ÿWPCµ 4*Xße`¯\ÊÔ&¶{]Ùs¤ôH|÷ÀgX\—Q]e¸"­ ’%r0³á“ÊpÒu» ¸ƒ”]•å™RÉ@ÓûZÞÏh÷ù½Ëk,DÁ¤pÏPW\$£yõN^ø,,¾îÚ̆TZ³/“RꟆXonÕö1[m/gØ©ÆaÑ!C²Šv‘¬o‚žr »Ž$éó•×ñ²ÔN¬ƒÉð!Q1Ãf/C=t}Gè¦ßF!n—ö…Îi§„÷{dŽ~¬žxÅI\{Õì“ÀIVH}!_U±ïoMÖew|þjCÿöÎSÞÑ}‡CR’—É~é'*{rÆS,œM`¥Dlûš¾UTö3Q ƒ`g*=SE®/Âoüñ˜æý“QÄÖ¢«é]¸è¯-h,ª ö„ÍÍêè_ê\Z£Lÿ=¡Cªó޹ι)?ÐaÒ[nŒeýÜ$¶¹h}à´N××F//º.‚¤&rIxîš9*ö£ß]bÞÖ±´ƒÆ+½r ıú,14^Šû£L02^Ììºy½¼˜ƒ>Tü]['U>" 0<` 0÷œ 0ô“ 0ñ‡ 0îx 0ëf 0èQ 0å9 0â 0ß 0äß 0áà 0Þ¤ 0Û‚ 0Ø] 0Õ5 0Ò  0ÏÜ 0Ì«rw^ éõ 0ž#Á£UNd %²M¸(¼NäUNæU@4wt4xŒ mŽb¥­ô\  `&Times New Roman<ÿÿ:Default Para2M+M ÿÿ0_level1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ5+4 44Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2J+M ÿÿ0_level2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ2(Œ Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2G+M ÿÿ0_level3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ/%ä ä ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!/ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2D+M ÿÿ0_level4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ,"< <<”ìDœôL¤ü!,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2A+M ÿÿ0_level5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ)” ””ìDœôL¤ü!)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>+M ÿÿ0_level6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ&ìììDœôL¤ü!&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;+M ÿÿ0_level7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ#DDDœôL¤ü!#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28+M ÿÿ0_level8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓ œœœôL¤ü! ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25+M ÿÿ0_level9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓôôôL¤ü!ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2MM ÿÿ0_levnl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ5+4 44Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2JM ÿÿ0_levnl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ2(Œ Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GM ÿÿ0_levnl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ/%ä ä ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!/ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DM ÿÿ0_levnl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ,"< <<”ìDœôL¤ü!,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AM ÿÿ0_levnl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ)” ””ìDœôL¤ü!)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>M ÿÿ0_levnl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ&ìììDœôL¤ü!&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;M ÿÿ0_levnl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ#DDDœôL¤ü!#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28M ÿÿ0_levnl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓ œœœôL¤ü! ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25M ÿÿ0_levnl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓôôôL¤ü!ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó'    0 .   / ’,â #|x(võ$¡¡ÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ô”òXXÔÔ€ô”òòô”Ô˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(uHš Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(nM¡ Z‹(Times New Roman yG*ing >¤ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù- Ý ƒõ!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ôhòXXÔÔ€ôhòòôhÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÒ°ÜÒÒ°ÜÒÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ0ÜÜDœôL¤ü!°œX0ÓÔ€¼ÇÝ»òôhÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÑ€%ÑÑ8€BXXdædÈ8ÑÑ  ÑàQ@””àÔ€îTÇÝÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐàQ@~~'àAT€KNOXVILLEÔ€¼ÇÝ»îîTÔÐ Ï ÐÓ0ÓÓ  ÓÓE+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜD…XEÓAssigned€on€Briefs€October€30,€2001Ð î> ÐÔ€XBX»¼ÇÝÔÌÔ€¼ÇÝ»XXBÔò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€STEPHEN€GREENEÔ€XBX»¼ÇÝÔó óÐ à0 ÐÌò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Ô_ÔBlountÔ_Ô€CountyÐ Ò " ÐNo.€C„10844,€C„10845€€€€€€D.€Kelly€Thomas,€JudgeÐ ¸  ÐÌ__________________________________Ð „ Ô  ÐÓÓÌÓÓÌNo.€E2000„02616„CCA„R3„CDÐ _¯  ÐApril€18,€2002Ð E•  ÐÌÓÓÌÓÓó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant€appeals€his€convictions€of€rape€of€a€child€and€incest.€€We€conclude€that€the€StateÐ V Ðdid€not€improperly€bolster€the€victimððs€testimony€on€direct€examination.€€In€addition,€theÐ ì< Ðdefendant€was€not€denied€his€constitutional€right€to€confront€witnesses€against€him€or€to€anÐ Ò" Ðimpartial€jury€when€the€trial€court€denied€his€request€to€question€a€non„witness€about€an€allegedÐ ¸ Ðstatement€made€out„of„court.€Furthermore,€the€State€was€not€obligated€to€disclose€the€contents€ofÐ žî Ða€Department€of€Human€Services€file€requested€by€the€defendant€under€Ô  ÔòòBrady€v.€Marylandóó€orÐ „Ô ÐRule€16€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€We€must,€however,€reverse€theÐ jº Ðdefendantððs€conviction€of€incest€and€remand€for€a€new€trial€on€Count€Two€based€upon€the€StateððsÐ P  Ðfailure€to€make€a€proper€election€for€the€offense.€€We,€therefore,€affirm€the€rape€of€a€childÐ 6† Ðconviction,€reverse€the€conviction€of€incest,€and€remand€for€a€new€trial.€€€Ð l ÐÌÓ  ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed€in€Part,Ð Î ÐReversed€in€Part€and€Remandedó óÐ ´ ÐÌÓ  ÓòòJohn€Everett€Williamsóó,€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayesóó€andÐ € Ð  ÐòòJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.óó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð f!¶! ÐÌKevin€Wayne€Shepherd,€Ô_ÔMaryvilleÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Stephen€Greene.Ð 2#‚# ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Patricia€C.€Ô_ÔKussmannÔ_Ô,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ þ$N % ÐGeneral;€Michael€L.€Flynn,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Kirk€E.€Andrews€and€Edward€P.Ð ä%4!& ÐBailey,€Jr.,€Assistant€District€Attorneys€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð Ê&"' ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òÓÓÓÓOPINIONó óÐ |)Ì$* ÐÓ XÓÓ  ÓÐ b*²%+ ÐÔ‡XBXXXBÔThe€defendant,€Stephen€Greene,€was€indicted€by€a€Ô_ÔBlountÔ_Ô€County€Grand€Jury€in€CountÐ H+˜&, ÐOne€for€a€violation€of€Ô#†XBXXXB½ #ÔÔ‡ XBXXXBÔTennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÔ#†XBXX XB#ÔÔ‡XBXXXBÔ€39„13„522,€rape€of€a€child,€a€Class€AÐ .,~'- Ðfelony;€and€in€Count€Two€for€a€violation€Ô#†XBXXXBÿ#ÔÔ‡ XBXXXBÔof€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÔ#†XBXX XB¥#ÔÔ‡XBXXXBÔ€39„15„302,Ð -d(. Ðincest,€a€Class€C€felony.€Ô#†XBXXXB #ÔÔ‡ XBXXXBÔ€Count€One€alleged€that€the€child€rape€ð!ð€the€rape€of€a€ð ðvictim€less€thanÐ ú-J)/ ÐÔ_Ôthirteen€(13)€years€of€age,ðð€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„522€ð!ð€occurred€on€or€aboutÐ ° ÐDecember€25,€1994.€€Count€Two€alleged€incest€violations€occurring€between€March€1995€andÐ –æ ÐAugust€1997.€Ô#†XBXX XB†#ÔÔ‡XBXXXBÔ€The€defendant€was€tried€by€a€jury€and€found€guilty€of€the€offenses€charged€in€theÐ |Ì Ðindictment€on€both€counts.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€serve€twenty„five€(25)Ð b² Ðyears€for€the€rape€of€a€child€conviction€and€six€(6)€years€for€the€incest€conviction.€€The€sentencesÐ H˜ Ðwere€ordered€to€be€served€consecutively,€amounting€to€an€effective€sentence€of€thirty„one€(31)Ð . ~ Ðyears.€€Following€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€defendantððs€motion€for€a€new€trial,€he€filed€aÐ  d Ðtimely€notice€of€appeal.Ô#†XBXXXB2#ÔÐ ú J ÐÐ à 0 ÐIn€this€appeal,€the€defendant€raises€the€following€four€issues:€(1)€whether€the€trial€courtÐ Æ   Ðimproperly€allowed€the€victim€to€testify€about€prior€consistent€statements€during€directÐ ¬ ü  Ðexamination,€(2)€whether€the€defendantððs€request€to€question€the€victimððs€sister€about€statementsÐ ’â  Ðalleged€to€have€been€made€outside€the€courtroom,€but€in€the€presence€of€potential€jurors,€wasÐ xÈ  Ðimproperly€refused,€(3)€whether€the€State€improperly€withheld€exculpatory€information,Ð ^®  Ðrequested€by€the€defendant,€about€the€prior€sexual€conduct€of€the€victim,€and€€(4)€whether€theÐ D”  ÐState€failed€to€make€a€proper€election€for€the€offense€in€Count€Two.Ð *z  ÐÓ XÓÌÓ  Óò òòòFACTSÐ öF ÐÓ  ÓÌÓ XÓó óóóThe€victim,€T.M.,€eighteen€at€the€time€of€the€defendantððs€trial,€testified€that€in€DecemberÐ Â Ðof€1994€she€was€twelve€years€old€and€lived€with€her€mother,€step„father,€sister,€and€brother.€€TheÐ ¨ø Ðdefendant€was€her€step„father.€€The€victim€testified€that€the€defendant€began€forcing€her€to€haveÐ ŽÞ Ðintercourse€with€him€on€December€24,€1994.€€That€Christmas€Eve,€the€victimððs€mother,Ð tÄ ÐKimberly€Greene,€came€into€the€room€where€the€victim€was€sleeping,€woke€her,€and€said€that€theÐ Zª Ðdefendant€needed€to€speak€with€her.€€The€victim€asked€if€it€could€wait€until€the€next€day.€€HerÐ @ Ðmother€replied€that€it€could€not,€and€the€victim€followed€her€mother€to€the€master€bedroom.€Ð &v ÐWhen€the€victim€entered€the€room,€the€defendant€instructed€her€to€sit€on€the€bed€where€he€wasÐ  \ Ðlying€underneath€the€covers.€€She€complied,€and€the€defendant€then€instructed€her€to€lie€down€onÐ òB Ðthe€bed.€€Again,€she€complied,€and€the€defendant€pulled€the€covers€out€from€underneath€her€andÐ Ø( Ðput€them€on€top€of€her.€€At€this€time,€the€victimððs€mother€sat€down€on€the€bed€and€placed€theÐ ¾ Ðvictimððs€head€in€her€lap.€€The€defendant€removed€the€victimððs€underwear€and€threw€them€in€theÐ ¤ô Ðfloor.€€He€then€tried€to€position€her€legs€up€on€his€shoulders.€The€victim€said€that€she€refused€toÐ Š Ú Ðmove,€whereupon€the€defendant€pinched€the€inside€of€her€legs€so€that€she€would€loosen€up.€Ð p!À  ÐWhen€she€did,€the€defendant€forced€his€penis€inside€the€victimððs€vagina.€The€defendantÐ V"¦! Ðcontinued€to€have€intercourse€with€the€victim€for€thirty€to€forty„five€minutes,€while€the€victimððsÐ <#Œ" Ðmother€stroked€her€head€and€told€her€to€think€about€Christmas€and€the€presents€she€would€beÐ "$r# Ðreceiving.€€When€the€defendant€stopped€having€intercourse€with€the€victim,€he€told€her€to€get€herÐ %X $ Ðclothes€and€get€out€of€his€face.€€Ð î%>!% ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓAfter€gathering€her€clothes,€the€victim€went€to€the€bathroom€where€she€discovered€thatÐ º' #' Ðshe€was€bleeding.€€The€victimððs€mother€followed€her€into€the€bathroom€and€gave€her€a€sanitaryÐ  (ð#( Ðnapkin€to€put€in€her€underwear.€€€Her€mother€washed€her€face€and€told€her€not€to€worry€about€theÐ †)Ö$) Ðbleeding.€€Afterwards,€the€victim€returned€to€her€own€bed.€€The€next€morning,€the€victimððsÐ l*¼%* Ðmother€told€her€not€to€tell€anyone€what€had€happened€or€her€sister€and€brother€would€be€takenÐ R+¢&+ Ðaway€and€her€mother€would€get€in€trouble.€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓThe€victim€testified€to€no€further€assaults€by€the€defendant€prior€to€her€thirteenthÐ –æ Ðbirthday.€€According€to€the€victimððs€testimony,€the€defendant€did€not€force€her€to€haveÐ |Ì Ðintercourse€again€until€March€12,€1995,€her€thirteenth€birthday.€€The€victim€remembered€that€sheÐ b² Ðreceived€a€pink€ice€ring€and€a€Tigger€watch€for€her€birthday.€€At€some€point€during€the€day,€theÐ H˜ Ðvictim€stuck€her€finger€in€the€icing€on€her€birthday€cake,€which€angered€the€defendant.€€Later€thatÐ . ~ Ðnight€while€her€mother€was€sleeping,€he€went€into€the€victimððs€room€and€got€her€out€of€bed.€€HeÐ  d Ðinstructed€her€to€follow€him€to€the€living€room.€€Once€in€the€living€room,€the€defendant€pushedÐ ú J Ðthe€victim€down€on€the€couch,€took€her€underwear€off€and€forced€her€to€have€intercourse.€€TheÐ à 0 Ðvictim€cried€out,€but€the€defendant€put€his€hand€over€her€mouth.€€For€the€next€thirty„minutes€heÐ Æ   Ðhad€intercourse€with€the€victim,€stopping€a€few€times€to€ð ðlick€his€fingers€and€clean€his€penis€offÐ ¬ ü  Ðand€then€put€it€back€inside€[the€victim]€again.ðð€€After€the€defendant€was€finished,€the€victimÐ ’â  Ðpicked€up€her€clothes€and€went€back€to€bed.€€The€next€day,€the€victim€asked€the€defendant€whatÐ xÈ  Ðwould€happen€if€she€got€pregnant,€and€he€replied€that€he€would€just€say€it€was€someone€elseððsÐ ^®  Ðchild.€€The€victim€also€told€her€mother€what€had€happened€the€previous€night.€€Ð D”  ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓAccording€to€the€victim,€the€defendant€continued€to€have€sex€with€her€two€or€three€timesÐ ` Ða€week€between€March€of€1995€and€August€of€1997.€€She€recalled€that€the€defendant€forced€herÐ öF Ðto€play€ð ðbegging€sex€gamesðð€during€that€period.€€Specifically,€the€victim€testified€that€theÐ Ü, Ðdefendant€forced€her€ð ðto€ask€him€if€he€wanted€some€p***y.ðð€€If€he€said€no,€the€victim€wasÐ Â Ðrequired€to€keep€begging€the€defendant.€€She€recalled€that€on€one€occasion,€the€defendantÐ ¨ø Ðrepeatedly€said€no€and€did€not€have€sex€with€the€victim.€€However,€on€other€occasions€he€wouldÐ ŽÞ Ðeventually€have€sex€with€the€victim.€€Ð tÄ ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓThe€victim€also€testified€that€the€defendant€forced€her€to€have€anal€sex.€€Around€MotherððsÐ @ ÐDay€in€1996,€the€defendant€forced€the€victim€to€have€anal€intercourse€with€him€on€the€couch.€Ð &v ÐThis€was€the€first€of€two€times€that€the€defendant€had€anal€intercourse€with€the€victim.€€The€onlyÐ  \ Ðother€time€occurred€in€the€victimððs€bedroom€floor€in€front€of€the€chest„of„drawers.€€The€victimÐ òB Ðrecalled€that€the€defendant€did€not€put€any€lubrication€on€his€penis€before€anally€penetrating€her,Ð Ø( Ðand€it€hurt,€causing€her€to€cry.€€Because€of€the€pain,€she€tried€to€get€away,€and€the€defendantÐ ¾ Ðpushed€her€head€up€against€a€drawer€to€prevent€the€victim€from€moving€away€from€him.€Ð ¤ô ÐAfterwards,€she€went€to€the€bathroom€and€discovered€ð ðblood€all€over€the€place.ððÐ Š Ú ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓThe€defendant€also€forced€the€victim€to€perform€fellatio.€€The€victim€testified€that€theÐ V"¦! Ðdefendant€came€and€got€her€out€of€bed€on€one€occasion€and€took€her€to€his€room.€€Her€motherÐ <#Œ" Ðwas€sleeping€on€the€couch€that€night.€€The€defendant€told€the€victim€he€wanted€her€to€ð ðsuck€hisÐ "$r# Ðd**k.ðð€€The€victim€responded€that€she€did€not€want€to€and€did€not€know€how.€€At€which€point,Ð %X $ Ðthe€defendant€pushed€her€head€down€and€put€his€penis€in€her€mouth.€€He€instructed€her€to€closeÐ î%>!% Ðher€mouth€around€his€penis€and€then€grabbed€her€hair€and€pushed€her€head€up€and€down€on€hisÐ Ô&$"& Ðpenis.€€This€lasted€about€five€minutes.€€The€victim€remembered€that€she€ran€to€the€bathroomÐ º' #' Ðgagging€but€did€not€vomit.€€€The€victim€also€testified€that€the€defendant€was€drunk€every€time€heÐ  (ð#( Ðhad€sex€with€her,€except€for€one€time.€€That€time,€she€recalled€trying€to€distract€the€defendant€byÐ †)Ö$) Ðasking€him€ð ðif€he€would€do€this€to€his€own€daughter,ðð€to€which€the€defendant€responded,€ð ðyouÐ l*¼%* Ðare€not€my€daughter.ðð€€Ð R+¢&+ ÐÐ 8,ˆ', ÐÓ XÓà  àThe€victim€also€described€the€last€time€the€defendant€forced€her€to€have€intercourse.€€InÐ ° Ðthe€summer€of€1997,€the€victim€began€dating€a€nineteen„year„old€young€man€named€JasonÐ –æ ÐParrott.€€According€to€the€victim,€the€defendant€did€not€like€Mr.€Parrott€because€he€was€dark„Ð |Ì Ðskinned.€€However,€she€also€admitted€that€Mr.€Parrott€was€the€member€of€a€gang.€€Prior€toÐ b² ÐAugust€of€1997,€the€defendant€told€the€victim€that€she€was€not€allowed€to€see€Mr.€Parrott.€Ð H˜ ÐHowever,€on€August€20,€1997,€the€defendant€saw€the€victim€hugging€and€kissing€Mr.€Parrott€atÐ . ~ Ðthe€school€bus€stop.€That€evening€while€the€victimððs€mother€was€at€work,€the€defendant€twiceÐ  d Ðforced€the€victim€to€have€intercourse€on€the€couch.€€After€the€second€time,€he€told€her€he€wasÐ ú J Ðfinished€with€her,€and€she€went€to€the€bathroom€to€take€a€shower.€€While€she€was€in€the€shower,Ð à 0 Ðthe€defendant€came€in€the€bathroom€and€pulled€the€shower€curtain€open.€€The€victim€said,€ð ðIÐ Æ   Ðthought€you€were€done€with€me,ðð€and€the€defendant€responded,€ð ðI€lied.ðð€€€According€to€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðvictim,€he€turned€her€around,€bent€her€over€and€had€sex€with€her€again,€slamming€her€head€intoÐ ’â  Ðthe€shower€wall.€€The€next€day€at€school,€the€victim€told€a€friend,€Kisha€Finger,€that€theÐ xÈ  Ðdefendant€had€been€having€sex€with€her.€€Ms.€Finger€directed€the€victim€to€a€guidance€counselor,Ð ^®  Ðwho€contacted€the€authorities.€€The€victim€related€to€the€authorities€that€the€defendant€had€beenÐ D”  Ðraping€her€for€over€two€years.€€Initially,€she€did€not€include€any€information€about€her€motherððsÐ *z  Ðinvolvement€in€the€incident€that€occurred€on€December€24,€1994.€€Within€days,€the€victim,€herÐ ` Ðmother,€and€her€siblings€were€moved€out€of€the€defendantððs€home€and€into€an€apartment.