ÿWPC# 5# öUN %O 0(Ub}w@…4ÅÙ 0lè 0DT˜ 0@  0Jà 0T* 0^~ 0hÜ 0rD 0|¶ 0†2 0¸ 1uH 0d½ B! D3> U>q U *¯ B)Ù AQ ÆS 0D 0D] D/¡ BÐ DCí AM0 5}  ²v~ÒvÓP˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- DED[Ó€ %B\J#Ôô3|x%((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" 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 'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d*+,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd((((7Border 1dd*/Cþÿ << Gÿÿ +Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òNovember€20,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ôÔ€€It€is€a€policy€of€this€Court€to€refer€to€child€sex€abuse€victims€by€their€initials€only.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€&ŠÔÔ€'ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€l©XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò ò›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€œJACKSON›ÌÙ€*ÙœßR€01/A1-j|„¼` Å `€€@ÿRߛ̜SEPTEMBER›€SESSION,€œ1997›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,›à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€œ02C01„9610„CC„00359›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœHENRY›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œJULIAN€P.€GUINNó ó›Ìò òœTERRELL€DION€COWANS,ó ó›à àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àœó ó(Rape€of€a€Child€&€AggravatedÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àSexual€Battery)ò ò›Ìó óÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌœCIRCUIT›€COURT€OF€œHENRY€COUNTY›ó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœGUY€T.€WILKINSON›à àà àà àœJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€663Ì117€Forrest€Avenue€Northà àà àEUGENE€J.€HONEAÌCamden,€TN€38320à àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à425€5th€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àROBERT€ð ðGUSðð€RADFORDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€686Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHuntingdon,€TN€38344›ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€'°Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€'ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€Defendant,€Terrell€Dion€Cowans,€was€convicted€of€œone€count›€of€rapeÏof€a€child€and€one€count€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€He€was€sentenced€asÏa€Range€I,€standard€offender€to€fifteen€(15)€years€for€the€rape€of€a€childÏconviction€and€eight€(8)€years€for€the€aggravated€sexual€battery€conviction,€toÏbe€served€concurrently.€€The€Defendant€appeals€his€convictions,€raising€fourÏissues:€(1)€That€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€grant€the€Defendantððs€motion€forÏa€new€trial€based€on€the€newly€discovered€evidence€that€one€of€the€victimsÏrecanted€her€testimony;€(2)€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€permitting€defenseÏcounsel€to€question€one€of€the€victims€about€an€alleged€pregnancy€by€anotherÏman;€(3)€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€suppress€statements€made€by€theÏDefendant;€and€(4)€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€a€verdict€of€guiltÏfor€both€convictions.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àOn€June€27,€1994,€œA.W.›€and€S.E.× ƒ2 ××  ×,€who€were€cousins,€were€at€A.W.ððsÏhouse€in€Paris,€Tennessee.€€That€morning,€the€two€girls€decided€to€walk€toÏA.W.ððs€uncleððs€house€nearby€to€get€some€money€for€food.€€Before€they€left,Ïeither€the€Defendant€called€€A.W.€or€A.W.€called€the€Defendant€on€theÍtelephone.€€She€had€met€him€at€Ralphððs€Golf.€€At€that€time,€A.W.€was€twelveÏ(12)€years€old,€S.E.€was€eleven€(11)€years€old,€and€the€Defendant€wasÏeighteen€(18)€years€old.€The€Defendant€told€A.W.€that€he€wanted€her€to€go€toÏanother€girlððs€house€and€knock€on€her€door€for€him.€€A.W.€did€not€know€who€theÏother€girl€was.ÌÌà àA.W.€took€S.E.€with€her€to€Bryan€Atkinsonððs€house€because€theÏDefendant€was€going€to€be€there€to€tell€her€where€the€other€girl€lived.€€S.E.€wasÏunaware€of€the€content€of€the€conversation€between€A.W.€and€the€DefendantÏand€A.W.€told€her€they€were€taking€a€shortcut€to€her€uncleððs€house.€€A.W.€andÏS.E.€went€to€Atkinsonððs€house€where€the€Defendant€was€waiting.€€A.W.€pulledÏS.E.€into€the€house.€€They€all€talked€together€in€Atkinsonððs€bedroom.€€TheÏDefendant€went€into€the€bathroom€and€told€A.W.€to€go€with€him€because€heÏneeded€to€talk€to€her.€The€bathroom€door€was€shut€and€the€light€was€on.€€TheÏDefendant€told€her€that€he€liked€S.E.€and€that€he€wanted€to€talk€to€S.E.€€€TheÏDefendant€was€wearing€pants€and€A.W.€was€wearing€shorts€and€a€shirt.€€S.E.Ïthought€she€heard€a€scream€while€A.W.€was€in€the€bathroom€with€theÏDefendant,€but€she€was€not€sure.ÌÌà àA.W.€left€the€bathroom€and€told€S.E.€that€the€Defendant€wanted€to€talk€toÏher.€€The€Defendant€told€S.E.€to€ð ðcome€hereðð€and€she€complied.€€The€DefendantÍpulled€S.E.€into€the€bathroom.€€A.W.€sat€in€Atkinsonððs€bedroom.€€The€DefendantÏappeared€to€be€wearing€a€pair€of€jogging€pants€and€S.E.€was€wearing€blueÏjean€shorts€and€a€shirt.€€The€Defendant€pushed€S.E.€down€on€the€floor.€€€HeÏheld€her€arms€down€above€her€head.€€The€Defendant€pulled€her€clothes€off€orÏdown.€€S.E.€could€not€recall€whether€the€Defendantððs€clothes€were€off€becauseÏthe€room€was€€dim.€€The€Defendant€fondled€S.E.ððs€breasts€over€her€shirt.€€SheÏcould€not€remember€whether€the€Defendant€exposed€or€touched€her€with€hisÏpenis.€€S.E.€told€him€to€ð ðlet€me€upðð€and€the€Defendant€allowed€her€to€get€up€andÏput€on€her€clothes.€€The€Defendant€said€something€œabout€ð ðstill›€friendsðð€and€S.E.Ïwalked€away.€€She€left€the€bathroom€and€went€outside€on€the€porch.€ÌÌà àA.W.€then€went€into€the€bathroom€to€talk€with€the€Defendant.€€He€told€her€Ïœhe€wanted›€to€have€sex.€œ€The›€door€was€shut.€€œA.W.›€replied€that€she€had€aÏboyfriend€and€did€not€want€to€have€sex€with€the€Defendant.€€The€DefendantÏpersisted€and€got€closer€to€A.W.€€He€pushed€her€either€against€the€sink€or€theÏtoilet€and€opened€her€shorts.€€A.W.€said€no€but€the€Defendant€was€holding€herÏhands.€€He€pulled€down€the€shorts€and€they€fell€down€farther.€€The€DefendantÏexposed€his€penis€and€then€penetrated€A.W.ððs€vagina€with€part€of€his€penis.€ÏA.W.€kept€saying€no€and€the€Defendant€withdrew€and€ejaculated.€€TheÏDefendant€apologized€and€said€he€ð ðgot€carried€away.ðð€€A.W.€was€crying€andÍleft€the€bathroom.€€She€left€and€caught€up€œwith›€S.E.€œwho€was€already›€walkingÏdown€the€alley€behind€the€house.ÌÌà àA.W.€asked€S.E.€if€something€happened€to€her€and€S.E.€said€nothingÏhad€happened.€€Later€that€day,€S.E.€told€her€stepmother€what€the€DefendantÏhad€done.€€Her€stepmother€and€father€took€her€to€the€hospital€œemergency€room›Ïlater€that€evening.€A.W.€also€went€to€the€hospital.€Carolyn€Gore€of€theÏDepartment€of€Human€œServicesðð›€child€abuse€investigation€division€interviewedÏboth€victims.€€œDr.›€Debra€Sue€Selby€conducted€pelvic€examinations€on€bothÏvictims€and€rape€kits€were€collected.€€Dr.€Selby€examined€S.E.€and€foundÏredness€at€the€entrance€of€the€vagina€as€well€as€superficial€lacerations€at€threeÏareas€as€well€as€on€the€right€labia€minora.€€The€hymen€was€red€but€intact.€€œDr.›ÏSelby€examined€A.W.€and€found€a€discharge€from€the€vagina€and€œfound€thatÏthe›€hymen€had€a€small€amount€of€tissue€left,€with€ragged€edges€and€a€veryÏlarge€opening€rather€than€a€small€opening€which€is€expected.€€There€wasÏpurulent€discharge€at€the€cervix.€€Dr.€Selby€noted€that€damage€to€the€hymenÏcould€be€due€to€causes€other€than€vaginal€penetration,€such€as€blunt€trauma.€ÏDr.€Selby€did€not€have€the€test€results€at€trial,€but€recalled€that€the€presence€ofÏsperm€was€not€detected€in€either€victim.ÌÌà àLieutenant€Eddie€Snow,€an€investigator€for€the€Paris€Police€Department,Ïwas€assigned€to€the€case.€€He€interviewed€Bryan€Atkinson€and€then€decided€toÏcontact€the€Defendant.€€Lieutenant€Snow€telephoned€the€Defendant€andÏrequested€that€he€come€to€the€police€department.€€The€Defendant€came€andÏspoke€with€Snow,€which€œconversation€was›€initially€not€recorded.€€LieutenantÏSnow€then€gave€the€Defendant€òòMirandaóó€warnings€before€he€agreed€to€makeÏan€audio€taped€statement.€€In€that€statement,€the€Defendant€admitted€that€heÏwas€at€Bryan€Atkinsonððs€house€when€the€victims€were€there.€€He€asked€A.W.Ïto€have€sex€with€him€and€she€agreed.€€They€went€into€the€bathroom€and€A.W.Ïwas€positioned€on€the€toilet.€€He€stated€that€A.W.€pulled€her€shorts€down€andÏhe€proceeded€to€penetrate€her€vaginally,€but€only€partially.€€He€stated€that€heÏthen€asked€A.W.€how€old€she€was€and€she€said€she€was€thirteen€(13).€€HeÏwithdrew,€but€denied€that€he€ejaculated.€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€denied€having€any€sexual€contact€with€S.E.€€He€statedÏthat€he€was€in€a€back€room€alone€with€her€for€a€brief€time€and€he€askedÏwhether€she€had€a€boyfriend€and€how€old€she€was.€€He€stated€that€S.E.€saidÏshe€was€thirteen.€€He€denied€touching€S.E.€or€exposing€his€penis€or€penetratingÏher€with€his€penis€or€his€fingers.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€was€indicted€on€July€5,€1995,€€for€one€count€of€rape€of€aÏchild€and€one€count€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€Defense€counsel€moved€toÏsuppress€the€Defendantððs€statement,€which€was€denied€by€the€trial€court€after€aÏhearing€on€the€motion€held€on€August€15,€1995.€€He€was€tried€by€a€HenryÏCounty€jury€on€November€8,€1995,€and€found€guilty€on€both€counts.€€TheÏDefendant€was€sentenced€to€fifteen€(15)€years€for€the€rape€of€a€child€convictionÏand€eight€(8)€years€for€the€aggravated€sexual€battery€conviction.€ÌÌÓ  ÓI.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àIn€his€first€issue€in€this€appeal,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€by€failing€to€grant€a€new€trial€based€on€newly€discovered€evidence.€€In€hisÏmotion€for€new€trial€the€Defendant€alleged€that€there€was€newly€discoveredÏevidence€in€the€form€of€A.W.ððs€recantation€of€her€testimony€at€trial.€€It€wasÏsubmitted€as€an€affidavit€for€consideration€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion.€€TheÏcontents€of€the€affidavit€in€pertinent€part€is€as€follows:ÌÌÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓTerrell€Dion€Cowans€and€I,€œ[A.W.],›€are€friends.€€He€was€talking€to€meÏabout€another€girl€on€that€day.€€He€did€not€rape€me,€he€did€not€evenÏtouch€me.€€When€night€came€the€police€came€and€got€me€and€took€meÏto€the€hospital,€I€was€shocked.€€Terrell€and€I€did€not€have€intercourse.€ÏHe€did€not€rape€me.€€Carolyn€Gore€told€us€that€the€test€showed€I€œhadÏhad›€intercourse.€€I€tried€to€tell€Ms.€Gore,€the€social€worker,€that€it€did€notÏhappen€and€she€would€not€listen.€€Randy€Shankle€heard€myÍconversation€with€Ms.€Gore.€€We€were€at€my€house€when€thisÏconversation€took€place.€€She€said€it€was€too€late,€the€trial€is€over.Ì.€.€.ÌI€swear€that€I€am€telling€the€truth€and€I€want€to€do€the€right€thing.€€IÏhave€told€my€grandmother,€my€uncle,€and€my€friends€that€he€did€not€doÏanything€to€me.€€Mrs.€Gore€kept€on€pressuring€me€at€the€EmergencyÏRoom.€€She€told€me€what€to€say.€€I€even€told€Mrs.€Gore€after€the€trialÏthat€I€didnððt€think€it€was€fair€and€she€said€it€was€too€late.ÌÓÓ.€.€.€.ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÌà àThe€Defendant€asserts€that€this€newly€discovered€evidence€entitles€œhim›€toÏa€new€trial.€€The€decision€to€grant€or€deny€a€new€trial€on€the€basis€of€newlyÏdiscovered€evidence€is€a€matter€which€rests€in€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trialÏcourt.€€òòState€v.€Goswickóó,€656€S.W.2d€355,€358€(Tenn.€1983).€€To€acquire€a€newÏtrial€as€of€right€based€on€newly€discovered€evidence,€a€defendant€mustÏdemonstrate€(1)€reasonable€diligence€in€seeking€the€newly€discovered€evidence;Ï(2)€materiality€of€the€evidence;€and€(3)€that€the€evidence€will€likely€change€theÏresult€of€the€trial.€€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€737€(Tenn.€1994);€òòGoswickóó,Ï656€S.W.2d€at€358„360.€€A€new€trial€will€not€be€granted€on€œthe€basis€of€newly›Ïdiscovered€evidence€when€the€effect€is€merely€to€impeach€a€witnessðð€testimonyÏat€trial€unless€the€impeaching€evidence€is€so€crucial€to€the€defendantððs€guilt€orÏinnocence€that€its€admission€would€change€the€outcome€of€the€case.€€òòState€v.ÏSingletonóó,€853€S.W.2d€490,€496€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Rogersóó,€703€S.W.2dÏ166,€169€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).ÌÌà àœAt€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€a€new€trial,€no›€oral€testimony€wasÏpresented,€and€the€trial€court€resolved€the€issue€œbased€upon›€the€affidavit.€€ÏTherefore,€the€rule€vesting€controlling€discretion€in€the€trial€judge€does€not€governÏon€appeal,€and€whether€the€requirements€have€been€fulfilled€becomes€aÏquestion€of€law.€€òòGoswickóó,€656€S.W.2d€at€359;€€òòState€v.€Holtóó,€801€S.W.2d€518,Ï521€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€In€refusing€to€grant€a€new€trial,€the€trial€judgeÏstated€on€the€record€that:ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ` °¸ ™XÓÓÓ[Y]ouððve€got€the€obvious€problem€that€arises€from€time€to€time€of€the€so„called€recanting€victim.€€And€it€was€a€subject€that€could€have€easilyÏbeen€explored€had€it€been€done€at€the€time€of€trial.€€As€a€matter€of€fact,Ïthe€law€says€that€it€should€have€been€done€at€that€time.€€And€havingÏonce€taken€the€sworn€testimony€that€law€is€very€loathe€to€now€takeÏsomebodyððs€recantation€by€swearing€that€they€swore€to€a€lie,Ïparticularly€when€it€could€have€been€taken€care€of€appropriately€as€isÏrequired€by€law€at€the€time€of€the€trial.ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ ` °œXÓÓÓÌÌÌà àWe€agree€that€the€Defendant€had€an€opportunity€at€trial€to€cross„examineÏthe€victim€to€determine€the€veracity€of€her€testimony.€€€Even€if€we€were€toÏassume€that€the€Defendant€could€not€have€obtained€the€new€information€€withÏreasonable€diligence,€we€do€not€believe€a€new€trial€was€warranted.€€ÏObviously,€the€accusations€made€by€the€victim€were€highly€material€to€the€case.€ÏYet,€no€recantation€of€the€victimððs€testimony€can€alter€the€fact€that€the€DefendantÍhimself€admitted€to€penetrating€the€victim.€€Circumstantial€evidence€obtained€fromÏthe€medical€examination€also€corroborated€the€allegation€that€a€penetrationÏoccurred.€€Finally,€all€of€the€persons€present€when€the€act€occurred€testified€orÏmade€statements€that€the€Defendant€and€A.W.€were€in€the€bathroom€together.€ÏTherefore,€we€do€not€believe€that€evidence€that€the€victim€recanted€would€likelyÏchange€the€result€of€the€trial.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓII.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àAs€his€second€issue,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€notÏpermitting€defense€counsel€to€question€the€victim,€A.W.,€about€her€allegedÏpregnancy€by€another€man.€€The€record€reflects€that€defense€counsel€raised€theÏissue€after€the€close€of€the€proof.€€Defense€counsel€informed€the€trial€judge€thatÏBryan€Atkinson€told€her€that€A.W.€was€pregnant.€€Bryan€Atkinson€testified€in€aÏjury„out€hearing€that€ð ðI€might€have€heard€some€talk€at€schoolðð€approximatelyÏð ðtwo€or€three€months€ago.ðð€€The€offense€in€question€occurred€on€June€27,€1994,Ïand€the€trial€was€conducted€on€November€8,€1995.€€The€trial€court€concludedÏthat€the€information€was€merely€a€rumor€as€the€witness€admitted.€€He€found€thatÏthe€evidence€did€not€comport€with€the€requirements€of€Rule€412€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.€€Finally,€the€trial€judge€stated€that€the€allegationÏwas€irrelevant€and€immaterial€to€the€prosecution€being€conducted.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€under€œRule›€412€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏEvidence,€he€should€have€been€allowed€to€question€the€victim€at€trial€regardingÏspecific€instances€of€conduct€under€an€exception€for€newly€discovered€evidence.€ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€412(d)(1)(I).€€The€State€counters€that€Rule€412€does€not€apply€toÏthe€offense€of€rape€of€a€child.€€The€language€of€Rule€412€states€that€it€appliesÏwhen€ð ða€person€is€accused€of€an€offense€under€€T.C.A.€ðððð€39„13„502Ï[aggravated€rape],€39„13„503€[rape],€39„13„504€[aggravated€sexual€battery],Ï39„13„505€[sexual€battery],€39„13„507€[spousal€sexual€offenses],€or€the€attemptÏto€commit€any€such€offense.ðð€€€Tenn.€R.€Evid€412.€€€Rape€of€a€child,€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€39„13„522,€is€not€one€of€the€œoffenses€enumerated.›€€òòSeeÏalsoóó€òòState€v.€Jason€Adam€Brinkley,€Jr.,€A.K.A.€ð ðBubbaððóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9307„CC„00231,€Sumner€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€July€14,Ï1995)(Rule€412€held€inapplicable€to€statutory€rape).€€However,€we€find€thatÏthere€is€a€distinction€between€òòBrinkleyóó€and€the€case€at€bar.ÌÌà àWe€first€note€that€the€offense€of€rape€of€a€child€was€enacted€by€theÏGeneral€Assembly€in€1992€and€codified€as€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÏ39„13„522.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts€1992,€ch.€878€ðð€1.€€€Prior€to€that,€the€offenseÏnow€embodied€in€section€39„13„522€was€contained€within€the€offense€ofÏaggravated€rape€before€it€was€œrecodified.›€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„502(a)(4)€(Supp.€1991).€€€Rule€412€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€wasÏestablished€in€1991€to€replace€the€rape€shield€statute€contained€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€40„17„119.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€œEvid.›€412,€AdvisoryÏCommission€Comment.€€The€comment€contains€no€reference€to€rape€of€a€child.€ÏAlthough€we€cannot€determine€why€rape€of€a€child€has€been€omitted,€weÏbelieve€that€Rule€412€should€govern€evidentiary€rulings€for€the€offense,€ratherÏthan€the€general€application€of€Rule€404(a)(2).€œ€This›€œinterpretation€avoids›€theÏillogical€result€that€would€œotherwise€occur›€in€this€case.€€Here,€the€evidenceÏregarding€S.E.,€the€victim€of€the€aggravated€sexual€battery€would€be€governedÏby€Rule€412€because€that€offense€is€one€of€the€enumerated€offenses€under€theÏrule.€€However,€evidence€regarding€A.W.,€the€victim€of€the€rape€of€a€child,€wouldÏbe€admitted€only€œby€way€of›€Rule€404(a)(2).ÌÌà àTherefore,€we€shall€consider€the€Defendantððs€argument€that€the€evidenceÏshould€have€been€admitted€under€Rule€412.€€The€Defendant€argues€that€RuleÏ412€sets€out€the€procedure€for€questioning€a€victim€about€specific€instances€ofÏconduct.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid€412(c)(4)(I).€€The€Defendant€contends€thatÏevidence€of€the€victimððs€pregnancy€would€rebut€medical€evidence€introduced€atÏtrial.€€He€explains€that€his€failure€to€file€a€motion€ten€days€before€the€trial€can€beÏexplained€because€the€evidence€was€newly€discovered€and€could€not€haveÍbeen€obtained€through€the€exercise€of€due€diligence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï412(d)(1)(I).ÌÌà àWe€cannot€agree.€€€€The€œDefendant€did€not€make€the›€motion€in€a€timelyÏmanner.€€The€Defendant€argues€that€trial€counsel€heard€this€information€the€dayÏbefore€trial€and€could€not€conduct€an€investigation.€€€However,€we€see€noÏreason€why€the€Defendant€was€prevented€from€interviewing€the€StateððsÏwitnesses€prior€to€trial€to€obtain€additional€information€about€the€victim.€€There€areÏvalid€policy€reasons€for€the€rule,€especially€in€this€kind€of€case.€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏGussie€Willis€Vannóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9408„CR„00279,€Bradley€County€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Sept.€18,€1995);€òòState€v.€Stephen€Ray€œStampsóó,€C.C.A.›ÏNo.€02C01„9301„CC„00002,€Henry€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€MarchÏ2,€1994),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994).€As€the€State€points€out,€theÏproffered€testimony€of€Bryan€Atkinson€did€not€necessarily€indicate€that€theÏpregnancy€was€due€to€sexual€activity€prior€to€this€offense.€€€There€is€noÏindication€it€would€rebut€the€medical€testimony.€œ€It€is€clear€that€if€the€victim€wasÏpregnant€at€the€time€of€trial,€it€could€not€be€considered€as€evidence€of€the€victimððsÏsexual€activity€prior€to€the€offense.€€The€trial€was€conducted€more€than€fifteenÏmonths€after€the€offense.€›€€Finally,€the€trial€court€made€a€finding€that€theÏinformation€was€an€unsubstantiated€rumor€and€was€irrelevant€to€the€case€beingÏtried.€€It€is€settled€œthat›€the€admissibility€of€evidence€œand€the€scope€of€cross„examination€rests›€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court€which€will€beÏreversed€only€for€an€abuse€of€such€discretion.€€€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2dÏ947,€949€(Tenn.€1978).€€€We€œcannot€conclude€that›€the€trial€judge€abused€hisÏdiscretion,€therefore,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓIII.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àNext,€the€Defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€toÏsuppress€his€statement€as€violating€his€Fifth€Amendment€rights€because€it€wasÏnot€freely€and€voluntarily€given.€€The€Fifth€Amendment€to€the€Constitution€asÏapplied€to€the€States€through€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€insures€that€theÏaccused€may€not€be€compelled€to€be€a€witness€against€himself.€€€TheÏTennessee€Constitution€also€provides€that€a€defendant€cannot€be€compelled€toÏgive€evidence€against€himself.€€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€9.€€The€accused€mayÏwaive€these€rights,€but€the€waiver€must€be€made€ð ðvoluntarily,€knowingly,€andÏintelligentlyðð€and€ð ðthe€accused€must€be€adequately€and€effectively€apprised€ofÏhis€rights€and€the€exercise€of€those€rights€must€be€fully€honored.ðð€€òòMiranda€v.ÏArizonaóó,€œ384›€U.S.€436,€444,€467,€86€S.Ct.€1602,€1612,€œ1624,›€16€L.Ed.2dÏ694,706,€719€(1966).€ÌÌà àThe€voluntariness€test€under€the€Tennessee€Constitution€is€moreÏprotective€of€individual€rights€than€the€test€under€the€Fifth€Amendment.€€òòState€v.ÏStephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€544€(Tenn.€1994);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Crumpóó,€834ÏS.W.2d€265,€268€(Tenn.€1992);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€834€S.W.2d€915€(Tenn.€1992).€€AÏwaiver€is€valid€if€the€suspect€is€aware€of€the€nature€of€the€right€beingÏabandoned€and€the€consequences€of€the€decision€to€abandon€the€right.€€òòId.óó€atÏ547.€€œIn›€assessing€whether€a€waiver€of€œthe€right›€was€voluntary,€we€must€lookÏat€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€relinquishment€of€the€œright.€ÏòòState›€v.€Bentonóó,€759€S.W.2d€427,€431„32€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€œ1988).›€ÌÌà àA€hearing€on€the€motion€to€suppress€was€held€on€August€15,€1995.€€€TheÏDefendant€testified€that€he€was€asked€to€come€to€the€police€department.€€HeÏwas€placed€in€a€small€interview€room.€€Lieutenant€Snow€and€another€officerÏwere€present.€€Snow€was€wearing€a€uniform€and€his€service€revolver.€€€€HeÏtestified€that€the€officers€told€him€it€would€be€easier€if€he€talked€with€them.€€HeÏstated€that€he€was€nervous.€€He€also€testified€that€he€was€not€informed€that€heÏcould€have€a€lawyer€but€that€he€understood€he€could€remain€silent€and€leaveÏfreely.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€the€Defendant€was€presented€with€the€waiver€ofÏrights€form€bearing€his€signature.€€He€admitted€that€he€read€the€form,€understoodÍthat€it€waived€his€right€to€an€attorney€and€to€remain€silent,€and€signed€it.€€TheÏinterview€was€audio€taped,€including€Lieutenant€Snow€informing€the€DefendantÏabout€his€rights.€€The€Defendant€testified€that€he€could€not€remember€his€waivingÏhis€rights,€but€did€acknowledge€the€following€portion€of€the€statements€read€toÏhim€by€the€assistant€district€attorney€:€ð ðððAnd€you€signed€the€waiver.€€And€then€IÏasked€you€after€reading€the€statement€that€you€understood€your€rights,€were€youÏwilling€to€talk€to€me,€and€you€said€that€you€were.€€And€since€then€weððve€had€aÏconversation?ðð€And€you€said,€ððYes,€sir.ððððÌÌà àLieutenant€Snow€testified€that€he€read€the€waiver€of€rights€form€to€theÏDefendant€before€he€interviewed€him.€€He€testified€that€he€explained€the€formÏand€the€Defendant€signed€it.€€He€denied€that€he€forced€or€coerced€or€promisedÏleniency€to€obtain€the€Defendantððs€statement.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€overruled€the€Defendantððs€motion€to€suppress.€€œThe›€trialÏjudge€assumed€that€the€Defendant€had€been€seized,€yet€still€determined€that€theÏòòMirandaóó€requirements€had€been€met.€€In€this€appeal,€the€State€questionsÏwhether€òòMirandaóó€warnings€were€required€if€the€Defendant€offered€to€come€to€theÏpolice€department€to€be€interviewed.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€937€S.W.2d€851,Ï853€(Tenn.€1996).€€Nevertheless,€the€officers€proceeded€as€if€the€interview€wereÏcustodial€and€read€and€explained€to€the€Defendant€his€constitutional€rights€asÍrequired€by€òòMirandaóó.€€The€Defendant€argues€that€his€young€age€of€eighteenÏand€œother›€circumstances€should€be€weighed€against€the€appearance€that€heÏvoluntarily€gave€the€statement.€€However,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€recordÏsupports€a€finding€that€the€Defendant€was€coerced€or€promised€anything€thatÏwould€render€his€statements€involuntary.€€Furthermore,€the€Defendant€himselfÏadmitted€that€he€understood€that€he€was€relinquishing€his€right€to€remain€silent.€ÏWhen€considering€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€we€can€only€conclude€thatÏthe€trial€court€did€not€err€in€denying€the€Defendantððs€motion€to€suppress.Ó  ÓœIV.›ÌÓ  ÓÌà àFinally,€the€Defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€toÏsupport€a€verdict€of€guilt.€€€When€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€theÏconvicting€evidence,€the€standard€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€theÏlight€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€foundÏthe€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.ÏVirginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979).€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€theÏwitnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factualÏissues€raised€by€the€evidence,€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€ÏòòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€Nor€may€thisÏcourt€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,Ï835€(Tenn.€1978).€€ÌÌà àIn€order€to€support€a€conviction€for€rape€of€a€child,€the€State€was€requiredÏto€prove€that€there€was€an€ð ðunlawful€sexual€penetration€of€a€victim€by€theÏdefendant€or€the€defendant€by€a€victim,€if€such€victim€is€less€than€thirteen€(13)Ïyears€of€age.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„522(a).€€The€testimony€at€trial€showedÏthat€the€victim,€A.W.,€was€twelve€years€old€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€œShe›Ïœtestified›€that€the€Defendant€penetrated€her€vagina€with€his€penis.€€œTheÏDefendantððs€statement€corroborated€her€testimony.€€The›€Defendant€argues€thatÏA.W.ððs€statements€prior€to€and€after€the€trial€were€inconsistent€with€her€trialÏtestimony.€€However,€the€assessment€of€credibility€of€witnesses€lies€within€theÏprovince€of€the€jury.€€Apparently,€the€jury€resolved€this€conflict€in€favor€of€theÏState.Ìà àÌà àThe€Defendant€also€challenges€the€conviction€for€aggravated€sexualÏbattery.€€The€State€is€required€to€prove€the€elements€of€the€crime€that€there€is€Ïð ðunlawful€sexual€contact€with€a€victim€by€the€defendant€or€the€defendant€by€aÏvictimðð€and€that€ð ð[t]he€victim€is€less€than€thirteen€(13)€years€of€age.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„13„504(a)(4).€€"ððSexual€contactðð€includes€the€intentional€touching€of€theÏvictim's,€the€defendant's,€or€any€other€person's€intimate€parts,€or€the€intentionalÏtouching€of€the€clothing€covering€the€immediate€area€of€the€victim's,€theÏdefendant's,€or€any€other€person's€intimate€parts,€if€that€intentional€touching€canÏbe€reasonably€construed€as€being€for€the€purpose€of€sexual€arousal€orÍgratification.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„501(6).€€"ððIntimate€partsðð€includes€theÏprimary€genital€area,€groin,€inner€thigh,€buttock€or€breast€of€a€human€being.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„501(2).ÌÌà àThe€testimony€at€trial€revealed€that€S.E.€was€eleven€years€old€at€the€timeÏthe€offense€occurred.€€She€testified€that€the€Defendant€forced€her€onto€the€floor€ofÏthe€bathroom€and€fondled€her€breasts€on€top€of€her€clothes.€€This€is€clearlyÏsufficient€proof€to€establish€the€elements€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€Again,Ïthe€Defendant€challenges€details€of€the€trial€testimony,€suggesting€that€thereÏwere€inconsistencies€regarding€whether€S.E.€screamed€while€she€was€in€theÏbathroom.€€He€also€points€to€S.E,ððs€frequent€answers€of€ð ðI€donððt€knowðð€toÏquestions€about€the€details€of€the€incident,€thus€making€her€testimony€suspect.€ÏAgain,€we€must€conclude€that€judgments€regarding€credibility€of€witnesses€are€toÏbe€made€by€the€jury.€€We€will€not€disturb€these€conclusions€on€appeal.€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà à€œÓ  Ó›ÌÌÓÓœà àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÌÌÌÌ›à àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGE›ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE›