WPCu {K*p{E/ue9h0*bNE[vlrU@ 00b8888888888 0Y@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@      0 By 0z D3 D-Q 0K~~ AS 0 0D AHP LaserJet 8000,,,,,,0,s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularyfs," C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  (O$ Rܻ$      1  $   __ ` Thevictimhadjustturnedsevenyearsoldatthetimeoftrial.\  `&Times New Roman X (9 Z(Times New Roman 0.Normal- -64Hyperlink    7420-74953-6317420-87420-9clsccl2(|G2ܻ$ !.8$dXXd8         0  , d o Rܻ$      2  $   _ ` Furthermore,asaggravatedsexualbatteryisalesserincludedoffenseofrapeofachild,seeStatev.  JoeyL._Salcido_,No.M1999-00501-CCA-R3-CD,2001WL227357at*7(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,Mar.8,2001) x (findingspecificallythat [_a]ggravated_Ԁsexualbatteryis,therefore,alesser-includedoffenseofrapeofachild),the @ juryconceivablycouldhavefoundthattheeitheroftheothertwoinstancesofsexualabusewereaggravatedsexual X battery,ratherthanrapeofachild.Accordingly,wecannotdeterminewhichofthethreeinstancesthejuryreliedupon   whenfindingthedefendantguiltyofaggravatedsexualbattery.Therefore,wemustremandthiscaseforanewtrial  onbothcountsoftheindictment,rapeofachildandaggravatedsexualbattery. `  (|3l$ !.8$dXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3l$ !.8$dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8ddd8     _   d8XXdd8@ttdINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#d#Ԉ ,    @  @` AssignedonBriefsFebruary6,2001 X XXd #dXX0#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.SYLVESTERFORDXXd   ` @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforChesterd  ލ5TrialCourtCountye  ހCounty  h @@No.99310 @ 0 @ RoyMorgan,Jr.d  ލ6TrialCourtNumbere  d  ލ7TrialJudge'sNamee  ,Judged  ލ8TrialJudgeOfficee    X @@*AV) ` dE<` A (  @@TTNo.d  ލ9AppealNumbere  ހW200001175CCAR3CDFiledApril17,2002 '  AV) ` dE<` A       X5SXXXThedefendant,SylvesterFord,wastriedbyjuryandfoundguiltyofonecountofrapeofachildand  onecountofaggravatedsexualbattery. Thetrialcourtsentencedthedefendanttoservetwentyyears  asaRangeIoffender. Thedefendantfiledatimelymotionfornewtrial,whichthetrialcourtdenied.  Thedefendantnowbringsthisappeal,allegingthatheshouldreceiveanewtrialbecausethetrial ~ courtcommittedplainerrorbyfailingtorequirethestatetoelectwhichactsthejuryshouldconsider j tosupportthedefendantsindictedoffenses.Thedefendantsubsequentlyfiledawritoferror  coram V _nobis_,andthetrialcourtdeniedthedefendantspetition,findingthatthepetitionwasuntimelyfiled B anddidnotallegeinformationthatwouldwarrantanewtrial.Afterreviewingtherecord,wefind .~ thatthedefendantsdirectappealclaimhasmeritandwarrantsanewtrial,and,therefore,weneed j notaddressthemeritsofthedefendantscoram_nobis_petition.#XXX X5S##dXXӦ#XXd V  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRightd  ލ11LegalBasisforAppeale  ;Judgmentofthed  ލ12Judgmente  CircuitCourtisReversedand 2 Remanded.  "   d  ލ13e  #dX #XX.dJerryL.Smith,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJosephM._Tipton_ԀandJoeG.Riley,  JJ.,joined.   C.MichaelRobbins,Memphis,Tennessee,onappeal;GeorgeM._Googe_,DistrictPublicDefender; "! andStephenP._Spracher_,AssistantPublicDefender,Jackson,Tennessee,attrialandonappeal,for r#" appellant,SylvesterFord. b$# PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;J.RossDyer,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;Jerry B&!% _Woodall_,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andJodyS.Pickens,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,for 2'"& appellee,StateofTennessee. "(r#' @* -)- Ї@55' OPINION   D   X5SXXX  @  (Facts     Thedefendantisthefatherofthethensixyearoldvictim. #  1      ׀ OnJune3,1999,thedefendant h returnedhomefromwork,showered,andchangedintoarobe,aswashiscustom. Thevictims T  motherhadjustbathedher,andshewasdressedinateeshirtandherkaraterobe. Thevictims @  motherwentintoanotherroomtobreastfeedheryoungestchild,leavingthedefendantandthe , | victimaloneinaroomtogether. Whenthevictimsmotherreturnedtotheroom,shefoundthe  h defendant,whowascompletelynaked,withthevictim,whowassittingonthedefendantslap,  X  facinghim. Thevictimsshirtwasaboveherwaist,andthedefendantwasrubbinghispenisagainst  D  thevictimsvagina. Attrial,boththevictimandhermotherrecountedthisincidentintheir 0  testimony. Thevictimalsotestifiedabouttwoadditionalinstancesofsexualabusethatoccurredon   nightsotherthanthenightreferredtointheindictment.Ononeoftheseoccasionsthedefendant   forcedthevictimtosuck onit, whileonanotheroccasionthedefendantlickedher bodypart.      Thedefendantwasindictedforonecountofrapeofachildandonecountofaggravated   sexualbattery. TheindictmentstatesthatbothinstancesoccurredonoraboutJune3,1999.Pre | trial,defensecounselmovedtoexcludeallreferencestoanyotherallegedvictimsorinstancesof h sexualabuseotherthanthoseincludedintheindictment. Thetrialcourtruledthatsuchreferences T shouldbeexcluded. Becausethetrialcourtlaterallowedthevictimtotestifyaboutotherinstances @ ofsexualabuseinadditiontothosethatoccurredonthedatenamedintheindictment,thedefendant ,| bringsthisappeal,allegingthatthetrialcourtsfailuretorequirethestatetoelectamongthese h offensesconstitutedplainerror.Wemustagreethatthetrialcourtdidcommitsucherror;therefore, T weremandthiscaseforanewtrial. @   Asnotedsupra,thedefendanthasalsobroughtapetitionforwritoferrorcoram_nobis_, , seekinganewtrialonthebasisofnewlydiscoveredinformation.PursuanttoStatev._Mixon_,983  S.W.2d661,663(Tenn.1999),thisCourtstayedthedefendantsdirectappealuntiltheresolution  ofthedefendantspetition.Inhispetition,thedefendantincludedthestatementofMs.Denise  Carroll,whostatedthatthevictimadmittedthatshehadfabricatedtheallegationsofsexualabuse  andthatshehaddonesoathermothersinstruction.Ms.Carrollalsostatedthatthevictimsmother x admittedthatthedefendanthadneversexuallyabusedAmanda.Thetrialcourtdeniedthe d  defendantspetitionbecauseitwasuntimelyfiledandbecauseitalsofailedtoallegeabasisfor P! grantinganewtrial,asthepetitionassertedimpeachmentevidenceasopposedtoawitness <"  recantation.Thedefendantalsoappealsthetrialcourtsdenialofthispetition.Therefore,the (#x! defendantsdirectappealandtheappealofhiscoram_nobis_petitionarenowbothbeforethisCourt. $d" However,in_Mixon_,oursupremecourtstated: %P # 8  [ S#XXX X5S#X5SXXX_W]hen_Ԁaconvicteddefendantfilesapetitionforwritoferrorcoram_nobis_inthetrial &("% court,heorshemustsimultaneouslyfileamotionintheappellatecourttostaythe '#& appealasofrightuntilconclusionofthecoram_nobis_proceedinginthetrialcourt. ($' Themotiontostaywillgenerallybegrantedbytheappellatecourt.If,asinthiscase, )$( anappealistakenfromthetrialcourtsdenialofthepetitionforwritoferrorcoram  _nobis_,itwillbeconsolidatedwiththeappealasofright.Becausecoram_nobis_isan  extraordinaryremedytowhichresortshouldbehadonlyifnootherremedyis  available,uponreview,theappellatecourtmustfirstaddresstheissuesraisedinthe t defendantsappealasofright.Ifnoneofthoseissuesaremeritorioustheappellate ` courtmustthenaddresstheissuesraisedinthedefendant'scoram_nobis_appeal.#XXXX5S.!# X5SXXXL    _Mixon_,983S.W.2dat663.Implicitintheabovequoteisthenotionthatifthedirectappealhas   meritandanewtrialiswarrantedonthatbasis,the_corum_Ԁ_nobis_proceedingismoreorlessmoot.   Accordingly,wefirstwilladdressthedefendantsdirectappeal.Becausewefindthatthe    defendantsdirectappealissueismeritoriousandwarrantsanewtrial,weneednotaddressthe   denialofthedefendantspetitionforwritoferrorcoram_nobis_. z    ElectionofOffenses  H      Oursupremecourthasrecentlyoutlinedboththehistoryandthenecessityoftheelection v requirement: b )  #XXX X5Sb&#X5SXXX0   ` )Q*  ThisCourthasconsistentlyheldthattheprosecutionmustelectthefactsuponwhich  itisrelyingtoestablishthechargedoffenseifevidenceisintroducedattrialindicatingthat i thedefendanthascommittedmultipleoffensesagainstthe% K %K,victim.SeeStatev.Kendrick,38 1 S.W.3d566,568(Tenn.2001);Statev.Brown,992S.W.2d389,391(Tenn.1999);Statev. m Walton,958S.W.2d724,727(Tenn.1997);Tidwellv.State,922S.W.2d497,500(Tenn.  Y 1996);Statev.Shelton,851S.W.2d134,137(Tenn.1993).% L %L-ԀTheelectionrequirement E safeguardsthedefendant'sstateconstitutionalrighttoaunanimousjuryverdictbyensuring 1 thatjurorsdeliberateandrenderaverdictbasedonthesameevidence.Brown,992S.W.2d  at391.   )Q**݌ (#(# Ќ  0   ` TheelectionrequirementwasfirstadoptedinJamisonv.State,117Tenn.58,94 4 _S.W._Ԁ675(1906).ThisCourtinJamisonheldthatproofofallsexualactsallegedly   committedbythedefendantagainstthevictimcouldbeadmittedintoevidence,buttoavoid !  theprosecutionofunchargedsexcrimes,theStatewasrequiredtoelectthespecificactupon " whichitwasrelyingtoobtainaguiltyverdict.Jamison,94S.W.at676.SinceJamison,the # electionrequirementhasbeenappliedalmostexclusivelyinthesexcrimescontext,and $  specifically,whenthedefendantis% M %M32allegedtohavecommittedaseriesofsexualactsovera l% ! lengthyperiodoftimeagainstyoungchildrenwhoareunabletoidentifytheexactdateon X&!" whichanyoneactwasperpetrated.See,e.g.,Brown,992S.W.2dat389(findingthatthetrial D'"# courterredinfailingtorequireanelectionwhenthedefendantwaschargedwithrapeofa 0(#$ childinaonecountindictmentthatcoveredasixmonthtimeframe,buttheproofshowed )l$% thatatleastteninstancesofdigitalpenetrationoccurredduringthesixmonthsalleged,five *X%& occurringononedayandfiveothersondifferentdays);Walton,958S.W.2dat724(finding *D&' anelectionshouldhavebeenrequiredwheresexualoffenseswerechargedinamulticount, +0'( openendedindictmentandwherethechildvictimtestifiedshewasrapedbythedefendant  orthatheperformedcunnilingusonheronadailybasisforoverayear);Statev.Burlison,  501S.W.2d801,804(Tenn.1973)(findinganelectionshouldhavebeenrequiredwherethe  defendantwaschargedwithhaving carnalknowledgeofthevictimon diversdays t betweenthesummerof1964andAugust,1969,buttheproofdidnotshowanyparticular ` % N %N7date). L  _ In1994,thisCourtoverruledJamisontotheextentithadestablisheda sexcrimes $ t exceptionthatpermittedproofofallsexualactsallegedlycommittedbythedefendant  ` againstthevictim,whetherchargedoruncharged.SeeStatev._Rickman_,876S.W.2d824,  L  829(Tenn.1994)(overrulingJamison).Nonetheless,werecognizedin_Rickman_that% O %OL:4 [!O  5  _6j:~:eal  7 [!:outof  8  necessityindictmentsoftenchargegeneraltimeframesthatencompassseveralmonths.In $  thoseinstances,weconcludedthattheStatemayintroduceevidenceofsexcrimesallegedly   committedagainstthevictimduringthetimeframechargedintheindictment,but,atthe   closeoftheproof,theStatemustelectthefactsuponwhichitisrelyingforconviction.Id. (#(# Statev.Johnson,53S.W.3d628,631(Tenn.2001). f   Intheinstantcase,thetrialcourt,incontraventionofitsrulingin_limine_,allowedthestate  tointroduceevidenceoftwootherinstancesofsexualabusethatoccurredondatesotherthanthe  datenamedintheindictment.Theindictmentchargedthat onoraboutJune3,1999#XXXX5S*#X5SXXXԀthedefendant l committedtwocrimesagainstthevictim,rapeofachildandaggravatedsexualbattery.#XXXX5S?# According X tothevictimandhermotherstestimony,onJune3,1999,thevictimsmothersurprisedthe X defendantwhilehehadhisdaughteronhislapandwastouchinghiserectpenistoherX5SXXXvagina, H makingthrustinggesturesasifattemptingto hav[e]sexualintercoursewithher. Thevictimalso H testifiedregardingtwootherinstancesofsexualabusebythedefendantoccurringondifferentdates, 4 oneinwhichthedefendant lickedherbodypart andanotherinwhichthedefendantmadethe  p victim suckonit.#XXXX5S@#   \   X5SXXXTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3913 522(a)_Ԁdefinestherapeofachildas theunlawful K  penetrationofavictimbythedefendantorthedefendantbyavictim,ifsuchvictimislessthan ;! thirteen(13)yearsofage.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913 522(a).Thedefendantmustactwith intent, '"w knowledge,orrecklessness.Tenn.CodeAnn.3911301(c).Sexualpenetrationincludes sexual #g intercourse,cunnilingus,fellatio,analintercourse,oranyotherintrusion,howeverslight,ofanypart $S  ofapersonsbodyorofanyobjectintothegenitaloranalopeningsofthevictims,thedefendants, $? ! oranyotherpersonsbody,butemissionofsemenisnotrequired.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913501(7). %+!" Arationaljurycouldhavefoundthateitherofthetwoinstancesofsexualabusethatthevictim &"# reportedoccurringonnightsotherthenJune3,1999wasrapeofachild,asthedefendantforcedthe '#$ victimtoengageincunnilingusandfellatio.Furthermore,ajurycouldhavealsofoundthattheevent (#% occurringonJune3,1999wasrapeofachildifthejurorsbelievedthatthedefendantstouchingof )$& hispenistothevictimsvaginaandaccompanyingthrustingmotionresultedinanintrusionintothe w*%' victimsbody.#XXXX5SB#X5SXXX c+&(  S#XXXX5SI#X5SXXX  Toobtainaconvictionofaggravatedsexualbattery,thestateisrequiredtoprovethe  followingessentialelementsbeyondareasonabledoubt:(1) unlawfulsexualcontactwithavictim x bythedefendantorthedefendantbyavictim,Tenn.CodeAnn.3913504(a)#XXXX5SI#X5SXXX;(2) [_t]he_Ԁvictim @ islessthanthirteen(13)yearsofage,Tenn.CodeAnn.3913504(a)(4)#XXXX5S9K#X5SXXX;and(3)thedefendant ,| actedeitherintentionally,knowingly,orrecklessly,Tenn.CodeAnn.3911301(c). Sexual h contactincludestheintentionaltouchingofthevictims,thedefendants,oranyotherpersons  T intimateparts,ortheintentionaltouchingoftheclothingcoveringtheimmediateareaofthevictims,  @ thedefendants,oranyotherpersonsintimateparts,ifthatintentionaltouchingcanbereasonably  , construedasbeingforthepurposeofsexualarousalorgratification.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913   501(6).TheJune3,1999incidentdescribedbythevictimandhermothercouldhaveconstituted    aggravatedsexualbatteryifthejuryfoundthatthedefendantscontactwiththevictimsvaginawas    merelyatouchingandnotanintrusion.W #  2           Insum,ajurycouldhavefoundthattwoofthereportedincidentswererapeofchildandthat x  oneincidentwaseitherrapeofachildoraggravatedsexualbattery.Whenajuryhasheardevidence d  ofseveralinstancesofcriminalconduct,eachofwhichcouldsupportaconvictionfortheindicted P  offenses,thetrialcourthasanaffirmativedutytorequirethestatetoelectwhichinstance(s)thejury <  shouldconsiderduringitsdeliberation.Inananalogouscaseinvolvinganappealofaconvictionfor (x havingcarnalknowledgeofafemalechildundertwelveyearsofage,theTennesseeSupremeCourt d held that#XXXX5S8L#X5SXXXӀit[is]thedutyofthetrialjudgetorequiretheState,atthecloseofitsproofinchief,to P electtheparticularoffenseofcarnalknowledgeuponwhichitwouldrelyforconviction,andto  properlyinstructthejurysothattheverdictofeveryjurorwouldbeunitedontheoneoffense.  _Burlison_Ԁv.State,501S.W.2d801,804(Tenn.1973).In_Burlison_,thestateintroducedseveral X instancesofthedefendantssexualabuseofthevictim,andaccordinglythesupremecourtheldthat  p thetrialcourterredbyfailingtorequirethestatetomakeanelection.Id.Wefindthatthisscenario 8 isfactuallysimilartotheinstantcase,andaccordinglyfindthatthedefendantisentitledtoanew  trial.   x   Moreover,althoughthedefendantdidnotmoveforanelectionatthecloseatthestates @ proofinchief,_Burlison_statesthatadefendantsrighttoaunanimousjuryverdictcannotbe X prejudicedbyhisfailuretomoveforanelection.Id.at804.Furthermore,defensecounselmade   motionstoexcludeevidenceandforamistrialwhenthestatesoughttointroduceevidenceof  additionalallegationsofsexualabuseotherthanthoseincludedintheindictment. #XXXX5SS# X5SXXX #XXX X5SZ#X5SXXXThus,wefindthat ` whilethedefensedidnotmoveforanelection,throughitsmotionsformistrialandcorresponding (x arguments,thedefensebroughtthisissuetotheattentionoftheprosecutionandthetrialcourt. @   #`$   XX    @*@  %Conclusion     Fortheforegoingreasons,wefindthatthedefendantsissueondirectappealwarrantsanew ( x trial.#XXXX5STZ# X5SXXXAccordingly,thejudgmentofthelowercourtisREVERSEDANDREMANDEDforfurther  @ proceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.#XXX X5S\#X5SXXX       `     h     ____________________________________ `     `     h     JERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE (   #XXXX5S]#X5SXXX8      #XXXX5S=_#X5SXXXԀ X  8  #XXXX5S_##dXXӋ #XXd