ÿWPCÛ >ÚEÏ·¢,¼ÿ­ô/neÅiÍæ,,-ü¦”ñÉNZ2sÎ}ÝE(›8èm-œù°äoK¥þù[D«QZƒ_HÆîƒåh–1[G´3ïtá½È6°]p™aÇM³‘+ÉlWä|`ÞŸ˜¤Ûó”IðgBãób8zï ¯Ë÷}èýì-ñ±©lÍRPÝ´‘‡h[R2ãSö^=Çã›héHÌ$›=ÓÛOÅUL’)HZ9L}âÊ0õdIÀ² ñ.ðOar0×ã©è™X?œ/©ic`â“É(š™tô][ê Dl½e!m€Ñ¯ÒÉ7ª¶CÈFŠ“/Ü“'†]¹ ê—öØÿâû–™@Åà¿ÁÉé_¬ŸíêŠu[êæ啵џ¤öœ’î'ù>D*̦ž[¨’#”Z×é-·Ê®INNœJ=`ÀΙ£•2,VE4¸Wĵ?ö•áÊ­_÷®ŒÉaôËÛ~úH¾'<¸u«.» _¤ÞàÂK}L¦5ti˜6j™¥[N’5tQÛ€[¬ Zu¦pùåF/â+]K™´pÖ0KåÛ0bs;.ƒþõî31rí£!ò¹€Ï³ü:–OqÉÎ ÏE¸¦ Ò0B ò o4ìŽ`#!@UNa %¯ 0(µU :Ýb w 4# 7 NF 0 ÆH 0 D üR ¾N ø *D.ür*n˜U:Z^ ”  m¢W¹¹¹¹¹¹ B-55555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555 AQÅÆ 0DÜ 0D  0Ddd D3¨˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù-{Z='3|x(v(2”$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X‚XXXÔÔ€ô6¬õXX‚Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó òÝ ƒ td$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X=·XXXÔÔ€ôöŒõXX=·Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€redacted€version€deleted€the€reference€to€the€Rutherford€County€Guidance€Center. ´Ý ƒ td$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X=·XXXÔÔ€ôöŒõXX=·Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€No€semen€or€other€physical€evidence€was€found€as€a€result€of€the€victimððs€physical€examinationÐ `  Ðat€the€hospital.€€ò òó óHowever,€the€nurse€who€examined€the€victim€observed€red€marks€on€the€victimððsÐ "  Ðforearms€and€left€lower€leg.€ò òó ó îÝ ƒ td$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X=·XXXÔÔ€ôöŒõXX=·Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€It€is€the€policy€of€this€Court€not€to€reveal€the€names€of€victims€of€sex€crimes. Ý ƒ td$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X=·XXXÔÔ€ôöŒõXX=·Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Emphasis€added€to€point€out€specific€portions€of€prosecutionððs€argument€that€Appellant€findsÐ `  Ðobjectionable. :Ý ƒ td$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X=·XXXÔÔ€ôöŒõXX=·Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€trial€court€also€found€as€an€enhancement€factor€ð ðthe€nature€and€circumstances€of€theÐ `  Ðoffense€which€dealt€with€three€separate€penetrations€of€various€types€giving€rise€to€the€offense.ðð€ThisÏenhancement€factor€listed€is€not€a€statutory€enhancement€factor€and€is,€therefore,€improper.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ ä „ Ðv.€Stricklandóó,€885€S.W.2d€85,€89€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993). òÝ ƒ td$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X=·XXXÔÔ€ôöŒõXX=·Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Neither€party€contests€the€applicability€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„35„114(1)€and€(8)€asÐ `  Ðenhancement€factors.€€We€agree.€€Appellant€has€a€prior€record€consisting€of€convictions€for€gross€sexualÏimposition€and€criminal€trespass€in€Ohio€in€addition€to€his€felony€convictions€establishing€him€as€a€RangeÏII€offender.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1).€€Furthermore,€Appellant€violated€parole€on€a€conviction€inÏMichigan,€demonstrating€a€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involvingÏrelease€into€the€community.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(8). Ý ƒ td$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X=·XXXÔÔ€ôöŒõXX=·Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€trial€court€denied€the€request€based€upon€previous€rulings€concerning€the€victimððsÐ `  Ðpsychological€state. ¸Ý ƒ td$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X=·XXXÔÔ€ôöŒõXX=·Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Although€not€raised€by€either€party,€we€have€examined€the€record€and€find€that€three€(3)Ð `  Ðseparate€convictions€for€rape€are€constitutionally€permissible€in€this€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Barneyóó,€òò€€€€óóÐ "  ÐS.W.2d€òò€€€€óó€(Tenn.€1999).,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular&¤1' !ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ MÝ ƒ[¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X‚XXXÔÔ€S¯XX‚ÔÓ  ÓÔ_Ôò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X‚XS¯ÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€17,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€Ô_ÔClerkÔdAxÔó óÔ_Ô d †Ý ƒ td$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X=·XXXÔÔ€ôöŒõXX=·Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€Appellant€received€a€very€lenient€sentence.€€However,€the€weight€to€be€given€applicableÐ `  Ðmitigating€factors€is€a€matter€entrusted€to€the€trial€court€and€we€are€not€ordinarily€free€to€second€guessÏthat€decision.Z[\]_Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Š"Ç‹XXÔÔ€ŠÏd‹‹Š"ÇÔÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ8€öXXdìdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÔ_Ôßv€Y_@0,j:ûÿ`  `€€@ÿEïa ` 8ttxP'` ð  vßÔ_ÔÔ_ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌMAY€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9612„CC„00524Ð n Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó ó)Ð p Ðà ` àÔ‡X‚X‹ŠÏdÔAppellee/Cross„Appellant,Ô#†ŠÏd‹XX‚-#Ôà À àò ò)Ð l  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àRUTHERFORD€COUNTYÐ p  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ r  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€J.S.€DANIELó óÐ t  Ðò òFRANK€KENNETH€TALLEY,ó óà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ v Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ x Ðà ` àÔ‡X‚X‹ŠÏdÔAppellant/Cross„AppelleeÔ#†ŠÏd‹XX‚ä#Ôà À àò ò)à  à(Direct€Appeal€„€Rape)Ð z Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à À àà  àà p àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð l  ÐÌSCOTT€DANIELà  àà h àà À àà  àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ d  Ð401€W.€Main€St.à  àà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ `! ÐMurfreesboro,€TN€€37133„0960Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àKAREN€M.€YACUZZOÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àBILL€WHITESELLÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPAUL€A.€HOLCOMBE,€IIIÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àRutherford€County€Judicial€Bldg.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àMurfreesboro,€TN€€37130ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ   6¬,-ø ÐÓ  ÓÔ€°ª °‹ŠÏdÔò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€ŠÏd‹ °°ª ÔÐ `  ÐÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌà ` àThe€appellant,€Frank€Kenneth€Talley,€Jr.,€was€convicted€by€a€RutherfordÏCounty€jury€of€three€(3)€counts€of€rape,€a€Class€B€felony.€€The€trial€courtÏsentenced€Appellant€as€a€Range€II€Multiple€Offender€to€concurrent€sentencesÏof€thirteen€(13)€years€for€each€offense.€€On€appeal,€Appellant€raises€severalÏissues€for€our€review:ÌÓÓà8 ` à(1)€whether€the€indictment€failed€to€set€forth€the€essential€elementsÏof€the€crime€because€it€does€not€aver€a€culpable€mental€state;Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(2)€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€establish€Appellantððs€guiltÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt;Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(3)€whether€the€trial€court€properly€denied€the€admission€ofÏevidence€regarding€the€victimððs€psychological€treatment;Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€prosecution€to€askÏleading€questions€and€thereby€denied€Appellant€a€fair€trial;Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(5)€whether€the€court€erred€in€allowing€the€state€to€introduce€theÏmedical€report€of€the€victimððs€emergency€room€visit€and€allowingÏsuch€report€to€be€passed€to€the€jury;Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(6)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€a€photographic€line„up;Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(7)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€that€the€prosecution€couldÏcross„examine€Appellant€as€to€his€prior€conviction€for€the€offenseÏof€assault€with€intent€to€rob,€if€Appellant€chose€to€testify;Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(8)€whether€the€court€erred€in€allowing€the€state€to€inform€the€juryÏthat€Appellant€had€provided€a€list€of€alibi€witnesses;Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(9)€whether€the€court€erred€in€overruling€defense€counselððsÏobjection€and€allowing€the€prosecutor€to€state€to€the€jury€that€whatÏthe€victim€told€another€person€was€hearsay;€andÐ ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(10)€whether€the€trial€court€denied€Appellant€a€fair€trial€by€allegedlyÏbiased€rulings€during€closing€argument€which€unfairly€favored€theÏprosecution.Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÓÓÐ ~8// ÐThe€state€also€appeals,€claiming€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencingÏAppellant.€€After€a€thorough€review€of€the€record€before€this€Court,€we€affirm€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court.Ìò òòòà@FF,®àFACTSóóó óˆÐ Hè ÐÌà ` àOn€April€23,€1995,€D.M.ððs׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€car€broke€down€in€the€parking€lot€of€KrogerÐ Dä  Ðgrocery€store€in€Murfreesboro.€€A€man,€later€identified€as€the€appellant,Ïapproached€D.M.€and€offered€his€assistance.€€After€examining€the€vehicle,ÏAppellant€told€D.M.€that€he€needed€to€take€a€friend€home,€but€would€return€withÏtools€to€fix€the€car.€Ìà ` àWhile€Appellant€was€gone,€another€man,€Jerry€Goodrich,€stopped€andÏoffered€his€assistance€with€the€malfunctioning€vehicle.€€Appellant€eventuallyÏreturned,€and€he€and€Goodrich€were€able€to€repair€D.M.ððs€car.€€Appellant€offeredÏto€follow€D.M.€halfway€home€in€case€her€vehicle€stopped€again.€€Instead,ÏAppellant€followed€D.M.€all€of€the€way€to€her€apartment.€Ìà ` àWhen€they€arrived€at€D.M.ððs€home,€Appellant€asked€if€he€could€use€herÏrestroom.€D.M.€agreed.€€Upon€entering€the€apartment,€D.M.€offered€Appellant€aÏbeer€in€gratitude€for€his€assistance€in€repairing€her€car.€€He€took€the€beer,€sippedÏit€and€went€to€the€restroom.€€Appellant€then€walked€into€the€kitchen,€where€D.M.Ïwas€putting€away€groceries,€and€grabbed€her€around€her€neck€from€behind.€€AsÏhe€dragged€her€into€the€bedroom,€the€victim€asked€what€he€was€doing.€ÏAppellant€replied,€ð ð[i]f€you€just€be€quiet€and€donððt€fight€me,€I€wonððt€hurt€you.ðð€ÏAppellant€took€D.M.€into€the€bedroom,€put€her€on€the€bed,€and€wrapped€theÏcovers€around€her€head.€€The€victim€begged€Appellant€to€stop€and,€although€sheÐ ´6T-. Ðdid€not€see€Appellant€with€a€weapon,€believed€that€Appellant€might€ð ðblow€[her]Ïbrains€out.ðð€€Appellant€again€stated€that€he€would€not€hurt€her€if€she€did€not€fightÏhim.€€The€victim€begged€Appellant€to€remove€the€covers€from€her€head,€and€heÏeventually€complied.€Ìà ` àAppellant€pulled€off€D.M.ððs€clothing€and,€over€a€period€lastingÏapproximately€forty„five€(45)€minutes,€penetrated€her€vaginally,€forced€her€toÏperform€oral€sex€on€him,€and€then€performed€oral€sex€on€her.€However,ÏAppellant€did€not€ejaculate€as€a€result€of€these€acts.€€€Appellant€then€apologizedÏfor€his€behavior€and€left€the€victimððs€home.€€Before€he€drove€away,€however,ÏD.M.€observed€and€wrote€down€the€license€plate€number€from€the€vehicleÏAppellant€was€driving.€Ìà ` àSubsequently,€D.M.€called€her€son,€Joshua,€and€informed€him€about€theÏincident.€€€Joshua€called€the€law€enforcement€authorities,€and€when€the€policeÏarrived€at€the€victimððs€home,€she€gave€them€a€description€of€Appellant€as€wellÏas€his€license€plate€number.€€The€victim€was€then€taken€to€the€emergencyÏroom.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð è&ˆ Ðà ` àThe€police€ran€a€check€on€the€license€plate€number€provided€by€D.M.,€andÏthe€vehicle€was€registered€to€Lizzie€McGowen,€the€aunt€of€Appellantððs€wife.€€TheÏofficers€went€to€Appellantððs€home€and€confronted€him€with€the€charges€againstÏhim.€€Appellantððs€wife€told€the€officers,€ð ð[Appellant]€couldnððt€have€done€it.€€He€wasÏwith€me€all€day.ðð€€Appellant€also€denied€the€allegations€made€by€the€victim.€Ìà ` àThe€next€morning,€the€victim€identified€Appellant€from€a€photographic€line„¼up.€€Appellant€was€arrested€and€gave€a€statement€to€police€officers€wherein€heÐ °4P+, Ðadmitted€assisting€D.M.€with€her€car€the€previous€day,€but€denied€following€herÏto€her€home.€Ìà ` àAuthorities€later€recovered€Appellantððs€fingerprints€from€a€beer€bottleÏfound€in€the€victimððs€home.€Ìà ` àAppellantððs€wife,€Belinda€Talley,€testified€for€the€defense€at€trial.€€SheÏstated€that€Appellant€had€been€in€her€presence€the€entire€day,€with€the€exceptionÏof€approximately€forty„five€(45)€minutes€to€an€hour€when€Appellant€left€his€familyÏto€pick€up€food.€€The€defense€also€presented€the€testimony€of€other€familyÏmembers,€who€testified€as€to€Appellantððs€whereabouts€during€the€day€of€April€23.€Ïà ` àAppellant€did€not€testify€at€trial.Ìà ` àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€proof,€the€jury€convicted€Appellant€of€three€(3)Ïcounts€of€rape.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€Appellant€as€a€Range€II€multipleÏoffender€to€concurrent€terms€of€thirteen€(13)€years€for€each€offense.€€From€hisÏconvictions€and€sentences,€the€Appellant€and€the€State€of€Tennessee€bring€thisÏappeal.ÌÌò òà@ii ®àòòSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€INDICTMENTóóó óˆÐ à(€  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€argues€that€his€convictions€are€void€because€the€indictment€didÏnot€allege€a€culpable€mental€state.€€He€claims€that€the€indictment€failed€to€setÏforth€the€essential€elements€of€the€offense;€as€a€result,€the€trial€court€wasÏdeprived€of€jurisdiction,€and€his€convictions€for€rape€are€void€òòab€initioóó.Ð Ä2d)* Ðà ` àThe€indictment€alleged€that€ð ðon€the€23rd€day€of€April,€1995,€.€.€.€FrankÏKenneth€Talley,€Jr.,€using€force€or€coercion€to€accomplish€this€act,€did€unlawfullyÏsexually€penetrate€.€.€.€[D.M.],€in€violation€of€T.C.A.€39„13„503.€.€.ðð€€The€languageÐ ¬8L/0 Ðin€the€indictment€is€similar€to€that€in€the€case€of€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€954€S.W.2d€725Ð `  Ð(Tenn.€1997).€In€òòHillóó,€the€Supreme€Court€was€faced€with€an€identical€issue€andÐ X ø Ðheld€that:ÌÓÓà8 ` àfor€offenses€which€neither€expressly€require€nor€plainly€dispenseÏwith€the€requirement€for€a€culpable€mental€state,€an€indictmentÏwhich€fails€to€allege€such€mental€state€will€be€sufficient€to€supportÏprosecution€and€conviction€for€that€offense€so€long€asÐ ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(1)€the€language€of€the€indictment€is€sufficient€to€meet€theÏconstitutional€requirements€of€notice€to€the€accused€of€the€chargeÏagainst€which€the€accused€must€defend,€adequate€basis€for€entryÏof€a€proper€judgment,€and€protection€from€double€jeopardy;Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(2)€the€form€of€the€indictment€meets€the€requirements€of€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40-13-202;€€andÐ ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(3)€the€mental€state€can€be€logically€inferred€from€the€conductÏalleged.Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓÓòòId.óó€at€726„727.Ð ¨ Ðà ` àUnder€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„503,€the€culpable€mental€state€for€theÏoffense€of€rape€is€neither€specifically€stated€nor€plainly€dispensed€with.€€Thus,Ïproof€of€ð ðintent,ðð€ð ðknowledgeðð€or€ð ðrecklessnessðð€will€suffice€to€establish€theÏculpable€mental€state.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„301(c).Ìà ` àThe€indictment€in€this€case€provides€adequate€notice€of€the€chargedÏoffenses€as€well€as€a€basis€for€entry€of€a€proper€judgment€and€protection€againstÏdouble€jeopardy.€€Furthermore,€the€indictment€complies€with€requirements€statedÏin€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„13„202.€€Moreover,€the€mental€state€can€be€logicallyÏinferred€from€the€conduct€alleged.€€ð ðObviously,€the€act€for€which€the€defendantÏis€indicted,€ððunlawfully€sexual€penetrat[ing]ðð€a€person€.€.€.€is€committable€only€ifÏthe€principal€actorððs€òòmens€reaóó€is€intentional,€knowing,€or€reckless.ðð€€òòState€v.€Hillóó,Ð °4P+, Ðâ â954€S.W.2d€at€729.Ð ¨6H-. Ðà ` àThe€indictment€in€the€present€case€clearly€meets€the€requirements€set€outÏâ âin€òòHillóó€and€is,€therefore,€valid.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð X ø ÐÌò òà@ÚÚ!®àòòSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEóóó óˆÐ Hè ÐÌà ` àIn€his€next€issue,€Appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€toÏsupport€the€juryððs€finding€of€guilt€on€three€(3)€counts€of€rape.€€Specifically,€heÏasserts€that€the€victimððs€testimony€is€incredible,€and€there€is€little€evidence€toÏcorroborate€her€testimony.€€Furthermore,€he€claims€that€the€state€failed€toÏpresent€sufficient€evidence€of€force€or€coercion.Ìà@EE-®àò òA.ó óˆÐ ¼ Ðà ` àWhen€an€appellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€CourtÏis€obliged€to€review€that€challenge€according€to€certain€well„settled€principles.€AÏverdict€of€guilty€by€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimonyÏof€the€Stateððs€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€in€favor€of€theÏState.€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994).€Although€an€accusedÐ '  Ðis€originally€cloaked€with€a€presumption€of€innocence,€a€jury€verdict€removes€thisÏpresumption€and€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt.€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,Ð ð*!" Ð914€(Tenn.€1982).€Hence,€on€appeal,€the€burden€of€proof€rests€with€Appellant€toÏdemonstrate€the€insufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€òòId.óóÐ à.€%& Ðà ` àOn€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏevidence€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawnÏtherefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€Where€theÐ È4h+, Ðsufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€contested€on€appeal,€the€relevant€question€for€theÏreviewing€court€is€whether€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€accusedÐ ¸8X/0 Ðguilty€of€every€element€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€òòState€v.Ð `  ÐHarris,óó€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€In€conductingÐ X ø Ðour€evaluation€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€Court€is€precluded€fromÏreweighing€or€reconsidering€the€evidence.€òòState€v.€Morganóó,€929€S.W.2d€380,Ð Hè Ð383€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€Moreover,€this€Court€may€not€substitute€its€ownÏinferences€ð ðfor€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).Ð 0Ð  Ðà@AA-®àò òB.ó óˆÐ (È  Ðà ` àRape€is€defined€as€the€ð ðunlawful€sexual€penetration€of€a€victim€by€theÏdefendant€or€of€the€defendant€by€a€victimðð€and€ð ð[f]orce€or€coercion€is€used€toÏaccomplish€the€act.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„503(a)(1)€(1991).€€UnlawfulÏsexual€penetration€ð ðmeans€sexual€intercourse,€cunnilingus,€fellatio,€analÏintercourse,€or€any€other€intrusion,€however€slight,€of€any€part€of€a€personððs€bodyÏ.€.€.€into€the€genital€or€anal€openings€of€the€victimððs,€the€defendantððs,€or€any€otherÏpersonððs€body€.€.€.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39-13-501(7)€(1991).€€ð ðForceðð€meansÏð ðcompulsion€by€the€use€of€physical€power€or€violence,ðð€and€ð ðcoercionðð€is€definedÏas€the€ð ðthreat€of€kidnapping,€extortion,€force,€or€violence€to€be€performedÏimmediately€or€in€the€future.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39-11-106(a)(12),Ï39-13-501(1)€(1991).Ìà ` à€The€victim€testified€that€Appellant€grabbed€her€around€her€neck€fromÏbehind€and€dragged€her€into€the€bedroom.€€When€she€asked€what€he€was€doing,ÏAppellant€replied,€ð ð[i]f€you€just€be€quiet€and€donððt€fight€me,€I€wonððt€hurt€you.ðð€€TheÏvictim€testified€that€she€was€frightened€and€begged€Appellant€to€stop.€€AppellantÏpulled€off€the€victimððs€clothing€and€penetrated€her€vaginally,€forced€her€toÏperform€oral€sex€on€him,€and€then€performed€oral€sex€on€her.Ð ¬8L/0 Ðà ` àThe€crux€of€Appellantððs€argument€is€that€the€victimððs€testimony€wasÏuncorroborated€and€unbelievable.€€However,€it€is€well„settled€that€a€defendantÏcan€be€convicted€of€rape€based€solely€upon€the€uncorroborated€testimony€of€theÏvictim.€€òòState€v.€McKnightóó,€900€S.W.2d€36,€48€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€Ð Hè ÐFurthermore,€questions€of€the€weight€and€credibility€of€the€witnessesðð€testimonyÏare€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Goodeóó,Ð 8Ø  Ð956€S.W.2d€521,€526€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€932€S.W.2d€1,Ð 0Ð  Ð19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€The€jury€obviously€accredited€the€victimððsÏtestimony,€and€this€Court€is€not€at€liberty€to€overturn€the€juryððs€assessment.Ìà ` àAfter€reviewing€the€testimony€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€weÏconclude€there€is€sufficient€evidence€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€thatÏAppellant,€through€force€or€coercion,€unlawfully€sexually€penetrated€the€victimÏin€three€(3)€separate€instances.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€issue€has€no€merit.Ð !  ÐÌò òà@ß ß ®àòòVICTIMððS€MENTAL€HEALTH€RECORDSóóó óˆÐ ð$ ÐÌà ` àAppellant€challenges€his€convictions€on€the€basis€of€several€rulings€by€theÏtrial€court€denying€him€access€to€information€and€testimony€concerning€theÏvictimððs€mental€health€records€and€history.€€Appellant€alleges€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€refusing€to€allow€Appellant€to€cross„examine€the€victim€concerning€herÏmental€condition,€in€refusing€the€allow€into€evidence€D.M.ððs€mental€healthÏrecords,€and€in€quashing€a€subpoena€for€Dr.€Susan€OððConnor,€the€psychiatristÏwho€was€counseling€D.M.€Appellant€further€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ ¼4\+, Ðruling€that€Appellant€could€not€elicit€testimony€that€D.M.€had€been€receivingÏcounseling€at€the€Rutherford€County€Guidance€Center.Ìà@ŠŠ'®àò òA.€€Backgroundó óˆÐ P ð Ðà ` àPrior€to€trial,€the€defense€learned€that€the€victim€had€been€receivingÏcounseling€at€the€Rutherford€County€Guidance€Center€for€approximately€thirtyÏ(30)€days€prior€to€the€incident€on€April€23.€€Appellant€filed€a€motion€for€anÏindependent€psychological€examination€of€the€victim€and€requested€that€theÏstate€produce€the€victimððs€psychiatric€records€from€the€Guidance€Center.€€TheÏtrial€court€denied€Appellantððs€motion€for€an€independent€psychologicalÏexamination€of€the€victim.€€After€conducting€an€òòin€cameraóó€inspection€of€theÐ $Ä Ðvictimððs€psychiatric€records,€the€trial€court€also€denied€Appellantððs€motion€forÏproduction€of€those€records,€finding€such€records€to€be€irrelevant.€€Furthermore,Ïthe€trial€court€precluded€Appellant€from€cross„examining€the€witness€as€to€herÏmental€condition€on€relevancy€grounds€as€well.€€However,€the€trial€court€added,Ïð ðI€mean,€if€you€can€tie€it€in€and€make€it€relevant,€yes,€but€general€fishingÏexpeditions€to€embarrass€.€.€.€and€intimidateðð€the€witness€would€be€prohibited.Ìà@  ®àò òB.€€Access€to€Victimððs€Psychiatric€Recordsó óˆÐ ì(Œ  Ðà ` àAppellant€claims€that€he€should€have€been€allowed€to€examine€the€victimððsÏpsychiatric€records€for€the€purpose€of€impeaching€her,€and€the€trial€court€erredÏin€denying€him€access€to€such€records.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Barnesóó,€703€S.W.2d€611,Ð à.€%& Ð617€(Tenn.1985)€(holding€that€it€is€permissible€ð ðto€cross„examine€a€keyÏaccusatory€witness€in€a€criminal€case€as€to€his€mental€state€or€condition€.€.€.€forÏthe€purpose€of€impeaching€the€witness.ðð).€€The€trial€court€conducted€an€òòinÐ È4h+, Ðcameraóó€inspection€of€D.M.ððs€mental€health€records€to€determine€the€probativeÐ À6`-. Ðvalue€of€such€records.€€However,€the€trial€court€determined€that€the€informationÐ ¸8X/0 Ðcontained€in€the€records€was€irrelevant.€€We€agree.€€The€records€indicate€thatÏD.M.€sought€counseling€for€anxiety€and€panic€attacks.€There€is€no€evidence€thatÏD.M.€was€delusional€or€prone€to€fabrication.€€Nothing€in€the€records€pertained€toÏD.M.ððs€credibility€or€the€probative€value€of€her€testimony.€€Our€review€of€theÏrecords€shows€no€information€which€could€reasonably€have€been€helpful€to€theÏdefense€in€challenging€the€victimððs€veracity.€€The€trial€court€properly€deniedÏAppellant€access€to€the€victimððs€confidential€mental€health€records.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ 0Ð  Ðv.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€332„33€(Tenn.€1992).Ð (È  Ðà@UU®àò òC.€Cross„Examination€of€Victimó óˆÐ  À Ðà ` àAppellant€also€claims€that€he€was€denied€his€right€of€confrontation€whenÏthe€court€refused€to€allow€defense€counsel€to€cross„examine€the€victimÏconcerning€her€mental€condition.€€He€further€argues€that€the€trial€courtÏimproperly€restricted€his€cross„examination€of€the€victimððs€preliminary€hearingÏtestimony€and€refused€to€allow€him€to€cross„examine€the€victim€regarding€herÏalleged€purchases€of€illegal€drugs.ÌÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ àThe€confrontation€clause€of€the€Sixth€Amendment€providesÏtwo€types€of€protection€for€criminal€defendants:€€the€right€toÏphysically€face€those€who€testify€against€them,€and€the€right€toÏcross-examine€witnesses.€€òòPennsylvania€v.€Ritchieóó,€480€U.S.€39,Ð è)ˆ ! Ð51,€107€S.Ct.€989,€998,€94€L.Ed.2d€40,€53€(1987).€€The€right€toÏcross-examine€witnesses,€however,€does€not€include€the€power€toÏrequire€the€pretrial€disclosure€of€any€and€all€information€that€mightÏbe€useful€in€contradicting€unfavorable€testimony.