ÿWPCÌ* TÄap{K¸ +Ê7T«!G‚3ì#3IÇ2òwDK³ìëßJ²ø¥8 :ñ8²ãf5›Œ­«C“a\N\úßm »hûe`&³g~ˆŒSµ–›Jôý\«Å`.éù“rìhsŸ³OŸvÎü•-ÖˆO½M!ˆ¦ÃÑ–þÔ˜+ ýòF©ÙTÀΤ“" ífê¹o­>.+±¼Ý;ÏGŸçb—Ö#]8ßï¦!ã&imy®¦ÎïÙ‹qÚ–)&8±RæÔv ´8Å TžÅÊu ý=Êf%j{€ |¬ü0›ì°.´ƒ©ÆõWn KþwJo–º ˜ãÜGªK´JoZ¸¼\«6jbqÈŠÚÈW`å¼d#Áx %9 U+@? 0ˆ UN kU 0 DÀ z Ò~ àP^ 0È<wÆÆÎÆ”ÆZ4 N4'6]Eln mp‡‡‡‡‡‡¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥b­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ 0 ëµµî )Ž B·%·% 0¤Ô% D3x& D-«& 0KØ&Ø& AS#'Æv' 0¤<( 0Dà( A«$)$)ýÏ)˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»(uHš Z‹(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular aÝ ƒRF¦$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôùò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAlthough€the€defendant€was€indicted€for€a€violation€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„522€(rape€of€a€child),€thatÐ ° Ðstatute€was€not€codified€until€1992€because€funding€was€not€appropriated.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann,€ðð€39„13„522,€CodeÐ tÄ ÐCommission€Notes€(1991).€€Because€the€defendant€was€indicted€for€acts€that€he€allegedly€performed€in€late€1991,€theÐ 8ˆ Ðoffense€for€which€the€defendant€was€indicted€did€not€exist€at€that€time.€€€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÖÝ ƒRF¦$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôùò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIt€is€the€policy€of€this€Court€not€to€reveal€the€names€of€minor€victims€of€sexual€abuse.ɦŒ)â  ¾Ý ƒRF¦$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôùò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔA€1992€amendment€to€Ô_ÔTennÔ_Ô€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„502€deleted€the€subsection€that€prohibited€sexual€penetrationÐ ° Ðof€a€victim€less€than€thirteen€(13)€years€of€age€and€created€a€new€Class€A€felony€charge€of€rape€of€a€child.€€This€CourtÐ tÄ Ðheld,€in€òòState€Ô_Ôv.Ô_Ô€Caseóó,€884€S.W.2d€146€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€Ô_Ôhowever,Ô_Ô€that€aggravated€sexual€battery€was€still€aÐ 8ˆ Ðcrime€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„504€if€it€involved€a€victim€under€thirteen€(13)€years€of€age,€even€though€theÐ üL Ðsubsection€had€been€deleted.€€In€1993,€the€legislature€codified€this€decision€in€a€new€version€ofòòóó€section€504.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð À ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„504€(1997).€€Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5•jW) œd Ý ƒRF¦$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôùò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_Ô€In€that€case€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€held€that€failure€to€allege€a€culpable€mental€state€in€an€indictmentÐ ° Ðwas€fatal.3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Ý ƒRF¦$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôùò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôùòòôùÔThe€rule€mandates,€however,€that€certain€conditions€must€be€satisfied€before€the€evidence€may€be€admitted.€Ð ° ÐThe€conditions€which€must€be€satisfied€before€allowing€such€evidence€are:€(1)€The€court€upon€request€must€hold€aÐ tÄ Ðhearing€outside€the€jury's€presence;€Ô_Ô(2)€theÔ_Ô€court€must€determine€that€a€material€issue€exists€other€than€conductÐ 8ˆ Ðconforming€with€a€character€trait€and€must€upon€request€state€on€the€record€the€material€issue,€the€ruling,€and€the€reasonsÐ üL Ðfor€admitting€the€evidence;€and€(3)€Ô_ÔtheÔ_Ô€court€must€exclude€the€evidence€if€its€probative€value€is€outweighed€by€the€dangerÐ À Ðof€unfair€prejudice.€€In€this€case,€the€defendant€did€not€request€a€jury€out€hearing.Ð „Ô ÐÔ#†ôùòòôù~#Ô - ù-(|G2F¦$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€\E»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôùò»»Ô äÝ ƒRF¦$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôùò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔDictum€in€òòHolmanóó,€however,€suggests€that€use€of€the€other€crime€may€be€permissible€if€the€acquittal€was€basedÐ ° Ðon€something€other€than€insufficient€evidence.€€òòHolmanóó,€611€S.W.2d€at€413.€€€In€this€case,€the€acquittal€could€only€haveÐ tÄ Ðbeen€based€on€insufficient€evidence.€€There€was€no€question€that€the€victim€was€under€thirteen€(13)€years€of€age€at€theÐ 8ˆ Ðtime;€Ô_ÔthusÔ_Ô,€the€jury€must€have€concluded€that€the€state€failed€to€prove€an€ð ðunlawful€sexual€contact.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð üL Ððð€39„13„504. Ý ƒRF¦$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôùò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔThe€dissent€in€òòHolmanóó€notes€that,€by€adopting€this€rule,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€adopts€a€minority€view.€Ð ° ÐòòHolmanóó,€611€S.W.2d€at€413€(Fones,€J.,€dissenting)(citing€86€A.L.R.2d€1132).€€Moreover,€the€view€that€an€act€which€hasÐ tÄ Ðbeen€the€subject€of€acquittal€may€never€be€introduced€as€a€prior€crime€in€sentencing€has€been€rejected€in€sentencingÐ 8ˆ Ðproceedings,€because€ð ð[a]n€acquittal€is€normally€not€considered€for€evidentiary€purposes€to€equate€with€factual€innocence,Ð üL Ðonly€with€the€existence€of€a€reasonable€doubt.€€As€such,€an€acquittal€is€not€viewed€to€negate€the€possibility€that€criminalÐ À Ðinvolvement€may€be€shown€to€have€existed€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.ðð€òòState€v.€Desireyóó,€909€S.W.2d€20,€31Ð „Ô Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App)€€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1995).€€Finally,€because€prior€crimes€must€be€proven€by€clear€andÐ H ˜ Ðconvincing€evidence€and€guilty€verdicts€are€based€on€proof€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÐ  \ Ðdeclined€to€automatically€exclude€such€evidence€on€the€basis€of€collateral€estoppel.€€òòDowling€v.€United€Statesóó,€493€U.S.Ð Ð  Ð342,€110€S.€Ct.€668,€107€L.€Ed.€2d€708€(1990).€Ô_Ô€Nevertheless,€the€òòHolmanóó€decision€remains€the€law€in€Tennessee.Ô_Ô d(|3Ç$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€\E»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ç$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€\E»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK óÝ ƒRF¦$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôùò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôùòòôùÔU.S.€Const.€Amend€V;€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€10.€Ô#†ôùòòôù~#ÔÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€\E»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼\E»»»ÔÑ8€9XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î[d\EÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼\E»îî[d #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àSeptember€28,€1999€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X9X»¼\EÔÌò òÔ#†¼\E»XX9#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€JAMES€DAVID€Ô_ÔSHROPSHIREÔ_ÔòòóóÔ‡X9X»¼\EÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€as€of€Right€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€51598€€€€€€Richard€Ô_ÔBaumgartnerÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E1998„00872„CCA„R3„CDÐ ¥õ  ÐDecember€12,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X9XXX9ÔIn€March€1996,€James€David€Ô_ÔShropshireÔ_Ô,€the€defendant€and€appellant,€was€convicted€in€the€KnoxÐ xÈ  ÐCounty€Criminal€Court€of€aggravated€sexual€battery€and€simple€assault.€€Following€the€juryððs€verdict,Ð d´ Ðthe€trial€court€dismissed€the€simple€assault€charge.€€On€appeal,€the€defendant€challenges€hisÐ P  Ðconviction€for€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€He€raises€the€following€issues:€(1)€whether€the€evidenceÐ <Œ Ðwas€sufficient€to€support€the€conviction;€(2)€whether€a€variance€between€the€bill€of€particulars€andÐ (x Ðthe€proof€adduced€at€trial€was€fatal;€(3)€whether€the€defendantððs€conviction€violated€the€doubleÐ d Ðjeopardy€clauses€of€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions;€(4)€whether€the€state€madeÐ P Ðimproper€closing€arguments;€and€(5)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€state€to€introduceÐ ì< Ðevidence€that€the€defendant€had€committed€prior€bad€acts.€€Because€the€jury€heard€evidence€that€theÐ Ø( Ðdefendant€committed€a€crime€other€than€that€for€which€he€was€on€trial,€which€was€the€subject€of€anÐ Ä Ðacquittal,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed.Ô#†¼\E»XX9¶#ÔÔ‡X9X»¼\EÔÔ#†X9XXX9#ÔÔ‡X9XXX9Ô€Ô#†X9XXX9˜ #ÔÔ#†¼\E»XX9V #ÔÔ‡X9X»¼\EÔÐ ° ÐÓ ÓÌò òÔ€X9XXX9ÔTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Reversed€andÐ ˆØ ÐRemanded.ó óÐ tÄ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼\E»àX9þ #ÔÔ‡X9X.¼\EÔJerry€L.€Smith,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ôóó€and€òòJamesÐ L œ ÐÔ_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€J.óó,€joined.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌKenneth€F.€Irvine,€Jr.,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€James€David€Ô_ÔShropshireÔ_Ô.Ð #`" ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€Erik€W.€Ô_ÔDaabÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General,Ð è$8 $ ÐRandall€E.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General,€and€Ô_ÔCharmeÔ_Ô€Knight,€Assistant€District€Attorney,€forÐ Ô%$!% Ðthe€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.€€Ð À&"& ÐÓô ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ô‡Ìà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼\E»XX9# #ÔÔ‡X9X»¼\EÔÐ œì ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼\E»XX9å#ÔÔ‡X9X»¼\EÔÓ  Óò òòòÓÓà@!ìàFactual€BackgroundÔ#†¼\E»XX9C#ÔÔ‡X9X»¼\EÔóóó óˆÐ tÄ ÐÓÓà  àDuring€autumn,€1991,€A.L.,׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€a€seven„year„old€female,€was€living€with€her€grandmother,Ð L œ ÐGlenda€Shropshire,€and€Ms.€Shropshireððs€husband,€the€defendant.€ò òó óMs.€Shropshire€often€worked€atÐ 8 ˆ Ðnight,€and€the€defendant€worked€during€the€day.€ò òó óConsequently,€the€defendant€was€often€home€withÐ $ t ÐA.L.€at€night.€€ò òó óAfter€A.L.€overheard€Ms.€Shropshire€and€Ms.€Shropshireððs€daughter€(A.L.ððs€mother)Ð  ` Ðdiscussing€child€molestation€in€July€1992,€A.L.€told€her€mother€and€grandmother€that€the€defendantÐ ü L  Ðhad€molested€her€back€in€1991.€ò òó óÐ è 8  Ðà  àMs.€Shropshire€took€A.L.€to€a€hospital€to€have€her€examined.€€ò òó óThe€hospital€referred€A.L.€toÐ Ô$  Ðthe€Department€of€Human€Services.€ò òó ó€DHS,€in€turn,€referred€A.L.€to€Dr.€Campbell,€a€child€abuseÐ À  Ðspecialist.€€Dr.€Campbell€examined€A.L.€in€September€1992€ò òó óand€determined€that€A.L.€had€some€sortÐ ¬ü  Ðof€trauma€to€her€genital€area€that€was€consistent€with€the€allegations€A.L.€had€made€about€theÐ ˜è  Ðdefendant.€ò òó óÐ „Ô  Ðà  àOn€May€5,€1993,€the€Knox€County€Grand€Jury€indicted€the€defendant€for€one€count€of€rapeÐ pÀ Ðof€a€child€and€two€counts€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Ô#†¼\E»XX9Í#ÔÔ‡X9X»¼\EÔ€€ò òó óDuring€the€trial€on€September€20,€1995,Ð \¬ ÐA.L.€testified€that€the€defendant€molested€her€on€several€occasions.€€First,€she€testified€that€sheÐ H˜ Ðwatched€the€movie€ð ðPeter€Panðð€with€the€defendant.€€During€the€movie,€the€defendant€picked€her€upÐ 4„ Ðand€pretended€that€A.L.€was€flying€around€the€room.€€ò òó óAs€he€was€holding€her,€the€defendant€touchedÐ  p ÐA.L.ððs€vagina.€ò òó ó€She€then€testified€that,€on€another€occasion,€the€defendant€was€alone€with€her€in€hisÐ  \ Ðbedroom€and€placed€his€finger€in€her€vagina.€ò òó ó€She€also€testified€that€he€did€that€again€on€a€separateÐ øH Ðoccasion.€ò òó ó€Finally€,€A.L.€recounted€two€episodes€in€which€the€defendant€forced€her€to€touch€his€penis,€Ð ä4 Ðò òó óand€one€incident€during€which€the€defendant€showed€her€a€ð ðwhite,€or€clearðð€substance€on€his€finger.€Ð Ð  Ðò òó óAfter€A.L.€finished€testifying,€the€state€called€Dr.€Campbell,€the€child€abuse€expert€who€examinedÐ ¼  ÐA.L.€€Dr.€Campbell€testified€that€her€examination€of€A.L.€yielded€results€consistent€with€the€charges.€Ð ¨ø Ðò òó óThe€state€then€rested.ò òó óÐ ”ä Ðà  àThe€defense€called€Ms.€Shropshire€as€its€first€witness.€€She€testified€that€she€did€not€believeÐ €Ð Ðthe€defendant€molested€A.L.€€ò òó óFollowing€Ms.€Shropshireððs€testimony,€the€defendant€testified.€€HeÐ l¼ Ðstated€that,€during€the€time€period€in€question,€A.L.€had€exhibited€inappropriate€behavior€toward€him,Ð X ¨ Ði.e.,€she€tried€to€see€him€in€the€shower€and€tried€to€ð ðrub€herselfðð€on€his€foot.€€ò òó óHe€also€testified€thatÐ D!” ÐA.L.€had€once€awakened€him€from€a€nap€by€trying€to€touch€his€genitals.€ò òó ó€After€the€defendantððsÐ 0"€  Ðtestimony,€the€defense€rested.€ò òó ó€Following€the€proof,€the€state€elected€one€of€the€incidents€in€whichÐ #l! Ðthe€defendant€allegedly€placed€his€finger€in€A.L.ððs€vagina€as€count€one€(aggravated€rape),€the€PeterÐ $X" ÐPan€incident€as€count€two€(aggravated€sexual€battery),€and€one€of€the€incidents€in€which€theÐ ô$D # Ðdefendant€allegedly€forced€A.L.€to€touch€his€penis€as€count€three€(aggravated€sexual€battery).€€ò òó óTheÐ à%0!$ Ðjury€acquitted€the€defendant€on€count€two€but€was€unable€to€reach€a€verdict€on€counts€one€and€three.€Ð ° Ðò òó óThe€judge€then€declared€a€mistrial€on€those€counts.ò òó óÐ œì Ðà  àThe€defendant€was€retried€for€one€count€of€aggravated€sexual€battery€and€one€count€ofÐ ˆØ Ðaggravated€rape€in€March€1996.€ò òó ó€The€proof€in€the€second€trial€was€almost€exactly€the€same€as€thatÐ tÄ Ðpresented€in€the€first€trial,€except€that€in€the€second€trial€the€defendant€did€not€testify.€ò òó ó€Just€as€in€theÐ `° Ðfirst€trial,€the€state€elected€one€incident€in€which€the€defendant€placed€his€finger€in€A.L.ððs€vagina€asÐ L œ Ðthe€aggravated€rape€and€one€of€the€incidents€in€which€the€defendant€forced€A.L.€to€touch€his€penisÐ 8 ˆ Ðas€the€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€ò òó óThe€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€aggravated€sexual€battery,€andÐ $ t Ðof€simple€assault,€a€lesser€included€offense€of€aggravated€rape.€€òòóóò òó óFollowing€the€Court€of€CriminalÐ  ` ÐAppealsððs€decision€in€òòState€v.€Roger€Dale€Hill,€Sr.óó,€01C01„9508„CC„00267,€1996€WL€346941(Tenn.Ð ü L  ÐCrim.€App.,€Nashville,€June€20,€1996),€however,€the€trial€court€dismissed€the€charges€against€theÐ è 8  Ðdefendant.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€reversed€the€òòHillóó€decision€in€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€954€S.W.2dÐ Ô$  Ð725€(Tenn.€1997),€and,€consequently,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€reinstated€the€defendantððsÐ À  Ðconvictions.€€Following€a€motion€by€the€defendant,€the€trial€judge€dismissed€the€simple€assaultÐ ¬ü  Ðconviction€because€it€had€been€charged€after€the€statute€of€limitations€had€expired.Ô#†¼\E»XX9?#ÔÔ‡X9X»¼\EÔò ò€ó ó€The€defendantÐ ˜è  Ðthen€moved€the€trial€court€to€dismiss€the€aggravated€sexual€battery€conviction,€but€the€trial€courtÐ ˆØ  Ðdeclined.€€ò òó óÔ#†¼\E»XX9(#ÔÔ‡X9X»¼\EԀРtÄ ÐÓ  Óò òòòÔ#†¼\E»XX9 )#ÔÔ‡X9X»¼\EÔSufficiencyÔ#†¼\E»XX9u)#ÔÔ‡X9X»¼\EÔÐ `° ÐÓ  Óóóó óà  àThe€appellant€first€contends€that€the€evidence€at€trial€was€legally€insufficient€to€convict€himÐ Lœ Ðof€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€In€Tennessee,€great€weight€is€given€to€the€result€reached€by€the€juryÐ 8ˆ Ðin€a€criminal€trial.€€A€jury€verdict€of€guilt€accredits€the€stateððs€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€inÐ $t Ðfavor€of€the€state.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€803€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2dÐ ` Ð54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).€€Therefore,€on€appeal€from€a€verdict€of€guilt,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongestÐ üL Ðlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€€òòStateÐ è8 Ðv.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Moreover,€a€guilty€verdict€removes€the€presumptionÐ Ô$ Ðof€innocence€which€the€appellant€enjoyed€at€trial€and€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt€on€appeal.€€òòStateÐ À Ðv.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€€The€appellant€has€the€burden€of€overcoming€thisÐ ¬ü Ðpresumption€of€guilt.€€òòId.óó€€Ð ˜è Ðà  àWhere€a€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€on€appeal,€the€relevant€questionÐ „Ô Ðfor€the€reviewing€Court€is€whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÐ pÀ Ðprosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyondÐ \ ¬ Ða€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,Ð H!˜ Ð2789,€61€L.€Ed.€2d€56€(1979);€òòState€v.€Abramsóó,€935€S.W.2d€399,€401€(Tenn.€1996).Ð 4"„  Ðà  à€ò òòòóóó óIn€this€case,€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€At€the€time€of€hisÐ  #p! Ðconviction,€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„504€(1991)€provided:Ð  $\" Ðà0  àà0` (#(#à(a)€Aggravated€sexual€battery€is€unlawful€sexual€contact€with€a€victim€by€theÐ ø$H # Ðdefendant€or€the€defendant€by€a€victim€accompanied€by€any€of€the€circumstancesÐ ä%4!$ Ðlisted€in€ðð€39„13„502(a).ÐÐ& "%` (#` (# Ðâ âÐ ¼' #& ÐOne€of€the€circumstances€listed€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„502(a)€was€that:€€(4)€the€victim€was€lessÐ ° Ðâ âthan€thirteen€(13)€years€of€age.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€€Ð œì Ðà  àIn€this€case,€the€victim€testified€that€she€was€under€thirteen€(13)€years€old€at€the€time€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðincident€in€question,€and€that€the€defendant€forced€her€to€touch€his€penis.€€This€constitutes€unlawfulÐ tÄ Ðsexual€contact€with€a€victim€under€thirteen€(13)€years€of€age.€€Thus€the€evidence€was€sufficient€toÐ `° Ðconvict€the€defendant€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð L œ ÐÌÓ  Óò òòòÔ#†¼\E»XX9Â)#ÔÔ‡X9X»¼\EÔBill€of€ParticularsÔ#†¼\E»XX936#ÔÔ‡X9X»¼\EÔóóó óÐ $ t ÐÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant€also€claims€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€because€the€proof€at€trial€variedÐ  ` Ðfrom€the€incidents€alleged€in€the€bill€of€particulars.€€Specifically,€the€defendant€claims€the€proofÐ ü L  Ðvaried€from€the€bill€of€particulars€because€(1)€the€bill€of€particulars€alleged€that€the€defendant€causedÐ è 8  Ðthe€victim€to€touch€his€penis€with€her€mouth,€but€the€victim€testified€at€trial€that€the€defendant€causedÐ Ô$  Ðthe€victim€to€touch€his€penis€with€her€hand,€and€(2)€the€proof€did€not€establish€that€the€incidentsÐ À  Ðhappened€within€the€time€period€alleged€in€the€bill€of€particulars.€€Because€we€find€that€any€variancesÐ ¬ü  Ðwere€neither€material€nor€prejudicial,€we€disagree.Ð ˜è  Ðà  àIn€this€case,€the€bill€of€particulars€stated€Ð „Ô  ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °Ò[t]hat€the€defendant€.€.€.€did€on€the€____€day€of€September,€1991,€andÐ pÀ Ðon€divers€and€diverse€dates€between€that€day€and€the€____€day€ofÐ \¬ ÐNovember,€1991,€sexually€penetrate€[A.L.]€by€placing€his€finger€inÐ H˜ Ð[her]€vagina.€€The€defendant€also€had€sexual€contact€with€[A.L]€byÐ 4„ Ðtouching€her€vagina€with€both€his€penis€and€his€mouth.€€TheÐ  p Ðdefendant€also€caused€[A.L.]€to€have€contact€with€him€by€causingÐ  \ Ð[her]€to€touch€his€penis€with€her€mouth.€.€.€.Ð øH ÐÓÂ6ÓÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÓ  ÓÓ  ÓThe€purpose€of€the€bill€of€particulars€is€to€provide€the€accused€with€sufficient€information€about€theÐ Ð  Ðoffense€alleged€in€the€indictment€to€permit€the€accused€(a)€to€prepare€a€defense,€(b)€to€avoidÐ ¼  Ðprejudicial€surprise€at€trial,€and€(c)€to€enable€the€accused€to€preserve€a€plea€of€double€jeopardy.€€òòStateÐ ¨ø Ðv.€Byrdóó,€820€S.W.2d€739,€741€(Tenn.€1991)€;€€òòState€v.€Campbellóó,€904€S.W.2d€608,€611€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ”ä ÐApp.€1995).€€Those€purposes€were€adequately€served€in€this€case.€€Ð €Ð Ðà  àA€variance€between€an€indictment€or€a€subsequent€bill€of€particulars€and€the€evidenceÐ l¼ Ðpresented€at€trial€is€not€fatal€unless€it€is€both€material€and€prejudicial.€€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€662€S.W.2dÐ X ¨ Ð590,€592€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Ealeyóó,€959€S.W.2d€605,€609€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€The€varianceÐ D!” Ðis€not€to€be€regarded€as€material€when€the€indictment€and€proof€substantially€correspond.€òòóó€òòState€v.Ð 0"€  ÐMayesóó,€854€S.W.2d€638,€640€(Tenn.€1993)€(citations€omitted).€€A€material€variance€occurs€only€ifÐ #l! Ðthe€prosecutor€has€attempted€to€rely€upon€theories€and€evidence€at€the€trial€that€were€not€fairlyÐ $X" Ðembraced€in€the€allegations€made€in€the€charging€instrument.€€òòId.óó;€òòEaleyóó,€959€S.W.2d€at€609.€€In€thisÐ ô$D # Ðcase,€although€the€bill€of€particulars€charged€that€the€defendant€had€forced€the€victim€to€touch€hisÐ à%0!$ Ðpenis€with€her€mouth,€the€victim€testified€that€the€defendant€forced€her€to€touch€his€penis€with€herÐ ° Ðhand.€€The€allegations€contained€in€the€bill€of€particulars€substantially€corresponded€with€this€proof.€Ð œì ÐFurthermore,€the€defendant€was€not€subject€to€unfair€surprise,€because€the€victim€had€given€the€sameÐ ˆØ Ðtestimony€in€the€first€trial.€€Therefore,€this€slight€variance€was€not€material.Ð tÄ Ðà  àThe€defendant€also€claims€that€the€victim€was€unable€to€consistently€testify€as€to€when€theÐ `° Ðoffense€took€place.€€In€òòByrdóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€recognized€that€in€most€child€sex€abuseÐ L œ Ðcases€the€state€is€unable€to€offer€the€specific€date€when€an€alleged€offense€occurred.€€òòóó€820€S.W.2dÐ 8 ˆ Ðat€741.€€When€the€timing€of€the€incident€is€not€an€essential€element€of€the€charges,€aòòóón€accused'sÐ $ t Ðconviction€may€be€affirmed€if€it€appears€the€defense€of€the€accused€was€not€hampered€by€the€lackÐ  ` Ðof€specificity€of€the€charging€instrument.€€òòId.óó€at€742.òòóó€€In€this€case,€the€victim€testified€that€theÐ ü L  Ðincidents€in€question€occurred€in€1991.€€Although€the€time€frame€in€the€bill€of€particulars€wasÐ è 8  Ðsomewhat€narrower€than€that€alleged€by€the€victim,€the€defendant€was€not€hampered€by€the€victimððsÐ Ô$  Ðfailure€to€testify€as€to€the€month€in€which€the€incidents€occurred.€€The€defendant€had€ample€noticeÐ À  Ðof€the€victimððs€testimony,€because€the€victimððs€testimony€in€the€second€trial€was€virtually€identicalÐ ¬ü  Ðto€her€testimony€in€the€first€trial.€€Furthermore,€the€defendant€did€not€present€an€alibi€defense€for€theÐ ˜è  Ðdates€set€forth€in€the€bill€of€particulars,€nor€has€he€offered€any€indication€that€he€might€haveÐ „Ô  Ðpresented€one€were€it€not€for€the€dates€in€the€bill€of€particulars.€€In€short,€the€defendant€has€failed€toÐ pÀ Ðshow€how€any€variance€between€the€bill€of€particulars€and€the€proof€at€trial€prejudiced€his€defense.€Ð \¬ ÐThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ð H˜ ÐÌÌÓç<ÓÓ  Óò òòòÔ#†¼\E»XX9ˆ6#ÔÔ‡X9X»¼\EÔDouble€JeopardyÔ#†¼\E»XX9"L#ÔÔ‡X9X»¼\EÔóóó óÐ  \ ÐÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àThe€appellant€also€claims€that€the€state€violated€his€double€jeopardy€rights€in€the€second€trial.€Ð øH ÐHe€argues€òòóóthat€because€the€jury€acquitted€him€of€aggravated€sexual€battery€(count€two€in€the€originalÐ ä4 Ðtrial),€the€acquittal€foreclosed€any€opportunity€the€state€may€have€had€to€subsequently€charge€himÐ Ð  Ðwith€a€similar€crime€during€the€time€period€listed€in€count€two€of€the€presentment.€€Because€countÐ ¼  Ðthree€of€the€presentment€charged€the€defendant€with€aggravated€sexual€battery€(the€same€statutoryÐ ¨ø Ðcrime€as€count€two€in€the€original€trial)€during€the€time€period€listed€in€count€two€of€the€presentment,Ð ”ä Ðthe€defendant€argues€that€this€is€a€violation€of€his€right€to€be€protected€against€double€jeopardy.€Ð €Ð ÐWhile€the€appellant€bases€his€argument€on€a€line€of€cases€beginning€with€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,€we€do€notÐ l¼ Ðagree€that€the€principles€announced€in€òòByrdóó€and€its€progeny€change€the€fundamental€meaning€ofÐ X ¨ Ðdouble€jeopardy.€€ð ðSuch€a€rule€would€create€an€insuperable€obstacle€to€the€administration€of€justiceÐ D!” Ðin€many€cases€in€which€there€is€no€semblance€of€the€type€of€oppressive€practices€at€which€theÐ 0"€  Ðdouble-jeopardy€prohibition€is€aimed.ðð€€òòWade€v.€Hunteróó,€336€U.S.€684,€688-689,€69€S.€Ct.€834,Ð #l! Ð836-837,€93€L.€Ed.€974€(1949).Ð $X" Ðà  àThe€double€jeopardy€prohibition,€which€protects€defendants€from€ð ðtwice€being€placed€inÐ ô$D # Ðjeopardy€for€the€same€offense,ðð€protects€against€(1)€a€second€prosecution€for€the€same€offenseÐ à%0!$ Ðfollowing€acquittal,€(2)€a€second€prosecution€for€the€same€offense€after€conviction,€and€(3)€multipleÐ Ì&"% Ðpunishments€for€the€same€offense.׃c×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€òòNorth€Carolina€v.€Pearceóó,€395€U.S.€711,€89€S.€Ct.€2072,€23€L.Ð ¸'#& Ðâ âEd.€2d€656€(1969).€€It€is€the€first€protection€that€is€at€issue€here.Ð ¤(ô#' Ðà  àIn€òòByrdóó,€the€trial€court€dismissed€a€multi„count€presentment€when€the€state€was€unable€toÐ ° Ðâ âsignificantly€narrow€a€broad€time„frame€alleged€in€that€instrument.€€Upholding€this€Courtððs€reversalÐ œì Ðof€the€trial€court,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€opined,€in€dictum,€that€the€broad€time„frame€allegedÐ ˆØ Ðin€the€presentment€did€not€violate€the€defendantððs€double€jeopardy€rights€because€ð ðthe€state€wouldÐ tÄ Ðobviously€be€stopped€from€initiating€subsequent€prosecutions€for€any€similar€offenses€against€theÐ `° Ðsame€victims€occurring€within€the€same€time€period.ðð€€òòByrdóó,€820€S.W.2d€at€741€(citations€omittedòòóó)òòóó.Ð L œ Ѐ€à  àThe€Supreme€Court€echoed€that€dictumòòóó€in€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€851€S.W.2d€134,€137€(Tenn.Ð 8 ˆ Ð1993).€€In€that€case,€the€Court€reversed€the€defendantððs€conviction€for€aggravated€sexual€batteryÐ $ t Ðbecause€although€the€state€had€presented€evidence€of€multiple€acts€that€could€constitute€aggravatedÐ  ` Ðsexual€battery,€the€trial€judge€had€neglected€to€force€the€state€to€elect€an€act€upon€which€to€rely.€€TheÐ ü L  ÐCourt€explained€that€the€election€requirement€normally€serves€to€(1)€allow€a€defendant€to€adequatelyÐ è 8  Ðprepare€for€trial,€(2)€protect€the€defendant€from€double€jeopardy,€and€(3)€protect€the€defendantððs€rightÐ Ô$  Ðto€a€unanimous€jury€verdict.€€òòSheltonóó,€851€S.W.2d€at€137€(citing€òòBurlison€v.€Stateóó,€501€S.W.2d€€801,Ð À  Ð803€(Tenn.€1973)).€€The€Court€then€opined€that€the€ð ðsecond€concern€[of€the€òòBurlisonóó€Court]€is€largelyÐ ¬ü  Ðmoot€[in€this€case],€because€an€accused€is€protected€from€double€jeopardy€for€the€type€of€offense€orÐ ˜è  Ðoffenses€charged€during€the€entire€time€period€covered€in€the€indictment.ðð€€òòSheltonóó,€851€S.W.2d€atÐ „Ô  Ð137€(citing€òòState€v.€Hardinóó,€691€S.W.2d€578,€580„81€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985)).Ð pÀ Ðà  àThis€case€is€distinguishable€from€òòByrdóó€and€òòSheltonóó€because€here€the€original€charge€endedÐ \¬ Ðin€a€mistrial.€€It€is€well„settled€that€the€protection€of€the€Double€Jeopardy€Clause€by€its€terms€appliesÐ H˜ Ðonly€if€there€has€been€some€event,€such€as€an€acquittal€or€a€conviction,€that€terminates€the€originalÐ 4„ Ðjeopardy:€€€"[W]ithout€exception,€the€courts€have€held€that€the€trial€judge€may€discharge€a€genuinelyÐ  p Ðdeadlocked€jury€and€require€the€defendant€to€submit€to€a€second€trial.€This€rule€accords€recognitionÐ  \ Ðto€society's€interest€in€giving€the€prosecution€one€òòcompleteóó€opportunity€to€convict€those€who€haveÐ øH Ðviolated€its€laws."€€òòArizona€v.€Washingtonóó,€434€U.S.€497,€509,€98€S.€Ct.€824,€832,€54€L.€Ed.€2d€717Ð ä4 Ð(1978)€(emphasis€added).€Thus,€neither€the€failure€of€a€jury€to€reach€a€verdict€nor€a€trial€court'sÐ Ð  Ðdeclaration€of€a€mistrial€following€a€hung€jury€is€an€event€that€terminates€the€original€jeopardy.€òòId.óó;Ð ¼  ÐòòRichardson€v.€United€Statesóó,€468€U.S.€317,€323-24,€104€S.€Ct.€3081,€3085,€82€L.€Ed.€2d€242,€250Ð ¨ø Ð(1984);€€òòState€v.€Mounceóó,€859€S.W.2d€319,€322€òòóó(Tenn.€1993).€€In€this€case,€the€jury€in€the€first€trialÐ ”ä Ðfailed€to€reach€a€verdict€as€to€counts€one€and€three.€Thus,€original€jeopardy€never€terminated€onÐ €Ð Ðeither€of€those€counts€until€the€juryððs€verdict€in€the€second€trial.€Ð l¼ Ðà  àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌÓ¹LÓò òòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼\E»XX9sL#ÔÔ‡X9X»¼\EÔClosing€ArgumentÔ#†¼\E»XX9`d#ÔÔ‡X9X»¼\EÔÐ 0"€  Ðó óóóÓ  Óà  àNext,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€stateððs€closing€arguments€were€improper,€because€theÐ #l! Ðprosecutor€argued€facts€not€properly€in€evidence.€€After€a€thorough€review€of€the€trial€record,€weÐ $X" Ðdisagree.€Technically,€this€issue€is€waived€due€to€counsel's€failure€to€impose€contemporaneousÐ ô$D # Ðobjections.€€T.R.A.P.€36(a);€€òòState€v.€Seayóó,€945€S.W.2d€755,€762€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€InÐ à%0!$ Ðaddition€the€defendantððs€argument€fails€on€the€merits.€€Ð Ì&"% Ðòòóóà  à"Trial€courts€have€substantial€discretionary€authority€in€determining€the€propriety€of€finalÐ ¸'#& Ðargument.€€Although€counsel€is€generally€given€wide€latitude,€courts€must€restrict€any€improperÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcommentary."€€òòCoker€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€357,€368€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(citing€òòSparks€v.€Stateóó,Ð )à$( Ð563€S.W.2d€564€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978)).€€The€broad€discretion€accorded€to€trial€courts€inÐ |*Ì%) Ðcontrolling€the€argument€of€counsel€"will€not€be€reviewed€absent€abuse€of€that€discretion."€€òòSmithÐ h+¸&* Ðv.€Stateóó,€527€S.W.2d€737,€739€(Tenn.€1975);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Paytonóó,€782€S.W.2d€490,€496€(Tenn.Ð ° ÐCrim.€App.€1989).€€The€bounds€of€proper€closing€argument€are€delineated€by€the€facts€in€evidence.€Ð œì ÐòòState€v.€Pulliamóó,€950€S.W.2d€360,€368€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Conversely,€facts€not€in€evidenceÐ ˆØ Ðmay€not€be€the€subject€of€comment€by€counsel€during€closing€argument.€€òòState€v.€Mackeyóó,€638Ð tÄ ÐS.W.2d€830,€836€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€òòóó€€Ð `° Ðà  àThe€defendant€first€complains€that€the€prosecutor€mischaracterized€the€pediatricianððsÐ L œ Ðtestimony€during€closing€argument.€€We€disagree.€€During€direct€examination,€Dr.€Campbell€wasÐ 8 ˆ Ðspecifically€asked€ð ð[W]ould€these€findings€be€consistent€with€a€finger€being€placed€in€the€childððsÐ $ t Ðvagina?ðð€€She€replied,€ð ð[Y]es,€any€object€actually€if€it€just€made€trauma€or€damage€to€that€area€thatÐ  ` Ðwould€heal€like€that.ðð€€Dr.€Campbell€further€testified€that€ð ð[the€findings]€would€be€extremely€unusualÐ ü L  Ðfor€accidental€injury.ðð€€In€his€closing€argument,€the€prosecutor€stated€ð ð[Dr.€Campbell]€told€you€thatÐ è 8  Ðthat€penetration€that€she€saw€is€exactly€consistent€with€what€happened.€€She€said€this€is€exactly€whatÐ Ô$  Ðshe€would€expect€to€find€if€a€finger€were€placed€inside€her€vagina.ðð€€Dr.€Campbellððs€testimonyÐ À  Ðindicated€that€the€injury€was€consistent€with€digital€penetration;€thus,€the€prosecutorððs€remark€wasÐ ¬ü  Ðnot€a€mischaracterization.€Ð ˜è  Ðà  àThe€defendant€also€complains€that€the€victim€was€allowed€to€testify€that€she€saw€ð ðwhite€stuffÐ „Ô  Ðon€the€fingerðð€of€the€defendant,€and€that€the€prosecutor€mentioned€this€in€his€closing€argument.€€AsÐ pÀ Ðwill€be€discussed€below,€this€testimony€was€relevant€not€only€to€show€the€relationship€between€theÐ \¬ Ðvictim€and€the€defendant,€but€to€refute€the€defenseððs€contention€that€the€victim€initiated€contact.€Ð H˜ ÐBecause€it€was€properly€admitted€as€evidence,€referring€to€it€in€a€closing€argument€was€not€error.€€Ð 4„ ÐÓìdÓÓ  Óà  àNext,€the€defendant€complains€that€after€describing€each€act€which€was€elected,€theÐ  p Ðprosecutor€stated€that€each€specific€act€occurred€more€than€once.€€Specifically,€the€prosecutor€statedÐ  \ Ðthat€ð ð[the€victim]€told€you€that€[the€defendant]€put€his€finger€inside€her€vagina.€€She€also€told€youÐ øH Ðthat€that€happened€more€than€one€time.ðð€€ò òó óThe€prosecutor€also€stated€ð ð[the€victim]€told€you€how€heÐ ä4 Ðmade€her€move€her€hand€up€and€down€on€[the€defendantððs]€penis.€€And€she€told€you€that€thatÐ Ð  Ðhappened€more€than€one€time.ðð€ò ò€€ó óDuring€trial,€the€victim€specifically€testified€that€the€òòóódefendantÐ ¼  Ðplaced€his€finger€in€her€vagina€twice,€and€that€he€forced€her€to€touch€his€penis€twice.€The€state'sÐ ¬ü Ðargument€was€properly€based€upon€evidence€that€had€been€presented€to€the€jury.€€Ð ˜è Ðà  àThe€defendant€also€complains€that€the€prosecutor€referred€to€other€evidence€outside€theÐ „Ô Ðrecord€in€his€closing€argument.€€Specifically,€the€prosecutor€stated€ð ð[the€victim]€told€Tammy€JuddÐ pÀ Ðwith€the€Department€of€Human€Services[:]€She€said€ððhe€abused€me.ðð€€What€did€she€tell€the€nextÐ \ ¬ Ðperson,€Nancy€Jackson€Eldridge?€€The€same€story,€ððthis€man€sexually€abused€me.ðððð€Again,€weÐ H!˜ Ðdisagree€with€the€defendant.€€During€cross€examination€of€the€victim,€the€defensò òó óe€attorney€asked€theÐ 4"„  Ðvictim€whether€she€remembered€telling€Nancy€Jackson€Eldridge€that€the€sexual€abuse€occurredÐ  #p! Ðduring€1991,€and€the€victim€responded€affirmatively.€€Furthermore,€During€the€stateððs€redirectÐ  $\" Ðexamination€of€the€victim,€the€victim€testified€that€Tammy€Judd€came€to€her€house€and€took€aÐ ø$H # Ðstatement€regarding€the€sexual€abuse.€€Finally,€during€the€defendantððs€closing€argument,€defenseÐ ä%4!$ Ðcounsel€stated€ð ð[a]€month€later€[A.L.]€talked€to€[Tammy€Judd],€a€police€officer.€€She€tells€the€storyÐ Ð& "% Ð[about€the€sexual€abuse]€again.ððò ò€€ó ó€Thus,€the€prosecutorððs€closing€argument€was€proper.€€Ð ¼' #& ÐThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ¬(ü#' ÐÓ  ÓÓÓÌÌÐ p+À&* Ðò òòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼\E»XX9²d#ÔÔ‡X9X»¼\EÔPrior€Bad€ActsÔ#†¼\E»XX9U|#ÔÔ‡X9X»¼\EÔóóó óÐ ° ÐÓ  Óà  àFinally,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€evidence€that€theÐ œì Ðdefendant€had€committed€sexual€crimes€other€than€the€ones€corresponding€to€the€counts€listed€in€theÐ ˆØ Ðpresentment.€€Specifically,€the€defendant€complains€that€the€prosecutor€should€not€have€been€ableÐ tÄ Ðto€elicit€testimony€(1)€that€the€defendant€gave€A.L.€ð ðmore€bad€touchesðð€than€those€elected,€(2)€thatÐ `° Ðthe€defendant€tried€to€force€A.L.€to€eat€ð ða€whitish,€clearishðð€substance€on€the€defendantððs€finger,€andÐ L œ Ð(2)€that€the€defendant€touched€A.L.ððs€vagina€while€the€two€watched€Peter€Pan.€Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àIn€Tennessee,€evidence€that€the€defendant€has€committed€other€crimes€is€governed€by€RuleÐ $ t Ðof€Evidence€404(b).€€The€rule€states:€ð ð[E]vidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs,€or€acts€is€not€admissibleÐ  ` Ðto€prove€the€character€of€a€person€in€order€to€show€action€in€conformity€with€the€character€trait.€€ItÐ ü L  Ðmay,€however,€be€admissible€for€other€purposes.ð ð€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€€The€rule€establishesÐ è 8  Ðprocedures€which€the€trial€court€must€use€in€deciding€whether€evidence€should€be€admitted€orÐ Ô$  Ðexcluded.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Only€in€an€exceptional€case€will€another€crime,€wrong,€or€bad€act€be€relevant€to€an€issueÐ À  Ðother€than€the€accused's€character.€€òòState€v.€Luellenóó,€867€S.W.2d€736òòóó,€740€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).Ð ¬ü  ÐSuch€exceptional€cases€include€identity,€intent,€motive,€opportunity,€or€rebuttal€of€mistake€orÐ ˜è  Ðaccident.€€òòId.óó€€In€this€case,€the€defendant€did€not€object€to€the€introduction€of€prior€acts;€thus,Ð „Ô  Ðtechnically,€this€issue€is€waived.€€T.R.A.P.€36(a).€€We€find,€however,€that€testimony€regarding€theÐ pÀ Ðð ðother€bad€touchesðð€and€the€substance€on€the€defendantððs€finger€was€admissible€to€show€theÐ \¬ Ðrelationship€between€the€defendant€and€the€victim,€the€opportunity€the€defendant€had€to€commit€theÐ H˜ Ðcrimes,€and€to€rebut€the€defenseððs€assertion€that€the€victim€and€the€defendant€were€never€aloneÐ 4„ Ðtogether.€€Furthermore,€the€victim€testified€that€these€events€€occurred€when€she€was€in€the€firstÐ  p Ðgrade,€before€Christmas.€€The€presentment€listed€the€applicable€time€period€as€September€andÐ  \ ÐNovember€1991.€although€Tennessee€does€not€have€a€ð ðsex„crimesðð€exception€to€the€generalÐ øH Ðprohibition€against€character€evidence,€we€are€satisfied€that€the€incidents€occurred€within€the€timeÐ ä4 Ðperiod€covered€in€the€presentment,€and€are€thus€admissible€pursuant€to€òòState€v.€Rickmanóó,€876€S.W.2dÐ Ð  Ð824€(Tenn.€1994).Ð ¼  ÐÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àAdmission€of€the€Peter€Pan€incident,€however,€was€prejudicial€to€the€defendant€for€otherÐ ¨ø Ðreasons.€€A€prerequisite€to€admitting€evidence€under€Rule€404(b)€is€that€the€trial€court€find€by€clearÐ ”ä Ðand€convincing€evidence€that€the€defendant€committed€the€prior€crime.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404Ð €Ð Ð(Advisory€Commission€Comments);€òòState€v.€DuBoseóó,€953€S.W.2d€649,€654€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.Ð l¼ ÐPartonóó,€694€S.W.2d€299,€303€(Tenn.€1985).€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€construed€theÐ X ¨ Ðrequirement€that€the€trial€court€find€that€the€defendant€committed€the€crime€by€clear€and€convincingÐ D!” Ðevidence€to€preclude€the€introduction€of€evidence€of€a€prior€crime€when€a€jury€has€acquitted€theÐ 0"€  Ðdefendant€of€committing€that€crime.€€In€òòState€v.€Holmanóó,€the€defendant€was€charged€with€theft€of€aÐ #l! Ðwrist€watch.€€611€S.W.2d€411€(Tenn.€1981).€€Over€the€defendantððs€objection,€the€trial€court€allowedÐ $X" Ðthe€state€to€introduce€evidence€that€the€defendant€had€previously€stolen€another€wrist€watch€in€theÐ ô$D # Ðsame€manner€he€had€stolen€the€watch€at€issue.€€The€trial€court€also€denied€the€defendant€theÐ ° Ðopportunity€to€prove€that€he€had€been€acquitted€for€the€previous€crime.€€The€Tennessee€SupremeÐ œì ÐCourt€reversed€the€conviction,€reasoning€that€Ð ˆØ ÐÓµˆÓÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òthe€effect€of€any€acquittal€is€to€render€less€than€ð ðclear€andÐ tÄ Ðconvincingðð€the€proffered€evidence€that€the€defendant€committedÐ `° Ðthe€prior€crime€.€.€.€.€€For€such€evidence€to€have€any€relevance€orÐ L œ Ðuse€in€the€case€on€trial,€the€jury€would€have€to€infer€that,€despiteÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€acquittal,€the€defendant€nevertheless€was€guilty€of€the€priorÐ $ t Ðcrime.€€No€such€inference€can€properly€be€drawn€from€an€acquittal€.Ð  ` Ð.€.€.׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Ð ü L  ÐÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒòòÓ  ÓHolmanóó,€611€S.W.2d€at€413.€€Thus,€the€Supreme€Court€announced€that€evidence€of€a€crime€for€whichÐ Ô$  Ðthe€defendant€was€acquitted€can€never€be€admissible€as€evidence€of€a€prior€crime€in€a€trial,€despiteÐ À  Ðits€relevance€on€issues€other€than€propensity.׃Ud×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ¬ü  Ðà  àIn€this€case,€the€state€introduced€evidence€during€the€second€trial€that€the€defendant€touchedÐ ˜è  Ðthe€victimððs€vagina€while€watching€Peter€Pan,€even€though€the€defendant€had€been€acquitted€of€aÐ „Ô  Ðcharge€made€in€connection€with€€that€behavior€in€the€first€trial.€€òòóó€This€incident€would€only€have€beenÐ pÀ Ðrelevant€if€the€defendant€had€intentionally€touched€the€victimððs€vagina.€€As€noted€above,€however,Ð \¬ Ðan€acquittal€precludes€the€possibility€of€an€inference€that€the€defendant€committed€the€crime.€Ð H˜ ÐFurthermore,€the€jury€in€the€first€trial€was€unable€to€reach€a€verdict€on€the€charge€under€review€here.€Ð 4„ ÐThus,€given€that€the€evidence€at€the€second€trial€was€almost€identical€to€the€first€and€the€possibleÐ  p Ðprejudicial€effect€of€introducing€evidence€of€a€crime€for€which€the€defendant€was€acquitted,€we€areÐ  \ Ðunable€to€conclude€that€exclusion€of€the€Peter€Pan€incident€would€not€have€affected€the€result€in€theÐ øH Ðsecond€trial.€Ð ä4 ÐÌÌâ âÐ ¨ø Ðà  àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed€and€remanded€for€a€new€trial€on€theÐ ° Ðâ âcharge€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.Ð œì ÐÓW‘ÓÔ#†¼\E»XX9¥|#ÔÔ€X9X»¼\EÔÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJERRY€L.€€SMITH,€JUDGE