#†Xà/XŠŠ é#ÔÐ È:h13 ÐÑúÑÑ7€|àXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÔ#†X +XXXà/F #ÔÓÓÓ  Óòòò òOPINIONó óóóÐ `  ÐÓ$Óà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant,€Randall€Scott,€was€convicted€of€rape€of€a€child€andÏaggravated€sexual€battery.€€The€trial€court€imposed€twenty„five€and€ten„yearÏsentences€respectively€and€ordered€the€sentences€to€be€served€consecutively.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€this€appeal€of€right,€the€defendant€presents€the€following€issues€forÏour€review:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓ(I)€€whether€the€defendant€was€denied€his€right€to€aÏspeedy€trial;ÌÌ(II)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€theÏdefendant's€motion€for€expert€assistance€in€the€field€ofÏDNA€analysis;ÌÒ4ä ÛÒÒXÍÒÓéÓÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓÌ(III)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€conduct€aÏpretrial€hearing€on€the€admissibility€of€mitochondrial€DNAÏevidence;ÌÌ(IV)€€whether€the€state€established€the€chain€of€custodyÏfor€the€admission€of€microscopic€slides€containing€hairsÏtaken€from€the€victim's€pubic€area;ÌÌ(V)€€whether€certain€out€of€court€statements€by€the€victimÏwere€properly€admitted€under€the€excited€utteranceÏexception€to€the€hearsay€rule;ÌÌ(VI)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€providing€juryÏinstructions€that€guilt€might€be€inferred€if€the€accusedÏattempts€to€conceal€evidence;ÌÌ(VII)€€whether€separate€convictions€for€aggravated€sexualÏbattery€and€rape€of€a€child€are€permissible;€andÌÌ(VIII)€€whether€the€sentence€is€excessive.ÌÌÒ4ä ÒÒXóÒÓÓÌà Œ àà ä àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ìâ âÐ €4 +. Ðà Œ àà ä àOn€April€17,€1995,€the€victim,€L.Fòò.,óó׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×òò€óówas€nine€years€old€and€lived€onÐ `  Ðâ âChicamauga€Avenue€in€East€Nashville.€€On€that€date€at€about€dusk,€the€victimÏwalked€to€a€Revco,€located€about€one€block€from€her€home,€to€purchase€earrings.€ÏAlong€the€way,€she€saw€the€defendant,€who€was€wearing€gray€short€pants€and€a€T„¼shirt,€walk€outside€of€his€residence€on€Chicamauga€Avenue,€enter€the€Revco,Ïpurchase€a€beer,€and€then€leave€the€store.€€At€trial,€the€victim€testified€that€she€wasÏon€her€way€home€when€the€defendant€grabbed€her€from€behind,€placing€one€handÏaround€her€waist€and€the€other€over€her€mouth.€€After€forcing€her€into€an€alleyÏbehind€a€shed,€the€defendant€pushed€her€to€the€ground,€pulled€her€shorts€andÏunderpants€down,€touched€her€vaginal€area€with€his€finger,€and€then€penetrated€herÏanally€with€his€penis.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€During€the€assault,€the€defendant€ordered€the€victim€to€"shutÐ Œ, Ðup"€and€called€her€names.€€When€released,€the€victim€ran€to€her€residence€andÏreported€the€incident€to€her€father.€€Her€father€notified€the€police,€who€arrived€aboutÏfive€to€ten€minutes€later.€€The€victim€provided€details€of€the€incident€and€showedÏofficers€the€defendant's€house.€€She€was€then€transported€to€Vanderbilt€Hospital,Ïplaced€under€general€anesthesia,€and€discharged€from€the€hospital€the€next€day.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAt€trial,€the€victim€identified€the€defendant€as€her€assailant.€€On€cross„¼examination,€however,€she€admitted€that€she€was€unable€to€identify€the€defendant€atÏa€police€line„up€conducted€one€week€after€the€incident.€€She€also€acknowledged€thatÏthe€night€of€the€incident,€she€did€not€know€"exactly€what€he€look[ed]€like."€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAlbert€Haas€of€the€Nashville€Metro€Police€Department€initiated€theÏinvestigation.€€He€found€the€victim€"curled€up€in€a€chair€...€tears€were€rolling€out€ofÏher€eyes€and€she€was€shaking."€€Officer€Haas,€who€described€her€as€covered€withÏdirt€and€very€scared,€was€unable€to€acquire€much€information€from€the€victimÐ €4 +0 Ðbecause€she€was€so€distraught.€€He€testified€that€when€Officer€Jenine€Sarno€arrivedÏon€the€scene,€the€victim€indicated€she€would€be€more€comfortable€talking€to€aÏfemale€officer.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€victim€was€able€to€show€officers€where€she€was€raped€and€whereÏthe€defendant€lived.€€When€officers€entered€his€residence,€they€found€the€defendant,€ÏMary€Gooch€(the€owner€of€the€residence),€Ricky€Knight,€and€Teresa€Gooch.€€TheyÏlearned€that€the€defendant€rented€a€room€there€and€found€a€pair€of€muddy€blue€jeanÏshorts€on€the€floor€of€the€defendant's€room.€€€Initially,€the€defendant€claimed€to€theÏdetectives€that€he€had€been€at€the€residence€all€evening.€€Later,€after€beingÏadmonished€by€the€other€residents,€he€informed€officers€that€he€had€walked€to€theÏRevco€to€purchase€beer€and€cigarettes€and€visited€at€a€friend's€house.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àOfficer€Haas€testified€that€the€victim€was€not€able€to€identify€theÏdefendant€at€the€line„up.€€He€did€recall€that€the€defendant€had€changed€his€hairÏbetween€the€date€of€the€offense€and€the€line„up.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àOfficer€Sarno€testified€that€the€victim€informed€her€that€a€black€maleÏfollowed€her€to€the€Revco€and€that€as€she€was€returning€to€her€residence,€heÏgrabbed€her€from€behind€and€pulled€her€behind€a€shed.€€The€victim€stated€that€sheÏtried€to€run€away€but€that€the€defendant€hit€her€in€the€back€with€rock,€pulled€herÏbehind€the€shed,€and€raped€her.€€Officer€Sarno€testified€that€the€victim€pointed€outÏthe€defendant's€house€before€being€transported€by€ambulance€to€the€hospital.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àTeresa€Gooch,€who€lived€with€her€grandmother€and€grandfather,€MaryÏand€Major€Gooch,€her€parents,€Ricky€Knight€and€Sandra€Gooch,€"Tootie,"€and€theÏdefendant,€was€called€as€a€witness€for€the€state.€€Teresa€Gooch€testified€that€on€theÐ 8¸.4 Ðday€of€the€assault,€the€defendant,€who€was€wearing€a€red€tank„top€and€faded,€knee„¼length€blue€jeans,€went€to€the€Revco€to€purchase€beer€and€cigarettes.€€She€recalledÏthat€when€he€returned,€he€had€mud€on€his€clothes,€quickly€changed,€and€placed€theÏsoiled€clothes€under€his€bed.€€She€remembered€that€within€a€few€minutes€of€hisÏreturn€to€the€residence,€the€police€arrived,€inquiring€if€there€was€anyone€inside€theÏhouse€"with€long€hair€and€...€rough€skin€like€they€didn't€shave."€€When€the€policeÏentered€the€house,€the€defendant,€who€met€the€description€provided,€was€in€bed;Ïwhen€the€police€asked€the€defendant€where€he€had€been,€he€responded€that€he€hadÏvisited€a€friend;€when€asked€about€his€muddy€clothes,€the€defendant€explained€thatÏhe€had€fallen.€€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àJudy€Troutt,€who€worked€at€the€Revco€on€the€evening€of€the€assault,Ïrecalled€that€the€defendant,€who€was€a€regular€customer,€bought€a€bottle€of€St.€IvesÏbeer€and€cigarettes.€€She€was€able€to€identify€the€defendant€in€a€photo€lineup.€€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àJulie€Rosof,€a€family€nurse€practitioner,€employed€at€Our€Kids€CenterÏat€Vanderbilt€University,€testified€at€trial€that€she€performs€"medical/legalÏevaluations"€of€children€who€claim€to€be€victims€of€sexual€abuse.€€Ms.€Rosof€relatedÏthat€she€responded€to€an€emergency€call€at€Metro€General€Hospital€and€conductedÏan€exam€on€the€victim.€€As€a€part€of€her€examination,€she€removed€hairs€from€theÏvictim's€genital€area€and€placed€them€in€a€sealed€envelope€as€part€of€the€rape€kit.€ÏShe€recalled€that€the€victim€was€having€difficulty€remaining€still€during€the€exam€dueÏto€trauma€to€the€rectal€area.€€The€rest€of€the€exam€was€conducted€at€VanderbiltÏHospital€after€the€victim€was€placed€under€general€anesthesia.€€Ms.€RosofÏdetermined€that€the€victim€suffered€several€tears€in€the€rectal€area;€while€one€of€theÏtears€was€significant,€surgery€was€not€required€to€repair€the€damage.€€Ms.€RosofÏconcluded€that€the€victim's€rectum€had€been€penetrated.€€Ð 8¸.4 Їà Œ àà ä àDetective€Steve€Kleek,€who€interviewed€the€defendant€shortly€after€theÏincident,€testified€that€the€defendant€initially€claimed€he€had€been€home€all€evening€Ïand€had€been€awakened€by€the€arrival€of€police.€€He€recalled€that€the€defendantÏlater€conceded€that€he€had€been€to€the€Revco€to€purchase€beer€and€cigarettes.€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAnita€Matthews,€a€forensic€scientist€employed€by€LaboratoryÏCorporation€of€America€("LabCorp"),€conducted€polymerase€chain€reaction€DNAÏanalysis€("PCR€testing")€on€various€pieces€of€evidence.€€She€concluded€that€theÏblood€on€the€defendant's€shorts€was€consistent€with€the€victim's€DNA€and€that€theÏvictim€could€not€be€excluded€as€the€donor€of€the€blood€found€on€the€defendant'sÏshirt.€€PCR€testing€of€the€ñññœñññhairñññ›ñññññññññ€fibers€ñññœñññwas€not€consisteñèññçñtñçñnñèññéñntñéññêñcyñêññññ›ñññññññññ€with€ñññœññññëñthe›€victim›€but›€nñëññìñthat€of€ñìññíñot›€ñíñtheñññ›ñññññññññ€defendant.€ÏMs.€Matthews€acknowledged€that€her€laboratory€does€not€wash€hairs€before€testingÏthem,€although€others€do.€€She€acknowledged€that€some€components€of€her€DNAÏtesting€are€considered€"new€and€emerging€technology"€by€the€National€ResearchÏCenter.€€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àFBI€Special€Agent€Mark€Wilson€testified€that€he€performedÏmitochondrial€DNA€analysis€on€hair€fibers.€€A€"relatively€new"€technique€that€wasÏbegun€by€the€FBI€in€June€of€1996,€the€process€works€on€items€of€evidence€that€haveÏ"very€little€association€with€DNA"€such€as€hairs,€bones,€teeth,€or€aged€samples.€ÏAgent€Wilson€explained€that€the€correct€procedure€is€to€wash€hair€before€testing.€Ï"We€found€that€hairs€which€were€not€adequately€washed€would€sometimes€yield€theÏwrong€type,€...€if€the€hairs€weren't€adequately€washed,€sometimes€the€type€that€youÏwould€get€at€the€end€was€actually€from€the€person,€the€body€fluid€type€and€not€fromÏthe€hair€type."€€In€this€instance,€the€lab€washed€a€hair€taken€from€the€victim's€rectumÏand€then€conducted€mitochondrial€DNA€testing.€€The€DNA€sequence€matched€theÏdefendant.€€Agent€Wilson€recalled€that€he€had€several€hair€samples€but€tested€onlyÐ 8¸.4 Ðone.€€He€explained€that€the€FBI€did€not€routinely€test€hair,€but€that€he€agreed€to€anÏexception€in€this€case€because€the€District€Attorney€had€stated€that€prior€test€resultsÏhad€been€"inconsistent€with€the€circumstances."€€Wilson€testified€that€this€is€only€theÏfourth€case€in€the€country€where€mitochondrial€DNA€test€results€have€been€offeredÏas€evidence.€€No€laboratories€in€Tennessee€conduct€mitochondrial€DNA€testing,€aÏprocess€that€is€very€susceptible€to€contamination€because€it€is€so€sensitive.€€Ìà Œ àà ä à¹Ó  Ó(I)ÌÓ26Óà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€first€contends€he€was€denied€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial.€ÏThe€arrest€was€April€17,€1995,€and€the€trial€began€on€April€14,€1997.€€The€case€wasÏfirst€continued€from€November€30,€1995,€until€February€2,€1996,€to€allow€DNAÏtesting€to€be€completed.€€On€February€1,€1996,€the€defendant€agreed€to€a€trial€dateÏof€May€13,€1996,€but€thereafter€the€state€sought€a€continuance€because€ofÏ"difficulties€with€the€physical€evidence€...€the€testing€of€it."€€The€defendant€did€notÏobject€to€rescheduling€the€trial€to€August€19,€1996.€€On€July€31,1996,€Judge€AnnÏLacey€Johns,€who€had€been€presiding€over€the€case,€resigned€her€office€and€JudgeÏCheryl€Blackburn€was€appointed€three€weeks€later.€€On€August€14,€1996,€five€daysÏbefore€the€second€scheduled€trial€date,€the€state€filed€a€motion€for€a€continuance,Ïalleging€that€defense€counsel€planned€to€file€a€motion€to€exclude€DNA€evidence€andÏthe€state€needed€time€to€respond€to€the€motion.€€The€case€was€continued€toÏSeptember€5,€1996,€at€which€point€Judge€Blackburn€scheduled€pretrial€hearings€onÏevidentiary€issues€for€November€12€and€the€trial€for€December€2,€1996.€€Six€daysÏbefore€the€date€of€the€pretrial€hearings,€the€state€sought€a€continuance€so€that€theÏmitochondrial€DNA€testing€could€be€completed.€€The€trial€court€granted€theÏcontinuance€over€the€objection€of€defense€counsel€and€the€case€was€set€for€April€14,Ï1997,€the€date€on€which€the€trial€took€place.€€ÌÐ 8¸.4 Ðà Œ àà ä àThe€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€provides€thatÏ"the€accused€shall€enjoy€the€right€to€a€speedy€and€public€trial."€€U.S.€Const.€amend.ÏVI.€€The€right€to€a€speedy€trial€is€also€founded€in€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€Tenn.ÏConst.€art.€1€ðð€9.€€This€same€right€has€been€codified€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40-14-101€which€provides:€€"In€all€criminal€prosecutions,€the€accused€is€entitled€to€aÏspeedy€trial...."€€òòSee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€48.€€In€òòState€v.€Bishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€81Ð \ü  Ð(Tenn.€1973),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€adopted€a€four-factor€test€forÏdetermining€whether€one€has€been€denied€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial.€€Adopting€a€testÏfirst€established€in€òòBarker€v.€Wingoóó,€407€U.S.€514€(1972),€our€court€identified€theÐ À` Ðfactors€as€follows:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓ(1)€€the€length€of€the€delay;ÌÌ(2)€€the€reason€for€the€delay;ÌÌ(3)€€whether€the€defendant€asserted€his€right€to€a€speedyÏtrial;€€andÌÌ(4)€€the€prejudice€which€accrued€to€the€defendant€as€aÏresult€of€the€delay.€€ÌÌÒ4ä `?ÒÒXR?ÒÓn?ÓòòBishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€84€(citing€òòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€530).Ð T$ô ÐÌà Œ àà ä àIn€òòBarkeróó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€"[t]he€length€ofÐ ì'Œ" Ðthe€delay€is€to€some€extent€a€triggering€mechanism.€€Until€there€is€some€delay€whichÏis€presumptively€prejudicial,€there€is€no€necessity€for€inquiry€into€the€other€factorsÏthat€go€into€the€balance."€€òòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€530.€€€Here,€the€two„year€delay€isÐ P-ð#( Ðsufficient€to€trigger€an€examination€into€the€other€factors.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€second€òòBarkeróó€factor,€the€reason€for€the€delay,€generally€falls€intoÐ ´2T). Ðfour€categories:€€(1)€intentional€delay€by€the€state€to€gain€a€tactical€advantage€orÏharass€the€defendant;€(2)€negligence;€(3)€delay€necessary€to€effectively€prosecuteÏthe€case;€and€(4)€delay€caused€by€or€acquiesced€in€by€the€defendant.€€òòState€v.Ð 8¸.4 ÐWoodóó,€924€S.W.2d€342,€346„47€(Tenn.€1996).€€Intentional€delay€to€gain€undueÐ `  Ðadvantage€or€harass€the€defendant€weighs€heavily€against€the€state,€while€delayÏthrough€the€state's€negligence€is€given€slighter€weight.€€The€third€type€of€delay,€thatÏwhich€is€necessary€to€prosecute€the€case,€does€not€weigh€in€favor€of€or€againstÏeither€party,€while€delay€caused€by€the€defendant€weighs€against€the€defendant.€€òòId.óó€€Ð 0 ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€acquiesced€in€the€greater€part€of€the€delay.€€A€portionÏof€the€delay€was€caused€when€the€original€trial€judge€resigned€her€position.€€DNAÏtesting€also€caused€delay.€€When€portions€of€the€DNA€testing€on€the€hairs€conductedÏby€LabCorp€yielded€inconsistent€results,€it€was€appropriate€for€the€state€to€seekÏanother€opinion.€€Overall,€this€factor€weighs€in€favor€of€the€state.€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€third€factor€is€the€defendant's€assertion€of€his€speedy€trial€right.€€ÏOf€course,€the€defendant€is€under€no€duty€to€bring€himself€to€trial.€€In€consequence,Ïthe€absence€of€a€demand€for€a€speedy€trial€does€not€amount€to€a€waiver€of€theÏissue.€€òòBishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€84.€€Nonetheless,€the€timeliness€of€the€demand€is€aÐ T$ô Ðfactor€in€consideration€of€whether€the€defendant€has€been€denied€his€right€to€aÏspeedy€trial.€€òòId.óó€€Here,€the€defendant€first€mentioned€the€necessity€of€trying€the€caseÐ ì'Œ" Ðpromptly€at€a€February€1,€1996,€hearing.€€When,€however,€the€trial€court€asked€"canÏwe€justify€that€extra€time€because€we€are€waiting€for€the€lab€reports,"€defenseÏcounsel€responded,€"yes,€I€think€so."€€The€defendant€did€not€actually€demand€aÏspeedy€trial€until€November€of€1996,€a€year€and€one„half€after€the€arrest.€€BecauseÏthe€trial€commenced€within€five€months€of€the€demand,€the€factor€weighs€for€theÏstate.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àPrejudice,€the€most€important€of€the€considerations,€is€assessed€in€theÏlight€of€three€interests€to€the€defendant:Ð 8¸.4 ÐÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓ(1)€€to€prevent€oppressive€pretrial€incarceration;ÌÌ(2)€€to€minimize€anxiety€and€concern€of€the€accused;€€andÌÌ(3)€€to€limit€the€possibility€that€the€defense€will€beÏimpaired.€€ÌÌÒ4ä 1LÒÒX#LÒÓ?LÓòòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€532.Ð ªJ ÐÌà Œ àà ä àA€two„year€pretrial€incarceration€is€oppressive€and€undoubtedly€causedÏanxiety€and€concern€for€the€defendant.€€The€record€does€not,€however,€indicate€thatÏthe€defense€was€prejudiced€or€impaired€by€the€delay.€€For€all€of€these€reasons,€it€isÏour€assessment€that€the€defendant€was€not€denied€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial.Ìà Œ à€€ÌÓ  Ó(II)à @Œ àÌÓØNÓà Œ àà ä àThe€second€issue€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€theÏdefense€motion€for€expert€assistance€in€the€field€of€DNA€analysis.€€On€October€31,Ï1996,€the€defendant€filed€a€motion€for€expert€services,€wherein€he€conceded€that€theÏvictim€had€been€forcibly€raped€but€contended€that€he€was€not€the€perpetrator.€ÏBecause€the€victim€had€been€unable€to€identify€the€defendant€in€a€physical€lineup,Ïhe€argued€that€identity€was€the€key€issue€in€the€case.€€The€defendant€also€allegedÏthat€the€state€intended€to€use€DNA€evidence€to€link€him€to€the€crime€and€sought€anÏexpert€for€the€following€reasons:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓ[A]€review€of€the€laboratory€reports,€instruction€upon€theÏunderlying€theory€and€methodology,€consultation€as€toÏappropriate€potential€lines€of€questioning,€and€referral€toÏhelpful€sources€of€technical€literature.€€The€defendantÏdoes€not€...€request€that€the€samples€be€retested€or€thatÏthe€expert€attempt€to€duplicate€...€findings.ÌÌÒ4ä ~QÒÒXpQÒÓŒQÓÌà Œ àà ä àAn€accompanying€affidavit,€filed€under€seal,€documented€counsel'sÏefforts€at€becoming€knowledgeable€in€DNA€and€yet€included€an€assertion€that€anÏexpert€was€nevertheless€necessary€to€assist€defense€counsel€in€challenging€theÐ 8¸.4 ÐDNA€evidence.€€Defense€counsel€also€contended€that€the€expert€was€necessary€toÏresolve€the€following€issues:€(1)€why€the€FBI€attributed€hairs€removed€from€the€victimÏto€the€defendant€while€LabCorp€attributed€the€hairs€to€the€victim;€(2)€why€test€resultsÏindicate€the€presence€of€a€third€DNA€donor€and€whether€contamination€could€haveÏoccurred;€and€(3)€whether€the€DNA€samples€were€properly€handled€by€investigatorsÏon€the€scene€as€well€as€other€individuals€in€the€chain€of€custody.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€the€pretrial€hearing€on€the€motion,€Attorney€Bappa€Mukherji€testifiedÏthat€he€and€attorney€Mike€Galligan€had€successfully€barred€admission€of€DNAÏevidence€in€a€rape€case€in€White€County.€€To€mount€an€attack€on€the€evidence,ÏAttorney€Mukherji€hired€two€experts€to€help€him€understand€DNA€testing.€€He€statedÏthat€the€experts€also€assisted€in€locating€weaknesses€in€the€testing€conducted€in€thatÏparticular€case.€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAttorney€David€Raybin€testified€that€an€attorney€could€not€competentlyÏrepresent€the€defendant€unless€there€was€funding€for€an€DNA€expert.€€AttorneyÏRaybin€reasoned€that€defense€counsel€could€generally€educate€himself€sufficientlyÏto€manage€most€types€of€expert€testimony€but€could€not€do€so€in€a€DNA€case€due€toÏthe€uniqueness€of€that€type€of€evidence.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€took€the€motion€underÏadvisement.€€A€few€weeks€later,€a€second€hearing€was€held€wherein€defenseÏcounsel€submitted€affidavits€detailing€proposed€experts€and€the€fees€they€wouldÏcharge.€€Afterward,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€denying€the€funds.€€The€trial€courtÏinitially€determined€that€while€due€process€required€equal€treatment€of€indigent€andÏnon„indigent€defendants,€the€Constitution€was€not€abridged€because€some€non„¼indigent€defendants€would€not€be€able€to€afford€a€DNA€expert.€€The€trial€court€furtherÐ 8¸.4 Ðruled€that€the€appointment€of€a€DNA€expert€fell€in€"the€category€of€a€luxuriousÏdefense,€not€an€adequate€one"€and€ruled€that€the€defendant€failed€to€demonstrate€aÏparticularized€necessity,€noting€that€defense€counsel€appeared€to€be€knowledgeableÏabout€the€technology€involved.€€At€the€time€of€the€trial€court's€ruling,€some€of€the€testÏresults€were€inconclusive.€€Some€of€the€tests€results€were€arguably€favorable€to€theÏdefendant€because€they€showed€that€hair€removed€from€the€victim's€rectumÏbelonged€to€the€victim,€not€the€defendant.€€While€the€trial€court€observed€that€theÏ"fiscal€burden€on€the€State€would€be€astronomical"€and€that€the€"large€fiscal€burdenÏof€the€State€far€outweighs€any€risk€of€misidentification,"€the€court€also€ordered€thatÏall€experts€that€would€be€called€by€the€state€"must€be€made€available€to€defenseÏcounsel€for€in„depth€interviews€about€their€test€data,€interpretations,€and€protocolsÏwithout€the€presence€of€counsel€for€the€State."ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThree€weeks€before€the€trial,€defense€counsel€filed€a€renewed€motion,Ïadvising€the€trial€court€that€subsequent€testing€by€the€FBI€on€the€hairs€removed€fromÏthe€victim's€rectum€indicated€the€hairs€belonged€to€the€defendant,€not€the€victim.€ÏThe€trial€court€denied€the€motion.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAt€the€motion€for€new€trial,€the€trial€court€found€that€an€expert€was€notÏnecessary€for€several€reasons.€€First,€the€DNA€was€not€"all€that€crucial"€to€the€state'sÏcase€against€the€defendant.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€state€established€a€strongÏcircumstantial€case€against€the€defendant,€notwithstanding€the€victim's€inability€toÏidentify€the€defendant€at€the€lineup.€€Next,€the€court€reasoned,€defense€counsel€wasÏable€to€prepare€its€case€without€the€expert:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓ[Defense€counsel]€did€an€exceptional€job€in€this€case,Ïboth€in€all€the€motions€and€otherwise,€provided€this€CourtÏwith€a€great€deal€of€technical€information€and€it€was€alsoÏclear€by€his€cross„examination€of€the€experts€that€he€wasÏvery€knowledgeable€about€these€issues,€managed€to€getÏin€front€of€the€jury€some€clearly€impeachable€issuesÐ þ8ž/5 Ðhaving€to€do€with€protocols,€the€fact€that€the€FBI€AgencyÏis€not€certified;€how€unique€this€is;€I€think€doing€anÏexceptional€job€with€this€regard€....ÌÌÒ4ä –bÒÒXˆbÒÓ¤bÓThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court's€ruling€deprived€him€of€due€process€of€lawÏand€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€The€state€argues€the€trial€court€did€notÏabuse€its€discretion€by€denying€the€services.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€òòAke€v.€Oklahomaóó,€470€U.S.€68€(1985),€the€Supreme€Court€held€thatÐ (È  Ðan€indigent€defendant's€right€to€due€process€had€been€violated€by€a€denial€of€fundsÏto€employ€a€psychiatrist.€€In€òòAkeóó,€a€capital€case,€although€the€defense€was€insanity,Ð À` Ðneither€the€state€nor€the€defense€offered€any€expert€testimony€on€the€defendant'sÏsanity€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€òòId.óó€at€72.€€The€Supreme€Court€ruled€that€"when€aÐ Xø Ðdefendant€has€made€a€preliminary€showing€that€his€sanity€at€the€time€of€the€offenseÏis€likely€to€be€a€significant€factor€at€trial,€the€Constitution€requires€that€a€StateÏprovide€access€to€a€psychiatrist's€assistance€on€this€issue€if€the€defendant€cannotÏotherwise€afford€one."€€òòId.óó€at€75.€€The€Court€reasoned€that€fundamental€fairnessÐ ˆ"( Ðwould€not€be€met€if€"as€a€result€of€his€poverty,€a€defendant€is€denied€the€opportunityÏto€participate€meaningfully"€in€his€trial.€€òòId.óó€at€76.€€The€state€is€required€to€takeÐ  &À  Ðminimal€steps€"to€assure€that€the€defendant€has€a€fair€opportunity€to€present€hisÏdefense"€and€must€provide€"'the€basic€tools€of€an€adequate€defense.'"€€òòId.óó€at€76,€77Ð ¸)X $ Ð(quoting€òòBritt€v.€North€Carolinaóó,€404€U.S.€226,€227€(1971)).Ð „+$"& ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€Court€ruled€that€the€following€factors€are€relevant€in€determiningÏwhether€an€indigent€defendant€is€entitled€to€services:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓThe€first€[factor]€is€the€private€interest€that€will€be€affectedÏby€the€action€of€the€State.€€The€second€is€theÏgovernmental€interest€that€will€be€affected€if€theÏsafeguard€is€to€be€provided.€€The€third€is€the€probableÏvalue€of€the€additional€or€substitute€proceduralÏsafeguards€that€are€sought,€and€the€risk€of€an€erroneousÏdeprivation€of€the€affected€interest€if€those€safeguardsÏare€not€provided.Ð þ8ž/5 ЇÒ4ä °kÒÒX¢kÒÓ¾kÓòòId.óó€at€77.€€Ð `  ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€Court€noted€that€an€individual's€liberty€interest€is€"uniquelyÏcompelling."€€òòId.óó€€The€Court€also€acknowledged€the€state's€economic€interest€butÐ Äd Ðruled€that€"where€the€potential€accuracy€of€the€jury's€determination€is€so€dramaticallyÏenhanced€...,€the€State's€interest€in€its€fisc€must€yield."€€òòId.óó€at€83.€€Finally,€the€CourtÐ \ü  Ðnoted€that€"the€assistance€of€a€psychiatrist€to€conduct€a€professional€examination€onÏissues€relevant€to€the€defense,€to€help€determine€whether€the€insanity€defense€isÏviable,€to€present€testimony,€and€to€assist€in€preparing€the€cross„examination€of€aÏState's€psychiatric€witnesses"€enhances€the€fact„finding€process€and€allows€the€juryÏto€make€a€"sensible€determination"€on€the€sanity€issue.€€òòId.óó€at€83.Ð Xø ÐÌà Œ àà ä àòòAkeóó€left€open€two€œquestionñîñsñîñ:›€€whether€due€process€would€require€theÐ ð Ðappointment€of€an€expert€in€a€non„capital€case;€and€whether€due€process€wouldÏrequire€the€provision€of€non„psychiatric€services.€€Our€supreme€court,€however,€hasÏruled€that€the€reasoning€of€òòAkeóó€applies€in€non„capital€cases.€€òòState€v.€Barnettóó,€909Ð T$ô ÐS.W.2d€423,€427€(Tenn.€1995)€(citing€with€approval€the€reasoning€of€òòState€v.Ð  &À  ÐEdwardsóó,€868€S.W.2d€682,€697€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€("due€process€...€appliesÐ ì'Œ" Ðwhether€the€death€penalty€is€sought€or€not")).€€In€òòEdwardsóó,€this€court€also€ruled€thatÐ ¸)X $ Ðthe€reasoning€of€òòAkeóó€could€apply€to€a€claim€for€non„psychiatric€services.€€UponÐ „+$"& Ðreviewing€a€claim€that€a€defendant's€due€process€rights€were€violated€by€the€trialÏcourt's€failure€to€appoint€a€DNA€expert,€the€court€ruled€as€follows:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓThe€test,€we€think,€is€whether€the€indigent€defendant€hasÏdemonstrated€before€trial€the€necessity€of€expertÏassistance€upon€an€issue€likely€to€be€significant€at€trial.€ÏThe€burden€is€upon€the€defendant€to€establish€that€theÏexpert€would€be€of€material€assistance€in€theÏestablishment€of€his€defense€theory:€"[M]ere€hope€orÏsuspicion€that€favorable€evidence€is€available€is€notÏenough€to€require€that€such€help€be€provided."€€€ÌÌÒ4ä ÿtÒÒXñtÒÓ uÓòòEdwardsóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€697€(quoting€òòState€v.€Parksóó,€331€N.C.€649,€658€(N.C.Ð þ8ž/5 Ð1992)).€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€1997,€Supreme€Court€Rule€13€was€amended€to€govern€the€provisionÏof€"investigative€or€expert€services€or€other€similar€services€...€necessary€to€ensureÏthat€the€constitutional€rights€of€the€defendant€are€properly€protected."€€From€all€this,Ïit€is€our€assessment€that€an€òòAkeóó€claim€may€extend€to€non„psychiatric€services.€€òòSeeÐ \ü  Ðalsoóó€òòHusske€v.€Commonwealthóó,€476€S.E.2d€920€(Va.€1996);€òòDubose€v.€Stateóó,€662Ð (È  ÐSo.2d€1189€(Ala.€1995)€(both€cases€where€the€court€ruled€due€process€may€requireÏthe€provision€of€a€non„psyciatric€expert).€€In€òòBarnettóó,€the€court€established€severalÐ À` Ðguidelines€for€how€to€litigate€the€issue.€€First,€an€òòexóó€òòparteóó€hearing€is€appropriate.€Ð Œ, ÐFunding€should€only€be€granted€when€the€defendant€establishes€a€"particularizedÏneed."€€òòBarnettóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€320.€€"'[U]ndeveloped€assertions€that€the€servicesÐ $Ä Ð[are]€needed€to€attempt€to€counter€the€State's€proof'"€will€not€suffice.€€òòId.óó€(quotingÐ ð ÐòòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€261€(Tenn.€1994)).€€The€form€of€the€motion€shouldÐ ¼ \ Ðcomply€with€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€Rule€13€ðð€2(B)(10).€€The€reasoning€of€the€court's€priorÏcases€interpreting€the€statute€governing€provision€of€services€in€capital€cases€wouldÏapply€to€cases€where€services€are€sought€in€non„capital€cases€œon€due›€processÏgrounds.€€òòBarnettóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€431.€€òòSee€generallyóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„14„Ð ì'Œ" Ð207(b).€€The€standard€of€review€of€a€trial€court's€decision€to€grant€or€deny€funds€isÏwhether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion.€€òòBarnettóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€431.€€€Ð „+$"& Ѐ€€Ìà Œ àà ä àIt€is€our€view€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€refusingÏto€appoint€an€expert€in€this€instance.€€The€defendant's€express€purpose€for€theÏappointment€of€an€expert€was€to€assist€in€reviewing€lab€reports,€providing€instructionÏupon€the€underlying€theory€and€methodology,€referral€to€helpful€sources€of€literatureÏand€to€suggest€appropriate€lines€of€questioning.€€The€record,€however,€supports€theÏtrial€court's€evaluation€of€defense€counsel's€performance€at€trial.€€He€ably€cross„Ð 8¸.4 Ðexamined€the€state's€expert€witnesses€and€communicated€the€weaknesses€in€theÏDNA€evidence€to€the€jury.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€From€our€review,€little€else€could€have€beenÐ , Ì Ðaccomplished€by€an€expert's€guidance€in€recognizing€weaknesses€in€the€DNAÏtechnology.€€Stated€more€simply,€the€defense€did€not€establish€a€"particularizedÏneed"€for€an€expert€in€preparing€defense€counsel€for€trial.€€òòBarnettóó,€909€S.W.2d€atÐ 0 Ð320.€€Moreover,€we€also€agree€with€the€trial€court's€finding€that€the€DNA€evidenceÏwas€not€crucial€to€the€state's€case.€€While€the€victim€was€unable€to€identify€theÏdefendant€at€a€pretrial€lineup,€she€showed€authorities€his€residence€where€theÏdefendant€was€found€by€police.€€The€defendant€had€recently€changed€from€hisÏmuddy€clothing€and€witnesses€who€shared€the€residence€testified€to€the€defendant'sÏstrange€behavior€following€the€incident.€€Finally,€the€clerk€at€the€Revco€recalled€thatÏthe€defendant€had€left€the€store€only€moments€before€the€assault.€€In€summary,Ïthere€was€strong€evidence€of€guilt€without€the€DNA€evidence€and€the€DNA€evidenceÏpresented€was€not€entirely€persuasive€in€view€of€the€fact€that€LabCorp's€testing€ofÏthe€hair€samples€was€clearly€erroneous.€€Thus,€there€was€no€error.€ÌÌà@DD.Úàœ(III)ˆÌ›à Œ àà ä àThe€next€issue€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€conduct€aÏpretrial€hearing€on€the€admissibility€of€mitochondrial€DNA€evidence.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Prior€to€trial,Ð ¸)X $ Ðthe€trial€court€denied€a€defense€motion€for€a€hearing.€€At€trial,€FBI€Agent€MarkÏWilson€testified€that€mitochondrial€analysis€on€a€hair€removed€from€the€victim's€innerÏthigh€indicated€the€hair€came€from€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€contends€thatÏadmission€of€this€evidence€without€a€pretrial€hearing€deprived€him€of€due€process€ofÏlaw.Ð ´2T). Їà Œ àà ä àAlmost€eighty€years€ago,€in€the€landmark€case€of€òòFrye€v.€UnitedÐ `  ÐStatesóó,€293€F.€1013€(D.C.Cir.€1923),€it€was€established€that€scientific€evidenceÐ , Ì Ðwould€be€admissible€only€when€it€had€"gained€general€acceptance€in€the€particularÏfield€in€which€it€belongs."€€òòId.óó€at€1014.€€This€rule€was€followed€by€Tennessee€as€wellÐ Äd Ðas€the€majority€of€other€federal€and€state€jurisdictions.€€òòSeeóó€òòMcDaniel€v.€CSXÐ 0 ÐTransp.,€Inc.óó,€955€S.W.2d€257,€262€(Tenn.€1997).€€Ð \ü  ÐÌà Œ àà ä àIn€1993,€however,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€ruled€that€òòFryeóóÐ ô”  Ðhad€been€superseded€by€the€Federal€Rules€of€Evidence.€€òòDaubert€v.€Merrell€DowÐ À` ÐPharmaceuticalsóó,€509€U.S.€579€(1993);€òòseeóó€Fed.€R.€Evid.€702.€€Under€the€federalÐ Œ, Ðrules,€trial€courts€are€required€to€determine€"whether€the€reasoning€or€methodologyÏunderlying€the€testimony€is€scientifically€valid€and€...€can€be€applied€to€the€facts€inÏissue."€€òòDaubertóó,€509€U.S.€at€€592.€€A€list€of€factors€relevant€to€this€determinationÐ ð Ðincludes€whether€the€scientific€theory€has€been€tested€and€subject€to€peer€review,Ïwhether€there€is€a€known€rate€of€error,€and€whether€it€is€generally€accepted€in€theÏscientific€field.€€òòId.óó€€Ð T$ô ÐÌà Œ àà ä àAfter€the€òòDaubertóó€opinion,€there€was€some€confusion€in€TennesseeÐ ì'Œ" Ðabout€the€admissibility€requirements€for€scientific€evidence.€€Recently,€however,€ourÏsupreme€court€clarified€the€guidelines€for€determining€the€admissibility€of€scientificÏevidence.€€In€òòMcDanielóó,€the€high€court€ruled€that€"Tennessee's€adoption€of€RulesÐ P-ð#( Ð702€and€703€...€as€part€of€the€Rules€of€Evidence€supersede[s]€the€generalÏacceptance€test€of€òòFryeóó."€€955€S.W.2d€at€265.€€Rule€702,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€provides,€inÐ è0ˆ', Ðpart:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓà < àIf€scientific,€technical,€or€other€specializedÏknowledge€will€substantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact€toÏunderstand€the€evidence€or€to€determine€a€fact€in€issue,Ïa€witness€qualified€as€an€expert€by€knowledge,€skill,Ïexperience,€training,€or€education€may€testify€in€the€formÏof€an€opinion€or€otherwise.Ð þ8ž/5 ЇÒ4ä 4ÒÒX&ÒÓBÓRule€703,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€provides€as€follows:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓà < àThe€facts€or€data€in€the€particular€case€upon€whichÏan€expert€bases€an€opinion€or€inference€may€be€thoseÏperceived€by€or€made€known€to€the€expert€at€or€beforeÏthe€hearing.€€If€of€a€type€reasonably€relied€upon€byÏexperts€in€the€particular€field€in€forming€opinions€orÏinferences€upon€the€subject,€the€facts€or€data€need€notÏbe€admissible€in€evidence.€€The€court€shall€disallowÏtestimony€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€inference€if€theÏunderlying€facts€or€data€indicate€lack€of€trustworthiness.ÌÌÒ4ä ’ÒÒX ’ÒÓ(’ÓIn€interpreting€these€rules,€our€supreme€court€observed€that€the€"rules€togetherÏnecessarily€require€a€determination€as€to€the€scientific€validity€or€reliability€of€theÏevidence€...€but€there€is€no€requirement€in€the€rule€that€it€be€generally€accepted."€ÏòòMcDanielóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€265.€€The€court€held€that€the€following€factors€would€beÐ Œ, Ðuseful€in€determining€whether€scientific€evidence€is€reliable€or€valid:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓ(1)€€whether€scientific€evidence€has€been€tested€and€theÏmethodology€with€which€it€has€been€tested;€Ì(2)€€whether€the€evidence€has€been€subjected€to€peerÏreview€or€publication;€Ì(3)€€whether€a€potential€rate€of€error€is€known;€Ì(4)€€whether,€as€formerly€required€by€òòFryeóó,€the€evidenceÐ ¢!B Ðis€generally€accepted€in€the€scientific€community;€and€Ì(5)€€whether€the€expert's€research€in€the€field€has€beenÏconducted€independent€of€litigation.ÌÌÒ4ä ,–ÒÒX–ÒÓ:–ÓòòId.óó€at€265.Ð  &À  ÐÌà Œ àà ä àIn€addition€to€the€requirements€of€òòMcDanielóó,€however,€Tennessee€hasÐ ¸)X $ Ða€statute€governing€the€admissibility€of€DNA,€which€provides,€in€part,€as€follows:¹ÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓ(a)€As€used€in€this€section,€unless€the€context€otherwiseÏrequires,€"DNA€analysis"€means€the€process€throughÏwhich€deoxyribonucleic€acid€(DNA)€in€a€human€biologicalÏspecimen€is€analyzed€and€compared€with€DNA€fromÏanother€biological€specimen€for€identification€purposes.ÌÌ(b)(1)€In€any€civil€or€criminal€trial,€hearing€or€proceeding,Ïòòthe€results€of€DNA€analysis,€as€defined€in€subsection€(a),Ð š3:*/ Ðare€admissible€in€evidence€without€antecedent€expertÏtestimony€that€DNA€analysis€provides€a€trustworthy€andÏreliable€method€of€identifying€characteristics€in€anÏindividual's€genetic€material€upon€a€showing€that€theÏoffered€testimony€meets€the€standards€of€admissibilityÏset€forth€in€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidenceóó.Ð þ8ž/5 Ð(2)€Nothing€in€this€section€shall€be€construed€asÏprohibiting€any€party€in€a€civil€or€criminal€trial€fromÏoffering€proof€that€DNA€analysis€does€not€provide€aÏtrustworthy€and€reliable€method€of€identifyingÏcharacteristics€in€an€individual's€genetic€material,€norÏshall€it€prohibit€a€party€from€cross„examining€the€otherÏparty's€expert€as€to€the€lack€of€trustworthiness€andÏreliability€of€such€analysis.ÌÌÒ4ä R™ÒÒXD™ÒÓ`™ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ24„7„11ñïñ8ñïñ›œñðñ7ñðñ›€(emphasis€added).ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€òòState€v.€Begleyóó,€956€S.W.2d€471€(Tenn.€1997),€our€supreme€courtÐ ®  Ðexplained€how€to€apply€the€òòMcDanielóó€requirements€in€light€of€the€statute€governingÐ Úz  Ðthe€admissibility€of€DNA€evidence.€€In€òòBegleyóó,€where€the€admissibility€of€PCR€DNAÐ ¦F Ðtesting€was€at€issue,€the€court€explained€that€the€purpose€of€the€statute€was€"to€easeÏthe€admission€of€DNA€evidence€in€Tennessee."€€òòId.óó€at€476.€€It€held€that€all€of€theÐ >Þ ÐòòMcDanielóó€requirements€must€be€met,€except€that€a€"judicial€determination€of€theÐ  ª Ðscientific€reliability€of€the€evidence€is€unnecessary"€because€the€"evidence€isÏstatutorily€regarded€as€trustworthy€and€reliable"€and€concluded€that€"the€PCRÏmethod€of€DNA€analysis€shall€be€admissible€into€evidence€without€expert€testimonyÏas€to€its€trustworthiness€and€reliability€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€24„7„¼117(b)(1)."€€òòId.óó€at€477,€478.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð '¦! ÐÌà Œ àà ä àBased€upon€the€ruling€in€òòMcDanielóó,€as€interpreted€by€òòBegleyóó,€it€is€ourÐ ž*>!% Ðview€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€by€refusing€to€hold€a€hearing€on€the€admissibilityÏof€mitochondrial€DNA€evidence.€€The€initial€question€is€whether€the€DNA€evidence€isÏrelevant€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€òòBegleyóó,€956€S.W.2d€at€475.€€Because€identityÐ 0¢&+ Ðwas€an€issue€at€trial,€the€DNA€evidence€was€relevant€because€it€tended€to€suggestÏthe€defendant€was€the€assailant.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€477.€€We€must€also€€determine€whetherÐ š3:*/ ÐAgent€Wilson€was€appropriately€qualified€as€an€expert€and€whether€his€testimonyÏassisted€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€476„77;€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702.€€With€a€Master€of€ArtsÐ , Ì Ðdegree€in€biology€and€employment€in€the€FBI€Laboratory€since€1990,€Agent€WilsonÏis€certified€as€a€Mitochondrial€DNA€Analyst€and€has€published€approximately€thirteenÏpapers€dealing€with€forensic€DNA€analysis.€€He€was€able€to€explain€the€testingÏprocess€to€the€jury€as€well€as€the€results€of€the€testing.€€For€these€reasons,€we€mustÏconclude€Agent€Wilson€was€appropriately€qualified€as€an€expert€and€that€hisÏtestimony€assisted€the€jury.€€Furthermore,€the€evidence€is€statutorily€regarded€asÏreliable.€€òòId.óó€at€476€(discussing€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€24„7„117).€€All€of€the€elements€ofÐ À` Ðthe€òòMcDanielóó€analysis€have€been€satisfied.€€The€trial€court€did€not€abuse€itsÐ Œ, Ðdiscretion€by€admitting€the€evidence.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€complains,€however,€that€neither€òòMcDanielóó,€òòBegleyóó,€norÐ ð Ðthe€terms€of€the€statute€authorize€the€admission€of€novel€scientific€evidence€withoutÏa€showing€that€the€evidence€is€reliable.€€He€contends€that€the€mitochondrialÏtechnique€was€not€developed€until€June,€1996,€and€that€this€case€is€only€the€fourthÏin€the€country€in€which€this€type€of€evidence€has€been€admitted.€€The€defendantÏargues€that€the€portion€of€the€DNA€statute€which€provides€that€the€evidence€isÏadmissible€"upon€a€showing€that€the€...€testimony€meets€the€standards€ofÏadmissibility€set€forth€in€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence"€requires€that€the€stateÏshow€the€evidence€is€scientifically€reliable.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€24„7„117(b)(1).€€Ð P-ð#( ÐÌà Œ àà ä àIn€our€view,€however,€interpretation€of€the€statute€is€governed€by€theÏsupreme€court's€ruling€in€òòBegleyóó.€€In€that€case,€the€court€interpreted€the€statute€asÐ ´2T). Ðfollows:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓ[DNA]€evidence€is€statutorily€regarded€as€trustworthy€andÏreliable.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€24„7„117Ïexempts€DNA€evidence€from€the€trial€court's€Ïdetermination€under€Rule€703€of€whether€it€provides€aÐ þ8ž/5 Ðtrustworthy€and€reliable€method€of€identifyingÏcharacteristics€in€an€individual's€genetic€material.€ÏConsequently,€a€judicial€determination€of€the€scientificÏreliability€of€the€evidence€is€unnecessary.ÌÌÒ4ä w¬ÒÒXi¬ÒÓ…¬Ó956€S.W.2d€at€477.€€That€ruling€controls€in€this€instance.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€PaulÐ Þ ~ ÐWilliam€Wareóó,€No.€03C01„9705„CR„00164,€slip€op.€at€26„35€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€atÐ ªJ ÐKnoxville,€Apr.€20,€1999)€(the€first€appellate€opinion€in€Tennessee€to€holdÏmitochondrial€DNA€test€results€are€admissible).€ÌÌÓ  Ó(IV)ÌÓô¯Óà Œ àà ä àThe€next€issue€is€whether€the€state€established€the€chain€of€custodyÏfor€microscopic€slides€containing€hair€taken€from€the€victim's€genital€area.€€The€basisÏfor€the€defendant's€argument€is€Detective€Kleek's€testimony€that€he€mailed€the€hairsÏto€the€FBI€in€an€envelope€and€they€were€returned€mounted€on€slides.€€He€contendsÏthere€is€a€missing€link€in€the€chain€of€custody€because€there€is€no€proof€in€the€recordÏas€to€who€placed€the€hairs€on€the€slides.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àTenn.€R.€Evid.€901(a)€requires€that€tangible€evidence€be€authenticatedÏand€provides€as€follows:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓThe€requirement€of€authentication€or€identification€as€aÏcondition€precedent€to€admissibility€is€satisfied€byÏevidence€sufficient€to€the€court€to€support€a€finding€by€theÏtrier€of€fact€that€the€matter€in€question€is€what€itsÏproponent€claims.€€ÌÌÒ4ä {²ÒÒXm²ÒÓ‰²ÓIn€determining€the€admissibility€of€tangible€evidence,€the€rule€does€not€requireÏabsolute€certainty€of€identification.€€It€is€sufficient€if€the€facts€establish€a€reasonableÏassurance€of€the€identity€of€the€evidence.€€òòRitter€v.€Stateóó,€462€S.W.2d€247€(Tenn.Ð Î1n(- ÐCrim.€App.€1970).€€Whether€the€proof€sufficiently€establishes€the€chain€of€custody€isÏa€matter€committed€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòId.óó€at€249.€€à ¤ àÐ f5,1 ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€purpose€of€the€chain€of€custody€requirement€is€to€"demonstrateÐ þ8ž/5 Ðthat€there€has€been€no€tampering,€loss,€substitution,€or€mistake€with€respect€to€theÏevidence."€€òòState€v.€Bradenóó,€867€S.W.2d€750,€759€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€AÐ , Ì Ðleading€treatise€on€Tennessee's€evidence€law€has€explained€the€type€of€proofÏrequired€to€establish€the€chain€of€custody:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓThe€concept€of€"chain"€of€custody€recognizes€that€realÏevidence€is€typically€handled€by€more€than€one€personÏbetween€the€time€it€is€obtained€and€the€time€it€is€eitherÏintroduced€into€evidence€or€subjected€to€scientificÏanalysis.€€Obviously,€any€of€these€persons€might€haveÏthe€opportunity€to€tamper€with,€confuse,€misplace,Ïdamage,€substitute,€lose€and€replace,€or€otherwise€alterÏthe€evidence€or€observe€another€doing€so.€€Each€personÏwho€has€custody€or€control€of€the€evidence€during€thisÏtime€is€a€"link"€in€the€chain€of€custody.€€Generally,Ïtestimony€from€each€link€is€needed€to€verify€theÏauthenticity€of€the€evidence€and€to€show€that€it€is€what€itÏpurports€to€be.€€Each€link€in€the€chain€testifies€aboutÏwhen,€where,€and€how€possession€or€control€of€theÏevidence€was€obtained;€its€condition€upon€receipt;€whereÏthe€item€was€kept;€how€it€was€safeguarded,€if€at€all;€anyÏchanges€during€possession;€and€when,€where€and€how€itÏleft€the€witness's€possession.€€ÌÌÒ4ä \·ÒÒXN·ÒÓj·ÓNeil€P.€Cohen,€et€al.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€623„24€(3d€ed.€1995).€€AlthoughÐ ¢!B Ðthe€chain€of€custody€does€not€have€to€be€established€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,Ïthere€has€been€absolutely€no€proof€as€to€how€the€hairs€were€mounted€on€the€slidesÏor€the€person€responsible.€€In€our€view,€there€is€a€"missing€link"€in€the€chain.€ÏBecause€the€defense€filed€a€pretrial€motion€to€exclude€the€evidence€on€this€basis,Ïthe€state€had€the€opportunity€to€present€the€evidence€necessary€to€complete€theÏchain.€€€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€error€was€harmless,€however.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€TheÐ 0¢&+ ÐDNA€testimony€based€on€tests€of€the€hairs€was€inconsistent€and€confusing.€€OneÏexpert€testified€the€hairs€could€have€come€from€the€victim.€€Another€expert€testifiedÏthe€hairs€could€have€come€from€the€defendant.€€Given€the€conflicting€nature€of€theÏtestimony,€it€is€unlikely€that€the€jury€placed€much€weight€on€that€evidence.€€Thus,Ïadmission€of€the€evidence€absent€an€adequate€chain€of€custody€did€not€affect€theÐ þ8ž/5 Ðresults€of€the€trial.€€€ÌÌÓ  Ó(V)ÌÓÈ¿Óà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€admittedÏas€exceptions€to€the€hearsay€rule€out€of€court€statements€by€the€victim.€€He€arguesÏthat€there€is€no€proof€that€the€excited€utterance€exception€applies€because€theÏstatements€were€neither€spontaneous€nor€excitedly€made.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àOfficer€Albert€Haas,€the€first€officer€to€arrive€at€the€victim's€residenceÏafter€the€assault,€recalled€that€the€victim€began€to€cry€when€he€attempted€toÏquestion€her€about€the€events.€€The€victim€confided€in€Officer€Jenine€Sarno€whoÏarrived€a€short€time€later.€€Officer€Haas,€who€did€not€overhear€the€statements€madeÏby€the€victim€to€Officer€Sarno,€testified€that€the€victim€told€her€about€the€crime€scene.€ÏThe€defendant€objected,€contending€there€were€multiple€layers€of€hearsay.€€The€trialÏcourt€allowed€the€testimony,€finding€it€was€admissible€under€the€excited€utteranceÏexception€to€the€hearsay€rule.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àWhen€Officer€Sarno€was€called€to€testify,€she€related€that€the€victimÏinformed€her€that€a€black€male€left€his€residence€on€Chicamauga€and€followed€her€toÏthe€store.€€The€victim€recalled€to€the€officers€that€when€she€left€the€store,€the€sameÏman€followed€her,€grabbed€her€from€behind,€covered€her€mouth,€took€her€behind€aÏshed,€and€ordered€her€to€remove€her€pants.€€The€victim€also€told€Officer€Sarno€thatÏwhen€she€tried€to€run,€the€man€threw€a€rock€at€her,€striking€her€in€the€back,€afterÏwhich€he€subdued€and€raped€her.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àHearsay€"is€a€statement,€other€than€one€made€by€the€declarant€whileÏtestifying€at€the€trial€or€hearing,€offered€in€evidence€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matterÐ 8¸.4 Ðasserted,"€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€801(c),€and€is€generally€inadmissible.€€"The€following€areÏnot€excluded€by€the€hearsay€rule:€€[a]€statement€relating€to€a€startling€event€orÏcondition€made€while€the€declarant€was€under€the€stress€of€excitement€caused€byÏthe€event€or€condition."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(2).€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€our€view,€the€testimony€by€Officer€Haas€that€the€victim€told€OfficerÏSarno,€out€of€Officer€Haas'€presence,€where€the€crime€scene€was,€would€not€beÏadmissible€under€the€excited€utterance€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule.€€While€theÏvictim's€statements€to€Officer€Sarno€would€qualify€as€an€excited€utterance,€there€isÏno€hearsay€exception€to€address€the€next€layer€of€hearsay,€where€Officer€SarnoÏapparently€repeated€the€information€to€Officer€Haas.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€courtÏerred€by€admitting€this€evidence.€€Again,€however,€the€error€qualifies€as€harmless.€ÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€This€testimony€was€only€a€small€portion€of€the€state's€caseÏand€the€jury€heard€admissible€evidence€about€the€crime€scene€from€other€witnesses.€Ï€€Ìà Œ àà ä àOfficers€arrived€at€the€victim's€residence€within€minutes€of€the€attack.€ÏWhen€Officer€Haas€saw€the€victim€she€was€"curled€up€in€a€chair€...€and€she€seemedÏvery€scared€...€crying€...€[t]ears€were€rolling€out€of€her€eyes€and€she€was€shaking."€ÏOfficer€Sarno€also€described€the€victim€as€upset€and€crying,€thereby€establishingÏthat€the€victim€was€still€under€the€"stress"€of€the€attack.€€In€òòState€v.€Gordonóó,€952Ð „+$"& ÐS.W.2d€817,€820„21€(Tenn.€1997),€our€supreme€court€ruled€that€statements€made€inÏresponse€to€questions€may€be€admissible€if€the€declarant€is€still€under€the€stress€ofÏthe€incident.€€The€proof€establishes€the€victim€was€visibly€shaken€at€the€time€theÏstatements€to€Officer€Sarno€were€made.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€by€allowingÏher€testimony.Ì€€Ð  L6ì,2 ÐñÖñÌñÖñÓ  Ó(VI)ÌÓûÍÓà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€next€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€instructingÏthe€jury€that€an€inference€of€guilt€arises€if€the€accused€attempts€to€conceal€evidence.€ÏOver€defense€counsel's€objection,€the€trial€court€gave€the€following€instruction:€ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓAny€attempt€by€an€accused€to€conceal€or€destroyÏevidence€is€relevant€as€a€circumstance€from€which€guiltÏof€the€accused€may€be€inferred.€€The€Court€has€chargedÏthe€jury€concerning€an€inference€that€the€jury€may€makeÏin€regard€to€certain€evidence€in€this€case.€€However,€theÏjury€is€not€required€to€make€this€inference.€€It€is€theÏexclusive€province€of€the€jury€to€determine€whether€theÏfacts€and€circumstances€shown€by€all€the€evidence€in€theÏcase€warrant€the€inference€which€the€law€permits€the€juryÏto€draw.€€The€inference€may€be€rebutted€by€direct€orÏcircumstantial€evidence€or€both,€whether€it€exists€in€theÏevidence€of€the€State€or€is€offered€by€the€defendant.€€TheÏState€must€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€everyÏelement€of€the€offense€before€the€defendant€can€beÏfound€guilty.ÌÌÒ4ä 5ÏÒÒX'ÏÒÓCÏÓThe€defendant€contends€the€evidence€did€not€support€the€instruction€and€that€theÏinstruction€was€an€impermissible€judicial€comment€on€the€evidence.€€We€do€notÏagree.€€ÌÌÔ‡XîXXXîÔà Œ àà ä àÔ#†XîXXXîIÓ#ÔÔ‡XîXXXîÔThe€trial€judge€has€a€duty€"to€give€a€complete€charge€of€the€lawÐ  &À  Ðapplicable€to€the€facts€of€a€case."€€òòState€v.€Harbisonóó,€704€S.W.2d€314,€319€(Tenn.Ð ì'Œ" Ð1986);€òòseeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€30.€€"[T]he€defendant€has€a€constitutional€right€to€aÐ ¸)X $ Ðcorrect€and€complete€charge€of€the€law."€€òòState€v.€Teelóó,€793€S.W.2d€236,€249€(Tenn.Ð „+$"& Ð1990).€€Jury€instructions€must,€however,€be€reviewed€in€the€context€of€the€overallÏcharge€rather€than€in€isolation.€€òòSandstrom€v.€Montanaóó,€442€U.S.€510€(1979);€òòseeóóÐ /¼%* ÐòòState€v.€Phippsóó,€883€S.W.2d€138,€142€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).Ô#†XîXXXî£Ó#ÔÔ‡XîXXXîÔ€€Erroneous€juryÐ è0ˆ', Ðinstructions€require€a€reversal€unless€the€error€is€harmless€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€òòState€v.€Carpenteróó,€773€S.W.2d€1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€Ð €4 +0 ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€instruction€here€was€a€correct€statement€of€the€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòTillery€v.Ð 8¸.4 ÐStateóó,€565€S.W.2d€509,€511€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€Furthermore,€the€instructionÐ `  Ðwas€supported€by€the€evidence.€€Ms.€Gooch€testified€that€the€defendant€entered€theÏhome€and€tried€to€go€into€the€bathroom€to€change€clothes.€€When€he€could€not€gainÏaccess€to€the€bathroom,€he€changed€clothes€in€the€hallway.€€She€also€asserted€thatÏthe€defendant€hid€the€soiled€clothes€under€the€bed.€€The€defendant€complains€thatÏbecause€her€testimony€was€inconsistent€with€that€of€police€officers,€the€instructionÏshould€not€have€been€given.€€It€is,€however,€the€jury's€duty€to€resolve€conflicts€in€theÏevidence,€after€having€received€accurate€instructions.€€The€mere€fact€that€there€isÏconflicting€testimony€on€a€matter€of€importance€does€not€mean€the€jury€may€not€beÏinstructed€on€that€issue.€€Such€a€ruling€would€deprive€the€jury€of€its€essentialÏfunction,€which€is€to€determine€the€facts€of€the€case.€€Ô#†XîXXXî‰Ö#ÔòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€19Ð Xø Ð("[T]he€jury€shall€have€the€right€to€determine€the€law€and€the€facts,€under€theÏdirection€of€the€court,€as€in€other€criminal€cases").€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€the€instruction€amounted€to€a€judicialÏcomment€on€the€evidence.€€Ô‡XîXXXîÔThe€Tennessee€Constitution,€of€course,€prohibits€judgesÐ T$ô Ðfrom€any€comment€"with€regard€to€matters€of€fact."€€Tenn.€Const.€art.€VI,€ðð€9Ô#†XîXXXîéÜ#ÔÔ‡XîXXXîÔ;€òòStateÐ  &À  Ðv.€Suttlesóó,€767€S.W.2d€403,€406€(Tenn.€1989).€€The€aim€of€this€rule€is€to€avoid€givingÐ ì'Œ" Ð"the€jury€any€impression€as€to€his€feelings€or€to€make€any€statement€which€mightÏreflect€upon€the€weight€or€credibility€of€evidence€or€which€might€sway€the€jury."€ÏòòSuttlesóó,€767€S.W.2d€at€407;€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€823€S.W.2d€576€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð P-ð#( Ð1991).€€"It€is€natural€that€jurors€should€be€anxious€to€know€the€mind€of€the€court€andÏfollow€it.€€Therefore,€a€court€cannot€be€too€cautious€in€his€inquiries."€€òòMcDonald€v.Ð è0ˆ', ÐStateóó,€14€S.W.€487,€488€(Tenn.€1890).€€Ô#†XîXXXîÇÝ#ÔÐ ´2T). ÐÌà Œ àà ä àIn€our€view,€the€charge€did€not€amount€to€a€comment€on€the€evidence.€ÏThe€record€does€not€contain€any€indication€of€the€trial€court's€opinion€of€theÐ 8¸.4 Ðevidence.€€The€jury€was€properly€informed€that€it€had€complete€fact„finding€authority.€Ï€Ìà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant's€final€complaint€about€the€instruction€is€that€it€permittedÏthe€jury€to€draw€an€inference€from€another€inference.€€He€contends€the€jury€wouldÏfirst€have€to€infer€the€defendant€was€concealing€evidence€and€then€infer€thatÏbecause€he€was€doing€so,€he€was€guilty.€€It€is€true€that€"in€Tennessee€...€anÏinference€cannot€be€properly€drawn€from€another€inference."€€òòBenton€v.€Snyderóó,€825Ð (È  ÐS.W.2d€409,€414€(Tenn.€1992).€€Because,€however,€there€was€direct€evidence€thatÏthe€defendant€removed€the€soiled€clothing€and€then€hid€them€in€his€bedroom,€noÏ"double"€inference€is€required.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ô‡XîXXXîÔ€€€Ô#†XîXXXîbä#ÔÐ Œ, ÐÌÓ  Ó(VII)ÌÓ½äÓà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant's€next€issue€is€whether€separate€convictions€forÏaggravated€sexual€battery€and€rape€of€a€child€are€permissible.€€The€victim€testifiedÏthat€her€assailant€touched€her€front€"private€part"€with€his€finger€and€then€placed€hisÏpenis€inside€her€anus.€€The€touching€of€the€front€"private€part"€supported€theÏaggravated€sexual€battery€conviction,€while€the€penile€penetration€of€the€victim'sÏanus€was€the€basis€for€the€rape€of€a€child€conviction.€€The€defendant€contends€thatÏthe€acts€constituting€the€sexual€battery€were€incidental€to€the€rape€and€that€dualÏconvictions€violate€due€process€under€òòState€v.€Anthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€299€(Tenn.Ð „+$"& Ð1991),€as€well€his€right€to€be€free€from€multiple€punishments€under€the€DoubleÏJeopardy€Clause.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Dentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€373€(Tenn.€1996).€€We€cannotÐ /¼%* Ðagree.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€òòAnthonyóó,€our€supreme€court€addressed€the€issue€of€whether€dualÐ €4 +0 Ðconvictions€of€armed€robbery€and€aggravated€kidnapping€violated€the€due€processÏguarantees€of€Article€I,€Section€8€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€The€courtÐ 8¸.4 Ðconcluded€that€when€a€confinement,€movement,€or€detention€is€"essentiallyÏincidental"€to€the€accompanying€felony,€it€is€not€sufficient€to€support€a€separateÏconviction€for€kidnapping.€€òòAnthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€306.€€The€court€warned€that€theÐ ø ˜ Ðkidnapping€statute€should€be€narrowly€construed€"so€as€to€make€its€reachÏfundamentally€fair€and€to€protect€the€due€process€rights€of€every€citizen...."€€òòId.óóÐ 0 ÐÌà Œ à€à ä àOn€February€1,€1999,€after€the€briefs€were€filed€in€this€court,€ourÐ (È  Ðsupreme€court€released€its€opinion€in€òòState€v.€Barneyóó,€986€S.W.2d€545,€548€(Tenn.Ð ô”  Ð1999).€€The€court€ruled€that€òòAnthonyóó's€"essentially€incidental"€test€was€"not€helpful€inÐ À` Ðthe€context€of€sexual€offenses€because€each€separate€sexual€act€'is€capable€ofÏproducing€its€own€attendant€fear,€humiliation,€pain,€and€damage€to€the€victim.'"€òòId.óóÐ Xø Ð(quoting€òòState€v.€Phillipsóó,€924€S.W.2d€662,€665€(Tenn.€1996)).€€The€court,€instead,Ð $Ä Ðadopted€the€following€test,€taken€from€òòPeople€v.€Maderaóó,€231€Cal.€App.€3d€845,€282Ð ð ÐCal.€€Rptr.€674€(1991):ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓ[I]f€the€act€in€question€directly€facilitates€or€is€merelyÏincidental€to€the€accompanying€sexual€conduct€(such€as,Ïfor€example,€applying€lubricant€to€the€area€of€intendedÏcopulation),€convictions€for€both€acts€would€be€barred.€€If,Ïhowever,€the€act€in€question€is€"preparatory"€only€in€theÏsense€that€it€is€intended€to€sexually€arouse€either€theÏvictim€or€the€perpetrator,€separate€convictions€are€notÏbarred.ÌÒ4ä PîÒÒXBîÒÓ^îÓòòId.óó€at€548€(citations€omitted).€Ð ¸)X $ ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€court€ruled€the€following€factors€were€relevant€in€determiningÏwhether€an€act€was€facilitative,€and€thus€would€not€support€a€separate€conviction,€orÏis€intended€to€arouse€the€victim€or€perpetrator,€and€thus€would€support€a€separateÏconviction:ÌÒä 4ÒÒXÒÓÓ1.€€temporal€proximity„„the€greater€the€interval€betweenÏthe€acts,€the€more€likely€the€acts€are€separate;Ì2.€€spatial€proximity„„movement€or€re„positioning€tends€toÏsuggest€separate€acts;Ì3.€€occurrence€of€an€intervening€event„„an€interruptionÏtends€to€suggest€separate€acts;Ð þ8ž/5 Ð4.€€sequence€of€the€acts„„serial€penetration€of€differentÏorifices€as€distinguished€from€repeated€penetrations€ofÏthe€same€orifice€tends€to€suggest€separate€offenses;€andÌ5.€€the€defendant's€intent€as€evidenced€by€conduct€andÏstatements.ÌÌÒ4ä ñÒÒXžñÒÓ¬ñÓòòId.óó€at€548„49.Ð Äd ÐÌà Œ àà ä àIn€òòBarneyóó,€the€victim€testified€that€the€defendant€entered€his€bedroom,Ð \ü  Ðrubbed€the€victim's€penis€with€his€hand,€and€then€performed€fellatio€on€the€victim.€ÏòòId.óó€at€549.€€The€supreme€court€concluded€that€the€evidence€supported€dualÐ ô”  Ðconvictions.€€òòId.óó€€Ð À` ÐÌà Œ àà ä àApplying€the€test€established€in€òòBarneyóó,€it€is€our€conclusion€that€dueÐ Xø Ðprocess€does€not€bar€dual€convictions€in€this€case.€€The€first€factor,€temporalÏproximity,€weighs€against€dual€convictions.€€The€testimony€suggests€the€vaginalÏtouching€occurred€only€moments€before€the€penile€penetration.€€The€second€factor,Ïspatial€proximity,€supports€dual€convictions,€as€the€defendant€touched€separateÏparts€of€the€victim's€body.€€"Movement€or€repositioning"€would€be€required€fromÏtouching€the€victim's€vaginal€area€to€penile€penetration€of€her€anus.€€òòId.óó€€The€thirdÐ  &À  Ðfactor,€whether€there€were€intervening€events,€weighs€against€separate€convictions,Ïas€the€testimony€suggests€the€acts€occurred€closely€together€without€anyÏinterruption.€€The€fourth€factor,€the€sequence€of€the€acts,€supports€dual€convictions.€ÏIn€explaining€this€fourth€factor,€the€court€noted€that€repeated€penetrations€of€theÏsame€orifice€may€suggest€a€single€conviction€is€appropriate;€whereas€if€differenceÏorifices€are€involved,€dual€convictions€may€be€appropriate.€€òòId.óó€€Because€the€sexualÐ è0ˆ', Ðbattery€involved€a€separate€body€part€than€the€rape,€this€factor€supports€dualÏconvictions.€€The€final€factor€is€the€defendant's€intent€as€evidenced€by€his€conductÏand€statements.€€In€our€view,€the€defendant's€removal€of€his€clothing€and€then€thatÏof€the€victim€support€the€conclusion€that€the€act€of€touching€the€victim's€vagina€wasÐ 8¸.4 Ðfor€sexual€gratification.€€Sexual€battery€requires€proof€of€unlawful€sexual€contact,Ïwhich€is€defined€as€"intentional€touching€of€the€victim's€..€intimate€parts€...€if€thatÏintentional€touching€can€be€reasonably€construed€as€being€for€the€purpose€of€sexualÏarousal€or€gratification."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„501(5).€€By€convicting€theÏdefendant€of€aggravated€sexual€battery,€the€jury€has€found,€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt,€that€the€touching€could€be€reasonably€construed€"as€being€for€the€purpose€ofÏsexual€arousal€or€gratification."€€We€cannot€disagree€with€the€jury's€assessment€thatÏthe€touching€was€for€sexual€gratification.€€In€our€view,€dual€convictions€do€not€violateÏdue€process.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€dual€convictions€are€barred€by€theÏDouble€Jeopardy€Clause.€€The€supreme€court€also€addressed€this€issue€in€òòBarneyóó.€Ð $Ä Ð986€S.W.2d€at€549.€€The€court€first€applied€the€ruling€in€òòState€v.€DentonñÛññÚñ,ñÚññÛññÜñóóñÜññÝñ,€ñÝññÜñóóñÜññÞñ€ñÞñ938€S.W.2dÐ ð Ð373€(Tenn.€1996).€€òòBarneyóó,€986€S.W.2d€at€549€(discussing€the€ruling€in€òòDentonóó).€Ð ¼ \ ÐòòDentonóó€requires€consideration€of€the€following:Ð ˆ"( ÐÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓ1.€€an€analysis€of€the€statutory€offenses€underÏòòBlockburger€v.€United€Statesóó€to€determine€"whether€eachÐ :%Ú Ðprovision€requires€proof€of€an€additional€fact€which€theÏother€does€not";ÌÌ2.€€an€analysis,€guided€by€the€principles€of€òòDuchac€v.Ð Ò(r# ÐStateóó,€of€whether€the€same€evidence€is€required€to€proveÐ ¸)X $ Ðeach€offense;ÌÌ3.€€a€consideration€of€whether€there€were€multiple€victimsÏor€discrete€acts;€andÌÌ4.€€a€comparison€of€the€purposes€of€the€respectiveÏstatutes.ÌÌÒ4ä zÒÒXlÒÓˆÓòòBarneyóó,€986€S.W.2d€at€549€(discussing€the€test€for€double€jeopardy€violationsÐ Î1n(- Ðestablished€in€òòDentonóó)€(citations€omitted).€€Ð š3:*/ ÐÌà Œ àà ä àIn€òòBarneyóó,€the€court€also€relied€upon€its€prior€ruling€in€òòPhillipsóó,€924Ð 27Ò-3 ÐS.W.2d€at€665.€€òòBarneyóó,€986€S.W.2d€at€549.€€Under€òòPhillipsóó,€the€following€factorsÐ þ8ž/5 Ðare€relevant:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓ1.€€the€nature€of€the€act;ÌÌ2.€€the€area€of€the€victim's€body€invaded€by€the€sexuallyÏassaultive€behavior;ÌÌ3.€€the€time€elapsed€between€the€discrete€acts;€ÌÌ4.€€the€accused's€intent,€in€the€sense€that€the€lapse€ofÏtime€may€indicate€a€newly€formed€intent€to€again€seekÏsexual€gratification€or€inflict€abuse;€andÌÌ5.€€the€cumulative€punishment.€€ÌÌÒ4ä ÒÒXÒÓ«ÓòòBarneyóó,€986€S.W.2d€at€549€(summarizing€the€holding€in€òòPhillipsóó).€€€In€òòBarneyóó,€theÐ Úz  Ðcourt€concluded€that€convictions€for€sexual€battery€and€rape€were€not€barred€by€theÏDouble€Jeopardy€Clause.€€986€S.W.2d€at€550.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àApplying€the€criteria€of€òòDentonóó€and€òòPhillipsóó,€as€set€forth€in€òòBarneyóó,€weÐ  ª Ðconclude€double€jeopardy€principles€do€not€bar€dual€convictions.€€The€offense€ofÏsexual€battery€contains€different€elements€than€the€offense€of€rape.€€òòSeeóó€òòBarneyóó,Ð ¢!B Ð986€S.W.2d€at€550.€€Each€offense€requires€differing€proof.€€Battery€requires€anÏintentional€touching€for€the€purpose€of€sexual€gratification€while€rape€requires€onlyÏsexual€penetration.€€òòSeeóó€òòBarneyóó,€986€S.W.2d€at€550.€€Also,€each€offense€requires€aÐ '¦! Ðdifferent€type€of€contact.€€òòId.óó€€Finally,€the€effective€sentence€of€thirty„five€years€doesÐ Ò(r# Ðnot€seem€excessive,€given€the€amount€of€trauma€suffered€by€the€victim.€ÏAccordingly,€double€jeopardy€does€not€bar€dual€convictions.€€Ì€€€ÌÓ  Ó(VIII)ÌÓ­ Óà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant's€final€issue€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€imposingÏan€excessive€sentence.€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€twenty„five„year€sentence€for€theÏrape€conviction€and€a€ten„year€sentence€for€the€aggravated€sexual€batteryÏconviction€and€ordered€the€sentences€to€be€served€consecutively.€€The€defendantÏcomplains€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€imposing€the€maximum€term€available€forÐ þ8ž/5 Ðeach€offense€and€by€ordering€the€sentences€to€be€served€consecutively.€€Ì€€€€Ìà Œ àà ä àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€Ida€Black,€a€probation€officer€with€the€MetroÏGeneral€Sessions€Probation€Department,€testified€that€in€1994,€she€was€assigned€toÏmonitor€the€defendant,€who€had€been€placed€on€probation€for€a€theft€charge.€€SheÏrecalled€that€when€the€defendant€did€not€comply€with€the€terms€of€his€probation,€sheÏfiled€a€revocation€warrant.€€The€defendant€failed€to€appear€in€court€at€the€revocationÏhearing€and€a€capias€was€issued.€€Ultimately,€his€probation€was€revoked.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àSue€Ann€Bottoms,€employed€at€a€community€mental€health€center€thatÏprovides€counseling€services€in€child€sexual€abuse€cases,€met€with€the€victimÏseveral€times€after€the€assault.€€She€testified€that€the€victim€experienced€severeÏemotional€difficulties€and€has€been€unable€to€talk€about€the€details€of€the€assaultÏexcept€through€a€tape€recording.€€Ms.€Bottoms€predicted€that€the€victim€wouldÏcontinue€to€have€emotional€difficulties.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€appellant€entered€proof€showing€that€he€had€completed€twenty„sixÏmonths€of€incarceration€and€that€his€"record€of€deportment€is€relatively€good€and€...Ïtrouble€free."€€The€presentence€report€shows€that€the€thirty„four„year„old€defendantÏhas€prior€convictions€for€theft€under€$50€and€reckless€driving.€€As€indicated,€hisÏprobation€for€the€theft€offense€was€revoked.€€The€defendant€acknowledged€usingÏmarijuana€weekly€since€his€teenage€years€and€"rock"€cocaine€every€other€weekendÏsince€he€was€in€his€mid„twenties.€€The€defendant€did€not€complete€high€school€butÏhas€received€his€GED.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€ofÏa€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€aÐ 8¸.4 Ðpresumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showingÏin€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevantÏfacts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991);€òòseeóóÐ Äd ÐòòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€Sentencing€CommissionÐ 0 ÐComments€provide€that€the€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€show€the€impropriety€ofÏthe€sentence.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àOur€review€requires€an€analysis€of€(1)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€atÏthe€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€ofÏsentencing€and€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€theÏnature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense;€(5)€any€mitigating€or€enhancing€factors;€(6)Ïany€statements€made€by€the€defendant€in€his€own€behalf;€and€(7)€the€defendant'sÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,€and€„¼210;€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€Ð ˆ"( ÐÌÔ‡XîXXXîÔà Œ àà ä àAt€the€time€of€these€offenses,€the€presumptive€sentence€was€theÐ  &À  Ðminimum€in€the€range.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c).€€Should€the€trial€court€findÏmitigating€and€enhancement€factors,€it€must€start€at€the€presumptive€minimum€in€theÏrange€and€enhance€the€sentence€based€upon€any€applicable€enhancement€factors,Ïthen€reduce€the€sentence€based€upon€any€appropriate€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€The€weight€given€to€each€factor€is€within€the€trial€court'sÏdiscretion€provided€that€the€record€supports€its€findings€and€it€complies€with€theÏSentencing€Act.€€òòSeeóó€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€The€trial€court,€however,€shouldÐ ´2T). Ðmake€specific€findings€on€the€record€which€indicate€its€application€of€the€sentencingÏprinciples.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„209,€„210.€Ô#†XîXXXîl#ÔÐ L6ì,2 ÐÐ 8¸.4 Ðà Œ àà ä àThe€trial€court€found€the€following€enhancement€factors€applicable:Ìprior€criminal€behavior,€that€the€defendant€treated€the€victim€with€exceptional€cruelty,Ïthat€the€personal€injuries€inflicted€upon€the€victim€were€great;€that€the€crimes€wereÏcommitted€for€the€defendant's€own€pleasure€(applicable€only€to€the€rape€conviction);Ïand€that€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€theÏterms€of€a€sentence€involving€release€into€the€community.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð \ü  Ððð40„35„114(1),€(5),€(6),€(7),€and€(8).€€He€gave€"extremely€great€weight"€to€factor€six,Ïthat€personal€injuries€to€the€victim€were€great.€€The€trial€court€declined€to€find€anyÏmitigating€factors.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àInitially,€the€defendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€by€finding€he€hadÏa€previous€history€of€criminal€behavior,€asserting€that€enhancement€factor€isÏreserved€for€those€with€a€"far€more€extensive€criminal€record€than€is€present€here."€ÏWe€disagree.€€In€our€view,€the€evidence€supported€the€trial€court's€determination€thatÏthe€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€behavior.€€He€acknowledged€usingÏillegal€drugs€weekly€for€twenty€years.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€also€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€determiningÏhe€treated€the€victim€with€exceptional€cruelty.€€He€contends€the€state's€proof€did€notÏestablish€cruelty€that€was€"'appreciably€greater€than€that€incident€to€the€crime€itself.'"€ÏòòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€98€(Tenn.€1997)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883Ð P-ð#( ÐS.W.2d€597,€601€(Tenn.€1994)).€€Enhancement€factors€codified€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„35„114€may€not€be€used€to€enhance€a€sentence€if€they€are€"essential€elementsÏof€the€offense."€€òòPooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€at€95.€€The€rationale€for€this€rule€is€to€"avoidÐ ´2T). Ðenhancing€the€length€of€sentences€based€on€factors€the€Legislature€took€intoÏconsideration€when€establishing€the€range€of€punishment€for€the€offense."€€òòId.óó€at€98Ð L6ì,2 Ð(citations€omitted).€€Ð 8¸.4 Їà Œ àà ä àThe€"exceptional€cruelty"€enhancement€factor€may€be€applied€whereÏthe€facts€"'demonstrate€a€culpability€distinct€from€and€appreciably€greater€than€thatÏincident€to'"€the€crime.€€òòId.óó€(quoting€òòJonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€at€603).€€Exceptional€crueltyÐ ø ˜ Ðis€"usually€found€in€cases€of€abuse€or€torture."€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€920€S.W.2d€247,Ð Äd Ð259€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€In€òòWilliamsóó,€the€defendant€was€convicted€ofÐ 0 Ðaggravated€rape;€the€aggravating€circumstance€was€that€the€victim€suffered€bodilyÏinjury.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„502(a)(2).€€The€court€declined€to€apply€theÐ (È  Ðexceptional€cruelty€factor€because€the€facts€did€not€show€any€injury€beyond€thatÏnecessary€to€establish€the€bodily€injury€element€of€aggravated€rape.€€€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€this€case,€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€rape€of€a€child.€€TheÏessential€elements€are€penetration€and€that€the€victim€be€less€than€thirteen€years€ofÏage.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„522.€€Although€it€is€a€close€question,€the€facts€hereÏdo€establish€a€culpability€appreciably€greater€than€that€incident€to€the€crime.€€NurseÏPractitioner€Rosof€testified€that€the€victim€suffered€several€abrasions€and€tears€in€theÏrectal€area,€including€one€significant€tear.€€Rosof€also€testified€that€the€victim€couldÏnot€remain€still€during€the€examination€and€ultimately€had€to€be€anesthetized€for€theÏexamination€to€be€completed.€€Any€penetration,€no€matter€how€slight,€would€beÏsufficient€to€establish€the€rape.€€The€facts€suggest€an€excessive€amount€of€force€wasÏused€to€achieve€the€penetration.€€Moreover,€the€victim€testified€that€the€defendantÏordered€her€to€"shut€up"€and€repeatedly€called€her€vulgar€names€during€the€incident.€ÏThe€victim€informed€one€of€the€investigating€officers€that€she€initially€tried€to€escapeÏbut€that€the€defendant€threw€a€rock€at€her,€hitting€her€in€the€back,€and€then€drug€herÏback€to€the€location€behind€the€shed.€€These€facts€are€sufficient€to€establishÏexcessive€cruelty€beyond€that€incident€to€the€crime€itself.€€€€€€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€next€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€finding€theÐ 8¸.4 Ðvictim€suffered€particularly€great€personal€injuries.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð `  Ð114(6).€€We€cannot€agree.€€Although€the€physical€injuries€would€not€qualify€asÏ"particularly€great,"€the€emotional€damage€easily€does.€€The€victim€was€soÏtraumatized€by€the€attack€that€she€was€unable€to€verbalize€the€assault€at€trial€andÏinstead€had€to€put€her€answers€in€writing.€€Sue€Ann€Bottoms,€a€psychologicalÏexaminer€who€had€seen€the€victim€between€twelve€and€twenty€times,€testified€thatÏthe€victim€was€withdrawn€and€unable€to€talk€about€the€event.€€Ms.€Bottoms€alsoÏbelieved€the€victim€would€need€another€year€and€a€half€of€therapy€and€would€requireÏadditional€counseling€later€in€life€when€she€moved€into€adolescence€and€youngÏadulthood.€€"Personal€injury"€may€include€psychological€scarring.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,Ð Œ, Ð891€S.W.2d€922,€930€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€€Application€of€this€factor€isÏappropriate.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€next€contends€the€trial€court€erred€by€finding€theÏoffense€was€"committed€to€gratify€the€defendant's€desire€for€pleasure€andÏexcitement."€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(7).€€The€trial€court€only€applied€thisÐ T$ô Ðenhancement€factor€to€the€rape€conviction.€€The€state,€of€course,€bears€the€burdenÏof€demonstrating€that€the€rape€was€sexually€motivated€or€committed€for€theÏdefendant's€own€pleasure€or€excitement.€€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€31,€34€(Tenn.Ð ¸)X $ Ð1993).€€In€òòState€v.€Kissingeróó,€922€S.W.2d€482,€489€(Tenn.€1996),€the€supreme€courtÐ „+$"& Ðruled€that€this€factor€could€not€be€used€to€enhance€a€sentence€for€sexual€batteryÏbecause€it€duplicates€an€essential€element€of€the€offense.€€The€court,€concluded,Ïhowever,€that€the€factor€could€be€used€to€enhance€a€sentence€for€rape€inÏappropriate€cases.€€òòId.óó€€In€òòKissingeróó,€the€court€concluded€the€record€was€devoid€ofÐ ´2T). Ðany€evidence€tending€to€show€a€motivation€for€the€rape€and,€therefore,€application€ofÏfactor€seven€was€inappropriate.€€òòId.óó€at€491.Ð L6ì,2 ÐÐ 8¸.4 Ðà Œ àà ä àBecause€the€victim€was€unable€to€provide€many€of€the€details€whichÏmight€have€supported€the€application€of€the€enhancement€factor,€we€must€concludeÏthere€is€no€evidence€that€the€rape€was€motivated€by€a€desire€for€pleasure€orÏexcitement.€€The€facts,€calling€the€victim€names€and€throwing€a€rock,€suggest€anger;Ïbut€the€record€contains€few€facts,€at€least€at€the€level€required€by€òòKissingeróó,€toÐ 0 Ðsuggest€the€defendant€acted€out€of€a€desire€for€sexual€gratification€or€pleasure.€€òòSeeóóÐ \ü  Ðòòid.óó€€It€is€our€view€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€applying€this€factor.Ð (È  ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defendant€also€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€toÏapply€the€mitigating€circumstance€that€the€defendant€did€not€have€a€sustained€intentÏto€violate€the€law,€but€instead€committed€an€impulsive€act.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ Xø Ð40„35„113(11).€€In€our€view,€this€factor€is€inapplicable.€€The€facts€support€anÏinference€that€the€defendant€followed€the€victim€to€the€Revco€and€then€followed€herÏwhen€she€left.€€When€she€tried€to€escape,€he€subdued€her.€€These€facts€suggestÏthere€was€a€sustained€intent€to€commit€the€unlawful€acts.€€The€defendant€alsoÏcontends€that€his€favorable€record€while€incarcerated€should€be€given€some€weightÏunder€the€"catch€all"€provision€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(13).€€That€theÏdefendant€has€a€good€record€of€behavior€while€incarcerated€could€arguably€be€aÏmitigating€circumstance.€€In€our€view,€however,€it€would€be€entitled€to€only€marginalÏconsideration.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAs€a€final€matter,€although€not€mentioned€by€either€party,€whenÏimposing€sentence€for€the€rape€conviction,€the€trial€court€applied€a€presumptive€mid„¼range€sentence€of€twenty€years€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c)€(Supp.Ï1996).€€The€court€stated€the€presumptive€minimum€for€a€Class€A€felony€is€twentyÏyears€and€then€imposed€a€twenty„five„year€sentence.€€The€trial€court€also€stated€thatÏeven€if€it€had€started€at€fifteen€years,€it€would€have€imposed€the€maximum€sentence.€Ð 8¸.4 ÐThat€provision,€however,€was€not€in€effect€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€Prior€lawÏrequires€the€minimum€possible€term€as€the€beginning€point.€€The€application€of€theÏtwenty„year€presumptive€sentence€as€a€starting€point€for€an€offense€committed€priorÏto€July€1,€1995,€would€constitute€an€òòex€post€factoóó€violation€of€the€defendant'sÐ Äd Ðconstitutional€rights.€€òòState€v.€James€Hollowayóó,€No.€01C01„9608„CR„00330,€slip€op.Ð 0 Ðat€2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€June€30,€1997).€€Because€the€trial€court€erredÏby€applying€enhancement€factor€seven€and€by€starting€at€the€midpoint€in€the€range,Ïour€review€must€be€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€without€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€Ð ô”  ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€court€gives€great€weight€to€the€personal€injury€suffered€by€theÏvictim.€€Significant€weight€is€also€given€to€the€defendant's€extensive€criminalÏbackground€and€to€the€fact€that€he€had€not€complied€with€the€terms€of€release€onÏprobation.€€In€our€view,€the€ten„year€sentence€for€aggravated€sexual€battery€and€theÏtwenty„five€year€sentence€for€the€greater€offense€is€appropriate.€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ì€à Œ àà ä àWe€now€turn€to€the€appropriateness€of€ordering€consecutiveÐ T$ô Ðsentences.€€Prior€to€the€enactment€of€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,Ïthe€limited€classifications€for€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences€were€set€out€inÏòòGray€v.€Stateóó,€538€S.W.2d€391,€393€(Tenn.€1976).€€In€that€case€our€supreme€courtÐ ¸)X $ Ðruled€that€aggravating€circumstances€must€be€present€before€placement€in€any€oneÏof€the€classifications.€€Later,€in€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€739€S.W.2d€227€(Tenn.€1987),€theÐ P-ð#( Ðcourt€established€an€additional€category€for€those€defendants€convicted€of€two€orÏmore€statutory€offenses€involving€sexual€abuse€of€minors.€€There€were,€however,Ïadditional€words€of€caution:€€"[C]onsecutive€sentences€should€not€routinely€beÏimposed€.€.€.€and€.€.€.€the€aggregate€maximum€of€consecutive€terms€must€beÏreasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€involved."€€òòTayloróó,€739€S.W.2d€atÐ L6ì,2 Ð230.€€The€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€adopted€the€cautionary€language.€Ð 8¸.4 ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115.€€The€1989€Act€is,€in€essence,€the€codification€of€theÏholdings€in€òòGrayóó€and€òòTayloróó;€consecutive€sentences€may€be€imposed€in€theÐ , Ì Ðdiscretion€of€the€trial€court€only€upon€a€determination€that€one€or€more€of€theÏfollowing€criteria׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€exist:Ð Äd ÐÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(1)€€The€defendant€is€a€professional€criminal€who€hasÏknowingly€devoted€himself€to€criminal€acts€as€a€majorÏsource€of€livelihood;Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(2)€€The€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€ofÏcriminal€activity€is€extensive;Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(3)€€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€mentally€abnormalÏperson€so€declared€by€a€competent€psychiatrist€whoÏconcludes€as€a€result€of€an€investigation€prior€toÏsentencing€that€the€defendant's€criminal€conduct€hasÏbeen€characterized€by€a€pattern€of€repetitive€orÏcompulsive€behavior€with€heedless€indifference€toÏconsequences;Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(4)€€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whoseÏbehavior€indicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life,€andÏno€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€riskÏto€human€life€is€high;€€€€à D à€€€€Ð¼ \ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(5)€€The€defendant€is€convicted€of€two€(2)€or€moreÏstatutory€offenses€involving€sexual€abuse€of€a€minor€withÏconsideration€of€the€aggravating€circumstances€arisingÏfrom€the€relationship€between€the€defendant€and€victimÏor€victims,€the€time€span€of€defendant's€undetectedÏsexual€activity,€the€nature€and€scope€of€the€sexual€actsÏand€the€extent€of€the€residual,€physical€and€mentalÏdamage€to€the€victim€or€victims;Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(6)€€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€an€offenseÏcommitted€while€on€probation;Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(7)€€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€criminal€contempt.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓ8HÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b).ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€òòGrayóó,€our€supreme€court€ruled€that€before€consecutive€sentencingÐ ´2T). Ðcould€be€imposed€upon€the€dangerous€offender,€as€now€defined€by€subsectionÐ €4 +0 Ð(b)(4)€in€the€statute,€other€conditions€must€be€present:€€(a)€that€the€crimes€involvedÏaggravating€circumstances;€(b)€that€consecutive€sentences€are€a€necessary€meansÏto€protect€the€public€from€the€defendant;€and€(c)€that€the€term€reasonably€relates€toÏthe€severity€of€the€offenses.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€938€(Tenn.€1995),€our€highÐ \ü  Ðcourt€reaffirmed€those€principles,€holding€that€consecutive€sentences€cannot€beÏrequired€of€the€dangerous€offender€"unless€the€terms€reasonably€relate[]€to€theÏseverity€of€the€offenses€committed€and€are€necessary€in€order€to€protect€the€publicÏ(society)€from€further€criminal€acts€by€those€persons€who€resort€to€aggravatedÏcriminal€conduct."€€The€òòWilkersonóó€decision,€which€modified€somewhat€the€strictÐ Xø Ðfactual€guidelines€for€consecutive€sentencing€adopted€in€òòState€v.€Woodsóó,€814Ð $Ä ÐS.W.2d€378,€380€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991),€described€sentencing€as€a€"humanÏprocess€that€neither€can€nor€should€be€reduced€to€a€set€of€fixed€and€mechanicalÏrules."€€òòWilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€938.€€The€record€must€show€that€the€sentencingÐ ˆ"( Ðprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances€were€considered€before€theÏpresumption€of€correctness€applies.€€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€trial€court€concluded€the€defendant€was€a€dangerous€offenderÏwhose€conduct€indicated€little€regard€for€human€life€and€little€hesitation€aboutÏcommitting€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high.€€The€trial€court€alsoÏapplied€factor€five,€that€the€defendant€had€been€convicted€of€two€or€more€statutoryÏoffenses€involving€sexual€abuse€of€a€minor.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(4),Ð è0ˆ', Ð(5).€€In€our€view,€the€trial€court€erred€by€concluding€the€defendant€was€a€dangerousÏoffender€whose€behavior€indicates€little€regard€for€human€life€and€little€hesitationÏabout€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high.€€Although€theÏattack€was€severe,€no€weapon€was€used€and€the€assault€did€not€pose€a€threat€to€theÐ 8¸.4 Ðvictim's€life.€€The€victim€was€released€without€serious€physical€injury.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àWhether€the€other€basis€for€consecutive€sentencing€applies€is€a€closerÏquestion.€€The€trial€court€made€the€following€finding:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓI'm€also€going€to€find€that€number€five€applies;€that€theÏdefendant€has€been€convicted€of€two€or€more€statutoryÏoffenses€involving€sexual€abuse€of€a€minor,€withÏconsideration€of€the€aggravating€factors€or€circumstancesÏarising€from€the€relationship€between€the€defendant€andÏthe€victim,€there€is€none€in€this€case.€€The€time€span€ofÏthe€activity,€there€was€none.€€It€was€one€incident.€€TheÏnature€and€scope€of€the€sexual€acts,€and€the€extent€ofÏthe€residual€physical€and€mental€damage€to€the€victim€...Ïthat€is€so€great€in€this€case.€€The€physical€damage€isÏextensive.€€She€still€cannot€speak€of€these€events€and€isÏgoing€to€have€trouble€for€the€rest€of€her€life,€so€I€findÏevidence€for€two€bases€for€running€these€sentencesÏconsecutive.€€I€must€go€further,€however,€and€look€at€theÏfactors€set€out€in€òòWilkersonóó,€and€that€is€I€must€determineÐ $Ä Ðthat€the€aggregate€term€reasonably€relates€to€the€severityÏof€the€offenses,€and€that€this€is€necessary€in€order€toÏprotect€the€public€from€further€serious€criminal€conductÏby€the€defendant.€€Some€of€the€considerations€that€I€haveÏto€look€at€is€that€confinement€is€necessary€to€protectÏsociety€by€restraining€a€defendant€who€has€a€long€historyÏof€criminal€conduct,€which€does€not€apply€in€this€case.€€IÏalso€have€to€consider€confinement€is€necessary€to€avoidÏœdeprecñáññàñoñàññáññâñiñâñating›€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€and€theÏconfinement€is€particularly€suited€to€provide€an€effectiveÏdeterrence€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€offenses.€ÏThat€part€of€the€sentencing€statute€is€important€in€thisÏcase€because€it€is€important€for€this€Court€to€let€peopleÏknow€that€you€cannot€abduct€nine„year„old€children€offÏthe€streets€of€Davidson€County,€and€brutally€rape€themÏand€use€them€for€their€own€purposes€and€not€receive€aÏsevere€sanction.€€It€is€important€in€this€case€because€theÏdefendant€has€demonstrated€to€this€Court€what€hisÏbehavior€is€like,€and€the€extent€of€the€residual€andÏphysical€damage;€therefore,€I€am€going€to€sentence€Mr.ÏScott€to€an€effective€sentence€of€35€years;€25€years€forÏthe€rape,€and€10€years€for€the€aggravated€sexual€battery,Ïand€that€is€my€judgment€in€this€case.ÌÌÒ4ä YÒÒX YÒÓ%YÓÌà Œ àà ä àIn€our€view,€this€factor,€standing€alone,€would€not€justify€consecutiveÏsentencing.€€There€was€no€relationship€between€the€defendant€and€the€victim;€thereÏwas€no€time€span€between€the€acts;€and€the€scope€of€the€defendant's€acts€wasÐ þ8ž/5 Ðlimited.€€There€was,€however,€testimony€that€the€mental€damage€to€the€victim€wasÏsubstantial.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Woodcockóó,€922€S.W.2d€904,€915„16€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð , Ì Ð1995).€€Factor€(5)€standing€alone€would€not€establish€a€need€for€consecutiveÏsentences;€however,€the€defendant€was€sentenced€for€an€offense€committed€whileÏon€probation,€which€is€a€separate€basis€for€consecutive€sentencing.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð 0 ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(6).€€Furthermore,€the€òòWilkersonóó€factors€are€favorable€to€theÐ \ü  Ðstate,€as€indicated€by€the€trial€court.€€That€is,€the€term€is€reasonably€related€to€theÏseverity€of€the€offenses€and€is€necessary€to€protect€society€from€a€defendant€whoÏhas€escalated€his€participation€in€criminal€behavior.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D à__________________________________Ìà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àGary€R.€Wade,€Presiding€Judge€€€ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌJerry€L.€Smith,€Judge