€€òòId.óó,€480€U.S.€atÐ Ø-x$% Ð53,€107€S.Ct.€at€999,€94€L.Ed.2d€at€54.€€Therefore,€the€right€toÏconfront€witnesses€is€satisfied€if€defense€counsel€receives€wideÏlatitude€at€trial€to€cross-examine,€because€the€confrontation€clauseÏonly€guarantees€ð ðan€opportunity€for€effective€cross-examination,€notÏcross-examination€that€is€effective€in€whatever€way,€and€toÏwhatever€extent,€the€defense€might€wish.ðð€€òòId.óó€(quoting€òòDelaware€v.Ð À3`*+ ÐFenstereróó,€474€U.S.€15,€20,€106€S.Ct.€292,€294,€88€L.Ed.2d€15,€19Ð ¼4\+, Ð(1985)).Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓÓòòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€at€332„33.€€The€United€States€SupremeÐ °7P./ ÐCourt€has€recognized€that€the€right€to€ð ðconfront€and€to€cross-€examine€is€notÐ ¨9H01 Ðabsolute€and€may,€in€appropriate€cases,€bow€to€accommodate€other€legitimateÏinterests€in€the€criminal€trial€process.ðð€€òòChambers€v.€Mississippióó,€410€U.S.€284,Ð X ø Ð295,€93€S.Ct.€1038,€1046,€35€L.Ed.€297€(1973).€€For€instance,€a€trial€judge€hasÏthe€discretion€ð ðto€limit€reasonably€a€criminal€defendantððs€right€to€cross-examineÏa€witness€ððbased€on€concerns€about,€among€other€things,€harassment,Ïprejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,€the€witnessðð€safety,€or€interrogation€that€isÏrepetitive€or€only€marginally€relevant.ðððð€€òòMichigan€v.€Lucasóó,€500€U.S.€145,€149,Ð 0Ð  Ð111€S.Ct.€1743,€1746,€114€L.Ed.2d€205€(1991)€(quoting€òòDelaware€v.€Van€Arsdallóó,Ð (È  Ð475€U.S.€673,€679,€106€S.Ct.€1431,€1435,€89€L.Ed.2d€674€(1986)).Ìà ` àThe€trial€court€ruled€that€Appellant€could€not€cross„examine€the€victim€asÏto€her€mental€condition€because€it€was€irrelevant.€€However,€the€trial€court€notedÏthat€Appellant€could€cross„examine€the€victim€on€her€mental€state€if€it€becameÏrelevant,€but€ð ðgeneral€fishing€expeditionsðð€designed€to€embarrass€and€intimidateÏthe€victim€would€not€be€allowed.€€This€ruling€was€entirely€proper.€€òòMichigan€v.Ð ø"˜ ÐLucasóó,€500€U.S.€at€149,€111€S.Ct.€at€1746;€òòChambers€v.€Mississippióó,€410€U.S.Ð ð$ Ðat€295,€93€S.Ct.€at€1046.€€Although€a€criminal€defendant€has€the€right€to€confrontÏand€cross„examine€witnesses€against€him,€that€right€is€limited€by€Rule€402€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€in€that€€neither€party€ð ðmay€cross„examine€aÏwitness€on€matters€that€are€irrelevant.ðð€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€929€S.W.2d€385,€389Ð Ð,p#$ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)€(citation€omitted).Ìà ` àFurthermore,€the€trial€court€did€not€unduly€restrict€the€cross„examinationÏregarding€the€victimððs€preliminary€hearing€testimony.€€Defense€counselÏthoroughly€cross„examined€the€victim€about€why€she€did€not€immediately€call€forÏâ âhelp€during€or€after€the€rape,€her€abusive€past€relationships,€and€theÐ ¨6H-. Ðinconsistencies€between€her€testimony€at€trial€and€her€testimony€at€theÏpreliminary€hearing.Ìâ âà ` àAppellant€likewise€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€excluding€defenseÏquestions€to€the€victim€regarding€alleged€statements€made€by€D.M.€that€she€wasÏbuying€cocaine€for€her€boyfriend.€We€find€this€contention€without€merit.€€Not€onlyÏwas€such€questioning€irrelevant,€but€it€was€clearly€designed€to€harass€the€victim.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€402€and€403.€€ð ðWhile€great€latitude€in€the€area€ofÐ 0Ð  Ðimpeachment€should€be€granted,€the€propriety,€scope,€and€manner€of€the€crossÏexamination€still€rest€with€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.ðð€€òòState€v.€Forbesóó,€918Ð  À ÐS.W.2d€431,€450€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€This€Court€will€not€disturbÏdiscretionary€limits€on€cross„examination€absent€a€showing€of€clear€and€plainÏabuse.€€òòId.óó€€The€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€excluding€suchÐ ¨ Ðquestioning.Ìà@§§%®àò òD.€€Motion€to€Quashó óˆÐ ø"˜ Ðà ` àAppellant€also€claims€that€he€was€denied€his€right€to€compulsory€processÏwhen€the€trial€court€quashed€a€subpoena€for€Dr.€Susan€OððConnor,€theÏpsychiatrist€who€was€counseling€the€victim€at€the€Rutherford€County€GuidanceÏCenter.€€The€trial€court,€after€finding€that€the€victimððs€mental€health€history€wasÏirrelevant,€excused€Dr.€OððConnor€from€testifying€for€the€defense.Ìà ` àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€24-1-207(a)€provides,€in€pertinent€part:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ à[c]ommunications€between€a€patient€and€a€licensed€physicianÏwhen€practicing€as€a€psychiatrist€in€the€course€of€and€in€connectionÏwith€a€therapeutic€counseling€relationship€.€.€.€are€privileged€inÏproceedings€before€judicial€and€quasi-judicial€tribunals.€€Neither€theÏpsychiatrist€nor€any€member€of€the€staff€may€testify€òòor€be€compelledÐ ¼4\+, Ðto€testifyóó€as€to€such€communications€or€otherwise€reveal€them€inÐ ¸5X,- Ðsuch€proceedings€without€consent€of€the€patient€except:Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ à(1)€In€proceedings€in€which€the€patient€raises€the€issue€of€theÏpatient's€mental€or€emotional€condition;Ш9H01` ü!` ü! Їà8 ` àà ¸ à(2)€In€proceedings€for€which€the€psychiatrist€was€ordered€byÏthe€tribunal€to€examine€the€patient€if€the€patient€was€advised€thatÏcommunications€to€the€psychiatrist€would€not€be€privileged,€butÏtestimony€as€to€the€communications€is€admissible€only€on€issuesÏinvolving€the€patient's€mental€or€emotional€condition;€€andÐ ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ à(3)€In€proceedings€to€involuntarily€hospitalize€the€patientÏunder€ðð€33-6-103€or€ðð€33-6-104,€if€the€psychiatrist€decides€that€theÏpatient€is€in€need€of€care€and€treatment€in€a€residential€facility.€ÏUnless€otherwise€ordered€by€the€court,€the€exception€is€limited€toÏdisclosures€necessary€to€establish€that€the€patient€poses€aÏsubstantial€likelihood€of€serious€harm€requiring€involuntaryÏhospitalization€under€ðð€33-6-103€or€ðð€33-6-104.Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓÓ(Emphasis€added).Ìà ` àNone€of€the€listed€exceptions€apply€in€this€case.€€Further,€the€victim€clearlyÏdid€not€consent€to€Dr.€OððConnor€testifying€regarding€her€counseling€sessions.€ÏMoreover,€the€trial€court€previously€deemed€the€victimððs€mental€health€to€beÏirrelevant€at€trial.€€Therefore,€the€trial€court€properly€quashed€the€subpoena€forÏDr.€OððConnor.Ìà@··'®àò òE.€€Conclusionó óˆÐ ø"˜ Ðà ` àAfter€a€careful€review€of€the€victimððs€mental€health€records€submittedÏunder€seal€to€this€Court,€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€victimððs€psychiatricÏhistory€had€no€bearing€on€her€credibility.€€We,€therefore,€conclude€that€AppellantÏwas€not€denied€the€opportunity€ð ðto€expose€to€the€jury€the€facts€from€which€jurorsÏ...€could€appropriately€draw€inferences€relating€to€the€reliability€of€the€witness.ðð€ÏòòDavis€v.€Alaskaóó,€415€U.S.€308,€318,€94€S.Ct.€1105,€1111,€39€L.Ed.2d€347,€355Ð Ô.t%& Ð(1974);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€at€333.Ð Ì0l'( Ðà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òà@%%&®àòòLEADING€QUESTIONSóóó óˆÐ ´6T-. ÐÐ ¸8X/0 Ðà ` àAppellant€asserts€that€he€was€denied€a€fair€trial€when€the€state€askedÏallegedly€improper€and€highly€prejudicial€leading€questions€of€a€prosecutionÏwitness.€€Gwendolyn€Willard,€the€emergency€room€nurse€who€examined€D.M.Ïthe€evening€of€the€rape,€testified€that€she€observed€red€marks€on€the€victimððsÏforearms€and€lower€left€leg.€€On€cross„examination,€Willard€acknowledged€thatÏthe€victim€did€not€attribute€the€red€markings€on€her€body€to€any€force€thatÏoccurred€during€the€rape.€€On€re„direct€examination,€the€following€exchangeÏoccurred:ÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àQ.à  àà8 h àà À àWell,€she€never€saidÐ  À Ðthatððs€what€happened€to€her,Ïbut€are€they€[the€markings]Ïnot€consistent€with€whatÏhappened€to€her?Ð hôhô ÐÌà ` àMR.€DANIEL:à8 h àà À àYour€Honor,€he€isÐ ¨ Ðleading€the€witness€now,€andÏthis€is€his€witness.Ð hôhô ÐÌà ` àTHE€COURT:à8 h àà À àYour€response.Ðø"˜hôhô ÐÌà ` àGEN.€HOLCOMBE:à8 À àà  àIððllÐ ð$ Ðrephrase€it.Ð ÀœÀœ ÐÌà ` àTHE€COURT:à8 h àà À àAll€right.Ðä'„hôhô ÐÌà ` àGEN.€HOLCOMBE:à8 À àà  àYou€saidÐ Ü)| ! Ðthat€you€hadÏher€history.€ÏAnd€althoughÏshe€did€not€linkÏthese,€myÏquestion€is,Ïwould€you€tellÏus€whether€orÏnot€they€areÏconsistent€withÏthat€history.Ð ÀœÀœ ÐÌà ` àMR.€DANIEL:à8 h àà À àObjection,€your€Honor,Ð ¨6H-. Ðyou€know,€anything€could€beÏconsistent€with€anything.€€IÏmean€that€doesnððt€„„Ðœ9<01hôhô Їà ` àTHE€COURT:à8 h àà À àOverruled.€€You€canÐ `  Ðanswer.Ð hôhô ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àA.à  àà8 h àà À àThey€could€beÐ T ô Ðconsistent€with€this€history.Ð hôhô ÐÌÓÓà ` àThe€state€concedes€that€the€first€question€was,€in€fact,€a€leading€question.€ÏThe€second€question,€however,€was€not€leading.€€ð ðA€leading€question€has€beenÏdefined€as€one€which€ððsuggests€the€specific€answer€desired.ðððð€N.€Cohen,€D.ÏPaine€&€Sheppeard,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€611.6€(3d€ed.1995)€(citationÐ 0Ð  Ðomitted).€€The€stateððs€question,€as€ultimately€posed,€did€not€suggest€the€answerÏdesired.€€In€any€event,€Appellant€has€not€shown€how€he€was€prejudiced€by€theÏalleged€leading€questions€and,€therefore,€is€not€entitled€to€relief.€€òòState€v.Ð ¸ ÐCaughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€526,€538€(Tenn.€1993).Ð ° Ðà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òà@à à ®àòòINTRODUCTION€OF€MEDICAL€REPORTóóó óˆÐ ø"˜ ÐÌà ` àIn€his€next€issue,€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admittingÏinto€evidence€the€victimððs€emergency€room€report.€€He€insists€that€the€report€wasÏhearsay€and€not€admissible€under€any€of€the€hearsay€exceptions.€€Furthermore,Ïhe€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€passing€such€report€to€the€jury.Ìà ` àDuring€Gwendolyn€Willardððs€testimony,€she€utilized€the€emergency€roomÏtriage€assessment€report€to€refresh€her€memory.€€In€the€report,€Willard€notedÏthat€the€victim€was€a€patient€at€the€Rutherford€County€Guidance€Center.€€DuringÏcross„examination,€the€defense€sought€to€question€Willard€about€the€GuidanceÏCenter€notation׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€requested€that€the€report€be€submitted€as€a€part€of€theÐ ´6T-. Ðdefense€offer€of€proof€regarding€the€victimððs€mental€state.€€The€state€suggestedÏthat€the€report€be€admitted€as€an€exhibit€which€would€not€be€passed€to€the€jury.€ÏDefense€counsel€replied,€ð ð[t]hatððs€fine.ðð€€Subsequently€during€the€trial,€the€stateÏrequested€that€a€redacted€version׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€of€the€record€be€passed€to€the€jury,€andÐ Hè ÐAppellant€objected.€The€trial€court€overruled€Appellantððs€objection€and€allowedÏthe€redacted€record€to€be€passed.Ìà ` àInitially,€we€note€that€this€issue€is€waived€because€Appellant€failed€to€makeÏa€contemporaneous€objection€to€the€admission€of€the€exhibit.€€òòState€v.€Philpottóó,Ð (È  Ð882€S.W.2d€394,€405€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€€Indeed,ÏAppellant€actually€consented€to€the€reportððs€admission€into€evidence.Ìà ` àAlthough€Appellant€claims€that€he€objected€to€the€admission€of€the€report,Ïhe€merely€objected€to€the€exhibit€being€passed€to€the€jury.€€This€Court€hasÏpreviously€stated€the€jury€ð ðis€entitled€to€review€those€exhibits€which€have€beenÏadmitted€as€evidence€in€the€case.ðð€€òòState€v.€Richard€Allen€Kidd,€IIóó,€C.C.A.€No.Ð ø"˜ Ð03C01„9607„CC„00272,€1997€WL€789909€at€*4,€Anderson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€filed€December€23,€1997,€at€Knoxville).Ìà ` àFurthermore,€the€hospital€records€of€the€victim€are€admissible€under€Tenn.ÏR.€Evid.€803(4),€because€the€report€(1)€was€made€for€the€purpose€of€medicalÏdiagnosis€and€treatment;€(2)€describes€the€medical€history€of€the€declarant,€i.e.,Ïthe€victim;€and€(3)€is€ð ðreasonably€pertinent€to€diagnosis€and€treatment.ðð€€òòStateÐ È.h%& Ðv.€Edwardsóó,€868€S.W.2d€682,€699€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ð À0`'( Ðà ` àNevertheless,€Appellant€has€not€demonstrated€how€he€was€prejudiced€byÏthe€admission€of€this€evidence.€€The€information€contained€in€the€report€wasÏpresented€to€the€jury€through€the€testimony€of€Willard,€who€essentially€read€theÐ ¨6H-. Ðreport€into€the€record.€€Therefore,€any€error€in€the€admission€of€the€report€intoÏevidence€was€at€most€harmless.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Edwardsóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€699.Ð X ø Ðà ` àThis€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌò òà@cc$®àòòPHOTOGRAPHIC€LINE„UPóóó óˆÐ @à ÐÌà ` àAppellant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€state€to€admit€theÏphotographic€line„up€in€which€the€victim€identified€Appellant€as€the€perpetratorÏof€the€rape.€€He€argues€that€the€line„up€was€irrelevant€at€trial€because€heÏadmitted€that€he€assisted€the€victim€with€her€vehicle€on€April€23.€€Further,€heÏasserts€that€the€photographic€line„up€was€unduly€prejudicial€in€that€theÏphotograph€depicted€him€as€a€ð ðperson€accused€of€crime.ððÌà ` àWe€must€note€that€Appellant€did€not€contemporaneously€object€to€theÏadmission€of€the€photographic€line„up.€€As€such,€this€issue€is€waived.€€òòState€v.Ð #¤ ÐGilmoreóó,€823€S.W.2d€566,€570€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€Ð ü$œ ÐAlthough€Appellant€insists€that€he€did€object,€such€objection€was€untimely.€ÏDefense€counsel€objected€to€the€admission€of€the€line„up€at€the€conclusion€ofÏthe€witnessðð€testimony.€€The€line„up€had€already€been€admitted€into€evidence,Ïand€any€objection€was,€at€that€point,€too€late.Ìà ` àRegardless,€the€photographic€line„up€was€properly€admitted.€€ð ð[T]heÏdecision€to€admit€or€exclude€evidence€is€left€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trialÏjudge€and€the€judgeððs€decision€will€not€be€disturbed€unless€it€has€been€arbitrarilyÏexercised.ðð€€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€872€S.W.2d€950,€955€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€Ð ¼4\+, ÐEvidence€that€the€victim€identified€Appellant€as€the€perpetrator€of€a€crime€isÏhighly€relevant.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€Furthermore,€the€probative€value€of€suchÐ ¬8L/0 Ðevidence€outweighs€any€prejudicial€impact.€€Certainly,€the€jury€was€aware€thatÏAppellant€had€been€ð ðaccused€of€crime,ðð€as€he€was€standing€trial€for€a€criminalÏoffense.Ìà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òà@33 ®àòòAPPELLANTððS€PRIOR€CONVICTIONSóóó óˆÐ 8Ø  ÐÌà ` àIn€his€next€issue€Appellant€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€theÏadmissibility€of€a€prior€conviction€for€impeachment€purposes.€€He€argues€that€hisÏprior€conviction€for€assault€with€intent€to€rob€is€similar€to€rape€in€that€bothÏoffenses€involve€ð ðassaultive€conduct.ðð€€Further,€he€asserts€that€the€probativeÏvalue€of€the€prior€conviction€on€the€issue€of€credibility€is€slight,€and€therefore,€isÏoutweighed€by€its€prejudicial€impact.€Ìà ` àUnder€Rule€609€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€there€are€specificÏprocedures€to€be€followed€before€prior€convictions€of€a€criminal€accused€may€beÏadmitted€into€evidence€for€impeachment€purposes.€€The€state€must€provide€theÏaccused€with€written€notice€prior€to€trial€of€the€proposed€impeachingÏconviction(s).€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609(a)(3).€€Prior€to€the€testimony€of€the€accused,Ïthe€trial€court€must€determine€that€the€convictionððs€probative€value€on€credibilityÏoutweighs€its€unfair€prejudicial€effect€on€the€substantive€issues.€€òòId.óó;€òòsee€alsoóóÐ Ô.t%& ÐòòState€v.€Farmeróó,€841€S.W.2d€837,€839€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1992).€€In€making€suchÐ Ì0l'( Ða€determination,€the€trial€court€should€ð ðassess€the€similarity€between€the€crimeÏon€trial€and€the€crime€underlying€the€impeaching€conviction.ðð€€N.€Cohen,€D.Ïâ âPaine€&€Sheppeard,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€609.9€at€p.€376€(3dÐ ´6T-. Ðed.1995).€€Secondly,€the€trial€court€must€ð ðanalyze€the€relevance€the€impeachingÏconviction€has€to€the€issue€of€credibility.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ X ø Ðâ âà ` àThe€state€gave€notice€of€its€intent€to€impeach€Appellant,€should€he€chooseÏto€testify,€with€a€prior€conviction€in€Michigan€of€assault€with€the€intent€to€rob.€ÏPrior€to€the€defense€proof,€the€trial€court€conducted€a€jury„out€hearing€toÏdetermine€the€admissibility€of€Appellantððs€prior€conviction€for€impeachment.€€TheÏtrial€court€found€that€the€offenses€were€inherently€different,€in€that€the€priorÏconviction€involved€a€robbery€whereas€Appellant€was€standing€trial€for€a€sexualÏoffense.€€Furthermore,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€probative€value€on€the€issueÏof€Appellantððs€credibility€outweighed€any€prejudicial€effect.€€Therefore,€the€trialÏcourt€ruled€that€the€state€could€impeach€Appellant€with€the€prior€offense,€if€heÏtestified.Ìà ` àWe€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€impeaching€conviction€was€dissimilarÏto€the€present€offense€of€rape.€€Despite€the€violence€inherent€in€each€offense,Ïone€offense€is€sexual€in€nature€while€the€other€involves€a€robbery.€€Nevertheless,Ïthe€fact€that€the€prior€offense€is€similar€to€the€crime€for€which€a€defendant€isÏbeing€tried€does€not€necessarily€require€that€it€be€excluded.€€òòState€v.€Blevinsóó,Ð à(€  Ð968€S.W.2d€888,€893€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).Ìà ` àAppellantððs€prior€conviction€was€highly€probative€of€credibility€in€that€itÏinvolved€robbery€which€implicates€the€critical€element€of€dishonesty.€€òòState€v.Ð È.h%& ÐCarruthersóó,€676€S.W.2d€935,€941€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Blevinsóó,€968€S.W.2d€atÐ À0`'( Ð893.€€Courts€of€this€state€have€held€that€the€offenses€of€burglary€and€theft€areÏð ðhighly€probative€of€credibility,ðð€because€these€crimes€involve€dishonesty.€òòStateÐ °4P+, Ðv.€Bakeróó,€956€S.W.2d€8,€15€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)€(citing€òòState€v.€Crankóó,€721Ð ¨6H-. ÐS.W.2d€264,€266-67€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986);€òòState€v.€Tuneóó,€872€S.W.2d€922,Ð  8@/0 Ð927€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòState€v.€Milleróó,€737€S.W.2d€556,€560€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð `  ÐApp.€1987)).Ìà ` àUnder€this€Courtððs€review,€we€do€not€re-evaluate€whether€the€probativeÏvalue€of€the€defendantððs€prior€conviction€outweighs€the€possible€prejudicial€effectÏit€might€have€had.€€òòState€v.€Robertsóó,€943€S.W.2d€403,€408€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð @à Ð1996).€€We€may€only€reverse€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€if€we€find€that€itÏabused€its€discretion€in€admitting€the€convictions.€€òòId.óó;€òòState€v.€Tuneóó,€872€S.W.2dÐ 0Ð  Ðat€927.€€As€Appellantððs€prior€conviction€of€assault€with€intent€to€rob€is€probativeÏof€credibility,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€ruling€that€the€stateÏcould€impeach€Appellant€with€this€prior€conviction,€if€he€chose€to€testify.Ìà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òà@kk&®àòòLIST€OF€WITNESSESóóó óˆÐ !  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€state€to€informÏthe€jury€that€Appellant€had€provided€a€list€of€ð ðalibi€witnesses.ðð€€He€argues€that€theÏprosecutorððs€statement€is€analogous€to€that€in€òòState€v.€Meeksóó,€876€S.W.2d€121,Ð ì(Œ  Ð129€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€where€this€Court€overturned€the€defendantððsÏconvictions€after€finding€that€the€state€had€erroneously€referred€to€the€defenseÏof€alibi€contrary€to€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12.1(f).Ìà ` àIn€òòMeeksóó,€the€defense€had€filed€a€notice€of€a€potential€alibi€witness,Ð Ì0l'( ÐRonnie€Anderson,€but€withdrew€its€intent€to€present€an€alibi€defense€during€aÏbench€conference€at€trial.€€òòId.óó€at€128„29.€€During€cross„examination,€theÐ ¼4\+, Ðprosecutor€questioned€Anderson€as€to€whether€he€knew€that€he€had€been€listedÏas€an€alibi€witness€for€the€defense.€€òòId.óó€at€129.€€The€trial€court€sustained€theÐ ¬8L/0 Ðdefendantððs€objection€to€this€question,€but€allowed€further€inquiry€into€the€alibiÏdefense€by€the€prosecution.€€òòId.óó€€This€Court€reversed€the€defendantððs€convictionÐ X ø Ðdue€to€a€violation€of€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12.1(f),€which€prohibits€the€admission€intoÏevidence€the€defendantððs€intent€to€rely€on€the€alibi€defense€once€that€intentionÏhas€been€withdrawn.€€òòId.óó€€at€128„29.€€This€Court€observed€that€the€error€wasÐ @à Ðð ðcompounded€when€the€State€was€allowed€in€closing€argument€to€makeÏadversarial€use€of€the€defendantððs€withdrawal€of€the€alibi€defense.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€129.Ð 0Ð  Ðà ` àIn€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€Appellant€points€to€an€exchange€between€the€stateÐ (È  Ðand€Belinda€Talley€where€the€prosecutor€asked€if€she€knew€Robert€Verge.€€Mrs.ÏTalley€responded,€ð ð[t]hatððs€my€dad.€€Which€one?€€Itððs€[sic]€two€Robert€Verges.ðð€ÏThe€prosecutor€replied,€ð ð[t]his€is€just€a€list€of€witnesses€provided€by€Mr.€DanielÏto€us.ððÌà ` àWe€find€the€present€case€to€be€distinguishable€from€this€Courtððs€holdingÏin€òòMeeksóó.€€First,€the€holding€in€òòMeeksóó€was€based€upon€a€violation€of€Tenn.€R.Ð ø"˜ ÐCrim.€P.€12.1(f)€due€to€the€fact€that€the€defense€had€withdrawn€its€intention€toÏuse€an€alibi€defense€at€trial.€€In€this€case,€Appellant€had€not€withdrawn€his€noticeÏof€alibi.€€Indeed,€the€defense€presented€testimony€as€to€Appellantððs€whereaboutsÏduring€the€time€of€the€offenses,€and€defense€counsel€made€an€alibi€argumentÏduring€its€closing.€€Secondly,€unlike€in€òòMeeksóó,€the€prosecution€did€not€refer€to€theÐ Ð,p#$ Ðwitnesses€as€ð ðalibi€witnessesðð€but€merely€referred€to€the€list€as€a€ð ðlist€ofÏwitnesses.ððÌà ` àFurthermore,€the€question€was€an€isolated€incident€in€that€the€prosecutorððsÏcomment€was€the€only€one€which€could€vaguely€be€construed€as€commentingÏon€the€defenseððs€change€in€tactic.€€We€conclude€that€Appellant€was€notÏprejudiced€by€the€prosecutionððs€reference€to€a€ð ðlist€of€witnesses.ððÐ  8@/0 Ðà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òà@õõ!®àòòVICTIMððS€HEARSAY€STATEMENTóóó óˆÐ P ð ÐÌà ` àIn€his€next€issue,€Appellant€complains€that€the€state€and€trial€courtÏimproperly€characterized€certain€statements€made€by€the€victim€to€defenseÏwitnesses€as€hearsay.€€He€argues€that€any€statement€made€by€the€victim€is€anÏadmission€and€is€admissible€as€an€admission€by€a€party€opponent€under€Tenn.ÏR.€Evid.€803(1.2).€We€disagree.€The€parties€to€a€criminal€case€are€the€State€ofÏTennessee€and€the€defendant.€The€victim€is€a€witness,€albeit€an€interested€one,Ïin€the€litigation.€€Therefore,€the€victimððs€statements€do€not€fall€under€the€purviewÏof€Rule€803(1.2).€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌò òà@++&®àòòCLOSING€ARGUMENTóóó óˆÐ ü$œ ÐÌà ` àAppellant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€denied€him€a€fair€trial€by€makingÏimproper€and€biased€rulings€during€closing€argument.€€Specifically€AppellantÏalleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€sustaining€the€stateððs€objections€to€defenseÏcounselððs€use€of€the€words€ð ðpreposterousðð€and€ð ðI€guaranteeðð€during€closingÏargument.€€Furthermore,€he€claims€that€the€trial€court€cut€off€defense€counselððsÏargument€in€mid„sentence€and€refused€to€allow€counsel€five€seconds€toÏconclude€his€final€sentence,€while€giving€the€prosecution€an€additional€thirty€(30)Ïseconds€for€argument.€€Additionally,€he€asserts€that€in€the€stateððs€closingÏargument,€the€prosecutor€erroneously€referred€to€the€defenseððs€failure€to€presentÐ ¸8X/0 Ðevidence€of€motive€after€the€defense€had€been€precluded€from€introducing€suchÏevidence.€€Finally,€he€contends€that€the€prosecutor€improperly€injected€hisÏpersonal€opinion€into€his€closing€argument.€€We€will€take€each€of€theseÏassignments€of€error€in€turn.Ìà@’’ ®àò òA.€€Defense€Closing€Argumentó óˆÐ @à Ðà ` àAppellant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€sustaining€the€stateððsÏobjections€to€defense€counselððs€argument€on€the€basis€that€defense€counselÏimproperly€asserted€his€personal€opinion.€€Defense€counsel€began€his€argumentÏby€stating€that€the€prosecutor€ð ðsaid€to€you€[jury]€something€that€is€absolutely,€inÏmy€mind,€preposterous.ðð€€The€state€objected,€and€the€trial€court€sustained€theÏobjection.€€Subsequently,€defense€counsel€stated€on€two€separate€occasions,Ïð ðI€guaranteeðð€in€conjunction€with€his€argument.€€The€prosecutionððs€objections€toÏsuch€comments€were€sustained€by€the€trial€court.Ìà ` àAn€attorney€should€not€inject€his€personal€opinions€in€closing€argument.€ÏòòState€v.€Payneóó,€791€S.W.2d€10,€20€(Tenn.1990);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,€618Ð ü$œ ÐS.W.2d€510,€516,€517€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1981);€Sup.€Ct.€Rule€8,€DR€7-106(C)(4).€ÏEach€of€these€contested€statements€clearly€expressed€defense€counselððsÏopinion.€€The€trial€court€properly€sustained€the€stateððs€objections€to€theseÏcomments.Ìà ` àAppellant€further€contends€that€the€trial€court€showed€partiality€in€limitingÏthe€time€defense€counsel€was€allowed€to€argue.€€We€do€not€agree.€€Prior€toÏargument,€the€trial€court€clearly€stated€that€both€sides€would€be€allowed€onlyÏthirty€(30)€minutes€for€argument.€€This€was€entirely€within€the€courtððs€discretion.€ÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€Pro€29.1(c).€€Although€Appellant€complains€that€the€trial€court€cutÏoff€defense€counsel€in€mid„sentence€without€allotting€any€additional€time€to€finishÐ ¬8L/0 Ðhis€sentence,€the€trial€court€similarly€terminated€the€stateððs€argument€when€theÏprosecutionððs€time€had€ended.€€Furthermore,€the€additional€thirty€(30)€secondsÏafforded€the€state€for€its€argument€was€to€compensate€for€the€time€used€byÏdefense€counselððs€repeated€objections€and€subsequent€arguments€with€the€trialÏcourtððs€rulings.€€ð ðTrial€judges€are€accorded€wide€discretion€in€control€of€theÏargument.ðð€€òòState€v.€Zirkleóó,€910€S.W.2d€874,€888€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€TheÐ 8Ø  Ðtrial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion.Ìà ` àThis€issue€has€no€merit.Ìà@ÍÍ ®àò òB.€€Prosecutorial€Misconductó óˆÐ  À Ðà ` àAppellant€also€argues€that€the€state€committed€prosecutorial€misconductÏby€referring€to€the€lack€of€proof€that€the€victim€had€a€motive€for€fabricating€theÏrape€when€the€defense€was€precluded€from€going€into€possible€motives€of€theÏvictim.€€He€also€claims€that€the€prosecutor€improperly€asserted€his€own€personalÏopinion€during€closing€argument.Ìà@SS-®àò ò1.ó óˆÐ ü$œ Ðà ` àIn€its€summation,€the€defense€argued€that€the€victim€fabricated€the€rapeÏin€order€to€gain€sympathy€from€her€estranged€boyfriend.€€In€rebuttal,€theÏassistant€district€attorney€stated:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ àNow,€he€wants€you€to€believe€that€she€is€an€emotional€basketÏcase,€that€she€did€this€for€some€motive.€€And€I€submit€to€you€thereÏreally€isnððt€a€motive,€and€Iððm€going€to€come€back€to€this,€but€let€meÏask€you€this.€€Did€you€hear€a€single€witness€get€up€on€this€stand,€inÏall€the€witnesses€that€youððve€heard,€and€say€she€is€the€type€ofÏperson€that€does€this?€€Sheððs€done€this€before.€€She€will€make€upÏa€wild€allegation€to€get€somebody€back.€€Did€Jerry€Hunter€say€that?€ÏDid€Terry€Alexander€say€that?€€Did€anyone€else€[say]€that?€€In€allÏthe€supposed€boyfriends€that€sheððs€had,€this€person€who€goesÏaround€doing€this€type€of€thing,€did€a€single€person€get€up€here€andÏsay€thatððs€the€kind€of€thing€sheððd€say?€€No,€they€didnððt.€€Not€a€singleÏperson€said€that€about€her.€€Not€a€single€person€said€she€wouldÏmake€something€like€this€up.€€Now,€letððs€talk€about€that.Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÐ ´9T01 ÐThe€prosecutionððs€argument€continued:ÌÌà8 ` àà ¸ àNow,€why€didnððt€she€immediately€call€the€police?€€Just€like€heÏwants€you€to€believe€that€there€ought€to€be€a€climax€in€every€singleÏrape€case,€even€though€thatððs€not€the€law,€he€wants€you€to€sayÏevery€rape€victim€needs€to€call€911€immediately,€or€every€rapeÏvictim€needs€to€run€right€over€and€report€this.€€òòShe€gave€you€a€veryÐ Hè Ðhonest€answer€why€she€didnððtóó.€€She€said€because€everybody€knowsÐ Dä Ðwhat€a€rape€victim€goes€through.€€And€thatððs€exactly€what€sheððsÏgone€through;€isnððt€it?€€A€long€preliminary€hearing,€statements,Ïstayed€at€the€hospital€for€hours€that€night€undergoing€a€rapeÏexamination,€had€to€turn€over€her€clothes,€had€to€turn€over€herÏblanket.Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌ.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 ` à.€.€.€She€sat€on€this€stand€for€hours€and€had€to€be€questioned€aboutÏevery€single€incident,€had€to€bring€up€past€boyfriends,€òòevery€type€ofÐ ¼ Ðsluróó€that€could€be€thrown€against€her€as€to€why€she€was€doing€this.€Ð ¸ ÐShe€was€right€in€not€doing€that.€€Did€she€do€it€to€be€vindictive?€€òòSheÐ ´ Ðdidnððt€even€want€to€call€the€policeóó.€.€.€.а` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓÓ(Emphasis€added).׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ¨ Ðà@SS-®àò ò2.ó óˆÐ !  Ðà ` àBoth€the€state€and€the€defense€are€afforded€wide€latitude€in€arguing€theirÏcases€to€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€809€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.Ð ü$œ ÐZirkleóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€888.€€However,€when€the€prosecutionððs€argument€goesÐ ô&” Ðbeyond€that€wide€latitude€afforded,€the€test€to€determine€whether€reversal€isÏrequired€is€ð ðwhether€the€impropriety€ððaffected€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€theÏdefendant.ðððð€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€809€(quoting€òòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,Ð Ü,|#$ Ð215€Tenn.€338,€385€S.W.2d€758,€759€(1965)).Ìà ` àIn€reviewing€a€claim€of€prosecutorial€misconduct€during€closing€argument,Ïwe€are€guided€by€such€factors€as:ÌÓÓà8 ` à1.€€The€conduct€complained€of€viewed€in€context€and€in€light€of€theÏfacts€and€circumstances€of€the€case.Ð ` ü!` ü! Ѐ€Ð ´6T-. Ðà ` à2.€The€curative€measures€undertaken€by€the€court€and€the€prosecution.€ÏÌÌà ` à3.€The€intent€of€the€prosecution€in€making€the€improper€statement.€€ÌÌà ` à4.€The€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€and€any€other€errors€inÏthe€record.€€ÌÌà ` à5.€The€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€case.ÌÌÓÓòòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).Ð 8Ø  Ðà@SS-®àò ò3.ó óˆÐ 0Ð  Ðà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€prosecutionððs€reference€to€Appellantððs€lack€ofÏevidence€of€motive€was€improper€because€he€was€precluded€from€introducingÏsuch€evidence€by€the€trial€court.€€However,€contrary€to€Appellantððs€assertion,€theÏtrial€court€did€not€restrict€the€defenseððs€ability€to€explore€the€theory€of€motive€orÏfabrication€through€witness€testimony€or€argument.€€The€trial€court€informedÏAppellant€that€he€would€be€able€to€cross„examine€the€victim€concerning€herÏmental€condition,€if€that€condition€was€relevant€to€the€issues€at€trial.€€The€trialÏcourt€merely€prevented€Appellant€from€delving€into€the€victimððs€psychiatric€historyÏas€a€means€of€embarrassing€or€harassing€the€victim.Ìà ` àIn€any€event,€the€stateððs€argument€was€not€directed€at€the€victimððsÏpsychological€state,€but€was€in€response€to€defense€counselððs€argument€that€theÏvictim€fabricated€the€incident.€€The€state€argued€that€none€of€the€witnessesÏsupported€the€defense€theory.€€ð ðThe€bounds€of€proper€argument€largely€dependÏupon€the€facts€in€evidence,€the€character€of€the€trial,€and€the€conduct€ofÏopposing€counsel.ðð€€òòState€v.€Cokeróó,€911€S.W.2d€357,€368€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð Ä2d)* Ð1995).€€The€prosecutionððs€argument€was€not€improper.Ìâ âà@SS-®àò ò4.ó óˆÐ ´6T-. Ðà ` àAppellant€also€claims€that€the€prosecution€improperly€asserted€a€personalÏâ âopinion€during€its€closing€argument.€€A€lawyer€must€not€assert€his€personalÏopinion€as€to€the€credibility€of€a€witness,€or€as€to€the€guilt€or€innocence€of€theÏdefendant.€€òòState€v.€Henleyóó,€774€S.W.2d€908,€911€(Tenn.€1989).€€Furthermore,Ð Hè Ðit€is€ð ðunprofessional€conduct€for€a€prosecutor€in€his€argument€to€the€jury€toÏexpress€his€or€her€personal€belief€or€opinion€as€to€the€truth€or€falsity€of€anyÏtestimony€or€evidence,€or€the€guilt€of€the€defendant.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€911.Ð 0Ð  Ðà ` àThe€prosecutor€improperly€commented€upon€the€victimððs€testimony€whenÏhe€stated€that€she€gave€ð ða€very€honest€answerðð€as€he€was€expressing€hisÏpersonal€belief€as€to€the€truth€of€her€testimony.€€However,€this€was€an€isolatedÏincident,€and€taken€in€context€of€the€argument€as€a€whole,€the€comment€doesÏnot€appear€to€have€prejudiced€the€Appellant.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Henleyóó,€774€S.W.2dÐ ¨ Ðat€911.€€Moreover,€the€remaining€comments€cited€by€Appellant€are€not€personalÏopinion.€€The€prosecutionððs€statements€that€the€victim€had€to€endure€slurs€to€herÏcharacter€and€that€she€did€not€want€to€call€the€police€were€proper€commentsÏbased€upon€facts€in€the€record.€€òòSeeóó€òòCoker€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€at€368.Ð è&ˆ Ðà@SS-®àò ò5.ó óˆÐ à(€  Ðà ` àNone€of€the€alleged€prosecutorial€errors€during€closing€argument€appearÏto€have€affected€the€verdict€to€Appellantððs€prejudice€and€do€not€warrant€aÏreversal€of€his€convictions.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Batesóó,€804€S.W.2d€868,€881€(Tenn.Ð Ô.t%& Ð1991).€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌò òà@ââ)®àòòSENTENCINGóóó óˆÐ ¼4\+, Ðâ âÐ À6`-. Ðà ` àIn€its€cross„appeal,€the€state€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencingÏâ âAppellant€to€thirteen€(13)€years,€one€year€above€the€minimum€sentence€for€aÏRange€II€offender€of€a€Class€B€felony.€€Specifically,€the€state€contends€that€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€failing€to€apply€certain€enhancement€factors.€€Therefore,€theÏstate€claims€that€the€sentence€was€too€lenient,€and€Appellant€should€haveÏreceived€a€sentence€in€the€middle€of€the€range.Ìà@EE-®àò òA.ó óˆÐ 0Ð  Ðà ` àWhen€a€party€complains€of€the€sentence€imposed€at€trial,€we€mustÏconduct€a€òòde€novoóó€review€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ,Ì Ððð€40„35„401(d).€The€burden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€uponÏthe€appealing€party.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€Sentencing€CommissionÏComments.€This€presumption,€however,€is€conditioned€upon€an€affirmativeÏshowing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principlesÏand€all€the€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,Ð #¤ Ð169€(Tenn.€1991).€€However,€if€the€trial€court€fails€to€comply€with€the€statutoryÏprinciples,€there€is€no€presumption€of€correctness€and€our€review€is€òòde€novoóó.Ð ô&” Ðà ` àThe€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€established€specific€proceduresÏwhich€must€be€followed€in€sentencing.€These€procedures,€codified€at€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210,€mandated€the€trial€courtððs€consideration€of€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 ` à(1)€The€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencingÏhearing;€(2)€[t]he€presentence€report;€(3)€[t]he€principles€ofÏsentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€[t]heÏnature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(5)Ï[e]vidence€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€theÏenhancement€and€mitigating€factors€in€ðððð€40„35„113€and€40„35„¼114;€and€(6)€[a]ny€statement€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€hisÏown€behalf€about€sentencing.Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c)€further€provides€that€the€minimum€sentenceÏwithin€the€range€is€the€presumptive€sentence.€€The€trial€court€must€begin€with€theÐ ¨9H01 Ðminimum€sentence€and€enhance€that€sentence€to€appropriately€reflect€anyÏstatutory€enhancement€factors€that€the€court€finds€to€be€present.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„210(d).€€After€enhancing€the€sentence,€the€court€must€reduce€theÏsentence€appropriate€to€the€weight€of€any€mitigating€factors€that€the€court€finds.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€No€particular€weight€for€each€factor€isÏprescribed€by€the€statute,€as€the€weight€given€to€each€factor€is€left€to€theÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€court€as€long€as€the€trial€court€complies€with€the€purposesÏand€principles€of€the€sentencing€act€and€its€findings€are€supported€by€the€record.€ÏòòState€v.€Leggsóó,€955€S.W.2d€845,€848€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);€€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,Ð  À Ð854€S.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-210ÏSentencing€Commission€Comments.Ìà@AA-®àò òB.ó óˆÐ ¨ Ðà ` àThe€trial€court€found€that€Appellant€was€a€Range€II,€multiple€offender.€€TheÏcourt€found€as€enhancement€factors€that€Appellant€had€a€previous€history€ofÏcriminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€the€range,€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1);€and€Appellant€had€a€history€of€unwillingness€toÏcomply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€in€the€community,ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(8).׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€The€trial€court€rejected€two€(2)€enhancementÐ ä*„!" Ðfactors€proposed€by€the€state:€(1)€that€the€offense€was€committed€to€gratifyÏAppellantððs€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(7);Ïand€(2)€that€the€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€under€which€theÏpotential€for€bodily€injury€to€a€victim€was€great,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„¼114(16).€€In€mitigation,€the€trial€court€found€that€Appellant€had€gainfulÐ ¼4\+, Ðemployment,€was€an€excellent€worker,€had€the€support€of€members€of€theÏcommunity,€had€conducted€himself€as€an€upstanding€citizen€in€the€past€and€hadÏsupported€his€family€and€church.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(13).€€AfterÏweighing€the€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€present€in€this€case,€the€trialÏcourt€sentenced€Appellant€to€concurrent€terms€of€thirteen€(13)€years€for€eachÏconviction€of€rape.Ìà@AA-®àò òC.ó óˆÐ 0Ð  Ðà ` àThe€state€claims€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€failed€to€consider€twoÏenhancement€factors:€€(1)€that€the€offense€was€committed€to€gratify€AppellantððsÏdesire€for€pleasure€or€excitement,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(7);€and€(2)€thatÏthe€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€under€which€the€potential€forÏbodily€injury€to€a€victim€was€great,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(16).׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€WeÐ ´ Ðdisagree.Ìà@SS-®àò ò1.ó óˆÐ #¤ Ðà ` àIn€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€31,€34„35€(Tenn.€1993),€our€SupremeÐ %¨ ÐCourt€rejected€the€notion€that€ð ðas€a€matter€of€law,€every€rape€is€implicitlyÏcommitted€for€the€purpose€of€pleasure€or€excitement.ðð€€The€Court€recognizedÏthat€some€acts€of€rape€are€ð ðsimply€acts€of€brutality€resulting€from€hatred€or€theÏdesire€to€seek€revenge,€control,€intimidate,€or€are€the€product€of€a€misguidedÏdesire€to€just€abuse€another€human€being.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€35.€€The€Court€held€thatÐ à.€%& Ðbecause€pleasure€or€excitement€is€not€an€essential€element€of€the€offense€ofÏrape,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(7)€may€be€used€to€enhance€a€defendantððsÐ Ð2p)* Ðsentence€for€rape.€€òòId.óó€€However,€the€state€has€the€burden€of€demonstrating€thatÐ `  Ðthe€crime€was€sexually€motivated.€€òòId.óó;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Hoytóó,€928€S.W.2d€935,Ð X ø Ð949€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ìà ` àIn€this€case€the€State€points€to€the€lack€of€brutality€in€this€rape,€AppellantððsÏinquiry€of€the€victim€as€to€whether€she€liked€oral€sex,€and€Appellantððs€apology€toÏthe€victim€as€evidence€that€the€rape€was€committed€to€satisfy€Appellantððs€desireÏfor€pleasure€and€excitement.€€However,€this€testimony€is€so€ambiguous€as€toÏAppellantððs€purpose€in€committing€this€crime,€that€we€are€not€prepared€to€holdÏthe€trial€judge€in€error€for€failing€to€find€that€such€evidence€makes€outÏenhancement€factor€(7).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@SS-®àò ò2.ó óˆÐ ¨ Ðà ` àHaving€just€argued€that€Appellantððs€benign€behavior€in€committing€thisÏrape€indicates€it€was€not€a€crime€of€violence,€the€State,€rather€inconsistently,Ïargues€that€Appellantððs€actions€in€holding€the€victim€around€the€neck,Ïthreatening€her€with€injury€if€she€did€not€submit€to€his€advances,€and€wrappingÏbedcovers€around€the€victimððs€head€indicate€the€crime€was€committed€underÏcircumstances€where€there€was€great€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€the€victim.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€Sec.€40„35„114(16).€€While€this€behavior€is€reprehensible€itÏdoes€not€appear€to€have€subjected€the€victim€to€a€risk€of€bodily€injury€greaterÏthan€that€ordinarily€attendant€in€a€rape.€€We€therefore€again€decline€to€hold€theÏtrial€court€in€error€for€failing€to€apply€this€enhancement€factor.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌÐ ¬8L/0 Ðà@AA-®àò òD.ó óˆÐ `  Ðà ` àWe€find€that€the€trial€court€properly€rejected€the€two€(2)€additionalÏenhancement€factors€proposed€by€the€State€when€it€sentenced€Appellant.€€€TheÏstate€does€not€contest€the€applicability€of€mitigating€factors€found€by€the€trialÏcourt€but€suggests€that€such€mitigating€factors€are€entitled€to€little€weight.€ÏHowever,€it€is€apparent€that€the€trial€court€gave€great€weight€to€the€mitigatingÏfactors,€as€evidenced€by€Appellantððs€sentence€of€one€(1)€year€above€theÏminimum€sentence.€€This€was€certainly€within€the€trial€courtððs€discretion.€€òòStateÐ 4Ô  Ðv.€Leggsóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€848.׃'×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р,Ì ÐÌÌà ` àFor€the€reasons€stated,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà ` àÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE