ÿWPCû[ … 0VU4<kU36§ 0“Ý 0¾p 0¾. 0¾ì 0¾ª 0nh 0•Ö 0nk 0nÙ 0sG 0º 0R| 0nÎ 0 < 0xF 0¾ 0KÎ 0F"’_# 1iñ% 0 Z& 0 f( 0Cr* 0Jµ* 0Tÿ* 0^S+ 0h±+ 0r,‹,UN›, %é,ï, 0ñï,U:à. 1m/ B‡/w@¤/4ä/ 0|ø/ 0†t0 0ú0 0@Š1 1uÊ1 D3?2 0dr2U*Ö2y3by4B)Û5DC6yG6bÀ7 AM"9†o9U õ:;¨”=u4Ü,J¢úR ª Z² bºj #>ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔ.« ˆÿÿ,TOC 8Ò ° ÒÓ X ÓÒ ° ÒÓ ÜÜ(#T$ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔ.« ˆÿÿ,TOC 9Ò ° ÒÓ X ÓÒ ° ÒÓ ÜÜ(#T$ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔ2  ”ÿÿ0Index 1Ò ° ÒÓ ° ÓÒ ° ÒÓ X ÓÓ Pû ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔ2· Ìÿÿ0Index 2Ò ° ÒÓ ° ÓÒ ° ÒÓ X ÓÓ Ü4(#T$ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÓ8.ÜÜ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#8ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔ:xŸÿÿ8TOA HeadingÓ Ü(#T$ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÓ;1Ü„¢úR ª Z² bºj #;ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔ2Ÿœÿÿ0CaptionÓ;1Ü„Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!T$;ÓÔ€XXXÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÓ8.ÜÜ4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!(#8ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔ<jdÿÿ:_Equation CaÔ€ôôôÔÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔ<Ÿœÿÿ:Footnote TexÓ;1Ü„Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!T$;ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÓ8.ÜÜ4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!(#8ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔ<mgÿÿ:Footnote RefÔ€ôôôÔÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔòòÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔóó0{Ÿÿÿ.FooterÓ Üìü!(#ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÓ;1Ü„¢úR ª Z² bºj #;ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔ:j¢ÿÿ8Page NumberÔ€ôôôÔÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔÓ>4Ü,J¢úR ª Z² bºj #>ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔ' IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE *Marilyn Hathaway 0 .   $ÿÿ35;AGMU]c1I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)(ä2SÕ$ªªÝ ƒ& Ò!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€'X¦XX#XÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ý(ä2SÕ$©©Ý ƒ& Ò!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€'X¦XX#XÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô#|x(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular#X(É Ò$¡¡Ñ  ÑÔ€'Xœ—XX#XÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regularstuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) d  E D  EDDÓ€Ô¡¨ 152J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò !,-. ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)))))'ÿÿdxdP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial oÝ ƒ&!ÝÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€:ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÒ Œ ÒÒ á ÒÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ ` 4ŽXÓÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÌÓ  ÓÔ€ôÔÌ XÝ ƒ&!ÝÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€:ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÒ Œ ÒÒ á ÒÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ ` ¸ ŒXÓÔ€Ô€Ô€ôÔÌÌ% Line 7 d====7Border 1dd oÝ ƒ&!ÝÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€:ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÒ Œ ÒÒ á ÒÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ ` 4ŽXÓÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÌÓ  ÓÔ€ôÔÌ XÝ ƒ&!ÝÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€:ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÒ Œ ÒÒ á ÒÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ ` ¸ ŒXÓÔ€Ô€Ô€ôÔÌÌ€/>Cþÿ << Gÿÿ |Ý ƒ&!ÝÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€:ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€:ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€:XÔÌÌAugustÏ15,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó< Œ 9p`( uÝ ƒ&!ÝÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€:ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓÓÓ ` ŽXÓÔ€:ôÔÔ€ÔÝ‚ÿÝÔ€ôÔÔ€ÔòòÝ  Ý€€€€€ò…òÚ  ÚÚ  Úó…óÝ‚ÿÝóóÔ€CÔÝ  Ý€It€is€the€practice€in€this€Court€to€refer€to€the€victim,€a€child,€byÏinitials.ÌÓ ` ¸ ŒXÓÔ€Ô žÝ ƒ&!ÝÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€:ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓÓÓ ` ŽXÓÔ€:ôÔÔ€ÔÝ‚ÿÝÔ€ôÔÔ€ÔòòÝ  Ý€€€€€ò…òÚ  ÚÚ  Úó…óÝ‚ÿÝóóÔ€CÔÝ  Ý€Although€the€defendant€in€his€brief€refers€to€the€bedroom€allegationÏas€Count€One€and€the€December€25,€1993,€allegation€as€Count€Two,€theÏrecord€establishes€there€is€but€a€single€indictment,€not€multiple€counts.€ÏVol.€1,€TT€pages€35„36.€The€State€informed€the€trial€court€that€twoÏevents€occurred€in€the€month€of€December,€1993,€contained€in€the€timeÏspan€of€the€indictment.ÌÌÓ ` ¸ ŒXÓÔ€Ô kÝ ƒ&!ÝÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€:ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓÓÓ ` ŽXÓÔ€:ôÔÔ€ÔÝ‚ÿÝÔ€ôÔÔ€ÔòòÝ  Ý€€€€€ò…òÚ  ÚÚ  Úó…óÝ‚ÿÝóóÔ€CÔÝ  Ý€The€filing€of€a€written€findings€of€facts€by€the€trial€judge€is€ofÏimmense€value€to€a€reviewing€court.€€The€trial€court€is€the€best€sourceÏto€determine€the€demeanor,€credibility€of€witnesses,€and€the€nuances€ofÏthe€evidentiary€hearing.€€Both€the€State€and€the€defendant€have€a€vitalÏinterest€in€the€trial€courtððs€insight.ÌÓ ` ¸ ŒXÓÔ€Ô vÝ ƒ&!ÝÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€:ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓÓÓ ` ŽXÓÔ€:ôÔÔ€ÔÝ‚ÿÝÔ€ôÔÔ€ÔòòÝ  Ý€€€€€ò…òÚ  ÚÚ  Úó…óÝ‚ÿÝóóÔ€CÔÝ  Ý€Although€the€trial€court€sustained€the€Stateððs€objection€to€theÏintroduction€of€Exhibits€5€c€and€d,€we€note€that€the€trial€courtÏcommented€that€these€photos€may€be€admissible€or€not€depending€onÏsufficient€proof.€€These€photos€do€have€significant€relevance€forÏimpeachment€purposes,€and€may€be€admissible,€if€properly€authenticated.ÌÓ ` ¸ ŒXÓÔ€Ô hÝ ƒ&!ÝÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€:ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€:ŠÔÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓÓÓ ` 4ŽXÓÝ‚ÿÝÔ€ôÔÔ€ÔòòÝ  Ý€€€€€Ú  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ‚ÿÝÔ€ŠÔÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔÔ€Ô€The€State€may€very€well€have€contributed€significantly€to€theÏjurisdictional€problem.€€There€are€several€references€in€the€trial€recordÏthat€the€State€was€on€notice€that€this€allegation€of€December€25,€1993,Ïoccurred€in€Wilson€County.€€The€Stateððs€opening€statement€in€Vol.€1,€TT,Ïat€page€114€indicates€the€Christmas€allegation€took€place€in€WilsonÏCounty.€€In€Vol.€3,€TT,€at€pages€304€and€305,€the€Stateððs€election€ofÏoffenses,€they€concede€the€Christmas€allegation€occurred€in€WilsonÏCounty.€€Even€the€trial€court€had€a€question€in€its€mind.€€Finally,€theÏState€was€on€notice€that€the€investigative€officerððs,€(Preble€Morton),Ïfile€clearly€showed€this€allegation€happened€in€Wilson€County.€Since€theÏallegation€occurred€in€another€county,€its€admissibility€would€be€errorÏin€the€trial€in€Rutherford€county.ÌÔ€ÔPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò(<1$´´Ô2Ô6.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0  à(gfi$µµà0  àÔ2(ÆÔ6.Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0` (#(#à(bÕä$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xâr$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒU$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿ@Æ$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³ýt$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Çñû$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€/‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ&!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€:ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÒ  ÒÒ 9 Òò òÖ€;ÖÖ€<ÖÙ€€ÙÖ€?ÖÖ€@ÖÓ  ÓÓ ` ¸ ŒXÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€:ŠÔÔ€ÔßR€AB>A1-j|` ´- `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌAT€NASHVILLEÌSEPTEMBER€SESSION,€1996ÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àððÌÓÓà àà àAPPELLEEà àà àà àððà àCCA.€NO.€01C01„9511„CC„00385Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àRUTHERFORD€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àððà àHON.€JAMES€K.€CLAYTON,€JR.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à(RAPE€OF€A€CHILD)ÌWILLIAM€J.€TAYLOR,à àà àà àððÌÌà àà àAPPELLANTà àà àððÌó óÌÌÌò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEó ó:óóÌÌò òMichie€Gibson,€Jr.à àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌó ó1416€Parkway€Towersà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌNashville,€TN€€37219ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òMichael€J.€Fahey,€IIó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òWilliam€Whiteselló óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òPaul€A.€Holcombe,€IIIó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òThomas€F.€Jacksonó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àThird€Floor,€Judicial€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMurfreesboro,€TN€€37130ÌÌÌÌÌò òOPINION€FILED:à à_____________________ÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDED€FOR€NEW€TRIALÌÌL.€T.€LAFFERTY,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÌÇÌÓÓÓ  ÓÌOPINIONÌÓ  Óó óà àThe€appellant,€pursuant€to€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€AppellateÏProcedure,€has€filed€an€appeal€from€his€conviction€by€a€jury€in€the€Circuit€Court€ofÏRutherford€County,€TN,€on€February€2,€1995,€for€the€offense€of€rape€of€a€child.€€TheÏappellant,€referred€to€as€the€defendant,€was€sentenced€to€the€Department€ofÏCorrection,€in€cause€No.€29872€for€a€period€of€twenty„two€(22)€years.€€TheÏdefendant€discharged€his€trial€counsel€and€hired€substitute€counsel€for€the€purposeÏof€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€and€an€appeal.€€The€defendant,€through€his€newlyÏretained€counsel,€filed€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€on€the€single€ground€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€The€defendant€alleges€nineteen€(19)€grounds€as€to€the€denialÏof€effective€assistance€of€counsel,€pursuant€to€the€6th€Amendment€of€the€UnitedÏStates€Constitution€and€Art.€1,€ðð€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€Ìà àOn€May€15,€1995,€the€trial€court€conducted€an€evidentiary€hearing€toÏdetermine€the€merits€of€the€allegations€set€forth€in€the€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€OnÏJuly€21,€1995,€the€trial€court€entered€an€oral€order€overruling€the€motion€for€a€newÏtrial.€€From€a€careful€review€of€the€trial€transcript€and€the€evidentiary€hearing€at€theÏmotion€for€a€new€trial,€the€Court€finds€that€the€defendant€has€established,€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence,€the€allegation€of€the€denial€of€effective€assistanceÍof€counsel.€€Therefore,€the€Court€reverses€and€remands€this€cause€to€the€CircuitÏCourt€for€Rutherford€County,€TN,€for€a€new€trial.€Ìò òÓ  ÓHISTORY€OF€CASEÌÓ  Óó óà àIn€March€1994,€the€defendant€was€indicted€by€the€Rutherford€CountyÏGrand€Jury€in€an€indictment€for€the€offense€of€the€rape€of€child,€to€wit:€BT.Ý‚ÿÝÔ€ôÔÔ€ÔòòÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÝóóÔ€ŠÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ   ÑÑ  ÑÑ€= §u` Ñ× ƒD ××  ×€€TheÏindictment€alleges€the€defendant€on€the€òò€€€€€€€€€óó€day€of€November€or€December,€1993,Ïdid€unlawfully€sexually€penetrate€BT,€a€child€of€eleven€years€of€age,€pursuant€toÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„13„522,€in€Rutherford€County,€TN.Ý‚ÿÝÔ€ôÔÔ€ÔòòÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÝóóÔ€ŠÔÝ  Ý× ƒE ××  ×€€Pursuant€toÏhis€arrest,€the€defendant€hired€an€attorney€as€primary€trial€counsel€to€represent€himÏin€this€offense.€€Primary€counsel€hired€an€associate€attorney€to€assist€at€trial.€ÏPrimary€counsel€had€three€years€of€experience€and€had€never€tried€a€rape€case.€ÏAssociate€counselððs€practice€was€primarily€criminal.€ÌÔ€ôÔà àIt€was€the€theory€of€the€State€that€the€defendant€committed€two€offenses€of€the€rape€of€the€child,€BT.€ÏOne€of€the€alleged€offenses€occurred€in€the€defendantððs€bedroom€in€his€home€about€two€weeks€beforeÍChristmas€December€25,€1993.€€The€other€offense€occurred€during€a€ride€on€Christmas€day,€December€25,Ï1993.€Ìà àThe€defendant€proceeded€to€trial€on€January€31,€1995.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€Stateððs€proof€in€chief,Ïit€developed€that€the€trial€court€lacked€jurisdiction€to€try€the€allegation€of€December€25,€1993,€in€that€thisÏoffense€occurred€in€Wilson€County,€TN.€€€Therefore,€the€State€made€an€election€that€the€bedroom€allegation€beÏsubmitted€to€the€jury€for€a€decision.€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€to€disregard€the€Christmas€allegationÏand€only€consider€the€allegation€surrounding€the€bedroom€event.€€The€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€thisÏoffense,€thus€leading€to€this€appeal.€Ìà àThe€evidence€at€trial€established€that€the€defendant€married€the€victimððs€mother€when€she€was€sixteenÏ(16)€years€old.€€At€the€time€of€this€marriage€the€mother€was€pregnant€with€the€victim€by€another€man.€ÏDuring€this€marriage€another€child,€DT,€was€born.€€The€defendant€and€the€victimððs€mother€divorced€in€1989,Ïwhen€she€became€pregnant€by€another€man.€€The€defendant€had€always€treated€BT€as€being€his€daughter€andÏraised€as€such.€€The€defendant€paid€child€support€and€had€custody€privileges€of€both€BT€and€his€naturalÏdaughter,€DT.€€As€to€the€bedroom€allegation,€the€victim€testified€she€was€at€the€defendantððs€home€two€(2)Ïweekends€before€the€December€25,€1993€incident€and€that€the€defendantððs€current€wife€had€taken€the€otherÏchildren€to€a€grocery,€leaving€her€alone€with€the€defendant.€€The€victim€testified€that€the€defendant€had€herÏcome€into€his€bedroom,€where€he€pulled€his€penis€out€and€made€her€perform€oral€sex.€€Afterwards,€he€wouldÏrub€his€penis€between€her€legs.€€She€did€not€know€what€oral€sex€was€until€the€defendant€told€her.€€The€victimÏtestified€some€white€stuff€came€out„„it€was€gooey€and€nasty.€€The€victim€did€not€tell€anybody€about€thisÏincident.€Ìà àAs€to€the€second€allegation,€the€victim€testified€she€and€her€sister€were€at€the€defendantððs€home€onÏDecember€25,€1993.€€At€approximately€5:00€P.M.€the€victim€testified€that€the€defendant€had€her€put€her€coatÍon€and€go€for€a€ride.€€She€testified€that€they€stopped€at€Whiteððs€Market€where€she€got€a€Mountain€Dew.€€AfterÏleaving€Whiteððs,€they€went€down€a€road€where€the€defendant€made€her€perform€oral€sex.€€They€left€that€area€andÏwent€to€another€road.€€He€cut€the€carððs€motor€off€and€again€he€rubbed€his€penis€between€her€legs€and€tried€toÏgo€up€in€her€vagina€and€her€bottom.€€Some€white€stuff€came€out€and€he€cleaned€this€up€with€a€mechanicððsÏgrease€rag.€€Upon€her€return€to€the€defendantððs€home,€the€victim€did€not€tell€the€defendantððs€wife€nor€anyoneÏabout€this€occurrence.Ìà àOn€or€about€January€1,€1994,€the€victim€told€her€mother€about€these€allegations.€€The€motherÏconfronted€the€defendant,€his€wife€and€the€defendantððs€mother€at€the€victimððs€home,€where€he€denied€theÏallegations.€€On€January€4,€1994,€the€victim€was€examined€at€the€Kids€Clinic€in€Nashville€by€nurseÏpractitioner,€Ruth€Suzanne€Ross.€€Ms.€Ross€conducted€a€genitalia€examination€of€the€victim€with€the€aid€of€aÏcolposcope.€€Ms.€Ross€testified€she€found€trauma€or€damage€to€a€portion€of€the€victimððs€hymenal€ring,€whichÏwould€be€consistent€with€the€insertion€of€a€penis€or€finger.€€The€nurse€practitioner€found€the€injury€to€be€well„healed,€and€the€injury€could€have€occurred€on€or€about€the€time€of€the€bedroom€allegation€or€on€December€25,Ï1993.€Ìà àThe€defendant€emphatically€tÔ€ŠÔestified€that€he€did€not€commit€these€two€allegations.€ÏBoth€the€defendant€and€his€wife€testified€that€the€victim€was€not€at€their€homeÏbetween€Halloween€and€Christmas,€1993,€so€the€allegation€of€the€bedroom€incident,Ïtwo€weeks€before€Christmas,€1993,€never€happened.€€As€to€the€allegation€ofÏDecember€25,€1993,€the€defendant€testified€he€had€the€victim€go€for€a€ride€with€himÏto€talk€about€her€attitude€towards€his€present€wife,€Diana,€and€her€going€toÏbasketball€games€without€proper€supervision.€€The€defendant€testified€he€took€hisÍrifle€with€him,€in€hope€of€spotting€some€deer€and€thus€went€to€the€Cedars€ofÏLebanon€Park€area.€€The€defendant€believes€his€ex„wife€applied€pressure€to€herÏdaughter€because€of€his€present€wife€and€back€child€support.€€The€defendant€didÏnot€call€any€alibi€witnesses€nor€any€expert€to€counter€the€Stateððs€expert€evidence.Ìò òÓ  ÓMOTION€FOR€NEW€TRIALÌÓ  Óó óà àOn€May€9,€1995,€the€defendant€filed€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€on€the€singleÏground€that€the€defendant€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel,€duringÏthe€pre„trial€stage€and€at€trial,€based€on€nineteen€(19)€allegations.€€In€this€appeal,€theÏdefendant€raises€twelve€(12)€issues.Ìà à(1)€€Defendantððs€rights€to€present€a€defense€and€to€call€witnesses€wereÏviolated€by€the€actions€and€inaction€of€his€trial€attorneys.Ìà à(2)€€Defendant€was€denied€effective€assistance€of€counsel€because€his€trialÏlawyers€failed€to€adequately€confer€with€him,€advise€him€and€investigate€the€case.Ìà à(3)€€Defendant€was€denied€effective€assistance€of€counsel€in€that€neither€trialÏcounsel€ever€interviewed€alibi€and€material€witnesses€for€the€defendant€that€wouldÏhave€rebutted€the€Stateððs€proof€concerning€the€crime€alleged€to€have€occurred€twoÏweeks€before€December€25,€1993.Ìà à(4)€€Defendant€was€denied€effective€assistance€of€counsel€by€the€openingÏstatement€of€trial€counsel€who€told€the€jury€that€medical€proof€would€not€showÍanything,€the€victim€was€under€some€type€of€stress,€and€the€crime€that€occurred€twoÏweeks€before€December€25,€1993€never€happened,€when€in€fact,€his€trial€attorneysÏfailed€to€produce€any€evidence€to€support€his€opening€statements€to€the€jury.Ìà à(5)€€Defendant€was€denied€effective€assistance€of€counsel€by€his€attorneyððsÏfailure€to€request€a€jury€out€Rule€412€hearing€to€show€that€the€alleged€victim€hadÏprevious€sexual€activity€that€would€explain€medical€proof€offered€by€the€State€thatÏthe€victim€had€an€enlarged€hymen.Ìà à(6)€€Defendant€was€denied€effective€assistance€of€counsel€by€his€attorneyððsÏfailure€to€properly€investigate€the€Christmas€allegation€of€December€25,€1993€sinceÏthat€allegation€did€not€happen€in€Rutherford€County.€€Counsel,€therefore,€allowedÏproof€at€trial€of€a€crime€that€did€not€occur€in€the€trial€courtððs€jurisdiction,€in€violationÏof€the€defendantððs€constitutional€rights.Ìà à(7)€€Defendant€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€Counsel€by€hisÏattorneyððs€failure€to€properly€impeach€the€alleged€victim€during€cross„examination.€ÏDefendantððs€attorney€should€have€brought€out€during€cross„examination€that€theÏalleged€victim€had€told€Detective€Morton€that€she€knew€what€a€blow€job€was€andÏwould€offer€proof€that€the€alleged€victim€had€previous€sexual€knowledge.Ìà à(8)€€Defendant€was€denied€effective€assistance€of€counsel€by€his€attorneyððsÏfailure€to€object€to€the€questioning€of€the€defendantððs€wife€about€facts€of€theÏChristmas€allegation€that€had€been€dismissed€and€was€no€longer€relevant.Ìà à(9)€€Defendant€was€denied€effective€assistance€of€counsel€when€hisÏattorneys€ineffectively€cross„examined€the€Stateððs€expert€witness,€Ruth€SuzanneÏRoss,€who€was€a€pediatric€nurse,€and€who€testified€that€the€victim€had€an€enlargedÏhymen.€€Counsel€was€ineffective€in€said€cross„examination€by€not€pointing€out€thatÏthe€alleged€victim€could€have€received€these€injuries€years€before.€€Counsel€wasÏineffective€in€said€cross„examination€by€not€pointing€out€and€using€statementsÏcontained€in€published€treatises€to€impeach€said€expert€pursuant€to€TennesseeÏRules€of€Evidence,€Rule€618.€€(Treatises€omitted).Ìà à(10)€€Defendant€was€denied€effective€assistance€of€counsel€when€hisÏattorneys€ineffectively€cross„examined€the€Stateððs€expert,€Ruth€Suzanne€Ross,€byÏnot€pointing€out€that€the€alleged€victim€could€have€had€consensual€sexual€activityÏand€that€would€be€the€reason€for€her€enlarged€hymen.Ìà à(11)€€Defendant€was€denied€effective€assistance€of€counsel€when€hisÏattorneys€failed€to€object€to€the€testimony€of€the€victimððs€mother€about€what€theÏvictim€told€her€concerning€the€crime€in€another€jurisdiction.€€The€victimððsÏstatements€were€not€admissible€as€ð ðfresh€complaintðð€due€to€fact€that€the€motherÏwas€only€testifying€to€what€the€victim€had€told€her€concerning€an€incident€that€wasÏalleged€to€have€occurred€on€December€25,€1993,€in€Wilson€County.€€Therefore,€theÍvictimððs€ð ðfresh€complaintðð€was€not€relevant€to€the€alleged€crime€for€which€theÏdefendant€was€on€trial.Ìà à(12)€€Defendant€was€denied€effective€assistance€of€counsel€when€hisÏattorneys€failed€to€interview€or€subpoena€expert€witnesses€who€would€haveÏrebutted€the€Stateððs€expert€witnessððs€medical€testimony€as€to€the€enlarged€hymenÏof€the€victim.Ìà àAs€stated,€the€trial€court€conducted€a€sentencing€hearing€and€an€evidentiaryÏhearing€on€May€15,€1995,€to€determine€the€merits€of€these€complaints.€€As€to€theÏcomplaint€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€only€witness€called€by€theÏdefendant€was€his€primary€trial€counsel.€€Associate€defense€counsel€did€not€testify.€ÏOn€July€22,€1995,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€overruling€the€motion€for€a€newÏtrial€on€the€basis€that€overall€defense€counsel€was€effective.Ìò òÓ  ÓSTANDARD€OF€APPELLATE€REVIEWÌÓ  Óó óà àOrdinarily,€this€Court€would€review€this€record€for€the€purpose€ofÏdetermining€whether€the€trial€courtððs€finding€of€facts€preponderate€against€theÏjudgment€entered€by€the€trial€judge.€€This€Court€cannot€re„weigh€or€re„evaluate€theÏevidence,€nor€can€we€substitute€our€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trial€court.€ÏAlso,€the€trial€court€makes€the€determination€as€to€the€credibility€of€the€witnessesÏand€what€weight€and€value€to€be€assessed.€€Then,€the€defendant€has€the€burden€inÏthis€Court€to€illustrate€why€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderatesÍagainst€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.€€Unfortunately,€the€trial€court€did€not€enter€aÏwritten€finding€of€facts€on€many€key€issues.€€However,€on€July€21,€1995,€the€trialÏcourt€did€render€an€oral€ruling€on€the€issues€raised€in€the€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€ItÏwas€the€trial€courtððs€legal€conclusion€that€defense€counselððs€strategy€was€withinÏthe€range€of€competence€required€by€attorneys.€€Therefore,€this€Court€mustÏdetermine€if€the€facts€in€this€record,€in€the€interest€of€judicial€economy,€support€theÏtrial€courtððs€conclusion.Ý‚ÿÝÔ€ôÔÔ€ÔòòÝ  ÝÔ€ŠÔÝ‚ÿÝóóÝ  Ý× ƒF ××  ×€€òòBrooks€v.€Stateóó€756€S.W.2d€288€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988);ÏòòBlack€v.€State,óó€794€S.W.2d€752€(Tenn€Crim€App.€1990).Ìò òÓ  ÓEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELÌÓ  Óó óà àSince€the€defendant€has€claimed€that€his€retained€attorneys,€renderedÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€establish€(1)Ïthat€counselððs€performance€was€deficient,€and€(2)€that,€but€for€the€deficiency,€thereÏis€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€result€would€have€been€different.€€òòStrickland€v.ÏWashingtonóó,€104€S.Ct.€2052€(€1984).€The€same€standard€applies€under€Art.€1,€ðð.€9Ïof€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772€S.W.2d€417€(Tenn.€1989).Ìà àIn€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930€(Tenn.€1975),€the€Supreme€Court€decidedÏthat€attorneys€in€Tennessee€should€be€held€to€the€general€standard€of€whether€theÏservices€rendered€were€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€inÏcriminal€cases.€€Further,€the€Court€stated€that€the€range€of€competence€was€to€beÏmeasured€by€the€duties€and€criteria€set€forth€in€òòBeasley€v.€United€Statesóó€,€491€F.2dÏ687€(6th€Cir.€1974)€and€òòUnited€States€v.€DeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€1197€(D.C.€Cir.€1973).Ìà àIn€òòDeCoster,€supraóó,€the€Court€stated€the€following:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ‘ ÒÓÓÓ ` ‹XÓà àð ðò òIn€Generaló ó.€€Counsel€should€be€guided€by€the€AmericanÏBar€Association€Standards€for€the€Defense€Function.€€They€representÏthe€legal€professionððs€own€articulation€of€guidelines€for€the€defense€ofÏcriminal€cases.ÌÌà àò òSpecificallyó ó.€€(1)€€Counsel€should€confer€with€his€clientÏwithout€delay€and€as€often€as€necessary€to€elicit€matters€of€defense,€or€toÏascertain€that€potential€defenses€are€unavailable.€€Counsel€shouldÏdiscuss€fully€potential€strategies€and€tactical€choices€with€his€client.€ÌÌà à(2)€€Counsel€should€promptly€advise€his€client€of€his€rightsÏand€take€all€actions€necessary€to€preserve€them€.€.€.€Counsel€should€alsoÏbe€concerned€with€the€accusedððs€right€to€be€released€from€custodyÏpending€trial,€and€be€prepared,€where€appropriate,€to€make€motions€for€aÏpre„trial€psychiatric€examination€for€the€suppression€of€evidence.ÌÌà à(3)€€Counsel€must€conduct€appropriate€investigations,Ïboth€factual€and€legal€to€determine€what€matters€of€defense€can€beÏdeveloped.€€The€Supreme€Court€has€noted€that€the€adversary€systemÏrequires€ððall€available€defenses€are€raisesðð€so€that€the€government€is€putÏto€its€proof.€€This€means€in€most€cases€a€defense€attorney,€or€his€agent,Ïshould€interview€not€only€his€own€witnesses,€but€also€those€that€theÏgovernment€intends€to€call,€when€they€are€accessible.€€The€investigationÏshould€always€include€efforts€to€secure€information€in€the€possession€ofÍthe€prosecution€and€law€enforcement€authorities.€€And,€of€course,€theÏduty€to€investigate€also€requires€adequate€researchðð.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ‘ ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÓ ` ¸ ŒXÓà àFurther,€in€òòStrickland€v.€Washington,€supraóó,€at€page€2066,€Justice€SandraÏOððConner€stated:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ Ü ÒÓÓÓ ` ‹XÓà àð ðThus,€a€court€deciding€an€actual€ineffectiveness€claimÏmust€judge€the€reasonableness€of€counselððs€challenged€conduct€on€theÏfacts€of€the€particular€case,€as€viewed€as€of€the€time€of€counselððsÏconduct.€€A€convicted€defendant€making€a€claim€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€must€identify€the€acts€or€omissions€of€counsel€that€areÏalleged€not€to€have€been€the€result€of€reasonable€professionalÏjudgment.€€The€Court€must€then€determine€whether,€in€light€of€all€theÏcircumstances,€the€identified€acts€or€omissions€were€outside€the€wideÏrange€of€professionally€competent€assistance.€€In€making€thisÏdetermination,€the€court€should€keep€in€mind€that€counselððs€function,€asÏelaborated€in€prevailing€professional€norms,€is€to€make€the€adversarialÏtesting€process€work€in€the€particular€case.€€At€the€same€time€the€courtÏshould€recognize€that€counsel€is€strongly€presumed€to€have€renderedÏadequate€assistance€and€made€all€significant€decisions€in€the€exercise€ofÏreasonable€professional€judgment.ððÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÓ ` ¸ ŒXÓÌà àThe€issues€presented€for€an€appeal€are€somewhat€overlapping,€so€the€CourtÏwill€respond€to€these€issues€in€groups.€ÌÓÓò òÓ  ÓMOTION€FOR€NEW€TRIALÌEVIDENTIARY€HEARINGó óÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àAt€the€evidentiary€hearing€of€May€15,€1995,€primary€defense€counselÏtestified€as€to€his€strategy€and€trial€tactics.€€As€previously€stated€associate€defenseÏcounsel€did€not€testify.Ìò òÓ  ÓNON„DEFICIENT€ISSUESÌÓ  Óó óà àIn€ò òAppellate€Issues€1€and€3ó ó€the€defendant€contends€that€his€rights€toÏpresent€a€defense€and€call€witnesses€were€violated€by€the€actions€and€inaction€ofÏdefense€counsel€and€neither€defense€counsel€interviewed€alibi€and€materialÏwitnesses€to€rebut€the€Stateððs€proof€as€to€the€event€occurring€two€weekends€beforeÏDecember€25,€1993.€€Defense€counsel€testified,€as€to€the€bedroom€allegation€beforeÏthe€25th,€that€the€defendant€emphatically€denied€this€accusation€and€that€theÏvictim,€BT,€was€not€at€his€home€between€Halloween€and€Christmas,€1993.€ÏCounselððs€strategy€was€to€develop€from€cross„examination€and€defense€proof€theÏvictimððs€stressful€home€life€and€influence€of€the€victimððs€mother.€€Defense€counselÏdid€admit€that€his€main€concentration€was€on€the€allegation€of€December€25,€1993,Ïand€by€discrediting€this€proof,€the€effect€would€be€the€same€as€to€the€allegationÏoccurring€in€the€defendantððs€bedroom.Ìà àAs€to€ò òIssue€3ó ó„„alibi€witnesses„„the€defendant,€at€this€evidentiary€hearing,Ïsubmitted€a€proffer€of€proof€concerning€certain€witnesses,€who€might€present€anÏalibi€for€the€time€of€the€alleged€bedroom€occurrence.€€These€are,€Torry€Cordell,€whoÏwould€testify€he€was€at€the€defendantððs€home€on€the€two€weekends€in€questionÏthree„wheeling€with€the€defendant€and€the€victim€was€not€at€the€defendantððsÏhome.€€Joe€Graves€and€Larry€Elders€would€testify€they€were€with€the€defendant€onÏthe€weekend€before€the€two€weekends,€in€Ashland€City€hunting.€€Ruby€HatfieldÏwould€testify€that€the€victim€was€not€at€the€defendantððs€home€on€the€twoÍweekends€in€question,€in€that€the€victim€was€at€a€cousinððs€home€that€weekend,€andÏfurther€the€victim€was€not€at€the€defendantððs€home€between€Halloween€andÏChristmas,€1993.€€Defense€counsel€admits€that€these€names€came€up€at€trial€or€earlyÏin€the€trial.€€Counsel€attempted€to€locate€and€talk€to€these€persons,€but€was€unableÏto€do€so.€€Further,€his€client,€the€defendant,€did€not€mention€any€alibi€for€the€eventÏin€question€(bedroom).€€From€a€review€of€the€trial€transcript,€it€is€clear,€through€theÏtestimony€of€the€defendant€and€his€wife,€that€alibi€was€not€the€defense.€€Rather,€theÏvictim€was€not€at€his€residence€during€the€two€weekends€before€December€25,Ï1993.€€The€Court€holds€that€the€defendant€has€not€established€any€prejudice€forÏdefense€counselððs€failure€to€call€alibi€witnesses.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washington,€supraóó.Ìà àIn€ò òAppellate€Issue€4ó ó,€the€defendant€complains€about€the€opening€statementÏof€defense€counsel€in€three€specific€situations:€€(1)€Medical€Proof,€(2)€Victim€stress,Ïand€(3)€that€the€incident€alleged€to€have€occurred€in€the€defendantððs€bedroomÏnever€happened.€€In€his€opening€statement€to€the€jury,€as€set€out€in€Volume€1€of€theÏtrial€transcript,€defense€counsel€alerted€the€jury€as€to€his€theory€of€the€case„„howÏthe€defendant€and€the€victimððs€mother€met€and€subsequently€married,€theÏdefendant€raising€the€victim€as€if€she€were€his€own€child,€the€birth€of€anotherÏdaughter,€the€defendantððs€divorce€and€the€stress€on€the€victim€torn€between€twoÏfamilies.€€These€statements€of€defense€counsel€were€fully€supported€by€theÍtestimony€of€the€victim,€victimððs€mother,€defendant,€defendantððs€wife€andÏdefendantððs€mother.€€As€to€the€statement€of€nothing€happened€in€the€bedroomÏallegation,€the€defendant€flatly€denied€this€occurrence€in€his€testimony.€€The€CourtÏholds€that€defense€counselððs€opening€statement€in€these€areas€was€supported€byÏthe€evidence€at€trial,€but€resolved€against€the€defendant.€€There€is€no€merit€to€thisÏallegation€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€in€regards€to€the€opening€statementÏas€to€victim€stress€and€the€bedroom€allegation.€Ìà àIn€ò òAppellate€Issue€5ó ó,€the€defendant€strongly€contends€that€defense€counselÏwas€deficient€in€failing€to€request€a€Rule€412€hearing€to€establish€the€victim€hadÏprevious€sexual€activity.€€Defense€counsel€testified€that€he€did€not€believe€thatÏTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€Rule€412€was€applicable€to€the€charge€of€rape€of€aÏchild,€since€this€charge€was€not€set€out€in€the€ruleððs€preamble.€€This€rule€applies€toÏthe€applicability€and€procedures€on€the€relevance€of€the€victimððs€sexual€behavior.€ÏAt€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€defendant€submitted€a€proffer€of€proof€that€one,ÏAaron€Hatfield,€would€testify€that€the€victim€had€tried€to€have€sexual€relations€withÏhim,€prior€to€December€25,€1993.€€Tammy€Johnson,€the€victimððs€cousin,€wouldÏtestify€that€the€victim€told€her€that€she€(victim)€had€been€having€sex€for€quite€someÏtime€before€December€25,€1993.€€Certainly,€such€evidence€may€be€relevant€and€callÏfor€a€Rule€412€hearing€if€it€were€known€by€defense€counsel.€€However,€this€recordÏestablishes€that€defense€counsel€was€not,€prior€to€trial,€aware€of€such€potentialÍevidence.€€Since€the€case€has€been€remanded€for€a€new€trial,€the€trial€court€will€be€inÏthe€position€to€determine€the€relevance€of€such€proposed€evidence.Ìà àIn€ò òAppellate€Issue€7ó ó,€the€defendant€complains€that€defense€counsel€failed€toÏproperly€impeach€the€alleged€victim€during€cross„examination,€more€specifically,Ïabout€the€victimððs€knowledge€of€the€term€ð ðblow€jobðð.€€The€evidentiary€hearingÏestablishes€that€defense€counsel€did€not€talk€to€the€victim€prior€to€trial€and€herÏtestimony€at€trial€was€his€first€opportunity€to€hear€her€account.€€Defense€counselÏadmitted€that€he€did€have€a€copy€of€Detective€Mortonððs€file€which€contained€theÏvictimððs€statements.€€Defense€counsel€agreed€he€did€not€cross„examine€the€victimÏabout€her€knowledge€of€the€term€ð ðblow€jobðð,€nor€about€her€description€of€oral€sex.€ÏDefense€counsel€chose€not€to€impeach€the€victim€in€this€area€to€avoid€theÏappearance€of€badgering€the€victim.€€This€was€a€judgment€call€on€defense€counselððsÏpart€and€the€Court€cannot€say€that€such€decision€was€prejudicial€nor€deficient.€ÏHowever,€a€re„trial€will€provide€the€opportunity€for€such€questions,€if€appropriate.€Ìà àAs€to€the€broad€complaint€of€improper€impeachment€of€the€victim,€defenseÏcounsel€did,€at€trial,€attempt€to€impeach€the€victim€by€showing€her€two€photos€in€aÏjury€out€hearing.€€These€photos€were€of€sexual€content.€€It€was€the€Stateððs€positionÏthat€these€photos€were€not€admissible€due€to€the€fact€that€defense€counsel€failed€toÏcomply€with€Rule€412.€€It€is€here€that€defense€counsel€did€not€believe€Rule€412€wasÍapplicable€to€the€charge€of€rape€of€a€child.€€Defense€counsel€contented€that€theseÏphotos€were€found€in€the€victimððs€purse€in€August,€1993,€by€the€defendantððs€wifeÏDiane€Taylor.€€Defense€counsel€insisted€that€these€photos€were€relevant€to€showÏundue€influence€on€the€victim€in€her€home€and€her€knowledge€of€sexual€terms€andÏacts.€€The€trial€court€sustained€the€Stateððs€objection€as€to€the€admissibility€of€theseÏphotos€(Exhibits€5€c€and€d€ID).Ý‚ÿÝÔ€ôÔÔ€ÔòòÝ  ÝÔ€ŠÔÝ‚ÿÝóóÝ  Ý× ƒG ××  ×€€This€action€on€the€part€of€defense€counsel€was€notÏprejudicial€nor€deficient€in€his€representation€of€the€defendant.ÌÔ€ôÔà àIn€Ô€ŠÔò òAppellate€Issue€8ó ó,€the€defendant€complains€that€defense€counsel€failed€toÏobject€to€the€questioning€of€his€wife€(by€the€State)€about€the€allegation€ofÏDecember€25,€1993,€in€the€indictment€that€had€been€dismissed€and€no€longerÏrelevant.€€The€record€of€the€evidentiary€hearing€does€not€support€this€allegation.€€AtÏthis€hearing,€defense€counsel€was€asked€why€he€failed€to€object€to€the€StateððsÏargumentative€questioning€to€the€defendantððs€wife.€€There€is€no€merit€to€thisÏallegation.€Ìà àIn€ò òAppellate€Issue€9,ó ó€the€defendant€contends€that€defense€counselÏineffectively€cross„examined€the€nurse€practitioner,€Ruth€Suzanne€Ross,€and€failedÏto€utilize€treatises€to€impeach€said€expert€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,ÍRule€618.€€At€the€evidentiary€hearing,€defense€counsel€testified€that€he€read€someÏtreatises,€but€did€not€use€this€information€in€questioning€Ms.€Ross.€€He€believedÏthere€was€no€need€to€do€so,€since€the€medical€report€showed€the€wound€to€beÏhealed.€€The€failure€to€utilize€treatises€in€cross„examination€does€not€establishÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€There€is€no€merit€to€this€issue.Ìà àIn€ò òAppellate€Issue€10,ó ó€the€defendant€enlarges€on€his€complaint€that€defenseÏcounsel€ineffectively€cross„examined€the€Stateððs€expert€witness,€Ruth€SuzanneÏRoss,€by€not€pointing€out€that€the€victim€could€have€had€consensual€sexual€activityÏto€account€for€the€enlarged€hymen.€€In€the€evidentiary€hearing,€defense€counselÏtestified€he€did€not€cross„examine€Ms.€Ross€about€the€possibility€of€consensual€sexÏon€the€part€of€the€victim€causing€an€enlarged€hymen.€€The€record€supports€theÏdefense€counselððs€testimony€that€he€questioned€Ms€Ross€about€the€possibility€ofÏTampax€usage€accounting€for€an€enlarged€hymen.€€Defense€counsel€cannot€beÏfaulted€for€not€exploring€prior€sexual€activity€on€the€victimððs€part€in€absence€ofÏsuch€information€furnished€to€him.€€(See€ò òAppellate€Issue€5ó ó€).€€There€is€no€merit€toÏthis€allegation.€Ìà àIn€ò òAppellate€Issue€11ó ó,€the€defendant€contends€defense€counsel€failed€toÏobject€to€the€testimony€of€the€victimððs€mother€about€what€the€victim€had€told€herÏconcerning€a€crime€in€another€jurisdiction.€€This€testimony€concerned€the€allegationÍof€December€25,€1993,€occurring€in€another€county.€€A€review€of€Volume€II€of€theÏtrial€transcript€establishes€at€page€221,€associate€defense€counsel€objected€to€theÏmotherððs€testimony€relating€what€her€daughter€told€her€about€the€allegation€ofÏDecember€25,€1993.€€The€defendant€contends€that€such€testimony€was€not€relevantÏto€the€alleged€crime€for€which€the€defendant€was€on€trial.€€The€defendant€overlooksÏthat€this€is€not€a€multi„count€indictment,€but€the€State€alleges€two€offenses€withinÏthe€time€frame€of€the€indictment.€€Also,€the€motherððs€testimony€came€before€theÏState€made€an€election€as€to€what€offense€the€jury€would€consider.€€The€trial€courtÏproperly€ruled€such€testimony€as€ð ðfresh€complaintðð€in€February,€1995.€€However,Ïthe€question€of€ð ðfresh€complaintðð€made€by€a€child€has€been€resolved€by€òòState€v.ÏLivingston,óó€907€S.W.2d€392€(Tenn.€Sept.€1995);€òòState€v.€Speckóó,€944€S.W.2d€598Ï(Tenn.€1997).€€There€is€no€merit€to€this€allegation€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel.€Ìà àIn€ò òAppellate€Issue€12ó ó,€the€defendant€would€argue€that€defense€counsel€wasÏineffective€in€failing€to€interview€or€subpoena€expert€witnesses€who€would€rebutÏthe€Stateððs€expert€witness€on€the€question€of€the€enlarged€hymen.€€As€to€thisÏallegation,€defense€counsel€testified€he€did€not€interview€or€talk€to€any€experts,€butÏread€some€articles€and€talked€to€some€friends.€€Also,€defense€counsel€testified€thatÏthe€defendant€had€provided€him€the€name€of€a€Dr.€Singh,€a€family€doctor,€who€wasÏprepared€to€testify€that€Tampax€usage€could€cause€hymenal€injuries.€€DefenseÍcounsel€did€not€talk€to€or€subpoena€this€witness.€€The€defendant€did€not€call€Dr.ÏSingh€or€offer€a€proffer€of€proof€as€to€Dr.€Singhððs€testimony€concerning€this€subjectÏmatter€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€Judge€Joe€Jones,€speaking€for€this€Court€in€òòBlackÏv.€State,€supraóó,€at€page€757€stated:ÌÒ « ÒÒ  ÒÒ « ÒÒ Ü ÒÓÓÓ ` [hŠXÓà àð ð€It€is€elementary€that€neither€a€trial€judge€nor€anÏappellate€court€can€speculate€or€guess€on€the€question€of€whetherÏfurther€investigation€would€have€revealed€a€material€witness€or€what€aÏwitnessððs€testimony€might€have€been€if€introduced€by€defenseÏcounsel.€€The€same€is€true€regarding€the€failure€to€call€a€knownÏwitness.€€In€short,€if€a€petitioner€is€able€to€establish€that€defenseÏcounsel€was€deficient€in€the€investigation€of€the€facts€or€calling€aÏknown€witness,€the€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€relief€from€hisÏconviction€on€this€ground€unless€he€can€produce€a€material€witnessÏwho€(a)€could€have€been€found€by€a€reasonable€investigation€and€(b)Ïwould€testify€favorably€in€support€of€his€defense€if€called.€€Otherwise,Ïthe€petitioner€fails€to€establish€the€prejudice€requirement€mandated€byÏòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó.ððÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓ ` ¸ ŒXÓÌÓÓà àTherefore,€the€defendant,€since€the€expert€Dr.€Singh€was€not€called,€hasÏfailed€to€establish€prejudice€necessary€for€relief.€Ìò òÓ  ÓDEFICIENT€ISSUESÌÓ  Óó óà àFrom€a€review€of€the€evidentiary€hearing€and€the€trial€transcript,€the€CourtÏfinds€that€the€defendant€has€established€that€defense€counsel€was€deficient€in€hisÏrepresentation€of€the€defendant€at€trial€in€ò òAppellate€Issues€6€and€4,ó ó€thus€requiringÏa€remand€for€a€new€trial.€Ìà àIn€ò òAppellate€Issue€6,ó ó€the€defendant€alleges€that€his€trial€counsel€(both?)Ïfailed€to€properly€investigate€the€facts€surrounding€the€allegation€of€the€rape€of€aÏchild€on€December€25,€1993,€occurring€in€Rutherford€County.€€Thus,€defenseÏcounsel€permitted€proof€of€a€crime€at€trial€that€did€not€occur€in€Rutherford€County.€ÏOf€all€the€allegations€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€and€the€proof€in€thisÏrecord,€this€claim€is€the€most€troublesome€to€the€Court.€€From€a€careful€review€of€theÏtrial€transcript€and€evidentiary€hearing,€both€the€State€and€the€defense€were€onÏnotice€of€a€jurisdictional€problem.Ý‚ÿÝÔ€ôÔÔ€ÔòòÝ  ÝÔ€ŠÔÝ‚ÿÝóóÝ  Ý× ƒH ××  ×€ÌÔ€ôÔà àIn€Volume€III€of€the€trial€transcript,€Detective€Preble€Morton,€investigative€officer,€testified€that€theÏallegation€of€the€rape€of€a€child€(BT)€on€December€25,€1993€occurred€in€Wilson€County.€€Detective€MortonÏdetermined€this€fact,€after€talking€to€the€victim,€and€following€the€route€taken€by€the€defendant.€€DetectiveÏMorton,€also,€testified€that€the€bedroom€allegation,€two€weeks€before€December€25,€occurred€in€RutherfordÏCounty.€€At€the€evidentiary€hearing,€defense€counsel€testified€he€had€a€copy€of€Detective€MortonððsÏinvestigative€report.€€At€the€close€of€the€Stateððs€proof€in€chief,€defense€counsel€moved€for€a€judgment€ofÍacquittal€as€to€the€allegation€of€December€25,€1993,€in€that€this€offense€occurred€in€Wilson€County.€€TheÏState€conceded,€based€on€the€testimony€of€Detective€Morton,€that€the€offense€of€€December€25,€1993,€occurredÏin€Wilson€County.€€The€State€then€moved€to€make€an€election€that€the€offense€alleged€to€have€occurred€inÏdefendantððs€bedroom€be€submitted€to€the€jury.€€The€Court€granted€the€election€and€instructed€the€jury€not€toÏconsider€the€Christmas€allegation.€Ìà àAt€the€evidentiary€hearing,€beginning€at€page€43€of€the€transcript,€defense€counsel€was€asked€theÏfollowing€questions€concerning€the€offense€of€December€25,€1993:Ìà àð ðQ.€à àWhere€did€the€December€25th€incident€occur?Ìà àA.€à àIt€occurred,€apparently,€in€Wilson€County.Ìà àQ.€à àYou€say€apparently?Ìà àA.€à àApparently,€thatððs€what€the€proof€showed.Ìà àQ.€à àWhat€investigation€did€you€do€before€the€trial€to€determine€where€the€crime€allegedly€„„„„?Ìà àA.€à àWell,€I€didnððt€physically€go€out€and€look€at€the€place,€but€I€did€look€at€maps.€€It€appearedÏthat€the€allegation€took€place€in€Wilson€County.€€I€asked€the€Assistant€District€General€about€it,€and€theÏAssistant€District€Attorney€General€told€me€they€intended€to€prove€up€that€the€crime€started€in€RutherfordÏCounty€and€then€carried€across€county€lines€in€Wilson€County.€€Ô€ŠÔòòSo€that€was€about€as€far€as€I€tookÏitóó.€(Emphasis€added).Ìà àð ðQ.€à àDid€you€ever€drive€the€route€depicted€in€Detective€Mortonððs„„Ìà àA.€à àNo,€I€did€not,€but€I€looked€at€maps.Ìà àQ.€à àAnd€you€thought€it€happened€in€Wilson€County?Ìà àA.€à àYeah.Ìà àQ.€à àDid€you€file€any€motions€before€trial€to€have€that€count€(sic)€dismissedÏor€not€brought€up€in€trial?Ìà àA.€à àWell,€based€upon€the€representation€of€the€District€Attorney,€I€did€notÏbecause,€quite€frankly,€if€they€couldnððt€prove€it,€I€felt€I€could€get€the€thingÏdismissed.Ìà àQ.€à àDo€you€believe€it€was€better€for€the€jury€to€hear€about€a€crime€thatÏdidnððt€happen€in€this€county?Ìà àA.€à àWell,€thereððs€no€doubt€in€my€mind€that€all€that€testimony€inflamed€theÏjury.€Thereððs€no€doubt€in€my€mind€that€was€the€heart€of€the€case.€€And€thereððs€noÏdoubt€in€my€mind€that€the€jury€really€reacted€to€these€allegations€on€DecemberÏ25th.€They€reacted€visibly.€€And€thereððs€no€question€in€my€mind€that€thoseÏallegations€were€the€real€heart€of€the€conviction,€no€question.€€But€if€a€defendantððsÏattorney€could€object€every€time€by€filing€a€motion€about€charges€being€brought,Ïevery€case€would€have€an€objection€to€the€charge.Ìà àQ.à àIððm€not€talking€about€being€brought;€Iððm€talking€about€being€broughtÏin€the€right€venue,€the€right€jurisdiction.Ìà àA.à àAgain,€if€they€said€they€felt€they€could€prove€it€up,€I€felt€the€burdenÏwould€be€on€them.Ìà àQ.€à àSo€youððre€telling€the€Court€that€you€accepted€your€adversaryððsÏversion€rather€than€doing€independent€investigation€and€research?Ìà àA.€à àWell,€essentially,€if€they€felt€they€could€prove€it€up,€why€not€let€themÏtry?€€We€did€get€that€one€dismissed€because€they€didnððt€prove€it.ððÌà àThe€Stateððs€cross„examination€concerning€this€issue€was€not€helpful.€€AsÏstated€previously,€it€is€clear€that€defense€counsel€was€aware€of€the€possibility€of€aÏvenue€problem.€€Therefore,€it€was€incumbent€on€defense€counselððs€part€to€conductÏan€adequate€investigation€to€determine€exactly€where€the€allegations€occurred,€e.g.Ïbill€of€particulars,€etc.€€òòBaxter€v.€Rose,€supraóó.€€It€is€clear€that€had€a€proper€pre„trialÏinvestigation€been€accomplished€and€determined€that€the€December€25th€allegationÏoccurred€in€Wilson€County,€a€Rutherford€County€jury€would€not€have€heard€thisÏallegation.€€In€òòBaxter€v.€Rose,€supraóó,€the€Supreme€Court€adopted€language€fromÏòòUnited€States€v.€DeCoster,€supraóó,€on€the€duties€of€defense€counsel,€moreÏspecifically,€No.€3,€as€to€the€necessity€of€a€proper€pre„trial€investigation.€€As€defenseÏcounsel€stated€in€his€testimony,€such€evidence€was€devastating.€€The€Court€holdsÏthat€defense€counsel€was€deficient€in€his€pre„trial€investigation.€€Was€defenseÏcounselððs€deficiency€so€prejudicial€requiring€reversal?Ìà àIn€evaluating€whether€a€defendant€has€discharged€the€burden€ofÏestablishing€prejudice,€a€court€ÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ Ü ÒÓÓÓ ` ‹XÓð ðmust€consider€the€totality€of€the€evidence€before€the€judge€or€jury.€ÏSome€of€the€factual€findings€will€have€been€unaffected€by€the€errors,Ïand€factual€findings€that€were€affected€will€have€been€affected€inÏdifferent€ways.€€Some€errors€will€have€had€a€pervasive€effect€on€theÍinferences€to€be€drawn€from€the€evidence,€altering€the€entireÏevidentiary€picture,€and€some€will€have€an€isolated,€trivial€effect.€ÏMoreover,€a€verdict€or€conclusion€only€weakly€supported€by€theÏrecord€is€more€likely€to€have€been€affected€by€errors€than€one€withÏoverwhelming€record€support.€€Taking€the€unaffected€findings€as€aÏgiven,€and€taking€due€account€of€the€effect€of€the€errors€on€theÏremaining€findings,€a€court€making€the€prejudice€inquiry€must€ask€if€theÏdefendant€has€met€the€burden€of€showing€that€the€decision€reachedÏwould€reasonably€likely€have€been€different€absent€the€errors.ðð€ÏòòStrickland€v.€Washington,€supraóó€at€page€2069;€òòGoad€v.€State,óó€938€ÏS.W.2d€363€(Tenn.€1996).ÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓ ` ¸ ŒXÓÌÓÓà àThe€allegations€of€a€rape€of€a€child€are€the€most€difficult€cases€to€confront€aÏtrial€judge,€the€State€and€especially€defense€counsel.€€This€is€especially€true€in€aÏsingle€indictment€with€several€alleged€offenses.€€Defense€counselððs€theory€toÏconcentrate€on€one€episode,€such€as€the€December€25th€allegation,€and€discreditÏthe€other€event€is€good€strategy.€€This€Court€is€convinced€that€had€defense€counselÏproperly€investigated€the€facts,€pre„trial,€then€the€Wilson€County€allegation€wouldÏnot€have€been€before€a€Rutherford€County€jury.€€Defense€counselððs€errorÏcompounded€the€problem€by€letting€the€Rutherford€County€jury€hear€testimony€ofÏone€relevant€event€and€an€irrelevant€event€of€a€sexual€act€between€the€victim€andÏthe€defendant.€€Coupled€with€testimony€of€hymenal€damage,€it€would€be€difficultÏfor€defense€counsel€to€overcome€such€evidence.€€Therefore,€the€Court€holds€thatÏthe€record€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€defendant€wasÏafforded€his€constitutional€right€to€effective€assistance€of€counsel€in€the€trial€of€thisÏcase.Ìà àAs€stated€in€ò òAppellate€Issue€4ó ó,€the€defendant€alleges€he€was€denied€theÏeffective€assistance€of€counsel€in€that€defense€counsel,€in€his€opening€statement€toÏthe€jury,€told€them€that€the€medical€proof€would€not€show€anything€and€failed€toÏsupport€this€statement€with€any€evidence.€€Defense€counselððs€opening€statementÏconsisted€of€fifteen€(15)€pages.€€In€regards€to€the€complaint,€defense€counsel€statedÏto€the€jury,€ð ðBy€the€way,€I€donððt€believe€the€medical€evidence€is€going€to€showÏanything.ðð€€Vol.€1,€page€132,€Trial€Transcript.€€At€the€evidentiary€hearing,€defenseÏcounsel€testified€in€response€to€the€Stateððs€questions€at€page€64:Ìà àð ðQ.à à€Now,€in€your€opening€statement€you€alluded€to€at€least€three€things,Ïalthough€more€than€that.€€Did€you€ever€use€the€word€promise€as€defense€counselÏhas€suggested?€€Did€you€promise€the€jurors€or€Court€or€anyone€else€that€you€couldÏdo€a€certain€thing?Ìà àA.€à àI€did€not€use€the€word€promise.€€However,€when€you€say€somethingÏto€a€jury,€that€generally€is€deemed€to€be€a€promise€if€you€put€it€like€youððre€going€toÏbe€able€to€prove€it.€Ìà àQ.€à àWell,€it€was€your€intention;€was€it€not?Ìà àA.€à àIt€was€my€intention€at€the€opening€statement.€€I€had,€I€felt,€a€goodÏopening€statement.€€I€felt€at€the€end€of€the€opening€statement€the€jury€had€an€openÏmind€at€the€end€of€the€opening€statement.Ìà àQ.€à àNow,€in€regard€to€the€suggestion€about€the€medical€proof,€you€haveÏmaintained€and€continue€to€maintain€that€the€medical€proof€itself€did€not€in€anyÏway€directly€link€William€Taylor€with€this€incident?Ìà àA.€à àI€vehemently€believe€that,€and€I€also€vehemently€believe€that€medicalÏproof„„I€objected€to€it€coming€in.€€I€still€donððt€think€it€had€anything€to€do,€evenÏcircumstantially,€with€him.€Ìà àQ.€à àAnd€having€heard€the€proof€through€Dr.€Ross,€has€that€changed€atÏall?€Did€she€suggest€in€any€way€that€we€could€show€that€Billy€Taylor€did€this€basedÏon€€this€medical€evidence?Ìà àA.€à àNo,€I€donððt€think€she€did.Ìà àQ.€à àSo€when€you€made€that€statement€to€the€jury€in€your€openingÏremarks,€thatððs€what€you€intended€and€you€followed€through€on€that.Ìà àA.€à àThatððs€essentially€what€I€intended€to€say.€€I€did€that€openingÏstatement€pretty€much€from€memory,€but€what€I€intended€to€say€there€would€be€noÏdirect€link€between€the€medical€evidence€and€Mr.€Taylor.ððÌà àAlso,€defense€counsel€testified€that€he€inquired€of€the€nurse€practitioner,ÏRuth€Suzanne€Ross,€of€any€direct€evidence€linked€to€the€defendant€and€ð ðshe€saidÏshe€didnððt.ðð€€However,€in€reviewing€Volume€II€of€the€trial€transcript,€defenseÏcounsel€did€not€ask€any€specific€questions€of€the€nurse€practitioner€about€anyÏevidence€directly€attributable€to€the€defendant.€€The€total€cross„examination€of€theÍnurse€practitioner€consisted€of€questions€surrounding€the€possibility€of€hymenalÏinjuries€being€caused€by€Tampax.€€Unfortunately,€the€statement,€ð ðBy€the€way€IÏdonððt€believe€the€medical€evidence€is€going€to€show€anything.ðð€is€incorrect.€€AtÏtrial,€Ms.€Ross€testified€that€the€victim€had€a€hymenal€injury€that€would€beÏconsistent€with€penetration€by€a€penis€or€finger.€€The€injury€was€well€healed,€butÏpenetration€could€have€occurred€two€weeks€before€December€25,€1993.€€TheÏvictimððs€examination€occurred€on€January€6,€1994.€€Aware,€of€this€damaging€StateÏproof,€defense€counsel€was€on€notice€to€explore€any€and€every€€reasonableÏexplanation€for€this€injury.€Ìà àThe€defendant€would€argue€that€this€statement€of€defense€counselÏconstitutes€a€promise.€€The€Court€would€characterize€this€statement€as€more€anÏoverstatement€or€misstatement€of€the€potential€proof.€€Most€cases€alleging€error€inÏopening€statements€involve€the€failure€of€defense€attorneys€to€call€witnesses€inÏsupport€of€their€opening€comments.€€In€òòState€v.€Zimmermanóó,€823€S.W.2d€220Ï(Tenn.€Crim€App.€1991),€Judge€Wade,€speaking€for€this€Court,€stated€at€page€225:ÌÒ ö ÒÒ  ÒÒ ö ÒÒ Ü ÒÓ ý ÓÓÓà à€ð ðOpening€statements€are€relatively€new€to€the€criminal€law€in€thisÏstate.€As€late€as€1963,€in€the€case€of€òòCarroll€v.€State,óó€212€Tenn.€464,Ï370€S.W.2d€523,€our€Supreme€Court€held€that€there€could€be€noÏopening€statement€in€a€criminal€case.€€In€the€same€year,€the€legislatureÏenacted€a€statute€permitting€opening€statements€in€both€civil€andÏcriminal€trials.€€Tenn€Code€Ann.€20„9„301.€€òòEither€overstatement€orÏmisstatement€during€this€presentation,€despite€curative€efforts,€mayÍhave€adverse€effectsóó:€€(Emphasis€added.)€€òòMcCloskey,€Criminal€LawÏDesk€Bookóó,€Sec€1506(3)(0)€(Matthew€Bender,€1990).€ÌÓ  ÓÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÌÓÓà àIn€òòState€v.€Moormanóó,€320€N.C.€387,€358€S.E.2d€502€(1987),€the€NorthÏCarolina€Supreme€Court€found€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€based€upon€theÏfailure€to€present€evidence€promised€during€the€opening€statement:ÌÒ ö ÒÒ  ÒÒ ö ÒÒ Ü ÒÓÓÓ ` ¦hŠXÓà àð ðA€cardinal€tenant€of€successful€advocacy€is€that€theÏadvocate€be€unquestionably€credible.€€If€the€fact€finder€losesÏconfidence€in€the€credibility€of€the€advocate,€it€loses€confidence€inÏthe€credibility€of€the€advocateððs€cause.ððÌÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÓ ` ¸ ŒXÓà àIn€his€closing€argument,€defense€counsel€maintained€the€Stateððs€ownÏdoctorððs€report€indicated€nothing€here€to€say€that€the€defendant€did€anything.€ÏHowever,€the€medical€report€of€Ruth€Suzanne€Ross,€Exhibit€7€ID,€establishes€inÏseveral€areas€that€the€victim€maintained€her€step„father,€the€defendant,€sexuallyÏpenetrated€her€and€made€her€perform€oral€sex.€€Coupled€with€the€finding€by€theÏnurse€practitioner€of€hymenal€injury,€defense€counsel€would€be€in€a€difficultÏposition€to€claim€there€is€no€medical€evidence€to€connect€the€defendant€with€theseÏallegations.€Ìò òÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONó óÌÓ  Óà àThis€Court€agrees€with€a€number€of€the€trial€courtððs€rulings€on€July€21,€1995.ÏHowever,€we€believe€the€cumulative€effect€of€ò òAppellate€Issues€4€and€6ó ó€errorsÏdeprived€the€defense€of€a€meaningful€defense.€€The€reliability€of€the€verdict€is€inÏquestion.€€We€have€determined€that€the€entire€record€preponderates€against€the€trialÍcourtððs€findings€that€the€defendant,€William€Taylor,€was€afforded€his€constitutionalÏright€to€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court€is€reversed€and€this€cause€is€remanded€for€a€new€trial.€ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìóóà àà àà àà àà àà àL.€T.€LAFFERTY,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÇCONCUR:ÌÓÓòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌGARY€R.€WADE,.€JUDGEÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓ ` 4ŽXÓóóPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGEÌÔ€ôÔ