ÿWPCì ‚Ç®|‰ÕëåJ'+,Ü*‰Ô áåH'Ç£¦G%ìád+±Fˆb°Â]nKaÌ·i•×Ý<;¦ü4ãCn ƒžQnq0ØHªÅÙ–øµ½áìnÓLƒj!¨¹…C“[£;ìõ¬b8_ìñ*y« 'óá¨s¬þ‡üêŒ Ýÿê'D׋ÉT>(h¢±‚ˆk>5ñÐG *»®@ì‚õvnôv)ѹî&^¤‘ûº.'¥vŽQµ°¢%´Ï_6»%ÇNœ€€&á*ϾÒáÒ¹íM é‚=’•hj¸WuöÿðEzð¿ýÚ®$£¦Þ¸+W%­Ìžá½dT?Lo7 %¨ck&ÅgKYÈæbãkÉò©ïb«¿"–cò©!0;û£¯àIÖ‘†@¼çbŒÅ]gã{Uäˆ}A„Ñè[‰Oàú;¿ÛmFéëê~Y¥Xí.½°Ue¾à­ä¾Ã·°Þ&…vh+Î)Q`àÎHD)æŒG¡šÎ] QÍ8³¿ÊÌÉÿ¿¬w_¨è¼¥_ÍB ä`^½3×ßl|ìyZ”¦ìûËAÈ›³ùuÖÒõr„me½Y92žÍ¤i&—‚u àƒå&îó«L„Oiªçü?ZD®š[ÉQªü{ÈVÏb#É\ %% UN+ 0ˆy U5N 0DO U>“ zÑ ÒK 1u 72’ ^ Ä .Ð ÆþÆÄÆŠÆPwN40E?A mCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCbZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ 1‡bb 0ëéééé BÔÔ 0¤ñ D3• D-È 0Kõõ AS@Æ“ 0¤Y 0Dý A«A˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6ÒV,,,,ÒV0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóóô\  `&Times New Roman ˜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#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) i)wµ\/Ï  $Ý ƒRuÑ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô§<ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ‡ô§<òòô§<ÔIt€is€the€policy€of€this€Court€to€refrain€from€referring€to€child€abuse€victims€by€name.Ô#†ô§<òòô§<Š#ÔLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5lk.3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù-(нCEKQW]cioAutoList1A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:(|G2uÑ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€„é»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô§<ò»»Ô d(|3?$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€„é»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€„é»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€„é»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼„é»»»ÔÑ8€×WXXdé»»d8Ñà@hhìàÔ‡îeN„éÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@gg$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼„é»îîeN #ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€November€26,€2002Ð öF ÐÔ‡X×WX»¼„éÔÌò òÔ#†¼„é»XX×W"#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€RANDALL€SCOTTòòóóÔ‡X×WX»¼„éÔó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€96„C„1362€€€€€€Cheryl€Blackburn,€JudgeÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„02911„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€October€28,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X=XXX×WÔA€Davidson€County€jury€convicted€the€defendant,€Randall€Scott,€of€rape€of€a€child€and€aggravatedÐ V¦  Ðsexual€battery.€€This€Court€affirmed€the€defendantððs€convictions€upon€his€direct€appeal,€òòseeóó€òòState€v.Ð ? ÐRandall€Scottóó,€No.€01C01„9708„CR„00334,€1999€WL€547460,€at€*14€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€atÐ (x ÐNashville,€July€28,€1999),€but€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€reversed€and€remanded€the€case€for€aÐ a Ðnew€trial,€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Scottóó,€33€S.W.3d€746€(Tenn.€2000).€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€defendantððsÐ úJ Ðsecond€trial,€a€second€Davidson€County€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€rape€of€a€child€andÐ ã3 Ðaggravated€sexual€battery,€and€the€trial€court€subsequently€ordered€the€defendant€to€serve€anÐ Ì Ðaggregate€thirty„five„year€sentence€for€his€convictions.€€The€defendant€now€brings€the€instant€directÐ µ Ðappeal€of€his€convictions€and€sentence€alleging€five€grounds€of€error.€€The€defendant€argues€that€theÐ žî Ðtrial€court€(1)€erroneously€admitted€the€evidence€that€the€victim€identified€the€defendant€as€herÐ ‡× Ðperpetrator€in€the€first€trial,€(2)€erroneously€admitted€certain€hearsay€testimony€as€an€adoptiveÐ pÀ Ðadmission€by€a€party€opponent,€(3)€erroneously€instructed€the€jury€that€they€could€draw€an€inferenceÐ Y© Ðof€guilt€if€they€concluded€that€the€defendant€had€concealed€or€destroyed€or€had€attempted€to€destroyÐ B’ Ðor€conceal€evidence€of€his€crime,€(4)€failed€to€separate€the€defendantððs€charges€for€rape€of€a€childÐ +{ Ðand€aggravated€sexual€battery,€as€was€required€by€law,€and€(5)€ordered€the€defendant€to€serve€anÐ d Ðexcessive€sentence.€€After€a€thorough€review€of€the€defendantððs€claims€and€the€record,€we€find€thatÐ ýM Ðseveral€of€the€defendantððs€allegations€were€previously€determined€by€this€Court€pursuant€to€his€firstÐ æ 6  Ðdirect€appeal€and€that€none€of€his€claims€merit€relief.Ô#†X×WXXX=Î#ÔÔ#†¼„é»XX×W—#ÔÔ‡X×WX»¼„éÔÐ Ï!! ÐÓÂÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ ¡#ñ# ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼„é»àX×W„ #ÔÔ‡X×WX.¼„éÔJerry€L.€Smith,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayesóó€and€òòNormaÐ t%Ä % ÐMcGee€Ogle,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ]&­!& ÐÌJeffrey€A.€Ô_ÔDeVasherÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Public€Defender,€(on€appeal),€and€J.€Michael€Ô_ÔEngleÔ_Ô,€Assistant€PublicÐ /(#( ÐDefender,€(at€trial),€for€the€appellant,€Randall€Scott.Ð )h$) ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Elizabeth€B.€Ô_ÔMarneyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð ê*:&+ ÐVictor€S.€Johnson,€District€Attorney€General;€Bill€Reed€and€Roger€Moore,€Assistant€DistrictÐ Ó+#', ÐAttorneys€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ¼, (- ÐÓ7ÓÐ ¥-õ(.ý ÐÔ_Ôà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼„é»XX×Wf#ÔÔ‡X×WX»¼„éÔÐ ° ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼„é»XX×W#ÔÔ‡X×WX»¼„éÔÓ  Óò òòòÔ‡X=XXX×WÔà@!ìàFactual€Backgroundó óóóˆÐ ƒÓ ÐÌà  àAt€approximately€dusk€on€April€7,€1995,€the€victim,€L.M.F.,׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€who€was€nine„years„old€at€theÐ V¦ Ðtime€of€the€incident€and€who€was€living€at€1044€Chickamauga€Avenue€in€Nashville,€Tennessee,Ð ?  Ðwalked€from€her€residence€to€a€nearby€Revco€Drug€Store€to€purchase€some€earrings.€€During€herÐ ( x Ðwalk€to€the€Revco,€she€saw€the€defendant€leave€his€residence€at€1042€Chickamauga€Avenue€andÐ  a Ðwalk€towards€the€Revco,€as€well.€€The€victim€recognized€the€defendant€because€she€had€seen€himÐ ú J Ðin€her€neighborhood€several€times.€€She€testified€that€he€was€wearing€a€red€tank€top€and€jean€shortsÐ ã 3  Ðwith€carpenter€pockets.Ð Ì   ÐÌà  àThe€victim€entered€the€store€and€purchased€some€earrings€and€candy.€€The€defendantÐ žî  Ðpurchased€a€bottle€of€malt€liquor€and€some€cigarettes€and€exited€the€store€before€the€victim.€AfterÐ ‡×  Ðthe€victim€exited€the€store€and€was€preparing€to€cross€the€street,€the€defendant€stopped€the€oncomingÐ pÀ  Ðtraffic,€allowing€her€to€cross.€€As€the€victim€approached€an€alley€on€Chickamauga€Avenue,€theÐ Y©  Ðdefendant€grabbed€the€victim€from€behind,€covered€her€mouth,€and€steered€her€into€the€alley.€€TheÐ B’ Ðvictim€attempted€to€flee€from€the€defendant,€but€the€defendant€thwarted€the€victimððs€escape€byÐ +{ Ðthrowing€a€rock€at€the€victim,€hitting€her€in€her€back.€€The€defendant€then€ordered€the€victim€to€lieÐ d Ðdown€and€removed€his€shorts€and€the€victimððs€shorts€and€underpants.€€The€defendant€touched€theÐ ýM Ðvictim€on€her€stomach€and€her€vagina€and€then€penetrated€her€anally€with€his€penis.Ð æ6 ÐÌà  àAfter€the€attack,€the€victim€reported€the€incident€to€her€father€who€in€turn€contacted€theÐ ¸ Ðpolice.€€The€victim€related€the€details€of€her€attack€to€a€female€police€officer€and€was€subsequentlyÐ ¡ñ Ðtransported€to€General€Hospital€for€care.€€The€victim€was€transferred€via€ambulance€from€GeneralÐ ŠÚ ÐHospital€to€Vanderbilt€Hospital,€where€a€physician€put€the€victim€under€general€anesthesia€in€orderÐ sà Ðto€examine€her€and€create€a€rape€kit.€€The€physician€who€examined€the€victim€reported€that€theÐ \¬ Ðvictim€had€sustained€two€injuries,€a€welt€to€her€back€which€was€consistent€with€an€injury€resultingÐ E• Ðfrom€a€thrown€rock,€and€tears€to€her€anus,€which€were€caused€by€penetration€and€consistent€withÐ .~ Ðdamage€caused€by€penile€penetration.€€Ð g ÐÌà  àAnother€resident€of€1042€Chickamauga€Avenue,€Teresa€Gooch,€testified€at€trial.€€Ms.€Gooch€Ð é 9 Ðreported€that€on€the€day€of€the€incident,€the€defendant€left€their€residence€to€purchase€some€cigarettesÐ Ò!"  Ðfor€her€grandmother,€another€resident.€€However,€the€defendant€was€gone€for€an€unusually€longÐ »" ! Ðamount€of€time,€and€when€he€did€return,€his€shorts€were€muddied.€€Ms.€Gooch€testified€that€theÐ ¤#ô" Ðdefendant€attempted€to€enter€the€bathroom€to€change€his€clothing,€but€was€unable€to€do€so€becauseÐ $Ý# ÐMs.€Goochððs€mother,€also€a€resident,€was€in€the€bathroom.€€The€defendant€then€changed€his€clothesÐ v%Æ $ Ðin€the€hallway,€Ms.€Gooch€assumed,€and€entered€his€bedroom,€where€Ms.€Gooch€was€seated.€€OnceÐ _&¯!% Ðin€the€bedroom,€he€placed€his€soiled€shorts€and€shirt€partially€under€his€bed.€€The€police€arrived€atÐ H'˜"& Ð1042€Chickamauga€Avenue€shortly€thereafter€looking€for€someone€matching€the€defendantððsÐ 1(#' Ðdescription.€€During€their€search€of€the€house,€Ms.€Gooch€directed€the€police€to€the€defendantððsÐ )j$( Ðclothing€next€to€his€bed,€which€the€police€seized€along€with€the€defendantððs€shoes€and€a€partially€fullÐ ° Ðmalt€liquor€bottle.€€Ð ™é ÐÌà  àThe€police€sent€both€the€defendantððs€and€the€victimððs€clothing€to€laboratories€for€DNAÐ k» Ðtesting.€€Lab€technicians€concluded€that€only€the€victimððs€DNA€was€found€on€the€victimððs€clothing,Ð T¤ Ðbut€that€the€victim€could€not€be€excluded€as€the€source€of€DNA€on€the€defendantððs€clothing.€€NoÐ =  Ðsemen€or€sperm€were€found€on€the€victimððs€or€defendantððs€clothing€nor€in€the€victimððs€rape€kit.Ð & v Ðà  àÌà  àRicky€Knight,€Ms.€Goochððs€father,€also€resided€at€1042€Chickamauga€Avenue.€€Mr.€KnightÐ ø H Ðtestified€that€after€the€defendant€had€left€to€purchase€cigarettes€on€the€day€of€the€incident€and€hadÐ á 1  Ðbeen€gone€for€an€unusually€long€amount€of€time,€he€looked€for€the€defendant€on€Gallatin€Road€butÐ Ê   Ðfailed€to€find€him.€€When€Mr.€Knight€left€the€house€again€to€walk€to€the€nearby€Burger€King,€he€sawÐ ³  Ða€young€girl€emerging€from€an€alley€and€a€man€whom€he€was€unable€to€identify€behind€her.€€Ms.Ð œì  ÐGooch€testified€that€after€the€defendant€returned€to€their€residence,€he€had€a€conversation€with€Mr.Ð …Õ  ÐKnight€that€Ms.€Gooch€overheard.€€Mr.€Knight€told€the€defendant€that€he€was€ð ðpitiful€for€messingÐ n¾  Ðwith€the€little€white€girl,ðð€to€which€the€defendant€responded€that€ð ðeverybody€fool€with€her.ððÐ W§  ÐÌà  àShortly€after€the€incident,€the€victim€failed€to€identify€the€defendant€as€her€perpetrator€in€aÐ )y Ðline„up.€€However,€his€appearance€on€the€day€of€the€lineup€was€different€from€his€appearance€on€theÐ b Ðday€of€the€incident.€On€the€day€of€the€incident,€the€defendant€was€freshly€shaven€and€wore€his€hairÐ ûK Ðdown€in€a€ð ðJerry€curlðð€style.€€On€the€day€of€the€lineup,€the€defendant€had€stubble€and€was€wearingÐ ä4 Ðhis€hair€back€in€a€ponytail.€€The€victim€was€able€to€identify€the€defendant€as€her€perpetrator€at€theÐ Í Ðfirst€trial.€€However,€the€victim€was€unable€to€identify€the€defendant€at€the€second€trial€and€testifiedÐ ¶ Ðthat€her€memory€of€her€experience€as€a€nine„year„old€was€less€clear€now€with€the€passage€of€sevenÐ Ÿï Ðyears.€€Additionally,€she€assumed€that€her€perpetratorððs€appearance€had€also€changed€with€theÐ ˆØ Ðpassage€of€those€seven€years.€€She€further€affirmed€that€she€had€testified€truthfully€at€her€first€trial.Ð qÁ ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€proof,€the€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€both€rape€of€a€child€andÐ C“ Ðaggravated€sexual€battery.€€As€noted€above,€pursuant€to€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€orderedÐ ,| Ðthe€defendant€to€serve€a€thirty„five€year€aggregate€sentence€consisting€of€consecutive€sentences€ofÐ e Ðtwenty„five€years€for€his€rape€of€a€child€conviction€to€be€served€at€100%€and€ten€years€for€hisÐ þN Ðaggravated€sexual€battery€conviction€to€be€served€at€30%.€€As€noted€earlier,€the€defendant€raises€fiveÐ ç 7 Ðissues€in€this€appeal;€he€challenges€the€propriety€of€(1)€the€introduction€of€the€victimððs€identificationÐ Ð!   Ðof€the€defendant€in€his€first€trial,€(2)€the€admission€of€certain€hearsay€as€an€adoptive€admission,€(3)Ð ¹" ! Ðthe€jury€instruction€regarding€concealed€evidence,€(4)€the€allowance€of€two€separate€convictions€forÐ ¢#ò" Ðrape€of€a€child€and€aggravated€sexual€battery,€and€(5)€his€sentence.Ð ‹$Û# ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òòòAdmission€of€Victimððs€Prior€Identification€of€Defendant€from€First€Trialóóó óÐ F'–"& ÐÌÓ@1Óà  àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€state€to€introduce€hearsayÐ )i$( Ðevidence€of€the€victimððs€identification€of€the€defendant€as€her€perpetrator€during€the€first€trial€onÐ *R%) Ðthese€charges.€€Ô#†X×WXXX=#ÔÔ‡X×WXXX×WÔð ðððHearsayðð€is€a€statement,€other€than€one€made€by€the€declarant€while€testifying€atÐ ë*;&* Ðthe€trial€or€hearing,€offered€in€evidence€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ð Ô+$'+ Ð801(c).€€Ô#†X×WXXX×Wô2#ÔÔ‡X×WXXX×WÔAs€a€general€rule,€hearsay€is€not€admissible€at€trial€except€as€provided€by€the€rules€ofÐ ° Ðevidence€or€otherwise€by€law.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€802.€€However,€ð ð[t]he€determination€of€whetherÐ ™é Ða€statement€is€hearsay€and€whether€it€is€admissible€through€an€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule€is€leftÐ ‚Ò Ðto€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.ðð€€òòState€v.€Stoutóó,€46€S€.W.3d€689,€697€(Tenn.€2001).€€AsÐ k» Ðsuch,€this€Court€will€not€reverse€a€trial€courtððs€ruling€regarding€the€admission€or€exclusion€of€hearsayÐ T¤ Ðevidence€absent€aÔ#†X×WXXX×W-4#ÔÔ‡X=XXX×WÔ€Ô#†X×WXXX=å6#ÔÔ‡X×WXXX×WÔclear€showing€that€the€court€abused€its€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.Ô#†X×WXXX×W(7#ÔÔ‡X=XXX×WÔóó€€Ð =  ÐÓ  Óà  àÌÓ  Óà  àIn€the€instant€case,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€victimððs€statement€of€previous€identificationÐ  _ Ðwas€admissible€under€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€803(1.1),€which€allows€admission€of€ð ð[a]Ð ø H Ðstatement€of€identification€of€a€person€made€after€perceiving€the€person€if€the€declarant€testifies€atÐ á 1  Ðthe€trial€or€hearing€and€is€subject€to€cross„examination€concerning€the€statement.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ð Ê   Ð803(1.1).€€When€ruling€on€the€admissibility€of€this€statement€of€prior€identification,€the€trial€courtÐ ³  Ðalso€relied€on€òòState€v.€Stoutóó,€46€S.W.3d€697€(Tenn.€2001).€€When€discussing€the€admissibility€ofÐ œì  Ðcertain€hearsay€statements€under€Rule€803(1.1),€the€supreme€court€enumerated€four€requirementsÐ …Õ  Ðthat€must€be€met€before€the€statement€could€be€introduced.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€698.€€That€party€seekingÐ n¾  Ðadmission€of€the€statement€must€establish€Ð W§  ÐÌÓ  Óà8  àÔ#†X×WXXX=¯7#ÔÔ‡X×WXXX×WÔ(1)€that€the€declarant€made€an€identification€of€a€person;€Ð)yÐ Ð  Ðà8  à(2)€that€the€identification€was€made€after€perceiving€the€person;€ÐbÐ Ð  Ðà8  à(3)€that€the€declarant€testified€at€the€hearing€or€trial€in€which€the€priorÐ ûK Ðidentification€was€introduced;€and€Ðä4Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(4)€that€the€declarant€was€subject€to€cross„examination€about€the€statement.€Ô#†X×WXXX×W\<#ÔÔ‡X=XXX×WÔÐÍÐ Ð  ÐÌòòÓ  ÓId.óó€€The€court€also€relied€on€the€discussion€of€Rule€803(1.1)€in€the€treatise€òòTennessee€Law€ofÐ Ÿï ÐEvidenceóó.€This€treatise€explains€the€policy€behind€Rule€803(1.1),€stating€that€the€rule€allowsÐ ˆØ Ðadmission€of€a€declarant„witnessððs€prior€identification€as€substantive€evidence€because€the€declarant„Ð qÁ Ðwitness€is€testifying€and€available€for€cross„examination€at€the€time€of€the€admission€of€this€priorÐ Zª Ðidentification.€€òòSeeóó€Neil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€8.05[2]€(4òòthóó€ed.€2000).€Ð C“ ÐAccording€to€òòTennessee€Law€on€Evidenceóó,€this€exception€is€typically€used€in€criminal€cases€whereÐ ,| Ða€witness€makes€an€out€of€court€identification€of€the€defendant€and€then€later€identifies€the€defendantÐ e Ðagain€in€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€The€witnessððs€earlier€statement€of€identification€may€then€be€admitted€underÐ þN ÐRule€803(1.1).€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€The€earlier€identification€was€made€closer€in€time€to€the€incident€for€whichÐ ç 7 Ðthe€defendant€is€being€tried,€and€the€admission€of€this€earlier€identification€essentially€bolsters€theÐ Ð!   Ðcredibility€of€the€witness€who€made€both€identifications.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€However,€in€this€scenario,€theÐ ¹" ! Ðauthors€of€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€opine€that€there€is€normally€no€great€need€for€the€admissionÐ ¢#ò" Ðof€the€earlier€statement€of€identification€since€the€witness€who€made€the€earlier€identificationÐ ‹$Û# Ðidentifies€the€defendant€at€trial,€as€well.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€Rather,€the€need€for€the€admission€of€a€statementÐ t%Ä $ Ðof€earlier€identification€arises€when€the€declarant„witness€either€ð ðcannot€(or€pretends€to€be€unableÐ ]&­!% Ðto)€identify€the€accused€in€the€courtroom.ðð€€òòId.óó€€In€such€a€rare€instance,€an€extreme€need€for€theÐ F'–"& Ðadmission€of€the€out„of„court€statement€is€created.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óóÐ /(#' ÐÌà  àThe€facts€of€the€present€case€constitute€such€a€rare€case€necessitating€the€need€for€admissionÐ *Q%) Ðof€the€victimððs€earlier€statement€of€identification.€€The€state€sought€to€introduce€the€victimððs€priorÐ ê*:&* Ðstatement€of€identification€from€the€defendantððs€first€trial€after€the€victim€testified€during€the€secondÐ Ó+#'+ Ðtrial€that€she€was€not€able€to€positively€identify€the€defendant€since€the€defendantððs€appearance€hadÐ ° Ðundoubtedly€changed€in€the€seven€years€between€the€incident€and€the€current€trial.€€The€victimÐ ™é Ðtestified€that€when€she€identified€the€victim€during€the€last€trial,€she€had€been€truthful.€€Thus,€sinceÐ ‚Ò Ðthe€victim€was€nine„years„old€at€the€time€of€the€incident€and€eleven„years„old€at€the€time€of€the€firstÐ k» Ðtrial,€the€trial€court€reasonably€allowed€introduction€of€the€victimððs€prior€identification€in€light€ofÐ T¤ Ðthe€fact€that€at€the€trial€at€issue€here€the€now€sixteen„year„old€victim€was€unable€to€identify€theÐ =  Ðdefendant.€€Moreover,€while€the€statement€at€issue€was€introduced€at€the€conclusion€of€the€victimððsÐ & v Ðtestimony,€the€victim€was€available€for€cross„examination€by€defense€counsel€about€the€truthfulnessÐ  _ Ðof€this€prior€identification.Ð ø H ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€argues,€as€he€did€at€trial,€that€the€victimððs€statement€was€not€admissible€underÐ Ê   Ð803(1.1)€because€the€rule€does€not€contemplate€the€admission€of€a€prior€inconsistent€statement.€TheÐ ³  Ðdefendant€characterizes€the€victimððs€statement€of€prior€identification€as€a€prior€inconsistent€statementÐ œì  Ðbased€on€the€victimððs€inability€to€identify€the€defendant€at€his€second€trial.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€613.Ð …Õ  ÐWe€disagree.€€We€do€not€find€that€the€victimððs€testimony€at€the€second€trial€in€which€she€stated€thatÐ n¾  Ðshe€was€unable€to€identify€the€defendant€due€to€a€change€in€his€appearance€over€a€significant€amountÐ W§  Ðof€time€is€inconsistent€with€her€identification€of€the€defendant€at€his€first€trial,€only€two€years€afterÐ @ Ðthe€rape€and€sexual€battery.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€Rule€803(1.1),€which€specificallyÐ )y Ðcontemplates€the€factual€scenario€in€the€instant€case,€òòseeóó€Neil€P.€Cohen,€et€al.,€òòTennessee€Law€ofÐ b ÐEvidenceóó€ðð€8.05[2]€(4òòthóó€ed.€2000),€is€the€proper€rule€governing€the€admission€of€the€victimððs€priorÐ ûK Ðidentification€of€the€defendant€when€she€was€unable€to€identify€him€at€a€later€court€proceeding€dueÐ ä4 Ðto€the€lapse€of€five€years.Ð Í Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÌÌÓ  Óò òòòDefendantððs€Adoptive€Admissionóóó óÐ ˆØ ÐÌÓKRÓà  àThe€defendant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€Ms.€Goochððs€testimonyÐ [« Ðrecounting€Ricky€Knightððs€accusation€of€the€defendant€and€the€defendantððs€response€to€thatÐ D” Ðaccusation.€The€defendant€contends€that€Mr.€Knightððs€accusation€is€ð ðrank€hearsayðð€that€does€not€fallÐ -} Ðwithin€the€purview€of€any€evidentiary€rule€allowing€its€admission.€€The€trial€court€admitted€Mr.Ð f ÐKnightððs€statement€and€the€defendantððs€response€to€the€statement€under€Tennessee€Rule€of€EvidenceÐ ÿO Ð803(1.2)(B).€€Ð è 8 ÐÌà  àRule€803(1.2)(B)€provides€a€hearsay€exception€for€ð ða€statement€in€which€the€party€hasÐ º" ! Ðmanifested€an€adoption€or€belief€in€its€truth.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(1.2)(B).€€€€Ms.€Gooch€testified€thatÐ £#ó" Ðshe€overheard€a€conversation€between€Mr.€Knight€and€the€defendant€that€took€place€shortly€after€theÐ Œ$Ü# Ðdefendant€returned€from€his€errand€to€Revco.€€She€testified€that€Mr.€Knight€told€the€defendant€thatÐ u%Å $ Ðhe€was€ð ðpitiful€for€messing€with€a€little€white€girl,ðð€to€which€the€defendant€responded,€ð ðwhatever,Ð ^&®!% Ðman,€everybody€fool€[sic]€with€her.ðð€€We€find€that€the€trial€court€properly€found€that€these€statementsÐ G'—"& Ðare€admissible€under€the€hearsay€exception€for€adoptive€admissions€because€the€defendantððsÐ 0(€#' Ðresponse€to€Mr.€Knightððs€accusation€indicated€that€he€was€admitting€that€he€had€indeed€ð ðmessedÐ )i$( Ðwithðð€the€victim.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€Ð *R%) Ðâ âÐ ë*;&* Ðà  àThe€defendant€argues€that€these€statements€are€inadmissible€under€Rule€803(1.2)(B)€becauseÐ ° Ðâ âthis€rule€requires€that€a€prerequisite€to€the€admission€of€the€defendantððs€adoptive€admission€is€thatÐ ™é Ðthe€statement€to€which€the€defendant€is€responding€be€either€non„hearsay€or€fall€within€a€recognizedÐ ‚Ò Ðexception€to€the€hearsay€rule.€€He€argues€that€Mr.€Knightððs€statement€is€rank€hearsay€andÐ k» Ðaccordingly€bars€the€admission€of€the€defendantððs€response€to€that€statement.€€However,€we€can€findÐ T¤ Ðno€such€requirement€in€either€the€text€of€Rule€803(1.2)(B)€or€in€any€caselaw€discussing€theÐ =  Ðadmissibility€requirements€for€statements€admitted€under€this€rule.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(1.2)(B);Ð & v Ðòòsee,€e.g.,óó€òòState€v.€Heflinóó,€15€S.W.3d€519€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2000)€(finding€that€a€witnessððs€testimonyÐ  _ Ðrecounting€the€defendantððs€agreement€to€statements€made€by€his€co„defendant€was€admissible€underÐ ø H ÐRule€803(1.2)(B));€òòState€v.€Roland€John€Welchóó,€No.€Ô#†X×WXXX=l>#ÔÔ‡X×WXXX×WÔ01„C„01„9601„CC„00005Ô#†X×WXXX×W^#ÔÔ‡X=XXX×WÔ€,€1997€WL€414418,Ð á 1  Ðat€*4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€July€23,€1997)€(finding€that€a€witnessððs€testimony€recountingÐ Ê   Ðthe€defendantððs€co„conspiratorððs€statements€expressing€his€criminal€intent€and€the€defendantððsÐ ³  Ðsubsequent€silence€and€transportation€of€his€co„conspirator€to€the€crime€scene€was€admissible,€òòinterÐ œì  Ðaliaóó,€under€Rule€803(1.2)(B)).€€Thus,€the€defendantððs€argument€lacks€merit.Ð …Õ  ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òòòPropriety€of€Jury€Instruction€Regarding€Concealed€Evidenceóóó óÐ @ ÐÌÓ‹`Óà  àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€instructed€the€jury€that€if€it€found€thatÐ c Ðthe€defendant€had€indeed€concealed€or€attempted€to€conceal€evidence€of€his€crimes,€the€jury€couldÐ üL Ðdecide€what€weight€to€give€that€finding€and€it€could€infer€guilt€from€the€attempted€or€actualÐ å5 Ðconcealment€of€evidence.€€The€defendant€objects€to€this€instruction€now,€as€he€did€at€trial,€on€theÐ Î Ðbasis€that€the€instruction€is€not€supported€by€the€evidence€introduced€at€trial.€€The€defendant€madeÐ · Ðthis€same€allegation€of€error€in€his€direct€appeal€of€his€first€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Randall€Scottóó,€No.Ð  ð Ð01C01„9708„CR„00334,€1999€WL€547460,€at€*14€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€July€28,€1999).€Ð ‰Ù ÐHowever,€in€his€instant€appeal,€the€defendant€seems€to€assert€that€Ms.€Goochððs€testimony€reportingÐ r Ðthat€the€defendant€changed€from€his€soiled€clothing€when€returning€from€his€errand€and€put€this€Ð [« Ðclothing€under€his€bed€is€substantially€different€from€her€testimony€at€his€first€trial,€thus€requiringÐ D” Ðour€reconsideration€of€the€issue.€€€Specifically,€the€defendant€asserts€that€Ms.€Gooch€testified€duringÐ -} Ðcross„examination€that€the€defendantððs€clothing€was€visible€to€anyone€who€entered€his€bedroom,€thus€Ð f Ðmaking€a€finding€that€the€defendant€concealed€or€attempted€to€conceal€his€clothing€insupportable.€Ð ÿO ÐÌà  àThe€law„of„the„case€doctrine€bars€appellate€consideration€of€issues€that€have€been€previouslyÐ Ñ!!  Ðdetermined€in€an€earlier€appeal€of€the€same€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Preston€Carteróó,€No.€Ô#†X×WXXX=j^#ÔÔ‡X×WXXX×WÔW2000„02204„Ð º" ! ÐSC„DDT„DDÔ#†X×WXXX×W1h#ÔÔ‡X×WXXX×WÔ,€Ô#†X×WXXX×Wh#ÔÔ‡X×WXXX×WÔ2003€WL€22146113,€at€*5€(Tenn.,€Sep.€18,€2003Ô#†X×WXXX×Wáh#ÔÔ‡X×WXXX×WÔ)€(Southwest€Reporter€cite€not€yetÐ £#ó" Ðavailable)€(citing€Ô#†X×WXXX×WPi#ÔÔ‡X×WXXX×WÔòòState€v.€Jeffersonóó,€31€S.W.3d€558,€561€(Tenn.€2000)Ô#†X×WXXX×WÜi#ÔÔ‡X×WXXX×WÔ).€€As€in€the€instant€case,€whenÐ Œ$Ü# Ðan€initial€appeal€results€in€a€remand€for€a€new€trial,€in€the€new€trial€and€any€subsequent€appeals,€bothÐ u%Å $ Ðthe€trial€and€appellate€courts€are€bound€by€the€earlier€appellate€decisions.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€ReconsiderationÐ ^&®!% Ðof€the€previously€adjudicated€issue€is€only€warranted€if,€òòinter€aliaóó,€the€evidence€offered€at€the€secondÐ G'—"& Ðhearing€is€substantially€different€from€the€evidence€offered€at€the€initial€proceeding.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€Ð 0(€#' ÐÌà  àWe€do€not€find€that€Ms.€Goochððs€testimony€at€the€second€trial€substantially€differed€from€herÐ *R%) Ðtestimony€at€the€second€trial.€€During€the€first€trial,€Ms.€Gooch€testified€that€after€the€defendant€hadÐ ë*;&* Ðchanged€his€clothing,€he€ð ðhid€the€soiled€clothes€under€the€bed.ðð€€òòRandall€Scottóó,€1999€WL€547460,Ð Ô+$'+ Ðat€*14.€€During€the€second€trial,€Ms.€Gooch€testified€during€direct€examination€that€after€changingÐ ° Ðhis€clothing,€the€defendant€ð ðput€[his€soiled€clothes]€up€under€the€bed.ðð€€During€cross„examination,Ð ™é Ðthe€following€colloquy€took€place€between€the€defense€attorney€and€Ms.€Gooch:Ð ‚Ò ÐÌÓ€ P(н83 Óà8  àØ! !ØQ:€à0` Ð Ð à.€.€.€.€Now€if€I€understand€you€correctly,€you€are€saying€that€upon€comingÐ T¤ Ðback€into€the€room,€he€hid€these€clothes€that€youððve€just€identifiedÐ =  Ðunderneath€the€bed?Ð& v` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àA:€€à0` Ð Ð àYes,€sir.Ð _` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àQ:€€à0` Ð Ð àThat€is€what€you€are€saying?Ðø H` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àA:€à0` Ð Ð àUh„huh€(meaning€yes).Ðá 1 ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àQ:€à0` Ð Ð àAll€right,€and€it€was€necessary€for€you€to€pull€them€out€and€show€them€to€theÐ Ê   Ðpolice€who€couldnððt€see€them€otherwise;€is€that€right?г ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àA:€à0` Ð Ð àThey€didnððt€let€me€pull€them€out.€€I€pointed€them€out.€€à È à.€€Ðœì ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àQ:€à0` Ð Ð àAll€right,€but€the€police€could€not€see€these€clothes€because€they€wereÐ …Õ  Ðhidden?Ðn¾ ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àA:€à0` Ð Ð àI€guess€not.€€They€asked€me€where€they€was€at€[sic]€and€I€told€them€up€underÐ W§  Ðthe€bed.Ð@` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àQ:€à0` Ð Ð àWell,€that€is€what€I€am€trying€to€understand,€maððam.€€I€want€to€understandÐ )y Ðthat€these€things€had€been€hidden€underneath€the€bed€or€if€they€were€layingÐ b Ð[sic]€out€there€where€the€police€officers€could€just€look€them€straight€up€andÐ ûK Ðsee€them;€which€way?Ðä4` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àA:€à0` Ð Ð àActually,€it€was€like€underneath,€you€know,€half€way€like.€€You€could€seeÐ Í Ðthem€if€you€go€[sic]€in€the€room€and€just€peep€up€under€the€bed.€They€wasnððtÐ ¶ Ð[sic]€all€the€way€up€under.€€They€was€[sic],€you€now,€close€by,€like€up,€whenÐ Ÿï Ðyou€coming€towards.ЈØ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àQ:€à0` Ð Ð àIf€I€had€walked€into€that€room,€without€you€helping,€and€I€had€looked€aroundÐ qÁ Ðthat€room,€would€I€have€been€able€to€see€those€garments€that€you€are€tellingÐ Zª Ðus€about?ÐC“` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àA:€à0` Ð Ð àYes,€sir,€you€would€have€been€able€to€see€them.Ð,|` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌÌÌMs.€Goochððs€testimony€seems€to€indicate€that€the€defendantððs€clothes€were€at€least€partially€hidden,Ð Ð!   Ðbut€perhaps€visible€if€one€was€to€ð ðpeep€up€under€the€bed.ðð€€Ms.€Gooch€did€not€testify€that€theÐ ¹" ! Ðdefendant€had€not€hidden€his€clothes,€and€thus€we€cannot€say€that€her€testimony€ð ðsubstantiallyÐ ¢#ò" Ðdifferedðð€from€her€testimony€at€the€defendantððs€first€trial.€€Even€assuming,€òòarguendoóó,€that€Ms.Ð ‹$Û# ÐGoochððs€testimony€is€substantially€different€from€her€earlier€testimony€thus€warranting€ourÐ t%Ä $ Ðreconsideration€of€this€issue,€we€find€that€Ms.€Goochððs€testimony€presented€enough€evidence€toÐ ]&­!% Ðallow€the€jury€to€make€a€fact„finding€as€to€whether€the€defendant€had€indeed€concealed€the€clothingÐ F'–"& Ðthat€he€had€worn€earlier€that€day.€€Accordingly,€because€the€proof€was€sufficient€to€support€a€findingÐ /(#' Ðof€concealment,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€by€instructing€the€jury€on€the€issue€of€concealment€ofÐ )h$( Ðevidence.€€Ô#†X×WXXX×WWj#ÔÔ‡X×WXXX×WÔòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Phippsóó,€883€S.W.2d€138,€149€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€Ô#†X×WXXX×WÞ}#ÔÔ‡X×WXXX×WÔ€Thus,€this€issue€lacksÐ *Q%) Ðmerit.Ð ê*:&* ÐÐ Ó+#'+ ЇÌÓ  Óò òòòPropriety€of€Separate€Convictions€for€Rape€of€a€Child€and€Aggravated€Sexual€Batteryóóó óÐ ™é ÐÌÓë~Óà  àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€impermissibly€allowed€the€defendant€to€receiveÐ l¼ Ðseparate€convictions€for€rape€of€a€child€and€aggravated€sexual€battery,€arguing€that€allowing€separateÐ U¥ Ðconvictions€for€each€count€violates€his€due€process€rights€per€òòState€v.€Anthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€299Ð > Ž Ð(Tenn.€1991),€and€his€right€against€double€jeopardy.€€However,€the€defendant€raised€this€preciseÐ ' w Ðissue€in€his€first€direct€appeal,€and€this€Court€found€his€argument€meritless.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€RandallÐ  ` ÐScottóó,€No.€01C01„9708„CR„00334,€1999€WL€547460,€at€*15€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€JulyÐ ù I Ð28,€1999).€€As€discussed€òòsupraóó,€this€Court€may€therefore€only€revisit€this€issue€if,€òòinter€aliaóó,€theÐ â 2  Ðevidence€in€the€second€trial€differs€substantially€from€the€evidence€presented€at€the€first€trial.€€òòSeeóóÐ Ë   ÐÔ#†X×WXXX×Wn~#ÔÔ‡X×WXXX×WÔòòState€v.€Jeffersonóó,€31€S.W.3d€558,€561€(Tenn.€2000)Ô#†X×WXXX×W~ƒ#ÔÔ‡X×WXXX×WÔ.€€The€victim€testified€at€the€defendantððs€firstÐ ´  Ðtrial€that€the€defendant€digitally€penetrated€her€ð ðfront€private€partðð€and€then€ð ðplaced€his€penis€insideÐ í  Ðher€anus.ðð€€òòRandall€Scottóó,€1999€WL€547460,€at€*16.€€In€the€second€trial,€the€victim€testified€that€theÐ †Ö  Ðdefendant€touched€her€vagina€and€stomach€and€then€anally€penetrated€her.€€We€find€these€twoÐ o¿  Ðtestimonies€to€be€substantially€similar,€thus€barring€our€re„consideration€of€this€previouslyÐ X¨  Ðdetermined€issue.€òòSeeóó€òòJeffersonóó,€31€S.W.3d€at€561.Ð A‘ ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òòòSentencing€Challengeóóó óÐ üL ÐÌÓ¡†Óà  àThe€defendant€challenges€his€effective€thirty„five„year€sentence€as€excessive,€arguing€thatÐ Ï Ðthe€trial€court€erroneously€applied€three€enhancement€factors,€failed€to€apply€two€applicableÐ ¸ Ðmitigating€factors,€and€incorrectly€ordered€his€sentences€to€be€served€consecutively.€€In€theÐ ¡ñ Ðdefendantððs€first€direct€appeal,€he€challenged€his€sentence€as€excessive€alleging€the€same€groundsÐ ŠÚ Ðof€error,€and€this€Court€found€that€challenge€meritless.€We€can€find€nothing€in€the€record€of€theÐ sà Ðdefendantððs€second€trial€that€warrants€a€different€conclusion.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€challenges€the€applicability€of€enhancement€factors€(2),€(6),€and€(7)€to€hisÐ .~ Ðsentences.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(2),€(6),€(7)€(Supp.€2002).€€In€the€defendantððs€firstÐ g Ðappeal,€we€found€that€the€record€supported€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€enhancement€factor€(2),Ð  P Ðthat€ð ð[t]he€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€additionÐ é 9 Ðto€those€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range.ðð€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„114(2).€We€found€that€theÐ Ò!"  Ðdefendantððs€admitted€weekly€use€of€illegal€drugs€for€the€past€twenty€years€constituted€criminalÐ »" ! Ðbehavior€triggering€the€application€of€this€factor.€€òòSeeóó€òòRandall€Scottóó,€1999€WL€457460,€at€*19.€Ð ¤#ô" ÐDuring€the€defendantððs€second€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€relied€on€the€defendantððs€twoÐ $Ý# Ðprevious€convictions€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€his€range.€€As€additional€support€forÐ v%Æ $ Ðthe€application€of€this€factor,€the€state€introduced€evidence€that€the€defendant€had€continued€his€drugÐ _&¯!% Ðuse€while€incarcerated.€€We€find€that€these€facts€are€sufficient€to€warrant€the€application€of€thisÐ H'˜"& Ðfactor.Ð 1(#' ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€also€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€enhancement€factor€(6),€thatÐ *S%) Ðthe€defendant€treated€the€victim€with€exceptional€cruelty€during€the€commission€of€his€crimes.€òòSeeóóÐ ì*<&* ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€(6)€(Supp.€2002).Ô#†X×WXXX×Wùƒ#ÔÔ‡X×WXXX×WÔ€In€the€context€of€the€defendantððs€first€appeal,€weÐ Õ+%'+ Ðfound€that€the€application€of€this€factor€was€supported€by€the€defendantððs€use€of€vulgar€languageÐ ° Ðwhen€raping€the€victim,€the€victimððs€testimony€that€he€dragged€her€behind€the€shed€in€order€to€rapeÐ ™é Ðher,€and€expertsðð€testimony€indicating€that€the€defendant€used€an€excessive€amount€of€force€in€orderÐ ‚Ò Ðto€anally€penetrate€the€victim.€€In€the€second€trial,€the€victim€testified€that€the€defendant€usedÐ k» Ðunpleasant€language€when€raping€her.€€An€expert€recounted€that€the€victim€stated€that€the€defendantÐ T¤ Ðhad€thrown€a€rock€at€her€in€order€to€impede€her€escape.€€€There€was€also€medical€testimony€that€theÐ =  Ðvictim€sustained€a€deep€tear€to€her€anus€due€to€forceful€penile€penetration.€€We€find€that€thisÐ & v Ðevidence€similarly€supports€the€application€of€this€factor.Ð  _ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€also€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€a€third€factor,€factor€(7),€that€Ð á 1  Ðthe€victim€suffered€particularly€great€personal€injuries.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„114€(7).Ô#†X×WXXX×WZ#ÔÔ‡X×WXXX×WÔ€In€the€defendantððsÐ Ê   Ðfirst€appeal,€we€upheld€the€application€of€this€factor€based€on€the€evidence€of€the€victimððs€severeÐ ³  Ðemotional€trauma.€We€found€that€the€victimððs€inability€to€articulate€the€defendantððs€actions€and€theÐ œì  Ðtestimony€of€a€psychological€examiner€indicating€that€the€victim€would€require€much€additionalÐ …Õ  Ðtherapy€supported€the€application€of€this€factor.€€In€the€second€trial,€some€four€years€later,€the€victimÐ n¾  Ðwas€still€unable€to€articulate€the€nature€of€the€sexual€crimes€that€the€defendant€performed€on€her€andÐ W§  Ðtherefore€resorted€to€writing€down€the€details€of€her€attack,€allowing€the€prosecutor€to€share€herÐ @ Ðwritten€responses€with€the€jury.€€While€the€state€did€not€introduce€expert€testimony€regarding€theÐ )y Ðamount€of€psychological€care€that€the€victim€still€required,€the€trial€court€addressed€this€issue€in€itsÐ b Ðsentencing€order.€€The€trial€court€stated€that€ð ðwhile€the€physical€wounds€to€the€victim€have€healed,€Ð ûK Ðtheir€impact€on€the€mental€state€of€the€victim€is€still€as€raw€and€vicious€as€they€were€over€six€(6)Ð ä4 Ðyears€ago.ðð€€Based€on€the€victimððs€inability€to€articulate€the€details€of€her€rape€and€battery€and€basedÐ Í Ðon€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findings€regarding€this€matter,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€correctly€appliedÐ ¶ Ðthis€factor€to€the€defendantððs€sentences.Ð Ÿï ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€further€argues,€as€he€did€during€his€first€direct€appeal,€that€the€trial€courtÐ qÁ Ðerroneously€failed€to€apply€two€mitigating€factors.€€As€we€stated€in€our€opinion,€Ð Zª ÐÌà8  àÔ#†X×WXXX×Wi•#ÔÔ‡X×WXXX×WÔThe€defendant€also€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€apply€theÐ ,| Ðmitigating€circumstance€that€the€defendant€did€not€have€a€sustained€intent€to€violateÐ e Ðthe€law,€but€instead€committed€an€impulsive€act.€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð þN Ð113(11).€In€our€view,€this€factor€is€inapplicable.€The€facts€support€an€inference€thatÐ ç 7 Ðthe€defendant€followed€the€victim€to€the€Revco€and€then€followed€her€when€she€left.Ð Ð!   ÐWhen€she€tried€to€escape,€he€subdued€her.€These€facts€suggest€there€was€a€sustainedÐ ¹" ! Ðintent€to€commit€the€unlawful€acts.€The€defendant€also€contends€that€his€favorableÐ ¢#ò" Ðrecord€while€incarcerated€should€be€given€some€weight€under€the€ð ðcatch€allððÐ ‹$Û# Ðprovision€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„€35„113(13).€That€the€defendant€has€a€goodÐ t%Ä $ Ðrecord€of€behavior€while€incarcerated€could€arguably€be€a€mitigating€circumstance.Ð ]&­!% ÐIn€our€view,€however,€it€would€be€entitled€to€only€marginal€consideration.ÐF'–"&Ð Ð  ÐÌÌòòRandall€Scottóó,€1999€WL€547460,€at€*21.€€We€find€that€this€analysis€is€applicable€to€the€factsÐ *Q%) Ðintroduced€at€the€second€trial,€as€well.€€The€evidence€introduced€at€the€second€trial€similarly€supportsÐ ê*:&* Ðan€inference€that€the€defendant€followed€the€victim€into€and€out€of€the€Revco€and€used€physical€forceÐ Ó+#'+ Ðto€thwart€her€escape.€€Thus,€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€mitigate€the€defendantððs€sentence€based€onÐ ° Ða€finding€that€he€committed€an€impulsive€act€was€proper.€€Moreover,€the€defendantððs€use€of€illegalÐ ™é Ðdrugs€during€his€incarceration€reflects€that€his€ð ðgoodðð€behavioral€record€was€entitled€to€little€weight,Ð ‚Ò Ðif€any€at€all.€€Thus,€the€defendantððs€assertion€that€the€trial€court€should€have€applied€these€two€factorsÐ k» Ðin€order€to€lessen€his€sentence€is€unpersuasive.Ð T¤ ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€defendant€asserts,€as€he€did€in€his€first€appeal,€that€the€trial€court€erroneouslyÐ & v Ðordered€him€to€serve€his€twenty„five„year€sentence€for€rape€of€child€consecutively€to€his€ten„year„Ð  _ Ðsentence€for€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€In€the€defendantððs€first€appeal,€we€found€that€the€victimððsÐ ø H Ðsevere€emotional€damage€coupled€with€the€fact€that€the€defendant€committed€the€instant€crimesÐ á 1  Ðwhile€serving€a€probationary€sentence€warranted€consecutive€sentencing.€€òòSeeóó€òòRandall€Scottóó,€1999Ð Ê   ÐWL€547460,€at€*24.€€In€its€sentencing€order€after€the€second€trial,€the€trial€court€found€thatÐ ³  Ðconsecutive€sentences€were€justified€considering€that€the€defendant€committed€the€crimes€while€onÐ œì  Ðprobation,€that€the€victim€suffered€severe€emotional€damage€as€a€result€of€the€defendantððs€action,€andÐ …Õ  Ðin€order€to€protect€the€public€from€the€defendantððs€further€criminal€conduct€and€to€avoid€aÐ n¾  Ðdepreciation€of€the€seriousness€of€the€offenses.€€We€find€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€whenÐ W§  Ðsentencing€the€defendant€for€a€second€time€similarly€support€an€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences,Ð @ Ðas€they€did€when€the€defendant€was€sentenced€to€serve€consecutive€sentences€after€the€first€trial.€€Ð )y ÐÌà  àIn€sum,€the€defendantððs€sentencing€challenge,€which€is€virtually€identical€to€his€sentencingÐ ûK Ðchallenge€that€we€addressed€in€our€disposition€of€his€first€appeal,€lacks€merit.Ð ä4 Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àÌÌÌÓ  Óòòò òConclusionó óóóÐ ˆØ ÐÓ8¬ÓÌÔ#†X×WXXX×WÖœ#ÔÔ‡X×WXXX×WÔà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€find€that€none€of€the€defendantððs€allegations€merit€relief.€Ð [« ÐAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.Ô#†X×WXXX×W£¬#ÔÔ‡X×WXXX×WÔÐ D” ÐÔ#†X×WXXX×Wœ­#ÔÔ‡X×WXXX×WÔà  àà ` àÌÌÔ#†X×WXXX×Wó­#ÔÓ  ÓÔ#†¼„é»XX×W^#ÔÔ€X×WX»¼„éÔÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð º" ! Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGE