ÿWPCì …UBV %˜U .ž 0CÌn 04" V 0J^ 0T¨ 0^ü 0hZ 0r w@4 4t 0|ˆ 0† 0Š 1u 0d BóU6B)FDCo AM²Þÿ&Ý D3'6] 0@sC³v~övÓt AOGÆ– 0D\ D/  BÏ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó3|xS«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTarcpi„„…ä2¼P±Q„P%ä2¼A`ArialTTarcpiXXXä2¼P±QXP( ¤T$¡¡Ó  Ó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ADBCDDUEDFDGDHIJÓ€Ô¡¨ 2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÔÝ ƒ !ÝÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌJune€6,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€jury€acquitted€the€defendant€of€two€counts€of€aggravated€sexual€batteryÏand€one€count€of€attempted€aggravated€rape.Ì""""'ÿÿdxd Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóInitials,€rather€than€the€names€of€the€victims,€are€used€to€protect€the€privacy€ofÏminors€who€have€been€sexually€abused.Ì Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóIn€òòHillóó,€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€the€lesser€included€offense€ofÏaggravated€sexual€battery.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò 9Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€ÔThe€record€did€not€include€a€transcript€of€the€attorneysðð€closing€arguments.€TheÏCourt€does€not€know€whether€the€books€were€mentioned€in€closing.ÌPtPtHHÚ(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€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ÔßR€'(&A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌAPRIL€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€01„C„01„9505„CR„00146Ìà àà àAPPELLEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAnn€Lacy€Johns,€JudgeÌJOHN€CLAUDE€WELLS,€III,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Aggravated€Sexual€Battery)Ìà àà àAPPELLANT.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌJeffrey€A.€DeVasherà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€Walkup€ÌSenior€Asst.€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ1202€Stahlman€Buildingà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€TN€37201„5066à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0497Ì(On€Appeal)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCharlotte€H.€RappuhnÌRoss€E.€Aldermanà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌDeputy€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ1202€Stahlman€Buildingà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌNashville,€TN€37201„5066Ì(At€Trial)à àà àà àà àà àà àVictor€S.€Johnson,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌJefferson€Dorseyà àà àà àà àà à222€Second€Avenue€North,€Suite€500ÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201„1649Ì1202€Stahlman€BuildingÌNashville,€TN€37201„5066à àà àà àà àLila€J.€StatomÌ(At€Trial)à àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à222€Second€Avenue€North,€Suite€500ÌOF€COUNSEL:à àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201„1649ÌKarl€DeanÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àCharles€CarpenterÌ1202€Stahlman€Buildingà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌNashville,€TN€37201„5066à àà àà àà à222€Second€Avenue€North,€Suite€500Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201„1649ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€________________________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌJoe€B.€Jones,€Presiding€JudgeÔ€„Ôò òÇÓ  ÓÑ7€â XXdÈXXdÈ7ÑO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌÓÓà àÔ€XÔThe€appellant,€John€Claude€Wells,€III,€(defendant),€was€convicted€of€nine€(9)Ïcounts€of€aggravated€sexual€battery,€a€Class€B€felony,€by€a€jury€of€his€peers.× ƒ) ××  ×€€The€trialÏcourt,€finding€the€defendant€to€be€a€standard€offender,€imposed€a€Range€I€sentenceÏconsisting€of€confinement€for€ten€(10)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction€in€each€ofÏthe€nine€counts.€€The€sentences€must€be€served€consecutively.€€The€effective€sentenceÏimposed€was€confinement€for€ninety€(90)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.Ìà àThe€defendant€presents€six€issues€for€review.€€He€contends€the€counts€of€theÏindictment€of€which€he€stands€convicted€are€invalid€and€void.€€€He€also€contends€theÏtrial€court€committed€error€of€prejudicial€dimensions€by€(a)€granting€the€state's€motionÏto€amend€six€counts€of€the€indictment,€(b)€allowing€a€witness€to€describe€the€conduct€ofÏone€of€the€victims,€(c)€allowing€the€mother€of€one€of€the€victims€to€describe€her€child'sÏpsychological€treatment€and€hospitalization,€(d)€admitting€into€evidence€three€booksÏfound€in€the€defendant's€apartment€in€Austin,€Texas,€and€(e)€imposing€excessiveÏsentences.€€After€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€the€briefs€submitted€by€the€parties,Ïand€the€law€governing€the€issues€presented€for€review,€it€is€the€opinion€of€this€CourtÏthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€should€be€affirmed.ÌÓ  ÓÌò òGENERAL€BACKGROUNDÌÓ  ÓÌó óà àThe€defendant€moved€to€Nashville€in€1987.€€He€subsequently€leased€anÏapartment€in€the€Turtle€Creek€apartment€complex.€€Eventually,€he€leased€a€homeÏlocated€on€Tobylynn€Court€in€Nashville.€€In€December€of€1991,€the€defendant€moved€toÏAustin,€Texas.Ìà àA€young€victim,€J.T.K.,× ƒ+ ××  ×€decided€to€earn€spending€money€during€the€summer€ofÏ1989.€€He€went€from€apartment€to€apartment€in€the€Turtle€Creek€complex€offering€toÏremove€trash€bags€from€a€person's€apartment€to€a€garbage€container€for€fifty€cents€perÏbag.€€The€defendant's€apartment€was€one€of€the€apartments€approached€by€J.T.K.€€TheÏdefendant€agreed€to€use€the€minor's€services.€€The€minor€testified€the€defendant€toldÏhim€he€did€not€have€any€trash,€but€he€would€give€him€$5.00€to€wash€his€dishes.€€TheÏdefendant€testified€he€employed€the€minor€to€remove€his€trash.€€A€close€friendshipÏdeveloped€between€J.T.K.€and€the€defendant.Ìà àJ.T.K.€began€spending€weekends€at€the€defendant's€apartment.€€He€introducedÏother€young€boys€to€the€defendant.€€Two€other€victims,€D.D.N.€and€R.A.V.,€were€two€ofÏthe€young€boys€J.T.K.€introduced€to€the€defendant.€€These€two€victims€also€beganÏspending€weekends€at€the€defendant's€apartment€with€the€other€young€boys€theÏdefendant€had€met.Ìà àThe€defendant€provided€video€games,€board€games,€and€rented€movies€for€theÏboys€on€the€weekends.€€He€took€the€boys€to€a€movie€theater€on€occasion.€€In€addition,Ïhe€took€several€of€the€boys€to€Opryland,€Kings€Island€in€Ohio,€Gatlinburg,€andÏMammoth€Cave€in€Kentucky.€€He€also€took€the€boys€to€the€zoo,€a€skateboard€park,€andÍother€parks€in€Nashville.€€The€defendant€stated€he€took€some€of€the€boys€fishing€atÏPercy€Priest€Park€near€Nashville.€€He€also€took€the€boys€on€camping€trips.€€TheÏdefendant€took€some€of€the€boys€to€New€Orleans€for€the€Sugar€Bowl.€He€also€took€theÏboys€to€fast€food€restaurants.€€The€defendant€paid€for€all€of€€the€expenses€incurred€forÏthe€food€and€the€trips.Ìà àJ.T.K.€took€Taekwondo€lessons.€€The€defendant€paid€for€these€lessons.€€HeÏloaned€money€to€R.A.V.'s€mother.€€He€gave€her€a€motor€vehicle.€€He€also€paid€sixÏmonths€rent€in€advance€when€she€moved€to€a€duplex.€€He€gave€the€boys€nice€presentsÏon€Christmas€and€their€birthdays.Ìà àMost€of€the€boys€were€from€families€without€fathers€in€the€household.€€Some€ofÏthese€boys€had€stepfathers€whom€they€did€not€like.€€The€defendant€was€a€father„figureÏto€these€young€boys.Ìà àOn€April€22,€1991,€D.D.N.€told€a€teacher€he€had€been€sexually€abused€by€theÏdefendant.€€The€police€were€called.€€D.D.N€gave€the€police€a€statement€implicating€theÏdefendant.€€An€investigation€ensued.€€Detective€Bruce€Amos€of€the€Metropolitan€PoliceÏDepartment€interviewed€the€defendant€on€May€17,€1991.€€Between€July€8,€1991€andÏNovember€22,€1991,€he€interviewed€the€young€boys€who€spent€time€at€the€defendant'sÏapartment.€€The€defendant€made€entries€in€a€desk€calendar€of€the€dates€of€theÏinterviews.€€He€admitted€he€left€Nashville€shortly€after€Thanksgiving€in€1991.Ìà àWhen€the€defendant€arrived€in€Texas,€he€took€steps€to€change€his€identity€fromÏJohn€Claude€Wells,€III,€to€Duane€Wells.€€He€gave€his€new€employer€and€others€a€falseÏsocial€security€number.€€The€defendant€was€subsequently€sent€to€Philadelphia,ÏPennsylvania€to€install€wireless€cable€television€units.€€While€in€Philadelphia,€he€wasÍstopped€for€a€traffic€offense.€€He€gave€the€officer€his€Tennessee€driver's€license€whichÏcontained€his€correct€name.€€The€officer€apparently€ran€an€NCIC€check.€€The€checkÏrevealed€he€was€wanted€in€Tennessee€for€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€He€wasÏsubsequently€extradited€to€Tennessee.€€He€remained€in€jail€until€the€trial.Ìà à€€€€€Ìò òÓ  ÓCOUNTS€ONE€THROUGH€SIXó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àCounts€one€through€six€involved€the€victim,€D.D.N.€€The€victim€was€under€theÏage€of€thirteen€years€when€these€incidents€occurred.€€All€of€these€incidents€occurredÏbefore€April€22,€1991.Ìà àD.D.N,€one€of€the€victims,€lived€in€the€same€apartment€complex€as€theÏdefendant.€€This€victim€was€introduced€to€the€defendant€by€J.T.K.€at€a€skateboard€park.€ÏEventually,€D.D.N.€€began€spending€the€night€at€the€defendant's€apartment€eachÏweekend.€€The€defendant€took€D.D.N.€to€Gatlinburg€alone.€€The€defendant€attempted€toÏengage€in€sexual€activity€with€D.D.N.€during€this€trip.€€D.D.N.€refused€the€defendant'sÏadvances.€€The€defendant€then€pressured€D.D.N.€by€acting€as€if€he€were€mad€at€D.D.N.€ÏThe€sexual€abuse€began€after€D.D.N.€and€the€defendant€returned€from€Gatlinburg.Ìà àThe€incident€which€led€to€the€defendant's€conviction€in€Count€I€occurred€in€theÏdefendant's€bedroom.€€The€defendant€removed€D.D.N.'s€undergarments,€got€on€top€ofÏD.D.N.,€and€moved€up€and€down€on€D.D.N.€as€he€rubbed€his€reproductive€organÏbetween€the€victim's€legs.€€The€defendant€ejaculated.Ìà àThe€incident€which€led€to€the€defendant's€conviction€in€Count€II€also€occurred€inÏthe€defendant's€bedroom.€€D.D.N.€and€the€defendant€were€in€the€bed€with€the€doorÍclosed.€€They€were€lying€side€by€side.€€The€defendant€touched€his€reproductive€organÏto€the€victim's€reproductive€organ.€€Thereafter,€the€defendant€got€on€top€of€the€victimÏagain€placed€his€reproductive€organ€between€D.D.N.'s€legs€as€he€did€on€the€firstÏoccasion.Ìà àThe€incident€which€led€to€the€defendant's€conviction€in€Count€III€occurred€in€theÏdefendant's€bed.€€D.D.N.€remembered€it€occurred€the€day€before€one€of€theÏdefendant's€cats€was€found€dead€in€the€apartment.€€Again,€the€defendant€placed€hisÏreproductive€organ€between€D.D.N.'s€legs€and€rubbed€against€the€victim's€legs.Ìà àThe€incident€which€led€to€the€defendant's€conviction€in€Count€IV€occurred€in€theÏdefendant's€bed€at€his€residence€on€Tobylynn€Court.€€The€defendant€touched€D.D.N.'sÏreproductive€organ€with€his€hand€before€getting€on€top€of€the€victim€and€rubbing€hisÏreproductive€organ€between€the€victim's€legs.Ìà àThe€incident€which€led€to€the€defendant's€conviction€in€Count€V€of€the€indictmentÏoccurred€at€the€defendant's€house.€€The€defendant€touched€D.D.N.'s€buttock€with€hisÏreproductive€organ.€€The€defendant€then€attempted€to€penetrate€D.D.N.€anally.€€D.D.N.Ïrefused€to€permit€the€defendant€to€penetrate€him.Ìà àThe€incident€which€led€to€the€defendant's€conviction€in€Count€VI€occurred€at€theÏdefendant's€house.€€According€to€D.D.N.,€the€defendant€lay€on€D.D.N.ððs€back€andÏ"humped"€him€between€the€legs€as€on€prior€occasions.€€ÌÌò òÓ  ÓCOUNTS€NINE€AND€TENó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àCounts€IX€and€X€involve€the€victim,€R.A.V.€€He€was€under€the€age€of€thirteenÍyears€when€these€two€incidents€occurred.€€Both€incidents€occurred€before€SeptemberÏ17,€1991.€Ìà àThe€incident€which€led€to€the€defendant's€conviction€in€Count€IX€occurred€in€theÏdefendant's€bedroom€at€his€Turtle€Creek€apartment.€€It€was€the€first€night€R.A.V.€spentÏthe€night€at€the€defendant's€apartment.€€He€slept€in€the€same€bed€with€the€defendantÏwhile€several€other€boys€slept€in€the€living€room€of€the€apartment.€€When€R.A.V.€awokeÏthe€next€morning,€the€defendant€had€his€hands€in€the€victim's€underwear.€€He€wasÏtouching€€and€squeezing€his€reproductive€organ.Ìà àThe€incident€which€led€to€the€defendant's€conviction€in€Count€X€also€occurred€inÏthe€defendant's€bedroom€at€the€Turtle€Creek€apartment.€€Again,€the€victim€slept€withÏthe€defendant.€€When€the€victim€awoke€the€next€morning,€the€defendant€had€his€handsÏin€the€victim's€underwear.€€The€defendant€was€touching€and€squeezing€the€victim'sÏreproductive€organ.€Ìò òÓ  ÓCOUNT€ELEVENó óÌÓ  ÓÌà à€€€€Count€XI€involves€the€victim,€J.T.K.€€He€was€under€the€age€of€thirteen€yearsÏwhen€these€two€incidents€occurred.€€This€incident€occurred€before€November€22,Ï1991.Ìà àThe€victim€was€having€trouble€urinating.€€The€defendant€told€the€victim€he€had€aÏ"blockage."€€The€victim€went€into€the€defendant's€bedroom€at€the€Turtle€CreekÏapartment.€€While€the€other€boys€were€in€the€living€room€of€the€apartment,€theÏdefendant€pulled€J.T.K.'s€pants€to€his€knees,€and€the€defendant€removed€all€of€hisÏclothing.€€The€defendant€masturbated€the€victim€from€ten€to€fifteen€minutes.€€ÌÌò òÓ  ÓI.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àWhile€this€case€was€under€advisement,€the€defendant€filed€a€letterÏsupplementing€the€authorities€cited€in€his€brief.€€It€is€his€contention€all€nine€counts€ofÏthe€indictment€of€which€he€stands€convicted€are€void;€€and€he€asks€this€Court€toÏreverse€and€dismiss€the€prosecutions€against€œhim.›Ìò òÓ  ÓA.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€defendant€relies€upon€this€Court's€opinion€in€òòState€v.€Roger€Dale€Hill,€Sr.óó,ÏWayne€County€No.€01„C„01„9508„CC„00267€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€June€20,Ï1996),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òògrantedóó€(Tenn.€January€6,€1997).€€In€òòHillóó,€this€Court€held€the€failure€toÏallege€œthe€òòmensóó›€òòreaóó€or€culpable€mental€state€in€a€prosecution€for€aggravated€rape× ƒ, ××  ×Ïrendered€the€indictment€facially€void€and€dismissed€the€prosecution€against€Hill.€ÏLater,€this€Court€held€the€failure€to€allege€the€culpable€mental€state€in€an€indictmentÏcharging€the€rape€of€a€child€did€not€invalidate€the€indictment.€€òòState€v.€James€Disonóó,ÏSevier€County€No.€€03„C„01„9602„CC„00051€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€January€31,Ï1997).€€Finally,€this€Court€has€held€the€factual€allegations€contained€in€an€indictmentÏmay€be€sufficient€to€establish€the€culpable€mental€state€when€the€indictment€does€notÏallege€the€specific€culpable€mental€state.€€òòState€v.€Billy€Joe€Smithóó,€Unicoi€County€No.Ï03„C„01„9508„CC„00250€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€February€11,€1997).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóóÍòòState€v.€John€Haws€Burrellóó,€Anderson€County€No.€03„C„01„9404„CR„00157€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€Knoxville,€February€11,€1997).ÌÌò òÓ  ÓB.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àAll€nine€counts€in€question€allege€the€offense€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€TheÏcounts€allege€in€part€the€defendant€"did€engage€in€unlawful€sexual€contact€with€[theÏvictim],€a€child€less€than€thirteen€(13)€years€of€age."Ìà àThe€statute€proscribing€aggravated€sexual€battery,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„504,€states:Ò ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ(a)€Aggravated€sexual€battery€is€unlawful€sexualÏcontact€with€a€victim€by€the€defendant€or€the€defendant€by€aÏvictim€accompanied€by€any€of€the€following€circumstances:ÌÌÓ  Ó*€*€*€*ÌÓ  ÓÌ(4)€The€victim€is€less€than€thirteen€(13)€years€of€age.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓThe€phrase€"sexual€contact,"€as€used€in€the€statute,€is€defined€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„13„501€in€the€following€manner:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(6)€"Sexual€contact"€includes€the€intentional€touching€of€theÏvictim's,€the€defendant's,€or€any€other€person's€intimateÏparts,€or€the€intentional€touching€of€the€clothing€covering€theÏimmediate€area€of€the€victim's,€the€defendant's,€or€any€otherÏperson's€intimate€parts,€if€that€intentional€touching€can€beÏreasonably€construed€as€being€for€the€purpose€of€sexualÏarousal€or€gratification.ÌÌÌÓÓà àAs€can€be€seen,€the€statute€proscribing€the€offense€of€aggravated€sexual€batteryÏdoes€not€contain€a€culpable€mental€state.€€The€statute€refers€to€the€conduct€asÏ"unlawful."Ìœ›œÌ›ò òÓ  ÓC.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àWhile€the€description€of€an€offense€contained€in€an€indictment€"must€beÏsufficient€in€distinctness,€certainty,€and€precision€to€enable€the€accused€to€know€whatÏoffense€he€is€charged€with€and€to€understand€the€special€nature€of€the€charge€he€isÏcalled€to€answer,"€òòChurch€v.€Stateóó,€206€Tenn.€336,€358,€333€S.W.2d€799,€809€(1960),€itÏis€not€necessary€"to€amplify€and€encumber€the€charge€by€circumstantial€detail€andÏminute€description."€€òòJordan€v.€Stateóó,€156€Tenn.€509,€514,€3€S.W.2d€159,€160Ï(1928)(citations€omitted).€€As€a€general€rule,€it€is€sufficient€to€state€the€offense€chargedÏin€the€words€of€the€statute,€òòState€v.€Overtonóó,€193€Tenn.€171,€174,€245€S.W.2d€188,€189Ï(1951);€€òòStanfield€v.€Stateóó,€181€Tenn.€428,€432,€181€S.W.2d€617,€618€(1944);€€òòJordanóó,Ï156€Tenn.€at€514,€3€S.W.2d€at€160;€€òòState€v.€Tateóó,€912€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1995),€or€words€which€are€the€equivalent€to€the€words€contained€in€the€statute.€ÏòòCoke€v.€Stateóó,€208€Tenn.€248,€250„51,€345€S.W.2d€673,€674€(1961);€€òòStarks€v.€Stateóó,Ï66€Tenn.€64,€66€(1872).Ìà àThe€Tennessee€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€does€not€require€theÏculpable€mental€state€to€be€alleged€in€an€indictment.€€However,€the€State€ofÏTennessee€is€required€to€prove€the€culpable€mental€state€required€to€commit€theÏoffense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€definition€of€"sexual€contact"€requires€the€touching€to€beÏ"intentional."€€The€use€of€the€terms€"sexual€contact"€in€the€indictment€is€the€same€as€ifÏthe€definition€is€set€forth€in€full.€€€Thus,€the€culpable€mental€state€is€contained€in€theÍindictment.Ìà àIn€summary,€the€nine€counts€of€the€indictment€are€valid.€€The€allegationsÏcontained€in€these€counts€are€sufficient€to€apprise€the€defendant€of€the€offenses€heÏwas€required€to€defend,€the€trial€court€knew€the€offenses€to€which€it€would€apply€theÏjudgments€if€the€defendant€was€convicted,€and€the€defendant€knows€with€accuracy€toÏwhat€extent€he€can€plead€former€acquittal€or€former€conviction€in€a€subsequentÏprosecution€for€the€same€offenses.€€Moreover,€the€defendant€does€not€allege€he€wasÏprejudiced€in€his€defense,€and€the€record€does€not€indicate€the€defendant€was€in€factÏprejudiced€in€presenting€his€defense.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€€€€ÌÌò òÓ  ÓII.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€defendant€next€contends€the€trial€court€committed€error€of€prejudicialÏdimensions€by€allowing€the€State€of€Tennessee€to€amend€six€counts€of€the€indictment.€ÏAll€of€the€counts€pertained€to€the€victim,€D.D.N.€€The€amendments€were€made€on€theÏfirst€day€of€trial€before€voir€dire€examination.€€Ìà àThe€first€three€counts€of€the€indictment€alleged€the€unlawful€contact€uponÏD.D.N.,€a€child€less€than€thirteen€(13)€years€old,€in€1990.€€Counts€IV€through€VI€allegedÏthe€unlawful€sexual€contact€upon€D.D.N.,€a€child€less€than€thirteen€(13)€years€old,€inÏ1991.€€The€trial€court€permitted€the€state€to€amend€these€counts€of€the€indictment€toÏallege€the€unlawful€sexual€contact€occurred€"on€a€day€before€April€22,€1991."Ìà àIn€permitting€the€state's€motion€to€amend€the€indictment,€the€trial€court€found€theÍdefendant€was€not€prejudiced€by€the€amendments€to€the€six€counts€of€the€indictment.€ÏThe€court€said:€€"In€light€of€the€fact€that€the€requested€amendment€is€consistent€with€theÏinformation€in€the€Bill€of€Particulars,€and€there€is€no€surprise€and€no€prejudice€to€theÏdefendant,€no€deviation€from€what€they€have€previously€been€advised.€.€.€."Ìà àThe€defendant€argues€in€this€Court€a€substantial€right€was€affected€because€theÏamendment€broadened€the€time€frame€in€which€the€acts€occurred€and€as€a€resultÏforced€the€defense€to€defend€against€charges€not€alleged€in€the€indictment.€€He€furtherÏargues€the€amendment€to€the€indictment€was€broader€than€the€state's€response€to€theÏbill€of€particulars;€€and€the€election€made€at€the€close€of€the€state's€case€in€chief€wasÏinconsistent€with€the€bill€of€particulars.€€As€a€result,€the€defendant€contends€he€wasÏdenied€his€right€to€due€process€of€law.Ìà àAn€indictment€ð ðmay€be€amended€in€all€cases€with€the€consent€of€the€defendant."€ÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€7(b).€€If€the€defendant€does€not€consent€to€the€amendment,€theÏindictment€may€be€amended€if:€€(a)€no€additional€or€different€offense€is€charged,€(b)€noÏsubstantial€right€of€the€defendant€is€prejudiced,€and€(c)€the€amendment€is€sought€andÏpermitted€before€jeopardy€attaches.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Badgettóó,€693€S.W.2d€917,€919Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1985);€òòState€v.€Sextonóó,€656€S.W.2d€898,Ï900€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1983);€òòState€v.€Meadowsóó,€635€S.W.2dÏ400,€405€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982);€òòState€v.€Durhamóó,€614€S.W.2d€815,€818€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1981);€òòState€v.€Bealóó,€614€S.W.2d€77,€80€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1981).Ìà àThe€question€of€whether€an€amendment€should€be€permitted€rests€within€theÏsound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€7(b);€€òòState€v.€Kirklandóó,€696ÍS.W.2d€544,€545€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€This€Court€has€held€in€the€past€a€trial€courtÏdid€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€permitting€the€state€to€amend€an€indictment€to€changeÏthe€date€contained€in€the€indictment.€òòBadgettóó,€693€S.W.2d€at€919;€€òòSextonóó,€656€S.W.2dÏat€900;€òòDurhamóó,€614€S.W.2d€at€818.€€In€this€case,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€itsÏdiscretion€by€granting€the€state's€motion€to€amend€indictments€I€through€VI€of€theÏindictment.€€No€additional€or€different€offense€was€charged,€the€substantial€rights€of€theÏdefendant€were€not€impaired,€and€the€motion€to€amend€was€made€prior€to€the€timeÏjeopardy€attached.€€Furthermore,€the€defendant€was€not€prejudiced€by€the€amending€ofÏthe€indictment.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓIII.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€defendant€next€contends€the€trial€court€committed€error€of€prejudicialÏdimensions€by€allowing€D.D.N.'s€teacher€to€describe€his€conduct€at€school.€€He€arguesÏthe€evidence€was€not€relevant€to€any€issue€in€the€case,€and€if€relevant,€the€prejudicialÏeffect€far€outweighed€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence.€€The€defendant€furtherÏargues€the€confusing€and€misleading€nature€of€the€evidence€suggested€to€the€juryÏD.D.N.€suffered€injuries€consistent€with€a€victim€of€sexual€abuse.€The€conduct€led€to€anÏinterview€with€a€police€officer€which€revealed€the€sexual€abuse€he€sustained€at€theÏhands€of€the€defendant.€€à àThe€trial€court€ruled€the€teacher€could€describe€the€conductÏof€D.D.N.€which€she€observed.€€Moreover,€there€was€not€an€effort€to€qualify€the€€witnessÏas€an€expert.€However,€the€court€ruled€the€witness€could€not€offer€an€opinion€orÍconclusion€as€to€why€D.D.N.€was€engaged€in€the€conduct€hereinafter€set€forth.Ìà àD.D.N.€attended€the€Murrell€School,€a€school€for€children€with€behavioralÏdifficulties.€€He€entered€the€school€in€March€of€1990.€€Following€the€summer€break,€theÏteacher€noticed€that€D.D.N.'s€conduct€had€deteriorated.€€D.D.N.€acted€aggressively€andÏwas€self„mutilating.€€He€often€sought€refuge€where€he€could€do€his€school€work€alone.€ÏOn€occasion€he€became€so€violent€he€had€to€be€placed€in€a€"quiet€room"€andÏphysically€restrained€by€an€adult€€until€his€conduct€subsided€and€he€could€rejoin€theÏschool€population.€€He€threw€books,€picked€up€chairs,€struck€his€fellow€students,€brokeÏpencils,€ripped€papers,€left€the€classroom,€left€the€school€buildings,€climbed€to€the€topÏof€open€stairwells€and€stood€peering€downward,€and€stacked€chairs€on€tables€andÏstood€on€top€of€the€chairs.€Ìà àThe€appellate€courts€have€held€testimony€detailing€behavioral€dynamics€of€childÏabuse€cases€is€inadmissible.€€òòState€v.€Bolinóó,€922€S.W.2d€870,€873€(Tenn.€1996);€òòStateÏv.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€561„63€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Dickersonóó,€789€S.W.2d€566,Ï567€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990);€òòState€v.€Myersóó,€764€S.W.2d€214,€217€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1988),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1988).€€This€Court€has€held€that€testimony€indicating€aÏchildððs€pattern€of€behavior€is€consistent€with€the€behavior€of€sexually€abused€childrenÏis€inadmissible.€€òòState€v.€Schimpfóó,€782€S.W.2d€186,€193„94€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989),Ïòòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990).€€The€òòSchimpfóó€court€noted€that€jurors€can€determineÏwhether€unlawful€sexual€activity€has€occurred€without€the€assistance€of€psychologicalÏtestimony.€€òòSchimpfóó,€782€S.W.2d€at€194.€€Expert€testimony€that€children€exhibitÏsymptoms€of€post„traumatic€stress€syndrome€should€not€be€offered€to€confirm€theÏoccurrence€of€sexual€abuse.€€This€type€of€evidence€ð ðinvades€the€province€of€the€jury€toÍdecide€on€the€credibility€of€witnesses.ðð€€òòBallardóó,€855€S.W.2d€at€561„62.€€This€Court€saidÏin€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€880€S.W.2d€720,€730€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.Ï1994),€ð ðchild€sex€abuse€may€not€be€proven€by€evidence€that€the€victim€exhibitedÏresidual€characteristics€or€behavioral€traits€similar€to€other€victims€of€such€abuse.ððÌà àIn€òòBolinóó,€922€S.W.2d€at€873„74,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€addressed€aÏsituation€in€which€the€witness,€a€social€worker,€was€not€offered€as€an€€expert€witnessÏbut€testified€to€generalizations€regarding€the€victims€of€sexual€abuse.€€In€support€of€itsÏargument€that€the€testimony€was€properly€admitted,€the€state€argued€that€the€testimonyÏwas€not€ð ðopinionðð€evidence€because€it€was€based€upon€the€witnessððs€own€observationÏof€the€child€victims€as€a€social€worker.€€The€Supreme€Court€disagreed.€€ð ð[A]lthough€theÏsocial€workerððs€testimony€may€have€been€based€on€factual€observations,€it€was€notÏpresented€that€way:€€the€testimony€contains€no€references€to€any€such€observations,Ïand€was€stated€in€a€general€and€abstract€manner.€€Therefore,€it€must€be€classified€asÏððopinionðð€evidence.ðð€€òòBolinóó,€922€S.W.2d€at€874.€€While€the€social€worker€was€notÏformerly€qualified€as€an€expert€witness,€the€witness€displayed€ð ðspecialized€knowledgeððÏintended€to€ð ðsubstantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact€to€understand€the€evidence€or€toÏdetermine€a€fact€in€issue.ðð€€The€court€found€that€the€social€workerððs€testimony€violatedÏòòBallardóó.€€òòBolinóó,€922€S.W.2d€at€874.Ìà àThis€case€is€distinguishable€upon€the€facts€from€the€aforementioned€cases.€ÏPounds€was€the€victimððs€teacher€from€March€1990€when€he€entered€the€school€untilÏthe€spring€of€1992.€€She€testified€how€the€child€acted€at€the€school€and€how€thisÏprompted€the€investigation€into€the€defendant.€€The€witness€did€not€testify€as€toÏgeneralizations.€€Instead,€she€testified€to€specific€incidents.Ìà àThe€witness€was€not€offered€as€an€expert.€€More€importantly,€her€testimony€wasÏnot€offered€to€show€that€the€childððs€actions€conformed€with€the€type€of€behaviorÏexpected€from€a€victim€of€child€abuse.€€She€did€not€testify€as€to€how€child€abuse€victimsÏact.€€Her€testimony€was€relevant€to€show€jurors€what€prompted€the€investigation€intoÏthe€defendantððs€€possible€sexual€abuse€of€D.D.N.€€Her€testimony€was€relevant€to€showÏhow€the€child€acted€during€the€period€of€abuse.€€As€previously€stated,€the€witness€wasÏprohibited€from€offering€opinions€or€conclusions€that€the€childððs€behavior€wasÏindicative€of€abuse.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌò òÓ  ÓIV.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àó óThe€defendant€also€contends€the€trial€court€committed€error€of€prejudicialÏdimensions€by€permitting€the€mother€of€the€victim€D.D.N.€to€testify€concerning€her€sonððsÏconduct€towards€his€family€and€his€placement€in€several€treatment€facilities.€€TheÏdefendant€argues€the€testimony€given€by€this€witness€was€not€relevant€to€theÏdetermination€of€his€guilt.€€Assuming€the€testimony€is€relevant,€the€defendant€contendsÏthe€unfair€prejudicial€effect€far€outweighs€its€probative€value.Ìà àThe€trial€court€ruled€the€witness€could€testify€regarding€D.D.N.'s€behavior€withinÏthe€family€setting€and€the€action€taken€regarding€this€behavior.€€The€court€specificallyÏruled€the€witness€could€not€characterize€the€treatment€received€by€D.D.N.€asÏcounseling€for€a€sexually€abused€child.Ìà àThe€witness€described€her€sonððs€aggressive€behavior€towards€his€family€and€toÏhimself.€€Her€son€had€met€the€defendant€in€the€summer€of€1989.€€The€behavioralÏproblems€began€in€the€summer€of€1990.€€She€related€that€her€son€was€hospitalized€inÏlate€1990€by€the€Murrell€School€for€an€evaluation€in€what€was€described€as€anÏemergency€situation.€€He€was€hospitalized€twice€in€1991.€€The€witness€described€theÏtreatment€centers€as€mental€health€facilities.€€In€1992,€D.D.N.€spent€nine€months€at€aÏlonger€term€treatment€facility€and€then€went€into€a€therapeutic€foster€home€for€severalÏmonths.€€Afterward,€he€entered€a€wilderness€program€before€he€was€able€to€return€toÏhis€family.€€His€mother€said€her€child€was€working€through€mental€and€emotionalÏproblems.Ìà àThe€defendant€argues€the€reasoning€of€òòState€v.€Holtóó,€801€S.W.2d€518,€520Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€507€U.S.€964,€113€S.Ct.€1396,€122€L.Ed.2d€769Ï(1993)€controls.€€In€òòHoltóó,€the€trial€court€allowed€testimony€that€the€victim€had€undergoneÏcounseling€at€a€rape€and€sexual€abuse€center.€€This€Court€said,€ð ð[w]e€can€identify€noÏissue€to€which€the€nature€or€extent€of€counseling€can€be€fairly€connected.€€Thus,€weÏagree€with€the€defendant€that€this€testimony€was€without€probative€value€and€shouldÏhave€been€excluded.ðð€€òòHoltóó,€801€S.W.2d€at€520.€€The€òòHoltóó€court€noted€that€because€ofÏthe€convicting€evidence,€the€error€was€harmless.Ìà àThe€defendant€asks€this€Court€to€adopt€the€reasoning€of€òòHoltóó€in€this€case.€€HeÏargues€the€evidence€suggested€to€the€jury€that€D.D.N.€had€suffered€psychologicalÏinjury€consistent€with€being€a€victim€of€sexual€abuse.€€Expert€testimony€that€a€childÏexhibits€symptoms€consistent€with€those€symptoms€exhibited€by€a€child€who€has€beenÏsexually€abused€is€inadmissible.€€òòSchimpfóó,€782€S.W.2d€at€189„95;€òòDickersonóó,€789ÍS.W.2d€at€567„68.€€He€also€argues€the€victimððs€mother€was€not€an€expert,€but€herÏtestimony€was€designed€to€allow€jurors€to€draw€that€inference.Ìà àAs€the€state€argues,€this€case€is€distinguishable€from€the€situation€in€òòHoltóó.€€Here,Ïthe€motherððs€testimony€was€that€D.D.N.€was€placed€in€various€programs€as€a€result€ofÏhis€acting€out€„„€which€occurred€before€the€allegations€against€the€defendant€surfaced.€ÏIn€òòHoltóó,€the€counseling€began€after€the€accusations€arose€and€the€counselor€wasÏidentified€as€being€from€the€Vanderbilt€Rape€and€Sexual€Abuse€Center,€an€agencyÏname€that€necessarily€implies€that€the€victim€was€sexually€abused.€€Here,€the€motherÏwas€prohibited€by€the€trial€court€from€discussing€the€nature€of€the€treatment.Ìà àThe€motherððs€testimony€was€relevant€because€it€told€the€jury€of€problems€theÏvictim€was€having€at€the€same€time€the€abuse€would€have€been€occurringÏunbeknownst€to€her.€€In€òòState€v.€Robert€W.€Seffensóó,€Davidson€County€No.€01„C„01„9107„CR„00190€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€April€16,€1992),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.Ï1992),€this€Court€said€when€a€defendant€denied€having€sexual€contact€with€the€victimÏtestimony€regarding€the€victimððs€fears€of€the€defendant€was€relevant€as€to€whether€theÏvictim€was€truthful€about€the€allegations.€€ð ðAny€evidence€which€substantiates€theÏcredibility€of€a€prosecution€witness€on€the€question€of€guilt€is€relevant€and€material.€.€.€.€ÏThis€is€particularly€true€when€the€testimony€tended€to€support€the€victimððs€testimonyÏthat€the€incident€occurred.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€McPhersonóó,€882€S.W.2d€365,€372€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994)(testimony€substantiating€the€credibility€ofÏvictim€was€admissible€especially€in€light€of€the€defenseððs€attack€on€the€victimððsÏcredibility).€€In€this€case,€the€defendant€denied€he€sexually€abused€the€children,Ïincluding€D.D.N.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ìò òÓ  ÓÌV.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€defendant€contends€the€trial€court€committed€error€of€prejudicial€dimensionsÏby€permitting€the€State€of€Tennessee€to€introduce€three€books:€€Stephen€D.€Grubman„Black,€òòBroken€Boys/Mending€Men:€Recovery€from€Childhood€Sexual€Abuseóó€(1990),ÏRobert€Hemfelt€and€Paul€Warren,€òòKids€Who€Carry€Our€Pain:€€Breaking€the€Cycle€ofÏCodependency€for€the€Next€Generationóó€(1990),€and€James€Dobson€and€Gary€L.ÏBauer,€òòChildren€at€Risk:€€The€Battle€for€the€Hearts€and€Minds€of€Our€Kidsóó€(1990).€ÏThese€books€were€seized€by€Texas€authorities€when€the€officers€executed€a€searchÏwarrant€at€the€defendant's€apartment€in€Austin,€Texas.€€The€defendant€left€TennesseeÏand€moved€to€Texas€after€the€allegations€of€sexually€abusing€the€minor€childrenÏsurfaced.Ìà àThe€state€argued€that€the€books€were€relevant€because€the€defendant€knew€heÏwas€under€investigation€and€began€preparing€a€defense.€The€defendant€wasÏbecoming€familiar€with€children€and€their€problems.€€The€trial€court€agreed€that€theÏbooks€were€relevant.Ìà àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€books€were€irrelevant€and€should€not€have€beenÏadmitted€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€Further,€even€if€the€books€were€relevant,€anyÏrelevancy€was€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€under€Tenn.ÏR.€Evid.€403.€€Additionally,€the€books€should€also€have€been€excluded€under€Tenn.€€R.ÏEvid.€404(a)€which€prohibits€the€use€of€character€evidence€to€prove€an€accusedððsÍactions€conformed€with€the€trait.Ìà àThe€defendant€cites€òòState€v.€Tizardóó,€897€S.W.2d€732€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)Ïwhere€this€Court€held€it€was€reversible€error€to€admit€testimony€describing€a€sexuallyÏexplicit€book€and€videotapes€of€homosexual€activity€found€in€the€defendantððsÏpossession€and€testimony€that€the€defendantððs€roommates€were€bisexuals.€This€CourtÏheld€in€òòTizardóó€that€the€testimony€led€jurors€to€make€inferences€about€the€defendantððsÏcharacter,€òòTizardóó,€897€S.W.2d€at€744.€€There€was€a€substantial€risk€the€jury€relied€uponÏthis€propensity€evidence€regarding€homosexuality€to€decide€the€issue€of€guilt.€€òòTizardóó,Ï897€S.W.2d€at€745.€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[w]e€do€not€tolerate€the€use€of€evidence€merely€showing€aÏpropensity€or€character€trait€in€order€to€prove€that€anÏaccused€acted€in€conformity€with€the€€propensity€or€trait€soÏas€to€commit€a€given€offense€or€possessed€the€particularÏcriminal€intent€which€is€required€for€that€offense.€BecauseÏwe€view€the€general€inference€of€homosexuality€to€relate€toÏpropensity€as€used€in€this€case,€we€conclude€that€the€trialÏcourt€erred€by€admitting€into€evidence€the€booklet,Ïvideotapes€and€the€defendantððs€statement€regarding€hisÏroommates.ÌÌòòTizardóó,€897€S.W.2d€at€744„45.ÌÌÓÓ€à àThe€defendant€argues€òòTizardóócontrols€here.€€Introducing€€the€three€booksÏð ðmerely€show[ed]€a€propensity€or€character€trait€in€order€to€prove€that€[the]€accusedÏacted€in€conformity€with€the€propensity€or€trait€so€as€to€commit€a€given€offense€orÏpossessed€the€particular€criminal€intent€which€is€required€for€that€offense.ðð€òòState€v.ÏTizardóó,€897€S.W.2d€at€744„45.€The€evidence€should€have€been€excluded.Ìà àTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€401€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àð ðRelevant€evidenceðð€means€evidence€having€any€tendencyÏto€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€toÍthe€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€lessÏprobable€than€it€would€be€without€the€evidence.ÌÌÓÓà àThe€books€in€this€case€published€in€1990€established€the€defendant€had€anÏinterest€in€the€subject€of€child€sexual€abuse.€€It€is€not€clear€from€the€evidence€when€theÏbooks€were€purchased;€thus,€it€is€not€clear€if€this€interest€arose€after€the€allegationsÏwere€made€in€April€1991€or€before.€At€trial,€a€Texas€detective€testified€the€books€wereÏamong€many€things€taken€from€the€defendantððs€apartment.€€The€other€items€included€aÏChristmas€card€to€one€of€the€victims€advising€him€of€reservations€for€the€Sugar€Bowl,Ïtravel€information€to€the€Sugar€Bowl,€a€ticket€stub€from€the€Sugar€Bowl€on€January€1,Ï1991,€a€photograph€of€a€boy,€a€photo€album€and€numerous€photos,€a€passport€andÏidentification€for€John€Wells€and€Duane€Wells,€an€entry€visa€to€Australia,€a€dailyÏplanner€for€1991,€a€letter€regarding€opening€a€checking€account€in€Australia,€tapesÏand€transcripts€of€his€interview€with€Detective€Amos,€and€the€three€books.€€Ìà àThe€defendant€testified€he€recognized€two€of€the€books,€but€did€not€rememberÏthe€third.€One€of€the€books€he€bought€in€Brentwood€outside€of€Nashville.€€He€said€theÏbooks€were€from€his€collection€of€more€than€200€books€that€covered€a€wide€range€ofÏtopics.Ìà àThis€Court€finds€the€introduction€of€the€three€books€was€improper€because€theÏevidence€was€not€relevant.€There€was€no€indication€the€defendant€counseled€theÏvictims€from€information€gained€from€the€books€or€that€the€defendant€possessed€theÏbooks€before€the€allegations€arose.€Many€defendants€prepare€for€their€defense;€thatÏdoes€not€make€everything€they€do€relevant€to€the€issue€of€guilt€or€innocence.€€Ìà àThe€admission€of€this€evidence€was€also€error€because€the€evidence€amountedÍto€improper€character€evidence.€€The€evidence€was€improper€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï404(a)(1)€and€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€The€fact€that€Wells€possessed€the€books€was€akinÏto€ð ðother€actsðð€evidence€that€should€be€disallowed€if€it€is€offered€to€show€action€merelyÏconforms€ð ðwith€a€character€trait.ðð€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b)(2).€Ìà àTenn.€Rule€Evid.€404€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(a)€Character€Evidence€Generally.€Evidence€of€a€personððsÏcharacter€or€a€trait€of€character€is€not€admissible€for€theÏpurpose€of€proving€action€in€conformity€with€the€character€orÏtrait€on€a€particular€occasion,€except€€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓNone€of€the€exceptions€apply.€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b)€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(b)€Other€Crimes,€Wrongs,€or€Acts.€Evidence€of€other€crimes,Ïwrongs,€or€acts€is€not€admissible€to€prove€the€character€of€aÏperson€in€order€to€show€action€in€conformity€with€theÏcharacter€trait.€It€may,€however,€be€admissible€for€otherÏpurposes.€The€conditions€which€must€be€satisfied€beforeÏallowing€such€€evidence€are:Ìà8 àà8 à(1)€The€court€upon€request€must€hold€a€hearing€outside€theÏjuryððs€presence;Ìà8 àà8 à(2)€€The€court€must€determine€that€a€material€issue€existsÏother€than€conduct€conforming€with€a€character€trait€andÏmust€upon€request€state€on€the€record€the€material€issue,Ïthe€ruling,€and€the€reasons€for€admitting€the€evidence;€and€Ìà8 àà8 à(3)€The€court€must€exclude€the€evidence€if€its€probativeÏvalue€is€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.ÌÌÌÓÓà àð ðFor€other€purposesðð€includes€evidence€being€admitted€as€being€relevant€toÏsuch€issues€on€trial€as€motive,€intent,€absence€of€mistake€or€accident€if€that€is€aÏdefense,€and€rarely,€the€existence€of€a€larger€continuing€plan€or€scheme€or€conspiracy.ÏòòState€v.€Rickmanóó,€876€S.W.2d€824,€827€(Tenn.€1994)(citing€òòBunch€v.€Stateóó,€605ÏS.W.2d€227,€229€(Tenn.€1980)).€Ìà àAdmitting€evidence€that€he€possessed€books€on€child€abuse€ran€the€risk€ofÍestablishing€the€defendant€had€a€propensity€or€disposition€to€commit€a€such€crime.ÏThus€the€alleged€conduct€would€be€conduct€conforming€with€his€character€traitÏevidenced€by€possession€of€the€books.€€This€is€prohibited€by€Rule€404(a);€Rule€404(b)Ïand€Rule€404(b)(2).€€See€òòRickmanóó,€876€S.W.2d€at€827„28;€òòState€v.€Ron€Puglisióó,ÏSumner€County€No.€01„C„01„9205„CC„00166€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€July€21,Ï1994).Ìà àThis€Court€must€now€determine€if€the€introduction€of€these€three€books€wasÏreversible€error.€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€In€a€trial€in€which€the€transcript€was€over€600Ïpages,€the€evidence€regarding€the€books€came€up€only€twice€„„€once€when€theÏdetective€testified€to€finding€the€books€and€again,€when€the€defendant€described€theÏbooks€as€just€a€few€of€his€collection€which€covered€many€interests.€These€books,€whichÏwere€described€as€ð ðcase€booksðð€or€clinical€in€nature,€were€not€pornographic;€nor€wereÏthey€highly€inflammatory€or€prejudicial.€The€state€only€offered€them€into€evidence.× ƒ. ××  ×€TheÏdefendant€only€offered€the€explanation€that€he€had€books€on€a€wide€variety€of€topics.€ÏGiven€the€minimal€attention€this€evidence€was€given€and€the€overwhelming€evidenceÏof€guilt€presented€by€the€five€victims,€this€Court€finds€the€error€was€harmless.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓVI.€ó óÌÌÓ  Ó€€à àAs€his€final€issue,€the€defendant€complains€the€court€erred€in€sentencing€theÏdefendant€to€ten€(10)€years€for€each€count€and€erred€in€imposing€consecutiveÍsentences.Ìà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length€and€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€itÏis€the€duty€of€this€Court€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€on€the€record€with€a€presumptionÏthat€ð ðthe€determinations€made€by€the€court€from€which€the€appeal€is€taken€are€correct.ððÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€This€presumption€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€theÏaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,Ï169€(Tenn.€1991).€The€presumption€does€not€apply€to€the€legal€conclusions€reachedÏby€the€trial€court€in€sentencing€the€accused€or€to€the€determinations€made€by€the€trialÏcourt€which€are€predicated€upon€uncontroverted€facts.€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€900€S.W.2d€305,Ï311€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€891€S.W.2d€922,€929€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),Ïòòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Bonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€163,€166€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1993).€However,€this€Court€is€required€to€give€great€weight€to€the€trial€courtððsÏdetermination€of€controverted€facts€as€the€trial€courtððs€determination€is€based€upon€theÏwitnessesðð€demeanor€and€appearance.Ìà àIn€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€Court€must€consider€(a)€anyÏevidence€received€at€the€trial€and/or€sentencing€hearing,€(b)€the€presentence€report,Ï(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing,€(d)€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencingÏalternatives,€(e)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense,€(f)€any€mitigating€orÏenhancing€factors,€(g)€any€statements€made€by€the€accused€in€his€own€behalf,€and€(h)Ïthe€accusedððs€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€Tenn.€Code.ÏAnn.€ðððð€40„35„103€and€„210.€òòState€v.€Scottóó,€735€S.W.2d€825,€829€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),Ïòòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1987).Ìà àWhen€the€accused€is€the€appellant,€the€accused€has€the€burden€of€establishingÏthat€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€was€erroneous.€Sentencing€CommissionÏComments€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401;€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169;€òòButleróó,€900ÏS.W.2d€at€311.Ìà àThe€defendant€was€a€Range€One€standard€offender€qualifying€for€a€sentenceÏbetween€eight€(8)€and€twelve€(12)€years€for€aggravated€sexual€battery,€a€class€BÏfelony.€The€trial€court€found€the€evidence€established€four€enhancement€factors€and€Ïincreased€the€defendantððs€punishment€within€the€appropriate€range€to€ten€(10)€yearÏsentences.€€The€enhancement€factors€found€by€the€trial€court€were:€(a)€a€previousÏhistory€of€criminal€behavior,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1);€(b)€the€personal€injuriesÏinflicted€upon€the€victim€were€particularly€great,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€40„35„114(6);€(c)Ïthe€offense€was€done€for€the€defendantððs€personal€gratification,€pleasure€orÏexcitement,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(7);€and€(d)€the€defendant€abused€a€positionÏof€private€trust,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€40„35„114(15).€€The€judge€found€no€mitigatingÏfactors.€The€trial€court€then€made€the€10„year€sentences€consecutive€pursuant€to€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€€ðð€40„35„115(b)(5).€The€effective€sentence€was€90€years.Ìà àThe€defendant€argues€the€trial€court€erred€(a)€in€applying€the€enhancing€factorsÏ(b)€in€refusing€to€apply€mitigating€factors,€and€(c)€in€imposing€consecutive€sentences.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓA.ó ó€Ìà àÌÓ  Óà àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€evidence€established€four€enhancement€factors:€(a)Ïthe€defendant€had€a€previous€history€of€criminal€behavior,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1);€€(b)€the€personal€injuries€inflicted€upon€the€victim€were€particularly€great,€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€€ðð€40„35„114(6);€(c)€the€offense€was€done€for€the€defendantððs€personalÏgratification,€pleasure€or€excitement,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€40„35„114(7),€and€(d)€theÏdefendant€abused€a€position€of€private€trust,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€40„35„114(15).€ThisÏCourt€finds€the€evidence€supports€some€of€the€enhancing€factors€and€others€notÏconsidered€by€the€trial€court.€The€trial€court€properly€used€factors€(1)€and€(15)€for€allÏthree€victims€and€factor€(6)(as€to€counts€I„VI€only).€€Additionally€the€trial€court€couldÏhave€used€factor€(4)€regarding€vulnerability€of€victim€D.D.N.€Ìò òÓ  Ó(1)ó óÌÌÓ  Óà à€The€defendant€contends€that€enhancing€the€sentence€because€the€victimsÏsustained€ð ðparticularly€greatðð€injuries€was€in€error.€He€argues€there€was€no€physicalÏinjury€in€this€case€and€the€state€failed€to€establish€that€any€emotional€andÏpsychological€injuries€were€€ð ðparticularly€greatðð€as€required.Ìà àThe€term€ð ðpersonal€injuryðð€as€used€in€enhancement€factor€(6)€is€broad€enoughÏto€embrace€the€emotional€injuries€and€psychological€scarring€sustained€by€the€victimÏof€a€sexual€offense.€€òòState€v.€Melvinóó,€913€S.W.2d€195,€203€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.Ïòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€891€S.W.2d€922,€930€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.Ïòòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Chad€Parkeróó,€Rutherford€County€No.€01„C„01„9301„CC„00040€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€September€16,€1993);€òòState€v.€Steven€K.ÏSternaóó,€Davidson€County€No.€01„C„01„9007„CR„00163€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,ÏJuly€24,€1991),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó(Tenn.€1991).€Before€this€factor€may€be€used€toÏenhance€a€sentence€within€the€appropriate€range,€the€state€must€establish€that€theÍemotional€injuries€and€psychological€scarring€are€ð ðparticularly€great.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ïðð€40„35„114(6).€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Lorenzo€Puente€Salazaróó,€Shelby€County€No.€02„C„01„9105„CR„00098€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€January€15,€1992);€òòSternaóó,€DavidsonÏCounty€No.€01„C„01„9007„CR„00163€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€July€24,€1991).Ìà àIn€òòState€v.€Sternaóó,€the€accused€was€convicted€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.€TheÏtrial€court€used€enhancement€factor€(6),€among€other€factors,€to€enhance€the€accusedððsÏsentence.€The€opinion€does€not€set€forth€what€ð ðmental€and€physical€injuriesðð€the€victimÏsuffered€at€the€hands€of€the€accused.€In€holding€that€the€trial€court€should€not€haveÏused€this€factor€to€enhance€the€accusedððs€sentence,€this€Court€said:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àWe€agree€with€the€finding€that€the€mental€and€emotionalÏinjuries€were€particularly€great.€This€is€borne€out€by€theÏchildððs€subsequent€conduct.€However,€there€is€no€proof€thatÏthe€crimes€will€have€a€ð ðlifelong,€serious€emotional€impactÏupon€the€child.ðð€In€the€absence€of€expert€testimony€to€thatÏeffect,€that€finding€is€inappropriate.ÌÌÓÓòòSternaóó,€Davidson€County€No.€01„C„01„9007„CR„00163€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€ÌJuly€24,€1991).Ìà àIn€òòState€v.€Salazaróó,€this€Court€held€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€used€theÏenhancement€factor€in€an€aggravated€rape€case€where€the€only€evidence€of€injury€wasÏthe€testimony€of€the€victimððs€mother€who€said€the€child€had€ð ðcontinuing€nightmares.ðð€ÏThe€trial€court€concluded€that€the€six„year„old€child€would€suffer€from€ð ðemotional€andÏmental€trauma.ðð€€In€holding€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€used€this€enhancementÏfactor€to€enhance€the€accusedððs€sentence,€this€Court€said:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àClearly,€rape€is€injurious€òòperóó€òòseóó€to€the€body€and€mind€of€theÏvictim.€In€this€regard,€the€legislature€has€seen€fit€to€enhanceÏthe€offense€to€aggravated€rape€if€a€child€is€involved.€InÏconsideration€of€this€automatic€enhancement,€it€isÍquestionable€that€a€trial€court€is€entitled€to€rely€solely€uponÏthe€age€of€the€€victim€as€a€basis€to€find€that€the€mentalÏtrauma€is€ð ðparticularly€great.ðð€Further,€the€record€is€totallyÏdevoid€of€any€evidence€from€which€the€trial€court€couldÏdetermine€that€the€mental€disturbance€shown€in€the€recordÏwas€greater€than,€less€than,€or€equivalent€to€that€which€isÏordinarily€involved€with€this€serious€€offense.€Under€suchÏcircumstances,€the€record€does€not€support€the€trial€courtððsÏfindings€that€the€mental€trauma€was€ð ðparticularly€great.ðð€ÌÌòòÓÓSalazaróó,€Shelby€County€No.€02„C„01„9105„CR„00098€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,ÏJanuary€15,€1992).€Ìà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€òòState€v.€Kissingeróó,€922€S.W.2d€482,€487„88Ï(Tenn.€1996),€looked€for€medical€or€psychological€proof€to€determine€if€the€victimððsÏinjuries€were€ð ðparticularly€great.ðð€€Finding€none,€the€court€determined€that€applicationÏof€factor€(6)€was€inappropriate.Ìà àIn€this€case€as€to€the€victim€D.D.N.,€the€state€provided€ample€proof€of€the€childððsÏinjuries.€€A€€therapist€and€psychologist€testified€about€the€effect€the€sexual€abuse€hadÏon€the€child.€The€therapist€said€that€D.D.N.ððs€lashing€out€and€self„injurious€behaviorÏoccurred€after€the€child€met€the€defendant.€D.D.N.ððs€psychologist€testified€thatÏunresolved€issues€involving€trust,€intimacy,€and€relationships€will€arise€throughout€hisÏlife.€Continuing€therapy€is€needed€to€resolve€the€damage.€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€McKnightóó,€900ÏS.W.2d€36,€54€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1995)€(approving€aÏtrial€courtððs€finding€that€victims€who€required€counseling€suffered€ð ðparticularly€greatððÏemotional€injuries).Ì€€à àAs€to€victims€R.A.V.€and€J.T.K.,€there€was€no€expert€or€medical€testimony€toÏestablish€that€their€injuries€were€ð ðparticularly€great.ðð€€Thus,€as€to€counts€I€through€VI,Ïthe€enhancement€factor€was€proper.€As€to€the€remaining€three€counts,€the€use€of€theÍenhancement€factor€was€improper.€Ìò òÓ  Ó(2)ó óÌÌÓ  Óà àAs€to€the€use€of€factor€(7)€that€the€offense€was€committed€to€gratify€theÏdefendantððs€desire€for€excitement€or€pleasure,€the€state€concedes€that€this€factor€wasÏapplied€inappropriately.€€A€necessary€element€of€aggravated€sexual€battery€is€sexualÏcontact€which€is€done€for€the€purpose€of€sexual€arousal€or€gratification.€The€offense€ofÏsexual€battery€or€aggravated€sexual€battery€includes€the€intent€to€gratify€a€desire€forÏpleasure€or€excitement.€òòKissingeróó,€922€S.W.2d€at€490.Ìœ›ò òÓ  Ó(3)€ó óÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€defendant€made€no€objections€to€the€trial€courtððs€use€of€factor€(1)€previousÏcriminal€behavior€and€factor€(15)€abuse€of€trust.€These€factors€applied€to€all€threeÏvictims.ÌÌò òÓ  Ó(4)ó óÌÌÓ  Óà àAn€enhancing€€factor€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€apply€was€factor€(4)€that€theÏvictim€was€particularly€vulnerable€because€of€age€or€mental€disability.€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„114(4).€€The€record€indicates€that€the€victim€D.D.N.€was€learningÏdisabled€and€was€in€fact€enrolled€in€a€school€for€children€with€learning€disabilities.€ÏThe€record€indicates€that€of€the€five€victims,€most€of€the€instances€of€unlawful€sexualÏcontact€occurred€with€victim€D.D.N.,€who€was€around€ten€years€old€at€€the€time€of€theÍcontact.€€The€unlawful€activity€occurred€every€time€he€went€to€the€defendantððs€homeÏwhich€was€usually€every€weekend.€€This€Court€has€held€that€where€a€victim€wasÏlearning€disabled€this€enhancement€factor€is€appropriate.€€òòState€v€Claboóó,€905€S.W.2dÏ197,€206€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1995).Ìà àThus,€as€to€victim€D.D.N.€and€counts€I€through€VI€enhancement€factors€(1),€(4),Ï(6)€and€(15)€applied.€As€to€victims,€R.A.V.,€counts€IX€and€X,€and€J.T.K.€count€XI,€factorsÏ(1)€and€(15)€applied.€€The€finding€that€two€of€these€factors€are€not€applicable€to€countsÏIX,€X,€and€XI€does€not€justify€a€reduction€in€the€sentences€imposed€in€these€counts.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓB.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€defendant€also€argues€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€apply€mitigatingÏfactors€including€that€his€behavior€neither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injuryÏunder€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1),€and€prior€to€his€convictions€he€had€been€aÏproductive€citizen€which€should€be€considered€a€mitigating€factor€under€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€40„35„113(13).€ÌÌò òÓ  Ó(1)ó óÌÌÓ  Óà àThis€Court€has€used€the€lack€of€serious€bodily€injury€or€the€absence€of€thatÏthreat€as€a€proper€mitigating€factor€in€aggravated€sexual€battery€cases.€òòState€v.€Hayesóó,Ï899€S.W.2d€175,€187€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1995);€€òòState€v.ÏRobert€Wilsonóó,€Blount€County€No.€03„C„01„9209„CR„00305€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÍKnoxville,€March€22,€1993).€This€Court€has€also€declined€to€use€this€mitigating€factor.ÏòòClaboóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€207€(charges€of€aggravated€sexual€battery€and€aggravatedÏrape);€òòMcKnightóó,€900€S.W.2d€€at€55€(refusing€to€apply€mitigating€factor€when€theÏdefendant€gave€his€victims€alcohol€and€sexually€abused€them€resulting€in€aggravatedÏrape€and€aggravated€sexual€battery€charges).€€In€òòState€v.€Robert€Wayne€Seffensóó,€aÏcase€involving€aggravated€rape€and€assault€and€battery€of€two€young€girls,€this€CourtÏheld€that€the€threat€of€ð ðserious€bodily€injuryðð€was€enough.ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àWhile€his€conduct€did€not€cause€ð ðserious€bodily€injuryðð€asÏthat€term€is€defined€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€39„11„106(a)(33),Ïit€certainly€was€threatened€and€could€have€occurred.€AsÏdefined€in€that€section€of€our€code,€ð ðserious€bodily€injuryððÏincludes€bodily€injury€involving€extreme€physical€pain.ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€39„11„106(a)(33)(c).€The€possibility€ofÏextreme€physical€pain€from€the€vaginal€and€analÏpenetration€of€a€little€child€by€a€grown€man€is€obvious.ÌòòÌÓÓSeffensóó,€Davidson€County€No.€01„C„01„9107„CR„00190€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,ÏApril€16,€1992).€€Ìà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€€ðð€40„35„113(1)€provides€for€mitigation€if€theÏconduct€ð ðneither€cause[s]€or€threaten[s]ðð€serious€bodily€injury.€€ð ðSerious€bodily€injuryðð€isÏdefined€as€bodily€injury€which€involves€ð ða€substantial€risk€of€death,ðð€ð ðprotractedÏunconsciousness,ðð€ð ðextreme€physical€pain,ðð€ð ðprotracted€or€obvious€disfigurement,ðð€orÏð ðprotracted€loss€or€substantial€impairment€of€a€function€of€a€bodily€member,€organ,€orÏmental€faculty.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(a)(33).€€The€evidence€supports€theÏdefendantððs€conduct€caused€or€at€the€very€least€threatened€serious€bodily€injury€toÏvictim€D.D.N.€Despite€the€fact€that€D.D.N.€had€learning€disabilities,€his€teacher€andÏexperts,€testified€that€his€behavior€worsened€as€a€result€of€his€encounter€with€theÍdefendant.€€D.D.N.€became€violent,€self„destructive€and€was€a€danger€to€himself.€TheÏday€he€informed€his€teacher€of€abuse,€he€then€climbed€to€the€roof€of€the€schoolÏbuilding€and€threatened€to€jump.€He€had€also€perched€at€the€top€of€an€open€stairwell€atÏthe€school€and€leaned€over€the€edge;€his€teacher€said€he€stacked€chairs€on€tables€andÏstood€on€top€of€the€chairs.€Use€of€the€first€mitigating€factor€was€not€appropriate€for€theÏcharges€pertaining€to€victim€D.D.N.€Use€of€that€factor€was€appropriate€for€victims€R.A.V.Ïand€J.T.K.€because€there€was€no€evidence€of€serious€bodily€injury€or€œthreat.›€œ›Ó  Óò ò(2)à àó óÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€trial€court€was€correct€in€refusing€to€consider€as€a€mitigating€factor€theÏdefendantððs€status€as€a€ð ðproductive€citizen.ðð€The€evidence€indicates€quite€the€contrary.€ÏThe€defendant€testified€he€wrote€bad€checks€totaling€$4,200.€He€wrote€checks€to€theÏlandlord€of€a€building€in€Manchester,€Tennessee€which€housed€a€garment€factory€inÏwhich€Wells€had€ownership€interest.€He€wrote€bad€checks€to€employees€of€theÏcompany€and€he€wrote€a€bad€check€to€a€garment€supply€company.€€Prior€to€moving€toÏTennessee,€in€Florida€in€the€mid„1980s,€Wells€lost€his€real€estate€brokerððs€license€forÏmisappropriating€client€€funds.€After€the€allegations€of€sexual€abuse€arose,€Wells€leftÏTennessee€and€moved€to€Austin,€Texas€under€a€different€name,€Duane€Andrew€Wells.€ÏHe€also€said€he€used€a€false€social€security€number.€Wells€said€he€was€trying€to€avoidÏhis€ex„wife€who€was€attempting€to€execute€a€$37,000€judgment€against€him.€Wells€saidÏhe€did€not€feel€she€was€due€the€money€despite€her€valid€judgment.€The€evidenceÏshows€that€Wells€was€anything€but€a€productive€citizen.€Ìò òÓ  ÓC.Ìó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€defendant€also€argues€the€court€erred€in€making€the€ten€(10)€yearÏsentences€consecutive.€Based€upon€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€40„35„115(b)(5)€the€trial€courtÏmade€the€defendantððs€sentences€consecutive.€This€section€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(b)€The€court€may€order€sentences€to€run€consecutively€ifÏthe€court€finds€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that:ÌÌÓ  Óà8 à*€*€*€*€ÌÌÓ  Óà8 àà8 à(5)€The€defendant€is€convicted€of€two€(2)€or€more€statutoryÏoffenses€involving€sexual€abuse€of€a€minor€withÏconsideration€of€the€aggravating€circumstances€arising€fromÏthe€relationship€between€the€defendant€and€victim,€orÏvictims,€the€time€span€of€defendantððs€undetected€sexualÏactivity,€the€nature€and€scope€of€the€sexual€acts€and€theÏextent€of€the€residual,€physical€and€mental€€damage€to€theÏvictim€or€victims.ÌÌÌThe€trial€court€summarized€the€defendantððs€conduct:ÌÌà8 àà8 àWhat€we€have€here€or€my€characterization€of€it€would€beÏthat€apparently€historically,€Mr.€Wellsðð€crimes€were€crimes€ofÏfraud€in€the€property€realm,€and€in€this€instance,€this€is€aÏfraudulent€scheme,€but€unfortunately,€it€is€in€the€personalÏcrime€category.€There€was€no€spontaneity€or€impulsiveÏsexual€misconduct€here.€This€was€a€very€elaborate,€veryÏcalculated€scheme€on€the€defendantððs€part€involvingÏsustained€intent.€There€was€a€careful€building€of€trustÏbeginning€with€one€child,€as€I€recollect€it€and€understand€it,Ïand€then€once€that€child€was€hooked,€so€to€speak,€with€allÏthe€fun€activities€and€the€things€that€were€purchased€andÏthat€type€of€thing,€and€just€the€camaraderie,€then€that€childÏwas€used€as€bait€to€lure€in€other€children€who€needed€thatÏkind€or€wanted€that€kind€of€fun€and€adult€companionship,Ïand€even€the€parents,€who€as€single,€working,Ïoverwhelmed€parents€maybe€needed€some€help€from€otherÏadults,€they€actually€ended€up€being€victimized€in€theÏscheme,€so€I€find€that€factor€number€seven€is€clearlyÏapplicable€in€this€case.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€defendant€was€convicted€of€nine€counts€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€TheÏvictims€were€€ages€ten€and€eleven€when€the€acts€occurred.€The€evidence€showed€theÏacts€occurred€in€1990€and€1991.€On€April€22,€1991€victim€D.D.N.€told€authorities€aboutÏthe€abuse€and€the€defendantððs€scheme€was€uncovered.€The€defendant€lured€theseÏboys€to€his€home€with€games,€trips,€gifts,€and€ð ðfunðð€activities.€Being€from€single„parentÏhomes€or€homes€lacking€a€strong€relationship€with€a€father€figure,€these€boys€wereÏhungry€for€the€attention€given€by€the€defendant.€Once€these€boys€were€regular€visitorsÏto€the€defendantððs€home,€the€defendant€made€sexual€advances€upon€the€boys.€€TheÏrelationships€were€cultivated€over€a€period€of€time.€When€asked€why€the€victimsÏcontinued€to€go€to€the€defendantððs€home€after€the€incidents,€the€boys€said€the€otherÏyoungsters€were€still€going.€Some€said€they€were€confused€at€the€time€as€to€theÏappropriateness€of€the€defendantððs€actions.€The€evidence€clearly€indicated€that€victimÏD.D.N.€sustained€residual€emotional€damage€from€this€abuse.€€As€to€the€other€twoÏvictims,€R.A.V.€and€J.T.K.,€the€evidence€is€not€as€certain.€R.A.V.ððs€mother€testified€thatÏher€son€was€still€having€emotional€problems.€She€said€she€sent€him€to€live€with€otherÏrelatives€believing€that€would€take€the€place€of€ð ðcounseling.ðð€œ€She›€testified€at€theÏsentencing€hearing€she€had€since€realized€that€foregoing€counseling€was€not€a€goodÏidea.€Her€son€continued€to€have€œproblems,›€including€an€arrest€at€the€time€of€trial€forÏshooting€a€BB€gun€at€cars.€Ìà àGiven€the€facts€of€this€case,€consecutive€sentencing€was€appropriate.€€A€lengthyÏsentence€is€required€to€prevent€the€defendant€from€sexually€abusing€other€young€boys.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€JOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ__________________________________Ìà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌ__________________________________Ìà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE