ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° 0d% U>‰ B)Ç DCð U*3 AM]âªv~Œ B vÓ' D3ú 0@- AOmƼ 0D‚ D/Æ Bõ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ z { D| } D~  € E ‚ Eƒ Ó€Ô¡¨ fÏN ïÿ3|xŒ 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd< Œ 9p`(Arial€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ØÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÔ€!ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌOctober€24,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'` dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ\R AØ'\ќـ€ÙÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€!ÔßR€"# A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌà@ àAUGUST€1997€SESSIONÌÌœSTATE›€OF€TENNESSEEà àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€No.€01C01„9607„CR„00320Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€à àSUMNER€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JANE€WHEATCRAFTÌSTANLEY€LAWSONà àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó ó(Incest)ÌÌÌÌò òòòÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌóóJOHN€E.€HERBISONà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌó óAttorney€at€Lawà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ2016€Eight€Avenue€SouthÌNashville,€Tennessee€37204à àà àà àò òDARYL€J.€BRANDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òSALLIE€WADE€BROWNÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à113€West€Main€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àGallitin,€Tennessee,€37066ÌÌÌò òÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:___________________ÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌJOE€H.€WALKER,€IIIÌSp.€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌœÌÑ7€f XXdìXXdì7Ñ›à@ àòòOPINIONó óóóÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€defendant€appeals€a€jury€verdict€finding€him€guilty€of€twenty„five€counts€ofÏincest.€€€The€defendant€was€sentenced€to€seven€years€on€each€count,€with€counts€oneÏthrough€ten€to€be€served€consecutively,€and€the€others€to€be€run€concurrently.€€€TheÏjury€assessed€fines€of€ten€thousand€dollars€per€count.€€The€court€reduced€the€fines€toÏtwo€thousand€dollars€per€count.ò ò€€ÌÌà àó óThe€defendant€presents€the€following€issues€for€consideration:Ìà à1.€€Whether€the€proof€was€insufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€to€sustain€a€conviction,Ïin€that€the€defendant€was€convicted€on€the€uncorroborated€€testimony€of€anÏaccomplice;€and€whether€the€trial€court€erred€through€its€instructions€by€submitting€toÏthe€jury€the€question€of€whether€the€victim€was€an€accomplice€so€as€to€requireÏcorroboration€of€her€testimony.Ìà à2.€€Whether€the€admission€of€a€redacted€version€of€an€audio€tape€recording€of€aÏconversation€between€the€defendant€and€the€victim€was€error.Ìà à3.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erroneously€permitted€the€victim€to€testify€from€notes.Ìà à4.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€a€statement€of€the€defendant€to€beÏsubmitted€to€the€jury.Ìà à5.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erroneously€excluded€cross€examination€of€the€victimÏconcerning€certain€prior€statements.Ìà à6.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erroneously€permitted€the€jury€to€take€transcripts€of€aÏtape€recorded€conversation€between€the€defendant€and€victim€into€the€jury€roomÏduring€deliberations.Ìà à7.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erroneously€ordered€consecutive€sentencing€as€to€tenÏcounts€of€the€indictment;€and€whether€this€was€a€harsher€effective€sentence€on€retrial,Ïviolating€due€process.ÌÌÌœÌÌ›à@ àò òòòProcedural€BackgroundÌà àóóó óThe€defendant€was€indicted€on€twenty„six€counts€of€incest,€alleging€that€heÏsexually€penetrated€his€adopted€daughter,€on€twenty„six€specified€dates.€€The€caseÏwas€tried,€with€the€state€dismissing€one€count€of€the€indictment.€€The€jury€found€theÏdefendant€guilty€on€the€remaining€twenty„five€counts.€€After€a€sentencing€hearing,€theÏdefendant€was€sentenced€to€six€years€in€prison€on€each€count,€with€ten€of€theÍsentences€to€be€served€consecutively,€and€the€others€to€run€concurrently.Ìà àThe€defendant€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€alleging€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€After€a€hearing,€the€petition€was€sustained,€and€the€convictionsÏwere€set€aside,€and€the€defendant€was€granted€a€new€trial.Ìà àThe€defendant€moved€to€suppress€certain€statements€he€made€in€a€tapeÏrecorded€conversation€with€the€victim,€and€after€an€evidentiary€hearing,€the€motion€wasÏdenied,€with€the€court€proposing€certain€redactions.€€As€redacted,€the€tape€andÏtranscription€of€the€conversation€were€admitted€into€evidence€at€trial,€and€submitted€toÏthe€jury.€€Ìà àThe€jury€at€re„trial€found€the€defendant€guilty€on€all€twenty€five€counts€of€incest.€ÌÌà@ àò òòòFactual€BackgroundÌóóó óà àÌà àThe€defendant€was€the€step€father€of€the€victim,€and€adopted€her€when€she€wasÏfour€years€old.€€The€acts€of€incest€alleged€in€the€indictment€occurred€when€the€victimÏwas€fifteen€years€of€age,€and€in€the€ninth€grade.Ìà àThe€victim€lived€with€her€mother,€the€defendant,€and€her€younger€brother,€whoÏwas€the€son€of€the€victimððs€mother€and€the€defendant.€€The€family€lived€in€a€doubleÏwide€trailer€on€fourteen€acres€in€Sumner€County.Ìà àAt€the€time€of€most€of€the€incidents€of€incest,€the€victimððs€mother€would€not€be€atÏhome.€€The€victimððs€mother€worked€at€a€store€in€Nashville,€and€usually€spent€the€entireÏweekend€in€Nashville,€staying€at€her€own€motherððs€home.€€Most€of€the€acts€of€incest€œÌÌÌoccurred›€during€those€weekends.€€One€act€(count€22)€occurred€while€the€mother€wasÏat€œÌhome›€but€asleep.Ìà àThe€younger€brother€was€usually€at€home,€but€slept€in€another€room€of€theÏtrailer.€€The€defendant€would€block€the€doorways€to€prevent€the€brother€from€observingÏthe€sexual€activities.€€On€one€of€the€occasions€the€brother€was€outside€playing,€and€theÏdefendant€locked€him€out€of€the€trailer.€On€another€occasion,€the€brother€walked€intoÏthe€defendantððs€bedroom€during€anal€incest€of€the€victim,€and€the€defendant€tried€toÏcover€up€the€victim€so€that€the€brother€would€not€see€her.Ìà àAt€the€trial,€the€victim€described€in€detail€the€sexual€activities€that€occurred€onÏeach€of€the€twenty„five€dates€specified€in€the€indictment.€€She€testified€that€she€hadÏindependent€recollection€of€the€events,€although€she€used€notes€formulated€from€aÏcalender€to€help€keep€straight€which€events€occurred€on€which€precise€dates.Ìà àThe€victim€related€that€on€several€occasions€she€would€watch€x„rated€videosÏwith€the€defendant,€and€the€defendant€would€have€the€victim€act€out€fantasies€for€him.€ÏOn€certain€occasions€the€defendant€would€argue€with€the€victim€about€playing€theÏstereo€too€loudly,€or€going€out€with€boys,€or€meeting€friends.€€After€those€arguments€theÏdefendant€would€engage€in€incest€with€the€victim.Ìà àThe€victim€recounted€the€numerous€instances,€by€specific€date,€on€which€theÏdefendant€sexually€penetrated€her€vaginally,€orally,€and€anally.€€On€at€least€oneÏoccasion€the€sexual€intercourse€was€extremely€painful€to€the€victim.Ìà àThe€victim€requested€that€the€defendant€stop€having€sex€with€her€and€simply€actÍas€her€ð ðdaddy,ðð€and€he€agreed.€€Shortly€after€that€promise,€they€were€wrestling€on€theÏbed€and€the€defendant€began€feeling€her€and€then€engaged€her€in€sex.€€On€severalÏother€occasions€the€victim€discussed€with€the€defendant€stopping€the€sexualÏencounters,€but€the€relationship€continued€sexually.Ìà àIn€March,€1993,€because€the€victim€was€late€for€her€period,€the€defendantÏpurchased€an€over„the„counter€pregnancy€test€kit.€€When€the€results€were€negative,Ïthe€defendant€celebrated€with€incest€on€the€victim.€€Shortly€after€that,€the€victim€told€herÏguidance€counselor€in€high€school€about€the€sex€with€her€adoptive€father.€€The€œvictim€›Ïwas€then€interviewed€by€a€sexual€abuse€counselor€from€the€Tennessee€Department€ofÏHuman€Services.€€The€complaints€were€reported€to€a€detective€with€the€SumnerÏCounty€Sheriffððs€Department,€who€requested€that€the€victim€wear€a€concealedÏmicrophone€while€speaking€with€her€adoptive€father.€€The€victim€called€the€defendant,Ïand€arranged€a€time€and€place€for€a€meeting.€€At€the€deputyððs€suggestion,€the€victimÏtold€the€defendant€that€she€had€run€away,€but€that€they€needed€to€meet€and€talk.€€TheyÏarranged€to€meet€at€a€local€restaurant.€Ìà àThe€deputies€were€present€at€the€restaurant,€and€monitored€and€recorded€theÏconversation€between€the€victim€and€the€defendant.€€After€hearing€the€conversationÏthrough€the€concealed€microphone,€the€deputies€confronted€the€defendant,€and€readÏhim€the€òòMirandaóó€warnings,€and€transported€him€to€the€sheriffððs€department.€€TheÏdefendant€was€again€advised€of€his€òòMirandaóóò ò€ó ówarnings,€and€signed€a€waiver€of€thoseÏwarnings.€€The€defendant€was€asked€if€he€knew€why€they€wanted€to€talk€to€him€and€heÏanswered€ð ða€problem€involving€my€daughter.ðð€€The€detective€asked€the€defendant€if€heÏknew€what€the€allegations€were,€and€the€defendant€responded,€I€believe€itððs€about€meÍmolesting€or€raping€my€daughter.€€The€defendant€then€requested€an€attorney,€and€theÏquestioning€ended.Ìà àò òÔ€!¼ÔÌÔ€!XÔà@ àòòSufficiency€of€the€Proof€„€Accompliceóớ̜à àó óThe€defendant€maintains€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€inÏthat€the€defendant€was€convicted€on€the€uncorroborated€testimony€of€an€accomplice.€ÏThe€defendant€further€submits€that€the€trial€court€erred€through€its€instructions€byÏsubmitting€to€the€jury€the€question€of€whether€the€victim€was€an€accomplice€so€as€toÏrequire€corroboration€of€her€testimony.Ìà@ àòòAccompliceÌóóà àAn€accomplice€is€one€who€knowingly,€voluntarily,€and€with€common€intentÏunites€with€the€principal€offender€in€the€commission€of€a€crime.€€òòConner€v.€Stateóó,€531ÏS.W.2d€119€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975).€€The€test€is€whether€or€not€the€allegedÏaccomplice€can€be€indicted€for€the€offense.€€If,€however,€the€witnessesðð€participation€inÏthe€crime€is€the€result€of€force,€coercion,€duress,€or€undue€influence€so€that€theÏparticipant€does€not€act€voluntarily,€with€the€same€intent€as€the€principal,€then€theÏwitness€is€not€an€accomplice.€€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€489€S.W.2d€53€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ïœ1972);›€€òòState€v.€Greenóó,€915€S.W.2d€827€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ìà àIf€the€offense€of€incest€is€committed€without€the€victimððs€consent,€thenÏcorroboration€of€the€victimððs€testimony€is€not€required.€€òòScott€v.€Stateóó,€207€Tenn.€151,Ï338€S.W.2d€581€(1960).ò òÌà àó ó€This€court€finds€that€there€was€sufficient€evidence€in€the€record€to€submit€to€theÍjury€the€question€whether€the€victim€consented,€and€thus€was€an€accomplice.Ìà àThe€victim€testified€that€she€wanted€ð ða€daddy,ðð€and€the€defendant€would€not€beÏthat€for€her.€€She€felt€hurt€by€all€of€the€acts€of€incest,€which€she€described€in€greatÏdetail.€€She€wanted€him€to€be€her€dad€instead€of€doing€what€he€did€to€her.€€She€andÏher€father€had€heated€discussions€about€the€sexual€relations€he€was€engaging€her€in.€ÏHer€father€had€told€her€to€perform€these€acts,€and€began€to€take€it€for€granted.Ìà à€The€victim€described€in€detail€each€incident€covered€by€each€separate€count€ofÏthe€indictment.€€Several€of€the€incidents€occurred€after€the€defendant€became€mad€atÏher.€€In€the€incident€set€out€in€count€two,€the€defendant€accused€her€of€playing€theÏstereo€too€loud,€got€mad,€and€began€fighting€with€her.€€He€tied€a€door€to€the€bedroomÏof€the€victimððs€brother,€the€only€other€person€in€the€house.€€He€put€a€chair€against€theÏdoor,€and€engaged€her€in€incest€activities.Ìà àIn€the€incident€alleged€in€count€four€of€the€indictment,€he€got€x„rated€movies€forÏthe€victim€to€watch,€and€performed€anal€sex€on€the€victim.€€She€testified€that€it€hurt€realÏbad.€€She€said€something€at€that€time€about€it.Ìà àIn€the€incident€alleged€in€count€five€of€the€indictment,€the€defendant€got€madÏwhen€she€had€gone€out€with€friends.€He€yelled€at€her,€and€then€had€sex€with€her€usingÏa€mirror.Ìà àOn€another€€occasion€€her€father€bought€her€a€douche,€and€told€her€to€hide€itÏfrom€her€mother.€€On€one€occasion,€she€missed€her€period,€and€her€father€bought€aÏpregnancy€test.€€He€was€afraid€she€might€be€pregnant€with€his€child.Ìà àOn€another€occasion,€the€victim€had€gone€out€with€her€friend,€Greg,€and€theÏdefendant€got€mad€at€her,€and€told€her€to€tell€anyone€who€asked€her€out€that€sheÍalready€had€a€boyfriend.€€He€covered€the€windows€with€towels€before€engaging€her€inÏincest.€Ìà àIn€the€incident€set€out€in€count€ten,€the€defendant€rented€x„rated€movies€andÏmade€her€act€out€parts€of€the€video.Ìà àIn€the€incident€set€out€in€count€eleven,€the€victim€had€missed€a€10:00€p.m.Ïcurfew,€and€the€defendant€became€angry,€and€was€not€okay€until€after€sex€with€theÏvictim.Ìà àIn€the€incident€alleged€in€count€twelve,€the€defendant€made€the€victim€put€on€herÏmotherððs€lingerie,€and€the€defendant€ripped€it€off€of€her€before€engaging€her€in€incest.Ìà àIn€œthe€incident›€alleged€in€count€thirteen,€the€defendant€made€her€dance€whileÏwearing€lingerie€before€engaging€her€in€incest.Ìà àIn€the€incident€alleged€in€count€fifteen,€the€defendant€would€not€let€her€go€outÏwith€her€friend€Misty,€and€told€her€she€had€to€stay€home;€that€he€was€going€to€tryÏstrawberry€jell€on€her€while€engaging€her€in€incest.Ìà àIn€the€incident€set€out€in€count€seventeen,€the€victim€testified€that€the€acts€ofÏincest€hurt€real€bad,€and€she€screamed€out.€€The€defendant€continued€œto€perform›€theÏact€anyway.€€Ìà àIn€the€incident€set€out€in€count€eighteen,€the€victim€was€on€her€period,€and€theÏdefendant€did€not€want€intercourse.€€He€wanted€anal€incest,€and€made€her€put€a€towelÏon€the€bed.€€The€victimððs€brother€walked€in€and€the€defendant€got€mad€and€screamedÏat€him.€€The€defendant€was€on€top€of€her,€and€covered€her€up.€€The€brother€startedÏcrying.€Ìà àIn€the€incident€set€out€in€count€twenty,€the€defendant€was€looking€out€the€door€toÍthe€trailer€at€her€brother€while€he€was€outside€playing.€€He€required€the€victim€toÏperform€oral€sex€on€him,€then€told€her€that€she€could€go€out€and€play.Ìà àIn€the€incident€set€out€in€count€twenty„four€of€the€indictment,€the€victim€hadÏasked€the€defendant€if€they€could€stop€doing€all€this,€and€if€he€would€just€be€her€daddy.€ÏThey€began€wrestling€on€the€bed,€and€the€defendant€started€touching€her.€€TheÏdefendant€then€engaged€her€in€incest.ÌœÌÌ›à àThe€victim€testified€that€she€did€not€tell€anyone€because€she€was€ð ðscared.ðð€€SheÏdid€not€want€to€take€her€brotherððs€father€away€from€him,€and€she€did€not€want€to€hurtÏher€mother.Ìà àFrom€these€circumstances,€as€well€as€the€position€of€trust€occupied€by€a€parentÏwith€respect€to€a€daughter,€and€the€nature€of€the€sexual€acts€performed,€there€wasÏsufficient€evidence€for€a€reasonable€trier€of€fact€to€find€or€infer€that€the€victim€was€not€aÏconsenting€participant,€and€was€thus€not€an€accomplice.Ìà àThe€trial€court€correctly€submitted€this€issue€to€the€jury.Ìà@ àòòCorroborationóóÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Delphóó,€slip€opinion€number€257€(Ct.€Crim.€App.€1986),€the€appellantÏwas€convicted€of€incest€on€the€testimony€ofò ò€ó óhis€step„daughter,€which€was€corroboratedÏby€the€appellantððs€confession.€€A€confession€must€be€considered€in€connection€with€allÏthe€other€evidence€to€establish€the€defendantððs€guilt€or€innocence.€€TheÏvictim/accompliceððs€testimony€was€corroborated€by€the€appellantððs€confession,€and€theÏappellantððs€confession€was€corroborated€by€the€victim/accompliceððs€testimony.€€ThusÍwhile€neither€her€testimony€standing€alone€nor€the€confession€standing€alone€wouldÏbe€sufficient€to€establish€that€the€appellant€had€committed€a€crime,€these€bits€ofÏevidence€taken€together€can€establish€the€crime.Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€taped€conversation€between€the€defendant€and€victimÏcorroborated€numerous€elements€and€details€of€the€victimððs€testimony.€€TheÏconversation€referred€to€incidences€in€which€x„rated€videos€were€watched,€when€theyÏacted€out€what€they€watched.€€The€defendant€apologized€to€the€victim.€€The€defendantÏexplained€that€they€were€performing€these€acts€because€he€kept€telling€himself€that€heÏloved€the€victim.€€He€kept€living€a€different€life€because€there€had€been€things€in€hisÏlife,€in€his€younger€life,€that€he€never€got€to€experience,€and€every€time€he€got€involvedÏwith€someone€it€was€always€someone€else€lying€about€how€they€felt€about€him;€andÏð ðthatððs€no€excuse...I€just€wanted€to...for€one€time...experience€a€loving€relationship.ðð€ÏThe€defendant€acknowledged€prior€discussions€when€they€had€talked€about€stoppingÏit,€and€that€he€had€said€that€they€were€going€to€stop€it.€€Immediately€after€discussing€theÏdefendantððs€promises€to€stop€the€sexual€activities,€the€victim€asked€what€happenedÏSaturday.€€The€defendant€replied€that€was€his€mistake.€€The€defendant€said€ð ðI€didnððtÏmean€to€do€that,€honey...there€were€things...that€you€had€been€saying€to€me€for€the€lastÏweek€or€so...and€I€thought€you€were€throwing€me€signals...I€misunderstood€you.ðð€€WhenÏthe€victim€would€ask€why€the€defendant€had€sex€with€her,€he€would€apologize.€€WhenÏthe€victim€would€cry€that€he€had€hurt€her,€he€would€acknowledge€that€fact.€€When€theÏvictim€asked€him€to€promise€that€weððll€never€have€to€have€sex€again,€he€answered€no,Ïnever.Ìà àThe€statements€made€by€the€defendant€shortly€after€his€arrest€indicating€that€heÍknew€the€detectives€wanted€to€ask€him€about€allegations€about€ð ðme€molesting€andÏraping€my€daughter,ðð€support€an€inference€that€could€be€made€by€the€trier€of€fact€thatÏsuch€conduct€had€occurred.Ìà àThe€appellate€courts€have€addressed€the€nature,€quality,€and€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence€required€to€corroborate€the€testimony€of€an€accomplice€on€numerousÏoccasions.€€In€òòSherrill€v.€Stateóó,€204€Tenn.€427,€321€S.W.2d€811€(1959),€the€supremeÏcourt€said:ÌÓÓà0 àThe€rule€of€corroboration€as€applied€and€used€in€this€State€is€that€there€must€beÏsome€evidence€independent€of€the€testimony€of€the€accomplice.€€TheÏcorroborating€evidence€must€connect,€or€tend€to€connect€the€defendant€with€theÏcommission€of€the€crime€charged;€and,€furthermore,€the€tendency€of€theÏcorroborative€evidence€to€connect€the€defendant€must€be€independent€of€anyÏtestimony€of€the€accomplice.€€The€corroborative€evidence€must€of€its€own€force,Ïindependently€of€the€accompliceððs€testimony,€tend€to€connect€the€defendant€withÏthe€commission€of€the€crime.ò òÌÌÓÓó óà àThis€corroborative€evidence€can€be€direct€evidence,€or€circumstantial.€€TheÏcorroboration€need€not€of€itself€€be€adequate€to€support€a€conviction,€but€it€must€beÏsufficient€to€meet€the€requirements€of€the€rule€and€it€is€sufficient€if€it€fairly€andÏlegitimately€tends€to€connect€the€defendant€with€the€commission€of€the€crime€charged.€ÏòòSherrillóó,€204€Tenn.€at€435;€321€S.W.2d€at€815.Ìà àThe€evidence€must€confirm€in€some€manner€that€(a)€a€crime€has€beenÏcommitted€and€(b)€the€accused€committed€the€crime.€òòState€v.€Boultonóó,€214€Tenn.€94,Ïœ99;›€377€S.W.2d€936,€œ939›€(Tenn.€1964).€Ìà àThe€evidence€corroborating€the€testimony€of€an€accomplice€may€consist€ofÏdirect€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€direct€and€circumstantialÏevidence.€€The€quantum€of€evidence€necessary€to€corroborate€an€accompliceððsÍtestimony€€is€not€required€to€be€sufficient€enough€to€support€œthe›€accusedððs€convictionÏindependent€of€the€accompliceððs€testimony.€€òòState€v.€Sparksóó,€727€S.W.2d€480,€œ483›Ï(Tenn.€1987).€€Nor€is€it€required€to€extend€to€every€portion€of€the€accompliceððsÏtestimony.€€òòStanley€v.€Stateóó,€189€Tenn.€110,€116„17,€222€S.W.2d€384,€387€(1949).€€ToÏthe€contrary,€only€slight€circumstances€are€required€to€corroborate€an€accompliceððsÏtestimony.€€€òòSparksóó€727€S.W.2d€at€483;€òòStanleyóó,€189€Tenn.€œat›€116„17,€222€S.W.2d€atÏ387;€òòBolton€v.€Stateóó,€591€S.W.2d€446,€448€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€per.€app.€denied€(Tenn.Ï1979).€€The€corroborating€evidence€is€sufficient€if€it€connects€the€accused€with€theÏcrime€in€question.€€òòStanley€v.€Stateóó,€189€Tenn.€at€117,€222€S.W.2d€at€387.€€Ìà àIn€this€case€the€defendant€acknowledged€in€his€statements€a€continuing€courseÏof€conduct€to€corroborate€the€allegations€of€the€victim.Ìà àIn€òòState€v.€McKnightóó,€900€S.W.2d€36€(Ct.€Crim.€App.€1994),€a€victim/accompliceÏwho€was€sexually€abused€by€the€defendant€gave€a€detailed€description€of€theÏdefendantððs€acts€against€him.€€This€was€corroborated€by€other€œvictimsðð›€testimonyÏdescribing€similar€patterns€of€conduct.€€The€entire€course€of€conduct€was€held€toÏfurnish€sufficient€corroboration,€even€though€the€testimony€of€the€other€victims€did€notÏdescribe€the€specific€incidents€of€which€the€victim/accomplice€complained.Ìà àIn€òòBethany€v.€Stateóó,€565€S.W.2d€900€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978),€the€testimony€of€aÏnon„accomplice€witness€that€he€saw€the€defendant€commit€four€of€the€sex€offensesÏagainst€the€victim€was€corroborative€€evidence€from€which€a€jury€could€find€that€theÏdefendant€committed€two€other€offenses€in€the€same€pattern.Ìà àThe€defendant€in€this€case€corroborated€some€specific€incidences€testified€to€byÏthe€victim.€This€corroboration€was€in€the€taped€conversation€heard€by€the€jury.€€He€alsoÍreferred€to€a€continuing€pattern€of€œincestuous›€conduct.€€His€own€statementsÏcorroborated€the€existence€of€a€sexual€relationship,€continuing€through€the€indictmentÏperiod€and€up€to€shortly€before€his€arrest.€€Ìà àThe€defendantððs€statement€to€the€police€upon€his€arrest,€further€corroboratedÏthese€illegal€acts.Ìà àThere€was€sufficient€evidence€before€the€jury€as€the€trier€of€fact€to€determine€thatÏthe€victim€was€not€an€accomplice,€and€therefore€no€corroboration€of€her€testimonyÏwould€be€required.€€Also,€there€was€sufficient€evidence€before€the€jury€as€the€trier€ofÏfact€to€determine€that€her€testimony€was€corroborated€if€the€victim€was€an€accomplice.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò ò€òòRedacted€Version€of€a€Taped€Conversationóóó ớ̜à àThe€defendant€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€the€tape„recorded€conversation€withÏthe€victim.€€After€a€hearing,€the€trial€court€suggested€a€redacted€version€of€the€tapedÏconversation,€and€allowed€the€state€to€admit€the€redacted€version€as€a€trial€exhibit,€andÏplay€the€redacted€version€of€the€tape€recording€for€the€jury.Ìò òà àó óThe€defendant€alleges€that€the€admission€of€the€tape€recording€even€asÏredacted,€injected€ð ðother€crimeðð€evidence€into€the€trial€in€violation€of€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï404(b).€€The€court€has€reviewed€the€tape€and€transcript€presented€the€jury,€and€findsÏthat€as€redacted€it€did€not€include€any€explicit€references€to€bad€acts€of€the€defendantÏbefore€the€indictment€period.Ìà àThe€defendant€complains€that€though€prior€bad€acts€were€redacted€from€theÍstatement,€the€statement€may€have€included€some€statements€by€the€defendantÏresponding€to€the€excised€references€by€the€victim€to€prior€bad€acts.€€However,€the€badÏacts€were€unknown€to€the€jury,€and€the€defendantððs€responses€to€the€redacted€priorÏbad€acts€also€referred€to€a€continuing€course€of€sexual€conduct€between€the€defendantÏand€victim,€occurring€during€the€indictment€period.€€There€were€other€mattersÏdiscussed€on€the€tape€including€the€x„rated€videos,€the€broken€promises€to€stop€havingÏsex,€the€one€particular€Saturday€night€episode,€which€were€separate€from€the€redactedÏportions€of€the€tape.Ìà àThe€court€finds€that€the€trial€court€was€very€conscientious€in€efforts€to€redact€theÏstatement€and€tape.€€€The€defendant€had€been€granted€a€new€trial€due€to€references€toÏprior€bad€acts,€and€the€trial€court€was€very€careful€during€the€motion€hearing,€andÏduring€the€trial€itself,€to€prohibit€references€to€prior€bad€acts€of€the€defendant.€Ìà àThe€court€having€found€that€the€tape€and€transcript€were€properly€redacted,€alsoÏfinds€that€the€admission€of€the€redacted€tape€did€not€violate€Rule€403,€and€did€notÏviolate€the€constitutional€due€process€guarantees€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment.Ìà àIt€is€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€to€determine€whether€to€admit€evidenceÏof€a€tape€or€transcript€of€the€tape,€and€that€discretion€will€not€be€disturbed€œabsent›Ïabuse.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Elrodóó,€721€S.W.2d€820,€823€(Tenn.Crim.€App.€1986).€€The€trialÏcourt€made€a€finding€that€the€probative€value€of€the€tape€as€redacted€outweighed€theÏdanger€of€unfair€prejudice.Ìà àThe€trial€court€did€not€err€in€admitting€the€tape€recording€and€allowing€the€jury€toÏuse€the€transcript.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó€868€S.W.2d€561€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌò òà@ àòòVictimððs€Use€of€Written€Notes€to€Refresh€Her€Recollectionóóó ớ̜à àThe€defendant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€permitted€the€victim€toÏtestify€from€notes.€Ìà àThe€trial€court€had€an€extensive€jury€out€hearing€and€determined€that€the€victimÏhad€independent€recollection.€€The€court€allowed€the€victim€to€refer€to€the€notes€toÏrefresh€her€memory€and€keep€straight€the€dates€on€which€particular€events€occurred.Ìà àThe€general€rule€is€that€a€witness€may€refer€to€notes€to€refresh€her€recollection.€ÏòòState€v.€Lingrelóó,€692€S.W.2d€41€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€The€trial€court€has€wideÏdiscretionary€authority€over€the€propriety,€scope,€manner€and€control€of€theÏexamination€of€witnesses.€€òòState€v.€Carpenteróó,€773€S.W.2d€1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).Ìà àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€notes€should€not€have€been€used€as€they€didÏnot€fall€within€Rule€803(5)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.€€Rule€803(5)€applies€toÏa€writing€shown€to€have€been€made€or€adopted€by€the€witness€when€the€matter€wasÏfresh€in€the€witnessððs€memory.€€€Recorded€recollection€is€used€in€lieu€of€a€witnessððÏtestimony€when€that€witness€cannot€recall€the€event€in€any€meaningful€way.€€Neil€P.ÏCohen€et.€œal.,›€€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€803(5).1€(3d€ed.€1995).Ìà àA€writing€used€to€refresh€oneððs€memory€is€not€a€hearsay€exception,€but€rather€aÏmeans€to€facilitate€a€witnessðð€testimony€when€he€or€she€cannot€completely€rememberÏthe€details€of€an€event.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€612.€€When€a€witnessðð€memory€is€refreshed,ÏœÌÌthe›€adverse€party€may€inspect€the€writing,€cross„examine€the€witness€and€introduceÍportions€into€evidence.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€612.Ìà à€In€this€case€the€victim€testified€she€had€independent€present€recollection€of€allÏkey€events,€and€recalled€the€specific€dates€when€reminded€by€her€notes€which€sheÏhad€derived€from€the€calendar.€€Her€use€of€notes€fell€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€612.€€Ìà àThe€Advisory€Commission€Comments€to€Rule€612€suggest€guidelines€by€whichÏa€witness€may€refresh€her€memory:€ð ðThe€direct€examiner€should€lay€a€foundation€forÏnecessity,€show€the€witness€the€writing,€take€back€the€writing,€and€ask€the€witness€toÏtestify€from€refreshed€memory.ðð€€The€witness€established€that€the€notes€would€help€herÏrefresh€her€memory€of€the€dates€of€the€events€to€which€she€was€testifying.€€BecauseÏthey€were€not€taken€back,€there€appears€to€have€been€error€by€the€manner€in€whichÏthe€notes€were€used.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Dishmanóó,€915€S.W.2d€458€(Tenn.Cr.App.€1995).€ÏWe€believe,€however,€any€error€was€harmless.€€Ìà àIn€òòState€v.€Elrod,óó€721€S.W.2d€820€(Tenn.Cr.App.€1986),€a€Stateððs€witnessÏtestified€and€related€the€substance€of€his€conversation€with€the€defendant.€€He€usedÏthe€transcripts€of€the€tapes€to€refresh€his€recollection.€€The€Court€held€it€is€the€duty€andÏobligation€of€the€trial€judge€to€control€the€method€and€manner€of€the€submission€ofÏevidence€to€the€jury,€and€he€has€wide€latitude€and€discretion€in€determining€the€natureÏof€the€evidence€which€they€are€to€consider.€€This€discretion€will€not€be€disturbed€in€theÏabsence€of€some€indication€of€abuse.Ìà àThe€propriety,€scope,€and€control€of€the€examination€of€witnesses€rest€within€theÏsound€discretion€of€the€trial€court;€and€this€Court€will€not€interfere€with€the€exercise€ofÏthis€discretion€unless€it€clearly€appears€upon€the€face€of€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÏabused€its€discretion€when€ruling.€€òòState€v.€Pendergrassóó,€795€S.W.2d€150Í(Tenn.Cr.App.€1989).Ìà àIn€this€case,€we€cannot€say€that€the€trial€judge€abused€her€discretion.Ìà àCourts€are€traditionally€given€broad€discretion€in€such€cases,€and€witnesses€areÏnot€held€to€perfection.€€A€witness€may€be€deemed€to€testify€from€memory,€henceÏthrough€present€recollection€refreshed,€if€€he€or€she€refers€to€notes€for€details€butÏremembers€the€general€facts.€Cohen€et.€al.€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€Sec.€612.1,€p.Ï401€(3d€ed.€1995),€citing€òòU.S.€v.€œRinke›óó,€778€F.œ2d›€581€(œ10th›€Cir.€1985),€where€a€witnessÏreferred€to€notes€of€telephone€calls;€òòœDoty›€v.€Eliasóó,€733€F.œ2d›€720€(1984),€where€Ïwitnesses€referred€to€notes€of€exact€dates€they€worked€at€œa€restaurant.›Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòDefendantððs€Statements€Made€After€œArrestóóÌ›Ìó óà àAfter€the€defendant€was€arrested,€he€was€transported€to€the€sheriffððs€departmentÏwhere€a€detective€asked€him€if€he€knew€the€nature€of€the€allegations€against€him.€€TheÏdefendant€responded€ð ðI€believe€itððs€about€me€molesting€œor›€raping€my€daughter.ððÌà àThe€defendant€acknowledges€that€he€was€advised€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€prior€toÏmaking€the€statement.€€However,€he€contends€that€the€statement€should€have€beenÏsuppressed,€alleging€that€he€was€detained€an€œunnecessary›€length€of€time€before€beingÏtaken€before€a€magistrate.€€The€defendant€was€given€his€òòMiranda€óówarnings€when€heÏwas€arrested,€and€was€promptly€transported€to€the€sheriffððs€department,€where€òòMirandaÏóówarnings€were€again€given€to€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€signed€a€waiver€form,Ïthen€made€the€statements€in€question.€€Those€statements€were€made€approximatelyÍforty„five€minutes€after€his€arrest.€€He€then€stated€he€wanted€to€consult€with€an€attorney,Ïand€the€questioning€ceased.€€Sometime€before€9:00€p.m.,€the€night€courtÏcommissioner€approved€the€affidavit€of€complaint€prepared€by€the€detective,€and€anÏarrest€warrant€was€issued.€€€The€defendant€was€detained€no€more€than€two€and€halfÏhours€before€a€probable€cause€determination€was€made€as€to€his€arrest.Ìà àWhen€a€suspect€is€detained€without€being€taken€before€a€neutral€person€whoÏexplains€the€process,€issues€warnings,€and€assures€that€constitutional€rights€areÏhonored,€the€environment€can€be€œintimidating,›€and€often€geared€to€producing€in€theÏaccused€a€compulsion€to€confess.€€Nevertheless,€most€courts€have€not€adopted€a€ruleÏof€exclusion,€but€instead€require€exclusion€of€a€confession€given€during€a€period€ofÏunnecessary€delay€only€if€an€examination€of€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€revealsÏthat€the€statement€was€not€voluntarily€given.€€òòState€v.€œHuddleston›óó,€924€œS.W.2d›€666Ï(Tenn.€1996).Ìà àA€detention€is€unreasonable€if€ð ðfor€the€purpose€of€gathering€additional€evidenceÏto€justify€the€arrestðð.€€òòCounty€of€Riverside€v.€œMcLaughlin›óó,€500€U.S.€44,€œ56;›€111€œS.Ct›.Ï1661;€114€œL.Ed›.œ2d›€49€(1991).€€Ìà àIn€this€case€there€was€not€a€significant€delay.€€€The€delay€was€not€for€theÏpurpose€of€gathering€additional€evidence€to€justify€the€arrest.€€The€defendant€had€beenÏarrested€based€on€the€allegations€of€the€victim,€and€the€conversation€which€had€beenÏoverheard€by€the€law€enforcement€officers€between€the€victim€and€the€defendant.€€TheÏdefendant€was€advised€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights,€and€given€an€opportunity€to€make€aÏstatement.€€The€defendant€has€made€no€showing€that€the€detectives€purposelyÏdelayed€obtaining€a€probable€cause€determination.€€There€was€no€unconstitutional€orÍillegal€delay.€€This€issue€is€without€œmerit.Ì›Ìà@ àò òòòCross€Examination€of€the€œVictimóóÌ›Ìó óà àThe€defendant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€precluded€inquiry€onÏcross€examination€of€the€victim€concerning€allegations€that€she€made€false€statementsÏto€law€enforcement€authorities€investigating€an€incident€alleged€to€have€occurredÏwhen€the€victim€was€eight€years€old,€some€seven€years€before€the€incidents€alleged€inÏthe€indictment.Ìà àIn€a€jury€out€hearing€during€cross€examination€of€the€victim,€the€defense€counselÏproposed€to€asked€the€victim€about€the€incident,€to€examine€the€witness€on€the€issue€ofÏcredibility.€€Defense€counsel€proposed€in€the€jury€out€hearing€to€the€trial€judge€that€heÏwould€desire€to€cross€examine€the€victim€in€front€of€the€jury€concerning€the€fact€that€sheÏwas€a€victim€of€a€crime€years€before€the€incidents€alleged€in€this€indictment.€€ThatÏcrime€was€investigated€and€a€Mr.€œMaybee›€was€prosecuted€by€authorities€in€DavidsonÏCounty€concerning€that€crime.€€The€victim€made€claim€that€Jason€Mays€was€presentÏduring€one€of€the€crimes€perpetrated€on€her,€and€she€told€law€enforcement€that€JasonÏMays€had€been€killed€in€a€plane€crash,€and€that€was€not€true.€€The€court€did€not€allowÏthat€line€of€questioning.̛̜à àTenn.€R.€œEvid›.€608€provides€that,€absent€a€showing€of€necessity€to€a€fairÏdetermination€of€the€case,€evidence€of€conduct€committed€while€the€witness€was€aÏjuvenile€is€generally€not€admissible.€€The€court€may€however€allow€evidence€of€suchÍconduct€of€a€witness€if€the€court€is€satisfied€that€the€admission€of€the€evidence€isÏnecessary€for€a€fair€determination€in€the€proceeding.€€In€this€case,€the€court€had€a€juryÏout€hearing,€and€determined€that€the€proposed€cross€examination€would€not€lead€to€aÏfair€determination€in€the€criminal€proceeding.€€The€trial€court€determined€that€the€risk€ofÏdelving€into€allegations€of€a€prior€rape€by€someone€else€when€the€victim€was€onlyÏabout€eight€years€old€out€weighed€any€probative€value€of€a€statement€she€allegedlyÏmade€to€investigators.Ìà àThe€propriety,€scope,€manner€and€control€of€the€cross€examination€of€witnessesÏis€a€matter€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge,€which€will€not€be€interfered€with€inÏabsence€of€an€abuse€thereof.€€òòState€v.€Pendergrassóó,€795€S.W.2d€150,€156€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1989).€€Appellate€courts€may€not€disturb€discretionary€limitations€on€crossÏexamination€absent€a€clear€and€plain€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Richardsonóó,€875ÏS.W.2d€671,€675€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€perm.€to€app.€denied.€(Tenn.€1994).Ìà àWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€discretion,€and€properly€€refusedÏto€allow€defense€counsel€to€cross€examine€the€victim€about€statements€she€allegedlyÏmade€during€an€investigation€of€a€rape€when€she€was€eight€years€old.ÌÌà@ àò òòòExhibits€to€the€Jury€œRoomóóÌ›Ìó óà àThe€defendant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€permitting€the€jury€to€take€theÏtranscript€of€the€taped€conversation€between€the€defendant€and€victim€into€the€juryÏroom€during€deliberations.Ìà àTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€30.1€states€that€the€jury€shall€take€toÍthe€jury€room€all€exhibits€received€in€evidence€for€the€juryððs€examination€duringÏdeliberations,€unless€good€cause€is€shown€for€not€taking€an€exhibit€to€the€jury.Ìà àThe€trial€court€properly€instructed€the€jury€to€consider€the€transcript€as€an€aid€inÏunderstanding€the€tape,€but€to€listen€to€the€tape€itself€as€the€primary€evidence.€€TheÏdefendant€submits€the€transcript€should€not€have€been€taken€to€the€jury€room€becauseÏthe€tape,€and€not€the€transcript,€is€the€evidence€in€this€case.€€However€both€wereÏmarked€as€exhibits.€€The€rule€requiring€exhibits€to€go€back€to€the€jury€room€isÏmandatory€unless€the€judge€determines€that€an€exhibit€should€not€be€submitted€to€theÏjury.€€In€this€case,€the€defendant€has€failed€to€show€that€the€judge€committed€error.€ÏThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òà@ àòòConsecutive€œSentencesóóÌ›Ìó óà àThe€defendant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€consecutiveÏsentences,€and€that€the€defendant€received€a€harsher€effective€sentence€on€re„trial,Ïviolating€due€process.Ìà àThe€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€seven€years€on€each€of€the€twenty„five€convictions,€with€ten€of€those€sentences€to€be€served€consecutively,€and€theÏremainder€concurrently.Ìà àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€heard€testimony€from€the€victimÏconcerning€her€hospitalizations,€suicide€attempts,€and€drug€problems€as€a€result€of€theÏcontinued€actions€of€the€defendant.Ìà àThe€trial€court€determined€that€the€defendant€had€multiple€criminal€convictions,Íand€should€be€sentenced€as€a€Range€II€offender.€€Incest€is€a€Class€C€felony€(TENN.ÏCODE€ANN.€39„15„302),€and€the€minimum€sentence€for€Range€II€offender€is€six€years.€ÏThe€trial€court€found€there€were€no€mitigating€factors,€and€that€there€was€anÏenhancement€factor€that€applied€to€this€case,€that€the€offense€involved€a€victim€andÏwas€committed€to€gratify€the€defendantððs€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement.€€The€trialÏcourt€sentenced€the€defendant€to€one€year€above€the€minimum€sentence€for€eachÏcount.Ìà àThe€trial€court€then€determined€that€TENN.€CODE€ANN.€40„35„115(b)(5)€appliedÏto€this€case.€€That€statute€provides€that€consecutive€sentencing€may€be€ordered€if€theÏdefendant€is€convicted€of€two€or€more€statutory€offenses€involving€sexual€abuse€of€aÏminor€with€consideration€of€the€aggravating€circumstances€arising€from€theÏrelationship€between€the€defendant€and€the€victim,€the€time€span€of€the€defendantððsÏundetected€sexual€activity,€the€nature€and€scope€of€the€sexual€acts€and€extent€of€theÏresidual,€physical€and€mental€damage€to€the€victim.Ìà àThere€was€testimony€that€the€defendant€began€having€sexual€relations€with€theÏvictim€when€she€was€only€ten€years€old.€€There€had€been€a€few€sexual€encountersÏeven€earlier.€€The€defendant€had€indicated€on€the€unredacted€version€of€the€tapedÏconversation€between€the€defendant€and€victim€that€he€thought€he€began€having€sexÏwith€the€victim€when€he€got€out€of€prison€in€1986,€which€would€make€the€victim€nineÏyears€of€age.€€The€defendant€was€convicted€of€twenty„five€statutory€offenses€involvingÏsexual€abuse€of€his€daughter€when€she€was€fifteen€years€of€age.€€The€time€span€of€theÏdefendantððs€undetected€sexual€activity€spanned€several€years.€€The€nature€and€scopeÏof€the€sexual€acts€covered€a€wide€range€of€sexual€activity,€including€intercourse,€oralÍsex,€anal€sex,€digital€penetration,€watching€x„rated€videos€and€acting€out,€requiring€theÏvictim€to€dance,€and€ripping€off€her€garments.€€The€extent€of€the€residual,€physical€andÏmental€damage€to€the€victim€included€attempted€suicide€more€than€once,€the€victimÏbeing€admitted€to€œVanderbilt›€Hospital€three€times,€and€the€victim€developing€a€heavyÏdrug€abuse€problem.€€The€victim€testified€that€she€did€not€like€herself.€€She€used€to€loveÏher€father,€and€now€she€hated€him€because€of€what€he€had€done€to€her.Ìà àBecause€of€the€aggravating€circumstances,€TENN.€CODE€ANN.€40„35„115(b)(5)Ïproperly€applies€as€a€basis€for€consecutive€sentencing.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Woodcockóó,€922ÏS.W.2d€904€(Tenn.€Crim€App.€1995).Ìà àThe€court€is€further€required€to€determine€whether€the€consecutive€sentencesÏ(1)€are€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed;€(2)€served€toÏprotect€the€public€from€further€criminal€conduct€by€the€offender;€and€(3)€are€congruentÏwith€general€principles€of€sentencing.€€òòState€v.€œWilkerson›óó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€939€(Tenn.Ï1995).Ìà àThe€defendant€is€an€offender€who€has€a€prior€record€of€criminal€activity.€€He€wasÏsentenced€as€a€Range€II€offender.€€His€criminal€acts€in€this€case€were€extensive.€€TheÏtrial€court€determined€that€consecutive€sentences€are€reasonably€related€to€theÏseverity€of€the€offenses€committed,€and€were€congruent€with€the€general€principles€ofÏsentencing,€and€were€necessary€to€protect€the€public€from€further€criminal€conduct€byÏthe€offender.€€The€defendant€persisted€in€incestuous€œactivities›€with€his€adoptedÏdaughter€after€promising€to€cease€those€activities.€€The€length€of€time€over€which€theseÏactivities€continued€evidenced€a€long€term€pattern€of€behavior€presenting€a€risk€ofÏfuture€repetition.€Ìà àThe€court€properly€imposed€consecutive€sentences.Ìà àThe€defendant€further€alleges€that€the€sentences€were€more€severe€on€re„trial,Ïand€that€the€imposition€of€a€€harsher€sentence€is€unconstitutional,€citing€òòNorth€CarolinaÏv.€Pearceóó,€395€U.S.€812,€89€S.Ct.€2072,€23€L.Ed.2d€656€(1969).€€€€In€òòPearceóó,€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court€held€that€a€harsher€sentence€after€a€new€trial€raises€aÏpresumption€of€ð ðjudicial€vindictiveness,ðð€which€may€be€overcome€by€an€affirmativeÏshowing€on€the€record€of€the€reasons€for€the€harsher€sentence.€€òòIdóó€at€725„26;€See€alsoÏòòState€v.€Gilliamóó,€901€S.W.2d€385,€392€(Tenn.€1995).€Ìà àIn€resentencing€a€defendant,€the€trial€court€may€justify€an€increased€sentence€byÏaffirmatively€identifying€relevant€evidence€occurring€both€before€and€after€the€originalÏsentencing€proceedings.€€òòWasman€v.€United€Statesóó,€468€U.S.€559,€569,€104€S.Ct.Ï3217,€82€L.Ed.2d€424€(1984).€€òòState€v.€Cogginsóó,€1995€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€886Ï(Ct.Crim.App.€1995).Ìà àThe€sentencing€judge€at€re„trial€was€the€same€judge€who€granted€post„conviction€relief,€and€ordered€the€new€trial.€€The€record€reveals€that€the€trial€judgeÏreviewed€the€transcript€of€the€sentencing€hearing€in€the€prior€proceedings,€and€foundÏthat€the€trial€court€did€not€address€enhancement€factors.€€She€considered€testimonyÏheard€at€trial,€the€pre„sentence€report,€the€testimony€heard€at€sentencing€hearing,€andÏdetermined€that€there€were€no€mitigating€factors€but€an€enhancement€factor€to€apply.€ÏThe€trial€judge€then€enhanced€the€sentence€one€year€beyond€the€minimum.Ìà àThe€victim€testified€at€the€sentencing€hearing€on€re„trial,€but€had€not€testified€atÏthe€original€sentencing€hearing.€€Testimony€included€the€effect€the€activities€had€on€herÏwhich€required€hospitalization,€and€which€resulted€€in€suicide€attempts€and€drugÍproblems.€€The€defendant€began€sexual€activities€on€the€victim€when€she€wasÏapproximately€ten€years€of€age,€telling€her€that€he€needed€to€show€her€what€real€loveÏis.€€He€told€her€that€it€was€not€wrong€for€him€to€show€her€the€right€way€and€not€the€way€itÏhad€happened€with€her€in€the€rape.€€So€he€was€just€going€to€start€showing€her€how€itÏwas€œsupposed›€to€be€done€in€the€right€way.€He€began€a€steady€pattern€of€sexual€abuse.€ÏAs€she€grew€older€she€realized€that€he€was€supposed€to€be€there€for€her,€to€keep€herÏsafe,€but€not€to€have€sex€with€her.€€She€grew€to€hate€him.€€She€has€required€psychiatricÏtreatment.Ìà àThe€pre„sentence€report€indicates€that€the€defendant€was€on€parole€at€the€timeÏthese€offenses€occurred.Ìà àTo€assure€that€vindictiveness€plays€no€part,€the€court€in€òòPearceóó€held€that€it€isÏpresumed€that€a€more€severe€sentence€after€re„trial€violates€due€process€unless€theÏreasons€for€imposing€the€greater€sentence€affirmatively€appear€and€are€based€uponÏobjective€information€in€the€record.€òòIdóó€at€726.€€In€òòAlabama€v.€Smithóó,€490€U.S.€794,€104ÏL.Ed.2d€865,€109€S.Ct.€2201€(1989),€the€court€limited€the€application€of€òòPearceóó€toÏthose€situations€in€which€there€is€a€reasonable€likelihood€that€the€increase€in€sentenceÏis€the€product€of€actual€vindictiveness€on€the€part€of€the€sentencing€authority.€490€U.S.Ïat€799.€€òòState€v.€Kendricksóó,€1995€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€268€(Ct.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€InÏthis€case€there€has€been€no€showing€of€a€reasonable€likelihood€that€the€increase€inÏsentence€is€the€product€of€actual€vindictiveness.€€There€is€objective€information€in€theÏrecord€for€imposing€the€greater€sentence€on€re„trial.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌœÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ›à àWe€therefore€AFFIRM€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌ_________________________ÌÌ_________________________ÌÌÌ€€ò òÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌó ó