ÿWPC„+ …# VU>a %Ÿ 0 í¥UB’ 4Ô è n­÷ U:¤ Þ w@æ 0J& 01p 0D¡ U:å 0T 0^s 0hÑ 0r9 0|« 0†' 0­ 1u= 0d² BU 63 D3iU.œU *Ê 0@ôB)4DC] AM `ífM%³ÀØÕ˜)mø– v~Ž"vÓ $ AOß)Æ.* 0Dô* D/8+ Bg+˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLüÏ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi³†;$3|x +«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular Ž+D+U+Pe‘+r‚’+“+ºe”+•+–+D—+Ó€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(á(3L,$¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€;âXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó+ÄâK AZ"Arial Regular2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Courier New""""'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò% Line 7 d....7Border 1dd€-/Cþÿ << Gÿÿ VÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€,XÔÌÌJune€17,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€)ôÔÔ€,ÔÑ7ÀXXXdÈdÈ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€We€note€that€the€defendant€in€this€case€did€not€request€that€an€election€be€made,Ïalthough€he€filed€a€motion€for€a€bill€of€particulars.€€Before€trial,€the€trial€court€denied€the€defendantððs€motionÏfor€a€bill€of€particulars.€€In€ruling€on€the€motion,€the€trial€court€stated€that€the€defendant€was€not€entitled€toÏmore€specific€allegations€because€the€indictment€sufficiently€informed€the€defendant€of€the€offense€forÏwhich€he€was€indicted€in€that€the€term€penetration€was€defined€by€statute€and€the€indictment€narrowed€theÏoffense€to€a€period€of€two€weeks€to€a€month.€€In€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€851€S.W.2d€134€(Tenn.€1993),€ourÏsupreme€court€recognized€the€importance€of€a€bill€of€particulars€in€relation€to€the€defendantððs€preparationÏof€his€defense,€one€of€the€reasons€stated€in€òòBurlisonóó€for€the€election€requirement.€€òòIdóó.€at€137.€€However,Ïthe€defendant€does€not€raise€as€an€issue€on€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€motion€for€a€bill€ofÏparticulars.€€Ì ¶Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€)ôÔÔ€,ÔÑ7ÀXXXdÈdÈ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€The€defendantððs€and€Judy€Leathððs€case€had€not€been€severed€at€the€time€of€hearing€onÏthe€pretrial€motions.€Ì ËÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€)ôÔÔ€,ÔÑ7À«ÄXXdÈdÈ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€We€note€that€a€video€similar€to€that€described€by€counsel€for€the€defendant€andÏMrs.€Leath€was€introduced€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€)ôÔÔ€,ÔÑ7À«ÄXXdÈdÈ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€We€note€that€language€contained€in€òòMcCaryóó,€922€S.W.2d€at€514,€suggests€that€specificÏintent€is€not€a€necessary€element€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€However,€in€an€unpublished€order€onÏpetition€to€rehear,€our€supreme€court€clarified€that€ð ðspecific€intent€is€a€necessary€element€of€sexual€batteryÏand€aggravated€sexual€battery.ðð€€òòState€v.€Donald€C.€McCaryóó,€No.€03„S„01„9410„CR„00106,€HamiltonÏCounty€(Tenn.€July€8,€1996)€(Order€Denying€Petition€to€Rehear).Ì îÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€)ôÔÔ€,ÔÑ7À«ÄXXdÈdÈ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€For€Class€A€felonies€committed€on€or€after€July€1,€1995,€the€presumptive€sentence€is€theÏmidpoint€of€the€range.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210(c).Ô€)ÔÌPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€++Xd#ÑÑ#€++Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€,Ô›Ñ7€ œÔ XXdæXXdÈ7ќـ€ÙßR€01/A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€à8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€AUGUST€1996€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,€à àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9511„CC„00392Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€Macon€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€Honorable€J.O.€Bond,€Judge€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)ÌPAUL€RALPH€LEATH,à à€€€à à)à à€(Three€counts€of€rape€of€a€child€and€twoÌà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€à à€€counts€of€aggravated€sexual€battery)Ìà àAppellant.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌComer€Donnell€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àandà àà àà àà àÌHoward€L.€Chambersà àà àà àKaren€M.€Yacuzzo€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€andà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€TennesseeÏRandy€Wakefieldà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€Northà àà àÌAssistant€Public€Defendersà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ì213€North€Cumberland€StreetÌP.O.€Box€888à àà àà àà àTom€P.€Thompson,€Jr.ÌLebanon,€TN€37087à àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àJohn€WoottenÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€178Ìà àà àà àà àà àHartsville,€TN€37074„0178ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÇà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€defendant,€Paul€Ralph€Leath,€was€convicted€of€three€counts€of€rapeÏof€a€child,€Class€A€felonies,€and€two€counts€of€aggravated€sexual€battery,€Class€BÏfelonies.€€He€received€Range€œI,›€consecutive€sentences€of€twenty€years€for€each€rape€ofÏa€child€conviction€and€ten€years€for€each€aggravated€sexual€battery€conviction€for€anÏeffective€sentence€of€eighty€years.€€In€this€appeal€as€of€right,€the€defendant€contendsÏthat:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 à(1)€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€verdictsÏof€guilt€because€the€testimony€was€inconclusive€as€to€whenÏand€how€many€times€the€events€occurred;ÌÌà8 à(2)€€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€grant€his€motion€for€aÏchange€of€venue€because€of€the€community„wide€interestÏand€the€extensive€media€coverage;ÌÌà8 à(3)€€€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€inflammatory€andÏprejudicial€testimony€concerning€photographs€when€theÏdefendant€was€not€charged€with€a€crime€involving€theÏpictures;€and€ÌÌà8 à(4)€€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€application€and€considerationÏof€enhancement€factors€and€in€imposing€an€excessiveÏsentence€of€eighty€years.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓWe€hold€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€defendantððs€convictions.€ÏAlthough€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€require€the€state€to€elect€the€offenses€forÏwhich€it€was€relying€upon€for€convictions,€we€conclude€that€the€error€was€harmlessÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€We€also€hold€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€by€denying€aÍchange€of€venue€and€by€allowing€testimony€regarding€photographs€taken€by€theÏdefendant.€€As€to€sentencing,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€appliedÏenhancement€factors€(2)€and€(16)€to€both€convictions€and€enhancement€factor€(7)€toÏthe€aggravated€sexual€battery€conviction€and€failed€to€consider€appropriate€mitigatingÏfactors.€€However,€we€affirm€the€mid„range€sentences€imposed€by€the€trial€court€and€itsÏorder€of€consecutive€sentencing.€ÌÌà àIn€July€1993,€Macon€County€Sheriff€James€Mercer€began€investigatingÏthe€defendant€and€his€wife,€Judy€Leath,€for€sexually€abusing€their€six„year„oldÏdaughter,€D.L.€€As€a€result€of€this€investigation,€the€defendant€was€charged€andÏconvicted€of€committing€three€counts€of€rape€of€a€child€and€two€counts€of€aggravatedÏsexual€battery.€€ÌÌà àThe€then€seven„year„old€victim€testified€that€she€and€her€younger€brotherÏlived€with€the€defendant€and€her€mother.€€She€stated€that€the€defendant€wore€a€skirtÏand€a€pair€of€high€heels€around€the€house.€€She€said€that€the€defendant€also€wore€herÏmotherððs€bathing€suits€and€that€she€believed€the€defendant€sometimes€looked€good€inÏthem.€€The€victim€testified€that€she€normally€slept€in€her€bed€but€that€sometimes€sheÏwould€get€up€and€go€into€her€motherððs€room€where€she€either€slept€at€the€end€of€theÏbed€or€in€her€brotherððs€baby€bed€that€was€in€the€room.€€She€stated€that€the€defendant,Ïher€mother€and€her€brother€usually€slept€in€her€motherððs€room.€€She€said€that€theÍdefendant€either€wore€nothing€to€bed€or€one€of€his€gowns€or€pajamas.€€The€victimÏtestified€that€she€watched€the€defendant€and€her€mother€kissing€or€the€defendantÏsticking€his€ð ðtutuðð€in€her€mother.€€She€said€that€the€defendant€and€her€mother€talked€toÏher€while€performing€these€sexual€acts€and€that€she€got€toilet€paper€for€her€motherÏbecause€ð ðstuffðð€would€come€out€of€her.€€ÌÌà àThe€victim€testified€that€although€she€did€not€watch€her€parents€a€lot,€sheÏwatched€them€more€than€once.€€She€believed€that€they€were€having€fun€and€stated€thatÏshe€thought€it€would€be€fun€also.€€She€stated€that€she€asked€the€defendant€to€do€to€herÏwhat€he€had€done€to€her€mother.€€The€victim€testified€that€the€defendant€tried€to€stickÏhis€ð ðtutuðð€in€her€when€she€was€on€her€bed,€when€she€was€on€the€floor,€when€she€wasÏin€a€chair,€and€sometimes€when€she€was€in€her€motherððs€bed.€€She€stated€that€theÏdefendant€tried€more€than€once€each€time€and€that€it€hurt€every€time.€€The€victim€saidÏthat€the€defendant€stopped€when€she€told€him€it€hurt.€€She€stated€that€the€defendantððsÏð ðtutuðð€went€inside€her€ð ðtutuðð€a€little€the€last€time€the€defendant€tried€to€stick€it€in€her.€€SheÏtestified€that€her€mother€was€in€the€kitchen€cooking€or€at€work€while€these€things€wereÏhappening€but€that€sometimes€she€told€her€mother€what€the€defendant€did.€€€€€€€€Ìà àThe€victim€testified€that€the€defendant€also€put€his€ð ðtutuðð€in€her€mouth,€andÏshe€stated€that€it€was€her€idea.€€She€said€that€when€she€asked€him,€the€defendant€toldÏher€she€could.€€She€stated€that€this€occurred€four€or€five€times€and€that€it€happened€atÏnight€when€she€was€in€a€chair€in€the€kitchen.€€The€victim€testified€that€her€mother€wasÍasleep€in€bed.€€She€said€that€the€defendant€was€not€wearing€any€clothes€and€that€sheÏwas€either€sitting€in€the€floor€or€in€the€defendantððs€lap.€€She€also€said€that€she€wouldÏget€up€out€of€her€bed€and€go€into€the€kitchen€and€get€in€the€defendantððs€lap.€€The€victimÏtestified€that€the€defendant€told€her€not€to€tell€anyone€anything.€€She€stated€that€sheÏkept€it€a€secret€until€Lois€Gregory€from€the€Department€of€Human€Services€asked€herÏabout€it.€€The€victim€testified€that€she€realized€that€what€she€was€doing€was€wrongÏbecause€her€mother€told€her€it€was€wrong.€€ÌÌà àThe€victim€also€testified€that€the€defendant€and€her€mother€took€picturesÏaround€the€house.€€She€said€that€the€defendant€took€pictures€of€her€and€her€motherÏand€that€sometimes€she€would€not€be€wearing€any€clothes.€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€the€victim€testified€that€the€defendant€was€nice€toÏher.€€She€stated€that€any€time€it€hurt,€she€told€the€defendant,€and€he€stopped.€€She€saidÏthat€she€still€loved€the€defendant€and€her€mother.ÌÌà àSheriff€James€Mercer€of€Macon€County€testified€that€he€beganÏinvestigating€the€defendant€after€receiving€information€from€Captain€Duke€Jones€of€theÏLafayette€Police€Department.€€He€said€that€they€talked€to€a€couple€of€people€regardingÏthe€information€that€they€had€received,€and€they€ultimately€spoke€to€Judy€Leath,€theÏdefendantððs€wife€and€the€victimððs€mother.€€Sheriff€Mercer€stated€that€after€talking€to€Mrs.ÍLeath,€they€went€to€the€defendantððs€residence€and€brought€the€defendant€to€the€stationÏfor€questioning.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€signed€a€written€waiver€of€rights€and€gaveÏtwo€taped€statement€to€the€officers€admitting€his€guilt€to€the€crimes,€one€on€July€19,Ï1993,€and€another€on€July€20,€1993.€€Sheriff€Mercer€also€testified€that€the€defendantÏand€his€wife€provided€written€consent€to€search€their€house€on€two€separateÏoccasions.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€went€with€him€each€time€the€house€wasÏsearched.€€Sheriff€Mercer€said€that€he€took€some€items€from€the€defendantððs€house,Ïincluding€a€picture€of€the€victim.€€He€also€testified€that€Larry€Britton,€a€television€newsÏreporter,€showed€up€at€the€jail€while€he€was€booking€the€defendant.€€Sheriff€MercerÏstated€that€the€defendant€gave€a€videotaped€statement€to€Mr.€Britton€while€he€wasÏfingerprinting€the€defendant.€€The€defendantððs€taped€statements€and€the€videotape€ofÏMr.€Brittonððs€interview€of€the€defendant€were€introduced€as€exhibits€and€played€for€theÏjury.ÌÌà àThe€defendantððs€first€taped€statement€reflects€that€he€told€the€officers€thatÏthe€victim€had€played€with€his€penis€while€he€was€lying€on€his€bed€in€the€nude.€€WhenÏasked€whether€he€had€ever€licked€the€victim€in€her€private€parts,€the€defendantÏresponded€affirmatively.€€He€said€that€he€had€also€taken€the€head€of€his€penis€andÏrubbed€it€through€the€victimððs€private€parts.€€The€defendant€said€that€it€had€not€beenÏlong€since€this€happened€and€that€it€occurred€on€two€or€three€occasions.€€TheÏdefendant€expressed€the€belief€that€the€victim€enjoyed€it,€and€he€told€the€officers€thatÍthe€victim€was€the€one€who€started€it€in€the€first€place.€€He€denied€penetrating€the€victimÏwith€his€penis€or€his€finger.€€The€defendant€said€that€the€victim€called€his€and€herÏprivate€parts€ð ðtootie.ðð€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€stated€that€the€victim€had€ð ðcaughtðð€him€and€his€wife€havingÏsex€on€earlier€occasions.€€He€said€that€when€the€victim€asked€what€they€were€doing,€heÏtold€her€they€were€cuddling€up.€€The€defendant€also€said€that€the€victim€ð ðcaughtðð€himÏwalking€out€of€a€room€nude,€but€he€denied€that€it€routinely€happened.€€The€defendantÏtold€the€officers€that€he€occasionally€wore€womenððs€clothing€in€front€of€his€children.€€HeÏalso€said€that€he€had€pornographic€material€in€his€bedroom€but€that€the€victim€did€notÏknow€that€it€existed.€€The€defendant€stated€that€the€victim€asked€him€to€do€things€suchÏas€lick€or€play€with€her€ð ðpeetie.ðð€€The€defendant€claimed€that€he€did€not€ask€the€victim€toÏdo€these€things€and€that€he€did€not€instigate€the€victimððs€conduct.€€He€said€that€he€didÏnot€say€anything€one€way€or€another.€€The€defendant€told€the€officers€that€Mrs.€LeathÏknew€that€the€events€took€place€although€she€was€not€in€the€room€when€they€actuallyÏoccurred.€€He€said€that€their€three„year„old€son€also€was€not€present.€€€€€€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€told€the€officers€that€the€events€had€not€occurred€latelyÏbecause€the€victim€had€ð ðhot„cold€spellsðð€where€she€would€go€approximately€one€weekÏwithout€saying€anything.€€He€said€that€on€the€first€spell,€he€told€the€victim€that€he€wasÏbusy€and€that€she€should€go€to€bed.€€The€defendant€stated€that€he€did€not€know€whenÍthe€first€incident€took€place€but€that€it€had€been€approximately€two€weeks€since€the€lastÏincident€occurred.€€He€said€that€the€victim€sometimes€talked€like€a€sixteen„year„oldÏrather€than€a€six„year„old,€but€he€claimed€that€the€victim€did€not€learn€these€things€atÏhome.€€He€told€the€officers€that€it€was€possible€that€the€victim€was€sexually€active.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€also€asserted€that€he€did€what€he€did€because€he€wantedÏto€keep€the€victim€satisfied€within€the€boundaries€of€his€home€to€prevent€her€fromÏgetting€a€venereal€disease€from€a€stranger.€€The€defendant€stated€that€ð ðmore€actuallyÏhappened€here€than€there.ðð€€He€claimed€that€initially€he€went€along€with€it€to€keep€theÏvictim€from€seeking€her€satisfaction€somewhere€else€and€becoming€physically€injured.€ÏHe€said€that€a€couple€of€times,€he€and€his€wife€discussed€what€could€be€done€with€theirÏdaughter€within€the€confines€of€the€home,€and€he€stated€that€they€did€not€know€whoÏthey€could€turn€to€for€help.€€The€defendant€suggested€that€therapy€was€needed€for€theÏvictim€ð ðto€see€what€makes€her€tick,ðð€and€he€told€the€officers€that€if€everything€was€keptÏquiet,€there€would€not€be€a€problem.€€Regarding€his€conduct,€the€defendant€said€thatÏheÑ€2ÑÇdid€not€feel€it€was€totally€right€but€that€he€did€not€know€who€to€ask€for€therapy€to€keepÏthe€victim€quieted€down.€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àThe€defendantððs€second€taped€statement€reflects€that€the€defendantÏadmitted€that€the€victim€had€kissed€his€penis€and€put€it€in€her€mouth€for€about€fiveÏseconds€ð ðtwo,€maybe€three€timesðð€over€a€four€to€seven€day€period.€€He€said€that€theÏoral€sex€occurred€no€more€than€three€times€and€that€it€had€been€over€one€month€or€fiveÏweeks€since€the€last€incident€took€place.€€He€claimed€that€the€victim€did€it€on€her€ownÏwithout€him€asking€her€to€do€it.€€The€defendant€said€that€it€took€place€in€the€victimððsÏbedroom€while€he€was€lying€on€her€bed€asleep.€€He€stated€that€he€was€asleep€on€theÏvictimððs€bed€because€his€wife€and€children€had€fallen€asleep€on€his€bed,€and€he€saidÏthat€the€victim€came€into€the€room.€€The€defendant€admitted€that€he€took€some€of€theÏpictures€that€the€officers€found€in€a€drawer€in€his€bedroom,€including€a€picture€of€theÏvictim€with€her€legs€spread€open.€€He€said€that€the€victim€saw€the€picture€and€told€himÏthat€it€was€a€good€picture.€€The€defendant€told€the€officers€that€he€did€not€know€whetherÏthe€victim€saw€the€picture€he€took€of€his€wife.€€He€also€said€that€he€did€not€knowÏwhether€the€victim€had€seen€the€magazines,€movies€or€other€photos€taken€from€hisÏhouse.€€The€defendant€told€the€officers€that€he€did€not€know€whether€the€victim€hadÏobserved€him€and€his€wife€engaging€in€similar€sexual€acts,€but€he€denied€performingÏoral€sex€with€his€wife€in€front€of€the€victim.€€The€defendant€conceded€that€the€victim€mayÏhave€seen€him€licking€his€wife.Ìà àÌà àThe€videotaped€interview€of€the€defendant€by€Mr.€Britton€shows€that€theÏdefendant€told€Mr.€Britton€that€he€had€gotten€himself€into€a€mess€by€being€stupid.€€HeÏsaid€that€he€was€only€doing€it€to€please€his€daughter€and€that€the€victim€told€him€that€itÏmade€her€happy.€€The€defendant€claimed€that€his€daughter€led€him€into€it€and€that€itÏwas€a€ð ðspur€of€the€moment€thingðð€that€he€did€not€really€think€about€at€the€time.€€HeÏstated€that€he€did€not€force€the€issue.€€The€defendant€asserted€that€he€did€not€knowÏwhy€the€victim€wanted€to€do€these€acts€and€that€he€did€not€know€whether€she€œhad€had›Ïsex€with€anyone.€€He€told€Mr.€Britton€that€the€events€occurred€for€a€few€days€and€that€itÏhad€been€approximately€six€weeks€ago€since€the€last€incident€occurred.€€TheÏdefendant€conceded€that€he€took€one€of€the€pictures€with€her€legs€spread€apart,€but€heÏclaimed€that€he€did€not€take€the€other€pictures.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Sheriff€Mercer€testified€that€the€defendant€wasÏcooperative.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€helped€him€locate€things€when€he€searchedÏthe€defendantððs€house.€€He€stated€that€the€defendant€told€him€and€Mr.€Britton€that€hisÏsexual€relations€with€his€daughter€ended€before€the€investigation€began.€€SheriffÏMercer€testified€that€news€reporters€had€been€to€the€station€and€videotaped€in€the€jailÏonce€before.€€He€admitted€that€Mr.€Britton€may€have€seen€some€of€the€evidence€in€theÏcase€while€at€the€jail€because€he€questioned€the€defendant€about€the€photographsÏand€other€items€taken€from€the€defendantððs€house.€€Sheriff€Mercer€stated€that€he€didÍnot€show€Mr.€Britton€the€photographs.€€He€conceded€that€he€spoke€to€the€defendantððsÏattorney€regarding€his€concern€about€the€defendantððs€mental€condition€because€theÏdefendant€was€not€eating€correctly€and€acted€differently.€€He€stated€on€redirectÏexamination€that€the€defendant€was€eating€properly€at€the€time€of€the€trial.€€€€€€Ìà àÌà@ àò òI.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCE€„€ELECTION€OF€OFFENSESó óÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€theÏjuryððs€verdict€of€guilt€for€three€counts€of€rape€of€a€child€and€two€counts€of€aggravatedÏsexual€battery€because€the€testimony€is€inconclusive€as€to€when€and€how€many€timesÏthe€events€occurred.€€He€argues€that€ð ðit€is€material€how€many€times€the€actionsÏcomplained€of€happened€and€what€actually€happened.ðð€€The€defendant€complains€thatÏfrom€the€evidence€presented€at€trial,€it€is€impossible€to€determine€that€the€defendantÏcommitted€three€separate€acts€of€rape€of€a€child€and€two€separate€acts€of€aggravatedÏsexual€battery.€€The€defendant€asserts€that€the€jury€could€not€have€determined€which€ofÏthe€defendantððs€acts€constituted€which€convictions.€€He€claims€that€the€jury€essentiallyÏfound€the€defendant€guilty€of€each€charge€without€requiring€specific€proof€for€eachÏconviction.€€In€support€of€his€claims,€the€defendant€cites€òòState€v.€Burlisonóó,€501€S.W.2dÏ801€(Tenn.€1973),€and€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€851€S.W.2d€134€(Tenn.€1993).€€In€response,Ïthe€state€contends€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€his€convictions€and€that€theÏfailure€to€elect€is€harmless€error€because€it€can€be€concluded€beyond€a€reasonableÍdoubt€that€the€juryððs€verdict€for€each€count€was€unanimous.€€We€hold€that€the€evidenceÏis€sufficient€and€that€the€failure€to€elect€is€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ÌÌà@ àò òA.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óÌà àOur€standard€of€review€when€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€isÏquestioned€on€appeal€is€"whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€prosecution,€òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,Ï319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979).€€This€means€that€we€do€not€reweigh€the€evidence,Ïbut€presume€that€the€jury€has€resolved€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€and€drawn€allÏreasonable€inferences€from€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,Ï676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1978).€ÌÌà àIn€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€evidence€establishes€that€theÏdefendant€stuck€his€penis€in€the€victimððs€mouth€four€or€five€times.€€It€also€shows€that€theÏdefendantððs€penis€slightly€went€inside€the€victimððs€vagina€on€one€occasion€when€theÏdefendant€was€attempting€to€stick€his€penis€inside€the€victim.€€These€facts€proveÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€penetrated€the€victim€as€defined€inÏT.C.A.€ðð€39„13„501(7).€€A€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€defendant€guilty€ofÏthree€counts€of€rape€of€a€child.€€The€evidence€also€establishes€that€the€defendantÍcommitted€two€counts€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€The€defendant€tried€to€stick€hisÏpenis€in€the€victimððs€vagina€on€four€different€occasions€and€on€the€last€occasion,€theÏdefendantððs€penis€went€inside€the€victimððs€vagina€a€little.€€The€unlawful€sexual€contactÏoccurred€while€the€victim€was€on€her€bed,€on€the€floor,€on€her€motherððs€bed,€and€in€aÏchair.€€On€each€occasion,€the€defendant€tried€to€stick€his€penis€inside€the€victim€moreÏthan€once.€€The€victim€also€played€with€the€defendantððs€penis€while€they€were€lying€onÏthe€defendantððs€bed.€€Also,€the€defendant€licked€the€victimððs€vagina.€€Based€on€theseÏfacts,€the€jury€could€rationally€conclude€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendantÏcommitted€three€rapes€of€a€child€and€two€aggravated€sexual€batteries.ÌÌà@ àò òB.€€ELECTION€OF€OFFENSESó óÌà àIn€òòBurlison€v.€Stateóó,€501€S.W.2d€801€(Tenn.€1973),€our€supreme€courtÏheld€that€the€submission€of€evidence€of€multiple€rapes€by€the€defendant€upon€theÏvictim€when€each€of€the€several€rapes€so€proven€would€meet€the€allegations€of€theÏcharge€in€the€indictment€made€it€ð ðthe€duty€of€the€trial€judge€to€require€the€State,€at€theÏclose€of€its€proof„in„chief,€to€elect€the€particular€offense€of€carnal€knowledge€uponÏwhich€it€would€rely€for€conviction,€and€to€properly€instruct€the€jury€so€that€the€verdict€ofÏevery€juror€would€be€united€on€the€one€offense.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€804;€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Rickmanóó,€876ÏS.W.2d€824,€829€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€court€gave€three€reasons€for€these€requirements:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àFirst,€to€enable€the€defendant€to€prepare€for€and€make€hisÏdefense€to€the€specific€charge;€second,€to€protect€him€fromÏdouble€jeopardy€by€individualization€of€the€issue;€and€third,Íso€that€the€juryððs€verdict€may€not€be€a€matter€of€choiceÏbetween€offenses,€some€jurors€convicting€on€one€offenseÏand€others,€another.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòIdóó.€at€803.€€Because€the€requirement€that€the€state€make€an€election€of€the€particularÏoffense€for€which€it€will€rely€on€for€each€conviction€is€ð ðfundamental,€immediatelyÏtouching€the€constitutional€rights€of€the€accused,ðð€òòidóó.€at€804,€election€is€required€even€ifÏthe€defendant€does€not€make€a€request.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hoytóó,€928€S.W.2d€935,€946Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(trial€courtððs€failure€to€require€the€state€to€elect€the€offense€forÏwhich€it€seeks€a€conviction€when€the€proof€requires€an€election€is€considered€plainÏerror).€€Moreover,€ð ðan€appellate€courtððs€finding€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€supportÏconvictions€for€any€of€the€offenses€in€evidence€is€an€inadequate€substitute€for€a€juryððsÏdeliberation€over€identified€offenses.ðð€€òòSheltonóó,€851€S.W.2d€at€138.Ìà àÌà àIn€òòSheltonóó,€our€supreme€court€noted€that€the€risk€to€the€defendantððs€abilityÏto€prepare€and€defend€has€been€greatly€obviated,€as€a€practical€matter,€because€ofÏrules€relating€to€discovery€and€bills€of€particulars.€€851€S.W.2d€at€137.€€The€court€alsoÏnoted€that€the€risk€relating€to€double€jeopardy€has€effectively€been€ended€by€theÍcreation€of€the€rule€prohibiting€a€second€prosecution€for€other€similar€offenses€whichÏare€shown€to€have€occurred€within€the€time€frame€covered€by€the€charging€instrumentÏin€the€first€prosecution.€€òòIdóó.€€Although€the€court€recognized€that€an€election€at€the€end€ofÏthe€stateððs€proof€does€little€to€aid€in€defense€preparation,€it€continued€the€requirementsÏof€election€and€jury€unanimity€instructions€in€order€to€protect€the€defendantððsÏconstitutional€right€to€a€unanimous€jury€verdict.€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àThe€òòSheltonóó€court€viewed€the€most€serious€concern€to€be€the€stateÏconstitutional€requirement€that€a€criminal€conviction€be€based€only€upon€a€unanimousÏjury€verdict.€€òòIdóó.€at€138.€€ð ðA€defendantððs€right€to€a€unanimous€jury€before€convictionÏrequires€the€trial€court€to€take€precautions€to€ensure€that€the€jury€deliberates€over€theÏparticular€charged€offense,€instead€of€creating€a€ððpatchwork€verdictðð€based€on€differentÏoffenses€in€evidence.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€137€(citing€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€823€S.W.2d€576,€583€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1991)).€€With€regard€to€jury€unanimity,€this€court€stated€that:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àin€cases€involving€evidence€which€shows€a€real€potentialÏthat€a€conviction€may€occur€as€a€result€of€different€jurorsÏconcluding€that€the€defendant€committed€different€acts,Ïeach€of€which€separately€showing€the€commission€of€anÏoffense,€the€trial€court€must€augment€the€general€unanimityÏinstruction€to€insure€that€the€jury€understands€€its€duty€toÏagree€unanimously€to€a€particular€set€of€facts.€€TheÏassessment€of€this€potential€would€involve€consideration€ofÏthe€allegations€made€and€the€statutory€offense€charged,€asÏwell€as€the€actual€evidence€presented.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòBrownóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€583.ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€the€indictment€was€neither€time€nor€place€specific.€€TheÏindictment€charged€the€defendant€with€three€counts€of€rape€of€a€child,€alleging€in€theÏfirst€count€that€the€offense€occurred€ð ðbetween€June€1€and€July€on€the€15€day€of€1993,ððÏin€the€second€count€that€the€offense€occurred€ð ðon€or€between€June€1€and€July€15,Ï1993,ðð€and€in€the€third€count€that€the€offense€occurred€ð ðbetween€the€month€of€June€andÏearly€July,€1993.ðð€€The€defendant€was€also€indicted€for€two€counts€of€aggravatedÏsexual€battery,€alleging€in€counts€four€and€five€that€the€offenses€took€place€ð ðbetweenÏJune€and€early€July,€1993.ðð€€ÌÌà àAlthough€the€defendant€was€indicted€for€only€three€counts€of€rape€of€aÏchild,€the€state€introduced€evidence€of€more€than€three€penetrations€by€the€defendant.€ÏThe€victim€stated€that€the€defendant€stuck€his€penis€in€her€mouth€four€or€five€timesÏwhile€she€was€in€a€chair€in€the€kitchen€at€night.€€She€also€said€that€the€defendantððsÏpenis€went€inside€her€a€little€the€last€time€he€tried€to€stick€his€penis€inside€her€vagina.€ÏIn€a€statement€to€Sheriff€Mercer,€the€defendant€conceded€that€the€victim€had€performedÏfellatio€on€him,€but€he€claimed€that€it€happened€no€more€than€three€times€and€that€oneÏincident€occurred€in€the€victimððs€bedroom.€€Each€act€by€the€defendant€constitutedÏpenetration€as€defined€in€T.C.A.€ðð€38„13„501(7)€for€a€conviction€of€rape€of€a€child.€ÏHowever,€the€trial€court€did€not€require€that€the€state€elect€which€offense€they€wereÏrelying€on€for€each€count€in€the€indictment.€ÌÌà àWith€regard€to€the€charges€of€aggravated€sexual€battery,€the€stateÏpresented€the€victimððs€testimony€that€the€defendant€tried€to€stick€his€penis€in€theÏvictimððs€vagina€on€the€victimððs€bed,€on€the€floor,€in€the€chair,€and€on€the€defendantððsÏbed.€€The€victim€testified€that€the€defendantððs€penis€would€not€go€inside€even€thoughÏthe€defendant€made€more€than€one€attempt€on€each€occasion.€€The€defendant€toldÏSheriff€Mercer€that€he€allowed€the€victim€to€play€with€his€penis€while€he€was€lying€onÏhis€bed.€€He€also€told€Sheriff€Mercer€that€he€had€licked€the€victimððs€private€parts.€€HeÏsaid€that€he€had€taken€the€head€of€his€penis€and€rubbed€it€through€the€victimððs€privateÏparts€on€two€or€three€occasions.€€Under€these€circumstances,€election€was€required.ÌÌà àWe€note€that€during€closing€argument,€the€prosecutor€argued€that€theÏaggravated€sexual€batteries€were€established€by€the€victimððs€testimony€that€theÏdefendant€tried€to€stick€his€ð ðtutuðð€in€her€ð ðtutuðð€while€she€was€on€the€bed,€while€she€wasÏon€the€floor,€and€while€she€was€in€the€chair.€€This€limiting€of€the€proof€by€the€state€doesÏnot€satisfy€the€requirements€of€election.€€The€trial€court€must€require€the€state€to€elect€atÏthe€close€of€its€proof„in„chief.€€òòSeeóó€òòBurlisonóó,€501€S.W.2d€at€804.€€Moreover,€theÏindictment€charges€the€defendant€with€only€two€counts€of€aggravated€sexual€battery,Ïand€therefore,€the€stateððs€reliance€on€three€instances€of€unlawful€sexual€contact€isÏinsufficient€to€satisfy€the€requirements€of€election€under€òòBurlisonóó.€€€€€€ÌÌà àWhen€charging€the€jury,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€the€threeÏcounts€alleging€rape€of€a€child€charged€separate€and€distinct€offenses€as€to€eachÏcount.€€It€told€the€jurors€that€they€must€decide€each€charge€separately€on€the€evidenceÏand€the€law€applicable€to€it.€€The€trial€court€gave€a€similar€instruction€with€regard€to€theÏtwo€counts€of€aggravated€sexual€battery,€and€it€instructed€the€jury€that€a€total€of€fiveÏseparate€judgments€or€verdicts€must€be€returned.€€The€trial€court€gave€another€generalÏjury€instruction€regarding€the€requirement€of€a€unanimous€verdict:€ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àThe€verdict€must€represent€the€considered€judgment€ofÏeach€juror.€€In€order€to€return€a€verdict€it€is€necessary€thatÏeach€juror€agree€thereto.€€Your€verdict€must€be€unanimous.€ÏIt€is€your€duty€as€jurors€to€consult€with€one€another€and€toÏdeliberate€with€a€view€to€reaching€an€agreement,€if€you€canÏdo€so€without€violence€to€individual€judgment.€€€€ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓThe€record€reflects€that€the€jury€returned€separate€verdicts€of€guilt€on€each€charge.ÌÌà àThe€lack€of€indictment€specificity€and€the€evidence€of€multiple€offensesÏwarranted€state€election€and€an€appropriate€jury€instruction€under€òòSheltonóó€and€òòBrownóó.€ÏIn€this€case,€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€require€an€election€constituted€error.€€However,Ïthe€stateððs€introduction€of€evidence€of€additional€sexual€offenses€committed€by€theÏdefendant€did€not€violate€the€defendantððs€rights€against€double€jeopardy.€€TheÏdefendant€is€protected€from€double€jeopardy€because€he€cannot€later€be€prosecutedÏfor€conduct€of€the€same€nature€as€that€charged€in€the€indictment€that€occurred€duringÏthe€time€alleged€in€the€indictment.€€òòSeeóó€òòSheltonóó,€851€S.W.2d€at€137.€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àMoreover,€the€failure€to€elect€can€be€harmless€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt€in€an€appropriate€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòSheltonóó,€851€S.W.2d€at€138.€€That€is,€the€evidenceÏmay€be€of€such€a€quality€that€no€real€risk€of€a€patchwork€verdict€exists.€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àIn€òòSheltonóó,€the€defendant€was€charged€with€one€count€of€aggravatedÏrape€of€one€of€his€three€step„granddaughters€and€two€counts€of€aggravated€sexualÏbattery€of€the€other€two€step„granddaughters.€€The€victim€of€the€aggravated€rapeÏtestified€in€very€general€terms€that€the€defendant€digitally€penetrated€her€and€her€twoÏsisters€on€more€than€one€occasion,€but€she€described€in€detail€one€incident€thatÏoccurred€on€her€birthday€when€the€defendant€was€partially€successful€at€his€attempt€toÏpenetrate€the€victim€with€his€penis.€€òòIdóó.€€The€medical€expert€testimony€was€that€thereÏwere€clear€signs€of€sexual€abuse.€€òòIdóó.€€The€court€determined€that€it€was€error€for€the€trialÏcourt€to€fail€to€require€the€state€to€elect€offenses€but€concluded€that€the€òòBurlisonóó€errorÏwith€regard€to€the€aggravated€rape€count€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÏbecause€ð ðthe€jurors€must€have€considered€the€evidence€of€this€particular€incident€inÏconvicting€the€defendant€of€aggravated€rape.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àWith€regard€to€the€remaining€two€counts€of€aggravated€sexual€battery,€theÏcourt€held€that€the€òòBurlisonóó€errors€were€not€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòIdóó.Ïat€139.€€Important€in€this€determination€was€ð ðthe€nature€of€the€evidenceðð€presented€withÍregard€to€each€charge.€€òòIdóó.€€One€victim€testified€that€the€defendant€fondled€her€andÏdigitally€penetrated€her€on€more€than€one€occasion,€but€she€did€not€differentiate€oneÏevent€from€the€others.€€òòIdóó.€€With€respect€to€that€victim,€the€medical€expert€only€foundÏevidence€of€irritation€in€the€victimððs€genital€area.€€òòIdóó.€€The€court€reversed€theÏdefendantððs€conviction€because€in€ð ðview€of€the€nature€of€the€evidence€and€the€òòBurlisonóóÏerror€resulting€from€the€stateððs€failure€to€elect,ðð€the€convictions€could€not€be€sustained.€ÏòòIdóó.€€The€other€victim€did€not€testify,€and€medical€proof€found€no€evidence€of€irritation€orÏany€other€physical€proof.€€òòIdóó.€€The€only€proof€establishing€the€offense€ð ðwas€the€brief€andÏthoroughly€non„specific€testimony€of€the€other€two€victims€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€The€court€not€onlyÏdetermined€that€there€was€a€òòBurlisonóó€error€but€also€concluded€that€the€evidence€wasÏinsufficient€to€sustain€the€conviction.€€òòIdóó.€ÌÌà àWe€hold€that€the€evidence€in€this€case€is€of€such€a€quality€that€there€wasÏno€risk€that€the€juryððs€verdicts€were€less€than€unanimous€and€that€the€failure€to€requireÏelection€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€In€this€sense,€the€case€is€unusualÏin€that€there€was€no€actual€contest€of€the€facts.€€The€victimððs€testimony€in€this€caseÏspecifically€detailed€the€events€that€took€place,€and€her€testimony€was€direct,€clear€andÏcertain.€€The€defendantððs€statements€to€Sheriff€Mercer€and€Mr.€Britton€reflect€that€theÏdefendant€readily€admitted€his€unlawful€conduct€and€provided€them€with€details€ofÏunlawful€sexual€conduct€with€the€victim€in€addition€to€those€described€by€the€victim.€ÏThe€defendant€even€gave€a€statement€to€a€television€news€reporter€regarding€hisÍunlawful€conduct.€€Moreover,€neither€the€defendantððs€cross„examination€of€the€victimÏnor€his€development€of€the€evidence€related€in€any€fashion€to€an€attack€on€the€victimððsÏtestimony€about€the€nature,€the€number,€or€the€location€of€the€rapes€or€aggravatedÏsexual€batteries.€€In€fact,€the€cross„examination€of€the€victim€consisted€solely€of€generalÏquestions€regarding€to€whom€the€victim€spoke€about€the€offenses€and€whether€theÏdefendant€stopped€when€she€told€him€it€hurt.€€Furthermore,€the€defendantððs€closingÏargument€essentially€requested€that€the€jurors€consider€the€evidence€and€render€aÏdecision€based€upon€the€evidence.€€In€fact,€we€note€that€the€defendantððs€brief€alsoÏstates€that€it€is€not€his€intention€to€assert€ð ðthat€nothing€happened€at€the€DefendantððsÏhome€between€himself€and€his€daughter.ðð€€ÌÌà àAlso,€as€previously€noted,€the€state€identified€four€specific€instances€ofÏaggravated€sexual€battery€during€its€closing€argument€for€which€it€relied€upon€for€aÏconviction.€€In€addition,€defense€counsel€told€the€jury€during€closing€argument€that€itÏmust€ð ðlook€at€all€the€facts€as€they€were€presented€on€each€separate€count€and€make€anÏindividual€decision€.€.€.€€and€discuss€each€one€of€them€separately,€five€decisions€youÏhave€to€make,€five€different€counts.ðð€€The€trial€courtððs€instructions€to€the€jury€stressed€itsÏneed€to€decide€each€charging€count€as€a€separate€and€distinct€offense€and€to€considerÏthe€evidence€relative€to€each€separate€charge.€€Likewise,€it€gave€the€generalÏinstruction€about€the€need€for€a€unanimous€verdict,€and€the€jury€returned€verdicts€forÏeach€individual€count.€€Although€an€instruction€on€the€requirement€of€jury€unanimity,€isÍð ðan€inadequate€substitution€for€òòBurlisonóóððs€explicit€requirement€that€the€prosecutionÏidentify€the€specific€offenses€for€which€it€seeks€conviction,ðð€òòSheltonóó,€851€S.W.2d€atÏ136,€the€fact€that€a€jury€unanimity€instruction€is€given€is€relevant€to€the€determination€ofÏwhether€a€òòBurlisonóó€error€is€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€We€believe€that€theÏcircumstances€in€this€case€totally€negate€any€real€risk€that€the€jury€was€not€unanimousÏin€deciding€whether€three€separate€acts€of€rape€of€a€child€and€two€separate€acts€ofÏaggravated€sexual€batteries€occurred.€€We€also€believe€that€there€was€no€risk€that€theÏjury€would€not€be€unanimous€in€relating€the€separate€acts€to€separate€charging€counts.ÌÌà àWe€note€that€in€òòTidwell€v.€Stateóó,€922€S.W.2d€497€(Tenn.€1996),€theÏsupreme€court€addressed€in€a€post„conviction€setting€whether€the€petitioner€receivedÏthe€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel€because€counsel€did€not€request€that€theÏstate€elect€the€particular€offense€upon€which€a€conviction€was€sought.€€In€òòTidwellóó,€theÏpetitioner€was€charged€with€fourteen€counts€each€of€rape,€statutory€rape,€incest,€andÏcontributing€to€the€delinquency€of€a€minor,€each€type€of€offense€occurring€on€a€monthlyÏbasis€over€a€fourteen„month€period€between€December€1985€and€January€1987.€ÏEach€count€alleged€that€the€petitioner€committed€a€specific€offense€on€the€ð ð___ðð€day€ofÏa€named€month.€€The€proof€showed€that€the€sexual€activity€between€the€petitioner€andÏthe€victim,€including€cunnilingus,€fellatio,€and€vaginal€intercourse,€began€in€DecemberÏ1985€and€ended€in€January€1987,€and€that€it€occurred€approximately€once€a€week.€ÏThe€victim€was€not€able€to€match€a€particular€act€to€a€specific€time,€either€by€date€or€byÍother€reference.€€She€described€two€discrete€incidents€with€particularity€as€to€the€dateÏand€the€type€of€sexual€activity.€€Also,€the€petitioner€confessed€before€trial€that€he€hadÏengaged€in€sexual€intercourse€with€the€victim€and€that€the€last€incident€occurred€threeÏdays€before€his€arrest.€€ÌÌà àThe€supreme€court€rejected€the€stateððs€argument€that€ð ðððjury€unanimity€isÏattained€in€such€cases€because,€although€the€jury€may€not€be€able€to€distinguishÏbetween€the€various€acts,€it€is€certainly€capable€of€unanimously€agreeing€that€they€tookÏplace€in€the€number€and€manner€described.ðððð€òòIdóó.€at€501.€€The€court€reasoned€that€theÏð ðapproach€.€.€.€is€akin€to€a€ððgrab„bagðð€theory€of€justice.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€It€illustrated€this€theory€byÏexample:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àTo€illustrate€the€operation€of€this€theory,€in€any€given€caseÏthe€State€could€present€proof€on€as€many€offenses€withinÏthe€alleged€period€as€it€chose.€€Because€all€such€offensesÏwill€have€been€ð ðproven,ðð€the€jury€may,€in€effect,€reach€intoÏthe€brimming€bag€of€offenses€and€pull€out€one€for€eachÏcount.€€Even€when€done€by€this€method,€the€argument€goes,Ïeach€offense€will€have€been€proven€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€We€acknowledge€that€the€illustration€is€an€extremeÏone,€but€we€think€that€it€makes€the€point:€such€an€approachÏis€contrary€to€our€law.Ì€ÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòTidwellóó€requires€that€there€be€an€ð ðapparent€means€to€differentiate€among€variousÏcounts€of€the€same€offenseðð€and€that€the€jury€be€able€to€match€a€specific€conduct€to€aÏspecific€count.€€òòSeeóó€òòTidwellóó,€922€S.W.2d€at€501.€€ÌÌà àUltimately,€the€òòTidwellóó€court€ruled€that€counsel€performed€deficiently€andÏthat€the€deficiency€resulted€in€prejudice€to€the€petitioner,€depriving€him€of€a€fair€trialÏwhose€result€is€reliable€with€regard€to€the€convictions€for€which€the€proof€was€notÏspecific.€€òòIdóó.€at€502.€€The€court€stated€that€it€was€not€comfortable€with€the€reliability€ofÏthe€result€reached€in€the€trial€because€of€the€stateððs€inability€to€match€occurrences€toÏthose€counts€for€which€the€testimony€was€non„specific.€€òòIdóó.€€In€addition,€there€was€anÏð ðabsence€of€varying€surroundings,€events,€or€circumstances€that€could€have€lent€aÏsingular€identity€to€each€incident.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€The€court€recognized€its€earlier€ruling€inÏòòSheltonóó,€ð ðððIf€the€prosecution€cannot€identify€an€event€for€which€to€ask€a€conviction,€thenÏthe€court€cannot€be€assured€of€a€unanimous€decision.ðððð€òòIdóó.€(quoting€òòSheltonóó,€851ÏS.W.2d€at€138).€€However,€for€three€of€the€fourteen€incidents€for€which€Tidwell€wasÏconvicted,€the€court€held€that€the€petitioner€had€failed€to€establish€any€prejudice.€€òòIdóó.€ÏThe€proof€establishing€these€convictions€consisted€of€the€victimððs€testimony€specificallyÏdetailing€the€dates€and€the€nature€of€the€offenses€and€the€petitionerððs€confession€thatÏhe€engaged€in€sexual€intercourse€with€the€victim€on€a€certain€date.€€òòIdóó.€at€499.ÌÌà àAlso,€this€court€has€held€that€a€òòBurlisonóó€error€was€not€harmless€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€when€the€trial€court€failed€to€require€the€state€to€elect€even€thoughÏthe€defendant€was€indicted€for€only€one€count€of€aggravated€rape€and€the€proofÏestablished€both€oral€and€anal€sex.€€òòState€v.€Claboóó,€905€S.W.2d€197,€205€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1995).€€Before€trial,€the€defendant€initially€denied€all€charges€made€against€himÍbut€later€admitted€his€guilt€to€other€crimes€for€which€he€was€later€indicted,€though€heÏdid€not€confess€to€committing€the€offense€of€aggravated€rape.€€òòIdóó.€at€201.€€Over€theÏdefendantððs€objection,€the€trial€court€permitted€the€state€to€introduce€evidence€of€bothÏforms€of€penetration.€€òòIdóó.€at€205.€€Our€court€reasoned€that€the€òòBurlisonóó€error€was€notÏharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€because€the€state€relied€upon€both€the€oral€andÏthe€anal€sex€as€proof€of€the€aggravated€rape.€€òòIdóó.€€The€court€also€stated€that€the€trialÏcourt€instructed€the€jury€to€rely€upon€counselððs€arguments€for€each€sideððs€theory€of€theÏcase€and€defined€penetration€as€including€both€fellatio€and€intercourse.€€òòIdóó.€€AlsoÏimportant€in€this€courtððs€decision€was€the€fact€that€although€the€indictment€alleged€thatÏthe€defendant€committed€aggravated€rape€by€anally€penetrating€the€victim,€the€recordÏdid€not€demonstrate€that€the€indictment€was€read€to€the€jury€or€that€the€jury€was€awareÏof€the€stateððs€reliance€upon€the€anal€intercourse.€€òòIdóó.€€€€ÌÌà àWe€believe€the€facts€of€this€case€to€be€distinguishable€from€òòTidwellóó€andÏòòClaboóó.€€The€facts€of€this€case€do€not€present€a€situation€as€in€òòTidwellóó€where€evidenceÏof€numerous€instances€of€sexual€conduct€was€introduced€through€testimony€that€wasÏnot€specific€with€regard€to€date€or€other€references.€€In€this€case,€the€proof€at€trial€wasÏspecific€in€terms€of€the€nature€and€the€location€of€each€of€the€offenses,€lending€aÏsingular€identity€to€each€incident€similar€to€the€offenses€in€òòTidwellóó€that€were€particularlyÏdescribed.€€Here,€the€jury€was€able€to€distinguish€between€the€various€acts€thatÏoccurred.€€Also,€unlike€the€defendant€in€òòClaboóó,€the€defendant€admitted€his€guilt€to€theÍcrimes€for€which€he€was€indicted.€€The€defendantððs€evidence€lacked€any€potential€ofÏdiminishing€the€quality€of€the€proof.€€Instead,€the€defendantððs€proof€related€to€whetherÏthe€defendant€stopped€when€the€victim€told€him€it€hurt.€€The€certainty€and€the€quality€ofÏthe€evidence€presented€is€of€such€a€degree€that€the€only€rational€conclusion€is€that€theÏjury€determined€that€all€of€the€offenses€were€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€InÏour€view,€the€evidence€does€not€warrant,€beyond€idle€speculation,€an€inference€thatÏany€juror€had€a€reasonable€doubt€about€any€of€the€penetrations€or€unlawful€sexualÏcontacts€occurring.€€The€risk€of€a€composite€jury€simply€did€not€exist€under€the€facts€inÏthis€case.€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€òòBurlisonóó€error€is€harmless€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€€Ìà@ àò òII.€€CHANGE€OF€VENUEó óÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€grant€hisÏmotion€for€a€change€of€venue€because€of€the€community„wide€interest€and€theÏextensive€media€coverage€that€caused€him€to€be€prejudiced€and€prevented€him€fromÏreceiving€a€fair€trial.€€The€state€responds€that€the€defendantððs€claim€is€without€meritÏbecause€the€defendant€fails€to€allege€and€the€record€does€not€establish€that€the€juryÏwas€biased€or€prejudiced€against€him.€€We€agree.ÌÌà àA€change€of€venue€may€be€granted€if€it€appears€that€ð ðdue€to€undueÏexcitement€against€the€defendant€in€the€county€where€the€offense€was€committed€orÏany€other€cause,€a€fair€trial€probably€could€not€be€had.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€21(a).€€TheÍmatter€of€a€change€of€venue€addresses€itself€to€the€sound€judicial€discretion€of€the€trialÏcourt,€and€its€decision€must€be€respected€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòRippey€v.ÏStateóó,€550€S.W.2d€636,€638€(Tenn.€1977).€ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Hooveróó,€594€S.W.2d€743€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979),€this€courtÏset€forth€the€relevant€factors€when€considering€a€change€of€venue.€€The€factors€to€beÏconsidered€are€as€follows:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 à1.€€Nature,€extent,€and€timing€of€pretrial€publicity.ÌÌà8 à2.€€Nature€of€publicity€as€fair€or€inflammatory.ÌÌà8 à3.€€The€particular€content€of€the€publicity.ÌÌà8 à4.€€The€degree€to€which€the€publicity€complained€of€hasÏpermeated€the€area€from€which€the€venire€is€drawn.ÌÌà8 à5.€€The€degree€to€which€the€publicity€circulated€outside€theÏarea€from€which€the€venire€is€drawn.ÌÌà8 à6.€€The€time€elapsed€from€the€release€of€the€publicity€untilÏthe€trial.ÌÌà8 à7.€€The€degree€of€care€exercised€in€the€selection€of€the€jury.ÌÌà8 à8.€€The€ease€or€difficulty€in€selecting€the€jury.ÌÌà8 à9.€€The€venirepersonððs€familiarity€with€the€publicity€and€itsÏeffect,€if€any,€upon€them€as€shown€through€their€answers€onÏvoir€dire.ÌÌà8 à10.€€The€defendantððs€utilization€of€his€preemptoryÏchallenges.ÌÌà8 à11.€€The€defendantððs€utilization€of€challenges€for€cause.ÌÌà8 à12.€€The€participation€by€police€or€by€prosecution€in€theÏrelease€of€the€publicity.ÌÌà8 à13.€€The€severity€of€the€offense€charged.ÌÌà8 à14.€€The€absence€or€presence€of€threats,€demonstrations€orÏother€hostility€against€the€defendant.ÌÌà8 à15.€€Size€of€the€area€from€which€the€venire€is€drawn.ÌÌà8 à16.€€Affidavits,€hearsay€or€opinion€testimony€of€witnesses.ÌÌà8 à17.€€Nature€of€the€verdict€returned€by€the€trial€jury.ÌòòÌÓ  ÓÓÓIdóó.€at€746.€€For€there€to€be€a€reversal€of€a€conviction€based€upon€a€claim€that€the€trialÏcourt€improperly€denied€a€motion€for€a€change€of€venue,€the€ð ðdefendant€mustÏdemonstrate€that€the€jurors€who€actually€sat€were€biased€or€prejudiced€against€him.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€192€(Tenn.€1992).€€ÌÌà àBefore€trial,€the€defendant€filed€a€written€motion€for€a€change€of€venue.€ÏAs€grounds€for€his€motion,€the€defendant€alleged€that€the€media€coverage€of€theÏoffenses€had€been€extensive.€€He€argued€that€statements€made€by€the€defendant€andÏcomments€made€by€law€enforcement€officials€to€the€media€and€disseminated€to€theÏpublic€were€highly€inflammatory€and€prejudicial€to€the€defendant.€€The€defendantÏclaimed€that€the€prejudicial€information€had€been€so€widely€communicated€to€theÏcommunity€that€the€defendant€could€not€receive€a€fair€trial.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€attached€to€his€motion€a€copy€of€three€Macon€CountyÏTimes€newspaper€articles€regarding€the€defendantððs€case.€€The€first€article,€datedÏAugust€23,€1993,€is€titled€ð ðSecond€Appearance€By€Macon€Man€on€Sexual€AbuseÏChargesðð€and€contains€a€picture€of€the€defendant€in€handcuffs€being€led€away€by€aÏdeputy.€€The€article€details€the€charges€filed€against€the€defendant€and€Mrs.€Leath.€€ItÏdiscusses€the€defendantððs€and€Mrs.€Leathððs€bond€status€and€also€explains€that€theÏdefendant€had€waived€his€right€to€a€preliminary€hearing€and€that€the€case€would€beÏbound€over€to€the€grand€jury.€€The€article€reports€that€the€defendant€had€beenÏtransported€to€an€out„of„town€jail€because€Sheriff€Mercer€had€received€threatsÏconcerning€the€defendant.€€It€also€states€that€Mrs.€Leath€had€filed€for€a€divorce,€allegingÏð ðððcruel€and€inhuman€treatmentðð€and€ððirreconcilable€differences.ðððð€The€article€alsoÏreports€that€the€divorce€papers€state€that€Mrs.€Leath€had€been€under€the€duress€of€theÏdefendant€and€fears€for€her€personal€safety.€€It€states€that€Mrs.€Leath€had€requestedÏcustody€of€their€children€and€had€obtained€a€restraining€order€against€the€defendant.€€€€€ÌÌà àThe€second€article,€dated€October€14,€1993,€reports€that€the€grand€juryÏreturned€a€five„count€indictment€against€the€defendant,€two€counts€of€aggravated€rapeÏand€three€counts€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€The€third€article,€published€onÏDecember€16,€1993,€reflects€that€a€trial€date€had€been€set€in€the€defendantððs€and€Mrs.ÏLeathððs€case.€€The€article€recounted€the€nature€of€the€charges€returned€by€the€grandÏjury.€€€ÌÌà àInstead€of€filing€affidavits€averring€facts€constituting€the€alleged€undueÏexcitement€or€other€cause€upon€which€the€motion€was€based,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ï21(b),€the€defendant€called€witnesses€at€the€hearing€on€the€pretrial€motions.× ƒ4 ××  ×€€MaconÏCounty€Executive€Raymond€Doyle€Gaines€testified€that€he€had€lived€in€the€county€forÏsixty„five€years.€€He€stated€that€the€media€coverage€on€the€defendantððs€case€was€ð ðquiteÏextensive.ðð€€He€testified€that€the€local€newspaper€was€widely€read€in€the€community,Ïdescribing€the€newspaper€as€being€ð ðalmost€a€Bible.ðð€€He€said€that€he€had€heardÏseveral€people€talk€about€the€case€and€that€many€expressed€strong€opinions€that€theÏdefendant€was€guilty.€€County€Exeuctive€Gaines€testified€that€he€believed€that€it€wouldÏnot€be€favorable€to€the€defendant€to€have€the€case€tried€in€Macon€County.€€He€statedÏthat€he€thought€it€would€be€difficult€to€find€jurors€who€did€not€have€any€knowledge€ofÏthe€case,€and€he€expressed€the€opinion€that€the€defendant€could€not€receive€a€fair€trialÏin€Macon€County.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€County€Executive€Gaines€testified€that€among€theÏsixteen€thousand€residents€in€Macon€County,€nine€thousand€were€registered€voters.€ÏHe€conceded€that€the€county€population€had€a€good€base€from€which€to€draw€a€jury.€ÏHe€also€admitted€that€most€of€the€discussion€about€the€defendantððs€case€took€place€aÍcouple€of€months€after€the€defendant€was€arrested.€€County€Executive€Gaines€said€thatÏhe€had€not€heard€or€seen€anything€within€the€last€two€months.€€On€redirectÏexamination,€he€stated€that€he€had€heard€some€people€say€that€the€defendant€ought€toÏbe€castrated.ÌÌà àBen€Holder,€the€mayor€of€the€city€of€œLafayette,›€testified€that€he€had€lived€inÏMacon€County€since€1952.€€He€said€that€he€had€read€newspaper€articles€in€the€localÏpaper€and€òòTheóó€òòTennesseanóó€and€that€he€had€seen€the€news€on€television€about€theÏdefendantððs€case€during€the€summer.€€Mayor€Holder€stated€that€he€did€not€recall€aÏcase€where€there€had€been€more€discussion€than€the€defendantððs€case.€€He€said€thatÏpeople€talked€about€the€case€each€time€an€article€was€in€the€newspaper.€€He€testifiedÏthat€he€had€also€heard€people€talk€about€the€photographs€taken€of€the€victim.€€MayorÏHolder€stated€that€he€heard€people€say€that€the€defendant€ought€to€be€castrated€andÏthat€they€wished€they€were€on€the€jury.€€Mayor€Holder€expressed€the€belief€that€it€wouldÏbe€hard€to€obtain€an€impartial€jury€because€many€believed€the€defendant€was€guilty.€€ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Mayor€Holder€testified€that€most€of€theÏconversations€regarding€the€defendantððs€case€took€place€when€the€case€broke.€€HeÏsaid€that€he€was€not€aware€of€any€television€coverage€of€the€case€since€the€caseÏinitially€broke.€€He€conceded€that€most€of€the€newspaper€articles€related€to€theÍdocketing€of€the€defendantððs€case.€€On€redirect€examination,€Mayor€Holder€estimatedÏthat€he€spoke€to€approximately€four€or€five€hundred€people.ÌÌà àChief€of€Police€Buford€Wix€testified€that€he€had€lived€in€Macon€CountyÏsince€1973.€€He€said€that€he€had€read€the€local€newspaper€articles,€and€he€stated€thatÏthe€newspaper€had€a€fairly€large€circulation.€€He€recalled€hearing€people€talking€aboutÏthe€defendantððs€case,€describing€the€conversations€as€ð ðrestaurant€gossip€or€rumorsÏthat€float€around€through€your€community.ðð€€Chief€of€Police€Wix€expressed€the€opinionÏthat€it€would€be€hard€to€find€jurors€who€did€not€have€some€knowledge€of€theÏdefendantððs€case.€€He€said€that€only€one€person€had€expressed€an€opinion€about€theÏcase€to€him€and€that€the€person€resided€outside€of€Tennessee.€€ÌÌà àMacon€County€Sheriff€James€Mercer€testified€that€he€was€the€sheriff€atÏthe€time€the€defendant€was€arrested.€€Sheriff€Mercer€stated€that€he€removed€theÏdefendant€from€the€local€jail€and€sent€him€to€Trousdale€County€for€approximately€fourÏto€six€weeks€because€he€received€an€anonymous€phone€call€making€a€threat€againstÏthe€defendant.€€He€said€that€he€did€not€receive€any€more€threats€after€the€defendantÏreturned€to€the€Macon€County€Jail.€€He€testified€that€he€had€heard€some€talk€about€theÏcase.€€He€said€that€he€did€not€recall€anyone€expressing€the€opinion€that€the€defendantÏwas€œinnocent,€›although€he€remembered€hearing€people€state€that€they€believed€thatÏthe€defendant€was€guilty.€€ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Sheriff€Mercer€testified€that€he€would€haveÏremoved€any€prisoner€had€the€same€threat€been€made€against€him€or€her.€€He€alsoÏexpressed€the€opinion€that€an€impartial€jury€could€be€impaneled€although€it€might€takeÏlonger.€€On€redirect€examination,€Sheriff€Mercer€conceded€that€he€laid€the€pictures€heÏobtained€from€the€defendantððs€house€on€his€desk,€but€he€claimed€that€he€did€not€layÏthem€out€for€the€news€media€to€photograph.€€He€admitted€that€he€showed€theÏphotographs€to€other€people€not€affiliated€with€law€enforcement.ÌÌà àAt€the€hearing€on€the€pretrial€motions,€Mrs.€Leathððs€counsel€summarizedÏthe€videotape€that€was€shown€on€Channel€Five.€€He€said€that€the€videotape€showsÏMrs.€Leath€being€fingerprinted€and€answering€the€questions€of€Mr.€Britton.€€He€statedÏthat€the€videotape€also€shows€nude€pictures€lying€on€a€table.€€The€defendantððs€counselÏalso€told€the€court€that€the€videotape€shows€the€defendant€being€brought€to€the€jail.€€HeÏstated€that€the€videotape€was€shown€on€television€several€times.€€Although€theÏvideotape€was€not€attached€to€the€defendantððs€motion€or€introduced€at€the€hearing€asÏan€exhibit,× ƒ5 ××  ×€the€trial€court€stated€that€it€did€not€need€to€see€the€video€but€that€it€wouldÏassume€that€everything€was€true€because€the€state€did€not€object€to€what€counsel€said.€ÍThe€trial€court€recognized€that€the€video€was€shown€on€television€before€it€delayed€itsÏruling€on€the€motion€until€voir€dire€of€the€jury.ÌÌà àVoir€dire€was€conducted€by€questioning€two€groups€of€twenty„five€peopleÏwith€general€questions€about€the€case€and€by€delaying€specific€questions€regardingÏthe€publicity€until€the€venire€could€be€questioned€on€an€individual€or€group€basis.€ÏDuring€the€general€questioning,€a€prospective€juror€was€excused€for€cause€becauseÏshe€knew€the€victimððs€foster€parents.€€Another€was€excused€because€of€her€feelingsÏregarding€sex€abuse€cases.€€During€the€group€questioning,€a€prospective€juror€wasÏexcused€for€cause€because€she€worked€on€the€case€at€the€Department€of€HumanÏServices.€€Another€was€excused€because€of€his€involvement€with€young€girls€and€hisÏpersonal€feelings€with€respect€to€sexual€abuse.€€Four€prospective€jurors€who€recalledÏseeing€the€defendantððs€interview€on€television€were€also€excused€for€cause.€€One€ofÏthose€jurors€recalled€seeing€the€defendant€on€television€admitting€his€guilt.€€Of€theÏsecond€group€of€twelve€prospective€jurors,€five€were€excused€for€cause€because€theyÏknew€the€victim,€Mrs.€Ñ7€7$XXdð XXdæ7ÑLeath,€or€other€state€witnesses€either€personally€or€through€aÏclose€relative.€€The€trial€judge€excused€four€other€prospective€jurors€because€they€sawÏthe€defendant€make€a€statement€on€television.€€ÌÌà àThe€record€reflects€that€several€of€the€prospective€jurors€had€either€readÏthe€newspaper€articles€or€seen€parts€of€the€television€news€report.€€However,€theÍprospective€jurors€stated€that€they€could€disregard€what€they€heard,€listen€to€the€proof,Ïand€require€the€state€to€meet€its€burden€of€proof.€€Eight€of€the€prospective€jurors,€four€ofÏwhom€ultimately€sat€on€the€jury€and€one€of€whom€sat€as€an€alternate€juror,€said€thatÏthey€had€neither€read€any€of€the€articles€nor€saw€the€news€report€on€television,Ïalthough€some€had€heard€other€people€talking€about€the€case.Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àÌà àInitially,€we€note€that€the€defendant€does€not€assert€that€the€prospectiveÏjurors€who€ultimately€sat€on€the€jury€were€biased€or€prejudiced€against€him.€€Instead,Ïhe€contends€that€the€trial€judgeððs€determination€to€try€the€case€in€Macon€County€isÏevident€from€the€manner€in€which€the€judge€questioned€three€prospective€jurors€in€thatÏhe€interrupted€the€questioning€to€explain€the€burden€of€proof€or€ask€whether€the€jurorÏcould€listen€to€the€proof.€€However,€none€of€these€prospective€jurors€served€on€the€jury.€ÏOne€of€the€prospective€jurors€was€excused€for€cause€and€the€other€two€wereÏchallenged.€€Moreover,€the€trial€judgeððs€questioning€of€the€three€jurors€was€proper.€€ÌÌà àWith€regard€to€the€jurors€who€actually€sat€on€the€jury,€the€record€does€notÏestablish€that€the€jurors€were€biased€or€prejudiced€against€the€defendant.€€We€agreeÏthat€the€information€contained€in€the€articles€regarding€the€defendant€being€moved€toÏan€out„of„county€jail€due€to€threats€and€Mrs.€Leathððs€filing€for€divorce€and€obtaining€aÏrestraining€order€was€prejudicial€to€the€defendant.€€The€videotape€of€the€interview€ofÏthe€defendant€was€prejudicial€as€well.€€However,€the€defendantððs€trial€was€conductedÍon€June€13,€1994,€approximately€ten€months€after€the€first€newspaper€article€and€theÏtelevision€news€report€and€approximately€six€months€after€the€last€newspaper€article.€ÏFurthermore,€the€jurors€who€had€either€read€the€newspaper€articles€or€had€seen€part€ofÏthe€television€news€report€stated€that€they€could€base€their€decision€on€the€proofÏpresented€at€trial€and€require€that€the€state€meet€its€burden€of€proof.€€Those€jurors€whoÏhad€seen€the€interview€of€the€defendant€on€television€were€properly€excused.€ÏMoreover,€four€of€the€jurors€and€the€alternate€juror€stated€that€they€had€not€read€orÏseen€anything€regarding€the€defendantððs€case,€although€some€had€heard€other€peopleÏtalking€about€the€case.€€They€too€stated€that€they€could€be€fair.€€Because€the€defendantÏhas€failed€to€establish€that€the€actual€jury€was€prejudiced,€we€hold€that€the€issue€isÏwithout€merit.€€The€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€denying€the€defendantððsÏmotion€for€a€change€of€venue.€€ÌÌà@ àò òIII.€€INTRODUCTION€OF€TESTIMONY€REGARDING€PHOTOGRAPHSó óÌà àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€theÏadmission€of€inflammatory€and€prejudicial€testimony€regarding€photographs€of€theÏvictim€and€her€mother€naked€when€the€defendant€was€not€charged€with€a€crimeÏinvolving€the€photographs.€€He€argues€that€the€crimes€for€which€he€was€charged€didÏnot€require€a€showing€of€the€defendantððs€state€of€mind€or€intent.€€Although€not€raised€asÏa€separate€issue€or€contained€within€the€statement€of€the€issue,€the€argument€portionÏalso€includes€a€claim€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€allowed€the€state€to€introduce€intoÍevidence€òòa€photographóó€of€the€victim€as€Exhibit€9.€€He€contends€that€the€photograph€isÏirrelevant€and€inflammatory€and€that€the€photograph€is€more€prejudicial€than€probative,Ïdenying€him€his€constitutional€right€to€a€fair€trial.€€Initially,€we€note€that€the€procedureÏused€by€the€defendant,€stating€one€issue€in€the€statement€of€the€issue€but€arguingÏanother€issue€within€the€text€of€the€argument,€does€not€comply€with€the€requirements€ofÏT.R.A.P.€27(a)(4)€and€(7).€€Nevertheless,€the€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€eitherÏground.ÌÌà àThe€state€responds€only€to€the€defendantððs€argument€that€the€photographÏwas€erroneously€admitted€into€evidence,€asserting€that€the€record€demonstrates€thatÏthe€state€did€not€attempt€to€introduce€any€photographs€at€trial€and€that€Exhibit€9€is€aÏpermission€to€search€form,€not€a€photograph€of€the€victim.€€We€agree.€€€€€ÌÌà àBefore€trial,€the€defendant€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€the€photographsÏclaiming€that€the€photographs€were€more€prejudicial€than€probative€under€Rule€403,ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€€We€note€that€the€defendantððs€motion€misstates€the€balancing€test€usedÏfor€a€Rule€403€analysis.€€Pursuant€to€Rule€403,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€relevant€ð ðevidence€mayÏbe€excluded€if€its€probative€value€is€òòsubstantiallyóó€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfairÏprejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,€or€misleading€the€jury,€or€by€considerations€ofÏundue€delay,€waste€of€time,€or€needless€presentation€of€cumulative€evidence.ðð€Ï(Emphasis€added).€€The€trial€court€delayed€its€ruling€on€the€motion€until€trial.ÌÌà àDuring€the€direct€examination€of€the€victim,€the€prosecutor€asked€theÏvictim€whether€the€defendant€and€Mrs.€Leath€took€nude€pictures€of€her€and€of€eachÏother€around€the€house.€€Defense€counsel€objected€to€the€testimony€concerning€theÏpictures€based€upon€its€irrelevancy€because€the€defendant€had€not€been€charged€withÏa€crime€regarding€the€taking€of€the€pictures.€€During€a€jury„out€hearing,€the€prosecutorÏinformed€the€trial€court€that€it€had€approximately€fifty€pictures€and€that€one€of€theÏpictures€showed€the€victimððs€mother€naked€with€her€legs€spread€apart€and€anotherÏreflected€the€victim€in€a€similar€pose.€€The€prosecutor€stated€that€it€did€not€intend€toÏenter€the€photographs€into€evidence,€and€the€trial€court€agreed€that€there€was€noÏreason€to€introduce€them.€€Defense€counsel€said€that€his€objection€related€to€the€factÏthat€the€defendant€is€not€charged€with€a€crime€where€intent€is€a€necessary€element€andÏstated€that€he€objected€to€the€use€of€the€pictures€or€any€description.€€In€response,€theÏprosecutor€argued€that€the€testimony€was€relevant€to€rebut€the€defendantððs€claim€that€itÏwas€the€victimððs€idea€and€not€his.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€ruled€that€the€photographs€themselves€were€inadmissibleÏbut€that€the€state€could€elicit€testimony€from€the€victim€concerning€the€defendantððsÏtaking€pictures€of€the€victim.€€The€court€reasoned€that€the€testimony€was€not€beingÏintroduced€for€the€purpose€of€establishing€the€defendantððs€intent,€but€rather€theÏtestimony€was€relevant€to€show€that€the€victim€was€accustomed€to€being€naked€and€toÍshow€a€pattern€and€design€of€conduct.€€The€prosecutor€then€asked€the€victim€whetherÏthe€defendant€ever€took€pictures€of€her€and€whether€she€had€her€clothes€on€or€off.€€TheÏvictim€answered€that€the€defendant€took€pictures€of€her€and€that€she€had€her€clothesÏon€and€off€when€he€took€the€pictures.ÌÌà àDuring€the€direct€examination€of€Sheriff€Mercer,€the€prosecutor€handedÏExhibit€Nine€to€Sheriff€Mercer€and€asked€him€to€identify€it.€€Sheriff€Mercer€identified€theÏexhibit€as€a€permission€to€search.€€Sheriff€Mercer€then€testified€that€he€went€to€searchÏthe€defendantððs€house€a€second€time€because€he€had€received€information€that€thereÏwere€some€pictures.€€The€prosecutor€asked€Sheriff€Mercer€whether€he€found€at€leastÏone€picture€of€the€victim,€and€the€defendant€objected,€stating€as€grounds€for€hisÏobjection€that€he€had€not€been€charged€with€any€crime€involving€the€photographs.€€TheÏtrial€court€stated€that€it€had€earlier€ruled€that€testimony€about€the€picture€of€the€childÏwas€admissible.€€Then,€Sheriff€Mercer€testified€that€he€found€one€picture€of€the€victim,Ïand€the€state€entered€Exhibit€Nine€into€evidence.€ÌÌà àEvidence€that€the€defendant€took€a€nude€photograph€of€the€victim€wasÏalso€introduced€through€the€videotaped€interview€of€the€defendant€by€Mr.€Britt.€€WhenÏasked€whether€he€took€any€photographs€of€the€victim,€the€defendant€admitted€that€heÏtook€one€picture€of€the€victim€with€her€legs€spread€apart.€€Although€the€proof€does€notÏshow€exactly€when€the€picture€was€taken€in€relation€to€the€charged€conduct,€theÍdefendant€told€Mr.€Britt€that€the€sexual€conduct€took€place€only€for€a€few€days€and€thatÏit€had€been€approximately€six€weeks€since€the€last€incident€occurred.€€€€€à àÌÌà àWe€note€that€when€objecting€to€the€introduction€of€testimony€regardingÏthe€photographs,€the€defendant€did€not€clearly€articulate€which€rule€of€evidence€heÏwas€relying€upon€for€the€exclusion€of€the€evidence.€€The€defendant€phrases€hisÏargument€on€appeal€in€a€similar€manner.€€Although€at€first€glance,€his€claim€appears€toÏbe€based€solely€upon€relevancy€under€Rules€401,€402€and€403,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€theÏdefendantððs€assertion€that€he€was€not€charged€with€a€crime€involving€the€photographsÏrelates€more€to€the€exclusion€of€prior€bad€acts€under€Rule€404(b),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€€AÏtimely€objection€for€purposes€of€preserving€the€issue€for€appeal€must€state€ð ðthe€specificÏground€of€objection€if€the€specific€ground€was€not€apparent€from€the€context.ðð€€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€103(a)(1).€€Although€the€defendant€should€have€stated€the€grounds€for€hisÏobjection€more€clearly,€we€choose€to€address€the€issue€on€the€merits.€ÌÌà à€€Pursuant€to€Rule€402,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€relevant€evidence€is€admissibleÏunless€provided€otherwise€by€constitution,€evidentiary€rule,€or€other€Tennessee€rule€orÏlaw.€€Evidence€is€relevant€if€it€has€ð ðany€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€thatÏis€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probableÏthan€it€would€be€without€the€evidence.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€Our€court€has€stated€thatÏð ðthe€trial€court€is€entitled€to€draw€upon€common€sense,€general€knowledge,€and€itsÍunderstanding€of€human€conduct€and€motivation€in€assessing€whether€evidence€couldÏreasonably€affect€an€assessment€of€the€probability€of€the€fact€to€be€inferred.ðð€€òòState€v.ÏHayesóó,€899€S.W.2d€175,€183€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Relevant€evidence,€however,Ïð ðmay€be€excluded€if€its€probative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€ofÏunfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,€or€misleading€the€jury,€or€by€considerations€ofÏundue€delay,€waste€of€time,€or€needless€presentation€of€cumulative€evidence.ðð€€Tenn.ÏR.€Evid.€403.€€Whether€to€admit€evidence€is€within€the€discretion€of€the€court,€and€itsÏdecision€will€not€be€overturned€absent€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,Ï885€S.W.2d€797,€807€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà àWe€hold€that€evidence€that€the€defendant€took€nude€photographs€of€theÏvictim€is€relevant€evidence€under€Rule€401,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€€The€trial€courtððs€statedÏreason€for€admitting€the€evidence€was€to€show€that€the€victim€was€accustomed€toÏbeing€naked€and€to€show€a€pattern€and€design€of€conduct€by€the€defendant.€€We€agreeÏthat€the€testimony€was€relevant€for€these€purposes.€€Moreover,€for€aggravated€sexualÏbattery€purposes,€the€state€was€required€to€prove€that€the€defendantððs€touching€of€theÏvictimððs€vagina€with€his€penis€was€intentional€and€for€the€purpose€of€sexual€arousal€orÏgratification.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„501(6)€and€„504(a);€òòHayesóó,€899€S.W.2d€at€183.× ƒ6 ××  ×€ÍAlthough€the€trial€court€did€not€admit€the€evidence€for€purposes€of€establishing€intent,Ïwe€hold€that€evidence€that€the€defendant€took€photographs€of€the€victim€is€relevant€toÏshow€the€defendantððs€state€of€mind€with€regard€to€the€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€€ÌÌà àWe€also€hold€that€the€evidence€was€admissible€under€Rule€403€withÏrespect€to€the€aggravated€sexual€battery€charges.€€We€recognize€that€testimony€thatÏthe€defendant€took€nude€photographs€of€the€victim€was€prejudicial€to€the€defendantððsÏcase€in€that€the€jury€could€have€impermissibly€inferred€that€because€the€defendantÏcommitted€the€uncharged€acts,€he€also€committed€the€acts€for€which€he€was€on€trial.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòMcCaryóó,€922€S.W.2d€at€515.€€However,€the€evidence€was€relevant€to€the€issue€ofÏintent€in€light€of€the€defendantððs€statement€that€his€conduct€was€not€for€the€purpose€ofÏgratifying€his€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement.€€Also,€the€defendant€told€the€televisionÏnews€reporter€that€the€sexual€conduct€occurred€over€a€few€days€and€that€it€took€placeÏapproximately€six€weeks€earlier.€€Thus,€the€close€proximity€in€time€to€the€chargedÏconduct€increases€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€thatÏthe€probative€value€of€the€evidence€was€not€substantially€outweighed€by€any€danger€ofÏunfair€prejudice€to€the€defendant.€ÌÌà àThe€evidence€was€also€admissible€under€Rule€404(b)€with€respect€to€theÏaggravated€sexual€battery€charges.€€This€rule€provides€a€general€prohibition€forÏevidence€of€other€crimes€or€acts€that€are€independent€of€the€offenses€on€trial€inÍð ðrecognition€that€such€evidence€easily€results€in€a€jury€improperly€convicting€aÏdefendant€for€his€or€her€bad€character€or€apparent€propensity€or€disposition€to€commitÏa€crime€regardless€of€the€strength€of€the€evidence€concerning€the€offense€on€trial.ðð€ÏòòRickmanóó,€876€S.W.2d€at€828.€€However,€Rule€404(b)€does€allow€such€evidence€when€itÏis€relevant€to€a€litigated€issue,€such€as,€identity,€intent,€or€rebuttal€of€accident€orÏmistake,€and€its€probative€value€is€not€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Partonóó,€694€S.W.2d€299,€303€(Tenn.€1985);€òòState€v.€Hootenóó,€735€S.W.2dÏ823,€824€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€the€defendantððs€taking€of€nude€photographs€of€the€victimÏqualifies€as€prior€bad€acts€under€Rule€404(b).€€òòSeeóó€òòMcCaryóó,€922€S.W.2d€at€513.€€AsÏmentioned€earlier,€testimony€about€these€acts€was€relevant€to€the€issue€of€whether€theÏdefendantððs€touching€was€intentional€for€a€conviction€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€InÏa€similar€case,€our€court€has€held€that€ð ðgiven€the€timing€of€the€defendantððs€acts€andÏtheir€relevance€to€the€defendantððs€intent€in€touching€the€victim,€we€fail€to€see€theÏexistence€of€any€unfair€prejudice,€as€opposed€to€that€prejudice€which€naturally€flowsÏfrom€all€admissible€evidence€and€is€intended€to€persuade€the€trier€of€fact.ðð€€òòHayesóó,€899ÏS.W.2d€at€183€(admissible€prior€bad€act€evidence€of€the€defendant€french€kissing€theÏvictim€during€the€summer€the€defendant€committed€aggravated€sexual€battery).€€WeÏalso€hold€that€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€is€not€outweighed€by€the€danger€ofÍunfair€prejudice.€€The€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€permitting€the€testimonyÏrelative€to€the€aggravated€sexual€battery€charges.€€€ÌÌà àHowever,€with€respect€to€the€rape€charges,€the€evidence€of€the€nudeÏphotographs€would€be€less€probative€relative€to€the€elements€required€to€be€proven€forÏthe€commission€of€the€offenses.€€Intent€is€not€an€element€of€the€crime€of€rape€of€a€child.€ÏIn€òòMcCaryóó,€our€supreme€court€indicated€that€the€three€instances€in€which€evidence€ofÏuncharged€crimes€may€be€admitted€under€Rule€404€„„€(1)€to€prove€identity€(includingÏmotive€and€common€scheme€or€plan),€(2)€to€prove€intent,€and€(3)€to€rebut€a€claim€ofÏmistake€or€accident€if€asserted€as€a€defense€„„€depend€upon€whether€they€are€materialÏissues€in€the€given€case.€€922€S.W.2d€at€514.€€In€the€present€case,€neither€theÏoffenderððs€identity€nor€his€intent€were€material€issues€relative€to€the€offenses€involvingÏrape€of€a€child.€€Likewise,€the€defendant€did€not€claim€mistake€or€accident€relative€toÏthese€offenses.€€Thus,€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€is€substantially€reduced€inÏrelation€to€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€relative€to€the€rape€of€a€child€offenses.€€WeÏbelieve€that€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€outweighs€the€probative€value€of€theÏevidence€for€these€particular€offenses.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€€However,€the€trialÏcourtððs€erroneous€admission€of€the€evidence€relative€to€the€rape€of€a€child€offenses€isÏharmless€given€the€overwhelming€proof€of€the€defendantððs€guilt.€€òòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.€36(b);ÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).€€€€€€€ÌÌà àRegarding€the€defendantððs€claim€that€a€picture€of€the€victim€wasÏerroneously€introduced€at€trial,€we€hold€that€the€record€clearly€demonstrates€thatÏExhibit€Nine€is€in€fact€the€permission€to€search€form€signed€by€the€defendant€on€JulyÏ19,€1993.€€When€asked€to€identify€Exhibit€Nine,€Sheriff€Mercer€identified€the€exhibit€asÏa€permission€to€search€form.€€We€note€that€the€Certificate€of€Appellate€RecordÏcontained€in€the€technical€record€reflects€that€Exhibit€Nine€is€a€photograph€and€that€theÏoriginal€exhibit€is€contained€in€the€appellate€record€of€Judy€Leathððs€case.€€However,€aÏreview€of€the€appellate€record€in€Judy€Leathððs€case€shows€that€Exhibit€Nine€is€aÏpermission€to€search€form.€€Thus,€the€defendant€mistakenly€believed€that€the€exhibitÏwas€a€picture,€and€the€trial€court€did€not€err.Ô€,ôÔ€Ô€,XÔÌÌà àà àà à€€€€€€€€à@ àò òÇà@ àIV.€€SENTENCINGó óÌà àThe€defendant€asserts€that€the€eighty„year€sentence€imposed€by€the€trialÏcourt€is€excessive€and€unfair.€€The€defendant€concedes€that€the€trial€courtÏappropriately€applied€enhancement€factor€(15),€but€he€asserts€that€the€trial€courtÏshould€not€have€applied€enhancement€factors€(2),€(7)€and€(16)€and€that€it€improperlyÏfailed€to€consider€any€mitigating€factors.€€The€defendant€also€contends€that€the€trialÏcourt€erroneously€ordered€the€defendant€to€serve€his€sentences€consecutively.€€WeÏhold€that€the€trial€court€inappropriately€applied€factors€(2)€and€(16)€to€all€convictionsÏand€factor€(7)€to€the€€rape€of€a€child€convictions.€€We€also€conclude€that€the€trial€courtÏfailed€to€consider€applicable€mitigating€factors.€€We€believe,€however,€that€the€mid„range€sentences€imposed€by€the€trial€court€for€each€conviction€are€warranted€in€thisÏcase€and€that€consecutive€sentences€are€supported€by€the€record.ÌÌà àAppellate€review€of€sentencing€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€on€the€record€with€aÏpresumption€that€the€trial€court's€determinations€are€correct.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€AsÏthe€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€to€this€section€notes,€the€burden€is€now€on€theÏdefendant€to€show€that€the€sentence€is€improper.€€This€means€that€if€the€trial€courtÏfollowed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€made€findings€of€fact€that€are€adequatelyÏsupported€in€the€record,€and€gave€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€the€factorsÏand€principles€that€are€relevant€to€sentencing€under€the€1989€Sentencing€Act,€we€mayÍnot€disturb€the€sentence€even€if€a€different€result€were€preferred.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805ÏS.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€ÌÌà àHowever,€"the€presumption€of€correctness€which€accompanies€the€trialÏcourt's€action€is€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trialÏcourt€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€ÏòòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€this€respect,€for€the€purpose€ofÏmeaningful€appellate€review,ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àthe€trial€court€must€place€on€the€record€its€reasons€forÏarriving€at€the€final€sentencing€decision,€identify€theÏmitigating€and€enhancement€factors€found,€state€the€specificÏfacts€supporting€each€enhancement€factor€found,€andÏarticulate€how€the€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors€haveÏbeen€evaluated€and€balanced€in€determining€the€sentence.€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210(f)€(1990).€€ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€599€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà àAlso,€in€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review,€we€must€consider€(1)€the€evidence,Ïif€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing,€(2)€the€presentence€report,€(3)€theÏprinciples€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives,€(4)€the€natureÏand€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct,€(5)€any€mitigating€or€statutory€enhancementÏfactors,€(6)€any€statement€that€the€defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf€and€(7)€theÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€T.C.A.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103€and€„210;€òòseeóóÏòòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€168;€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€236„37€(Tenn.€1986).€ÌÌà àThe€sentence€to€be€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€presumptively€theÏminimum€in€the€range€unless€there€are€enhancement€factors€present.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210(c).× ƒ7 ××  ×€€Procedurally,€the€trial€court€is€to€increase€the€sentence€within€the€rangeÏbased€upon€the€existence€of€enhancement€factors€and,€then,€reduce€the€sentence€asÏappropriate€for€any€mitigating€factors.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210(d)€and€(e).€€The€weight€to€beÏafforded€an€existing€factor€is€left€to€the€trial€court's€discretion€so€long€as€it€complies€withÏthe€purposes€and€principles€of€the€1989€Sentencing€Act€and€its€findings€areÏadequately€supported€by€the€record.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„210,€Sentencing€CommissionÏComments;€òòMossóó,€727€S.W.2d€at€237;€òòseeóó€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€ÌÌà àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€Bill€Hyden,€a€probation€officer,€testified€that€heÏconducted€a€presentence€investigation.€€He€stated€that€the€victim€and€her€brother€hadÏbeen€placed€in€a€foster€home.€€Mr.€Hyden€said€that€during€his€interview€of€theÏdefendant€regarding€the€offense,€the€defendant€was€ð ðbluntly€assertiveðð€and€told€himÏthat€he€believed€he€was€satisfying€the€victimððs€sexual€desires.€€He€stated€that€theÏdefendant€denied€that€he€committed€the€crimes€for€his€own€desire€for€pleasure€orÏexcitement,€claiming€that€he€did€it€all€for€the€victim.€€He€said€that€he€questioned€theÏdefendant€about€his€remorse€for€committing€the€crimes,€and€the€defendant€told€him€thatÍhe€would€have€done€things€differently€if€he€had€it€to€do€over€again.€€Mr.€Hyden€testifiedÏthat€the€defendant€did€not€express€any€concern€for€the€victim€and€stated€that€it€wasÏobvious€to€him€that€the€defendant€had€no€remorse.€€He€stated€that€the€defendant€alsoÏdenied€taking€photographs€of€the€victim€and€having€pornographic€movies.€€HeÏacknowledged€that€a€mental€evaluation€had€been€performed€on€the€defendant€beforeÏtrial€but€that€he€had€been€determined€to€be€competent€to€stand€trial.€€Mr.€HydenÏtestified€that€he€believed€the€victim€would€have€emotional€and€mental€scars€becauseÏshe€would€remember€what€happened€and€people€would€ask€her€about€it.€€He€alsoÏbelieved€that€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€the€victim€was€great€based€upon€theÏvictimððs€testimony€that€it€hurt€when€the€defendant€tried€to€stick€his€penis€inside€her.€€€ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Mr.€Hyden€acknowledged€that€the€defendant€didÏnot€have€a€prior€criminal€record.€€He€also€said€that€the€defendantððs€mother€and€formerÏemployers€expressed€surprise€by€the€defendantððs€conduct.€€In€Mr.€Hydenððs€opinion,€theÏdefendant€appeared€to€be€intelligent.€€He€testified€that€the€defendant€acted€like€heÏbelieved€that€he€did€not€do€anything€wrong.€€Mr.€Hyden€stated€that€he€did€not€believeÏthat€the€defendant€was€being€remorseful€when€he€told€him€that€he€would€have€doneÏthings€differently.€€He€conceded€that€he€did€not€interview€the€victim€or€doctors,€althoughÏhe€said€that€there€were€medical€reports€contained€in€the€record.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€testified€that€he€was€sorry€about€what€happened.€€HeÏexplained€that€what€he€meant€by€the€statement€to€Mr.€Hyden€that€he€would€have€doneÏthings€differently€was€that€it€would€not€happen€again€because€of€what€it€had€done€toÏhis€family.€€He€said€that€it€had€torn€his€family€apart.€€The€defendant€testified€that€theÏoffense€affected€his€children€and€caused€the€victim€mental€scars.€€He€said€that€heÏworries€about€the€victim.€€He€stated€that€he€wished€that€there€was€some€way€he€couldÏcorrect€everything€so€that€they€could€be€a€family€once€again.€€Ìà àÌà àOn€cross„examination,€the€defendant€testified€that€the€victim€liked€to€seeÏhim€wear€womenððs€clothing€and€that€she€admired€him.€€He€conceded€that€the€victimÏhad€seen€him€and€his€wife€having€sex€perhaps€once€or€twice.€€He€said€that€the€victimÏleft€her€bedroom€and€came€and€stood€at€their€door€but€that€he€did€not€know€if€the€victimÏwas€ever€in€the€bed€when€he€and€his€wife€were€having€sex.€€The€defendant€said€thatÏhe€committed€the€offenses€because€the€victim€asked€him€to€and€because€he€wanted€toÏmake€her€happy.€€He€testified€that€it€does€not€necessarily€mean€that€he€would€not€doÏsomething€like€that€again,€although€he€claimed€that€he€was€sorry€it€happened.€€TheÏdefendant€also€claimed€that€everything€was€done€totally€for€the€victim€and€that€it€wasÏnot€done€for€his€own€sexual€gratification.€€He€denied€being€aroused€by€the€victimÏlicking€his€penis.€€He€said€that€he€was€playing€with€his€daughter€and€doing€what€sheÏasked€him€to€do.€€The€defendant€admitted€that€he€took€separate€pictures€of€his€wife€andÏthe€victim€nude€with€their€legs€spread€apart.€€He€claimed€that€he€took€the€picture€of€theÍvictim€because€she€asked€him€to,€and€he€said€that€he€did€not€take€the€pictures€to€satisfyÏhis€own€desire€for€sexual€gratification,€asserting€that€he€ð ðjust€took€the€pictures.ðð€ÌÌà àThe€presentence€report€shows€that€the€investigating€officers€discoveredÏapproximately€fifty€nude€pictures€under€some€clothes€in€a€drawer€in€the€defendantððsÏbedroom.€€It€reflects€that€the€victim€is€living€in€a€foster€home€and€is€undergoingÏcounseling.€€The€report€states€that€the€defendant,€a€high€school€graduate,€does€notÏhave€a€prior€criminal€record.€€It€reflects€that€the€defendant€is€in€good€mental€andÏphysical€health.€€The€report€contains€a€statement€by€the€defendantððs€mother€that€theÏdefendant€was€a€good€son€as€a€child€and€that€he€never€caused€any€trouble.€€TheÏdefendantððs€mother€stated€that€she€believed€that€something€went€wrong€with€theÏdefendant.€€Regarding€the€defendantððs€employment€history,€the€presentence€reportÏshows€that€the€defendant€was€employed€from€1988€to€1993.€€It€reflects€that€one€of€theÏdefendantððs€employers€who€had€known€the€defendant€for€more€than€thirty€years€statedÏthat€the€defendant€was€a€very€good€employee€and€that€she€was€shocked€by€theÏdefendantððs€conduct.€€The€report€states€that€the€defendant€volunteered€for€the€UnitedÏStates€Marine€Corp€in€1965,€advancing€to€the€rank€of€sergeant€and€serving€thirteenÏmonths€in€the€Vietnam€War€as€a€postal€worker.€€It€shows€that€the€defendant€receivedÏan€honorable€discharge€in€June€1969.€€ÌÌà àThe€state€also€introduced€several€photographs€as€exhibits€at€theÏsentencing€hearing.€€Some€of€the€photographs€show€the€defendant€and€his€wife€nakedÏin€various€sexual€positions,€and€others€are€individual€photographs€of€the€defendant,Ïhis€wife€and€the€victim€nude.€€€€€ÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€sentenced€theÏdefendant€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€to€twenty€years€for€each€rape€of€a€childÏconviction€and€to€ten€years€for€each€aggravated€sexual€battery€conviction€to€be€servedÏconsecutively€to€each€other€for€an€effective€sentence€of€eighty€years.€€The€trial€courtÏapplied€the€following€enhancement€factors€provided€in€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 à(2)€the€defendant€was€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€anÏoffense€involving€two€(2)€or€more€criminal€actors;ÌÌà8 à(7)€the€offense€involved€a€victim€and€was€committed€toÏgratify€the€defendantððs€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement;€ÌÌà8 à(15)€the€defendant€abused€a€position€of€private€trust;€andÌÌà8 à(16)€the€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€underÏwhich€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€was€great.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌà àIn€applying€factor€(2),€the€trial€court€stated€that€the€defendantððs€wife,€whoÏwas€also€indicted,€was€in€bed€with€the€defendant€and€the€victim.€€It€concluded€that€theÏfactor€applied€based€on€the€defendantððs€own€testimony€that€the€victim€was€in€bed€withÏhim€when€he€and€his€wife€were€having€sex.€€The€court€stated€that€factor€(7)€appliedÍbased€on€its€finding€that€the€defendant€was€excited€and€had€an€erection€when€he€triedÏto€penetrate€the€victim.€€The€trial€court€acknowledged€that€the€application€of€factor€(16)€Ïwas€a€close€issue€but€stated€that€it€believed€that€the€factor€applied€because€the€victimÏcould€have€been€severely€injured€by€the€defendantððs€actions.€€It€stated€that€the€fact€thatÏthe€defendant,€a€grown€man,€tried€to€put€his€penis€in€the€six„year„old€victim€justified€theÏapplication€of€the€factor.€€It€concluded€that€although€the€defendant€did€not€succeed€inÏpenetrating€the€victim,€the€defendant€tried€to€penetrate€her€and€it€could€have€causedÏgreat€bodily€injury,€such€as€causing€a€tear€or€damaging€the€victimððs€internal€organs.€ÏThe€trial€court€found€that€no€mitigating€factors€applied.€€ÌÌà àRegarding€consecutive€sentencing,€the€trial€court€stated:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àI€have€no€problem€making€them€consecutive.€€€This€man€hasÏno€business€ever€being€out€where€any€child€is€in€eye„shot€ofÏhim.€€Where€daughter€wants€it,€thatððs€unbelievable€to€thisÏCourt€that€anybody€could€have€those€feelings.€€To€think€aÏsix€year€old€girl€could€ask€somebody€to€do€this€to€her€and€tryÏto€put€all€the€blame€over€on€that€little€child.€€Thereððs€noÏremorse€here.€€The€only€remorse€that€I€get€out€of€this€is€theÏremorse€of€being€caught.€€I€just€get€the€feeling€and€watchingÏhim€testify€at€the€end,€that€if€daughter€asked€him€to€do€itÏagain,€in€his€mind,€if€he€dreamed€that€up€laying€in€bed€oneÏnight,€if€he€had€a€little€daughter,€little€neighbor,€or€whateverÏchild€might€be€around,€that€little€child€would€have€someÏproblems€with€this€man.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓThe€trial€court€stated€that€society€needed€to€be€protected€from€the€defendant.€€€€ÌÌà@ àò òA.€€ENHANCEMENT€AND€MITIGATING€FACTORSó óÌà àThe€defendant€concedes€that€the€trial€court€appropriately€applied€factorÏ(15),€abuse€of€a€position€of€private€trust.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(15).€€We€agree€thatÏthe€factor€applies€in€this€case€because€the€defendant€is€the€victimððs€father€charged€withÏher€care€and€control.€€òòSeeóó€òòHayesóó,€899€S.W.2d€at€187.€€€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€factor€(2)€should€not€have€been€appliedÏbecause€the€record€does€not€contain€any€proof€that€anyone€other€than€the€defendantÏwas€present€in€the€room€when€the€offenses€took€place.€€The€state€argues€that€the€trialÏcourt€properly€considered€the€factor€because€the€defendant€and€Mrs.€Leath€permittedÏthe€victim€to€watch€them€have€sex.€€It€contends€that€the€factor€is€supported€by€proof€thatÏMrs.€Leath€was€present€in€the€house€when€some€of€the€offenses€occurred€and€that€theÏvictim€told€Mrs.€Leath€about€the€defendantððs€conduct.€€However,€Mrs.€Leathððs€mereÏpresence€in€the€house€and€notification€of€the€offenses€after„the„fact€do€not€justify€theÏapplication€of€factor€(2).€€The€victim€testified€that€Mrs.€Leath€was€either€in€the€kitchen,€atÏwork,€or€in€bed€when€these€offenses€occurred.€€Moreover,€contrary€to€the€trial€courtððsÏfindings,€the€record€does€not€contain€any€evidence€that€the€victim€was€in€theÏdefendantððs€bed€when€the€defendant€and€Mrs.€Leath€were€having€sex.€€The€recordÏdoes€not€support€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€the€defendant€was€a€leader€in€theÏcommission€of€the€offenses€of€rape€of€a€child€and€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€ÏTherefore,€the€trial€court€should€not€have€applied€factor€(2).€€€€€€Ìà àÌà àRelative€to€factor€(7),€the€defendant€argues€that€there€is€nothing€in€theÏrecord€to€show€that€the€defendant€committed€the€offenses€to€gratify€his€desire€forÏpleasure€or€excitement.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(7).€€Initially,€we€note€that€a€necessaryÏelement€of€aggravated€sexual€battery€is€sexual€contact€which€is€defined€as€theÏintentional€touching€of€an€intimate€part€of€the€clothing€over€such€part€ð ðfor€purposes€ofÏsexual€arousal€or€gratification.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„501(6);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Kissingeróó,€922ÏS.W.2d€482,€489„90€(Tenn.€1996);€òòHayesóó,€899€S.W.2d€at€185.€€Because€a€factorÏcannot€be€applied€if€it€is€also€an€essential€element€of€the€offense€as€charged€in€theÏindictment,€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114,€factor€(7)€is€inapplicable€to€the€aggravated€sexualÏbattery€convictions.ÌÌà àHowever,€factor€(7)€is€not€an€essential€element€of€aggravated€rape€and€Ïmay€be€considered€as€an€appropriate€enhancement€factor.€€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€864ÏS.W.2d€31,€34„35€(Tenn.€1993).€€In€this€case,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€factor€(7)€appliedÏbecause€the€defendant€was€excited€as€evidenced€by€his€having€an€erection.€€However,Ïthe€record€does€not€contain€any€evidence€that€the€defendant€had€an€erection€otherÏthan€the€victimððs€testimony€that€it€hurt€when€the€defendant€tried€to€stick€his€penis€insideÏher€vagina.€€Moreover,€even€if€the€evidence€showed€that€the€defendant€had€anÏerection,€it€would€not,€alone,€justify€a€determination€that€factor€(7)€applied.€€òòSeeóóÏòòKissingeróó,€922€S.W.2d€at€490„91.€€In€òòKissingeróó,€our€supreme€court€held€that€the€factÏthat€the€defendant€experienced€orgasm€is€insufficient,€in€and€of€itself,€to€establish€thatÍthe€defendant€committed€rape€to€gratify€his€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement.€€òòIdóó.€atÏ490„91.€€It€recognized€the€difficulties€in€establishing€factor€(7):ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àà àEnhancement€factor€(7),€unlike€most€of€the€otherÏsentencing€factors,€calls€into€question€a€defendantððsÏreasons€for€committing€a€crime.€€Human€motivation€is€aÏtangled€web,€always€complex€and€multifaceted.€€To€proveÏdefendantððs€motives€will€always€be€a€difficult€task.€€But€theÏlegislature,€in€its€wisdom,€has€placed€that€obligation€on€theÏstate€when€the€state€seeks€an€enhanced€sentence.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòIdóó.€€The€court€ruled€that€the€fact€of€orgasm€must€be€viewed€along€with€otherÏcircumstances€in€the€case.€€òòIdóó.€at€491.€€€€€€€Ó  ÓÌÓ  Óà àHowever,€unlike€òòKissingeróó,€the€circumstances€in€this€case€render€factorÏ(7)€applicable.€€Despite€the€defendantððs€denial€that€he€committed€the€offenses€to€gratifyÏhis€own€desire€for€pleasure€or€excitement€and€his€claim€that€he€acted€as€he€did€onlyÏbecause€the€victim€requested,€the€evidence€supports€the€application€of€factor€(7)€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€908€S.W.2d€410,€413€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1995)€(preponderance€of€the€evidence€standard€applies€to€factualÏdeterminations€necessary€for€enhancement€factor).€€There€were€several€instances€ofÏsexual€conduct€by€the€defendant€with€the€victim€occurring€on€different€occasions.€€TheÏdefendant€penetrated€the€victim€by€inserting€his€penis€in€the€victimððs€vagina.€€TheÏvictim€€performed€fellatio€on€the€defendant€on€more€than€one€occasion.€€The€defendantÏlicked€the€victimððs€vagina€and€allowed€the€victim€to€play€with€his€penis.€€Moreover,€theÏdefendant€talked€to€the€victim€while€he€was€having€sex€with€Mrs.€Leath,€and€he€took€aÏphotograph€of€the€victim€who€was€not€wearing€any€clothes€and€posing€in€a€similarÍposition€as€a€picture€taken€by€the€defendant€of€Mrs.€Leath.€€Furthermore,€the€juryÏconcluded€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendantððs€intentional€touching€wasÏfor€the€purpose€of€sexual€arousal€or€gratification€to€convict€the€defendant€of€two€countsÏof€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€Under€these€circumstances,€we€hold€that€the€recordÏsupports€the€application€of€factor€(7)€in€sentencing€the€defendant€for€the€rape€of€a€childÏconvictions.€€Ìà à€Ìà àRelative€to€factor€(16),€the€defendant€asserts€that€the€record€does€notÏsupport€the€application€of€the€factor.€€We€agree.€€Although€the€partial€penetration€andÏthe€attempted€penetrations€of€the€six„year„old€victim€by€the€defendant,€a€grown€man,Ïcould€have€created€the€potential€for€bodily€injury,€the€record€does€not€contain€anyÏevidence€to€suggest€that€the€potential€was€great.€€òòSeeóó€òòKissingeróó,€922€S.W.2d€at€488.€ÏTherefore,€the€trial€court€erroneously€applied€factor€(16).€Ìà àÌà àWith€respect€to€mitigation,€the€defendant€does€not€specifically€detail€anyÏmitigating€factors€that€the€trial€court€should€have€considered.€€Although€the€defendant€Ïmentioned€briefly€at€the€sentencing€hearing€that€he€had€no€prior€criminal€record,€heÏargued€it€relative€to€consecutive€sentencing.€€In€any€event,€we€believe€that€theÏdefendantððs€lack€of€a€prior€criminal€record€should€be€considered€relative€to€the€lengthÏof€the€sentences€imposed.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„114(13);€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2dÏ448,€453€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Also,€the€defendantððs€cooperation€with€the€policeÍshould€be€considered.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„113(10).€€The€defendant€gave€twoÏstatements€to€the€police€and€signed€two€permission€to€search€forms.€€Sheriff€MercerÏstated€that€the€defendant€went€with€them€each€time€they€searched€the€defendantððsÏhome€and€helped€them€locate€items.€However,€although€these€factors€should€beÏconsidered,€we€do€not€believe€that€they€are€entitled€to€significant€weight€in€the€contextÏof€this€case.ÌÌà àAlthough€the€presumption€of€correctness€that€accompanies€the€trialÏcourtððs€determinations€has€fallen€because€the€trial€court€did€not€properly€consider€all€ofÏthe€relevant€sentencing€principles,€òòseeóó€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169,€we€affirm€theÏdefendantððs€sentences€for€each€conviction€of€aggravated€rape€and€aggravated€sexualÏbattery.€€Even€though€the€trial€court€inappropriately€applied€factors€(2)€and€(16)€to€allÏconvictions€and€factor€(7)€to€the€aggravated€sexual€battery€convictions€and€it€failed€toÏconsider€the€applicable€mitigating€factors,€the€proof€supports€a€twenty„year€sentenceÏfor€each€rape€of€a€child€conviction€and€a€ten„year€sentence€for€each€aggravated€sexualÏbattery€conviction.€€Contrary€to€the€defendantððs€argument,€he€is€not€entitled€to€aÏreduction€in€sentence€merely€because€we€conclude€on€appeal€that€the€trial€courtÏincorrectly€applied€sentencing€and€mitigating€factors.€€òòHayesóó,€899€S.W.2d€at€186„87.€€ÌÌà àIn€òòHayesóó,€our€court€stated€that:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àeven€if€we€determine€that€fewer€factors€should€apply€thanÏused€by€the€trial€court,€this€does€not€mean€that€the€€length€ofÏthe€sentence€is€automatically€reduced.€€That€is,€if€the€sameÏdegree€of€culpability€and€negative€circumstances€relate€toÏthe€remaining€applicable€factors,€the€original€enhancementÏmay€still€be€appropriate.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòIdóó.€€Such€is€the€case€here.€€The€defendant€was€charged€with€the€care€and€control€of€theÏvictim,€yet€he€abused€that€position€of€trust€even€though€he€realized€that€his€conductÏcould€affect€the€victim€for€the€rest€of€her€life.€€Not€only€did€he€abuse€the€victimððs€trust€butÏhe€also€refused€to€accept€responsibility€for€his€own€conduct.€€Instead,€he€placed€theÏblame€on€his€six„year„old€daughter,€claiming€that€she€was€the€one€who€instigated€theÏsexual€occurrences€and€asserting€that€he€received€no€sexual€pleasure€from€them.€€HeÏraised€the€victim€in€such€an€abnormal€environment€that€the€victim€viewed€having€sexÏwith€her€father€as€not€only€acceptable€but€also€enjoyable.€€We€believe€that€theÏdefendantððs€culpability€in€relation€to€the€remaining€applicable€factors€justifies€the€mid„range€sentences€imposed€by€the€trial€court.€€€€ÌÌà@ àò òB.€€CONSECUTIVE€SENTENCINGó óÌà àNext,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€imposedÏconsecutive€sentences.€€He€argues€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€state€its€grounds€forÏconsecutive€sentencing.€€Although€we€agree€that€the€trial€court€should€have€been€moreÏexplicit€with€its€findings,€the€record€indicates€that€the€trial€court€relied€upon€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(5)€in€imposing€consecutive€sentences.€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€stateÍrelied€upon€(b)(5),€and€defense€counsel€limited€its€argument€to€the€factor.€€Pursuant€toÏT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(5),€the€court€may€order€the€defendantððs€sentences€to€runÏconsecutively€if€the€court€finds€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àThe€defendant€is€convicted€of€two€(2)€or€more€statutoryÏoffenses€involving€sexual€abuse€of€a€minor€withÏconsideration€of€the€aggravating€circumstances€arising€fromÏthe€relationship€between€the€defendant€and€victim€orÏvictims,€the€time€span€of€the€defendantððs€undetected€sexualÏactivity,€the€nature€and€scope€of€the€sexual€acts€and€theÏextent€of€the€residual,€physical€and€mental€damage€to€theÏvictim€or€victims€.€.€.€.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓ€Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€a€total€of€five€statutoryÏoffenses€involving€sexual€abuse€of€a€minor.€€As€discussed€earlier,€aggravatingÏcircumstances€were€present€in€this€case.€€Although€the€defendantððs€conduct€occurredÏover€a€short€period€of€time,€the€nature€and€scope€of€the€defendantððs€sexual€acts€wereÏextensive.€€We€believe€that€the€record€fully€supports€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€imposeÏconsecutive€sentences.€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€theÏdefendant's€convictions€and€sentences€for€rape€of€a€child€and€aggravated€sexualÏbattery€are€affirmed.€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌÌÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDavid€H.€Welles,€Judge