€€A€fewÐ öF Ðmonths€later,€the€victim€told€the€authorities€about€her€motherððs€involvement€because€her€motherÐ Ü, Ðwas€continuing€to€see€the€defendant,€and€she€thought€her€mother€was€going€to€move€back€in€withÐ Â Ðhim.€€Her€mother€was€subsequently€arrested€for€her€participation€in€the€rape€of€the€victim.Ð ¨ø ÐÌÓ XÓThe€victimððs€friend,€Kisha€Finger,€and€the€guidance€counselor,€Kay€Buckley,€bothÐ tÄ Ðtestified€for€the€State.€€Ms.€Finger€testified€that€the€victim€was€crying€more€than€usual€in€TeenÐ Zª ÐSports€class€on€August€21,€1997.€€Ms.€Finger€asked€the€victim€what€was€wrong,€and€the€victimÐ @ Ðresponded,€ð ðMy€stepfather€is€raping€me.ðð€€Ms.€Finger€immediately€took€the€victim€to€theÐ &v Ðguidance€counselorððs€office.€€Ms.€Finger€did€not€ask€the€victim€about€the€details€of€the€abuseÐ  \ Ðbecause€she€felt€it€was€important€to€get€the€victim€to€the€guidance€counselor€as€soon€as€possible.€Ð òB ÐShe€did,€however,€recall€that€the€victim€told€her€it€had€been€going€on€for€a€while.€€Ms.€FingerÐ Ø( Ðalso€testified€that€she€remembered€the€victim€dating€Mr.€Parrott€after€August€21,€1997,€but€notÐ ¾ Ðbefore.€Ð ¤ô ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓMs.€Buckley€testified€that€she€was€a€school€counselor€at€the€school€the€victim€attended€inÐ p!À  Ð1997.€€She€verified€that€Ms.€Finger€brought€the€victim€to€her€office.€€She€recalled€that€the€victimÐ V"¦! Ðwas€crying€and€appeared€to€be€very€upset.€€€Ms.€Buckley€did€not€ask€the€victim€specific€questionsÐ <#Œ" Ðbut€allowed€the€victim€to€tell€her€what€she€wanted.€€According€to€Ms.€Buckley,€the€victim€toldÐ "$r# Ðher€that€her€step„father,€the€defendant,€had€been€having€sexual€intercourse€with€her.€€€The€victimÐ %X $ Ðalso€told€her€that€it€had€happened€several€times€and€had€been€going€on€since€the€victim€was€inÐ î%>!% Ðmiddle€school.€€Ms.€Buckley€responded€by€calling€the€Department€of€Human€Services.Ð Ô&$"& ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓThe€State€also€called€Dr.€Jan€Bishop€to€testify€about€the€results€of€a€physical€examinationÐ  (ð#( Ðthat€Dr.€Bishop€performed€on€the€victim.€€Dr.€Bishop€is€an€expert€in€the€area€of€pediatric€sexualÐ †)Ö$) Ðabuse.€€She€performed€an€examination€of€the€victimððs€genitals€in€September€of€1997.€€€Dr.Ð l*¼%* ÐBishop€testified€that€she€interviewed€the€victim€prior€to€performing€the€examination€pursuant€toÐ R+¢&+ Ðher€standard€procedure.€€During€her€discussion€with€the€victim,€the€victim€told€Dr.€Bishop€thatÐ 8,ˆ', Ðher€stepfather,€the€defendant,€had€vaginal€and€anal€intercourse€with€her€two€or€three€times€aÐ ° Ðweek€beginning€when€she€was€thirteen.€€The€victim€told€her€that€the€defendant€had€analÐ –æ Ðintercourse€with€her€once€or€twice€and€forced€her€to€perform€fellatio€once€or€twice.€€The€victimÐ |Ì Ðalso€indicated€that€the€defendant€was€usually€drunk€when€he€had€intercourse€with€her.€€TheÐ b² Ðintercourse€usually€occurred€in€the€living€room€or€the€defendantððs€bedroom.€€The€victim€alsoÐ H˜ Ðdenied€ever€having€sexual€intercourse€with€anyone€other€than€the€defendant.Ð . ~ ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓDuring€the€physical€examination€of€the€victimððs€external€genitalia,€Dr.€Bishop€found€thatÐ ú J Ðthe€victimððs€hymen€was€torn€in€two€places.€€She€did€not€perform€an€internal€examination€of€theÐ à 0 Ðvictimððs€vagina€because€the€victim€was€fearful€of€the€procedure.€€From€what€Dr.€Bishop€was€ableÐ Æ   Ðto€examine€inside€the€victimððs€vagina,€it€appeared€to€be€normal.€€Dr.€Bishop€also€found€that€oneÐ ¬ ü  Ðside€of€the€victimððs€rectum€had€some€scarring.€€Dr.€Bishop€opined€that€the€tears€in€the€hymen€andÐ ’â  Ðthe€rectal€scarring€were€caused€by€blunt€force€trauma.€€On€cross€examination,€Dr.€BishopÐ xÈ  Ðadmitted€that€it€was€possible€for€a€virgin€to€have€a€torn€hymen,€although€it€is€unusual€especiallyÐ ^®  Ðto€have€more€than€one€tear.€€She€also€admitted€that€she€did€not€question€the€victim€about€whetherÐ D”  Ðshe€had€ever€had€any€problems€with€constipation€or€straining,€which€could€also€be€a€cause€ofÐ *z  Ðrectal€scarring.€€Finally,€Dr.€Bishop€noticed€that€the€vital€signs€recorded€for€the€victim€wereÐ ` Ðidentical€to€those€recorded€for€another€patient€examined€the€same€day.€€She€indicated€that€sheÐ öF Ðmust€have€dictated€from€the€wrong€chart.€€She€explained€that€the€vital€signs€are€taken€by€a€nurseÐ Ü, Ðand€recorded€on€an€index€card,€but€the€rest€of€the€examination€is€performed€and€recorded€by€her.€Ð  ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓThe€defendant€testified€on€his€own€behalf€and€denied€ever€having€sexual€relations€withÐ ŽÞ Ðthe€victim.€€He€described€his€relationship€with€the€victim€as€kind€of€rocky.€€In€the€summer€ofÐ tÄ Ð1997,€however,€their€relationship€got€worse€in€his€opinion€because€she€began€to€rebel,€and€he€hadÐ Zª Ðto€set€and€enforce€more€rules.€€The€defendant€remembered€that€the€victim€stayed€grounded€quiteÐ @ Ða€bit€during€that€time€because€he€caught€her€ð ðsneaking€around€seeing€this€older€boy.ðð€€TheÐ &v Ðdefendant€was€referring€to€Jason€Parrott.€€According€to€the€defendant,€the€victim€told€him€thatÐ  \ ÐMr.€Parrott€was€sixteen„years€old,€when€he€was,€in€fact,€nineteen„years€old.€€The€defendant€alsoÐ òB Ðdiscovered€that€Mr.€Parrott€had€a€criminal€record€and€was€a€member€of€a€gang.€€The€defendantÐ Ø( Ðtold€the€victim€that€she€was€not€allowed€to€continue€dating€Mr.€Parrott.€€As€a€result,€the€victimÐ ¾ Ðwas€very€angry€with€the€defendant€and€the€two€ð ðwere€at€each€otherððs€throats€quite€a€bit.ðð€€TheÐ ¤ô Ðtension€escalated€in€August€of€1997€when€the€defendant€told€the€victim€he€was€going€to€drive€herÐ Š Ú Ðto€and€from€school€to€prevent€her€from€sneaking€around€with€Mr.€Parrott.€€The€defendant€alsoÐ p!À  Ðthreatened€to€send€the€victim€to€a€private€Christian€school€after€he€found€her€at€the€school€busÐ V"¦! Ðstop€with€Mr.€Parrott.€€According€to€the€defendant,€the€victim€was€forty„five€minutes€late€comingÐ <#Œ" Ðhome€from€the€bus€stop€on€August€20,€1997,€so€he€went€to€look€for€her.€He€found€her€at€the€busÐ "$r# Ðstop€with€Mr.€Parrott.€€He€told€Mr.€Parrott€to€stay€away€from€the€victim€and€made€her€get€in€theÐ %X $ Ðcar€and€ride€home€with€him.€€The€victim€remained€angry€with€the€defendant€the€remainder€of€theÐ î%>!% Ðday€and€stayed€in€her€room.€€The€next€morning,€the€defendant€drove€her€to€school€instead€ofÐ Ô&$"& Ðallowing€her€to€ride€the€bus.€€That€afternoon,€someone€from€the€Department€of€Human€ServicesÐ º' #' Ðand€Detective€Graves€of€the€Maryville€Police€Department€arrived€at€his€home€and€informed€himÐ  (ð#( Ðthat€the€victim€had€accused€him€of€raping€her.€€€Thereafter,€the€victim,€as€well€as€the€defendantððsÐ †)Ö$) Ðwife€and€other€children,€were€moved€from€the€defendantððs€home€to€an€apartment.€€Ð l*¼%* ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓDenise€Greene€also€testified€for€the€defense.€€Ms.€Greene€is€the€wife€of€the€defendantððsÐ 8,ˆ', Ðbrother€and€spent€several€nights€a€week€visiting€the€defendant€and€his€wife€in€their€homeÐ ° Ðbetween€1994€and€1997.€€During€this€time,€Ms.€Greene€did€not€notice€anything€unusual€about€theÐ –æ Ðdefendantððs€or€the€victimððs€behavior€which€would€suggest€that€the€defendant€was€abusing€theÐ |Ì Ðvictim€sexually€or€otherwise.€€According€to€Ms.€Greene,€the€victim€was€always€veryÐ b² Ðdisrespectful€to€her€mother,€and€the€defendant€was€the€parent€who€ð ðput€his€foot€downðð€when€theÐ H˜ Ðvictim€misbehaved.€€Beginning€in€spring€of€1997,€however,€she€noticed€a€change€in€the€victimððsÐ . ~ Ðbehavior.€€She€observed€several€heated€arguments€between€the€defendant€and€the€victim.€€TheÐ  d Ðarguments€often€culminated€in€the€victim€retreating€to€her€bedroom€and€slamming€her€bedroomÐ ú J Ðdoor€or€taking€her€radio€and€storming€outside€the€house.€€Ms.€Greene€recalled€that€the€victimððsÐ à 0 Ðmother€explained€to€her€that€the€defendant€did€not€approve€of€a€boy€the€victim€was€dating€at€theÐ Æ   Ðtime.€€The€victimððs€mother€told€Ms.€Greene€that€the€defendant€asked€to€meet€Jason€ParrottÐ ¬ ü  Ðbecause€the€victim€was€spending€a€lot€of€time€on€the€phone€with€him.€€Upon€meeting€Mr.€Parrott,Ð ’â  Ðthe€defendant€apparently€thought€that€Mr.€Parrott€ð ðlooked€kind€of€roughðð€and€checked€into€hisÐ xÈ  Ðbackground.€€The€defendant€discovered€that€Mr.€Parrott€was€in€a€gang€and€had€a€police€record.€Ð ^®  ÐAccording€to€Ms.€Greene,€the€problems€between€the€victim€and€the€defendant€escalated€when€theÐ D”  Ðdefendant€told€the€victim€she€could€not€date€Mr.€Parrott.€€She€remembered€that€the€victim€gotÐ *z  Ðangry€and€ð ðran€offðð€a€couple€of€times€shortly€before€she€made€the€allegations€against€theÐ ` Ðdefendant.€€Ms.€Greene€and€her€husband€helped€to€locate€the€victim€on€these€occasions.€€WhenÐ öF Ðasked€about€her€opinion€of€the€victimððs€truthfulness,€she€responded€that€she€did€not€find€her€to€beÐ Ü, Ðtruthful.€€She€also€noted€that€there€was€a€television€movie€about€two€children€who€falselyÐ Â Ðaccused€their€parents€of€sexually€abusing€them,€which€was€broadcast€a€week€before€the€victimÐ ¨ø Ðaccused€the€defendant€of€raping€her.€€She€remembered€discussing€the€program€with€the€victimððsÐ ŽÞ Ðfamily€and€that€the€victim€acknowledged€that€she€had€seen€the€program.€€Ð tÄ ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓAngela€Cunningham€testified€that€the€victim€was€living€with€her€and€her€husband€shortlyÐ @ Ðbefore€the€trial.€€Ms.€Cunningham€explained€that€her€husband€was€the€brother€of€the€victimððsÐ &v Ðmother,€Kimberly€Greene.€€The€victim€had€lived€in€the€homes€of€two€other€relatives€beforeÐ  \ Ðcoming€to€live€in€Ms.€Cunninghamððs€home.€€According€to€Ms.€Cunningham,€the€reason€that€theÐ òB Ðvictim€had€moved€from€home€to€home€was€because€she€ð ðhad€a€tendency€to€run€off.ðð€€€Ms.Ð Ø( ÐCunningham€also€testified€that€she€had€problems€with€the€victim€being€untruthful.Ð ¾ ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓOn€rebuttal,€the€State€called€Jason€Parrott,€who€was€incarcerated€at€the€time€of€the€trial,€toÐ Š Ú Ðtestify€about€the€defendant€threatening€him€with€a€gun.€€Mr.€Parrott€stated€that€in€August€ofÐ p!À  Ð1997,€the€defendant€told€him€to€stay€away€from€the€victim€and€displayed€a€handgun.€€€Mr.€ParrottÐ V"¦! Ðwas€alone€at€the€school€bus€stop€when€the€incident€occurred.€€Mr.€Parrott€also€admitted€that€heÐ <#Œ" Ðran€away€with€the€victim€for€over€a€week€in€September€of€1997€but€denied€ever€having€sexualÐ "$r# Ðcontact€with€her.€€He€also€admitted€to€running€away€with€another€minor€girl€in€January€of€1998.Ð %X $ ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓSam€Headrick€also€testified€on€rebuttal.€€He€claimed€that€the€defendant€used€to€get€drunkÐ Ô&$"& Ðwith€him€frequently€between€1992€and€1994.€€Mr.€Headrick€further€alleged€that€he€observed€theÐ º' #' Ðdefendant€strike€the€victim€when€she€was€a€very€young€child€in€a€manner€that€he€believed€to€beÐ  (ð#( Ðabuse.€€However,€he€never€reported€such€an€allegation€to€the€authorities.Ð †)Ö$) Ðò òòòÐ l*¼%* ÐÐ R+¢&+ ÐÐ 8,ˆ', ÐÓ XÓÓ  ÓANALYSISÐ ° ÐÓ XÓÓ  ÓÓ?+4 44Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜŒX?Óó óóóÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓB+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!444‹XBÓThe€defendant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€State€to€question€theÐ |Ì Ðvictim€about€prior€consistent€statements€during€its€direct€examination;€that€the€trial€court€erredÐ b² Ðby€denying€the€defendantððs€request€to€question€the€victimððs€sister€about€prejudicial€statementsÐ H˜ Ðthat€she€allegedly€made€in€the€presence€of€potential€jurors;€that€the€State€improperly€withheldÐ . ~ Ðinformation€about€the€victimððs€prior€sexual€conduct€after€it€was€specifically€requested€by€theÐ  d Ðdefendant;€and€that€the€State€failed€to€make€a€proper€election€for€the€offense€of€incest€in€CountÐ ú J ÐTwo.Ð à 0 ÐÐ Æ   ÐÓ XÓÓ  Óò òPrior€Consistent€StatementsòòÐ ¬ ü  ÐÓ  Óó óóóÌÓ XÓThe€defendant€argues€that€the€State€improperly€bolstered€the€victimððs€testimony€byÐ xÈ  Ðutilizing€a€prior€consistent€statement€when€the€prosecutor€asked€the€victim€on€direct€examinationÐ ^®  Ðif€she€had€ever€told€anyone€about€the€sexual€abuse€by€defendant.€€We€disagree.€€After€the€victimÐ D”  Ðtestified€that€the€defendant€had€sexually€abused€her€for€a€period€of€years,€the€State€asked€her,Ð *z  Ðover€the€defendantððs€strenuous€objection,€whether€she€had€ever€told€anyone€about€the€abuse,€andÐ ` Ðif€so,€who€she€told,€and€why€she€told€them.€€The€victim€responded€that€she€told€one€friend€aboutÐ öF Ðthe€abuse€every€year€until€the€instant€charges€were€brought€against€the€defendant,€beginningÐ Ü, Ðwhen€she€was€in€the€seventh€grade.€€She€also€gave€the€name€of€each€person,€all€of€whom€wereÐ Â Ðclassmates.€€She€explained€that€she€felt€like€she€needed€to€tell€someone€about€the€abuse€but€wasÐ ¨ø Ðafraid€to€tell€an€adult€because€the€defendant€had€threatened€to€harm€her€mother€and€siblings€ifÐ ŽÞ Ðshe€told€anyone.Ð tÄ ÐÓ XÓÓ  ÓÌÓ XÓÓ  ÓThe€defendant€alleges€that€the€victimððs€testimony€about€such€prior€consistent€statementsÐ @ Ðduring€direct€examination€was€improper€because€the€victimððs€credibility€had€not€yet€beenÐ &v Ðattacked.€€The€defendant€correctly€points€out€that€a€witnessððs€prior€consistent€statements€are€notÐ  \ Ðadmissible€unless€the€witnessððs€credibility€has€been€attacked€to€the€extent€that€the€witnessððsÐ òB Ðtestimony€needs€rehabilitating.€€òòState€v.€Bentonóó,€759€S.W.2d€427,€433€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€Ð Ø( ÐAs€such,€it€would€have€been€error€for€the€State€to€introduce€the€contents€of€the€victimððs€priorÐ ¾ Ðconsistent€statements€during€the€direct€examination€of€her€because€she€was€the€first€witness€and,Ð ¤ô Ðtherefore,€could€not€possibly€have€been€attacked€at€that€point.€€However,€we€need€not€discuss€theÐ Š Ú Ðramifications€of€such€an€error,€because€the€victim€was€only€questioned€about€whether€she€hadÐ p!À  Ðmade€prior€consistent€statements,€to€whom,€and€why.€€She€was€not€questioned€about€the€contentsÐ V"¦! Ðof€the€statements.€Ð <#Œ" Ðà ` àÌAlthough€the€relevance€of€whether€the€victim,€an€unassailed€witness€at€the€time,€madeÐ %X $ Ðprior€statements€consistent€with€her€trial€testimony€is€questionable,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€402,€theÐ î%>!% Ðadmissibility€of€evidence€is€a€matter€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€and€will€not€beÐ Ô&$"& Ðdisturbed€on€appeal€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòSee€State€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€562Ð º' #' Ð(Tenn.€1993).€€We,€therefore,€conclude€that€by€affirming€that€she€had€made€consistent€statementsÐ  (ð#( Ðto€one€friend€a€year,€the€victim€was€not€improperly€allowed€to€bolster€her€testimony,€as€mightÐ †)Ö$) Ðhave€occurred€if€the€contents€of€the€prior€statements€had€been€related€to€the€jury.€€This€issue€isÐ l*¼%* Ðwithout€merit.Ð R+¢&+ ÐÓ XÓÐ 8,ˆ', ÐÓ  Óò òAlleged€Prejudicial€Statementsó óòòÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓóóÌÓ XÓThe€defendant€next€asserts€that€he€should€have€been€allowed€to€question€the€victimððsÐ |Ì Ðsister,€Brandy€Greene,€about€alleged€statements€that€she€made€in€the€presence€of€potential€jurors.€Ð b² ÐThe€day€after€the€jury€was€impaneled,€defense€counsel€advised€the€trial€court€that€the€defendantððsÐ H˜ Ðroommate€received€a€telephone€call€the€night€before€from€one€of€the€members€of€the€jury€pool,Ð . ~ ÐBill€Schott.€€Mr.€Schott€was€an€acquaintance€of€the€defendantððs€roommate€and€had€not€beenÐ  d Ðselected€as€a€juror.€€According€to€Mr.€Schott,€he€and€other€members€of€the€jury€pool€were€on€theÐ ú J Ðelevator€with€the€victimððs€sister,€when€he€heard€her€talking€about€the€case,€naming€the€defendantÐ à 0 Ðand€Kim€Greene.€The€trial€court€advised€the€State€to€talk€with€the€victim€and€her€sister€toÐ Æ   Ðascertain€what,€if€anything,€had€been€said€by€either€of€the€girls€in€the€presence€of€potential€jurors.€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌAfter€learning€that€the€victim€and€her€sister€had€an€argument€in€a€public€area€of€theÐ xÈ  Ðcourthouse€building€the€day€before,€the€State€asked€the€girls€to€remain€in€the€District€AttorneyððsÐ ^®  Ðwaiting€room€for€the€remainder€of€the€trial.€€According€to€the€State,€the€girls€denied€having€aÐ D”  Ðconversation€on€the€elevator€and€claimed€that€the€argument€they€had€was€about€a€matterÐ *z  Ðcollateral€to€the€case.€€In€addition,€the€trial€court€questioned€the€jurors€about€whether€they€hadÐ ` Ðheard€anyone€talking€about€the€case€the€day€before€while€they€were€ð ðgoing€or€coming€at€lunch,Ð öF Ðrecesses,€or€whatever,€hear€anyone€talking€about€this€case€outside€of€this€courtroom€at€any€time€„Ð Ü, Ðyou€know,€at€the€snack€bar,€in€the€elevator,€in€the€hallway,€in€the€parking€lot,€anywhere?ðð€€ThereÐ Â Ðwas€no€response€from€the€jurors.€€The€trial€court€then€asked€if€there€was€any€ð ðmention€of€[theÐ ¨ø Ðdefendant]€or€Kimberly€Greene,€or€[the€victim],€or€[any]€talk€about€the€case€whatsoever?ðð€€TheÐ ŽÞ Ðjurors€all€shook€their€heads€no.€€Thereafter,€the€trial€court€ended€the€inquiry€and€refused€theÐ tÄ Ðdefendantððs€request€to€further€question€the€victimððs€sister€under€oath€about€the€alleged€commentsÐ Zª Ðon€the€elevator.€€The€trial€court€stated€that€ð ðif€none€of€the€jurors€heard€anything,€whether€she€saidÐ @ Ðit€or€didnððt€doesnððt€make€any€difference€to€me.ððÐ &v ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓThe€defendant€contends€that€he€was€denied€his€constitutional€right€to€confront€and€cross„Ð òB Ðexamine€his€accusers,€as€well€as€the€right€to€a€fair€and€impartial€jury.€€Specifically,€he€argues€thatÐ Ø( Ðthe€juryððs€initial€failure€to€respond€to€the€trial€judgeððs€questions€and€the€eventual€head€shakingÐ ¾ Ðwas€unclear.€€In€other€words,€the€juryððs€response€or€lack€thereof€was€insufficient€to€demonstrateÐ ¤ô Ðthat€none€of€the€jurors€had€overheard€prejudicial€information€about€the€case.€€The€defendant€alsoÐ Š Ú Ðmaintains€that€he€had€a€constitutional€right€to€confront€the€victimððs€sister€about€the€allegedÐ p!À  Ðcomments€because€she€was€acting€as€a€witness€against€him€by€making€such€comments€in€theÐ V"¦! Ðpresence€of€the€jury€pool.€ò òòòÐ <#Œ" Ðó óóóÐ "$r# ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓThe€Sixth€Amendment€of€the€United€States€Constitution€guarantees€a€defendant€the€rightÐ %X $ Ðto€confront€witnesses€against€him€at€trial.€Similarly,€article€I,€section€9€of€the€TennesseeÐ î%>!% ÐConstitution€and€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„17„105€guarantee€a€defendantððs€right€toÐ Ô&$"& Ðmeet€the€witnesses€face„to„face.€€Essentially,€the€purpose€of€the€Confrontation€Clause€is€toÐ º' #' Ðprotect€the€defendantððs€right€of€cross„examination.€€òòTennessee€v.€Streetóó,€471€U.S.€409,€414,€105Ð  (ð#( ÐS.€Ct.€2078,€2082€(1985)€(citations€omitted).€Where€a€defendant€is€unable€to€cross„examine€aÐ †)Ö$) Ðhearsay€declarant€about€his€or€her€statement,€which€is€admitted€for€substantive€purposes€at€theÐ l*¼%* Ðdefendantððs€trial,€such€admission€runs€afoul€of€the€Confrontation€Clause.€òòBruton€v.€UnitedÐ R+¢&+ ÐStatesóó,€391€U.S.€123,€134„35,€88€S.€Ct.€1620,€1627€(1968).€€ò òòòÐ 8,ˆ', ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓó óóóIn€the€instant€case,€the€alleged€prejudicial€statements€by€the€victimððs€sister€were€notÐ –æ Ðadmitted€into€evidence.€€In€fact,€it€appears€that€none€of€the€jury€members€even€heard€the€allegedÐ |Ì Ðout„of„court€statements.€€Furthermore,€the€victimððs€sister€was€never€called€as€a€witness€by€eitherÐ b² Ðthe€State€or€the€defense.€€As€such,€the€defendant€had€no€constitutional€right€to€question€herÐ H˜ Ðbefore€the€jury€about€statements€that€were€allegedly€made€out„of„court.€€Thus,€the€defendant€wasÐ . ~ Ðnot€denied€his€constitutional€right€to€confrontation€of€witnesses.Ð  d ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓTurning€to€the€defendantððs€argument€that€his€constitutional€right€to€an€impartial€jury€wasÐ à 0 Ðviolated,€our€review€of€the€record€does€not€support€the€defendantððs€position.€€We€initially€noteÐ Æ   Ðthat€juror€qualification€rests€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€and€the€trial€judgeððs€ð ðfinding€aÐ ¬ ü  Ðjuror€to€be€qualified€will€not€be€disturbed€on€review€except€on€the€clear€showing€of€an€abuse€ofÐ ’â  Ðdiscretion.ðð€€òòBurns€v.€Stateóó,€591€S.W.2d€780,€782€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979).€€€Rule€24(b)€of€theÐ xÈ  ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provides€that€if€the€trial€judge,€after€examination€of€anyÐ ^®  Ðjuror,€is€of€the€opinion€that€grounds€for€challenge€for€cause€are€present,€the€judge€shall€excuseÐ D”  Ðthat€juror€from€the€trial€of€the€case.ðð€€€In€the€instant€case,€the€trial€judge€asked€the€jurors€ð ðhasÐ *z  Ðanyone€on€the€jury€gotten€any€information€about€this€case€from€any€other€source€since€weÐ ` Ðrecessed€yesterday?€Or€been€contacted€by€anyone€about€this€case?€Yesterday€while€we€were€upÐ öF Ðhere€selecting€the€Jury,€did€anybody€.€.€.€hear€anyone€talking€about€this€case€outside€of€theÐ Ü, Ðcourtroom€.€.€.€anywhere?ðð€€None€of€the€jurors€responded€that€they€had€received€suchÐ Â Ðinformation.€€The€trial€judge€then€clarified€that€none€of€the€jurors€had€heard€anyone€talking€aboutÐ ¨ø Ðthe€case€by€restating,€ð ðNo€mention€of€Mr.€Greene€or€Kimberly€Greene,€or€T.M.,€or€no€talk€aboutÐ ŽÞ Ðthe€case€whatsoever?ðð€€All€of€the€jurors€responded€by€shaking€their€head€no.€€The€defendant€hasÐ tÄ Ðnot€shown€that€any€juror€was€exposed€to€potentially€prejudicial€information.€€Absent€a€showingÐ Zª Ðof€prejudice,€we€have€no€basis€on€which€to€overturn€the€trial€courtððs€decision,€and€we,€therefore,Ð @ Ðfind€no€reversible€error€in€connection€with€the€courtððs€decision€in€this€regard.€€€This€issue€isÐ &v Ðwithout€merit.Ð  \ ÐÓ XÓÌÓ  Óò òSuppression€of€Exculpatory€Informationó óÐ Ø( ÐÓ  ÓÌÓ XÓIn€his€next€point€of€error,€the€defendant€asserts€that€his€right€to€a€fair€trial€was€adverselyÐ ¤ô Ðaffected€by€the€Stateððs€failure€to€disclose€information€specifically€requested€by€the€defendantÐ Š Ú Ðabout€the€prior€sexual€conduct€of€the€victim€with€persons€other€than€the€accused.€It€appears€fromÐ p!À  Ðthe€record€that€the€defendant€requested€any€known€evidence€regarding€prior€sexual€activity€ofÐ V"¦! Ðany€nature€involving€the€victim€with€any€individual€other€than€the€defendant,€includingÐ <#Œ" Ðallegations€made€in€Sevier€or€Blount€County€that€the€victim€had€molested€other€children.€€InÐ "$r# Ðaddition,€the€defendant€requested€the€contents€of€any€reports,€interviews,€or€information€gatheredÐ %X $ Ðby€Nita€Robertson€or€any€other€employee€of€the€Department€of€Human€Services,€which€mightÐ î%>!% Ðlend€itself€to€exculpate€the€defendant.€These€requests€were€contained€in€a€motion€to€produce€allÐ Ô&$"& Ðexculpatory€material€information€filed€in€April€of€1999.Ð º' #' ÐÓ XÓÓ  ÓòòÌFactual€BackgroundóóÐ †)Ö$) ÐÌÓ XÓÓ  ÓAt€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial,€the€defendant€discovered€during€the€testimonyÐ R+¢&+ Ðof€Amy€Galyon,€a€former€Department€of€Human€Services€(ð ðDHSðð)€employee,€the€existence€of€aÐ 8,ˆ', Ðfile€containing€information€that€the€victim€had€been€accused€in€1995€of€sexually€abusing€twoÐ ° Ðyounger€cousins.€€€The€defendant€had€the€DHS€file€admitted€as€an€exhibit€at€the€hearing€and€wasÐ –æ Ðable€to€view€the€contents€of€the€file€for€the€first€time.€€€Among€other€things,€it€contained€a€reportÐ |Ì Ðprepared€by€Ms.€Galyon€indicating€that€the€Department€of€Human€Services€ð ðreceived€a€reportÐ b² Ðalleging€that€[the€victim]€had€allegedly€sexually€abused€her€cousins€and€may€be€sexually€abusedÐ H˜ Ðherself€.€.€.€.ðð€€The€report€was€essentially€a€risk€assessment€worksheet€completed€after€Ms.Ð . ~ ÐGalyon€met€with€the€victim€in€her€home€to€discuss€the€allegations.€€It€appears€from€the€reportÐ  d Ðthat€the€visit€was€in€September€of€1995,€and€that€Ms.€Galyon€spoke€with€the€victim,€her€sister,Ð ú J Ðher€mother,€and€the€defendant.€€Ms.€Galyon€also€indicated€that€the€defendant€and€his€wife€ð ðwereÐ à 0 Ðvery€cooperative€and€appropriate€with€their€children.ðð€€There€was€nothing€in€the€file€to€suggestÐ Æ   Ðthat€Ms.€Galyon€was€concerned€that€the€victim€was€being€sexually€abused€by€the€defendant,Ð ¬ ü  Ðdespite€the€earlier€mention€in€the€report€that€the€victim€ð ðmay€be€abused€herself.ðð€€€In€contrast,Ð ’â  ÐMs.€Galyon€consistently€referred€to€both€the€defendantððs€and€the€victimððs€behavior€asÐ xÈ  Ðappropriate.€€Finally,€a€typed€case€summary€reveals€that€Ms.€Galyon€ð ðwent€over€good/badÐ ^®  Ðtouches€and€explained€that€no€one€should€touch€[the€victim]€and€[she]€shouldnððt€touch€anyoneÐ D”  Ðelse.ðð€€The€victim€agreed€and€was€ð ðvery€appropriate.ðð€Ð *z  ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓDetective€David€Graves,€the€officer€leading€the€investigation€of€the€defendant,€learned€ofÐ öF Ðthe€existence€of€the€DHS€file€and€the€allegations€against€the€victim€in€February€of€1998.€Ð Ü, ÐDetective€Graves€had€been€contacted€by€Lisa€Tucker,€the€mother€of€the€children€that€the€victimÐ Â Ðallegedly€abused,€and€informed€that€the€victim€had€sexually€molested€Ms.€Tuckerððs€children.€€AtÐ ¨ø Ðthe€time,€Detective€Graves€indicated€that€he€felt€like€Ms.€Tucker€was€trying€ð ðto€stir€up€a€lot€ofÐ ŽÞ Ðgarbage.ðð€€He€did,€however,€report€the€information€to€the€District€Attorneyððs€Office€shortlyÐ tÄ Ðthereafter.€€Therefore,€the€State€had€knowledge€of€the€allegations€against€the€victim€and€access€toÐ Zª Ðthe€DHS€file€when€the€defendant€filed€his€motion€requesting€such€information€in€April€of€1999.Ð @ ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓThe€State€defends€its€failure€to€disclose€the€existence€of€the€file€and€its€contents€to€theÐ  \ Ðdefendant€on€the€grounds€that€the€information€contained€in€the€file€was€not€admissible€and,Ð òB Ðtherefore,€irrelevant.€€According€to€the€State,€the€file€contained€information€that€the€victim€hadÐ Ø( Ðbeen€accused€of€fondling€a€seven„year„old€female€cousin€and€of€engaging€in€oral€sex€with€aÐ ¾ Ðtwelve„year€old€male€cousin.€€There€was€nothing€in€the€file€to€suggest€that€the€victim€had€beenÐ ¤ô Ðpenetrated€vaginally€or€rectally.€€The€State€correctly€points€out€that€such€evidence€would€notÐ Š Ú Ðhave€been€admissible€at€trial€under€Rule€412€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.€€TheÐ p!À  Ðprovisions€of€Rule€412€applicable€to€this€type€of€evidence€state€in€pertinent€part:€€Ð V"¦! ÐÓ XÓÓ ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ9%ä ä ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜŒX9ÓÓ! ¡,ä ä ä ‰X!Óà0 4 àà  à(c)€Evidence€of€specific€instances€of€a€victimððs€sexual€behavior€is€inadmissibleÐ <#Œ" Ðunless€.€.€.€the€evidence€is:€€Ð"$r#4Ð 4Ð  ÐÓ XÓà 4 à(1)€Required€by€the€Tennessee€or€United€States€Constitution,€orÐ %X $ ÐÓ ` Óà 4 à.€.€.€€Ð î%>!% ÐÓ °` Óà0 4 àà0` 4x4xàà 4 à(4)€If€the€sexual€behavior€was€with€persons€other€than€the€defendant,Ð Ô&$"& Ð[and€is€offered]€€Ðº' #'` x` x ÐÓ °Óà 4 àà0 ` à(i)€to€rebut€or€explain€scientific€or€medical€evidence,€or€€Ð (ð#(` `  ÐÓ °Óà 4 àà0 ` à(ii)€to€prove€or€explain€the€source€of€semen,€injury,€disease,€orІ)Ö$)` x` x Ðà 4 àà0 ` àà0Œ ` x` xàknowledge€of€sexual€matters€.€.€.€.€€Ðl*¼%*Œ xŒ x ÐÓ X±ÓÓ% ä ä ä ‰X¡,U±%ÓÓ ÓÓ °ÓÓB+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ä ä ä ‰XBÓTenn.€R.€Evid.€412(c).€€€Because€there€is€nothing€in€the€file€to€rebut€the€medical€evidence€ofÐ R+¢&+ Ðvaginal€lacerations€and€rectal€scarring,€the€information€would€not€have€been€admissible.€€TheÐ 8,ˆ', ÐState€further€argues€that€the€defendant€had€independent€knowledge€that€the€victim€had€beenÐ ° Ðaccused€of€sexually€molesting€her€cousins.€Ð –æ ÐÌÓ  ÓòòAnalysisóóÐ b² ÐÌÓ XÓÓ  ÓThe€Due€Process€Clause€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€ConstitutionÐ . ~ Ðand€the€ð ðLaw€of€the€Landðð€Clause€of€Article€I,€section€8€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€affords€allÐ  d Ðcriminal€defendants€the€right€to€a€fair€trial.€The€United€States€Supreme€Court,€in€òòBrady€v.Ð ú J ÐMarylandóó,€held€that€ð ðsuppression€by€the€prosecution€of€evidence€favorable€to€an€accused€uponÐ à 0 Ðrequest€violates€due€process€where€the€evidence€is€material€either€to€guilt€or€to€punishment,Ð Æ   Ðirrespective€of€the€good€faith€or€bad€faith€of€the€prosecution.ðð€€373€U.S.€83,€87,€83€S.€Ct.€1194,Ð ¬ ü  Ð1196„97,€10€L.€Ed.€2d€215,€218€(1963);€òòHartman€v.€Stateóó,€896€S.W.2d€94,€101„02€(Tenn.€1995).Ð ’â  ÐThe€duty€to€disclose€extends€to€all€ð ðfavorable€informationðð€regardless€of€whether€the€evidence€isÐ xÈ  Ðadmissible€at€trial.€€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€845€S.W.2d€228,€232„33€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992);€òòBranchÐ ^®  Ðv.€Stateóó,€469€S.W.2d€533,€534„36€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1969).€Ð D”  ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€held€on€several€occasions€that€in€order€to€establish€aÐ ` ÐòòBradyóó€violation,€the€defendant€must€show€the€existence€of€four€elements:€(1)€that€the€defendantÐ öF Ðrequested€the€information€(or€that€information€was€obviously€exculpatory);€(2)€that€the€StateÐ Ü, Ðwithheld€the€information;€(3)€that€the€withheld€information€was€favorable;€and€(4)€that€theÐ Â Ðwithheld€information€was€material.€€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€38€S.W.3d€52,€56€(Tenn.€2001);€òòState€v.Ð ¨ø ÐWalkeróó,€910€S.W.2d€381,€389€(Tenn.€€1995);€òòState€v.€Edginóó,€902€S.W.2d€387,€389€(Tenn.€1995).€Ð ŽÞ ÐThe€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€proving€a€òòBradyóó€violation€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.Ð tÄ ÐòòEdginóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€389.€€€Ð Zª ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓWithout€question,€the€first€two€requirements€have€been€met.€€Almost€a€year€before€theÐ &v Ðdefendantððs€trial,€defense€counsel€made€a€motion€specifically€requesting€the€evidence€that€wasÐ  \ Ðsuppressed€by€the€prosecution.€€Furthermore,€as€the€State€concedes€in€its€brief,€the€informationÐ òB Ðwas€reported€to€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Human€Services,€a€state€agency,€and€thus,€wasÐ Ø( Ðdeemed€to€be€in€the€Stateððs€possession.€òòSeeóó€òòBanks€v.€Stateóó,€556€S.W.2d€88,€90€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ¾ Ð1977)€(holding€that€the€prosecution€is€required€to€disclose€information€that€is€possessed€by€orÐ ¤ô Ðunder€the€control€of€the€prosecution€or€another€governmental€agency).€The€more€difficult€issuesÐ Š Ú Ðare€whether€the€evidence€is€both€favorable€and€material€to€the€defendant.€€The€TennesseeÐ p!À  ÐSupreme€Court€has€held€that€favorable€information€ð ðmay€consist€of€evidence€that€ððcouldÐ V"¦! Ðexonerate€the€accused,€corroborate€the€accusedððs€position€in€asserting€his€innocence,€or€possess[Ð <#Œ" Ð]€favorable€information€that€would€have€enabled€defense€counsel€to€conduct€further€and€possiblyÐ "$r# Ðfruitful€investigation€.€.€.€.ðððð€òòJohnsonóó,€38€S.W.3d€at€56€(quoting€òòMarshallóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€233).€€InÐ %X $ Ðother€words,€information€is€favorable€if€it€ð ðprovides€some€significant€aid€to€the€defendantððs€case,Ð î%>!% Ðwhether€it€furnishes€corroboration€of€the€defendantððs€story,€calls€into€question€a€material,Ð Ô&$"& Ðalthough€not€indispensable,€element€of€the€prosecutionððs€version€of€the€events,€or€challenges€theÐ º' #' Ðcredibility€of€a€key€prosecution€witness.ðð€€òòJohnsonóó,€38€S.W.3d€at€56„57€(citations€omitted).€€Ð  (ð#( ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓBased€upon€our€review€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€information€contained€in€theÐ l*¼%* ÐDHS€file€was€favorable€to€the€defendant.€€The€information€contained€in€the€1995€DHS€reportÐ R+¢&+ Ðcorroborates€the€defendantððs€position€that€the€victim€made€up€the€allegations€against€him.€€TheÐ 8,ˆ', Ðreport€reveals€that€the€Department€of€Human€Services€had€information€that€the€victim€wasÐ ° Ðaccused€of€sexually€abusing€two€minor€cousins€and€that€the€victim€had€possibly€been€abusedÐ –æ Ðherself.€€Furthermore,€the€report€indicates€that€a€DHS€worker€came€to€the€defendantððs€home€toÐ |Ì Ðinvestigate€the€allegations€during€the€time€that€the€defendant€was€reportedly€raping€the€victimÐ b² Ðtwo€to€three€times€a€week.€€The€DHS€worker€met€with€the€victim,€the€defendant,€and€the€victimððsÐ H˜ Ðmother€and€reported€that€the€defendant€and€his€wife€ð ðwere€very€cooperative€and€appropriate€withÐ . ~ Ðtheir€children.ðð€€Additionally,€no€increased€risk€or€intermediate€risk€of€sexual€abuse€wasÐ  d Ðindicated€in€the€risk€assessment€report.€€The€victim€was€reported€to€be€the€ð ðbenchmarkðð€in€everyÐ ú J Ðcategory€except€for€age€and€developmental€status.€€In€that€category,€she€was€ranked€as€ð ðlowÐ à 0 Ðrisk.ðð€€Additionally,€the€workerððs€typed€notes€revealed€that€she€went€over€good€touches€and€badÐ Æ   Ðtouches€with€the€victim.€€In€short,€there€is€no€indication€that€the€worker€sensed€that€anything€wasÐ ¬ ü  Ðamiss€in€the€home.€Ð ’â  ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓThe€defense€theory€was€that€the€victim€made€up€the€allegations€against€the€defendantÐ ^®  Ðbecause€she€wanted€to€get€the€defendant€out€of€the€house€so€she€could€date€Jason€Parrott.€€InÐ D”  Ðsupport€of€his€position,€the€defendant€pointed€to€the€fact€that€the€victim€never€reported€the€abuseÐ *z  Ðto€an€adult,€even€though€her€school€offered€classes€that€addressed€the€issue€of€sexual€abuse.€InÐ ` Ðresponse,€the€State€presented€evidence€that€the€victim€did€not€take€the€classes€and€that€parentalÐ öF Ðpermission€is€required€for€participation€in€such€a€class.€€The€defendant€also€presented€theÐ Ü, Ðtestimony€of€several€people€who€were€around€the€family€during€the€time€that€the€defendant€wasÐ Â Ðalleged€to€have€been€abusing€the€victim.€€The€witnesses€testified€that€they€did€not€observeÐ ¨ø Ðanything€unusual€about€the€defendantððs€relationship€with€the€victim.€€However,€the€StateÐ ŽÞ Ðattacked€those€witnesses€as€biased€because€of€their€relationship€to€the€defendant.€€Viewed€in€lightÐ tÄ Ðof€the€defendantððs€arguments€at€trial€and€the€Stateððs€responses€to€such€arguments,€theÐ Zª Ðinformation€contained€in€the€DHS€file€ð ðfurnishes€corroboration€of€the€defendantððs€storyðð€andÐ @ Ðð ðbolster[s]€the€defense[ððs]€case€against€prosecutorial€attacks.ðð€As€such,€the€information€satisfiesÐ &v Ðthe€requirement€of€being€favorable€to€the€defendant.€€òòJohnsonóó,€38€S.W.3d€at€56„57.Ð  \ ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓAlthough€the€defendant€has€established€that€the€State€withheld€favorable€evidence,€weÐ Ø( Ðmust,€nevertheless,€conclude€that€the€defendantððs€claim€fails€because€he€has€failed€toÐ ¾ Ðdemonstrate€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€information€was€material.€€TheÐ ¤ô ÐTennessee€Supreme€Court€has€established€that€evidence€is€material€when€ð ðthere€is€a€reasonableÐ Š Ú Ðprobability€that,€had€the€evidence€been€disclosed€to€the€defense,€the€result€of€the€proceedingÐ p!À  Ðwould€have€been€different.ðð€€€òòEdginóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€390€(adopting€the€United€States€SupremeÐ V"¦! ÐCourtððs€materiality€standard€set€out€in€òòKyles€v.€Whitleyóó,€514€U.S.€419,€435€n.8€(1995)).€€DespiteÐ <#Œ" Ðthe€use€of€the€word€ð ðprobabilityðð€in€our€Stateððs€cases,€Ð "$r# ÐÓ<(Œ Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜŒX<ÓÓ °ÓÓ X°ÓÓ °ÓÓ X°ÓÓ XÓthe€test€of€materiality€is€not€whether€the€defendant€would€more€likely€than€notÐ %X $ Ðhave€received€a€different€verdict€had€the€evidence€been€disclosed.€Nor€is€the€testÐ î%>!% Ðof€materiality€equivalent€to€that€of€evidentiary€sufficiency,€such€that€we€mayÐ Ô&$"& Ðaffirm€a€conviction€.€.€.€when,€ð ðafter€discounting€the€inculpatory€evidence,€theÐ º' #' Ðremaining€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€jury's€conclusions.ðð€òòÐ  (ð#( ÐÓ °XØÓÓ °XØÓÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÓB+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!Œ Œ Œ ŠXBÓJohnsonóó,€38€S.W.3d€at€58.€(quoting€òòStrickler€v.€Greeneóó,€527€U.S.€263,€275,€€119€S.€Ct.€1936Ð †)Ö$) Ð(1999)).€€Essentially,€ð ðevidence€is€material€when,€because€of€its€absence,€the€defendant€failed€toÐ l*¼%* Ðreceive€a€fair€trial,€ððunderstood€as€a€trial€resulting€in€a€verdict€worthy€of€confidence.ðððð€€òòId.óóÐ R+¢&+ Ð(quoting€òòKylesóó,€514€U.S.€at€434).€Ð 8,ˆ', ЀÌÓ XÓBased€upon€our€review€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€defendant€has€notÐ –æ Ðdemonstrated€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€result€of€the€trial€would€have€been€different€hadÐ |Ì Ðhis€attorney€been€aware€of€the€information€contained€in€the€DHS€file.€The€DHS€file€does€notÐ b² Ðcontain€direct€exculpatory€information.€€Despite€the€defendantððs€argument€that€the€informationÐ H˜ Ðcalls€into€question€the€victimððs€testimony€regarding€her€prior€sexual€conduct€and€could€be€usedÐ . ~ Ðto€rebut€the€Stateððs€medical€evidence,€the€reports€do€not€provide€any€information€that€could€beÐ  d Ðused€to€rebut€such€medical€evidence.€€As€the€State€correctly€points€out,€the€information€in€theÐ ú J Ðreport€only€suggests€that€the€victim€may€have€engaged€in€oral€sex,€which€would€not€rebut€theÐ à 0 Ðmedical€evidence€in€this€case€and€would€not€be€admissible€under€Rule€412€of€the€TennesseeÐ Æ   ÐRules€of€Evidence.€€Furthermore,€the€only€evidence€that€James€Clark€had€intercourse€with€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðvictim€is€his€testimony€during€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€The€Stateððs€failure€toÐ ’â  Ðdisclose€the€report€did€not€prevent€the€defendant€from€calling€Mr.€Clark€to€testify€at€his€trial.Ð xÈ  ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓWith€regard€to€the€DHS€workerððs€assessment€of€the€defendantððs€home€in€1995,€theÐ D”  Ðdefense€theory€that€the€victim€would€have€told€the€DHS€worker€about€the€abuse€in€1995€if€itÐ *z  Ðwere€true€is€undermined€by€the€victimððs€testimony€that€she€was€afraid€for€the€life€of€her€motherÐ ` Ðand€siblings€and€by€the€DHS€workerððs€testimony€that€she€was€never€alone€with€the€victim.€Ð öF ÐNonetheless,€we€acknowledge€that€defendant€could€still€have€argued€that€the€DHS€worker,€whoÐ Ü, Ðwas€apparently€at€the€defendantððs€home€to€assess€the€likelihood€that€the€victim€abused€herÐ Â Ðcousins€and/or€was€the€victim€of€sexual€abuse€herself,€would€have€been€able€to€detect€some€signÐ ¨ø Ðthat€the€victim€was€being€raped€by€the€defendant€two€or€three€times€a€week.€€We€are€unable€toÐ ŽÞ Ðconclude,€however,€that€this€argument€is€sufficient€to€render€the€jury€verdict€ð ðunworthy€ofÐ tÄ Ðconfidence.ðð€€Thus,€the€defendantððs€due€process€rights€were€not€violated€by€the€Stateððs€failure€toÐ Zª Ðdisclose€the€contents€of€the€DHS€file.Ð @ ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓThe€defendant€also€argues€that€the€State€had€a€duty€to€disclose€the€information€in€theÐ  \ ÐDHS€file€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€16.€€We€disagree.€€Under€Rule€16,Ð òB Ðthe€State€is€required€to€disclose€documents€and€tangible€objects€which€are€ð ðmaterial€to€theÐ Ø( Ðpreparation€of€the€defendantððs€defense€or€are€intended€for€use€by€the€State€as€evidence€in€chief€atÐ ¾ Ðthe€trial.ðð€€€For€the€reasons€enumerated€above,€the€information€in€the€file€is€not€ð ðmaterial€to€theÐ ¤ô Ðdefendantððs€defense.ðð€Furthermore,€the€information€was€not€used€or€intended€for€use€by€the€StateÐ Š Ú Ðin€its€case€in€chief€and€was,€therefore,€not€subject€to€Rule€16€disclosure.€€This€issue€is€withoutÐ p!À  Ðmerit.Ð V"¦! ÐÓ XÓÌÓ  Óò òElection€of€OffensesÐ "$r# ÐÓ  Óó óÌÓ XÓIn€his€last€assignment€of€error,€the€defendant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€notÐ î%>!% Ðrequiring€the€State€to€elect€the€particular€incident€upon€which€it€was€relying€for€the€offense€ofÐ Ô&$"& Ðincest€in€Count€Two.€€In€support€of€his€position,€the€defendant€points€out€that€the€indictment€forÐ º' #' ÐCount€Two€includes€activity€between€March€1995€and€August€1997.€€The€State€filed€a€Bill€ofÐ  (ð#( ÐParticulars€that€covered€a€time€span€of€two€years€and€included,€but€was€not€limited€to,€sixÐ †)Ö$) Ðspecific€instances€of€vaginal€penetration,€between€232€and€348€unspecified€instances€of€vaginalÐ l*¼%* Ðand/or€rectal€penetration,€and€one€instance€of€oral€penetration.€€At€the€close€of€the€Stateððs€proof,Ð R+¢&+ Ðthe€State€announced€to€the€trial€court€that€it€was€electing€the€specific€instance€of€vaginalÐ 8,ˆ', Ðpenetration,€which€occurred€in€mid„March€1995,€near€the€victimððs€birthday.€€€The€jury€was€notÐ ° Ðpresent€when€this€announcement€was€made,€and€no€instruction€was€given€to€the€jury€concerningÐ –æ Ðthe€Stateððs€election€after€their€return€or€at€the€close€of€the€defendantððs€proof.€€In€the€closingÐ |Ì Ðargument,€the€State€argued€the€multiple€instances€of€sexual€abuse€described€by€the€victim€in€herÐ b² Ðtestimony,€which€spanned€over€a€period€of€two€years.€€At€no€time€did€the€State€inform€the€jury€ofÐ H˜ Ðits€election€for€the€mid„March€incident€in€Count€Two.€€Furthermore,€the€trial€court€neverÐ . ~ Ðinstructed€the€jury€that€an€election€had€been€made€by€the€State.€€Consequently,€the€defendantÐ  d Ðasserts€that€the€Stateððs€announcement€of€election€followed€by€a€closing€argument€that€included€aÐ ú J Ðwide€range€of€sexual€allegations€against€the€defendant€without€any€instruction€from€the€trialÐ à 0 Ðcourt€amounted€to€an€improper€or€ineffective€election.€€We€agree.Ð Æ   ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓThe€Tennessee€Constitutionò ò€ó órequires€that€jurors€in€a€criminal€trial€reach€a€unanimousÐ ’â  Ðverdict€based€upon€the€same€set€of€facts.€ò ò€ó óòòState€v.€Brownóó,€823€S.W.2d€576,€583€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð xÈ  ÐApp.€1991).€€Primarily€because€of€this€requirement,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€longÐ ^®  Ðrecognized€thatò ò€ó óð ðwhen€the€evidence€indicates€the€defendant€has€committed€multiple€offensesÐ D”  Ðagainst€a€victim,€the€prosecution€must€elect€the€particular€offense€as€charged€in€the€indictmentÐ *z  Ðfor€which€the€conviction€is€sought.ðð€€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€992€S.W.2d€389,€391€(Tenn.€1999).€€ThisÐ ` Ðelection€requirementò ò€ð ðó óprotects€a€defendantððs€right€to€a€unanimous€jury€verdict€under€theÐ öF ÐTennessee€Constitution€by€ensuring€that€jurors€deliberate€over€and€render€a€verdict€based€on€theÐ Ü, Ðsame€offense.ðð€€òòState€v.€Kendrickóó,€38€S.W.3d€566,€568€(Tenn.€2001)€(citing€òòBrownóó,€992€S.W.2dÐ Â Ðat€391).ò ò€€ó óIn€addition,€the€election€requirement€ð ðenables€a€defendant€to€prepare€for€a€specificÐ ¨ø Ðcharge,ðð€ð ðprotects€a€defendant€against€double€jeopardy,ðð€ð ðenables€the€trial€court€to€review€theÐ ŽÞ Ðweight€of€the€evidence€in€its€capacity€as€thirteenth€juror,ðð€and€ð ðenables€the€appellate€court€toÐ tÄ Ðreview€the€legal€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.ðð€€òòId.óó€€ò òÐ Zª ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓó óIn€the€instant€case,€the€State€concedes€that€an€election€was€required€for€the€offense€inÐ &v ÐCount€Two.€€However,€the€State€argues€that€a€proper€election€was€made€by€the€State€at€the€closeÐ  \ Ðof€its€proof.€€In€addition,€the€State€asserts€that€the€trial€courtððs€instruction€regarding€evidence€ofÐ òB Ðother€crimes€or€wrongs€was€sufficient€to€eliminate€any€confusion€caused€by€the€prosecutorððsÐ Ø( Ðreferences€to€other€instances€of€sexual€abuse€during€the€closing€argument.€€The€record€does€notÐ ¾ Ðsupport€these€assertions.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€repeatedly€held€that€when€evidenceÐ ¤ô Ðis€presented€of€multiple€offenses€that€would€constitute€the€crime€charged,€the€trial€court€mustÐ Š Ú Ðrequire€the€State€to€elect€the€particular€offense€for€which€a€conviction€is€sought€òòand€must€instructÐ p!À  Ðthe€jury€as€to€the€need€for€jury€unanimity€regarding€the€finding€of€the€particular€offense€electedóó.€Ð V"¦! ÐòòBrownóó,€962€S.W.2d€at€137;€òòState€v.€Waltonóó,€958€S.W.2d€724,€727€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,Ð <#Œ" Ð851€S.W.2d€134,€136€(Tenn.€1993);€òòBurlison€v.€Stateóó,€501€S.W.2d€801,€804€(Tenn.€1973).Ð "$r# ÐFurthermore,€failure€to€follow€this€procedure€is€considered€to€be€of€constitutional€magnitude€andÐ %X $ Ðwill€result€in€reversal€of€the€conviction,€absent€the€error€being€harmless€beyond€a€reasonableÐ î%>!% Ðdoubt.€€òòSheltonóó,€851€S.W.2d€at€138.Ð Ô&$"& ÐÓ XÓÓ  ÓÌÓ XÓÓ  ÓIn€the€instant€case,€at€the€close€of€its€proof,€the€State€informed€the€trial€court€that€it€wasÐ  (ð#( Ðelecting€the€incident€of€vaginal€penetration€that€occurred€on€the€victimððs€birthday€in€mid„MarchÐ †)Ö$) Ð1995.€€This€occurred€at€a€time€when€the€jury€was€not€present€in€the€courtroom.€After€the€juryÐ l*¼%* Ðreturned€to€the€courtroom,€no€mention€was€made€of€the€Stateððs€election,€and€the€defendant€put€onÐ R+¢&+ Ðhis€proof.€€During€the€Stateððs€closing€argument,€there€was€no€mention€of€the€election€for€theÐ 8,ˆ', Ðoffense€in€Count€Two.€€Furthermore,€in€the€closing€argument,€the€State€reviewed€the€victimððsÐ ° Ðtestimony€arguing€that€the€defendant€had€intercourse€with€the€victim€on€her€birthday€in€MarchÐ –æ Ð1995,€forced€her€to€engage€in€begging€sex€games,€raped€her€anally€twice,€forced€her€to€performÐ |Ì Ðoral€sex,€forced€her€to€have€sex€on€Mothers€Day,€and€raped€her€in€the€shower€stall€in€August€ofÐ b² Ð1997.€€On€rebuttal,€the€prosecutor€again€reminded€the€jury€that€the€defendant€introduced€theÐ H˜ Ðvictim€to€ð ða€world€of€sodomy,€€.€.€.€brutal€rape,€€.€.€.€[and]€forced€fellatio,€that€lasted€for€years.ðð€€Ð . ~ ÐÓ XÓÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€State€argues€that€the€following€instruction€to€the€jury€made€by€the€trial€court€wasÐ ú J Ðsufficient€to€cure€any€confusion€created€by€the€Stateððs€closing€argument.Ð à 0 ÐÓ XÓÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÓ  ÓÓ<(Œ Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜŒX<ÓIf€from€the€proof€you€find€that€the€defendant€has€committedÐ Æ   Ða€crime€or€crimes€òòother€than€that€for€which€he€is€on€trialóó,€you€mayÐ ¬ ü  Ðnot€consider€such€evidence€to€prove€his€disposition€to€commit€suchÐ ’â  Ða€crime€as€that€on€trial.Ð xÈ  ÐÓ XÓ€.€.€.Ð ^®  ÐÓ XÓSuch€evidence€of€other€crime(s),€if€considered€by€you€forÐ D”  Ðany€purpose,€must€not€be€considered€for€any€purpose€other€than€[aÐ *z  Ðcommon€scheme€or€plan].€€€€ò òÐ ` ÐÓ XÓÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÓB+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!Œ Œ Œ ŠXBÓó ó(emphasis€added).€The€State€correctly€points€out€that€juries€are€presumed€to€follow€theÐ öF Ðinstructions€given€by€the€trial€judge.€ò ò€ó óòòState€v.€Williamsóó,€977€S.W.2d€101,€106€(Tenn.€1998).ò ò€€ó óTheÐ Ü, ÐStateððs€reliance€on€the€jury€instruction€in€this€case,€however,€is€misplaced.€€Our€review€of€theÐ Â Ðrecord€reveals€that€neither€the€State€nor€the€trial€court€ever€informed€the€jury€of€the€StateððsÐ ¨ø Ðelection€for€the€offense€in€Count€Two.€€The€jury€was€never€instructed€that€an€election€wasÐ ŽÞ Ðrequired€in€this€case.€€The€jury€was€never€instructed€on€the€purpose€of€an€election,€i.e.€to€ensure€aÐ tÄ Ðunanimous€verdict€based€on€the€exact€same€set€of€facts.€€As€such,€the€jury€could€not€have€knownÐ Zª Ðthat€except€for€the€mid„March€incident€of€vaginal€penetration,€the€multiple€instances€of€sexualÐ @ Ðabuse€described€by€the€victim€and€argued€by€the€State€were€crimes€other€than€that€for€which€theÐ &v Ðdefendant€was€on€trial.ò ò€€ó óIndeed,€the€jury€was€left€to€believe€it€could€consider€every€allegation€ofÐ  \ Ðabuse€made€by€the€victim€in€determining€the€defendantððs€guilt.ò ò€€Ð òB ÐÌÓ XÓó óWe€conclude€that€the€Stateððs€election€for€the€offense€in€Count€Two,€the€existence€ofÐ ¾ Ðwhich€was€never€conveyed€to€the€jury,€was€not€sufficient€to€ensure€a€unanimous€verdict.€€WithÐ ¤ô Ðthe€enormity€of€case€law€on€this€topic€dating€back€to€1906,€we€are€perplexed€by€such€aÐ Š Ú Ðfundamental€flaw€in€the€proceedings,€i.e.,€the€jury€was€never€informed€of€the€election.€€òòState€v.Ð p!À  ÐJohnsonóó,€53€S.W.3d€628,€631€(Tenn.€2001)€(citing€òòJamison€v.€Stateóó,€94€S.W.€675€(1906)).€€AfterÐ V"¦! Ðall,€the€most€important€purpose€of€the€election€requirement€is€to€safeguard€the€defendantððs€rightÐ <#Œ" Ðto€a€unanimous€jury€verdict.€It€is€not€the€trial€judge€or€the€defense€attorney€who€will€beÐ "$r# Ðdeliberating€on€the€defendantððs€guilt.€€Yet,€those€were€the€only€people€who€were€informed€of€theÐ %X $ ÐStateððs€election€in€this€case.€€€We€must€reverse€the€defendantððs€conviction€on€Count€Two€ofÐ î%>!% Ðincest€and€remand€for€a€new€trial.€€We€are€compelled€to€agree€with€another€panel€of€this€Court,Ð Ô&$"& Ðplaced€in€a€similar€position,€ð ðthat€the€results€of€cases€such€as€this€are€all€the€more€tragic€becauseÐ º' #' Ðthey€are€easily€preventable.ðð€€€òòState€v.€Herring,óó€No.€M1999„00776„CCA„R3„CDò ò,ó ó€2000€Tenn.Ð  (ð#( ÐCrim.€App.€LEXIS€684,€at€*23€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.ò ò€ó óat€Nashville,€August€24,€2000)€(reversing€andÐ †)Ö$) Ðremanding€for€retrial€five€convictions€for€rape€of€a€child€based€on€the€Stateððs€failure€to€make€aÐ l*¼%* Ðproper€election€of€offenses).Ð R+¢&+ ÐÓ XÓÓ  ÓÐ 8,ˆ', Ðò òòòCONCLUSIONÐ ° ÐÌÓ XÓÓ  Óó óóóAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€record€and€the€issues,€we€conclude€that€the€State€did€notÐ |Ì Ðimproperly€elicit€prior€consistent€statements€of€the€victim€during€the€direct€examination€of€her;Ð b² Ðthe€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€refusing€the€defendantððs€request€to€question€theÐ H˜ Ðvictimððs€sister€about€alleged€prejudicial€comments€made€out„of„court;€and€the€defendantððsÐ . ~ Ðconstitutional€rights€were€not€violated€by€the€Stateððs€failure€to€disclose€non„material€informationÐ  d Ðrequested€by€the€defendant.€ò ò€ó óNevertheless,€the€defendantððs€conviction€for€incest€in€Count€TwoÐ ú J Ðmust€be€reversed€and€remanded€for€a€new€trial€because€of€our€conclusion€that€the€State€failed€toÐ à 0 Ðproperly€elect€an€offense€for€which€the€conviction€was€sought.€€The€judgment€for€Count€One€isÐ Æ   Ðaffirmed.€ò òÐ ¬ ü  ÐÐ ’â  ÐÐ xÈ  ÐÐ ^®  ÐÐ D”  ÐÓ hXÓó ó____________________________________Ð *z  ÐJOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,€JUDGEÐ ` ÐÓ] ÓÓ hÓÓ  Ó