WPC*- E5~bK~х!B*ƀ(x$+!ޓ,2&B0 1(>/ oAkBA'BmE.wrIH>PLL҅L];7ԅh[Q5&(jR@~T5lB.~ő,l.c6j+e26Tr'f#֘ƏQ QU\B3)NF2/;BaT"Q0/HALU]>ץ$oVڰd^鹍[gavU7(Ua:&2Mzl( "|P&.8=sHp;<(!h/=>?̜8E Ac׈m,xײ <'MzҳnAmz 5A^XԂ&!wB͛& CS4@r8Kϩӕ_ź+ީ|x66ʖb#\ % ^ # 0/ U N w 4 z  i x mz UN   k 1NwU>y 1uE, 72.``vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv 0cb 1G~~ 0D    0'('('('( B)) 0/) D3) D-* 0K3*3* AS~** 0+ 0D;, A,HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6,,,,0-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularPH," C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x U(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 v R?c$      1     _ԀThedefendantwasoriginallychargedwithfivecountsofrapeofachild,butthestatemovedtodismissone  _count,_Ԁandthetrialcourtgranteditsmotion._ _\  `&Times New Roman3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)   p (;3$2#  0  .3  0  - -(CEKQW]cioAutoList3A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A: = R?c$      2     _ԀItisthepolicyofthisCourtnottoidentifyminorsinvolvedinsexualabusecasesbyname.Instead,wewill  identifythevictimsinthiscaseonlybytheirinitials.(#$  0    R?c$      4     _ԀArguably,theprosecutorreferredtoT.T.scaseinhisrebuttalargumentbecausethedefensecounselsubtly  referredtoT.T.initsclosingargument.DefensecounselmadeseveralreferencestothefactthatA.T.wasnotthefirst t toreportanallegationofsexualabusebythedefendant. _ _ w R?c$      3     _ԀIntheinstantcase,themedicalexperttestifiedthatA.T.sphysicalexamshowednoconclusivesignsof  sexualabuse.However,theexpertfurthertestifiedthatsuchalackofconclusivephysicalevidenceofabusewas t commonandthatthelackofevidencedidnotmeanthatthechargedabusedidnotoccur,especiallyinlightofthetypes 8 ofallegedacts,fellatioandpartialpenileanalpenetration.InSpicer,themedicalexperttestifiedthatonevictims L physicaltestresultswereconsistentwithrepeatedpenilevagilesexualpenetration.Spicer,12S.W.3dat44142.  However,thisexperttestifiedthatwhilethevictimsconditionwasconsistentwithsexualpenetration,penetrationwas  nottheonlypossiblecauseofthevictimsconditionandthatherconditioncouldhavebeentheresultofanumberof H   causes.Id.at448. R?c$      5     _ԀThedefendantarguesthatbecauseheobjectedtotheprosecutorsreferencestoT.T.butdidnotmakea  contemporaneousmotionformistrial,hehaswaivedtheissueonappeal.However,heassertsthatthisCourtshouldfind t thetrialcourtsfailuretodeclareamistrialsuaspontewasplainerror.Thestaterespondsthatthedefendantmadea 8 tacticaldecisionnottomoveforamistrialbaseduponthebeliefthatthetrialcourtsgrantingofamistrialofT.T.scase L wouldinfluencethejurytofindthatA.T.scaselackedmerit,aswell,andthatsucherrorsresultingfromtactical  decisionsshouldnotreceiveplainerrorrelief.    Wefirstnotethatthecasethatthedefendantcitesforthepropositionthathewaivedthisissueonappealby H  failingtomakeacontemporaneousmotionformistrial,State_v._ԀRobinson,971S.W.2d30,44(Tenn.Crim.App.1997),  \ doesnotmandatethatacomplainingpartymakeacontemporaneousmotionformistrialinordertopreservetheissue   forappeal.Instead,Robinsonstatesthatinordertopreserveanissueforappeal,apartymustmakeacontemporaneous    objectiontotheobjectionablebehavior.TheRobinsoncourtfurthernotedthatwhileneitherpartyinthatcasemadea X   contemporaneousobjection, [i]naddition,neitherpartymadeamotionformistrial._Id._ӀTheRobinsoncourtdidnot  l  statethatthecomplainingpartyhadanaffirmativedutytomoveforamistrial,butthatthecomplainingpartyhadfailed  0  tomakeitsobligatorycontemporaneousobjection.Thecourtalsonotedthatinadditiontofailingtomakeitsobligatory   objection,thecomplainingpartyalsodidnotmakeamotionformistrialortakeanyotherpermissibleactionthatmay h  havehelpedthecourtdeterminethatthecomplainingpartyhad_not_Ԁwaivedtheissueforappealbyitsinaction.Seealso ,|  Statev._Dellinger_, S  No.E199700196SCDDTDD,2002Tenn.LEXIS207,at*102(Tenn.May7,2002)(statingthat @  adefendantmustmakeacontemporaneousobjectiontotheobjectionablestatementintheprosecutorsclosingargument   inordertopreservetheissueforappeal,butmakingnomentionofamandatorydutytomakeacontemporaneousmotion   formistrial).#  #ԀAccordingly,becausethedefendantdidmakeacontemporaneousobjectiontotheprosecutorscomments, H whichinturncausedthetrialcourttoinstructtheprosecutornottomakeanysimilarcommentsandtogivethejurya ` limitinginstruction,wefindthatthedefendantproperlypreservedthisissueforappeal,andthustheissueisnotsubject ( toaplainerroranalysis.(|G2?c$ !.8Bdd8         0    d(|3Gq$ !.8Bdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Gq$ !.8Bdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Bdd8     _   B8XXdd8 @ttO$BINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#BO$.#Ԉ &    @  @` September18,2001Session L XXB #BXX:#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.TRACEYDIONPAYNEXXB  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheCriminalCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@Nos.99B1051;99B1052SethNorman,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200002584CCAR3CDFiledAugust16,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }      XXXXThedefendantwasconvictedoftwocountsofrapeofachildpursuanttoajurytrial.Hewas x  chargedwithatotaloffourcountsofrapeofachild,withtwocountsperindictment. Thetrialcourt d consolidatedthesetwoindictmentsfortrial. However,thetrialcourtdismissedoneindictmentdue P tocertainimproprietiesthatoccurredduringthetestimonyofoneofthevictims. Forthe < aforementionedconvictions,thetrialcourtsentencedthedefendanttoserveanaggregatesentence (x offortyyears,whichwascomprisedoftwoconsecutivetwentyyearsentences. Thedefendantnow d bringstheinstantappealchallengingthesufficiencyoftheevidencesupportingthedefendants P conviction,thetrialcourtsdecisiontoconsolidatethedefendantstwoindictments,andthetrial < courtsfailuretodeclareamistrialatthecloseoftheprosecutorsclosingargument.Afterreviewing ( therecord,wefindthatthetrialcourtimproperlyconsolidatedthetwoindictmentsfortrialand  thereforereverseandremandthiscaseforanewtrial.#XXX X##BXX#XXB   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtisReversedand  Remanded.  t   #BX[ #XX.BJerryL.Smith,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichGaryR.Wade,_P.J._andDavidG. L  Hayes,J.,joined. 8!  C.Dawn_Deaner_,AssistantPublicDefender;and_Jerrilyn_ԀManning;andAmyD._Harwell_,Assistant #`" PublicDefenders,(onappealandattrail),forappellant,TraceyDionPayne. #L# PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;DavidH._Findley_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral; %$!% VictorS.Johnson,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;Bernie_McEvoy_,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral; &"& andSaraDavis,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,forappellee,StateofTennessee. '"'  4-(- 2 @@OO& OPINION #BXXa #XXB  #BXX#  XXB  XXXX@!FactualBackground  `     Thedefendantwaschargedwithfourcountsofrapeofachild, 4#  1      ׀twocountsfor_T.T._,2 4#  2      ׀who 8  wasfouryearsoldatthetime,andtwocountsfor_A.T._,whowasnineyearsoldatthetime.Both $ t victimsweredaughtersofthedefendantsgirlfriend._T.T._Ԁtestifiedthatthedefendantputhispenis  ` inhermouthandtouchedhispenistohervagina.Shetoldhermotheroftheseeventsassoonasher  L  motherreturnedhomeafterwork. _A.T._Ԁtestifiedthatthedefendantpenetratedheranuswithhis  8  penisandorderedhertoputhispenisinhermouth. Shetestifiedthatshedidnotadmitthatthese $  eventshadtranspiredtohermotheruntilaftershedeterminedthatshewouldnotgetintroublefor   reportingtheevents. Shedeterminedthatitwouldbesafetoreporttheseeventswhenheryounger   sisterhadnotbeenpunishedforreportingherrapes.      Thedefendanttestifiedthathedidnotcommittheallegedrapes. Infact,hetestifiedthathe   caredforthevictimsandtheirsiblingsmuchasaparentwould. Whenquestionedaboutwherethe t victimswouldgettheideatofabricatetheseallegationsofrape,thedefendantrespondedthathedid ` notknowwhytheywouldfabricatesuchstories,butthatthevictimsmotherwoulddiscusssexin L frontofherchildren,thatshehadadildothatshecarelesslyleftout,andthatshehadpornographic 8 filmsinherhouse,oneofwhichthedefendantcaught_A.T._Ԁwatching.  $t   Amedicalexpertwhoexaminedboth_A.T._Ԁand_T.T._Ԁfoundnophysicalsignsofsexualabuse ` ineitherchild. However,theexperttestifiedthattheabsenceofphysicalsignsofabusedoesnot L ruleoutthepossibilitythatthechildrenweresexuallyabused;itisnotunusualfortheretobeno < physicalsignsofabuse,especiallywhenthechildisexaminedmorethantwentyfourhoursafterthe ( allegedabuse,aswasthecasewithboth_A.T._Ԁand_T.T._Ԁ     During_T.T._stestimony,_T.T._Ԁwhisperedtoacourtofficerthatshewantedtotakeabreakto  seehermother,andthecourtofficerconveyedthewitnesssrequesttothetrialcourt._T.T._Ԁwasthen  takenoutsideofthecourtroomtothehallwayinwhichhermotherandothersequesteredwitnesses  werewaitingtotestify. Accordingtothetestimonyofthecourtofficer,_T.T._Ԁtoldhermotherthat t shewantedhermothertocomeinthecourtroomwithher. Duringthistenminutebreak,her d  motherreassured_T.T._Ԁthatshecouldbebraveandtestifywithouthermotherpresentinthecourt P! room. Thedefendantmovedforamistrialonthebasisthatduringthisperiodoftimetwo <"  sequesteredwitnesseshadcontactwitheachotherandthatthiscontactcouldhaveaffected_T.T._s ,#|! testimony,as_T.T._stestimonyafterthebreak,whichhadpreviouslybeenvagueandnoncommittal, $h"  becamemorespecificanddamningtothedefendant. Outofanabundanceofcaution,thecourt %T # declaredamistrialastothecountsofrapeof_T.T._,andthecourtinstructedthejurytodisregardthe  relevanttestimony.       Duringtheprosecutorsrebuttaltothedefendantsclosingargument,theprosecutorreferred  to_T.T._scaseseveraltimes,despitethetrialcourtsinstructiontothejurythattheyweretoignore t theevidencepresentedinsupportof_T.T._scase. Thedefendantobjected,andthetrialcourt ` instructedtheprosecutortorefrainfrommakingfurtherreferencesto_T.T._scase. Thejuryconvicted L  thedefendantonthetworemainingcountsofchildrape, andthetrialcourtsentencedthedefendant <  toservetwoconsecutivetenyearsentencesforeachcount.  ( x   Thedefendantnowbringstheinstantappealchallenginghisconvictionsonthebasisthat(1)  d theevidenceisinsufficienttosupporthisconvictions;(2)thetrialcourterroneouslyconsolidated  P  _T.T._Ԁand_A.T._scases;and(3)thetrialcourterroneouslyfailedtodeclareamistrialafterthe  <  prosecutorimproperlyreferredto_T.T._scaseinhisclosingargument.Afterreviewingtherecord (  andapplicablecaselaw,wefindthatthetrialcourterredbyconsolidatingthetwoindictmentsfor   trialandthereforeremandthiscaseforanewtrial.      Sufficiency  t g(  Asmentionedsupra,thedefendantfirstassertsthattheevidenceintroducedattrialis L insufficienttosupporthisconvictions.Specifically,heallegesthattheevidenceisinsufficient 8 because_A.T._Ԁgavetwocontradictorystatementsregardingherallegationthatthedefendantordered $t hertoperformoralsexonhim.Thedefendantfurtherallegesthatbecause_A.T._stestimonywasthe ` onlyproofintroducedtosupportthisallegationandbecausehercontradictorytestimonywasnot L explained,theruleofcancellationappliesandthereforethereisinsufficientevidencetosupporthis 8 convictionforthatrape. $   Whenadefendantchallengesthesufficiencyoftheevidence,thisCourtisobligedtoreview  thatclaimaccordingtocertainwell-settledprinciples.Averdictofguilty,renderedbyajuryand   approvedbythetrialjudge,accreditsthetestimonyoftheState'switnessesandresolvesall  conflictsinthetestimonyinfavoroftheState.Statev._Cazes_,875S.W.2d253,259(Tenn.1994);  Statev.Harris,839S.W.2d54,75(Tenn.1992).Thus,althoughtheaccusedisoriginallycloaked p withapresumptionofinnocence,thejuryverdictofguiltyremovesthispresumption andreplaces \  itwithoneofguilt.Statev._Tuggle_,639S.W.2d913,914(Tenn.1982).Hence,onappeal,the H! burdenofproofrestswiththedefendanttodemonstratetheinsufficiencyoftheconvictingevidence. 4"  Id.Therelevantquestionthereviewingcourtmustansweriswhetheranyrationaltrieroffactcould  #p! havefoundtheaccusedguiltyofeveryelementoftheoffensebeyondareasonabledoubt.SeeTenn.  $\" R.App.P.13(e);Harris,839S.W.2dat75.Inmakingthisdecision,wearetoaccordtheState the $H # strongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceaswellasallreasonableandlegitimateinferencesthatmay %4!$ bedrawntherefrom._Tuggle_,639S.W.2dat914.Assuch,thisCourtisprecludedfromre & "% weighingorreconsideringtheevidencewhenevaluatingtheconvictingproof.Statev._Tilson_,929 ' #& S.W.2d380,383(Tenn._Crim_.App.1996);Statev.Matthews,805S.W.2d776,779(Tenn._Crim_. (#' App.1990).Moreover,wemaynotsubstituteourown inferencesforthosedrawnbythetrieroffact )$(  fromcircumstantialevidence.Matthews,805S.W.2dat779. *%)   Thedefendantcontendsthatthereisinsufficientevidencetosupporthisconvictionforthe   countofhisindictmentthatchargeshimwithhavingcommittedrapeofachildwhenheordered  _A.T._Ԁtoputhermouthonhispenis.#XXX X#XXXXTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3913522(a)definesthe  rapeofachildas theunlawfulsexualpenetrationofavictimbythedefendantorthedefendantby t avictim,ifsuchvictimislessthanthirteen(13)yearsofage.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913522(a).The ` defendantmustactwithintent,knowledge,orrecklessness.Tenn.CodeAnn.3911301(c).Sexual L  penetrationincludes sexualintercourse,cunnilingus,fellatio,analintercourse,oranyother 8  intrusion,howeverslight,ofanypartofapersonsbodyorofanyobjectintothegenitaloranal $ t openingsofthevictims,thedefendants,oranyotherpersonsbody,butemissionofsemenisnot  ` required.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913501(7).#XXXXC6# XXXX  L    Asaforementioned,thedefendantarguesthatbecause_A.T._Ԁgavecontradictoryaccountsof  8  whethertheincidenttookplace,theruleofcancellationapplies,andthusthestatementscanceleach $  otherout,leavinginsufficientevidencetosupportthedefendantsconviction.Oursupremecourt   firstarticulatedthisrulein1922,findingthatinsituationswhereawitnessgivestwocontradictory   accountsofaneventandthatwitnessstestimonyistheonlyevidencetosupportadisputedfact,the   twostatementscanceleachotheroutbecausethewitnesss testimonytoprove[thefact]isno   strongerthanhistestimonytodisproveit,anditwouldbemerecapriceinajuryuponsuchevidence p todecideiteitherway.Johnsonv._Cincinatti_,_N.O._Ԁ&T.P.Ry.Co.,240_S.W._Ԁ429,436(Tenn. \ 1922). H   Intheinstantcase,duringherdirectexamination,_A.T._Ԁtestifiedasfollows: 4 __8  A:[_A.T._]0   Iwasinthelivingroomwatchingcartoonsandthenhetoldmeto  p comehere.AndthenIwentinthebathroomtoseewhathewanted.  \ Andthenhesaid, Getdownonyourknees.Andthenhesaid, Get H downonyourkneesandputyourmouthonmypenis,andmoveyour 4 mouthupanddown.   8  Q[prosecutor]:Whenyouwentintothebathroomthattimewhatdidyousee?0@0@x(#x(#    8  A:0`   0 ` ` Hispenis.  8  Q:0`   0 ` ` CanyoutellmewhenyouwentintothebathroomwasTracythere?  8  A:0`   0 ` ` Yes.  8  Q:0`   0 ` ` Wherewashe?l  8  A:0`   0 ` ` Layingdowninthewater.X   8  Q:0`   0 ` ` Didhehaveclothesonoroff?D!  8  A:0`   0 ` ` Clothesoff.0"   8  Q:0`   0 ` ` Whatwas[the]firstthingthathappenedwhenyougottothe #l! bathroom?$X"  _8  A:0`   0 ` ` Hetoldmetogetdownonmyknees.$D #  8  Q:0`   0 ` ` Okay.Didyoudothat?%0!$  8  A:0`   0 ` ` Yes.&"%  8  Q:0`   0 ` ` Wheredidyoukneeldown?'#&  8  A:0`   0 ` ` Onthebathroomfloor.(#'  8  Q:0`   0 ` ` Didhesayanythingmoretoyou?)$(   0(83",3"  8  ,3H2  A  :3  0`      Hesaid Putyourmoutharoundmypenisandmoveyourmouthup |*%) Ѐanddown.,3HH݌h+&*` `  Ќ  8  Q:0`   0 ` ` Whatdidyoudowhenhesaidthat?  8  A:0`   0 ` ` Iputmymouthonhispenis.  8  Q:0`   0 ` ` Didheeverputhishandsonanypartofyourbody?  8  A:0`   0 ` ` No.t  8  Q:0`   0 ` ` Yousaidyouputyourmouthonhispenis.Canyoutellmewhatthat ` feltlikeonyourbody?L   8  A:0`   0 ` ` Itdidntfeelright.8   8  Q:0`   0 ` ` Okay.Whathappenedafterthat?$ t  8  A:0`   0 ` ` Andthenafterthatsomethingcamedownhispenis. `  8  Q:0`   0 ` ` Iamsorry,youregoingtohavetospeakup. L   8  A:0`   0 ` ` Somethingcamedownhispenis. 8   8  Q:0`   0 ` ` Didyousaysomethingcameout?$   8  A:0`   0 ` ` Yes.   8  Q:0`   0 ` ` Okay.Whatdiditlooklike?   8  A:0`   0 ` ` Itwasclearanditkindoflookedlikelotion.   8  Q:0`   0 ` ` Wherediditgo?   8  A:0`   0 ` ` Downonhishandandintothewater.p  8  Q:0`   0 ` ` Whathappenedafterthat?\  8  A:0`   0 ` ` ThenIgotoutofthebathroom.H  8  Oncrossexamination,A.T.testifiedasfollows: p   8  Q[defensecounsel]:0  Andthenyousayanothertimeyouwereathomewiththe H kidswatchingcartoons.4   8  A:0`   0 ` ` Yes.   8  Q:0`   0 ` ` AndTracywasinthebathroom.   8  A:0`   0 ` ` Yes.  8  Q:0`   0 ` ` Andthatsthesamebathroomwhereyousayhehurtyouthefirst  time.  8  A:0`   0 ` ` Yes.l  8  Q:0`   0 ` ` Andhewasinthereandyouknewhewastakingabath.X   8  A:0`   0 ` ` Yes.D!  8  Q:0`   0 ` ` Heyelledforyoutocomeinthere.0"   8  A:0`   0 ` ` Yes.#l!  8  Q:0`   0 ` ` Andthatsthesameplacewherehehadhurtyouintherebefore.$X"  8  A:0`   0 ` ` Yes.$D #  8  Q:0`   0 ` ` Andyouwentinthebathroom.%0!$  8  A:0`   0 ` ` Yes.&"%  8  Q:0`   0 ` ` Didyoutelloneoftheboystogointhereandseewhathewanted?'#&  8  A:0`   0 ` ` No.(#'  8  Q:0`   0 ` ` Youjustwentinthebathroom.)$(  8  A:0`   0 ` ` Yes.|*%)  8  Q:0`   0 ` ` Youwerentscaredtogoin?h+&*  8  A:0`   0 ` ` Yes.  8  Q:0`   0 ` ` Butyouwentin.  8  A:0`   0 ` ` _Yes.  8  Q:0`   0 ` ` Andhetoldyoutoleaninthetubandputhispenisinyourmouth.t  8  A:0`   0 ` ` Yes.`  8  Q:0`   0 ` ` Butyoudidntdothat.L   8  A:0`   0 ` ` Yes.8   8  Q:0`   0 ` ` Youjustwalkedrightbackout.$ t  8  A:0`   0 ` ` Yes. `  8  Q:0`   0 ` ` Andafterthattimewhenhecalledyoutocomeinthebathroomyou  L  didnttellyourmom. 8   8  A:0`   0 ` ` No.$   8  Q:0`   0 ` ` YoudidnteventellthedayshewasmadatTracyandyouknewhe   hadleft.   8  A:0`   0 ` ` No.        Withthisbackground,thedefendantassertsthat_A.T._saffirmativeresponsetodefense H counselsquestion, Butyoudidntdothat?contradictsherearliertestimonythatshedidputher 4 moutharoundthedefendantspenisafterhetoldhertodoso.However,whenreadingthecolloquy  p asawhole,itappearsthat_A.T._sresponsedidnotmeanthatshewasagreeingwithdefensecounsels  \ assertionthatshe didntdothat,butinsteadthatshewasassertingthatyes,shediddothat.This H conclusionisconsistentwiththelikelymeaningof_A.T._sotherresponsestodefensecounsels 4 questions.Forexample,thisvictimrespondedaffirmativelytothequestion, Youwerentscared   togoin?Ifreadliterally,herresponsecouldindicatethatshemeantyes,shewasscaredtogoin.   However,defensecounselsfollowupquestion, Butyouwentin,indicatesthatcounsel  understoodherresponsetomeantheexactopposite,i.e.thatshewasafraid,butenteredanyway.  Whenaddressingtheapplicabilityoftheruleofcancellation,thisCourthasheldthattheruledidnot  applyinananalogoussituationwhereavictimsaffirmativeresponsecouldbeinterpretedas l consistenttestimonyratherthancontradictorytestimony.SeeStatev.NathanielAllen,No.E1999 X  02209CCAR3CD,2000Tenn._Crim_.App.LEXIS781,at**56(Tenn._Crim_.App.atKnoxville, D! Oct.19,2000).Furthermore,aconsistentinterpretationof_A.T._sanswersisalsosupportedbythe 0"  factthatinclosingargument,defensecounseldidnotpointoutthisallegedinconsistencyin_A.T._s #l! testimonyalthoughtheissueofthevictimscredibilitywasparamountbecausehertestimonywas $X" theonlyproofofthedefendantscrime. Instead,defensecounselrecountedtheversionofthecrime $D # that_A.T._Ԁgaveduringherdirectexaminationandusedothermeanstopersuadethejurythat_A.T._s %0!$ storywas incredible.  &"%   Underourdutytoaffordthestatethestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidence,weconclude '#& that_A.T._sresponsecouldlegitimatelybeconstruedasconsistentinlightofherotheranswersduring (#' thatlineofquestioninganddefensecounselsfailuretopointouttheallegedinconsistencyinhis )$( closingarguments.Therefore,theruleofcancellationdoesnotapplytothiscase,andthus,thisissue |*%) doesnotmeritrelief. h+&* Ї  PermissibilityoftheJoinderoftheTwoCasesforTrial   n  Thedefendantarguesthatthetrialcourtimpermissiblyjoinedthetwoindictmentscharging ` himwiththerapesof_A.T._Ԁand_T.T._ԀHearguesthatthetrialcourtappliedtheincorrectlegalstandard L  whendeterminingifconsolidationwasproper.WefirstnotethatthisCourtappliesanabuseof 8  discretionstandardwhenreviewingatrialcourtsgrantofpermissivejoinderorseveranceof $ t multipleoffenses.Asarticulatedbyoursupremecourtin_Spicer_Ԁv.State,12S.W.3d438,44243  ` (Tenn.2000),thisCourt  L  8  _review[s_]decisionsconcerningpermissivejoinderandseveranceofoffensespursuant $  toRulesofCriminalProcedure8(b)and14(b)(1)foranabuseofdiscretion.State   v.Shirley,6S.W.3d243,247(Tenn.1999).Assuch,atrialcourtsdecisionto   consolidateorseveroffenseswillnotbereversedunlessthe courtappliedan   incorrectlegalstandard,reachedadecisionwhichisagainstlogicorreasoningthat   causedaninjusticetothepartycomplaining.Id.(quotingStatev.Shuck,953 p S.W.2d662,669(Tenn.1997)).\     Althoughintheinstantcasethetrialcourtdidnotexplicitlystateitsfindingsontherecord,  p itappearsthatthetrialcourtconsideredthestatesmotionforconsolidationunderTennesseeRule  \ ofCriminalProcedure8(b),whichrequiresthetrialcourttodetermineifthecasesareofthe same H orsimilarcharacterbeforerulingthatconsolidationisproper.However,_Spicer_,providesthatif 4 thedefendantobjectstoconsolidationthetrialcourtshouldapplyadifferentstandard,Tennessee   RuleofCriminalProcedure14(b)(1).Id.at443.Oursupremecourthasheldthat   8  although[Tennessee]Rule[ofCriminalProcedure]8(b)permitsconsolidationwhen  theoffensesarepartsofacommonschemeorplan,Rule14(b)(1)canbeusedto  severthoseoffensesifevidenceofeachoffenseisnotadmissibleinthetrialofthe l others....[_T]he_ԀRules[ofCriminalProcedure]allowatrialcourttoconsolidate X  offensesoverthedefendantsobjectiononlywhentheoffensesarepartsofa D! commonschemeorplanandevidenceofeachoffenseisadmissibleinthetrialofthe 0"  others.Consequently,whenadefendantobjectstoapretrialconsolidationmotion #l! bythestate,thetrialcourtmustconsiderthemotionbytheseveranceprovisionsof $X" Rule14(b)(1),notthe sameorsimilarcharacterstandardofRule8(b).$D #   Id.Inessence, adefendanthasanabsoluterighttoseveroffensesthataremerelyofthesameor &"% similarcharacter.Id.at446.Thecourthasarticulatedatestfortrialcourtstofollowwhen '#& determiningwhetherconsolidationisproperoveradefendantsobjection. (#' 8  Beforeconsolidationisproper,thetrialcourtmustconcludefromtheevidenceand |*%) argumentspresentedatthehearingthat:(1)themultipleoffensesconstitutepartsof h+&* acommonschemeorplan,Tenn.R._Crim_.P.14(b)(1);(2)evidenceofeachoffense  isrelevanttosomematerialissueinthetrialofalltheotheroffenses,Tenn.R._Evid_.  404(b)(2);[Statev.]Moore,6S.W.3d[235,]239[Tenn.1999)];and(3)theprobative  valueoftheevidenceoftheotheroffensesisnotoutweighedbytheprejudicialeffect t thatadmissionoftheevidencewouldhaveonthedefendant,Tenn.R._Evid_. ` 404(b)(3).L    Id.at445_._ԀBecausethedefendantobjectedtothestatesmotionforconsolidation,thetrialcourt $ t shouldhaveshifteditsanalysisoftheproprietyoftheconsolidationfromaRule8(b)analysistoa  ` Rule14(b)analysisandthetripartitetestarticulatedabove.However,thetrialcourtdidnotdothis  L  andthusappliedanincorrectlegalstandard.  8    Althoughthetrialcourtappliedanincorrectstandard,thisCourtwillonlygrantanewtrial $  ifthetrialcourtserror affirmativelyappearstohaveaffectedtheoutcomeofthetrial.Id.at447   (citingTenn.R.App.P.52(a),36(b)).Thefactualscenariopresentedin_Spicer_issimilartothat   presentedbythecasesubjudice.In_Spicer_,inwhichthedefendantwasontrialforthesexual   molestationofhistwostepdaughters,oursupremecourtheldthatconsolidationoftheoffenses   involvingbothchildrenwasimproper. p ̀8  [_W]e_Ԁconcludethattheverdictinthiscaseprobablyresultedinpartfromunfair H prejudiceensuingfromimproperconsolidationofthetwoindictments....Itis 4 unlikelythatthejurywasnotinfluencedbytheperceivedpropensityoftheappellant  p tosexuallyabusehisstepdaughters,orthatthetestimonyfromeachofthevictims  \ wasnotbolsteredbythesametypeoftestimonycomingfromtheother.This H perceivedpropensitycombinedwithlessthanabundantevidenceofrapeleadsusto 4 concludethattheconsolidationerroraffirmativelyaffectedtheoutcomeofthetrial.   Therefore,anewtrialonthisindictmentisneededtoensurethattheappellants   convictionisnottheresultofunfairprejudice.   Id.at448.Thecourtalsonotedthatwhileconsolidationofsuchcasesisnotinherentlyprejudicial,   [_i]n_Ԁmostcases,arealprobabilityexiststhatthejurycouldbeoverwhelmedbythesheervolume l ofprejudicialevidenceandthatthejurycouldbetemptedtoconvictbaseduponadefendants X  propensitytocommitcrimesratherthanconvictsolelyuponevidencerelatingtothecharged D! offense.Id. 0"    Here,like_Spicer_,theproofagainstthedefendantconsistedofthevictimstestimonyand #l! someinconclusivemedicalexperttestimony.7 4#  3      ׀Aswedeterminedearlier,theconvictingproofis $X"    pX   sufficienttosupportthedefendantsconvictions,althoughitisnotoverwhelming.Thus,itis  probablethatthejurywasaffectedby_T.T._stestimonyandtheresultingapparentpropensityforthe  defendanttocommitsuchillegalacts.Seeid.In_Spicer_,thecourtstatedthat [_t]his_Ԁperceived  propensitycombinedwithlessthanabundantevidenceofrapeleadsustoconcludethatthe t consolidationerroraffirmativelyaffectedtheoutcomeofthetrial.Id.󀀀Inviewoftheprosecutors ` repeatedreferencetothefactsofthechargesinvolving_T.T._,wedoubtthatthetrialcourtslimiting L  instruction,whichinstructedthejurytodisregardallevidencerelatedto_T.T._scase,wassufficient 8  tocounteractthepropensityforunfairprejudiceresultingfromtheadmissionofthatevidence. $ t Accordingly,weremandthiscaseforanewtrialonthechargesinvolvingthemolestationof_A.T._  ` inorder toensurethattheappellantsconvictionisnottheresultofunfairprejudice.Id.  L     ProprietyoftheProsecutorsClosingArgument      Thedefendantarguesthatthetrialcourterroneouslyfailedtograntamistrialafterthe   prosecutorreferredtothevictim_T.T._Ԁinhisrebuttalclosingargument.Theprosecutormade   referencestothevictim_T.T._Ԁdespitethefactthatthetrialcourthadgrantedamistrialfor_T.T._scase t anddespitethefactthatthetrialcourthadinstructedthejurytodisregardallevidencerelatingto ` _T.T._scase. Becausewehavedeterminedthatthedefendantisentitledtoanewtrialbasedupon L theimproperconsolidationof_A.T._sand_T.T._scases,wewillonlybrieflyaddressthisissue. 8   Inhisrebuttalclosingargument,theprosecutorreferredto_T.T._Ԁandthefactsofhercase $t severaltimesuntilhewasinterruptedbyanobjectionfromdefensecounsel.5 4#  4      ׀ Thetrialcourt ` sustaineddefensecounselsobjection.However,theprosecutorwentontoreferto_T.T._Ԁseveral L moretimes. Thetrialcourttheninterruptedtheprosecutorandspecificallyinstructedhimnotto 8 mention_T.T._ Thecourtfurtherremindedthejurythatitwasnottoconsiderthefactsof_T.T._scase (  duringtheirdeliberationsandinstructedthemtodisregardallreferencesto_T.T._Ԁ Theprosecutor     p   subsequentlyrefrainedfromspecificallyreferringto_T.T._scase,buthedidmakefurtherreferences  tothefactthatthedefendantissomeonewhorapes children.9 4#  5           Asnotedearlier,webelievethatthereisastronglikelihood,per_Spicer_,thattheintroduction  ofevidenceregarding_T.T._scaseandtheprosecutionsreferencetoitinclosingargumentwas t prejudicialtothedefendantbecauseitcouldhaveinfluencedjurorstoconvictthedefendantforthe ` rapeof_A.T._Ԁbaseduponhispropensitytocommitsuchacts.Therefore,weneednotaddresswhether L  thisreferenceto_T.T._scase,standinginisolation,affectedtheverdicttotheprejudiceofthe 8  defendant.  $ t   Conclusion   L  *,XXhXX*  Fortheforegoingreasons,wefindthatthelowercourtimproperlyconsolidatedthe $  defendantsindictmentsfortrial.Accordingly,thejudgmentofthelowercourtisREVERSEDAND   thecaseREMANDEDforanewtrial.       #XXX X9#   `       h   ___________________________________ p    `       h   JERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE