ÿWPC* …# V %a 0ígUBT 4– ª n­¹ U:f   0J¨ w@ò U:2 01l 0D 1má 0cN 0T± 0^ 0hc 0rË 0|= 0†¹ 0? 1uÏ 0dD B¨U *ÅU.ï D3B)PDCy 0@¼ AMüXIf¡u|!„v~¥vÓ# 0wö# 0Šm$ 0 ÷$ 0´—% 0ÇK& 0Û' 0ïí' AOÜ(Æ+) 0Dñ) D/5* Bd*˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLlÎX(Å:M$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€&wXXdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiÚƒç"3|xG-«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô 3-4-E5-6-E7-8-D9-D:-;-D<-Ó€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(á(3Á$¤¤Ý ƒ:M!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€HXXdÈXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóótuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;s˜$´´Ô2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Courier""""'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ NÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òDecember€9,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ kÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€(ôÔÑ7À†5XXdÈdæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€Pursuant€to€a€1995€amendment,€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„501(a),€now€defines€insanity€as€ð ðtheÏdefendant,€as€a€result€of€severe€mental€disease€or€defect,€was€unable€to€appreciate€the€nature€orÏwrongfulnessðð€of€his€conduct€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„501(a).€€The€amendment€alsoÏprovides€that€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€proving€the€affirmative€defense€of€insanity€by€clear€andÏconvincing€evidence€and€that€an€expert€witness€may€not€testify€as€to€whether€the€defendant€was€or€wasÏnot€insane€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„501(a)€and€(c).Ì þÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€(ôÔÑ7À†5XXdÈdæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€The€motion€for€new€trial€does€raise€as€an€issue€whether€the€trial€court€ð ðerred€inÏdetermining€the€Defendant€to€be€competent€to€testify.ðð€€Competency€to€be€a€witness€is€governed€byÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€601.€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€(ôÔÑ7À†]XXdÈdæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€Pursuant€to€a€1993€amendment,€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„504€now€contains€the€circumstances€byÏwhich€the€offense€constitutes€aggravated€sexual€battery,€as€opposed€to€referring€to€the€aggravated€rapeÏstatute€for€the€applicable€circumstances.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò(OÞ{$µµà0  àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b²D$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xÓñ$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒÆ‚$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿù…$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³¶4$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Ǫ»$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€(ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€))Xd#ÑÑ#€))Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ñ7€ öÛ XXdæXXdÈ7ќـ€ÙßR€./,A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€DECEMBER€1994€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìà àAppellee,à àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àNo.€03C01„9405„CR„00170Ìà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHamilton€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHon.€Stephen€M.€Bevil,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌSHERMAN€WINCHESTER€BLACKSTOCK,€)à à(Aggravated€sexual€battery)Ìà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àÌà àAppellant.à àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àòòà àFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌArdena€J.€Garth€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌDistrict€Public€Defender€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌ€€€€€€€€€€€and€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà àandÌKarla€G.€Gothardà àà àà àà àBates€W.€Bryan,€Jr.€and€Rebecca€J.€Stern€€€€€€€€€ÌExecutive€District€Public€Defenderà àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€TennesseeÌ701€Cherry€Streetà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌSuite€300à àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌChattanooga,€TN€37402„1910Ì(AT€TRIAL)à àà àà àà àà àGary€D.€Gerbitz€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€Generalà àÌDonna€Robinson€Millerà àà àà àà àandÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àBates€W.€Bryan,€Jr.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ì701€Cherry€Streetà àà àà àà àRebecca€J.€Stern€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌSuite€300à àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌChattanooga,€TN€37402„1910à àà à600€Market€StreetÌ(ON€APPEAL)à àà àà àà àSuite€310Ìà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€37402ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:_______________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÓÓòòò òÇà àà àà àà àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÌÌà àThe€defendant,€Sherman€Winchester€Blackstock,€was€convicted€by€a€juryÏin€the€Hamilton€County€Criminal€Court€of€aggravated€sexual€battery,€a€Class€B€felony.€ÏòòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„504€(1991).€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€as€a€Range€I,Ïstandard€offender€to€eight€years€in€the€custody€of€the€Department€of€Correction.€€In€thisÏappeal€as€of€right,€the€defendant€presents€the€following€issues€for€our€review:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 à(1)€€whether€there€is€sufficient€evidence€to€support€the€juryððsÏdetermination€that€the€defendant€was€sane€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt;ÌÌà8 à(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€concluding€that€theÏdefendant€was€competent€to€stand€trial;ÌÌà8 à(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€motion€toÏsuppress€statements€made€by€the€defendant€to€the€police;ÌÌà8 à(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€post„trialÏpetition€for€involuntary€care€and€treatment€as€a€mentallyÏretarded€offender;€andÌà àÌà8 à(5)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€sentence€theÏdefendant€as€an€especially€mitigated€offender.ÓÓÌÓ  ÓWe€affirm€œthe€judgment€of€the›€trial€court.Ìà àÌà àThe€defendant€was€tried€for€the€aggravated€rape€of€a€seven„year„old€girl,ÏL.H.,€that€occurred€on€August€21,€1992.€€The€victim€testified€that€she€walked€into€theÏdefendantððs€apartment€through€the€open€door€and€asked€for€a€drink€of€water.€ÍAccording€to€the€victim,€the€defendant€did€not€give€her€a€drink€of€water€and€instead€laidÏher€on€the€bed.€€She€said€that€the€defendant€took€off€both€of€their€clothes,€laid€down€onÏtop€of€her,€and€then€penetrated€her.€€The€victim€said€that€the€defendant€told€her€that€heÏwould€kill€her€if€she€told€anyone.€ÌÌà àDeborah€Earls,€the€victimððs€mother,€testified€that€she€and€her€threeÏdaughters€began€living€with€the€defendant€after€separating€from€a€boyfriend.€€She€saidÏthat€she€had€known€the€defendant€several€months€before€he€offered€to€let€her€stay€atÏhis€apartment€until€she€could€find€someplace€else€to€stay.€€Ms.€Earls€testified€that€sheÏand€the€defendant€were€only€friends.€€She€also€stated€that€she€did€not€know€that€theÏdefendant€was€mentally€retarded.€€According€to€Ms.€Earls,€the€defendant€talked€slowly,Ïbut€she€could€understand€him.€€She€testified€that€the€defendant€bathed,€washed€hisÏown€clothes,€shopped€for€groceries,€and€cooked€for€himself€and€for€her€family.€€Ms.ÏEarls€said€that€she€and€her€three€daughters€lived€with€the€defendant€off€and€on€forÏabout€two€months€before€moving€down€the€street€in€June€1992€following€an€argumentÏover€the€defendantððs€desire€to€be€more€than€friends.€€She€admitted€that€the€victim€didÏnot€tell€her€anything€about€the€incident€when€she€drove€her€to€a€friendððs€house€after€theÏoffense€occurred.€€She€stated€that€on€Sunday€Ms.€Earlsðð€friend€told€her€that€the€victimÏhad€said€that€the€defendant€had€raped€her.€€Ms.€Earls€testified€that€when€she€talked€toÏthe€victim,€she€told€her€that€she€was€hurting€and€that€the€defendant€ð ðgot€her€bootie.ððÌÌà àMs.€Earls€testified€that€someone€brought€the€defendant€to€her€home€andÏshe€asked€him€whether€he€fondled€the€victim.€€When€the€defendant€appeared€not€toÏunderstand,€she€asked€him€whether€he€had€sex€with€the€victim,€and€the€defendantÏsaid,€ð ðYes,€what€about€it.ðð€€Ms.€Earls€then€told€the€defendant€that€she€was€going€to€callÏthe€police,€and€the€defendant€replied€that€he€was€going€home€to€sleep.€ÌÌà àOfficer€Tommy€Woods€of€the€Chattanooga€Police€Department€testifiedÏthat€he€received€a€call€on€August€23€around€5:00€p.m.€regarding€a€disorder€at€818€EastÏMartin€Luther€King€Boulevard.€€While€he€was€talking€to€Ms.€Earls€and€the€victim,€theÏdefendant,€whom€Officer€Woods€did€not€know,€walked€up€to€them.€€He€said€that€theÏdefendant€asked€him€why€he€was€there.€€Officer€Woods€said€that€he€then€asked€theÏdefendant€what€he€was€doing€there,€and€the€defendant€replied€that€he€knew€whyÏOfficer€Woods€was€there€and€that€it€involved€the€victim.€€Officer€Woods€testified€thatÏwhen€he€told€the€defendant€that€he€was€there€because€of€the€victim,€the€defendant€saidÏthat€he€had€done€something€to€the€victim€once.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€made€otherÏstatements€but€that€Officer€Woods€could€only€understand€the€word€ð ðonce,ðð€which€theÏdefendant€repeated€a€couple€of€times.€€On€cross„examination,€Officer€Woods€admittedÏthat€he€thought€the€defendant€was€ð ðslow.ðð€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àTara€Pedigo,€a€detective€for€the€child€abuse€unit€of€the€ChattanoogaÏPolice€Department,€testified€that€the€victim€told€her€that€the€defendant€played€with€herÍð ðkoochieðð€when€she€was€in€the€defendantððs€bedroom€playing€with€toys€on€the€floor.€ÏDetective€Pedigo€testified€that€before€questioning€the€defendant,€she€read€theÏdefendant€his€rights€by€explaining€each€point€in€plain€language€and€that€the€defendantÏseemed€to€understand.€€She€stated€that€she€asked€the€defendant€about€his€educationÏand€that€he€told€her€that€he€stopped€going€to€school€in€the€eleventh€grade,€but€heÏcould€read€and€write.€€She€said€that€the€defendant€gave€his€name,€phone€number€andÏaddress,€but€he€did€not€know€his€social€security€number.€€Detective€Pedigo€stated€thatÏthe€defendant€also€provided€her€with€inconsistent€birthdays:€March€31,€1959,€andÏMarch€21,€1968.€€She€stated€that€before€the€defendant€signed€the€waiver€of€rights€form,Ïthe€defendant€stated,€ð ðI€only€did€it€one€time.ðð€€She€testified€that€she€had€not€told€theÏdefendant€anything€regarding€the€case€before€he€made€the€statement.€€DetectiveÏPedigo€also€testified€that€she€noticed€that€the€defendant€had€a€speech€œimpediment,›€œbut€›€Ïshe€did€not€know€that€he€was€mentally€retarded.€€According€to€Detective€Pedigo,€theÏdefendant€did€not€appear€to€have€difficulty€understanding€her€questions.€ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Detective€Pedigo€admitted€that€she€did€not€ask€theÏdefendant€where€he€went€to€school€or€question€him€regarding€his€family.€€She€alsoÏstated€that€the€defendant€spelled€his€name€as€ð ðShermanBlockfshokðð€when€signing€theÏwaiver€of€rights€form.€€Regarding€the€inconsistent€birthdays€given€by€the€defendant,ÏDetective€Pedigo€said€that€she€did€not€think€it€unusual€because€suspects€often€giveÏdifferent€birth€dates€to€avoid€identification.€€She€conceded€that€she€did€not€explainÍwhat€a€court€or€an€attorney€was€when€reading€the€defendant€his€rights.€€She€said€thatÏthe€defendant€did€not€ask€to€speak€to€an€attorney€and€did€not€mention€that€he€had€anÏattorney.€€Detective€Pedigo€also€acknowledged€that€she€had€never€dealt€with€aÏmentally€retarded€person.€€She€testified€that€although€the€defendant€was€difficult€toÏunderstand€on€the€tape,€he€spoke€more€clearly€before€the€interview€was€recorded.€ÏShe€stated€that€she€had€interviewed€other€people€who€talked€like€the€defendant€whoÏwere€not€limited€mentally.€€Though€in€her€opinion€the€defendant€understood€theÏquestions,€Detective€Pedigo€conceded€that€the€defendantððs€statement€that€he€knew€theÏvictim€was€seven€years€old€after€she€told€him€the€victimððs€age€could€possibly€indicateÏthat€the€defendant€was€easily€led.€€€€€€€ÌÌà àA€tape€of€Detective€Pedigoððs€interview€of€the€defendant€was€played€forÏthe€jury.€€Detective€Pedigo€testified€that€a€power€microphone€was€required€to€tape€theÏinterview€of€the€defendant.€€During€the€interview,€the€defendant€mumbled€severalÏtimes,€making€it€difficult€to€understand€him.€€When€Detective€Pedigo€asked€theÏdefendant€what€happened€between€him€and€the€victim,€the€defendant€stated,€ð ðI€did€itÏone€time.ðð€€When€asked€what€he€did€one€time,€he€said€that€he€touched€her€ð ðin€herÏprivateðð€with€his€ð ðdingaling,ðð€but€he€denied€putting€it€inside€of€her.€€The€defendantÏstated€that€he€only€put€it€on€top€of€her€ð ðprivate.ðð€€He€asserted€that€the€incident€tookÏplace€in€the€bedroom€at€his€house€and€that€the€victimððs€sister€and€mother€were€there,Ïbut€Ms.€Earls€was€asleep.€€He€stated€that€he€was€taking€a€nap€when€the€victim€cameÍinto€the€bedroom€on€him.€€According€to€the€defendant,€the€victim€asked€him€to€get€onÏher,€to€put€his€ð ðthingðð€on€her€ð ðprivate,ðð€and€to€ð ðgo€up€and€down€on€her.ðð€€He€claimed€thatÏthis€was€the€first€time€she€had€ever€asked€him€to€do€this.€€The€defendant€said€that€theÏvictim€took€her€own€clothes€off.€€When€Detective€Pedigo€asked€him€whether€he€took€hisÏclothes€off,€the€defendant€responded€that€ð ðher€took€it€off.ðð€€He€later€stated€that€hisÏclothes€were€not€removed€and€that€only€his€pants€were€unzipped€and€that€the€victimÏunzipped€them.€€The€defendant€told€Detective€Pedigo€that€he€was€not€trying€to€doÏanything€to€the€victim€and€that€he€did€not€know€why€he€did€it€other€than€because€theÏvictim€requested€him€to€do€it.€€He€also€stated€that€he€would€not€do€it€again.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àFor€the€defense,€Dennis€Barwick,€an€employee€at€the€Orange€GroveÏCenter,€testified€that€the€center€provides€educational€and€vocational€training€forÏmentally€retarded€clients.€€He€stated€that€the€œdefendant›€œattended›€the€center€from€1971Ïuntil€1982€and€that€he€was€the€defendantððs€program€director€from€approximately€1979Ïto€1982.€€Mr.€Barwick€said€that€while€he€was€the€defendantððs€program€director,€theÏdefendant€participated€in€a€vocational€training€program€as€a€dishwasher€in€twoÏrestaurants€under€constant€direct€supervision.€€He€explained€that€the€training€programÏwas€very€structured€in€that€it€involved€teaching€the€person€how€to€travel€to€their€job€siteÏand€instructing€them€step„by„step€how€to€do€their€job€until€they€became€independent.€€ÌÌà àMr.€Barwick€also€testified€regarding€psychological€evaluations€of€theÏdefendant€while€a€client€at€the€Orange€Grove€Center€that€were€also€introduced€asÏexhibits€at€trial.€€The€Orange€Grove€Centerððs€records€reflect€that€the€defendant€suffersÏfrom€an€organic€brain€injury€and€a€speech€defect€and€show€that€he€was€hit€by€a€carÏwhen€he€was€a€child€and€suffered€head€injuries.€€The€records€state€that€the€defendantÏwas€referred€to€the€center€by€the€public€school€system€where€he€was€attending€EMRÏclasses.€€The€records€also€show€that€the€defendant€had€behavioral€problems,€such€asÏcausing€disturbances,€antagonizing€students,€and€being€overly€aggressive€withÏstudents,€while€attending€a€public€school.€€An€evaluation€conducted€in€1974€when€theÏdefendant€was€fourteen€years€old€reflects€that€the€defendant€functioned€on€the€level€ofÏa€five„to„six„year„old€child.€€It€also€reflects€that€œhe›€had€an€IQ€of€43.€€Another€evaluationÏconducted€in€1976€shows€that€the€defendant€had€an€IQ€of€58,€that€he€had€a€history€ofÏunderachievement,€and€that€he€attended€a€school€for€mentally€retarded€children€inÏNew€Jersey€and€EMR€classes€in€the€public€school€system€in€Chattanooga.€€Results€ofÏthe€defendantððs€social€maturity€œreveal›€that€he€had€a€social€age€equivalent€to€a€childÏwhoÑ€0ÑÇwas€nine€years€and€three€months€old.€€Testing€conducted€in€1980€shows€that€theÏdefendant€had€an€IQ€of€57,€placing€him€in€the€mild€range€of€mental€retardation.€€ÌÌà àAn€Orange€Grove€Center€interoffice€memo€states€that€a€newspaper€reportÏreflects€that€the€defendantððs€step„father€shot€and€killed€his€mother€on€March€3,€1981,Ïand€that€the€defendant€witnessed€the€shooting.€€Another€interoffice€memo€reflects€thatÏthe€defendant€testified€against€his€step„father€at€the€trial.€€Mr.€Barwick€testified€that€theÏdefendant€lived€with€his€mother€until€her€death€and€then€went€to€live€with€his€brother,Ïwho€removed€the€defendant€from€the€centerððs€programs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Mr.€Barwick€explained€that€clients€at€the€OrangeÏGrove€Center€have€different€levels€of€mental€functioning€and€admitted€that€someÏclients€could€not€be€employed€due€to€their€mental€impairments.€€He€alsoÏacknowledged€that€the€defendant€was€among€those€functioning€in€the€higher€levels.€ÏMr.€Barwick€also€explained€that€the€defendant€was€involved€in€choosing€his€job,€andÏhe€said€that€when€he€explained€the€nature€of€the€job,€the€defendant€appeared€toÏunderstand.€€Regarding€the€different€IQ€scores,€he€testified€that€it€could€be€due€toÏevaluations€and€scores€based€on€different€tests€or€because€the€tests€were€given€byÏdifferent€examiners.€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àWalter€Grantham,€an€attorney€and€the€defendantððs€conservator,€testifiedÏthat€a€court€appointed€the€defendantððs€brother€as€a€conservator€for€the€defendant€inÏ1981€upon€certification€by€two€doctors.€€The€doctors€certified€that€the€defendantÏsuffered€from€a€permanent€condition€of€mental€retardation€secondary€to€injuries€fromÏan€automobile€accident€at€age€eight€and€expressed€the€opinion€that€the€defendant€wasÏincapable€of€managing€his€own€estate.€€Mr.€Grantham€stated€that€the€court€removedÏthe€defendantððs€brother€from€the€position€because€he€was€misusing€funds€and€in€JuneÏ1991€appointed€him€to€serve€as€a€conservator€over€the€defendantððs€person€and€affairs.€ÏHe€testified€that€the€defendantððs€brother€gave€the€defendant€approximately€fifteenÏdollars€a€week€and€used€the€rest€of€the€money,€leaving€the€defendant€at€home€byÏhimself€and€without€electricity.€€ÌÌà àRegarding€his€duties€as€a€conservator,€Mr.€Grantham€testified€that€heÏsigned€documents€on€the€defendantððs€behalf,€paid€his€bills,€and€gave€him€checks€andÏfood€stamps.€€He€stated€that€it€was€necessary€to€give€the€defendant€his€checks€andÏfood€stamps€on€a€weekly€basis,€because€he€was€afraid€that€someone€would€take€theÏdefendantððs€money.€€He€said€that€he€treats€the€defendant,€who€has€a€speechÏimpediment,€like€a€six„€or€eight„year„old€child.€€Mr.€Grantham€also€expressed€theÏopinion€that€the€defendant€did€not€understand€that€he€was€his€attorney€but€ratherÏthought€of€him€as€someone€from€whom€he€could€get€money.€€He€also€said€that€in€hisÏopinion€the€defendant€would€not€be€able€to€understand€his€constitutional€rights.€€Mr.ÍGrantham€stated€that€the€defendant€did€not€call€him€when€he€was€arrested€and€that€heÏlearned€of€the€defendantððs€arrest€approximately€two€weeks€later.€€He€explained€that€heÏbecame€concerned€when€the€defendant€missed€his€weekly€visits€and€when€heÏreceived€a€call€that€a€man€who€was€not€the€defendant€attempted€to€cash€one€of€theÏdefendantððs€checks.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€told€him€that€œthe€defendant€did›€notÏknow€why€œhe›€€€was€in€jail€or€that€he€could€have€called€Mr.€Grantham.€€Mr.€GranthamÏestimated€that€he€had€seen€the€defendant€approximately€seventy„five€times€and€thatÏthe€meetings€lasted€anywhere€from€one€to€twenty€minutes.€€ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Mr.€Grantham€admitted€that€he€had€not€visited€theÏdefendantððs€home.€€He€also€conceded€that€the€defendant€was€able€to€cash€the€checksÏthat€he€gave€him.€€He€stated€that€sometimes€the€defendant€would€smell€and€that€heÏhad€to€tell€the€defendant€not€to€come€back€until€he€bathed.€€Mr.€Grantham€testified€thatÏthe€defendant€rode€with€someone€each€time€he€came€to€his€office.€€He€alsoÏacknowledged€that€the€defendantððs€constitutional€rights€could€have€been€explained€toÏhim€in€the€language€of€a€six„€or€eight„year„old€child.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àLisa€Smith,€a€secretary€for€Walter€Grantham,€testified€that€she€saw€theÏdefendant€each€week€when€he€came€to€pick€up€his€check€and€food€stamps.€€She€saidÏthat€she€had€to€explain€to€the€defendant€how€to€use€the€food€stamps€each€time€heÏcame€in€the€office.€€Ms.€Smith€also€stated€that€she€had€received€a€phone€call€from€aÏcase€worker€at€the€food€stamp€office€regarding€the€defendantððs€confusion€about€theÍapplication€for€food€stamps.€€She€said€that€the€defendantððs€speech€was€difficult€toÏunderstand€and€stated€that€the€defendant€told€her€that€he€could€not€read.€€In€herÏopinion,€the€defendant€acted€like€an€eight„year„old€child€and€would€not€know€that€heÏhad€done€anything€wrong€until€the€police€arrested€him.€€On€cross„examination,€sheÏadmitted€that€she€did€not€know€whether€the€defendant€knows€whether€it€is€right€orÏwrong€to€have€sex€with€children.€€She€also€testified€that€the€defendant€would€ask€forÏextra€money€for€special€occasions€or€when€he€needed€clothes€or€furnishings€for€hisÏhome.€€€ÌÌà àThomas€Ford,€a€clinical€psychologist€for€Johnson€Mental€Health€Center,Ïtestified€that€he€conducted€a€psychological€evaluation€of€the€defendant€to€determineÏthe€defendantððs€sanity€and€competency€to€stand€trial.€€He€said€that€he€met€with€theÏdefendant€on€three€occasions:€January€5,€January€8,€and€March€26,€1993.€€He€statedÏthat€he€determined€that€the€defendant€had€an€IQ€of€55€which€is€in€the€very€low€end€ofÏthe€scoring€range€called€the€mentally€deficient€range.€€Dr.€Ford€testified€that€ninety„eight€to€ninety„nine€percent€of€the€population€would€score€higher€than€the€defendant.€ÏIn€Dr.€Fordððs€opinion,€the€defendant€functioned€at€approximately€an€eight„to„nine„year„old€level.€€He€also€testified€that€in€his€opinion€the€defendant€needed€a€significantÏamount€of€supervision€in€the€community€so€others€would€not€take€advantage€of€him.€ÏHe€conceded€that€he€did€not€know€when€the€defendant€obtained€an€attorney€or€howÏmany€times€the€defendant€had€consulted€with€an€attorney.€€Dr.€Fordððs€report€wasÍintroduced€at€trial,€and€it€reflects€that€he€found€that€the€defendant€had€a€speechÏimpediment€and€that€the€defendantððs€speech€was€very€difficult€to€understand.€€TheÏreport€also€shows€that€the€defendant€ð ðexhibited€concrete€thinking€which€was€consistentÏwith€past€testing€noted€in€his€file,€indicating€Moderate€Mental€Retardation.ðð€€The€reportÏalso€notes€that€the€defendant€had€a€poor€memory€for€dates€and€events€in€his€life.€€ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Dr.€Ford€testified€that€he€spent€approximately€oneÏhour€obtaining€information€from€the€defendant€regarding€his€past€history€for€purposesÏof€determining€the€defendantððs€sanity.€€Dr.€Ford€said€that€the€defendant€told€him€that€heÏattended€the€Orange€Grove€Center,€but€the€defendant€could€not€provide€muchÏinformation€about€his€attendance€at€the€Orange€Grove€Center,€other€than€the€fact€thatÏhe€obtained€work€skills€at€two€restaurants.€€Dr.€Ford€also€testified€that€the€defendantÏtold€him€about€the€car€accident€in€which€he€was€involved.€€Regarding€the€defendantððsÏcompetence€to€stand€trial,€Dr.€Ford€testified€that€the€defendant€told€him€that€he€knew€heÏhad€been€charged€with€the€aggravated€rape€of€the€victim.€€According€to€Dr.€Ford,€theÏdefendant€seemed€to€understand€what€the€charges€meant€and€that€the€charges€wereÏserious.€€Dr.€Ford€said€that€the€defendant€asserted€several€times€that€he€did€not€do€itÏbecause€he€loved€kids.€€Dr.€Ford€testified€that€the€defendant€also€told€him€that€heÏthought€his€attorney€would€do€a€good€job€for€him.€€He€conceded€that€he€did€not€giveÏthe€defendant€an€adaptive€functioning€test€to€determine€the€defendantððs€ability€toÏfunction€socially.€€Based€on€his€evaluation€of€the€defendant,€Dr.€Ford€expressed€theÍopinion€that€the€defendant€was€sane€at€the€time€of€the€offense€and€competent€to€standÏtrial.€€He€said€that€although€the€defendant€was€in€the€mild€mental€impairment€range,Ïthe€mental€defect€did€not€prevent€the€defendant€from€understanding€right€from€wrongÏor€impair€his€ability€to€conform€his€behavior€to€the€law.ÌÌà àDr.€Ford€testified€on€redirect€examination€that€he€had€receivedÏinformation€from€the€defendantððs€attorney€explaining€the€charges€against€theÏdefendant€and€informing€him€that€the€defendant€had€met€with€her€on€earlier€occasions.€ÏHe€stated€that€the€defendantððs€sanity€was€determined€after€examining€the€defendantÏon€the€first€date€for€approximately€one€hour€but€conceded€that€more€than€one€meetingÏwas€necessary€to€determine€the€defendantððs€competency€to€stand€trial€because€theÏdefendant€had€a€prior€psychiatric€history.€€Dr.€Ford€admitted€that€the€defendantððsÏattorney€had€informed€him€that€the€defendant€had€a€conservator,€but€he€did€not€talk€toÏhim.€€He€also€conceded€that€he€did€not€talk€to€the€defendantððs€family,€neighbors€orÏfriends.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àWanda€Pasley€and€Anthony€Pasley,€friends€of€the€defendant,€testified€thatÏthe€defendant€had€been€living€with€them€for€approximately€six€months.€€Ms.€PasleyÏstated€that€she€takes€the€defendant€to€get€his€check€and€cash€it.€€Mr.€Pasley€stated€thatÏthe€defendant€has€trouble€buying€things€for€himself€because€he€leaves€his€change€atÏthe€store.€€He€also€stated€that€Ms.€Earls€had€taken€the€defendantððs€money€from€theÍdefendant€and€purchased€cocaine€on€earlier€occasions.€€He€said€that€the€defendantÏhad€earlier€asked€Ms.€Earls€to€move€out€of€his€apartment€about€two€to€three€times€overÏa€two„to„three„day€period€and€that€the€defendant€had€explained€to€her€that€his€leaseÏdid€not€permit€others€to€live€with€him.€€Mr.€and€Ms.€Pasley€said€that€the€defendant€is€notÏcapable€of€cooking,€although€he€does€help€clean€the€house€and€perform€yardwork.€ÏThey€said€that€they€occasionally€had€to€tell€the€defendant€to€take€a€bath.€€Ms.€PasleyÏtestified€that€in€her€opinion,€the€defendant€acts€like€he€is€four€or€five€years€old,€and€bothÏshe€and€Mr.€Pasley€stated€that€they€treated€the€defendant€like€one€of€their€children.€€InÏMs.€Pasleyððs€opinion,€the€defendant€would€not€know€that€it€was€wrong€to€have€sex€withÏa€child€because€he€has€a€child„like€mind€himself.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àÌÌà àMr.€Pasley€also€testified€that€he€was€present€when€the€defendant€wasÏarrested.€€He€said€that€Ms.€Earls€and€the€victim€were€outside€talking€to€an€officer€whenÏthe€defendant€ran€towards€them,€stating,€ð ðI€did€it.€€I€did€it.ðð€€On€cross„examination,€Mr.ÏPasley€conceded€that€he€had€seventeen€prior€convictions,€including€convictions€forÏburglary,€theft€of€property,€larceny,€burglary€of€a€residence€by€forcible€entry,€armedÏrobbery,€aggravated€assault€and€theft€of€an€automobile.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€testified€that€he€was€twenty„four€years€old€and€was€born€inÏ1978.€€He€said€that€he€started€going€to€the€Orange€Grove€Center€when€he€was€eightÏyears€old€and€that€he€attended€the€school€for€seven€years.€€He€stated€that€theÍAmerican€flag€was€red,€white€and€blue€and€had€three€stars€on€it.€€When€asked€to€countÏto€twenty,€the€defendant€could€not€count€past€ten.€€The€defendant€also€testified€that€heÏcould€not€read€and€write.€€According€to€the€defendant,€he€had€known€the€victim€forÏapproximately€three€days.€€He€said€that€he€knew€he€had€been€arrested€because€heÏhad€been€accused€of€raping€a€seven„year„old€girl,€but€he€denied€putting€his€ð ðding„a„lingðð€in€the€victimððs€ð ðkoochie.ðð€€The€defendant€testified€that€when€interviewed€by€theÏpolice,€he€told€them€that€he€was€telling€the€truth,€but€he€claimed€that€he€gave€theÏstatement€because€he€was€nervous€and€scared.€€He€remembered€going€to€jail€after€theÏinterview,€but€he€stated€that€he€thought€he€stayed€in€jail€for€two€days€and€that€Mr.ÏGrantham€was€able€to€get€him€released€on€bond.€€The€defendant€said€that€he€did€notÏcall€Mr.€Grantham€and€that€he€did€not€know€that€he€could€talk€to€him€until€after€he€wasÏreleased.€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€the€defendant€testified€that€he€remembered€tellingÏDetective€Pedigo€that€he€put€his€ð ðding„a„lingðð€inside€the€victimððs€private€parts,€that€theÏvictim€told€him€to€take€their€clothes€off,€and€that€the€victim€unzipped€his€pants.€€TheÏdefendant€said€that€he€made€these€statements€because€they€were€true.€€He€deniedÏtelling€the€victim€not€to€tell€anyone€and€recognized€that€it€would€have€been€a€bad€thingÏto€say€to€the€victim.ÌÌà àOn€redirect€examination,€the€defendant€stated€that€he€did€not€put€hisÏð ðding„a„lingðð€in€the€victimððs€ð ðkoochieðð€and€denied€touching€the€victimððs€ð ðkoochie.ðð€€TheÏdefendant€also€denied€putting€his€ð ðding„a„lingðð€on€the€victimððs€ð ðkoochieðð€on€recrossÏexamination.€€€ÌÌÇà@ àò òI.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óÌà àFirst,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€proveÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€he€was€sane€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€Our€standardÏof€review€when€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€questioned€on€appeal€is€ð ðwhether,Ïafter€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€òòanyóó€rationalÏtrier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.ðð€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979).€€ThisÏmeans€that€we€may€not€reweigh€the€evidence,€but€must€presume€that€the€jury€hasÏresolved€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€and€drawn€all€reasonable€inferences€from€theÏevidence€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.Ï1984);€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€ò ò€€ó óÌÌà àAt€the€time€of€the€offense€in€this€case,€insanity€was€a€defense€toÏprosecution€ð ðif,€at€the€time€of€such€conduct,€as€a€result€of€mental€disease€or€defect,€theÏperson€lacked€substantial€capacity€either€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€theÏpersonððs€conduct€or€to€conform€that€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€law.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„501(a)€(1991)œ× ƒ1 ××  ×›;€òòGraham€v.€Stateóó,€547€S.W.2d€531,€543€(Tenn.€1977).€€ForÍprocedural€purposes,€the€law€presumes€sanity.€€òòBrooks€v.€Stateóó,€489€S.W.2d€70,€72Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1972).€€However,€if€the€evidence€presented€by€any€party€raises€aÏreasonable€doubt€as€to€the€defendantððs€sanity,€the€presumption€falls€and€the€state€mustÏestablishÌbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€appreciated€the€wrongfulness€of€hisÏconduct€òòandóó€had€the€capacity€to€conform€his€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law.€ÏòòState€v.€Claytonóó,€656€S.W.2d€344,€345„46€(Tenn.€1983);€òòGrahamóó,€547€S.W.2d€at€544.€€€€€€€Ìà àThe€state€can€meet€its€burden€through€the€introduction€of€(a)€expertÏtestimony€that€the€defendant€was€sane,€(b)€the€testimony€of€lay€witnesses€that€theÏdefendant€was€sane,€if€a€proper€foundation€is€laid,€or€(c)€proof€of€acts€or€statements€ofÏthe€accused,€occurring€at€or€near€the€commission€of€the€offense,€which€are€consistentÏwith€sanity€and€inconsistent€with€insanity.€€òòEdwards€v.€Stateóó,€540€S.W.2d€641,€646Ï(Tenn.€1976);€òòState€v.€Greenóó,€643€S.W.2d€902,€913€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€InÏconsidering€the€evidence€on€the€issue€of€insanity,€the€trier€of€fact€is€not€required€toÏaccept€an€expertððs€testimony€to€the€exclusion€of€sufficient€lay€testimony€or€otherÏevidence€of€the€defendantððs€actions€which€is€not€inconsistent€with€insanity.€€òòState€v.ÏPattonóó,€593€S.W.2d€913,€916€(Tenn.€1979);€òòEdwards€v.€Stateóó,€540€S.W.2d€at€647.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€state€ð ðoffered€absolutely€no€reliableÏevidence€to€counter€the€consistent,€powerful€testimony€of€lay€witnessesðð€that€theÏdefendant€would€not€have€thought€it€wrong€to€have€sex€with€the€victim.€€Essentially,€theÍdefendant€asserts€that€Dr.€Fordððs€determination€that€an€insanity€defense€could€not€beÏsupported€is€not€reliable€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€sanity€because€his€conclusionsÏare€based€on€a€one„hour€session€with€the€defendant€approximately€six€months€afterÏthe€arrest€and€incarceration€of€the€defendant€and€the€appointment€of€counsel.€€TheÏdefendant€also€contends€that€Dr.€Fordððs€conclusions€regarding€insanity€are€not€reliableÏbecause€Dr.€Ford€failed€to€interview€the€defendantððs€conservator€or€anyone€else€whoÏknew€the€defendant,€including€family€and€friends.€€The€defendant€further€argues€thatÏthe€defendantððs€conduct€and€statement€to€Officer€Woods€that€he€had€done€somethingÏonce€to€the€victim€is€not€indicative€of€the€defendantððs€sanity€because€the€defendantÏmade€the€statement€immediately€after€arguing€with€Ms.€Earls.€€However,€questionsÏconcerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€to€theÏevidence,€as€well€as€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€ofÏfact,€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€ÌÌà àIn€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€evidence€establishes€thatÏalthough€the€defendant€suffered€from€a€mental€defect€at€the€time€of€the€offense,€he€hadÏthe€substantial€capacity€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€his€conduct€and€to€conformÏhis€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law.€€Dr.€Ford€conducted€a€psychologicalÏevaluation€of€the€defendant€and€concluded€that€the€defendantððs€mental€impairment€didÏnot€prevent€him€from€understanding€right€from€wrong€and€did€not€impair€his€ability€toÏconform€his€conduct€to€the€law.€€In€addition€to€the€expert€testimony€provided€by€Dr.ÍFord,€lay€testimony€regarding€the€defendantððs€conduct€at€the€time€of€the€offense€showsÏthat€the€defendant€understood€the€wrongfulness€of€his€actions€and€was€able€toÏconform€his€conduct€to€the€law.€€The€victim€stated€that€the€defendant€told€her€not€to€tellÏanyone,€including€her€mother,€or€he€would€kill€her.€€Also,€when€Ms.€Earls€asked€theÏdefendant€whether€he€had€sex€with€the€victim,€the€defendant€replied,€ð ðYes,€what€aboutÏit.ðð€€Further,€the€defendant€told€Officer€Woods€that€he€knew€that€he€was€there€becauseÏof€the€victim€and€stated€a€couple€of€times€that€he€had€done€something€once€to€theÏvictim.€€These€facts€support€the€juryððs€conclusion€that€the€defendant€was€sane€at€theÏtime€of€the€offense.€€Under€these€circumstances,€we€hold€that€a€rational€trier€of€factÏcould€have€concluded€that€the€defendant€was€sane€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€Ì€Ìà àAlthough€not€raised€as€a€separate€issue,€the€defendant€contends€that€theÏtrial€court€should€have€instructed€the€jury€on€a€ð ðdiminished€capacity€defense€as€itÏrelated€to€the€intent€of€the€defendant€to€commit€the€crime.ðð€€The€defendant€incorrectlyÏrefers€to€diminished€capacity€as€a€ð ðdefense.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Phippsóó,€883€S.W.2d€138,Ï143€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Diminished€capacity€ð ðis€not€a€defense€that€absolves€theÏaccused€from€culpability;€rather,€it€is€a€rule€of€evidence€which€allows€the€introduction€ofÏevidence€to€negate€the€existence€of€specific€intent€when€a€defendant€is€charged€with€aÏspecific€intent€crime.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€In€òòPhippsóó,€this€court€referred€to€the€defendantððs€reliance€onÏdiminished€capacity€as€being€his€theory€of€the€case€and€stated€that€a€defendant€isÍð ðentitled€to€an€instruction€òòupon€requestóó€which€outlines€the€defense€theory€of€the€case.ðð€Ï883€S.W.2d€at€150€(emphasis€added).€€ÌÌà àHowever,€the€record€in€this€case€does€not€reflect€that€the€defendant€eitherÏrequested€that€an€instruction€be€included€in€the€charge€or€objected€to€the€instructionsÏas€given€by€the€trial€court.€€A€challenge€based€on€the€mere€meagerness€of€a€charge€isÏnot€reversible€error,€absent€a€special€request.€€òòState€v.€Haynesóó,€720€S.W.2d€76,€85Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€There€is€no€merit€to€this€subissue.€€€€€€€€€€à àÌà àÌò òà@ àII.€€COMPETENCE€TO€STAND€TRIALó óÌà àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€the€record€is€insufficient€to€support€theÏœtrial€courtððs›€finding€that€the€defendant€was€competent€to€stand€trial.€€He€argues€that€theÏreport€submitted€by€Dr.€Ford€of€the€Johnson€Mental€Health€Center€concluding€that€theÏdefendant€was€competent€to€stand€trial€is€insufficient€to€establish€the€defendantððsÏcompetency.€€He€asserts€that€the€facts€of€the€case€are€virtually€indistinguishable€fromÏthose€in€òòState€v.€Bentonóó,€759€S.W.2d€427€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988),€in€which€this€courtÏconcluded€that€the€evidence€preponderated€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€ofÏcompetence.€€In€addition,€relying€on€òòBerndt€v.€Stateóó,€733€S.W.2d€119€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1987),€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€conducted€anÏevidentiary€hearing€òòsuaóó€òòsponteóó€for€purposes€of€determining€the€defendantððsÏcompetency€to€stand€trial€before€permitting€the€trial€to€proceed.€€We€disagree.€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àThe€standard€for€determining€whether€a€defendant€is€competent€to€standÏtrial€is€set€forth€in€òòDusky€v.€United€Statesóó,€362€U.S.€402,€80€S.€Ct.€788€(1960):ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 à[T]he€ð ðtest€must€be€whether€[the€defendant]€has€sufficientÏpresent€ability€to€consult€with€his€lawyer€with€a€reasonableÏdegree€of€rational€understanding€„„€and€€whether€he€has€aÏrational€as€well€as€a€factual€understanding€of€theÏproceedings€against€him.ððÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòIdóó.€at€402,€80€S.€Ct.€at€789€(adopting€the€Solicitor€Generalððs€suggested€standard).€€TheÏòòDuskyóó€standard€has€been€adopted€in€Tennessee.€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€174Ï(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Bentonóó,€759€S.W.2d€at€429;€òòMackey€v.€Stateóó,€537€S.W.2d€704,Ï707€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975).€€In€òòMackeyóó,€this€court€stated€that:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àBoth€Tennessee€decisions€and€the€federal€constitutionÏprohibit€the€trial€of€a€defendant€whose€mental€condition€isÏsuch€that€he€lacks€the€capacity€to€understand€the€natureÏand€object€of€the€proceedings€against€him,€to€consult€withÏcounsel€and€to€assist€in€preparing€his€defense.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓ537€S.W.2d€at€707€(citations€omitted).€€The€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€establish€hisÏincompetency€to€stand€trial€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Oodyóó,€823ÏS.W.2d€554,€559€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€On€appeal,€the€trial€courtððs€findings€areÏconclusive€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòIdóó.€€€€€€Ìà àÌà àBefore€trial,€a€petition€for€psychiatric€evaluation€was€filed€by€theÏdefendant,€and€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€directing€a€forensic€evaluation€by€theÏJohnson€Mental€Health€Center€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€33„7„301(a)€for€purposes€ofÍdetermining€the€defendantððs€competency€to€stand€trial€and€whether€an€insanityÏdefense€could€be€supported.€€A€letter€from€the€Johnson€Mental€Health€Center€datedÏMarch€31,€1993,€and€addressed€to€the€trial€court€reflects€that€based€on€their€evaluationÏof€the€defendant,€the€defendant€was€capable€of€defending€himself.€€Specifically,€theÏresults€of€the€evaluation€œshow›€that€the€defendant€understood€the€nature€of€the€legalÏprocess€and€the€charges€against€him,€including€the€consequences€that€could€follow.€ÏThe€results€also€œshow›€that€the€defendant€was€able€to€advise€his€counsel€andÏparticipate€in€his€defense.€€No€pretrial€hearing€was€held€on€the€issue€of€competency€toÏstand€trial.€ÌÌà àUnder€facts€similar€to€this€case,€this€court€stated,€ð ðCounselððs€failure€toÏinsure€that€the€matter€of€competency€was€settled€before€trial€amounted€to€a€waiver€ofÏthat€issue.ðð€€òòState€v.€Estesóó,€655€S.W.2d€179,€181„82€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€Also,€theÏdefendant€did€not€include€the€issue€of€his€competency€to€stand€trial€in€his€motion€forÏnew€trial.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€The€failure€to€raise€a€ground€upon€which€a€new€trial€is€sought€in€the€motionÏfor€new€trial€results€in€a€waiver€of€the€issue.€€T.R.A.P.€3(e).€€Therefore,€we€hold€that€theÏdefendant€has€waived€the€issue€of€competency€to€stand€trial.€€€€ÌÌà àIn€any€event,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððsÏdetermination€that€the€defendant€was€competent€to€stand€trial.€€The€results€of€the€court„ordered€psychiatric€evaluation€reflect€that€the€defendant€was€competent€to€stand€trial,Ïunlike€the€case€of€òòBentonóó€upon€which€the€defendant€relies.€€The€trial€court€was€entitledÏto€rely€upon€the€results€of€the€evaluation€for€his€determination€that€the€defendant€hadÏthe€capacity€to€understand€the€legal€proceedings€against€him,€to€consult€with€counsel,Ïand€to€assist€in€preparing€his€defense.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€didÏnot€err.€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà@ àò òIII.€€SUPPRESSION€OF€STATEMENTS€ó óÌà àNext,€the€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€hisÏmotion€to€suppress€statements€made€by€the€defendant€to€the€police.€€He€argues€thatÏhis€statement€to€Officer€Woods€that€he€had€done€something€once€to€the€victim€shouldÏhave€been€suppressed€because€he€had€not€been€informed€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€at€theÏtime€the€statement€was€made.€€Regarding€his€statement€to€Detective€Pedigo,€theÏdefendant€asserts€that€it€should€have€been€suppressed€because€the€defendant€wasÏincapable€of€knowingly€and€voluntarily€waiving€his€rights€because€he€is€mentallyÏretarded,€has€an€IQ€of€55,€and€functions€at€the€level€of€a€four„to„nine„year„old€child.€€InÏresponse,€the€state€argues€that€the€trial€court€correctly€determined€that€òòMirandaóóÏwarnings€were€not€necessary€because€the€officerððs€actions€amounted€to€an€on„the„scene€investigation€and€did€not€constitute€custodial€interrogation.€€The€state€alsoÍcontends€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€thatÏthe€defendant€knowingly€and€voluntarily€waived€his€rights€and€cooperated€with€theÏpolice€in€giving€the€taped€confession€to€Detective€Pedigo.€€We€hold€that€the€trial€courtÏdid€not€err.ÌÌà àBefore€trial,€the€defendant€moved€to€suppress€statements€made€to€OfficerÏWoods€and€Detective€Pedigo€on€August€23,€1992.€€The€defendant€alleged€that€theÏstatement€made€to€Officer€Woods€should€be€suppressed€because€the€defendant€hadÏnot€been€given€òòMirandaóó€warnings€and€because€the€defendant€did€not€make€theÏstatement€freely€and€voluntarily€because€of€his€mental€state.€€The€defendant€alsoÏalleged€that€a€second€tape„recorded€statement€given€to€Detective€Pedigo€should€beÏsuppressed€because€it€was€not€knowingly€and€voluntarily€given€in€that€his€mentalÏillness€rendered€him€incapable€of€understanding€the€waiver€of€rights€form€or€verbalÏòòMirandaóó€warnings.€€ÌÌà àAn€evidentiary€hearing€was€held€on€the€motion€to€suppress.€€TommyÏWoods,€an€officer€for€the€Chattanooga€Police€Department,€testified€that€he€respondedÏto€a€call€on€August€23€regarding€charges€of€rape.€€He€stated€that€approximately€five€toÏten€minutes€after€his€arrival,€the€defendant€walked€up€to€him€while€he€was€outsideÏtalking€to€Ms.€Earls€and€the€victim€and€the€defendant€asked€him€why€he€was€there.€ÏOfficer€Woods€testified€that€he€responded€by€asking€the€defendant€why€he€was€there.€ÍAccording€to€Officer€Woods,€the€defendant€replied€that€he€knew€Officer€Woods€wasÏthere€because€of€the€victim,€and€Officer€Woods€told€the€defendant€that€the€victim€wasÏthe€reason€for€his€presence.€€Officer€Woods€testified€that€he€then€asked€the€defendantÏwhat€he€had€to€do€with€it€and€the€defendant€stated€a€couple€of€times€that€he€had€doneÏsomething€with€the€victim€once.€€He€said€that€he€stopped€asking€the€defendantÏquestions€at€that€point€and€called€a€detective.€€On€cross„examination,€Officer€WoodsÏtestified€that€the€defendant€neither€gave€a€reason€for€walking€up€to€him€nor€explainedÏwhat€he€meant€by€the€statement€that€he€had€done€something€to€the€victim€once.€€HeÏconceded€that€he€did€not€read€the€defendant€his€rights€before€the€defendant€made€theÏstatement.ÌÌà àDetective€Pedigo€testified€that€she€received€a€call€on€August€23Ïregarding€the€rape€of€the€victim.€€She€said€that€before€interviewing€the€victim€and€theÏdefendant,€she€spoke€to€Officer€Woods.€€She€said€that€Officer€Woods€told€her€that€theÏdefendant€walked€up€to€him€while€he€was€questioning€the€victim€and€Ms.€Earls€andÏthat€the€defendant€asked€him€why€the€police€had€been€called.€€Detective€Pedigo€statedÏthat€Officer€Woods€informed€her€that€the€defendant€replied,€ð ðYes,€once,ðð€when€heÏasked€the€defendant€if€he€had€done€something.€€Detective€Pedigo€testified€that€theÏdefendant€was€then€brought€to€her€office€to€be€interviewed.€€She€stated€that€sheÏquestioned€the€defendant€about€his€education€and€he€told€her€that€he€had€gone€toÏschool€until€the€eleventh€grade.€€Detective€Pedigo€said€that€she€read€the€defendant€hisÍòòMirandaóó€rights€before€questioning€the€defendant€and€that€Officer€Woods€and€SteveÏVaughn,€an€employee€of€the€Department€of€Human€Services,€were€present.€€She€saidÏthat€she€explained€the€defendantððs€rights€one€at€a€time€in€both€legal€and€laymanððsÏterms,€and€the€defendant€stated€that€he€understood.€€Detective€Pedigo€stated€thatÏimmediately€after€the€defendant€told€her€that€he€understood€everything,€he€stated,€ð ðIÏonly€did€it€once,€and€I€wonððt€do€it€anymore.ðð€€She€said€that€although€the€defendantððsÏspeech€was€slurred,€she€believed€the€defendant€understood€what€the€waiver€of€rightsÏform€meant.€€€€ÌÌà àDetective€Pedigo€testified€that€she€then€began€interviewing€theÏdefendant,€and€she€tape€recorded€the€interview€of€the€defendant.€€She€stated€that€onceÏshe€turned€on€the€tape€recorder,€the€defendantððs€speech€became€worse€and€a€powerÏmicrophone€was€necessary.€€She€stated€that€the€defendant€did€not€object€to€theÏrecording€of€his€statement€although€she€admitted€that€the€defendant€appeared€to€beÏintimidated€by€the€recorder.€€Detective€Pedigo€testified€that€she€had€to€stop€theÏinterview€several€times€to€ask€the€defendant€to€speak€more€distinctly.€€According€toÏDetective€Pedigo,€the€defendant€appeared€to€understand€her€questions€during€theÏinterview.€€She€said€that€during€the€interview€she€was€sitting€behind€her€desk€with€theÏdefendant€and€Vaughn€sitting€across€from€her€and€Officer€Woods€leaning€on€aÏcredenza€near€her€desk.€€She€stated€that€Officer€Woods€was€in€uniform€and€had€hisÍgun€and€handcuffs€with€him.€€The€tape€recording€of€the€defendantððs€interview€was€thenÏplayed€for€the€œtrial€court.›€€ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Detective€Pedigo€conceded€that€she€wrote€in€herÏreport€that€Officer€Woods€attempted€to€clarify€the€defendantððs€ð ðYes,€onceðð€response€byÏasking€the€defendant€whether€he€had€done€something€with€the€victim€and€that€theÏdefendant€replied€again,€ð ðYes,€once.ðð€€Regarding€the€waiver€of€rights€form,€DetectiveÏPedigo€testified€that€the€defendantððs€signature€is€in€print€and€spelled€ð ðBlackfshock.ðð€ÏShe€also€stated€that€in€interviewing€the€defendant,€she€noticed€that€the€defendant€hadÏa€speech€impediment,€that€his€grammar€was€poor,€and€that€his€language€was€child„like.€She€said€that€the€defendant€might€have€been€slightly€limited,€although€sheÏasserted€that€she€had€interviewed€other€people€like€the€defendant€and€that€the€conductÏwas€normal€for€some€people.€€Detective€Pedigo€admitted€that€she€was€not€aware€thatÏthe€defendant€had€attended€the€Orange€Grove€Center€or€any€other€special€educationÏclasses€or€that€the€defendant€suffered€head€injuries€from€a€car€accident€when€he€was€aÏchild.€€She€also€said€that€she€did€not€know€that€a€conservator€had€been€appointed€forÏthe€defendant.€€Detective€Pedigo€testified€that€she€did€not€ask€the€defendant€whetherÏhe€understood€what€the€terms€ð ðlawyerðð€or€ð ðcourtðð€meant€but€rather€assumed€that€theÏdefendant€understood€these€terms€because€he€had€a€prior€criminal€record.€€She€statedÏthat€the€defendant€did€not€know€his€social€security€number€and€gave€two€different€birthÏdates:€€March€1959€and€March€1968.€€€ÌÌà àWalter€Grantham,€the€defendantððs€conservator,€testified€that€he€wasÏappointed€as€a€conservator€over€the€defendantððs€person€and€affairs€in€June€1991,Ïreplacing€the€defendantððs€brother.€€He€stated€that€two€doctors€certified€the€defendantÏas€being€mentally€incapable€of€managing€his€own€affairs€because€of€his€mentalÏretardation€that€was€secondary€to€an€injury€occurring€at€age€eight.€€He€said€that€theÏdoctorððs€certification€reflected€that€the€defendantððs€condition€was€permanent.€€Mr.ÏGrantham€testified€that€the€defendant€lived€with€his€mother€until€1981€when€she€wasÏmurdered.€€ÌÌà àMr.€Grantham€also€stated€that€the€defendant€is€disabled€because€of€hisÏmental€condition€and€receives€social€security€income,€supplemental€security€incomeÏand€food€stamps.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€is€difficult€to€understand€because€of€aÏspeech€impediment.€€Mr.€Grantham€stated€that€he€believed€that€the€defendant€is€easilyÏinfluenced€in€that€the€defendant€would€tell€him€things€that€other€people€told€him€to€sayÏand€that€he€would€allow€people€to€live€with€him€in€violation€of€his€lease.€€He€said€thatÏthe€defendantððs€brother€also€took€advantage€of€the€defendant€when€serving€as€theÏdefendantððs€conservator€in€that€he€only€gave€the€defendant€fifteen€to€twenty€dollars€aÏmonth€and€allowed€the€defendant€to€live€without€food€and€electricity.€€Mr.€GranthamÏtestified€that€the€defendant€is€compliant€when€faced€with€an€authority€figure€and€that€heÏwould€do€or€say€almost€anything€if€requested.€€He€expressed€the€opinion€that€he€couldÍbe€convinced€to€give€a€confession€to€the€police,€although€he€admitted€that€he€had€noÏevidence€that€someone€told€him€to€make€the€statements.€€He€also€admitted€that€heÏfound€the€tape€to€be€disturbing€as€to€whether€the€defendant€had€been€told€what€to€sayÏbecause€he€believed€that€the€defendant€was€capable€of€remembering€what€to€say€on€aÏshort„term€basis.€€ÌÌà àMr.€Grantham€testified€that€he€did€not€know€the€defendant€was€in€jail€forÏover€two€weeks€but€became€suspicious€when€the€defendant€did€not€come€to€hisÏweekly€meetings.€€He€stated€that€the€defendant€did€not€understand€that€he€had€moneyÏfor€the€defendant€to€post€his€bond€and€that€he€did€not€know€why€he€was€in€jail.€€Mr.ÏGrantham€testified€that€when€he€asked€the€defendant€why€he€did€not€call€him,€theÏdefendant€told€him€that€he€did€not€know€that€he€could.€€In€Mr.€Granthamððs€opinion,€theÏdefendant€does€not€understand€that€he€is€an€attorney€even€though€he€has€weeklyÏcontact€with€the€defendant.€€He€stated€that€he€was€not€sure€whether€the€defendantÏcould€read€or€write€but€that€his€employees€had€told€him€that€the€defendant€wasÏilliterate.€€Mr.€Grantham€testified€that€it€was€necessary€to€explain€things€to€theÏdefendant€sentence€by€sentence€in€the€most€basic€manner€and€that€he€often€had€toÏrepeat€things.€€He€also€expressed€the€opinion€that€the€defendant€would€not€be€capableÏof€understanding€òòMirandaóó€rights€or€the€waiver€of€rights€form€even€in€the€manner€usedÏby€Detective€Pedigo.€€According€to€Mr.€Grantham,€the€defendant€is€not€able€to€waiveÏhis€rights€knowingly€and€voluntarily.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àOn€cross„examination,€Mr.€Grantham€testified€that€he€had€met€with€theÏdefendant€approximately€seventy„five€times€for€five€to€twenty€minutes€each€visit.€€HeÏsaid€that€he€had€to€give€the€defendant€his€checks€and€food€stamps€on€a€weekly€basis.€ÏHe€admitted€that€he€had€not€visited€the€defendant€at€his€home.€€Mr.€Grantham€also€saidÏthat€he€was€aware€that€the€defendant€had€worked€for€his€uncle€cleaning€at€aÏconvenience€store.€€In€Mr.€Granthamððs€opinion,€the€defendant€would€know€that€rapingÏa€seven„year„old€girl€was€wrong.€€He€testified€that€he€represented€the€defendant€forÏcharges€of€criminal€trespass,€that€the€defendant€denied€any€wrongdoing,€and€that€theÏdefendant€went€to€court€on€the€charges,€but€the€charges€were€dismissed.ÌÌà àLisa€Smith,€a€secretary€for€Mr.€Grantham,€testified€that€she€sees€theÏdefendant€on€a€weekly€basis€when€the€defendant€picks€up€his€check€and€food€stamps.€ÏShe€said€that€she€did€not€think€that€he€could€read€but€she€knew€that€the€defendantÏbought€his€own€groceries.€€She€stated€that€she€had€to€explain€how€to€use€the€foodÏstamps€each€time€she€gave€them€to€him.€€She€also€testified€that€the€defendant€remindsÏher€of€an€eight„€or€nine„year„old€child.€€ÌÌà àDennis€Barwick€testified€that€the€defendant€was€employed€through€theÏOrange€Grove€Centerððs€training€program€at€two€restaurants€as€a€dishwasher.€€Mr.ÏBarwick€testified€that€the€defendant€could€not€read.€€The€defendantððs€records€from€theÏOrange€Grove€Center€were€then€introduced.€€ÌÌà àThe€psychological€report€prepared€by€the€Johnson€Mental€Health€CenterÏwas€also€introduced.€€The€recommendation€contained€in€the€report€is€that€theÏdefendant€needed€a€significant€amount€of€supervision€in€the€community€so€that€othersÏwould€not€take€advantage€of€him.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€denied€the€defendantððs€motion€to€suppress€the€defendantððsÏstatements€to€police.€€Regarding€the€statement€made€by€the€defendant€to€OfficerÏWoods,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€the€defendantððs€rights€were€not€violated€becauseÏa€custodial€interrogation€did€not€take€place.€€It€found€that€Officer€Woods€did€not€knowÏthat€the€defendant€was€a€suspect,€that€the€investigation€had€not€focused€on€theÏdefendant,€and€that€Officer€Woods€stopped€questioning€the€defendant€after€theÏdefendant€made€the€statement.€€Also,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€it€believed€OfficerÏWoodsðð€testimony€over€the€report.€€In€denying€the€motion€to€suppress,€the€trial€courtÏheld€that€Officer€Woodsðð€responsive€question€to€the€defendant€regarding€why€theÏdefendant€was€there€amounted€to€an€on„the„scene€investigation€rather€than€aÏcustodial€interrogation.€€At€the€motion€for€new€trial,€the€trial€court€stated€that€OfficerÏWoods€was€not€required€to€inform€the€defendant€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€because€theÏdefendant€was€not€under€suspicion€and€the€focus€of€the€investigation€when€theÏdefendant€made€the€statement.€€The€trial€court€described€the€statement€as€aÍð ðspontaneous€utteranceðð€as€opposed€to€a€response€to€custodial€interrogation€by€aÏpolice€officer.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€also€concluded€that€the€defendantððs€statements€toÏDetective€Pedigo€were€not€obtained€in€violation€of€his€constitutional€rights.€€In€reachingÏthis€conclusion,€the€trial€court€recognized€that€the€defendant€had€a€mental€impairmentÏbut€noted€that€the€defendant€was€able€to€function€in€society,€although€at€a€lower€level.€ÏThe€trial€court€also€relied€upon€the€results€of€the€court„ordered€psychologicalÏevaluation.€€In€determining€the€defendantððs€level€of€understanding,€the€trial€court€alsoÏfound€relevant€the€defendantððs€statement€to€Detective€Pedigo€in€that€the€responses€toÏthe€questions€show€that€the€defendant€volunteered€the€information.€€The€trial€courtÏconcluded€that€the€defendant€voluntarily€waived€his€rights€and€gave€the€statementÏbecause€he€cooperated€with€the€police.€€The€trial€court€also€determined€that€the€waiverÏand€statement€were€knowingly€made€because€Detective€Pedigo€explained€theÏdefendantððs€rights€by€breaking€them€down€in€such€a€way€that€the€defendant€couldÏunderstand€them.€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€at€theÏconclusion€of€a€suppression€hearing€will€be€upheld€unless€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€otherwise.€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€€TheÍdefendant€bears€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€the€evidence€preponderated€againstÏthe€trial€courtððs€findings.€€òòIdóó.€€€€ÌÌà@ àò òA.€€CUSTODIAL€INTERROGATIONó óÌà àFirst,€the€defendant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€hisÏmotion€to€suppress€the€defendantððs€statement€made€to€Officer€Woods€because€he€wasÏnot€advised€of€his€òòMirandaóó€warnings.€€The€state€asserts€that€the€trial€court€properlyÏrefused€to€suppress€the€defendantððs€statement€because€the€defendant€was€notÏsubjected€to€custodial€interrogation€and€therefore€òòMirandaóó€warnings€were€notÏrequired.€€We€agree.ÌÌà àIn€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436,€86€S.€Ct.€1602€(1966),€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court€concluded€that€statements€made€by€a€defendant€during€theÏcourse€of€custodial€police€interrogation€are€inadmissible€as€evidence€against€theÏdefendant€unless€the€state€demonstrates€that€the€defendant€was€advised€of€andÏwaived€the€following€constitutional€rights:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 à(1)€the€right€to€remain€silent;ÌÌà8 à(2)€any€statement€made€may€be€used€against€theÏdefendant;ÌÌà8 à(3)€the€right€to€the€presence€of€an€attorney;€and€ÌÌà8 à(4)€if€the€defendant€cannot€afford€an€attorney,€one€will€beÏappointed€for€him€or€her€before€questioning€if€requested€byÏthe€defendant.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòœIdóó.›€at€444,€86€S.€Ct.€at€1612;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Bushóó,€942€S.W.2d€489,€499€(Tenn.Ï1997);€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€937€S.W.2d€851,€853€(Tenn.€1996).€€However,€police€officersÏare€required€to€inform€the€defendant€of€these€rights€before€custodial€interrogation€only.€ÏòòMirandaóó,€384€U.S.€at€444,€86€S.€Ct.€at€1612.€€Custodial€interrogation€entailsÏð ðquestioning€initiated€by€law€enforcement€officers€after€a€person€has€been€taken€intoÏcustody€or€otherwise€deprived€of€his€freedom€of€action€in€any€significant€way.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€ÌThe€issue€of€whether€a€person€is€in€custody€is€decided€under€an€objective€test.€ÏòòBerkemer€v.€McCartyóó,€468€U.S.€420,€422,€104€S.€Ct.€3138,€3151€(1984);€òòAndersonóó,€937ÏS.W.2d€at€854.€ÌÌà àIn€òòAndersonóó,€our€supreme€court€set€forth€several€factors,€although€not€anÏexclusive€list,€that€are€relevant€to€the€objective€analysis€of€ð ðwhether,€under€the€totalityÏof€the€circumstances,€a€reasonable€person€in€the€suspectððs€position€would€considerÏhimself€or€herself€deprived€of€freedom€of€movement€to€a€degree€associated€with€aÏformal€arrestðð€for€purposes€of€òòMirandaóó:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àthe€time€and€location€of€the€interrogation;€the€duration€andÏcharacter€of€the€questioning;€the€officerððs€tone€of€voice€andÏgeneral€demeanor;€the€suspectððs€method€of€transportationÏto€the€place€of€questioning;€the€number€of€police€officersÏpresent;€any€limitation€on€the€movement€or€other€form€ofÏrestraint€imposed€on€the€suspect€during€the€interrogation;Ïany€interactions€between€the€officer€and€the€suspect,Íincluding€the€words€spoken€by€the€officer€to€the€suspect,Ïand€the€suspectððs€verbal€or€nonverbal€responses;€the€extentÏto€which€the€suspect€is€confronted€with€the€law€enforcementÏofficerððs€suspicions€of€guilt€or€evidence€of€guilt;€and€finally,Ïthe€extent€to€which€the€suspect€is€made€aware€that€he€orÏshe€is€free€to€refrain€from€answering€questions€or€to€end€theÏinterview.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓ937€S.W.2d€at€855.€€The€court€stated€that€the€determination€of€whether€a€person€is€inÏcustody€for€òòMirandaóó€purposes€is€a€very€fact€specific€inquiry€for€which€the€trial€court€isÏespecially€suited.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àConsidering€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€in€the€record€before€us,€weÏhold€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€decision€that€theÏdefendant€was€not€in€custody€when€he€made€the€statement€to€Officer€Woods.€€TheÏdefendant€initiated€contact€with€Officer€Woods€by€walking€up€to€Officer€Woods€andÏasking€him€why€he€was€there.€€When€Officer€Woods€asked€him€why€he€was€there,€theÏdefendant€replied€that€he€knew€that€Officer€Woods€was€there€because€of€the€victim,Ïalthough€the€defendant€had€not€been€told€about€the€nature€of€Officer€Woodsðð€presence.€ÏWhen€Officer€Woods€told€the€defendant€that€he€was€correct€and€asked€the€defendantÏwhat€he€had€to€do€with€it,€the€defendant€stated€a€couple€of€times€that€he€had€doneÏsomething€to€the€victim€once.€€Officer€Woods€then€stopped€questioning€the€defendant.€€ÌÌà àAlso,€Officer€Woods€was€the€only€officer€present€when€the€defendantÏmade€the€statement,€and€he€did€not€tell€the€defendant€that€he€was€suspected€of€theÍcrime€or€explain€what€had€happened€to€the€victim.€€Although€Officer€Woods€did€not€tellÏthe€defendant€that€he€was€free€to€leave,€Officer€Woods€also€did€not€tell€the€defendantÏthat€he€could€not€leave,€and€the€defendant€did€not€try€to€leave€at€any€point.€€TheÏdefendant€was€not€restrained€or€his€movement€limited€in€any€way.€€Under€theseÏcircumstances,€a€reasonable€person€in€the€defendantððs€position€would€not€haveÏconsidered€himself€or€herself€deprived€of€freedom€of€movement€to€a€degreeÏassociated€with€a€formal€arrest.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€correctlyÏconcluded€that€the€defendant€was€not€subjected€to€custodial€interrogation€and€thus€notÏentitled€to€òòMirandaóó€warnings.€€It€was€not€error€for€the€trial€court€to€deny€the€defendantððsÏmotion€to€suppress€his€statement€made€to€Officer€Woods.€€€€€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà@ àò òB.€€WAIVER€OF€RIGHTSó óÌà àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€hisÏmotion€to€suppress€the€statement€to€Detective€Pedigo€because€he€was€not€competentÏto€waive€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€He€argues€that€because€he€is€mentally€retarded,€has€anÏIQ€of€55,€and€functions€at€the€level€of€a€four„to„nine„year„old€child,€he€is€unable€toÏwaive€his€rights€knowingly€and€voluntarily€.€€The€state€asserts€that€the€evidence€doesÏnot€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€defendant€knowingly€andÏvoluntarily€waived€his€rights€and€cooperated€with€the€police€in€giving€the€tapedÏstatement.€€We€agree.€€€€ÌÌà àBefore€a€defendant€can€knowingly€and€voluntarily€waive€his€òòMirandaóóÏrights,€the€defendant€must€be€ð ðadequately€and€effectively€apprised€of€his€rights.ðð€€òòStateÏv.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€326€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€defendant€may€waive€hisÏconstitutional€rights€as€long€as€the€waiver€is€made€ð ðvoluntarily,€knowingly,€andÏintelligently.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€The€state€has€the€burden€of€proving€the€waiver€by€a€preponderanceÏof€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Bushóó,€942€S.W.2d€at€500.€€In€determining€whether€aÏdefendant€has€validly€waived€his€or€her€òòMirandaóó€rights,€courts€must€look€to€the€totalityÏof€the€circumstances.€€òòIdóó.;€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€at€326.€€Although€theÏdefendantððs€age,€education€and€mental€retardation€are€relevant,€no€single€factor€isÏdeterminative€of€the€waiver€issue.€€òòState€v.€Bentonóó,€759€S.W.2d€at€431.€€When€theÏvoluntariness€of€a€statement€given€to€police€is€challenged€based€on€the€defendantððsÏcompetency€to€waive€the€rights€provided€by€òòMirandaóó,€the€determinative€issue€isÏð ðwhether€the€defendant€had€the€capacity€in€the€first€place€to€form€a€will€of€his€own€andÏto€reject€the€will€of€others.ðð€œ›€œòòIdóó.›€€€€€€€ÌÌà àIn€support€of€his€argument,€the€defendant€relies€upon€òòState€v.€Bentonóó,Ï759€S.W.2d€427€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€The€defendant€argues€that€the€facts€of€hisÏcase€are€virtually€indistinguishable€from€those€in€òòBentonóó.€€We€disagree.€€Several€factsÏmake€this€case€distinguishable€from€òòBentonóó.€€Unlike€the€defendant€in€òòBentonóó,€whom€aÏpsychiatric€social€worker€and€a€psychiatrist€found€to€be€incompetent€to€stand€trial€andÏto€answer€questions€by€a€police€officer,€the€defendant€in€this€case€was€found€to€beÍcompetent€to€stand€trial€pursuant€to€a€court„ordered€psychological€evaluation.€€Also,Ïthe€defendant€was€able€to€respond€to€questions€during€the€evaluation.€€The€defendantÏin€this€case€has€been€able€to€live€by€himself€for€several€years.€€Although€the€defendantÏis€limited€mentally€similar€to€the€defendant€in€òòBentonóó,€low€IQ€scores€are€notÏdeterminative€of€a€defendantððs€ability€to€waive€his€rights.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Haynesóó,€720ÏS.W.2d€at€84.€€ÌÌà àThe€record€in€this€case€reflects€that€Detective€Pedigo€read€the€defendantÏhis€rights€before€questioning€the€defendant€by€breaking€the€rights€down€into€basicÏparts€and€by€explaining€each€right€individually.€€Detective€Pedigo€testified€that€theÏdefendant€stated€that€he€understood€his€rights€before€the€defendant€stated€that€he€hadÏdone€something€once€œbut›€would€not€do€it€again.€€The€defendant€signed€the€waiver€ofÏrights€form.€€According€to€Detective€Pedigo,€the€defendant€appeared€to€understandÏwhat€the€form€meant.€€As€the€trial€court€correctly€noted,€the€defendant€was€able€toÏcomprehend€and€answer€the€questions€asked€of€him€during€the€interview€and€toÏelaborate€his€answers.€€The€record€also€does€not€demonstrate€that€the€defendant€wasÏthreatened€or€coerced€into€giving€a€statement.€€We€hold€that€the€evidence€does€notÏpreponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€that€the€defendant€knowingly€andÏvoluntarily€waived€his€constitutional€rights.€€The€trial€court€properly€admitted€theÏstatement.€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà@ àò òIV.€€PETITION€FOR€INVOLUNTARY€CARE€AND€TREATMENTó óÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€petitionÏfor€involuntary€care€and€treatment€as€a€mentally€retarded€offender€and,€instead,Ïsentencing€him€to€the€Department€of€Correction.€€The€state€responds€that€the€trial€courtÏdid€not€have€the€authority€to€order€a€sentence€to€the€Department€of€Correction€to€beÏserved€in€a€mental€health€or€retardation€facility.ÌÌà àAfter€trial€but€before€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€defendant€filed€a€petitionÏfor€involuntary€care€and€treatment€in€a€secure€facility€for€the€mentally€retarded.€€HeÏalleged€that€he€qualified€as€a€ð ðmentally€retarded€offenderðð€as€defined€in€T.C.A.€ðð€33„5„303€and€attached€a€copy€of€the€Johnson€Mental€Health€Centerððs€psychologicalÏevaluation.€€In€the€petition,€the€defendant€claimed€that€he€needed€care,€training€orÏtreatment€and€that€the€failure€to€provide€a€secure€facility€would€create€a€likelihood€ofÏcausing€serious€harm,€as€defined€under€T.C.A.€ðð€33„6„104,€because€of€his€mentalÏretardation.€€He€also€alleged€that€less€drastic€alternatives€to€judicial€commitment€wereÏunsuitable.€€The€petition€asserted€that€the€defendant€was€unable€to€provide€aÏcertificate€of€two€qualified€mental€retardation€professionals,€as€required€by€T.C.A.€ðð€33„5„305,€due€to€his€indigency,€and€it€requested€that€the€trial€court€order€an€examination.€€ÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€sentenced€theÏdefendant€to€eight€years€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€in€the€custody€of€theÍDepartment€of€Correction.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€defendantððs€petition€forÏinvoluntary€care€and€treatment,€stating€that€although€it€believed€that€the€defendantÏneeded€to€be€housed€in€a€facility€for€the€mentally€retarded,€it€lacked€jurisdiction€toÏorder€the€defendant€to€serve€his€sentence€in€such€a€facility.€€The€trial€court€reasonedÏthat€T.C.A.€ðð€33„5„305€provides€authority€for€the€commitment€of€the€defendant€beforeÏtrial€only.€€The€trial€court€noted€that€the€Department€of€Correction€had€jurisdiction€toÏtransfer€the€defendant€to€such€institution€under€T.C.A.€ðð€33„3„402,€and€concluded€thatÏit€could€not€order€the€Department€of€Correction€to€transfer€the€defendant.€€However,€theÏtrial€court€offered€to€submit€a€letter€to€the€Department€of€Correction€recommending€thatÏthe€defendant€be€transferred.€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€states€that€he€is€a€mentally€retarded€offender,€which€isÏdefined€as€ð ða€person€with€significantly€sub„average€general€intellectual€functioningÏwhich€originates€during€the€developmental€period€and€is€associated€with€anÏimpairment€of€adaptive€behavior,€who€is€a€defendant€at€any€stage€in€the€criminal€orÏjuvenile€justice€system.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€33„5„303(1).€€He€asserts€that€because€he€is€aÏmentally€retarded€offender,€the€trial€court€should€have€committed€him€to€a€facilityÏoperated€by€the€Department€of€Mental€Health€and€Mental€Retardation€pursuant€toÏT.C.A.€ðð€33„5„305,€which€provides€as€follows:ÌÓ  Óà8 àòòProcedure€for€Commitmentóó.ÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€(a)€IF€AND€ONLY€IFÌÌà8 à(1)(A)€a€juvenile€court€determines€in€a€delinquencyÏproceeding,€on€the€basis€of€an€evaluation€under€ðð€37„1„128(c)€or€ðð€37„1„135,€that€a€minor€is€mentally€retarded,òò€óóORÌÌà8 à(B)€òòa€circuit,€criminal,€or€general€sessions€court€determinesÏon€the€basis€of€an€evaluation€under€ðð€33„7„301(a)€eitherÏthat€a€criminal€defendant€is€incompetent€to€stand€trial€due€toÏmental€retardation€or,€with€the€agreement€of€defenseÏcounsel,€that€the€defendant€is€competent€to€stand€trial€butÏthat€failure€to€provide€a€secure€facility€would€create€aÏlikelihood€to€cause€the€defendant€serious€harm€by€reason€ofÏmental€retardation,€ORóóÌÌà8 à(C)€a€circuit€or€criminal€court€enters€a€verdict€of€not€guilty€byÏreason€of€insanity€on€a€capital€offense,€Ìà àTHENÌà8 àÌà8 à(2)€the€district€attorney€general€or€the€defense€attorney€mayÏfile€a€complaint€to€require€involuntary€care€and€treatment€ofÏthe€mentally€retarded€person€under€this€section,€ANDà àÌÌà8 à(3)€notwithstanding€ðð€33„3„603,€only€the€juvenile€court€Ïwhich€has€jurisdiction€of€the€minor€or€the€circuit€or€criminalÏcourt€before€which€the€personððs€criminal€case€is€pending€orÏwhich€would€hear€the€case€if€the€defendant€were€boundÏover€to€the€grand€jury€has€jurisdiction€to€hear€a€complaintÏfiled€under€this€section.ÌÌà8 à€€€€€(b)€òòIF€AND€ONLY€IFóóÌÌà à(1)€òòa€person€is€mentally€retarded,€ANDÌóóÌà8 à(2)€òòthe€person€poses€a€substantial€likelihood€of€seriousÏharm€as€defined€in€ðð€33„6„104(a)€because€of€the€mentalÏretardation,€ANDóóÌÌà8 à(3)€òòthe€person€needs€care,€training,€or€treatment€because€ofÏthe€mental€retardation,€ANDóóÌÌà8 à(4)€òòall€available€less€drastic€alternatives€to€judicialÏcommitment€are€unsuitable€to€meet€the€needs€of€the€person,ÏANDóóÌÌà8 à(5)€òòthe€district€attorney€general€or€the€defense€attorney€filesÏa€complaint€to€require€involuntary€care€and€treatment€underÏsubsection€(a),Ìà àTHENóóÌÌà8 à(6)€òòthe€person€may€be€judicially€committed€to€involuntaryÏcare€and€treatment€in€the€custody€of€the€commissioner€inÏproceedings€conducted€in€conformity€with€chapter€3,€part€6Ïof€this€titleóó.ÌÌà8 à€€€€€(c)€No€defendant€may€be€judicially€committed€under€thisÏsection€unless€the€commissioner€designates€licensedÏphysicians€or€licensed€psychologists€designated€as€healthÏservice€providers€who€file€in€the€commitment€proceedingÏtwo€(2)€certificates€of€need€for€care€and€treatment€certifyingÏthat€the€defendant€satisfies€the€requirements€of€subdivisionsÏ(b)(1)„(4)€and€showing€the€factual€foundation€for€theÏconclusions€on€each€item.ÌÌà8 à€€€€€(d)€If€and€only€if€a€court€determines€that€a€person€posesÏan€immediate€substantial€likelihood€of€serious€harm€andÏcommits€the€person€under€this€section,€the€commissionerÏshall€designate€a€licensed€state€facility€to€admit€the€person.€ÏOtherwise€a€judicially€committed€person€does€not€come€intoÏthe€custody€of€the€commissioner€until€the€commissionerÏdetermines€that€the€state€has€an€available€suitableÏaccommodation.ÌÌÓÓ(Emphasis€added).à0 àÌÓ  Óà àÌà àThe€defendant€argues€that€because€the€definition€of€a€ð ðmentally€retardedÏoffenderðð€as€provided€in€T.C.A.€ðð€33„5„303(1)€refers€to€ð ða€defendant€at€any€stage€in€theÍcriminal€.€.€.€or€juvenile€system,ðð€the€judicial€commitment€procedure€under€T.C.A.€ðð€33„5„305€also€applies€to€a€defendant€who€has€been€found€guilty.€€In€support€of€hisÏargument,€the€defendant€asserts€that€the€language€contained€in€T.C.A.€ðð€33„5„306Ïcontemplates€that€a€trial€court€may€commit€a€mentally€retarded€offender€to€appropriateÏtreatment€facilities€at€any€stage€of€the€criminal€proceedings,€even€after€conviction.€ÏUnder€T.C.A.€ðð€33„5„306,€a€person€shall€receive€credit€towards€his€or€her€sentence€forÏtime€spent€in€the€custody€of€the€Commissioner€of€the€Department€of€Mental€Health€andÏMental€Retardation€when€the€person€receives€evaluation,€training€or€treatmentÏservices€ð ðin€connection€with€a€criminal€charge€or€òòconvictionóó,€wherever€incarcerated€.€.€.Ï.ðð€€(Emphasis€added).€€Ìà àÌà àIn€response,€the€state€argues€that€the€trial€court€properly€determined€thatÏT.C.A.€ðð€33„5„305€deals€exclusively€with€pretrial€commitment€of€mentally€retardedÏoffenders.€€The€state€notes€that€T.C.A.€ðð€33„5„303€specifically€provides€that€theÏmentally€retarded€offender€definition€applies€ð ðunless€the€context€requires€otherwise.ðð€€ItÏargues€that€the€definition€does€not€apply€because€T.C.A.€ðð€33„5„305€refers€only€toÏoffenders€who€have€not€been€convicted€of€the€charged€offense.€€In€support€of€itsÏargument,€the€state€asserts€that€T.C.A.€ðð€33„5„308€provides€for€periodic€evaluations€ofÏpersons€committed€under€T.C.A.€ðð€33„5„305€including€ð ðan€assessment€of€the€personððsÏpresent€condition€andòò€prospects€for€restoration€to€competence€to€stand€trialóó€.€.€.€.ðð€Ï(Emphasis€added).€€ÌÌà àThe€state€also€asserts€that€T.C.A.€ðð€33„5„306€refers€instead€to€theÏsituation€where€a€defendant€is€restored€to€competence€and€then€tried€and€convicted€forÏthe€offense€charged.€€The€state€argues€that€the€trial€court€properly€concluded€that€theÏproper€procedure€for€placement€in€a€Mental€Health€and€Mental€Retardation€facility€afterÏconviction€is€through€a€transfer€by€the€Department€of€Correction€under€T.C.A.€ðð€33„3„402.€€Pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€33„3„402,€the€director€of€an€institution€of€the€Department€ofÏCorrection€shall€order€a€transfer€based€on€a€written€report€of€a€licensed€physician€or€aÏlicensed€clinical€psychologist€that€(1)€the€defendant€is€mentally€ill€or€mentally€retardedÏand€(2)€the€defendant€needs€residential€care€and€treatment€for€his€or€her€condition€thatÏcannot€be€provided€by€the€Department€of€Correction€but€can€be€provided€by€anÏappropriate€residential€program€of€the€Department€of€Mental€Health€and€MentalÏRetardation.ÌÌà àWe€agree€with€the€defendantððs€contention€that€the€trial€court€may€order€aÏdefendant€who€has€been€convicted€of€an€offense€to€be€committed€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ððÏ33„5„305.€€At€first€glance,€the€provisions€under€T.C.A.€ðð€33„5„305(a)€appear€to€allow€forÏthe€involuntary€care€and€treatment€of€an€adult,€mentally€retarded€offender€either€beforeÏtrial€or€upon€a€verdict€of€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity€only.€€However,€the€referenceÏto€ð ða€defendant€at€any€stage€in€the€criminal€.€.€.€justice€systemðð€contained€in€theÏmentally€retarded€offender€definition€under€T.C.A.€ðð€33„5„303€reflects€that€theÍlegislature€intended€that€the€procedures€for€commitment€set€forth€in€T.C.A.€ðð€33„5„305Ïbe€available€for€a€mentally€retarded€defendant€at€any€stage€of€the€proceedings,Ïincluding€sentencing.€€Moreover,€the€trial€court€retains€full€jurisdiction€over€a€defendantÏsentenced€to€the€Department€of€Correction€during€the€time€the€defendant€isÏincarcerated€and€awaiting€transfer€to€the€department.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„212(d).€€PursuantÏto€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„212(d),€the€trial€courtððs€jurisdiction€continues€until€the€defendant€isÏactually€transferred€to€the€physical€custody€of€the€department.€€Accordingly,€we€holdÏthat€a€trial€court€may€commit€a€defendant€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€33„5„305,€even€thoughÏthe€petition€for€involuntary€care€and€treatment€was€filed€after€conviction.€ÌÌà àHowever,€the€provisions€under€T.C.A.€ðð€33„5„305€may€not€be€used€by€theÏtrial€court€to€impede€the€transfer€of€a€defendant€to€the€physical€custody€of€theÏDepartment€of€Correction.€€The€provisions€of€T.C.A.€ðð€33„5„305€may€not€be€used€toÏimpede€the€Department€of€Correctionððs€jurisdiction€over€the€defendant.€€In€this€regard,Ïthe€trial€court€correctly€determined€that€it€lacked€the€authority€to€order€the€DepartmentÏof€Correction€to€transfer€the€defendant€to€the€Department€of€Mental€Health€and€MentalÏRetardation.€€Upon€transferring€the€defendant€to€the€Department€of€Correction,€the€trialÏcourt€lost€jurisdiction€to€order€the€commitment€of€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„112(d).€€Therefore,€the€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief.€€€€Ì€€€€€€€à àÌò òÇà@ àV.€€SENTENCINGó óÌà àThe€defendant€asserts€that€he€should€have€been€sentenced€as€anÏespecially€mitigated€offender€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„109.€€He€argues€that€the€trialÏcourt€erroneously€sentenced€him€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€because€(1)€he€hadÏno€prior€felony€convictions,€(2)€two€mitigating€factors€applied,€and€(3)€the€trial€courtÏimproperly€applied€enhancement€factor€(4),€the€victim€was€particularly€vulnerableÏbecause€of€age€or€physical€or€mental€disability.€€We€hold€that€the€trial€courtÏerroneously€determined€that€an€enhancement€factor€applied.€€œHowever,›€we€affirm€theÏsentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court€based€on€the€use€of€enhancement€factor€(15),Ïregarding€the€abuse€of€a€position€of€private€trust.Ì€€à àÌà àAppellate€review€of€sentencing€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€on€the€record€with€aÏpresumption€that€the€trial€court's€determinations€are€correct.€€T.C.A.€ðððð€40„35„401(d)Ïand€„402(d).€€As€the€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€to€these€sections€note,€theÏburden€is€now€on€the€appealing€party€to€show€that€the€sentencing€is€improper.€€ThisÏmeans€that€if€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€made€findingsÏof€fact€that€are€adequately€supported€in€the€record,€and€gave€due€consideration€andÏproper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principles€that€are€relevant€to€sentencing€under€theÏ1989€Sentencing€Act,€we€may€not€disturb€the€sentence€even€if€a€different€result€wereÏpreferred.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€ÌÌà àHowever,€"the€presumption€of€correctness€which€accompanies€the€trialÏcourt's€action€is€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trialÏcourt€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€ÏòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€this€respect,€for€the€purpose€ofÏmeaningful€appellate€review,ÌÓÓà8 àthe€trial€court€must€place€on€the€record€its€reasons€forÏarriving€at€the€final€sentencing€decision,€identify€theÏmitigating€and€enhancement€factors€found,€state€the€specificÏfacts€supporting€each€enhancement€factor€found,€andÏarticulate€how€the€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors€haveÏbeen€evaluated€and€balanced€in€determining€the€sentence.€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210(f)€(1990).€€ÓÓÌòòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€599€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà àAlso,€in€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review,€we€must€consider€(1)€the€evidence,Ïif€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing,€(2)€the€presentence€report,€(3)€theÏprinciples€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives,€(4)€the€natureÏand€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct,€(5)€any€mitigating€or€statutory€enhancementÏfactors,€(6)€any€statement€that€the€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf€and€(7)€theÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€T.C.A.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103Ìand€„210€(1990);€òòseeóó€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€168;€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€236Ï(Tenn.€1986).€ÌÌà àPursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„109,€the€trial€court€may€designate€a€defendantÏas€an€especially€mitigated€offender€if€the€defendant€has€no€prior€felony€convictions€andÏthe€court€finds€mitigating,€but€no€enhancement€factors.€€The€decision€to€sentence€theÏdefendant€as€an€especially€mitigated€offender€rests€in€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€ÏòòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„109,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments;€òòState€v.€Buttreyóó,€756ÏS.W.2d€718,€722€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€ÌÌà àNo€witnesses€testified€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€The€presentence€reportÏreflects€that€the€then€œthirty„four„year„old›€defendant€asserted€that€he€had€completed€theÏeleventh€œgrade,›€although€he€did€not€know€where.€€The€defendant€was€also€unable€toÏprovide€his€age,€date€of€birth,€names€and€addresses€of€relatives€or€his€social€securityÏnumber.€€The€report€also€shows€that€the€defendant€could€not€write.€€Regarding€theÏdefendantððs€employment€history,€the€presentence€report€states€that€the€defendant€hadÏworked€at€a€œrestaurant,›€although€he€was€currently€mentally€incapable€of€working.€€TheÏreport€reflects€that€the€defendant€does€not€have€a€prior€criminal€history.€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àIn€assessing€whether€the€defendant€should€be€sentenced€as€anÏespecially€mitigated€offender,€the€trial€court€determined€that€the€following€mitigatingÏfactors€applied:€(1)€the€defendant€suffered€from€a€mental€condition€that€significantlyÏreduced€his€culpability€for€the€offense,€and€(2)€the€defendant,€although€guilty€of€theÏcrime,€committed€the€offense€under€such€unusual€circumstances€that€it€is€unlikely€thatÍa€sustained€intent€to€violate€the€law€motivated€his€conduct.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„113(8)Ïand€(11).€€The€trial€court€also€concluded€that€the€victim€of€the€offense€was€particularlyÏvulnerable€because€of€her€age€or€physical€or€mental€limitations.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(4).€€Because€the€trial€court€determined€that€an€enhancement€factor€applied,€itÏdeclined€to€sentence€the€defendant€as€an€especially€mitigated€offender€but€imposedÏthe€minimum€sentence€within€Range€I.€€Also,€the€state€agreed€that€the€minimumÏsentence€was€appropriate.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€improperly€appliedÏenhancement€factor€(4)€because€the€victimððs€age€is€an€essential€element€ofÏaggravated€sexual€battery.€€Although€age€is€an€element€of€the€offense€of€aggravatedÏsexual€battery€involving€a€child€under€the€age€of€thirteen,€òòseeóó€T.C.A.€œðððð€39„13„502(a)(4)›€œ(1991)›€and€„504(a)€(1991),× ƒ3 ××  ×€factor€(4)€may€be€used€to€enhance€a€sentence€ifÏthe€evidence€shows€that€the€victimððs€natural€physical€and€mental€limitations€render€theÏvictim€particularly€vulnerable€due€to€age.€€òòState€v.€Kissingeróó,€922€S.W.2d€482,€487Ï(Tenn.€1996);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€31,€35€(Tenn.€1993)€(factor€(4)€mayÏbe€used€to€enhance€conviction€for€aggravated€rape€involving€a€victim€under€the€age€ofÏthirteen).€€ð ð[T]he€vulnerability€enhancement€relates€more€to€the€natural€physical€andÍmental€limitations€of€the€victim€than€merely€to€the€victimððs€age.ðð€€òòAdamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€atÏ35.€Ì€Ìà àHowever,€in€making€its€determination€regarding€the€application€of€factorÏ(4),€the€trial€court€should€consider€whether€the€proof€establishes€that€because€of€theÏvictimððs€age€or€physical€or€mental€attributes,€the€victim€was€unable€to€resist,€summonÏhelp€or€testify€at€a€later€date.€€òòKissingeróó,€864€S.W.2d€at€487;€òòAdamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€at€35;ÏòòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€96€(Tenn.€1997).€€The€state€bears€the€burden€of€provingÏthe€victimððs€limitations€that€render€him€or€her€particularly€vulnerable,€in€addition€to€theÏvictimððs€age.€€òòAdamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€at€35.€€It€cannot€be€presumed€that€the€victim€wasÏòòparticularlyóó€vulnerable€based€solely€on€the€victimððs€age.€€òòPooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€at€98.€€€ÌÌà àIn€this€respect,€the€state€concedes€that€the€proof€at€trial€failed€to€showÏhow€the€victim€was€particularly€vulnerable€because€of€her€age.€€We€agree€that€theÏevidence€does€not€support€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€factor€(4).€€ÌÌà àThe€state€argues,€however,€that€the€record€supports€the€application€ofÏenhancement€factor€(15),€abuse€of€a€position€of€private€trust€that€significantly€facilitatedÏthe€commission€of€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(15).€€In€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóóÏreview€of€the€record,€an€appellate€court€may€determine€that€the€record€supports€theÏapplication€of€an€enhancement€factor€not€applied€by€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Pearsonóó,Í858€S.W.2d€879,€885€(Tenn.€1993).€€Application€of€factor€(15)€requires€a€finding€thatÏthe€defendant€occupied€a€position€of€trust,€either€public€or€private.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(15);€òòKissingeróó,€922€S.W.2d€at€488„89.€€In€òòKissingeróó,€our€supreme€court€stated:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àThe€determination€of€the€existence€of€a€position€of€trustÏdoes€not€depend€on€the€length€or€formality€of€theÏrelationship,€but€upon€the€nature€of€the€relationship.€€Thus,Ïthe€court€should€look€to€see€whether€the€offender€formally€orÏinformally€stood€in€a€relationship€to€the€victim€that€promotedÏconfidence,€reliability,€or€faith.€€If€the€evidence€supports€thatÏfinding,€then€the€court€must€determine€whether€the€positionÏoccupied€was€abused€by€the€commission€of€the€offense.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòIdóó.€at€488.ÌÌà àApplying€the€principles€set€forth€in€òòKissingeróó,€we€hold€that€the€evidence€Ïestablishes€that€the€defendant€occupied€and€abused€a€position€of€private€trust.€€SimilarÏto€the€defendant€in€òòKissingeróó,€the€defendant€developed€a€friendly€relationship€with€theÏvictimððs€mother.€€òòIdóó.€at€485,€489.€€Also,€the€victim,€along€with€her€mother€and€two€sisters,Ïlived€with€the€defendant€about€two€months€before€moving€out€in€June,€approximatelyÏthree€months€before€the€offense€occurred.€€òòIdóó.€€The€victim€testified€that€she€walked€intoÏthe€defendantððs€apartment€and€asked€him€for€a€drink€of€water.€€Rather€than€giving€her€aÏdrink,€the€defendant€took€the€victim€into€the€bedroom,€removed€their€clothes€andÏinserted€his€penis€into€the€victimððs€vagina.€€The€victim€also€told€Detective€Pedigo€thatÏshe€was€in€the€defendantððs€bedroom€playing€with€toys€when€the€offense€occurred.€ÏBased€upon€these€facts,€we€conclude€that€the€defendant€occupied€a€relationship€withÍthe€victim€that€promoted€confidence,€reliability€and€faith€in€him,€such€as€would€motivateÏher€to€approach€and€enter€his€apartment€without€fear.€ÌÌà àThus,€although€the€trial€court€incorrectly€applied€enhancement€factor€(4),Ïthe€evidence€supports€the€application€of€factor€(15).€€The€defendant€does€not€meet€theÏminimum€criteria€for€being€sentenced€as€an€especially€mitigated€offender€pursuant€toÏT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„109.€€Under€these€circumstances,€we€hold€that€the€defendant€is€notÏeligible€for€sentencing€as€an€especially€mitigated€offender.ÌÌà àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€the€judgmentÏof€conviction€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€€ÌÌÌÇCONCUR:ÌÌÌ____________________________ÌGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌÌòòÌóó____________________________ÌRobert€E.€Burch,€Special€Judge