WPC ,1Yeu:VI2.S ؑ¥a|U*K睾/g;9m<)T.?+[+EPMTWk͸qa,$ {!wM`/L NlQk &g{xmb$'}͜*r$a&9&n7\:gqLvӑv$FYA;hHaZiƼH5, op]F{6]2'd_2v7I 48 !{"N, PfK,_ڳd༝ҩZ0 z{`]_x&T_K3O_ 0[ó0a>1(]~9ɚFk;tWa}}C\5ug tӲҎj"]r}Dy[x8~fȳJ1XS ^򂞴u_ЩZCG|/Nya3 U > 0< 0<       D+ AA@ o  y@ oUN B-h B  0 #\ UN% %s My (} N ^ w 4  m  \  `&Times New Roman'  User0User .   <:Default Para<:Footnote Refa1a2a4'dxd&Draw Object <<=8C HKKKK  WPC i K513%)+-51d~ -a8 WPC i K513%)+-51d~ -("  Z6Times New Roman Regular)Hairline d  d#|x(rŃ$..      AXXAAHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6V,,,,V0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularXw.1 h_B0U JOHNATHANTIPTONBROYLESCURWOOD WITTMcGEECURIAMWoodall FHC Crimhad had Ń!..       XX    _       0p x (#X0S% 8Xdd8  QKKINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  Q$ATNASHVILLE   H.` hp x (#X(#HXXS%S%XX %    STATEOFTENNESSEE%hv.%  ԀWILLIAMGLENNROGERSXXS% %    3p x (#X(#3Qn n  CircuitCourtforMontgomeryCounty   QFF&No.38939    Q* %  %Ԉ6p x (#X(#6Q*H.` hp x (#X(#H-   XX  k[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KE8 K K8 2 -  XX  3p x (#X(#3Q No.%  % ԀXUXXXM200201798CCAR3DD#XXXXU#ԀFiledAugust27,2004 n  H.` hp x (#X(#H-   XX  k[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KE K K2 -  XX   3p x (#X(#3Q( ORDER  4  H.` hp x (#X(#H    Thedefendanthasfiledapetitiontorehearregardingourreviewandassessmentofthe  trialcourtsprecludingthedefendantfromcrossexaminingthevictimsbrotherregardinghis  purportedsexualactivitywiththevictim.Thedefendantessentiallydisagreeswithourcomment | thatthefactualpremisetothedefendantsargument,namely,thatthebrotherhadsexwiththe b victim,islargelyunsubstantiatedbytherecord.Healsoassertsthatweshouldordertherecord H supplementedwiththepsychologicalandjuvenilecourtrecordsforthebrotherifwedeemthem .~ necessaryforproperresolutionoftheissue.Althoughnotaddressingthedefendantsclaimthat d therecordcontainsappropriateevidence,thestaterespondsthatthecircumstancesdonotjustify J ourallowingsupplementationoftherecordatthistime. 0   Intheopinion,westatedthefollowing:  8  8`    Atthispoint,wemustnotethatthefactualpremisetothe x defendantsargumentislargelyunsubstantiatedbytherecord. ^ Defensecounseltoldthecourtthatrecordsexistedshowingthat D JeremyBeardtoldothersthathisfathertaughthimtohavesex * z withthevictim.Referencewasparticularlymadetoonerecord !`  apparentlyindicatingthathehadtoldhismother,who,inturn,had !F! toldhiscounselor.However,therecordsarenotintherecordon "," appeal.Also,asnoted,JeremyBeardwasquestionedabouthis ## tellingothersaboutsuchoffense,buthesaidhedidnotremember $$ doingso.However,hewasnotaskedifhe,infact,everhadsex % % withthevictimand,ifso,when.Moreover,hismotherwasnever t&!& askedifhersonhadtoldherthathehadhadsexwiththevictim. Z'"' Thus,thedefendantsprofferofevidenceandtherecordbeforeus @(#( showalmostnosupportforthedefendantsclaimsaboutJeremy &)v$) Beardspastconduct. *\%*` x` x Thedefendantclaimsthatthevictimsmotherwasaskedifhersonhadtoldherthathisnatural +(', fatherhadtaughthimhowtohavesexwiththevictim,towhichshereplied, Yes,he!Jeremy ,(- hastoldmethatonetime.Thedefendantalsopointsoutthatdefensecounselandthe -(. prosecutorreferredtoaFHCdocumentwhichcontainedareferencetoJeremyBeardhaving  beentaughttohavesexwiththevictimbyhisbiologicalfather,whowassupposedtohave  watchedwhileitoccurred. |   Althoughtherecordreflectsthatcounselactuallyaskedthevictimsmotherifshehad H evertoldanytherapistorsocialworkerthathersonclaimedthathisfatherhadtaughthimhow . ~ tohavesexwithhissister,weacknowledgethatherresponsereasonablyconveysthefactof  d interesttothedefendant!thathersontoldheronetimeandthatsherelayedthattoaperson  J treatinghim.Westillbelieve,though,thattherelevanceoftheevidencewasquitetenuousand  0 thatnoprejudiceresultedfromitsexclusion.      AsforcounselsreferencestoaFHCdocumentwhichisnotintherecord,wenotethat   statementsofcounseldonotusuallyconstituteevidence.SeeStatev.Electroplating,Inc.,990 x  S.W.2d211,224(Tenn.Crim.App.1998).Relativetothedefendantsrequesttosupplement ^  therecord,weareconstrainedbypreviousopinionsthatconcludethat supplementationofthe D  recorddoesnotconstituteameritoriousgroundforarehearingpursuanttoRule39(a),Tenn.R. *z  App.P.Statev.Roberts,755S.W.2d833,838(Tenn.Crim.App.1988);seealsoStatev. ` Locke,771S.W.2d132,140(Tenn.Crim.App.1988).Inanyevent,ourviewofthetenuous F relevanceoftheevidencethedefendantclaimsexistsleadsustobelievethatsupplementingthe , recordisnotmerited.    Wherefore,inconsiderationoftheforegoing,itishereby ORDERED thatthepetitionto  rehearis DENIED . t   0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#PERCURIAM@(#(#   0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#(Tipton,Witt,Williams,JJ.)&v(#(#     0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(# (#(#   0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(# (#(#