ÿWPC× ,®ûäþSVT á6"–øh¯Uˆc†.mÐ~dXé|NBór›9ËžAx=ž#ÏåeD¼wâšl"–À{ªM[Îζ½°zö–Ÿþ8>ƒŠo*‹‰e|kÂFl†X1䋿…*GXàMòÅT=ÜFJ‹iÕ¸ÈÐCºx "8§SKŒ"j“•ùíeÌAbùô× F½;Åg8”/qsl^$,ĉµÕryy%ý\y{@ñ|ÝÕQ•YX¥ªG‹öø#¹3íÕÖÅ ¦ÑÄWÍQ¶Sè”p/M´h~mxnO¡mÒµÂeèц’4 àž%ŠÃNÑòéb,ÌÊ *­¯È ]̧³€ôåÍ7’g‚(#ÿwäˆ-ã?,"½pQo/õUÝ›˜:C¨ö¡Ð>°%u5:¤¨±Ìj·w›ê¤›Š– v`e?ÝÆÚø è½}x%À£Ûïªð^Øg0«9#±Ú”³G€2Bò!÷ ¤ƒ¤©_æÙt4x; Y𵝛õDL×pøÚv”ÉÿA4]z=¡¯tŒÒ½äÁðrp*ô Cm_«¶3NÎYÀËÉZUr;wöb`/n€úÕzš4l¸äib#Á\ % N# 0ˆ% UN­ û 1 z Ò zÜ ÒV ^ ( w4 Æ8 Æþ ÆÄÆŠ4PNdfuEw my 72 1u 727 0ciiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiibÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ 0ëÔÔÔÔ B¿¿ 0¤Ü D3€ D-³ 0Kàà AS+Æ~ 0¤D 0Dè A«,˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular (¦ÙCEMU]emu}AutoList1(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt¢u++â Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5yG*  k1Tû¯3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(1)3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à- ù-(|G2±¿$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôç ò»»Ô d(|3v$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3v$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E%»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼E%»»»ÔÑ8€éXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îNdE%ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼E%»îîNd #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€June€27,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡XéX»¼E%ÔÌò òÔ#†¼E%»XXé#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€òòóóKENNETH€CHAMBLYÔ‡XéX»¼E%Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNos.€226662,€226621,€226622€€€€€€Douglas€A.€Meyer,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2000„01719„CCA„R3„CD€Ð ¥õ  ÐSeptember€7,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant,€Kenneth€Chambly,€appeals€his€convictions€for€three€charges€of€aggravated€sexualÐ xÈ  Ðbattery€for€which€he€received€an€effective€sentence€of€ten€years€without€parole.€€He€raises€variousÐ d´ Ðissues€on€appeal.€€We€reverse€the€convictions€and€remand€the€case€for€a€new€trial€because€of€theÐ P  Ðfailure€of€the€state€to€elect€offenses€and€the€failure€of€the€trial€court€to€instruct€the€jury€regarding€theÐ <Œ Ðneed€for€offense€€unanimity€in€the€verdict.€€We€also€conclude€that€the€trial€court€imposed€an€improperÐ (x Ðsentence€of€ten€years€for€one€of€the€convictions.Ð d ÐÓÕÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgments€of€the€Criminal€Court€Reversed;€CaseÐ ì< ÐRemandedó ó€Ð Ø( ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼E%»àXé•#ÔÔ‡XéX.¼E%ÔJoseph€M.€Tipton,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJames€Curwood€Witt,€Jr.óó€andÐ ´ ÐòòRobert€W.€Wedemeyer,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð  ð ÐÌArdena€J.€Garth,€District€Public€Defender,€and€Donna€Robinson€Miller,€Assistant€District€PublicÐ xÈ ÐDefender€(on€appeal€and€on€motion€for€new€trial),€and€James€F.€Logan,€Jr.,€Cleveland,€TennesseeÐ d´ Ð(at€trial),€for€the€appellant,€Kenneth€Chambly.Ð P   ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Elizabeth€B.€Marney,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Ð ("x! ÐWilliam€H.€Cox,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Ô_ÔKelliÔ_Ô€Black,€Ô_ÔDaraÔ_Ô€Draper,€and€Rodney€C.€Strong,Ð #d" ÐAssistant€District€Attorney€Generals,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð $P# ÐÓ&ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼E%»XXéU#ÔÔ‡XéX»¼E%ÔÐ Ø%(!% ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼E%»XXé; #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XéX»¼E%Ô€€€€€€€€€€€€This€case€involves€Martin€and€Judith€Griswoldððs€daughters:€€twins€who€were€about€eight€andÐ °'#' Ða€third€who€was€about€six€years€old€when€the€incidents€in€issue€occurred.€€The€defendant,€a€friendÐ œ(ì#( Ðof€Mr.€Griswoldððs,€was€convicted€of€one€count€of€aggravated€sexual€battery,€a€Class€B€felony,€forÐ ˆ)Ø$) Ðeach€daughter,€and€he€received€concurrent€sentences€of€eight€years,€ten€years,€and€eight€years,Ð t*Ä%* Ðrespectively.€€The€defendant€raises€the€following€issues€in€this€appeal:Ð `+°&+ Ðâ âÓ€ (¦Ù83ÓÐ L,œ',ý Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)€The€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€require€the€state€to€elect€andÐ ° Ðâ âidentify€the€specific€offenses€for€which€it€sought€convictions;Мì` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)€€the€trial€court€erred€in€consolidating€the€three€separate€charges€forÐ tÄ Ðtrial;Ð`°` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(3)€€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€out„of„court€statements€made€byÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€children€to€a€Child€Protective€Services€worker€and€to€a€medicalÐ $ t Ðdoctor;Ð `` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(4)€€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€trial€to€proceed€when€the€stateÐ è 8  Ðfailed€to€provide€exculpatory€evidence;ÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(5)€the€state€made€improper€closing€argument;€andЬü ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(6)€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€application€of€enhancement€andÐ „Ô  Ðmitigating€factors€for€sentencing.ÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€The€indictments€allege€that€the€offenses€occurred€in€the€month€of€January€1998.€€The€proofÐ H˜ Ðrelated€to€the€times€that€the€defendant€visited€the€Ô_ÔGriswoldsÔ_Ôðð€house.€€The€three€daughters,€ten€andÐ 4„ Ðeight€at€the€time€of€trial,€testified€regarding€ð ðbad€touchesðð€by€the€defendant,€although€a€lot€of€theirÐ  p Ðtestimony€was€rather€unclear.€€One€twin€testified€that€the€defendant€touched€her€ð ðprivateðð€in€frontÐ  \ Ðon€top€of€her€clothes,€rubbing€his€hand€up€and€down.€€The€stateððs€questioning€was€geared€towardÐ øH Ðshowing€that€this€occurred€in€the€living€room.€The€twin€then€testified€that€the€defendantððs€badÐ ä4 Ðtouches€occurred€in€her€room,€her€sisterððs€room€and€at€the€defendantððs€truck,€although€she€laterÐ Ð  Ðexplained€that€the€defendant€kissed€her€at€his€truck.€€Upon€the€stateððs€reminder€about€the€living€room,Ð ¼  Ðshe€testified€that€the€defendant€would€put€a€blanket€over€her€and€her€sisters€in€front€of€her€father,€whoÐ ¨ø Ðwould€be€watching€television.€€On€cross„examination,€the€victim€said€that€nothing€happened€in€theÐ ”ä Ðliving€room.€€On€redirect€examination,€she€said€that,€at€least€twice,€the€defendant€put€a€blanket€overÐ €Ð Ðher€lap€in€the€living€room€and€ð ðwould€try€to€touchðð€her€ð ðprivate.ðð€€On€recross„examination,€she€saidÐ l¼ Ðthat€the€defendant€ð ðtried€to€touchðð€her€ð ðprivateðð€twice€in€the€bedroom€and€twice€in€the€living€room.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àThe€second€twin,€who€has€cerebral€palsy€and€a€speech€impediment,€gave€very€little€testimony,Ð 0"€  Ðbut€not€from€lack€of€effort€by€the€state.€€Of€substance,€she€said€that€the€defendant€touched€her€rearÐ #l! Ðend€as€a€bad€touch.€€She€said€the€defendant€had€given€her€bad€touches€but€said€she€did€not€rememberÐ $X" Ðwhere.€€Then€she€said€that€the€defendant€touched€her€with€his€hand€on€top€of€her€clothes€ð ðin€rear€end,Ð ô$D # Ðfront.ðð€€The€first€twin€testified€that€she€saw€the€defendant€touch€her€twin€sister€twice€in€her€sisterððsÐ à%0!$ Ðroom.€€Dr.€Donna€Ô_ÔLettÔ_Ô€testified€that€the€second€twin€told€her€that€the€defendant€had€rubbed€her€in€theÐ Ì&"% Ðarea€the€doctor€described€as€the€pubic€area.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThe€youngest€daughter€testified€that€the€defendant€touched€her€in€the€living€room€in€theÐ )à$( Ðð ðwrong€placeðð€where€she€goes€to€the€bathroom,€but€she€said€she€did€not€remember€if€it€was€on€topÐ |*Ì%) Ðof€or€under€her€clothes.€€She€said€it€happened€more€than€once€while€the€defendant€was€on€the€couch.€Ð h+¸&* ÐShe€did€not€remember€how€many€times€or€what€was€done,€but€she€recalled€it€being€done€during€theÐ ° Ðday.€€The€first€twin€testified€that€she€had€seen€the€defendant€touch€her€younger€sister€in€her€frontÐ œì Ðð ðprivateðð€in€her€sisterððs€bedroom.€€She€said€she€saw€him€touch€her€sister€five€times.€€CelesteÐ ˆØ ÐCaroland,€a€friend€of€Ms.€Griswold,€testified€about€seeing€the€defendantððs€hand€inside€the€back€ofÐ tÄ Ðthe€youngest€daughterððs€underwear€while€the€child€was€sitting€on€his€lap€on€the€couch€in€the€livingÐ `° Ðroom.Ð L œ ÐÌà@ ìàò òELECTION€OF€OFFENSESó óˆÐ $ t ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€requiring€the€state€to€elect€theÐ ü L  Ðparticular€offenses€proven€for€which€it€sought€convictions.€€He€notes€that€the€trial€court€did€notÐ è 8  Ðinstruct€the€jury€specifically€regarding€the€need€for€juror€unanimity€as€to€the€same€offense€forÐ Ô$  Ðconviction€purposes.€€The€state€responds€that€the€state€ð ðrepeatedly€and€consistently€identifiedðð€theÐ À  Ðdefendantððs€sexual€batteries€as€occurring€around€January€21,€1999.€€It€notes€the€stateððs€openingÐ ¬ü  Ðremarks€to€the€effect€that€it€expected€to€prove€the€offenses€occurred€in€the€living€room€while€theÐ ˜è  Ðvictimsðð€father€was€in€his€recliner€chair€in€the€living€room.€€The€state€also€points€to€Ms.€Ô_ÔCarolandÔ_ÔððsÐ „Ô  Ðtestimony€regarding€the€youngest€daughter€and€the€stateððs€specific€reference€to€this€event€in€itsÐ pÀ Ðclosing€argument.€€The€state€asserts€that€the€foregoing€shows€that€the€state€did€not€rely€on€ð ðbadÐ \¬ Ðtouchesðð€elsewhere.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àWe€do€not€believe€that€the€record€is€as€clear€as€the€state€would€have€us€believe.€€First,€it€isÐ  p Ðtelling€that€the€state€essentially€concedes€that€more€than€one€offense€per€victim€was€proven,€and€weÐ  \ Ðnote€that€it€did€not€expressly€tell€the€jury€upon€what€offenses€it€relied€to€seek€convictions.€€In€fact,Ð øH Ðduring€discussions€regarding€whether€the€victimsðð€testimony€was€inconsistent€as€to€the€location€ofÐ ä4 Ðthe€offenses,€the€state€said€that€it€was€for€the€jury€to€determine€the€truth€as€to€location.€€Moreover,Ð Ð  Ðwe€note€that€in€closing€argument,€the€state€argued€relative€to€the€offenses€that€ð ð[w]hether€it€happenedÐ ¼  Ðin€the€living€room€or€whether€it€happened€in€the€bedroom,€we€know€it€happened€in€January€of€1999.ðð€Ð ¨ø ÐThis€statement€leaves€open€the€question€of€what€conduct€constituted€the€offenses€and€when€andÐ ”ä Ðwhere€they€were€committed.€€Also,€the€state€does€not€address€the€significance€of€the€trial€courtððsÐ €Ð Ðfailure€to€instruct€the€jury€regarding€jury€unanimity.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€courts€of€this€state€have€repeatedly€held€that€when€evidence€is€presented€of€multipleÐ D!” Ðoffenses€that€would€fit€the€allegations€of€the€charge,€the€trial€court€must€require€the€state€to€elect€theÐ 0"€  Ðparticular€offense€for€which€a€conviction€is€sought€and€must€instruct€the€jury€as€to€the€need€for€juryÐ #l! Ðunanimity€regarding€the€finding€of€the€particular€offense€elected.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€762Ð $X" ÐS.W.2d€135,€137€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.€Waltonóó,€958€S.W.2d€724,€727€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,Ð ô$D # Ð851€S.W.2d€134,€136€(Tenn.€1993);€òòBurlison€v.€Stateóó,€501€S.W.2d€801,€804€(Tenn.€1973).€€TheÐ à%0!$ Ðcentral€purpose€of€these€procedures€is€to€ensure€against€a€patchwork€verdict€in€which€some€jurorsÐ Ì&"% Ðfind€guilt€as€to€one€offense€while€other€jurors€find€guilt€as€to€a€separate€offense.€€òòSheltonóó,€851€S.W.2dÐ ¸'#& Ðat€137.€€Also,€the€requirement€of€election€and€a€jury€unanimity€instruction€exists€even€though€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdefendant€has€not€requested€them.€€òòSeeóó€òòBurlisonóó,€501€S.W.2d€at€804.€€Moreover,€failure€to€followÐ )à$( Ðâ âthe€procedures€is€considered€to€be€of€constitutional€magnitude€and€will€result€in€reversal€of€the€Ð |*Ì%) Ðconviction€absent€the€error€being€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòSheltonóó,€851Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€at€138.€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àIn€viewing€the€evidence,€we€do€not€believe€that€the€record€lends€itself€to€a€conclusion,€beyondÐ tÄ Ða€reasonable€doubt,€that€the€juryððs€verdicts€resulted€from€each€jurorððs€considering€and€finding€theÐ `° Ðexistence€of€one€particular€offense€against€each€victim€to€which€all€other€jurors€agreed.€€MultipleÐ L œ Ðoffenses,€multiple€dates,€and€multiple€locations€were€proven.€€Without€election€and€properÐ 8 ˆ Ðinstruction,€each€juror€was€left€to€choose€for€him€or€herself€the€acts€upon€which€to€reach€verdicts.€Ð $ t ÐUnder€the€circumstances,€this€constitutes€reversible€error.Ð  ` ÐÌà@ŽŽ$ìàò òCONSOLIDATIONˆÐ è 8  ÐÌó ó€€€€€€€€€€€€The€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€consolidating€the€cases€for€trial.€€HeÐ À  Ðargues€that€proof€of€the€offenses€against€each€of€the€victims€would€not€be€admissible€against€theÐ ¬ü  Ðdefendant€in€separate€trials€regarding€the€other€victims.€€The€state€responds€that€the€issue€is€waivedÐ ˜è  Ðbecause€the€record€does€not€show€that€the€defendant€objected€to€consolidation€or€requested€aÐ „Ô  Ðseverance.€€We€agree€with€the€state.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€advised€the€trial€court€of€a€ð ðtechnical€matterðð€relative€to€the€fact€that€the€stateÐ H˜ Ðhad€not€made€a€motion€to€consolidate.€€He€noted€that€the€overlapping€testimony€would€lead€the€trialÐ 4„ Ðcourt€to€grant€such€a€motion.€€However,€he€referred€to€a€previous€case€in€which€a€question€aboutÐ  p Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel€was€raised€because€no€motion€to€consolidate€had€been€made.€€TheÐ  \ Ðprosecutor€stated€that€counsel€had€previously€discussed€having€the€cases€consolidated€and€that€theÐ øH Ðdefense€had€not€objected.€€The€trial€court€then€summarily€ordered€consolidation,€treating€theÐ ä4 Ðprosecutorððs€comments€as€a€motion.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àWe€do€not€believe€the€defendantððs€actions€to€be€sufficiently€specific€as€to€preserve€the€issueÐ ¨ø Ðof€improper€consolidation.€€It€is€obvious€that€the€trial€court€and€the€state€thought€that€the€defendantÐ ”ä Ðwas€focused€upon€the€formality€of€a€motion,€not€its€substance.€€We€believe€such€to€be€a€reasonableÐ €Ð Ðinterpretation€of€the€defendantððs€comments.€€If€the€defendant€objected€to€consolidation,€he€wasÐ l¼ Ðrequired€to€state€the€specific€ground€for€his€objection.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€103(a)(1).€€This€weÐ X ¨ Ðpresume€he€did€when€he€called€the€motion€a€ð ðtechnical€matter.ðð€€However,€he€did€not€put€the€trialÐ D!” Ðcourt€on€notice€regarding€a€substantive€objection€to€consolidation.€€Moreover,€he€did€not€move€to€Ð 0"€  Ðsever€the€cases€during€the€trial.€€We€conclude€that€the€issue€of€consolidation€has€been€waived.Ð #l! ÐÌà@ìàò òOUT„OF„COURT€STATEMENTSó óˆÐ ô$D # ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€complains€about€the€trial€courtððs€admitting€into€evidence€out„of„courtÐ Ì&"% Ðstatements€by€the€victims.€€He€first€refers€to€testimony€by€the€first€twin€and€a€Child€ProtectiveÐ ¸'#& ÐServices€worker,€Lisa€Barrett,€that€related€to€the€victimsðð€telling€others,€including€their€mother€andÐ ¤(ô#' ÐMs.€Barrett,€about€the€defendantððs€conduct.€€The€defendant€correctly€notes€that€when€the€victim€ofÐ )à$( Ða€sexual€assault€is€a€child,€neither€the€fact€that€the€child€complained€to€another€person€nor€the€detailsÐ |*Ì%) Ðof€the€complaint€may€be€admitted€under€the€doctrine€of€fresh€complaint.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Livingstonóó,Ð h+¸&* Ð907€S.W.2d€392,€395€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€state€acknowledges€that€òòLivingstonóó€ð ðappears€to€denyÐ ° Ðadmissibility€to€the€fact€of€a€complaint€as€well€as€the€details€of€the€complaint.ðð€€However,€it€notesÐ œì Ðthat€the€defendant€did€not€object€when€the€first€twin€testified€about€telling€her€mother.€€The€state€alsoÐ ˆØ Ðcontends€that€any€error€was€harmless.€€We€agree€that€the€defendantððs€failure€to€object€to€the€firstÐ tÄ Ðtwinððs€testimony€not€only€waives€the€defendantððs€claim€as€to€that€evidence,€but€it€also€reduces€theÐ `° Ðrisk€of€harm€relative€to€Ms.€Barrett€indicating€that€the€victims€complained€about€the€defendant.€Ð L œ ÐUnder€the€circumstances€in€this€case,€any€error€in€admitting€out„of„court€statements€by€the€victimsÐ 8 ˆ Ðrelative€to€the€defendantððs€conduct€was€harmless.€€òòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.€36(b).€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àSecond,€the€defendant€complains€about€the€trial€courtððs€allowing€Dr.€Donna€Lett,€a€physicianÐ ü L  Ðwho€examined€the€victims,€to€testify€that€each€of€the€victims€told€her€that€the€defendant€touched€themÐ è 8  Ðin€the€pubic€or€buttocks€area.€€He€argues€that€the€testimony€constituted€inadmissible€hearsay.€€TheÐ Ô$  Ðstate€argues€that€Dr.€Lett€was€examining€the€victims€for€diagnosis€and€treatment€purposes,€whichÐ À  Ðprovides€a€foundation€for€admitting€the€victimsðð€statements€to€her€as€an€exception€to€the€hearsay€ruleÐ ¬ü  Ðof€exclusion.€€Under€Rule€803(4),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€statements€describing€medical€history€that€areÐ ˜è  Ðmade€for€purposes€of€medical€diagnosis€and€treatment€and€that€are€reasonably€pertinent€to€suchÐ „Ô  Ðdiagnosis€and€treatment€are€admissible.€€The€defendant€responds€that€the€victimsðð€naming€him€as€theÐ pÀ Ðperpetrator€was€not€reasonably€pertinent€to€diagnosis€and€treatment.€€He€relies€upon€òòState€v.€Ruckeróó,Ð \¬ Ð847€S.W.2d€512,€518€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1992),€which€he€claims€held€that€the€identity€of€theÐ H˜ Ðperpetrator€is€not€considered€reasonably€pertinent€to€diagnosis€and€treatment€except€when€theÐ 4„ Ðperpetrator€is€a€member€of€the€victimððs€immediate€household.€€He€also€argues€that€there€areÐ  p Ðinsufficient€indicia€of€the€victimsðð€proper€motivations€regarding€treatment€to€ensure€trustworthinessÐ  \ Ðof€their€statements€to€Dr.€Lett.Ð øH ÐÌà  àWe€do€not€believe€that€òòRuckeróó€necessarily€stands€for€the€proposition€claimed€by€theÐ Ð  Ðdefendant.€€In€òòRuckeróó,€this€court€was€confronted€with€a€defendant€who€was€convicted€of€raping€hisÐ ¼  Ðdaughter.€€It€concluded€that€ð ððð[Ô_Ôs]tatementsÔ_Ô€made€by€a€child€abuse€victim€to€a€physician€during€anÐ ¨ø Ðexamination€that€the€abuser€is€a€member€of€the€victimððs€immediate€household€are€reasonablyÐ ”ä Ðpertinent€to€treatmentðð€.€.€.€.ðð€847€S.W.2d€at€519„20€(quoting€òòUnited€States€v.€Renvilleóó,€779€F.2d€430,Ð €Ð Ð436€(8òòthóó€Cir.€1985)).€€However,€we€do€not€believe€that€òòRuckeróó€means€that€members€of€the€victimððsÐ l¼ Ðimmediate€household€are€the€only€ones€that€meet€the€requirements€of€Rule€803(4).€€As€òòRuckeróóÐ X ¨ Ðreflects,€the€identity€of€the€abuser€in€a€child€abuse€case€is€relevant€to€diagnosis€and€treatment€becauseÐ D!” Ðthe€exact€nature€and€extent€of€emotional€and€psychological€injuries€and€of€the€risk€of€recurrent€abuseÐ 0"€  Ðoften€depend€upon€the€identity€of€the€abuser.€€847€S.W.2d€at€519.€€Obviously,€the€risk€of€continuingÐ #l! Ðharm€is€high€and€immediate€when€the€abuser€lives€with€the€victim.€€However,€the€presumedÐ $X" Ðreliability€under€Rule€803(4)€of€the€victimððs€statement€to€a€doctor€about€the€abuserððs€identity€doesÐ ô$D # Ðnot€vanish€solely€because€the€victim€identifies€a€stranger€to€the€household€as€the€abuser.€€TheÐ à%0!$ Ðinterests€of€the€doctor€for€diagnosis€and€treatment€to€know€the€abuserððs€identity€and€the€purpose€ofÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€victimððs€telling€the€doctor€the€abuserððs€identity€ð!ð€the€foundation€upon€which€Rule€803(4)€is€basedÐ ¸'#& Ðð!ð€remain€the€same€regardless€of€whom€the€victim€identifies.€€Moreover,€as€the€evidence€in€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðpresent€case€shows,€a€child€may€be€the€victim€of€recurrent€abuse€by€persons€who€are€not€membersÐ )à$( Ðâ âof€the€victimððs€immediate€household.€€We€conclude€that€the€victimsðð€statements€to€Dr.€LettÐ |*Ì%) Ðidentifying€the€defendant€as€their€abuser€have€been€shown€to€be€reasonably€pertinent€to€diagnosis€andÐ ° Ðtreatment.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€the€Rule€803(4)€exception€does€not€apply€in€this€caseÐ tÄ Ðbecause€there€is€insufficient€evidence€of€the€victimsðð€being€motivated€to€tell€Dr.€Lett€the€identity€ofÐ `° Ðtheir€abuser€in€aid€of€the€doctorððs€attempt€to€diagnose€and€treat€them.€€The€state€responds€that€theÐ L œ Ðtotality€of€the€circumstances€reflect€that€the€victimsðð€statements€to€Dr.€Lett€ð ðclearly€indicate€that€theyÐ 8 ˆ Ðwere€made€for€the€purposes€of€diagnosis€and€treatment€and€were€not€solicited€[or]€coaxed.ðð€€òòSeeóóÐ $ t ÐòòState€v.€Ô_ÔMcLeodÔ_Ôóó,€937€S.W.2d€867,€871€(Tenn.€1996)€(stating€that€all€of€the€circumstancesÐ  ` Ðsurrounding€the€statement€should€be€examined€for€the€admissibility€decision).€€Under€òòÔ_ÔMcLeodÔ_Ôóó,€weÐ ü L  Ðagree€with€the€stateððs€position.€€Dr.€Lett€testified€in€detail€to€the€procedures€used€with€the€victims€toÐ è 8  Ðprepare€them€for€physical€examinations,€including€familiarizing€them€with€the€equipment€that€wouldÐ Ô$  Ðbe€used.€€Also,€she€testified€about€explaining€to€the€children€why€she€was€examining€them.€€WeÐ À  Ðconclude€that€the€evidence€sufficiently€reflects€that€the€victimsðð€statements€to€Dr.€Lett€were€for€theÐ ¬ü  Ðpurpose€of€receiving€medical€assistance.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àWe€must€also€note,€though,€that€the€defendant€was€aided€by€a€limiting€instruction€to€the€jury.€Ð pÀ ÐAs€exceptions€to€the€hearsay€rule€exclusion,€the€victimsðð€statements€were€to€be€received€asÐ \¬ Ðsubstantive€evidence€and€given€such€weight€the€jury€deemed€they€deserved.€However,€at€the€pointÐ H˜ Ðof€Dr.€Lettððs€testimony€regarding€what€the€victims€told€her,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€asÐ 4„ Ðfollows:Ð  p ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à€€€€€Jurors,€Dr.€Lett€will€be€allowed€to€testify€as€to€what€the€childrenÐ øH Ðtold€her,€and€in€this€regard,€you€should€consider€only€the€childrenððsÐ ä4 Ðstatements€as€they€relate€to€her€examination€and€evaluation.€€TheÐ Ð  Ðtruthfulness€of€the€statements€.€.€.€of€the€children€to€the€doctor,€youÐ ¼  Ðcannot€consider€that,€that€part€of€it,€whether€or€not€what€they€said€wasÐ ¨ø Ðtrue€or€not€from€her€testimony.Дä` x` x ÐÌThis€reflects€that€the€trial€court,€in€favor€of€the€defendant,€incorrectly€limited€the€juryððs€considerationÐ l¼ Ðand€evaluation€of€the€victimsðð€statements€to€Dr.€Lett.€€The€instruction€was€inappropriate.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà@ÀÀ ìàò òEXCULPATORY€EVIDENCEó óˆÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€complains€that€evidence€regarding€the€victimsðð€allegations€of€sex€abuse€againstÐ $X" Ðothers€was€not€disclosed€to€him€until€midtrial.€€He€asserts€that€he€should€have€been€awarded€aÐ ô$D # Ðmistrial€in€order€to€have€time€to€investigate€the€allegations.€€He€states€that€he€has€denied€guiltÐ à%0!$ Ðconsistently€and€that€he€was€entitled€to€time€to€investigate€the€other€allegations€for€the€purpose€ofÐ Ì&"% Ðdetermining€how€they€affected€his€defense,€such€as,€whether€the€victims€were€transferring€blame€toÐ ¸'#& Ðhim€of€abuse€by€another€and€whether€the€victims€had€a€history€of€making€false€claims€of€abuse.€€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àThe€record€is€not€clear€about€the€specifics€of€the€purportedly€exculpatory€evidence.€€€DuringÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€cross„examination€of€Lisa€Barrett,€the€trial€court€indicated€to€counsel€that€the€Child€Services€fileÐ h+¸&* Ðcontained€a€statement€regarding€the€victimsðð€father€being€accused€in€the€past.€€The€prosecutorÐ ° Ðreviewed€the€file€and€provided€a€copy€of€a€page€to€the€defendant,€stating€that€she€had€no€knowledgeÐ œì Ðof€the€information€until€then.€€She€said€it€was€an€allegation€against€the€father,€which€was€investigatedÐ ˆØ Ðand€found€to€be€baseless.€€She€told€the€defendant€that€he€could€review€all€the€fileððs€contents€if€he€soÐ tÄ Ðdesired.Ð `° ÐÌà  àLisa€Barrett€was€recalled€to€testify€in€a€jury„out€hearing.€€She€acknowledged€that€the€victimsððÐ 8 ˆ Ðfile€contained€a€complaint€of€sex€abuse€ð ðmany€years€agoðð€before€the€events€in€the€present€case.€€SheÐ $ t Ðsaid€that€the€case€investigator€had€told€her€that€the€complaint€had€been€validated.€€She€alsoÐ  ` Ðacknowledged€that€she€received€a€referral€in€March€1998€from€a€caller€who€felt€that€the€victimsððÐ ü L  Ðfather€may€have€been€abusing€them.€€She€said€she€returned€to€the€school€where€a€schoolmate€told€herÐ è 8  Ðthat€the€second€twin€had€said€that€her€father€had€sexually€abused€her.€€The€child€also€said€that€theÐ Ô$  Ðsecond€twin€was,€in€fact,€hiding€from€her€father.€€Ms.€Barrett€testified€that€she€spoke€with€the€twins,Ð À  Ðwho€denied€being€abused€by€their€father.€€She€testified€that€the€second€twin€denied€hiding€from€herÐ ¬ü  Ðfather€and€stated€that€they€were€playing€when€she€hid€in€the€basement.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€state€violated€his€discovery€rights€and€that€his€midtrialÐ pÀ Ðdiscovery€of€exculpatory€information€entitled€him€to€a€mistrial,€and€ultimately€a€new€trial,€in€orderÐ \¬ Ðto€investigate€the€other€claims€of€sex€abuse€and€assess€their€value€to€the€defense.€€The€state€pointsÐ H˜ Ðto€Ms.€Barrettððs€testimony€and€argues€that€no€information,€much€less€material€exculpatoryÐ 4„ Ðinformation,€was€withheld€from€the€defense.€€We€view€the€record€differently.€€The€evidence€reflectsÐ  p Ðthat€two€other€complaints€of€sex€abuse€regarding€the€victims€had€been€made,€one€a€case€worker€hadÐ  \ Ðð ðvalidatedðð€and€the€other€Ms.€Barrett€determined€to€be€unfounded.€€These€allegations€had€not€beenÐ øH Ðdisclosed€to€the€defendant,€who€certainly€was€not€bound€by€Ms.€Barrettððs€conclusions.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€problem€for€the€defendant,€though,€is€that€the€record€reflects€neither€the€existence€ofÐ ¼  Ðmaterial€exculpatory€information€nor€a€request€by€the€defendant€regarding€specific€information€ofÐ ¨ø Ðother€claims€of€abuse€of€the€victims€that€would€have€placed€the€state€on€notice€that€other€allegationsÐ ”ä Ðwould€be€of€significance€to€the€defendant.€€Constitutional€error€results€ð ðððif€there€is€a€reasonableÐ €Ð Ðprobability€that,€had€the€evidence€been€disclosed€to€the€defense,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€wouldÐ l¼ Ðhave€been€different.ðððð€€òòKyles€v.€Whitleyóó,€514€U.S.€419,€433„34,€115€S.€Ct.€1555,€1565€(1995)Ð X ¨ Ð(quoting€òòUnited€States€v.€Ô_ÔBagleyÔ_Ôóó,€473€U.S.€667,€682,€105€S.€Ct.€3375,€3383€(1985)).€€Although€weÐ D!” Ðagree€that€information€regarding€the€other€allegations€might€be€of€some€assistance€to€the€defense,€theÐ 0"€  Ðrecord€before€us€supports€no€more€than€just€that,€a€possibility€of€the€existence€of€exculpatoryÐ #l! Ðinformation.€€We€cannot€merely€speculate€that€the€substance€of€the€allegations€were€materiallyÐ $X" Ðexculpatory.€€The€trial€court€did€not€err€in€denying€the€defendant€a€mistrial€or€a€new€trial€because€ofÐ ô$D # Ðthis€claim.€€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà@µµ"ìàò òCLOSING€ARGUMENTó óˆÐ ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€prosecutor€made€improper€comments€in€her€closingÐ )à$( Ðargument€that€require€reversal,€noting€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€give€curative€instructions.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐSpecifically,€he€refers€to€four€instances€of€personal€comments€by€the€prosecutor€and€one€instance€thatÐ h+¸&* Ðhe€says€shows€the€prosecutor€told€the€jury€that€the€victims€could€not€live€with€an€acquittal.€€InÐ ° Ðresponse,€the€state€notes€that€the€defendant€did€not€object€to€several€of€the€comments.€€ItÐ œì Ðacknowledges€that€the€defendant€did€object€at€one€point€to€the€prosecutor€stating€her€opinion€that€theÐ ˆØ Ðvictimsðð€testimony€was€ð ðcompellingðð€and€to€argument€that€the€defendant€interprets€as€concern€forÐ tÄ Ðthe€victims€if€the€jury€acquits€the€defendant.€€The€state€argues,€though,€that€neither€the€argument€norÐ `° Ðthe€trial€courtððs€failure€to€give€a€curative€instruction€prejudiced€the€verdict.€€We€agree€with€the€state.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€did€not€object€to€three€of€the€four€comments€about€which€he€now€complainsÐ $ t Ðregarding€the€prosecutorððs€personal€opinion.€€He€did€object€to€the€following€argument:Ð  ` ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWeððve€got€the€testimony€of€the€three€girls.€Itððs€compelling€to€me.€€Itððs€Ð è 8  Ðno€doubt€that€that€happened.ÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌThe€defendant€also€complained€about€the€prosecutor€essentially€asking€the€jury€to€consider€theÐ ¬ü  Ðimpact€of€an€acquittal€on€the€victims.€€The€defendant€points€to€the€following€argument:Ð ˜è  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThese€children€are€looking€to€you€for€justice,€and€you€have€toÐ pÀ Ðdetermine€that.€€You€have€to€determine,€How€are€they€going€to€liveÐ \¬ Ðwith€this€from€here€on€out?€€Will€they€see€that€you€donððt€get€by€forÐ H˜ Ðwrong€things,€you€donððt€get€by€for€bad€deeds?€€Or€are€they€going€toÐ 4„ Ðsee€Ken€Chambly€go€free€for€something€that€he€has€done€in€violating€Ð  p Ðtheir€total€innocence?Ð \` x` x ÐÌThe€trial€court€agreed€with€the€defendantððs€objections€but€did€not€believe€that€a€curative€instructionÐ ä4 Ðwas€needed.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAssertions€of€personal€belief€by€an€attorney€regarding€credibility€of€witnesses€constituteÐ ¨ø Ðimproper€argument.€€òòSeeóó€òòLackey€v.€Stateóó,€578€S.W.€2d€101,€107€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€Also,Ð ”ä Ðasking€the€jury€to€consider€the€impact€of€an€acquittal€on€the€victims€is€improper€argument,€tendingÐ €Ð Ðto€risk€a€decision€based€upon€passion€and€not€upon€the€facts€and€the€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,Ð l¼ Ð995€S.W.2d€550,€559„60€(Tenn.€1999).€€But€to€rise€to€the€level€of€misconduct€that€would€requireÐ X ¨ Ðreversal€of€the€convictions,€prejudice€in€the€result€must€be€shown.€€òòSeeóó€òòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€215Ð D!” ÐTenn.€338,€340,€385€S.W.2d€758,€759€(1965).€€Succinctly€put,€we€do€not€believe€the€improperÐ 0"€  Ðargument€warrants€reversal.€€In€context,€the€argument€was€neither€flagrant€nor€of€long€duration€givenÐ #l! Ðthe€remaining€arguments.€€We€conclude€that€the€argument€does€not€affirmatively€appear€to€haveÐ $X" Ðeffected€the€results€of€the€trial.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€€52(a).Ð ô$D # ÐÌà@WW%ìàò òSENTENCINGó óˆÐ Ì&"% ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€relied€upon€inapplicable€enhancement€factors€inÐ ¤(ô#' Ðimposing€the€sentences.€€He€also€asserts€that€the€trial€court€ignored€applicable€mitigating€factors.€€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àAs€to€all€three€victims,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€defendant€had€treated€them€withÐ ° Ðâ âexceptional€cruelty€during€the€commission€of€the€offense€and€had€committed€the€offenses€to€gratifyÐ œì Ðhis€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(5),€(6).€€With€regard€to€theÐ ˆØ Ðhandicapped€twin,€the€trial€court€also€found€that€she€was€particularly€vulnerable€to€the€offenseÐ tÄ Ðbecause€of€her€disability.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(4).€€The€defendant€argues€that€there€isÐ `° Ðno€evidence€to€warrant€a€finding€of€particularly€great€injuries€and€that€the€gratification€aspect€to€theÐ L œ Ðconduct€is€already€contained€within€the€offense€itself.€€The€state€agrees,€but€it€notes€that€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðdefendant€does€not€contest€application€of€factor€(4)€to€the€second€twin.€€Also,€it€argues€thatÐ $ t Ðenhancement€factor€(15),€regarding€abuse€of€a€position€of€public€or€private€trust,€should€apply€ð ðbasedÐ  ` Ðon€defendantððs€close€relationship€with€the€family€and€his€clear€abuse€of€the€position€of€trust€that€heÐ ü L  Ðenjoyed€in€the€Griswold€home.ðð€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àWe€tend€to€agree€with€this€last€argument.€€In€òòState€v.€Kissingeróó,€922€S.W.2d€482,€488€(Tenn.Ð À  Ð1996),€the€court€gave€the€following€description€of€the€requisite€position€of€trust:Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€position€of€parent,€step„parent,€babysitter,€teacher,€coach€are€butÐ „Ô  Ða€few€obvious€examples.€€The€determination€of€the€existence€of€aÐ pÀ Ðposition€of€trust€does€not€depend€on€the€length€or€formality€of€theÐ \¬ Ðrelationship,€but€upon€the€nature€of€the€relationship.€€Thus,€the€courtÐ H˜ Ðshould€look€to€see€whether€the€offender€formally€or€informally€stoodÐ 4„ Ðin€a€relationship€to€the€victim€that€promoted€confidence,€reliability,Ð  p Ðor€faith.Ð \` x` x ÐÌIn€the€consolidated€case€regarding€Guy€Ô_ÔPhelanÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔRobersonÔ_Ô,€the€court€refused€to€apply€factor€(15),Ð ä4 Ðnoting€that€he€was€a€casual€visitor€in€the€home€and€that€no€proof€suggested€that€he€visited€frequentlyÐ Ð  Ðor€that€the€victim€or€other€children€at€the€home€were€placed€in€his€care.€€òòId.óó€at€489.€€In€this€respect,Ð ¼  Ðwe€believe€that€the€defendant€in€the€present€case€was€a€frequent€visitor€who€could€fall€within€theÐ ¨ø Ðparameters€of€òòKissingeróó.€€Thus,€we€acknowledge€the€application€of€factor€(15)€in€this€case.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àHowever,€we€disagree€with€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€apply€mitigating€factors.€€TheÐ l¼ Ðdefendant,€fifty„one€years€old€at€the€time€of€sentencing,€had€no€prior€criminal€record€of€any€type.€€HeÐ X ¨ Ðhad€a€good€work€record.€€The€probation€report€states€that€the€defendantððs€ex„wife€said€she€wasÐ D!” Ðshocked€and€surprised€that€the€defendant€was€found€guilty.€€She€stated€that€she€had€never€had€anyÐ 0"€  Ðindications€in€the€past€about€this€type€of€behavior€and€had€no€reason€to€believe€that€the€defendantÐ #l! Ðever€abused€his€own€daughter.€€We€note€that€several€character€witnesses€testified€at€the€defendantððsÐ $X" Ðtrial€on€his€behalf.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àAppellate€review€of€sentencing€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€on€the€record€with€a€presumption€that€the€trialÐ Ì&"% Ðcourtððs€determinations€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€However,€we€believe€the€trialÐ ¸'#& Ðcourt€incorrectly€applied€two€enhancement€factors€and€did€not€give€due€consideration€to€existingÐ ¤(ô#' Ðmitigating€factors.€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€presumption€of€correctness€falls€and€our€reviewÐ )à$( Ðis€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€upon€the€record.€€We€believe€that€the€record€supports€applying€enhancement€factor€(4)Ð |*Ì%) Ðregarding€the€second€twinððs€case,€given€her€handicap.€€However,€we€note€that€she€ultimately€testifiedÐ h+¸&* Ðagainst€the€defendant,€i.e.,€although€she€was€impaired,€she€maintained€the€ability€to€communicateÐ ° Ðwith€others.€€We€also€conclude€that€enhancement€factor€(15)€applies€in€all€the€cases,€although€theÐ œì Ðlevel€of€trust€involved€is€not€very€high.€€On€the€other€hand,€we€believe€that€the€absence€of€a€priorÐ ˆØ Ðcriminal€history,€the€past€steady€employment,€and€the€support€of€character€witnesses€provideÐ tÄ Ðconsiderable€mitigation.€€We€conclude€that€the€eight„year€sentences€are€supported€by€the€record€butÐ `° Ðthat€the€ten„year€sentence€should€be€reduced€to€nine€years.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€reverse€the€judgments€ofÐ $ t Ðconviction€and€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedings.ò òó óÐ  ` ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð À  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGE