ÿWPC8, Ãéûú–MàÚý•g™óL¶ÚáªØÂBŒ—ü¾}µleë— öÍŒç~­-w`L“å¸&²Ku’ö•4ZIºYq HÎÇúl9¾:Ðë¼H îTƒc«ä FN „GŽP¨u3Êé=N‰çã>¤ q´Ö™gæfŽÄÐ6Ë'ær=^è®^ã]6ýÕÚÚGC\Ñ ù³¦7*¯%p÷õжFÉõ±Êsåʾ‡–ÜKEŒµ(´pSë'ϾÔ<´¦Iˆ÷ìB;.o uì‚M¶Õ7\—1@}Ž}è!Q±§î8®~ÖŒ‚ömx…Ú„ŸaôMzhCAF uBßà(’F±Át¸µŸ­Ûv$’©Äïâ ÛHäÁ˜`×™ ½Ó½Iy¥²Œ2ú CxŸ6ÄbTmËýfÆH9)HEmHr[~žÜ0Û@SÎæk=Õ^»š:f¢–.ƈªG%65'òVˆñ*Òš,"dfD·\ÎàKðú$ßó%Ì‹¨ØÄï‹jŠ«q?>, ¤÷ÞûåôHkS5™jxãâ0‡2Í03Ó#솾¢^¶ÑCî¶@§DíÃgTÕ¤wú®Uinç‹qyÍÞ…Qç§ßZlZâÊ÷Ø/W#ÁÂUeNƒ %Ñ 0:×U_N (_ 0 D‡ ^ Ë w× 4Û ï þ m b  ' Þ' sNxHzÂEà)ââ+ H66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 0 ~+~+~+~+ B,˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular Ý ƒRëq$ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIt€is€the€policy€of€this€court€to€withhold€the€identity€of€minor€victims€of€sexual€offenses,€referring€to€themÐ ° Ðonly€by€their€initials.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2§*+â Yo†) ™¤k2t¦3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù-  öÝ ƒRëq$ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€his€brief,€Ô‡ôòòôÔthe€appellant€actually€cites€ð ð[Tenn.€R.€Evid.]€803,€Prior€Former€testimony.ðð€€Because€Tenn.€R.Ð ° ÐEvid.€803€does€not€contain€a€provision€relating€to€former€testimony,€we€will€assume€that€the€appellant€intends€to€relyÐ tÄ Ðupon€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€804(b)(1).Ô#†ôòòô’#Ô ÔÝ ƒRëq$ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAn€open€file€policy€does€not,€however,€relieve€a€prosecutor€of€his€obligation€under€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(c)Ð ° Ðto€notify€defense€counsel€if€he€ð ðdiscovers€additional€evidence€or€material€previously€requested€or€ordered,€which€isÐ tÄ Ðsubject€to€discovery€or€inspection€under€[Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16].ðð iÝ ƒRëq$ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAt€trial,€Special€Agent€DePriest€testified€that€ð ðthe€amount€of€information€that€was€requested€was€more€thanÐ ° Ðwhat€would€fit€into€the€trunk€of€a€Taurus€vehicle.€€It€was€a€tremendous€amount€of€information.ðð >Ý ƒRëq$ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€need€not€consider€the€effect€of€the€trial€courtððs€instruction€on€coercion€as€we€must€reverse€theÐ ° Ðappellantððs€convictions€and€remand€this€case€for€a€new€trial€due€to€the€courtððs€failure€to€instruct€the€jury€on€sexualÐ tÄ Ðbattery€as€a€lesser„included€offense€of€each€rape€charge.€€At€the€new€trial,€however,€the€trial€court€should€omit€anyÐ 8ˆ Ðinstruction€to€the€jury€on€coercion. Ý ƒRëq$ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€State€conceded€at€oral€argument€that€the€testimony€of€Hunter€Jones€concerning€his€relationship€withÐ ° ÐRB€might€have€been€admissible€for€the€purpose€of€explaining€the€source€of€the€semen€found€on€RBððs€underwear.€Ð tÄ ÐHowever,€the€appellant€has€never€asserted€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€412(c)(4)(ii)€as€a€basis€for€the€admission€of€JonesððÐ 8ˆ Ðtestimony. Ý ƒRëq$ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔConceivably,€the€interplay€of€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€806€and€the€appellantððs€introduction€of€his€own€exculpatoryÐ ° Ðstatement€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€106€would€avoid€Rule€608(a)ððs€apparent€requirement€that€the€appellant€be€a€witness.€Ð tÄ ÐHowever,€in€this€case,€the€appellantððs€exculpatory€statement€was€introduced€by€the€State€and€did€not€constituteÐ 8ˆ Ðhearsay.€ !Ý ƒRëq$ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note€that€the€appellant€did€assert€a€òòBradyóó€claim€in€his€motion€for€new€trial€but€elected€not€to€pursue€theÐ ° Ðissue€in€this€appeal. >Ý ƒRëq$ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSpecifically,€defense€counsel€requested€the€following€items:Ð ° Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à1.€€The€names€and€curriculum€vitae€of€all€laboratory€technicians,€supervisors,Ð tÄ Ðdirectors€and€any€other€personnel€involved€in€collecting€the€evidence,Ð 8ˆ Ðestablishing€the€test€methodology,€performing€and€interpreting€the€test€results,Ð üL Ðpreparing€the€final€report,€sampling€the€population€and€preparing€the€database€ofÐ À Ðgene€frequencies€that€may€be€used€to€calculate€the€probability€that€anyone€elseÐ „Ô Ðcould€have€contributed€the€evidence€reported€in€this€case.ÐH ˜` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à2.€€The€name€and€curriculum€vitae€of€any€expert€who€may€be€called€to€testify€inÐ  \ Ðthis€case.€ÐÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à3.€€The€procedures€manual€detailing€the€protocols€used€to€perform€the€testsÐ ” ä  Ðconducted€in€this€case.ÐX ¨ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à4.€€Provide€documentation€of€any€license€and/or€accreditation€that€the€laboratoryÐ  l  Ðmay€hold€for€using€PCR€methodologies€for€analysis€of€DNA€evidence€in€forensicÐ à 0  Ðcases.Фô ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à5.€€Provide€documentation€for€any€proficiency€testing€programs€that€theÐ h¸  Ðlaboratory€participates€that€covers€the€genes€assessed€used€in€this€case.Ð,| ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à6.€€Provide€the€laboratory€bench€notes€generated€in€this€case.Ðð@ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à7.€€Provide€the€PCR€raw€data€submitted€to€any€proficiency€testing€program€andÐ ´  Ðthe€reports€received€from€the€proficiency€testing€agency€indicating€whether€theÐ xÈ  Ðresults€submitted€were€correct€or€incorrect.€€Include€data€two€years€subsequent€toÐ <Œ Ðthe€time€when€the€tests€were€performed€in€this€case€up€until€the€present€time.ÐP` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à8.€€Documentation€of€the€laboratory€error€rate€in€forensic€DNA€testing.€€ThisÐ Ä Ðshould€include€reports€that€may€have€been€retracted,€errors€that€were€detected€byÐ ˆØ Ðthe€laboratory€after€a€report€was€submitted€or€errors€that€were€detected€by€otherÐ Lœ Ðpersons.Ð`` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à9.€€The€sampling€methodology€used€to€estimate€the€frequency€of€alleles€in€theÐ Ô$ Ðpopulation€sampled,€that€may€be€used€to€estimate€the€probability€that€anyone€elseÐ ˜è Ðcould€have€contributed€the€evidence€reported€in€this€case.Ð#\¬` x` x G #Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à10.€€The€criteria€used€to€determine€the€racial€and/or€ethnic€group€of€theÐ ° Ðpopulation€sampled.ÐtÄ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à11.€€The€place€of€birth€and€current€residence€(state,€county,€city)€of€the€subjectsÐ 8ˆ Ðsampled€to€estimate€the€frequency€of€alleles€used€in€this€case€to€calculate€theÐ üL Ðprobability€that€anyone€else€could€have€contributed€the€evidence€reported€in€thisÐ À Ðcase.ЄÔ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à12.€€The€method€used€to€estimate€the€allele€frequencies€in€the€populationÐ H ˜ Ðdetected€at€each€locus€assessed€in€this€case.Ð \` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à13.€€A€list€of€phenotypes€and/or€genotypes€stratified€by€racial€and/or€ethnicÐ Ð  Ðgroup€of€the€subjects€sampled€that€were€used€to€estimate€allele€frequencies€andÐ ” ä  Ðprobability€that€anyone€else€could€have€contributed€the€evidence€reported€in€thisÐ X ¨  Ðcase.Ð l ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à14.€€Studies€performed€and€raw€data€generated€to€determine€whether€the€allelesÐ à 0  Ðat€each€locus€assessed€in€this€case€are€in€Hardy„Weinberg€equilibrium€in€theÐ ¤ô  Ðpopulation€sampled€and€in€the€population€where€the€crime€was€committed.Ðh¸ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à15.€€Studies€performed€and€raw€data€generated€to€determine€if€the€frequency€ofÐ ,|  Ðalleles€used€to€estimate€probability€in€this€case€are€the€same€as€the€frequency€ofÐ ð@  Ðalleles€in€the€population€where€the€crime€was€committed.д ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à16.€€Provide€good€quality€photographic€copies€(not€Xerox€copies)€of€the€dotÐ xÈ  Ðblots€generated€in€this€case.à8À` x` xàÐ<ŒÀÀ Ѐ€(.G2ëq$¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòXXÔ dÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXÔÔ‡îLîXXù`ÔÑ€ÑÑ8€ù`XXdìdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñà@ttìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†Xù`XîîL\#ÔÔ‡¼A¥»XXù`ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àMarch€6,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ#†Xù`X»¼A¥o#ÔÌò òÔ‡îLîXXù`ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€òòóóv.€STEVEN€LEE€WHITEHEADòòóóÔ#†Xù`XîîL#Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Madison€CountyÐ  Z Ðà@@øøìàNo.€99„152€€€€€€Roy€B.€Morgan,€JudgeÐ ö F ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<¹` AßÐ º  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2000„01062„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€September€7,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ µ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Œ` AßÐ Ý  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€appellant,€Steven€Lee€Whitehead,€was€convicted€by€a€jury€in€the€Madison€County€Circuit€CourtÐ ˆØ  Ðof€three€counts€of€rape.€€Pursuant€to€the€appellantððs€convictions,€the€trial€court€imposed€concurrentÐ tÄ Ðsentences€of€ten€years€incarceration€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.€€On€appeal,€theÐ `° Ðappellant€presents€the€following€issues€for€our€review:€(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€excludingÐ Lœ Ðat€the€appellantððs€trial€evidence€of€other€sexual€behavior€by€the€victim;€(2)€whether€the€trial€courtÐ 8ˆ Ðerred€in€excluding€evidence€of€prior€false€testimony€by€the€victim;€(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erredÐ $t Ðin€failing€to€either€exclude€DNA€evidence€or,€in€the€alternative,€grant€the€appellant€a€continuance€ofÐ ` Ðthe€trial€date;€(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€excluding€evidence€concerning€the€appellantððsÐ üL Ðcharacter;€(5)€whether€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial€is€sufficient€to€support€the€appellantððsÐ è8 Ðconvictions€of€rape;€and€(6)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€sexualÐ Ô$ Ðbattery€as€a€lesser„included€offense€of€each€count€of€rape.€€Following€a€thorough€review€of€the€recordÐ À Ðand€the€partiesðð€briefs,€we€reverse€the€judgments€of€the€trial€court€due€to€the€courtððs€failure€to€instructÐ ¬ü Ðthe€jury€on€sexual€battery,€and€we€remand€these€cases€for€a€new€trial.Ð ˜è ÐÓ–ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgments€of€the€Circuit€Court€are€Reversed€andÐ pÀ ÐRemanded.ó óÐ \ ¬ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓNorma€McGee€Ogle,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,óó€andÐ 4"„! ÐòòDavid€H.€Welles,€J.óó,€joined.Ð  #p" ÐÌSam€J.€Ô_ÔWatridgeÔ_Ô,€Humboldt,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Steven€Lee€Whitehead.Ð ø$H $ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Kim€R.€Helper,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€JerryÐ Ð& "& ÐÔ_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Jody€Pickens,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€theÐ ¼' #' Ðappellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ¨(ø#( ÐÓ] ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÐ €*Ð%* ÐÌòòóóÓ  Óà@ìàò òòòI.€€Factual€Backgroundó óóóˆÐ X,¨', Ðà  àà ` àOn€March€16,€1999,€a€Madison€County€Grand€Jury€returned€an€indictment€chargingÐ D-”(- ÐÔ_Ôthe€appellant€with€three€counts€of€raping€RB,€the€fifteen„year„old€friend€of€his€daughter€Catie.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€TheÐ ° Ðindictment€arose€from€RBððs€allegation€that€the€appellant€sexually€assaulted€her€during€the€lateÐ œì Ðevening€hours€of€September€19,€1998,€and€the€early€morning€hours€of€September€20,€while€she€wasÐ ˆØ Ðspending€the€night€with€Catie€at€the€appellantððs€apartment€in€Jackson,€Tennessee.€€The€appellantððsÐ tÄ Ðcase€proceeded€to€trial€on€January€26,€2000.Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€trial,€RB€testified€that,€on€the€night€of€the€appellantððs€offenses,€she€and€Catie€wereÐ 8 ˆ Ðwatching€movies€with€the€appellant€in€the€living€room€of€his€apartment,€and€she€fell€asleep.€€WhenÐ $ t Ðshe€awakened,€RB€noticed€that€both€Catie€and€the€appellant€had€likewise€fallen€asleep,€and€the€movieÐ  ` Ðhad€ended.€€RB,€who€is€an€insulin„dependent€diabetic,€then€decided€to€give€herself€an€insulinÐ ü L  Ðinjection.€€Accordingly,€she€retrieved€her€syringes€from€her€overnight€bag€and€went€to€the€kitchenÐ è 8  Ðwhere€she€had€previously€placed€her€insulin€in€the€refrigerator.€€RBððs€activity€in€the€kitchenÐ Ô$  Ðawakened€the€appellant,€who€turned€off€the€television€and€the€videocassette€recorder€and€inquiredÐ À  Ðif€RB€was€ready€to€go€to€bed.€€RB€responded€affirmatively;€at€the€time,€she€was€already€dressed€inÐ ¬ü  Ðpreparation€for€bed,€wearing€underwear,€boxer€shorts,€and€a€shirt€that€the€appellant€had€loaned€to€her.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àRB€accompanied€the€appellant€to€the€bedroom€in€which€she€was€to€sleep€with€Catie.€Ð pÀ ÐThe€appellant€removed€clothing€from€the€bed€and€then€indicated€that€he€was€going€to€carry€hisÐ \¬ Ðsleeping€daughter€from€the€living€room€into€the€bedroom.€€Instead,€however,€the€appellant€merelyÐ H˜ Ðwent€into€the€hallway€and€turned€off€a€light€before€returning€to€the€bedroom.€€RB€recalled,€ð ðHe€wasÐ 4„ Ðtrying€to€joke€around,€laughing,€and€he€kind€of€jumped€on€the€bed€in€a€wrestling€kind€of€way.ðð€€SheÐ  p Ðtestified€that€the€appellantððs€behavior€ð ðmade€[her]€a€little€uncomfortable,ðð€and,€therefore,€she€askedÐ  \ Ðthe€appellant€to€go€to€the€living€room€and€get€Catie.€€At€this€point,€the€appellant€began€kissing€RBÐ øH Ðand€ð ðrubbingðð€her€ð ð[o]n€the€chest€and€down€towards€[her]€pants.ðð€€RB€told€the€appellant€to€stop€andÐ ä4 Ðattempted€to€pull€the€appellantððs€hands€away€from€her.€€Nevertheless,€he€succeeded€in€rubbing€herÐ Ð  Ðvagina€and€inserting€his€finger€into€her€vagina.€€When€RB€repeated€her€request€that€the€appellant€getÐ ¼  ÐCatie€from€the€living€room,€the€appellant€merely€responded,€ð ðItððll€be€all€right.€€Just€hold€on€aÐ ¨ø Ðsecond.ððÐ ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€appellant€next€positioned€RB€on€her€back€and€attempted€to€pull€her€boxer€shortsÐ l¼ Ðdown€her€legs.€€RB€ð ðgrabbedðð€her€boxer€shorts€and€once€again€asked€the€appellant€to€get€hisÐ X ¨ Ðdaughter.€€RB€recalled,€ð ðHe€kept€pulling€my€boxers€down,€and€I€kept€trying€to€pull€them€up,€but€heÐ D!” Ðheld€my€hands€and€pulled€them€down.ðð€€The€appellant€also€removed€RBððs€underwear€and€performedÐ 0"€  Ðcunnilingus€upon€her,€penetrating€RBððs€vagina€with€his€tongue.€€RB€recounted€to€the€jury,€ð ðI€wasÐ #l! Ðcrying€and€told€him€to€stop,€to€go€get€Catie,€and€since€I€didnððt€have€my€hands,€I€smashed€his€headÐ $X" Ðwith€my€legs,€and€that€didnððt€bother€him.ðð€€She€explained€to€the€jury€that€she€did€not€scream€becauseÐ ô$D # Ðshe€was€afraid€and€because€she€did€not€want€Catie€to€see€what€was€happening.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àFollowing€cunnilingus,€the€appellant€continued€to€hold€RBððs€hands€down€andÐ ¸'#& Ðremoved€his€own€shorts.€€He€then€engaged€in€sexual€intercourse€with€RB,€penetrating€her€vagina€withÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhis€penis.€€Only€after€ejaculating€on€RBððs€stomach€did€the€appellant€finally€leave€the€bedroom.€€RBÐ ° Ðimmediately€ran€to€the€bathroom€where€she€cleaned€her€stomach€and€wiped€herself€between€her€legsÐ œì Ðwith€her€underwear.€€RB€conceded€at€trial€that,€although€she€was€sore€following€the€appellantððsÐ ˆØ Ðassault,€she€did€not€suffer€any€bruises.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€appellant€soon€returned€to€the€bedroom€carrying€Catie€and€placed€his€daughterÐ L œ Ðon€the€bed.€€When€the€appellant€left€the€bedroom€once€again,€RB€began€crying€and€threw€an€alarmÐ 8 ˆ Ðclock€against€the€wall,€awakening€Catie.€€The€noise€also€caused€the€appellant€to€briefly€check€on€theÐ $ t Ðtwo€girls.€€He€inquired€if€RB€was€having€a€bad€dream€and€kissed€her€on€the€forehead€before€leavingÐ  ` Ðthe€bedroom€a€final€time.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€following€morning,€RB€awakened€at€approximately€9:30€a.m.€or€10:00€a.m.€€SheÐ Ô$  Ðbathed€before€dressing€and€returning€home.€€At€home,€RB€did€not€immediately€confide€to€her€parentsÐ À  Ðthat€she€had€been€raped.€€Instead,€she€first€spoke€with€her€boyfriend,€Hunter€Jones.€€Only€later€thatÐ ¬ü  Ðnight€did€she€finally€disclose€to€her€mother€the€appellantððs€offenses.€€Her€mother€then€drove€her€toÐ ˜è  Ða€local€hospital.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àRBððs€mother€also€testified€on€behalf€of€the€State€at€the€appellantððs€trial.€€SheÐ \¬ Ðconfirmed€that,€in€September€1998,€she€took€her€daughter€to€the€Jackson„Madison€County€GeneralÐ H˜ ÐHospital.€€She€explained:Ð 4„ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àMy€daughter€came€to€me€in€tears€after€she€had€tried€to€€„€„€She€didnððtÐ  p Ðtry€to€slash€her€wrists€to€kill€herself,€but€self„mutilation€was€involved,Ð  \ Ðand€it€terrified€me,€and€when€„€„€in€questioning€her,€she€finally€brokeÐ øH Ðdown€and€stated€to€me€that€she€had€been€raped,€and€we€went€[to€theÐ ä4 Ðhospital]€because€of€the€rape€situation.€€ÐÐ ` x` x ÐRB€gave€her€mother€the€boxer€shorts€and€the€underwear€that€she€had€worn€during€the€rapes,€and€herÐ ¼  Ðmother€in€turn€gave€the€items€to€the€Jackson€Police€Department.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àà ` àStacey€Hutchens,€a€sergeant€with€the€Jackson€Police€Department,€testified€at€trial€thatÐ €Ð Ðhe€was€the€lead€investigator€in€the€appellantððs€case€and€interviewed€RB€on€the€night€of€SeptemberÐ l¼ Ð20,€1998.€€Hutchens€described€RBððs€demeanor:Ð X ¨ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àShe€was€very€upset.€€Of€course,€she€had€to€tell€what€happened.€€SheÐ D!” Ðalready€had€told€it€to€one€officer€and€I€think€a€nurse€out€there,€and,€ofÐ 0"€  Ðcourse,€I€had€to€hear€it€again.€€So,€I€mean,€it€was€hard€for€her€to€goÐ #l! Ðthrough€it€that€third€time€again,€just€to€relive€it.Ð$X"` x` x ÐHutchens€also€interviewed€the€appellant,€who€denied€engaging€in€any€form€of€sexual€activity€withÐ ô$D # ÐRB.€€Moreover,€the€appellant€refused€to€provide€a€blood€sample€to€investigators,€and€Hutchens€wasÐ à%0!$ Ðforced€to€procure€a€search€warrant€in€order€to€obtain€the€sample.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€State€also€presented€the€testimony€of€Steven€M.€Wiechman.€€Wiechman€testifiedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthat,€at€the€time€of€these€offenses,€he€was€employed€as€a€special€agent€forensic€scientist€by€theÐ )à$( ÐTennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€(TBI)€and€worked€in€the€Serology€and€DNA€Unit€of€the€TBIÐ |*Ì%) ÐCrime€Laboratory€in€Jackson,€Tennessee.€€He€examined€the€underwear€worn€by€RB€at€the€time€ofÐ h+¸&* Ðthese€offenses€and€confirmed€the€presence€of€spermatozoa€and€sperm.€€However,€vaginal€swabsÐ ° Ðobtained€from€the€victim€contained€no€evidence€of€seminal€fluid.Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àChad€Johnson,€another€special€agent€forensic€scientist€working€in€the€Serology€andÐ tÄ ÐDNA€Unit€of€the€TBI€Crime€Laboratory€in€Jackson,€related€to€the€jury€that€he€conducted€polymeraseÐ `° Ðchain€reaction€(PCR)€DNA€analysis€on€a€ð ðcuttingðð€from€underwear€retrieved€from€RB€and€on€bloodÐ L œ Ðsamples€submitted€by€RB€and€the€appellant.€€The€cutting€yielded€a€mixture€of€DNA€profilesÐ 8 ˆ Ðð ðconsistent€with€both€the€victim€and€the€subject,€and,€therefore,€the€subject€couldnððt€be€excluded€asÐ $ t Ðthe€donor€of€that€stain.ðð€€After€completing€his€analysis,€Johnson€transported€a€ð ðcuttingðð€from€RBððsÐ  ` Ðunderwear€and€blood€samples€submitted€by€RB€and€the€appellant€to€the€TBI€Crime€Laboratory€inÐ ü L  ÐNashville€for€further€testing.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àRaymond€A.€DePriest,€a€special€agent€forensic€scientist€working€in€the€Serology€andÐ À  ÐDNA€Unit€of€the€TBI€Crime€Laboratory€in€Nashville,€testified€on€behalf€of€the€State€that€he€tooÐ ¬ü  Ðperformed€PCR€DNA€testing€on€a€cutting€of€the€underwear€obtained€from€RB€and€blood€samplesÐ ˜è  Ðsubmitted€by€RB€and€the€appellant.€€In€contrast€to€Special€Agent€Johnson,€DePriest€used€a€form€ofÐ „Ô  ÐPCR€DNA€testing€known€as€ð ðSTR.ðð€€DePriest€explained€that€ð ðSTRs€are€the€next€step€forward€intoÐ pÀ ÐDNA€profiling.€€They€supply€much€more€defining€information.€€They€give€DNA€a€much€greaterÐ \¬ Ðsense€of€uniqueness€and€identity€when€individualizing€or€trying€to€understand€could€a€stain€haveÐ H˜ Ðoriginated€from€an€individual€or€not.ðð€€Using€the€ð ðSTRðð€method,€DePriest€found€that€the€DNAÐ 4„ Ðprofile€extracted€from€RBððs€underwear€matched€the€DNA€profile€extracted€from€the€appellantððsÐ  p Ðblood€sample.€€Moreover,€DePriest€calculated€that,€within€the€Caucasian€population,€the€probabilityÐ  \ Ðthat€someone€other€than€the€appellant€contributed€the€DNA€found€on€the€underwear€was€one€in€658Ð øH Ðbillion;€within€the€black€population,€the€probability€was€one€in€215€trillion.€€He€noted,€however,€thatÐ ä4 Ðthe€TBI€officially€does€not€report€values€larger€than€the€world€population.€€Accordingly,€heÐ Ð  Ðconcluded€that€the€probability€that€someone€other€than€the€appellant€contributed€the€DNA€found€onÐ ¼  ÐRBððs€underwear€was€one€in€six€billion.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€to€the€means€by€which€he€calculated€the€above€probabilities,€DePriest€testified€thatÐ €Ð Ðhe€used€a€data€base€of€DNA€samples€provided€by€the€Perken„Elmer€Corporation.€€He€explained:Ð l¼ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àMany€of€the€crime€labs€across€the€United€States€are€using€theÐ X ¨ ÐPerken[„]Elmer€database.€€We€take€their€values,€place€them€into€theÐ D!” ÐFBIððs€software€and€actually€use€the€software€or€the€mathematics€thatÐ 0"€  Ðthe€FBI€has€put€forward€thatððs€been€accepted€nationally€to€generateÐ #l! Ðstatistical€values€or€our€final€numbers€that€we€use.Ð$X"` x` x ÐThe€special€agent€conceded€that€he€was€unaware€of€the€geographical€source€of€the€DNA€samplesÐ ô$D # Ðcontained€in€the€data€base.€€He€noted,€however,€that€the€data€base€used€by€the€TBI€had€beenÐ à%0!$ Ðcompared€with€data€bases€used€in€other€laboratories€in€the€United€States€and€had€satisfied€requisiteÐ Ì&"% Ðstandards.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€defense,€the€appellant€declined€to€testify€on€his€own€behalf.€€However,€he€didÐ )à$( Ðpresent€the€testimony€of€his€daughter,€Catie€Whitehead.€€She€testified€that,€prior€to€the€appellantððsÐ |*Ì%) Ðoffenses,€she€and€RB€were€very€good€friends.€€Moreover,€she€confirmed€that,€on€the€night€of€theÐ h+¸&* Ðappellantððs€offenses,€she€and€RB€were€staying€at€her€fatherððs€apartment.€€While€watching€a€movieÐ ° Ðwith€RB€and€her€father,€Catie€fell€asleep.€€She€was€awakened€at€approximately€2:30€a.m.€by€theÐ œì Ðappellant,€who€carried€her€to€the€bedroom€that€she€was€sharing€with€RB.€€When€Catie€entered€theÐ ˆØ Ðbedroom,€RB€was€already€in€bed,€butÔ#†Xù`XXXù`=#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€Catie€noticed€that€her€friend€was€crying.€€RB€buried€her€headÐ tÄ Ðin€her€pillows€in€an€apparent€attempt€to€hide€her€tears,€and,€when€Catie€inquired€if€anything€wasÐ `° Ðwrong,€RB€refused€to€confide€in€her.€€Catie€testified€at€trial€that€she€then€returned€to€the€living€room,Ð L œ Ðbut€her€father€remained€in€the€bedroom€with€RB€for€approximately€one€hour.€€When€he€emergedÐ 8 ˆ Ðfrom€the€bedroom,€the€appellant€claimed€that€he€had€fallen€asleep€and€asked€his€daughter€why€sheÐ $ t Ðhad€not€awakened€him.€€Finally,€Catie€recalled€that€RB€was€still€visibly€upset€the€following€morning.€Ð  ` ÐCatie€testified,€ð ð[I]t€looked€like€she€was€trying€not€to€cry.ðð€€Also,€RB€persisted€in€her€refusal€toÐ ü L  Ðconfide€in€Catie,€informing€her€ð ðthat€she€loved€[her]€and€she€didnððt€want€to€hurt€[her].ððÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€addition€to€the€appellantððs€daughter,€Dr.€Ronald€T.€Acton,€a€professor€at€theÐ À  ÐUniversity€of€Alabama€in€Birmingham,€Alabama,€testified€on€behalf€of€the€appellant.€€Dr.€ActonÐ ¬ü  Ðstated€that€he€worked€as€a€professor€in€the€Departments€of€Microbiology,€Epidemiology,€andÐ ˜è  ÐMedicine.€€He€was€also€the€director€of€the€Immunogenetics€DNA€Diagnostics€Laboratory€of€theÐ „Ô  ÐUniversity€of€Alabama€Health€Services€Foundation.€€With€respect€to€the€DNA€testing€performed€byÐ pÀ Ðthe€TBI€in€this€case,€Dr.€Acton€preliminarily€observed€that€a€DNA€sample€containing€more€than€oneÐ \¬ Ðindividualððs€DNA€profile€will€not€yield€statistical€probabilities€concerning€the€identity€of€the€sourceÐ H˜ Ðof€the€profiles.€€Moreover,€upon€studying€ð ðacetate€overlaysðð€or€charts€of€the€testing€performed€inÐ 4„ ÐNashville€by€Special€Agent€DePriest,€he€observed€that€at€least€one€sample€tested€by€DePriestÐ  p Ðappeared€to€contain€more€than€one€DNA€profile.€€Dr.€Acton€conceded,€ð ðI€donððt€know€which€[sample]Ð  \ Ðit€is.ððÐ øH ÐÌà  àà ` àDr.€Acton€further€observed€that,€assuming€only€one€profile€was€present€in€a€sample,Ð Ð  Ðð ðthere€are€certain€population€genetic€considerations€and€rules€that€one€has€to€follow€in€order€toÐ ¼  Ðcalculate€a€probability€that€someone€in€the€population€other€than€the€defendant€would€possess€thatÐ ¨ø Ðparticular€profile.ðð€€First,€one€would€need€to€compile€random€samples€of€DNA€from€unrelatedÐ ”ä Ðindividuals€for€purposes€of€comparison.€€Second,€in€compiling€the€random€samples,€one€would€needÐ €Ð Ðto€account€for€ð ðdifferent€frequencies€of€genes€that€vary€by€racial€groups€and€var[y]€by€ethnic€groupsÐ l¼ Ðwithin€a€racial€group.ðð€€Accordingly,€one€would€need€to€separate€samples€relating€to€different€races.€Ð X ¨ ÐMoreover,€Ð D!” Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àyou€would€hope€that€your€sample€of€individuals,€in€order€to€establishÐ 0"€  Ðthe€frequencies€of€a€given€set€of€genes,€would€be€.€.€.€a€large€enoughÐ #l! Ðsample€that€you€would€sort€of€take€into€consideration€all€the€variousÐ $X" Ðethnic€groups€within€a€race.Ðô$D #` x` x ÐFinally,€Dr.€Acton€emphasized€that€racial€and€ethnic€group€distributions€vary€in€different€geographicÐ à%0!$ Ðregions€of€the€country.€€Accordingly,€he€asserted€that€one€would€need€to€ensure€that€the€compilationÐ Ì&"% Ðof€random€samples€represents€the€racial€and€ethnic€composition€of€the€population€where€a€particularÐ ¸'#& Ðcrime€was€committed.€€The€doctor€concluded€that,€although€he€had€heard€of€the€Perken„Elmer€dataÐ ¤(ô#' Ðbase,€he€had€never€studied€the€data€base.Ð )à$( ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€rebuttal€of€Dr.€Actonððs€testimony,€the€State€recalled€Special€Agent€DePriest€to€theÐ h+¸&* Ðwitness€stand.€€DePriest€asserted€that€the€DNA€sample€obtained€from€RBððs€underwear€and€tested€inÐ ° ÐNashville€did€not€contain€a€mixture€of€DNA€profiles.€€DePriest€noted€that,€during€Dr.€ActonððsÐ œì Ðtestimony€concerning€the€presence€of€a€mixture€of€DNA€profiles€in€a€sample€tested€by€DePriest,€Dr.Ð ˆØ ÐActon€appeared€to€be€examining€an€ð ðacetate€overlayðð€or€chart€ofÐ tÄ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àwhat€is€our€national€control€or€called€the€ladder.€€It€is€a€mixture.€€ItððsÐ `° Ða€known€mixture.€€Itððs€a€nationally€published€mixture.€€The€sampleÐ L œ Ðwhich€is€the€panty€cutting€that€I€received€from€TBI€Agent€ChadÐ 8 ˆ ÐJohnson€was€not€picked€up€by€the€defense€expert,€and€that€is€not€aÐ $ t Ðmixture.€€Itððs€a€pure€DNA€profile€of€one€individual.€€As€my€reportÐ  ` Ðindicated,€I€was€able€to€get€very€good€results€.€.€.€and€the€profile€doesÐ ü L  Ðmatch€the€Defendant.Ðè 8 ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€trial,€the€jury€convicted€the€appellant€of€three€counts€of€rape.€Ð À  ÐThe€trial€court€conducted€a€sentencing€hearing€on€February€22,€2000,€and€imposed€concurrentÐ ¬ü  Ðsentences€of€ten€years€incarceration€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction€for€each€conviction.€Ð ˜è  ÐThe€appellant€now€challenges€his€convictions€in€this€appeal.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà@éé$ìàò òòòII.€€Analysisó óóóˆÐ \¬ Ðò òA.à0  àEvidence€of€Other€Sexual€Behavior€by€the€Victimó óÐH˜(#(# Ðà  àà ` àThe€appellant€first€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€exclusion€of€evidence€at€the€appellantððsÐ 4„ Ðtrial€pertaining€to€other€sexual€behavior€by€RB.€€Although€we€are€reversing€the€appellantððsÐ  p Ðconvictions€on€other€grounds,€we€will€address€this€issue€as€it€may€arise€upon€retrial€of€the€appellant.€Ð  \ ÐWith€respect€to€this€issue,€the€record€reflects€that,€on€January€24,€2000,€two€days€prior€to€hisÐ øH Ðscheduled€trial€date,€the€appellant€filed€a€ð ðMotion€to€Offer€Specific€Instances€of€Conduct€of€theÐ ä4 ÐVictimðð€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€412.€€In€his€motion,€the€appellant€described€testimony€that€heÐ Ð  Ðintended€to€introduce€at€his€trial€concerning€numerous€occasions€on€which€RB€engaged€in€orÐ ¼  Ðdiscussed€engaging€in€sexual€activity€with€other€persons€and€one€occasion€on€which€she€testifiedÐ ¨ø Ðfalsely€about€another€rape.€€The€appellant€alleged€that€ð ðthe€victimððs€pattern€of€past€sexual€behaviorÐ ”ä Ðwould€prove€that€victimððs€alleged€sexual€acts€with€the€accused,€if€true,€were€consensual.ðð€€InÐ €Ð Ðexplanation€of€his€failure€to€file€the€motion€within€ten€days€of€trial€as€required€by€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ð l¼ Ð412(d)(1)(i),€the€appellant€asserted€that€his€investigator€only€discovered€the€proffered€evidence€onÐ X ¨ ÐJanuary€20,€2000.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€trial€court€conducted€a€hearing€on€the€appellantððs€motion€on€January€26,€2000,Ð #l! Ðthe€scheduled€trial€date.€€At€the€hearing,€the€appellant€presented€the€testimony€of€his€investigator,Ð $X" ÐJanet€Morris.€€Morris€testified€that€she€was€employed€by€the€appellant€two€weeks€prior€to€theÐ ô$D # Ðscheduled€trial€date€and€had€since€submitted€to€defense€counsel€three€separate€reports€concerningÐ à%0!$ Ðother€sexual€behavior€by€RB.€€She€noted€that€she€submitted€her€final€report€one€week€before€theÐ Ì&"% Ðfiling€of€the€appellantððs€motion.€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€the€basis€of€Morrisðð€testimony,€the€trial€court€denied€the€appellantððs€motion.€Ð )à$( ÐSpecifically,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€motion€was€not€timely€because€the€proffered€evidence€didÐ |*Ì%) Ðnot€relate€to€a€newly€arisen€issue,€and€defense€counsel€could€have€obtained€the€evidence€earlier€withÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€exercise€of€due€diligenceÔ#†Xù`XXXù`ÇA#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô.€€The€trial€court€did,€however,€allow€the€appellant€to€make€an€offer€ofÐ ° Ðproof€for€purposes€of€appeal.Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€appellant€first€presented€the€testimony€of€the€victim,€RB.€€She€testified€that,Ð tÄ Ðfollowing€the€appellantððs€offenses,€she€engaged€in€sexual€relations€with€several€boys€who€wereÐ `° Ðapproximately€her€own€age.€€Specifically,€she€admitted€engaging€in€sexual€relations€with€a€boyÐ L œ Ðnamed€Russell€Parker€and€another€named€Tim€Bailey.€€Moreover,€while€initially€denying€engagingÐ 8 ˆ Ðin€sexual€relations€with€a€boy€named€Justin€Davis,€she€later€clarified€that€she€did€perform€oral€sexÐ $ t Ðupon€Davis.€€RB€further€added€that,€prior€to€the€appellantððs€offenses,€she€engaged€in€sexual€relationsÐ  ` Ðwith€her€boyfriend,€Hunter€Jones,€who€was€also€approximately€her€own€age.€€However,€she€deniedÐ ü L  Ðhaving€sex€with€Jones€at€any€time€during€the€week€immediately€preceding€these€offenses.€€Finally,Ð è 8  ÐRB€confirmed€that,€during€a€November€5,€1998€preliminary€hearing€in€the€appellantððs€case,€sheÐ Ô$  Ðtestified€that€she€was€the€victim€of€another€rape€that€occurred€on€the€New€Yearððs€Eve€preceding€theÐ À  Ðappellantððs€offensesÔ#†Xù`XXXù`ƒb#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô.€€RB€further€confirmed€her€testimony€that,€on€the€New€Yearððs€Eve€in€question,Ð ¬ü  Ðshe€was€with€three€friends€named€Lindsey€Lubbock,€Cheryl€Frazier,€and€Lisa€June.€€She€noted,Ð ˜è  Ðhowever,€that€her€friends€did€not€witness€the€rape,€nor€did€she€tell€her€friends€about€the€rape€or€reportÐ „Ô  Ðthe€rape€to€law€enforcement€authorities.Ô#†Xù`XXXù`h#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€€Ô#†Xù`XXXù`×i#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`ÔAdditionally,€she€conceded€that€she€did€not€know€theÐ pÀ Ðidentity€of€the€New€Yearððs€Eve€rapist€and€could€not€recall€the€location€of€the€rape.€€Nevertheless,€Ô#†Xù`XXXù`j#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`ÔsheÐ \¬ Ðfirmly€maintained€the€truth€of€her€testimony€at€the€preliminary€hearing.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€addition€to€RBððs€testimony,€the€appellant€presented€the€testimony€of€RussellÐ  p ÐParker,€who€confirmed€that€he€had€engaged€in€sexual€relations€with€RB.€€Specifically,€he€recalledÐ  \ Ðthat,€during€a€single€forty„€or€forty„five„day€time€period,€he€had€sex€with€the€victim€every€night.€Ð øH ÐMoreover,€a€boy€named€Robert€Pruitt€testified€that,€although€he€had€never€engaged€in€sexualÐ ä4 Ðrelations€with€RB,€he€was€present€when€she€invited€Tim€Bailey€to€have€sex€with€her.€€Hunter€JonesÐ Ð  Ðalso€confirmed€that€he€had€engaged€in€sexual€relations€with€RB.€€He€noted€that,€during€the€courseÐ ¼  Ðof€his€relationship€with€RB,€they€had€sex€once€every€two€or€three€weeks.€€Finally,€the€appellantÐ ¨ø Ðpresented€the€testimonies€of€Lindsey€Lubbock,€Cheryl€Frazier,€and€Lisa€June,€all€of€whom€deniedÐ ”ä Ðbeing€with€RB€on€the€New€Yearððs€Eve€preceding€these€offenses.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àTenn.€R.€Evid.€412€is€frequently€referred€to€as€Tennesseeððs€rape€shield€law€and€ð ðlimitsÐ X ¨ Ðthe€admissibility€of€evidence€about€the€prior€sexual€behavior€of€a€victim€of€a€sexual€offense,€andÐ D!” Ðestablishes€procedures€for€determining€when€evidence€is€admissible.ðð€€òòState€v.€Shelineóó,€955€S.W.2dÐ 0"€  Ð42,€45€(Tenn.€1997).€€In€essence,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€412€is€a€rule€of€relevance,€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€29Ð #l! ÐS.W.3d€427,€431€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€531€U.S.€916,€121€S.€Ct.€275€(2000),€that€rejects€theÐ $X" Ðð ðanachronistic€and€sexist€view[]€that€a€woman€who€had€sexual€relations€in€the€past€[i]s€more€likelyÐ ô$D # Ðto€have€consented€to€sexual€relations€with€a€specific€criminal€defendant,ðð€òòShelineóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€44.€Ð à%0!$ ÐSimultaneously,€the€rule€acknowledges€that€under€certain€circumstances€the€exclusion€of€evidenceÐ Ì&"% Ðabout€a€victimððs€sexual€behavior€may€violate€a€defendantððs€right€of€confrontation,€his€right€to€presentÐ ¸'#& Ða€defense,€and,€more€broadly,€his€right€to€a€fair€trial.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àà ` àAccordingly,€subsection€(b)€of€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€412€permits€the€introduction€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðreputation€or€opinion€evidence€of€a€victimððs€sexual€behavior€only€if€ð ðadmitted€in€accordance€withÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€procedures€in€subdivision€(d)€of€this€Rule€and€required€by€the€Tennessee€or€United€StatesÐ ° ÐConstitution.ðð€€Subsection€(c)€of€the€rule€more€extensively€provides:Ð œì Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àSpecific€instances€of€conduct.€„€Evidence€of€specific€instances€of€aÐ ˆØ Ðvictimððs€sexual€behavior€is€inadmissible€unless€admitted€inÐ tÄ Ðaccordance€with€the€procedures€in€subdivision€(d)€of€this€Rule,€andÐ `° Ðthe€evidence€is:ÐL œ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)€€Required€by€the€Tennessee€or€United€States€Constitution,€orÐ8 ˆ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)€€Offered€by€the€defendant€on€the€issue€of€credibility€of€the€victim,Ð $ t Ðprovided€the€prosecutor€or€victim€has€presented€evidence€as€to€theÐ  ` Ðvictimððs€sexual€behavior,€and€only€to€the€extent€needed€to€rebut€theÐ ü L  Ðspecific€evidence€presented€by€the€prosecutor€or€victim,€orÐè 8 ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(3)€If€the€sexual€behavior€was€with€the€accused,€on€the€issue€ofÐ Ô$  Ðconsent,€orÐÀ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(4)€If€the€sexual€behavior€was€with€persons€other€than€the€accused,€Ð¬ü ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8¸ ` x` xà(i)€€to€rebut€or€explain€scientific€or€medical€evidence,Ð ˜è  ÐorÐ„Ô ¸ ¸  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8¸ ` x` xà(ii)€to€prove€or€explain€the€source€of€semen,€injury,Ð pÀ Ðdisease,€or€knowledge€of€sexual€matters,€orÐ\¬¸ ¸  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8¸ ` x` xà(iii)€to€prove€consent€if€the€evidence€is€of€a€pattern€ofÐ H˜ Ðsexual€behavior€so€distinctive€and€so€closelyÐ 4„ Ðresembling€the€accusedððs€version€of€the€allegedÐ  p Ðencounter€with€the€victim€that€it€tends€to€prove€thatÐ  \ Ðthe€victim€consented€to€the€act€charged€or€behaved€inÐ øH Ðsuch€a€manner€as€to€lead€the€defendant€reasonably€toÐ ä4 Ðbelieve€that€the€victim€consented.ÐÐ ¸ ¸  ÐIf€evidence€of€a€victimððs€sexual€behavior€satisfies€either€subsection€(b)€or€subsection€(c),€€Tenn.€R.Ð ¼  ÐEvid.€412(d)(4)€further€requires€as€a€prerequisite€to€admissibility€a€determination€by€the€court€thatÐ ¨ø Ðthe€probative€value€of€the€evidence€outweighs€its€unfair€prejudice€to€the€victim.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àAgain,€the€appellant€argued€to€the€trial€court€that€evidence€of€RBððs€sexual€behaviorÐ l¼ Ðwas€admissible€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€412(c)(4)(iii)€relating€to€ð ða€pattern€of€sexual€behavior€soÐ X ¨ Ðdistinctive€and€so€closely€resembling€the€accusedððs€version€of€the€alleged€encounter€with€the€victimÐ D!” Ðthat€it€tends€to€prove€that€the€victim€consented€to€the€act€charged€or€behaved€in€such€a€manner€as€toÐ 0"€  Ðlead€the€defendant€reasonably€to€believe€that€the€victim€consented.ðð€€The€admissibility€of€theÐ #l! Ðevidence€rested€in€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòShelineóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€46.€€On€appeal,€this€courtÐ $X" Ðwill€only€ð ðfind€an€abuse€of€discretion€when€it€appears€that€a€trial€court€applied€an€incorrect€legalÐ ô$D # Ðstandard,€or€reached€a€decision€which€is€against€logic€or€reasoning€that€caused€an€injustice€to€theÐ à%0!$ Ðparty€complaining.ðð€€òòState€v.€Shuckóó,€953€S.W.2d€662,€669€(Tenn.€1997).€€In€this€case,€we€cannotÐ Ì&"% Ðconclude€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€excluding€evidence€of€RBððs€sexual€behavior€asÐ ¸'#& Ðwe€agree€that€the€tardiness€of€the€appellantððs€motion€precluded€admission€of€the€evidence.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àà ` àTenn.€R.€Evid.€412(d)€provides€in€relevant€part:Ð |*Ì%) Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àProcedures.€„€If€a€person€accused€of€an€offense€covered€by€this€Rule€Ð h+¸&* Ðintends€to€offer€.€.€.€under€subdivision€(c)€specific€instances€ofÐ ° Ðconduct€of€the€victim,€the€following€procedures€apply:Мì` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8¸ ` x` xà(1)€The€person€must€file€a€written€motion€to€offer€suchÐ ˆØ Ðevidence.Ðtĸ ¸  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8¸ ` x` xàà  à(i)€The€motion€shall€be€filed€no€later€than€tenÐ `° Ðdays€before€the€date€on€which€the€trial€is€scheduled€toÐ L œ Ðbegin,€except€the€court€may€allow€the€motion€to€beÐ 8 ˆ Ðmade€at€a€later€date,€including€during€trial,€if€the€courtÐ $ t Ðdetermines€either€that€the€evidence€is€newlyÐ  ` Ðdiscovered€and€could€not€have€been€obtained€earlierÐ ü L  Ðthrough€the€exercise€of€due€diligence€or€that€the€issueÐ è 8  Ðto€which€such€evidence€relates€has€newly€arisen€in€theÐ Ô$  Ðcase.ÐÀ ¸ ¸  ÐAddressing€the€procedural€requirements€of€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€412,€this€court€has€observed,€ð ðThe€policiesÐ ¬ü  Ðbehind€the€rape€shield€law€require€strict€compliance€with€the€procedures€set€forth€in€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ð ˜è  Ð412(d).€€ðð[P]rior€sexual€behavior€with€others€by€the€victim€is€altogether€inadmissible€unless€there€isÐ „Ô  Ðcompliance€with€Rule€412(d)€.€.€.€.ðððð€òòState€v.€Benjamin€F.€Dishmanóó,€No.€03C01„9610„CR„00361,Ð pÀ Ð1998€WL€191447,€at€*15€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€April€23,€1998)(alteration€in€original).€Ð \¬ ÐThus,€at€the€outset,€ð ðthe€trial€courtððs€exercise€of€its€discretion€was€limited€to€determining€whetherÐ H˜ Ðthe€testimony€presented€in€the€offer€of€proof€[related€to€a€newly€arisen€issue€or]€was€newlyÐ 4„ Ðdiscovered€evidence€or€evidence€which€could€not€have€been€discovered€beforehand€with€the€exerciseÐ  p Ðof€due€diligence.ððÔ#†Xù`XXXù` k#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€€òòId.óóÐ  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àFor€the€purpose€of€clarification,€we€note€that€the€appellant€does€not€mount€a€facialÐ ä4 Ðchallenge€to€the€constitutionality€of€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€412's€procedural€requirement€that€a€motion€toÐ Ð  Ðintroduce€other€sexual€behavior€by€the€victim€of€a€sexual€offense€be€filed€within€ten€days€of€trial.€Ð ¼  ÐòòCf.,€e.g.óó,€òòMichigan€v.€Lucasóó,€500€U.S.€145,€111€S.€Ct.€1743€(1991).€€Moreover,€he€does€not€claimÐ ¨ø Ðthat€the€ten„day€time€limitation€is€unconstitutional€as€applied€in€his€case.€€Rather,€the€appellantÐ ”ä Ðsimply€asserts€that€the€facts€of€his€case€fall€within€the€ambit€of€one€of€the€exceptions€to€the€ten„dayÐ €Ð Ðtime€limitation,€namely€the€exercise€of€due€diligence€did€not€avail€defense€counsel€in€obtaining€theÐ l¼ Ðproffered€evidence€at€an€earlier€date.€€He€explains€thatÐ X ¨ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[i]t€is€difficult,€if€not€impossible,€to€meet€the€[time€limitation]€of€RuleÐ D!” Ð412€under€the€circumstances€of€this€case,Ð0"€ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)€when€the€age€of€the€alleged€victim€is€15€and€one€does€notÐ #l! Ðnormally€suspect€sexual€conduct,Ð$X"` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)€when€the€sexual€acts€themselves€represent€a€broad€range.€.€.€.Ðô$D #` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(3)€when€writing€all€the€alleged€acts€about€a€15€year€old€girl€asÐ à%0!$ Ðreported€through€other€juveniles€requires€a€careful€and€meticulousÐ Ì&"% Ðreview€before€the€motion€may€be€filed,€andи'#&` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(4)€nondisclosure€by€the€State.Ф(ô#'` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àPreliminarily,€regardless€of€whether€ð ðone€.€.€.€normally€expect[s]€[other]€sexualÐ |*Ì%) Ðconductðð€by€a€fifteen„year„old€victim€of€a€sexual€offense,€such€conduct€is€not€so€improbable€as€toÐ h+¸&* Ðrelieve€defense€counsel€of€his€obligation€to€investigate.€€Moreover,€the€record€before€this€courtÐ ° Ðestablishes€that€appellantððs€counsel€was€in€fact€aware€of€the€possibility€of€other€sexual€behavior€byÐ œì ÐRB€well€in€advance€of€trial.€€Indeed,€defense€counsel€attached€to€his€motion€for€new€trial€aÐ ˆØ Ðpreliminary€investigation€of€such€behavior€that€was€authorized€by€his€predecessor€in€this€case,Ð tÄ ÐAttorney€Joe€H.€Byrd,€and€completed€on€June€4,€1999.€€In€light€of€this€preliminary€investigation,Ð `° Ðneither€the€ð ðbroad€rangeðð€of€RBððs€sexual€behavior€nor€defense€counselððs€need€to€carefully€andÐ L œ Ðmeticulously€review€allegations€of€sexual€behavior€prior€to€submitting€the€allegations€to€the€trialÐ 8 ˆ Ðcourt€in€a€Rule€412€motion€explain€defense€counselððs€failure€to€authorize€further€investigation€untilÐ $ t Ðtwo€weeks€prior€to€trial.€€Additionally,€like€the€trial€court,€we€note€that€the€ð ðbroad€rangeðð€of€RBððsÐ  ` Ðsexual€behavior€apparently€posed€no€difficulty€to€Investigator€Morris€in€collecting€the€disputedÐ ü L  Ðevidence.€€Finally,€notwithstanding€the€appellantððs€allegation€of€ð ðnondisclosure€by€the€State,ðð€theÐ è 8  Ðappellant€does€not€claim€in€this€appeal€that€the€State€violated€the€mandates€of€either€òòBrady€v.Ð Ô$  ÐMarylandóó,€373€U.S.€83,€83€S.€Ct.€1194€(1963),€or€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16€by€withholding€evidence€ofÐ À  Ðother€sexual€behavior€by€RB.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Indeed,€the€appellant€assumes€ð ðfor€the€purpose€of€this€argument€thatÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€State€did€not€know€of€the€alleged€victimððs€sexual€historyðð€and€concludes€by€asking,€ð ðIf€the€StateÐ ˜è  Ðdid€not€know,€how€could€the€Defendantððs€attorney€know?ðð€€The€answer€to€the€appellantððs€questionÐ „Ô  Ðwas€correctly€supplied€by€the€trial€court:€Defense€counsel€could€have€hired€Morris€more€than€twoÐ pÀ Ðweeks€prior€to€trial.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€any€event,€regardless€of€the€ten„day€time€limitation€of€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€412(d)(1)(i),Ð 4„ Ðthe€evidence€proffered€by€the€appellant€was€largely€inadmissible€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€412(c)(4)(iii)Ð  p Ðfor€the€purpose€of€proving€a€consensual€encounter,€and€the€appellant€does€not€claim€any€other€basis,Ð  \ Ðincluding€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions,€for€the€admission€of€the€evidence.€€òòCf.,€e.g.óó,Ð øH ÐòòShelineóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€47„48.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€òòShelineóó,€òòid.óó€at€46,€our€supreme€court€emphasized€that,€in€orderÐ ä4 Ðfor€evidence€of€sexual€behavior€to€qualify€for€admission€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€412(c)(4)(iii),Ð Ð  Ðð ðthe€sexual€conduct€must€be€ððso€unusual,€so€outside€the€normal,€that€it€had€distinctive€characteristicsÐ ¼  Ðwhich€make€it€the€complainantððs€modus€operandi.ðððð€Additionally,€the€court€emphasized€that,€ð ðtoÐ ¨ø Ðhave€probative€value€on€the€issue€of€consent,€the€pattern€of€distinctive€sexual€conduct€must€closelyÐ ”ä Ðresemble€the€defendantððs€version€of€facts.ðð€€òòId.óó€€The€appellant€in€this€case€not€only€failed€toÐ €Ð Ðdemonstrate€any€distinctive€characteristics€of€other€sexual€behavior€by€RB€but€also€denied€engagingÐ l¼ Ðin€any€sexual€activity€with€RB.€€In€other€words,€even€assuming€a€distinctive€pattern€of€sexualÐ X ¨ Ðbehavior€by€RB,€the€appellant€proffered€no€ð ðversion€of€the€alleged€encounterðð€with€which€to€compareÐ D!” Ðthe€behavior.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àà ` àFinally,€as€noted€earlier,€the€appellant€included€in€his€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€412€motionÐ $X" Ðevidence€purportedly€establishing€that€RB€previously€testified€falsely€about€being€the€victim€ofÐ ô$D # Ðanother€rape.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€asserted,€ð ðLindsey€Lubbock,€Cheryl€Frazier€and€Lisa€JuneÐ ° Ðwill€testify€that€[RB]€lied€about€a€rape€which€she€testified€at€the€preliminary€hearing€11/5/98€occurredÐ œì ÐDecember€31,€1997€or€January€1,€1998€(New€Yearððs€Eve).ðð€€Again,€the€testimonies€of€Lubbock,Ð ˆØ ÐFrazier,€and€June€disputed€RBððs€assertion€that€the€three€girls€were€with€RB€on€the€New€Yearððs€EveÐ tÄ Ðin€question.€€Notwithstanding€his€inclusion€of€this€evidence€in€his€Rule€412€motion,€the€appellantÐ `° Ðalso€asserted€that€the€evidence€was€ð ðadmissible€to€impeach€[RB].€€The€fact€that€she€was€sworn€underÐ L œ Ðoath€is€admissible€for€the€purpose€of€impeaching€where€it€shows€that€she€„€„€somebody€is€not€tellingÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€truth.ðð€€Defense€counsel€elaborated€that€the€proffered€evidence€revealed€ð ða€prior€inconsistentÐ $ t Ðstatement€that€shows€dishonesty.ðð€€He€explained€that,€if€RB€were€on€the€witness€stand,Ð  ` Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àI€would€ask€her€did€she€report€a€rape€prior€that€had€not€occurred,Ð ü L  Ðnumber€one;€that€if€she€testified€in€the€preliminary€hearing€that€a€rapeÐ è 8  Ðdid€occur,€that€she€couldnððt€say€where€it€was,€couldnððt€say€who€it€was,Ð Ô$  Ðcouldnððt€say€where€it€was,€any€of€those€things,€and€she€went€on€toÐ À  Ðname€three€people€who€she€said€was€with€her,€and€we€have€thoseÐ ¬ü  Ðthree€people€here,€and€we€anticipate€that€they€will€say€it€didnððtÐ ˜è  Ðhappen.Ð„Ô ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€trial€court€initially€agreed€that€the€proffered€evidence€ð ðcould€likely€come€inÐ \¬ Ðbecause€it€attacks€her€credibility,€from€the€standpoint€that€she€has€testified€falsely€in€the€past.ðð€Ð H˜ ÐHowever,€after€hearing€the€proffered€evidence€and€upon€further€reflection,€the€court€concluded:Ð 4„ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àI€think€because€of€the€nature€of€this€case,€weððve€still€got€to€rely€onÐ  p Ð412€to€some€extent,€and€for€that€reason,€looking€to€this€situation€andÐ  \ Ðwhat€the€real€issue€is€as€to€whether€these€three€individuals€were€there,Ð øH Ðnot€whether€or€not€this€happened,€Iððm€going€to€disallow€it€at€this€time.€Ð ä4 ÐDefense€counsel€still€has€in€the€record€what€these€three€would€haveÐ Ð  Ðsaid,€simply€they€werenððt€with€her€on€that€date,€if€their€memory€isÐ ¼  Ðcorrect.€€That€has€been€some€time€back.€€So€that€offer€of€proof€is€alsoÐ ¨ø Ðin€the€record€at€this€time.Дä` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€òòState€v.€Anthony€Lynn€Wyrickóó,€No.€E1999„02206„CCA„R3„CD,€2001€WL€472849,Ð l¼ Ðat€*16€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€May€4,€2001),€this€court€held€that€a€prior€false€accusation€ofÐ X ¨ Ðrape€does€ð ðnot€constitute€ððsexual€behaviorðð€as€contemplated€under€Rule€412ðð€and€is€not€subject€toÐ D!” Ðexclusion€under€the€rape€shield€law.€€Notably,€however,€the€trial€court€in€this€case€essentially€foundÐ 0"€  Ðthat€the€appellant€failed€to€establish€that€RBððs€former€testimony€concerning€the€New€Yearððs€Eve€rapeÐ #l! Ðwas€false.€€òòState€v.€Stinnettóó,€958€S.W.2d€329,€330€n.5€(Tenn.€1997);€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€104(b)Ô#†Xù`XXXù`À#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô.€€WeÐ $X" Ðcannot€say€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€this€finding€by€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Edisonóó,Ð ô$D # Ð9€S.W.3d€75,€77€(Tenn.€1999);€òòState€v.€Stamperóó,€863€S.W.2d€404,€406€(Tenn.€1993)òòóó.€€Accordingly,Ð à%0!$ Ðwe€cannot€say€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€excluding€the€proffered€evidence€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€412.€Ð Ì&"% ÐòòCf.,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Terry€Allen€Dominyóó,€No.€01C01„9512„CC„00404,€1997€WL€284591,€at€**3„4Ð ¸'#& Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€May€30,€1997),€òòreversed€on€other€grounds€byóó€òòState€v.€Dominyóó,€6Ð ¤(ô#' ÐS.W.3d€472€(Tenn.€1999).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð )à$( ÐÌò òB.à0  àEvidence€of€Prior€False€Testimony€by€RBó óÐh+¸&*(#(# Ðà  àà ` àThe€appellant€characterizes€as€a€separate€issue€his€contention€that€RBððs€formerÐ ° Ðtestimony€about€the€New€Yearððs€Eve€rape€was€admissible€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€804(b)(1),׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€andÐ œì Ðthe€testimoniesÔ#†Xù`XXXù``´#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€of€Lubbock,€Frazier,€and€June€were€admissible€as€prior€inconsistent€statementsÐ ˆØ Ðpursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€806€and€Ô#†Xù`XXXù`0¹#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`ÔTenn.€R.€Evid.€613.€€Ô#†Xù`XXXù`ù¹#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`ÔWe€preliminarily€note€that€the€appellantððsÐ tÄ Ðreliance€upon€these€rules€of€evidence,€a€tenuous€proposition€at€best,€is€undermined€by€the€completeÐ `° Ðabsence€from€his€brief€of€any€accompanying€argument.€€Tenn.€Ct.€of€Crim.€App.€Rule€10(b);€Tenn.Ð L œ ÐR.€App.€P.€27(a)(7).€€Moreover,€the€appellantððs€argument€before€the€trial€court€was€devoid€of€anyÐ 8 ˆ Ðreference€to€the€rules€governing€the€admission€of€hearsay€evidence.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€103(a)(2);€Tenn.Ð $ t ÐR.€App.€P.€36(a).€€In€any€event,€our€preceding€conclusion€that€the€trial€court€properly€applied€Tenn.Ð  ` ÐR.€Evid.€412€to€exclude€evidence€concerning€RBððs€former€testimony€entails€our€rejection€of€theÐ ü L  Ðappellantððs€contentionÔ#†Xù`XXXù`Pº#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô.€€Because€this€issue€may€arise€once€again€upon€retrial,€we€will€address€it€inÐ è 8  Ðmore€detail.Ô#†Xù`XXXù`»½#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`ÔÐ Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àRegardless€of€whether€RBððs€former€testimony€about€the€New€Yearððs€Eve€rapeÐ ¬ü  Ðconstituted€hearsay,€the€evidence€was€inadmissible€if€irrelevant.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€402.€€The€appellantÐ ˜è  Ðeffectively€conceded€in€the€trial€court€that€the€former€testimony€was€irrelevant€unless€RBððs€reportÐ „Ô  Ðof€another€rape€occurring€on€New€Yearððs€Eve€was€untruthful.€€We€have€already€noted€the€trial€courtððsÐ pÀ Ðfinding€that€the€ð ðprior€inconsistent€statementsðð€offered€by€the€appellant€failed€to€establish€theÐ \¬ Ðuntruthfulness€of€RBððs€former€testimony.Ô#†Xù`XXXù`l¾#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€€AdditionallyÔ#†Xù`XXXù`[Á#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô,€even€assuming€that€the€appellant€establishedÐ H˜ Ðthe€untruthfulness€of€RBððs€former€testimony,€he€failed€to€demonstrate€or€even€argue€the€admissibilityÐ 4„ Ðof€evidence€thereof€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€€Ô#†Xù`XXXù`«Á#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`ÔTenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b)€prohibits€theÐ  p Ðintroduction€as€substantive€evidence€of€ð ðother€crimes,€€wrongs,€or€acts€.€.€.€to€prove€the€character€ofÐ  \ Ða€person€in€order€to€show€action€in€conformity€with€the€character€traitðð€but€authorizes€theÐ øH Ðintroduction€of€such€evidence€ð ðfor€other€purposes.ðð€€Thus,€in€òòWyrickóó,€òòóóNo.€E1999„02206„CCA„R3„Ð ä4 ÐCD,€2001€WL€472849,€at€*21,€we€held:Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àLike€any€other€prior€wrong€or€act,€a€victimððs€prior€false€accusation€ofÐ ¼  Ða€sexual€offense€must€relate€to€a€fact€at€issue€at€trial€in€order€to€beÐ ¨ø Ðadmissible€substantively.€€Otherwise,€the€relevance€of€the€evidenceÐ ”ä Ðstems€from€its€tendency€to€show€that€the€victim€has€a€propensity€toÐ €Ð Ðlie,€a€purpose€that€directly€conflicts€with€Rule€404(b),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€Ðl¼` x` x ÐThe€appellant€does€not€contend€in€this€appeal€nor€did€he€contend€in€the€trial€court€that€the€relevanceÐ X ¨ Ðof€the€evidence€of€RBððs€prior€false€testimony€stemmed€from€anything€other€than€its€tendency€to€showÐ D!” Ðthat€RB€has€a€propensity€to€lie.€€Conversely,€the€appellant€does€not€contend€in€this€appeal€nor€did€heÐ 0"€  Ðexplicitly€contend€in€the€trial€court€that€he€was€entitled€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€608(b)€to€question€RBÐ #l! Ðon€cross„examination€concerning€prior€false€testimony€for€the€purpose€of€attacking€her€credibilityÐ $X" Ðas€a€witness.€€Ô#†Xù`XXXù`åÂ#ÔSignificantlyÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô,€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€€608(b),€ð ðthe€witnessððs€answers€must€be€taken€asÐ ô$D # Ðgiven.€€Other€witnesses€cannot€be€called€to€rebut€the€first€witnessððs€responses.ðð€€òòNeil€P.€Cohen€etÐ à%0!$ Ðal.,€Tennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€608.4,€at€350€(Michie€ed.,€3d€ed.€1995).Ô#†Xù`XXXù`~É#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`ÔÐ Ì&"% ÐÐ ¸'#& Ðà  àà ` àMoreover,€Ô#†Xù`XXXù`òÊ#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ôbecause€the€appellant€did€not€wish€to€introduce€RBððs€former€testimony€forÐ ° Ðthe€purpose€of€proving€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted€therein,€the€former€testimony€did€notÐ œì Ðconstitute€hearsay,€and€the€appellant€could€not€use€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€806€as€a€vehicle€for€attacking€RBððsÐ ˆØ Ðcredibility.Ô#†Xù`XXXù`€Ë#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€801(c).€€Again,€the€difficulty€with€the€evidence€proffered€by€the€appellantÐ tÄ Ðlay€not€in€its€hearsay€nature€but€in€its€lack€of€relevance.Ô#†Xù`XXXù`Í#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`ÔÐ `° ÐÌà  àà ` àFinally,€the€appellant€could€not€bypass€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b)€andÐ 8 ˆ ÐTenn.€R.€Evid.€608(b)€by€relying€upon€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€613.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€613€authorizes€theÐ $ t Ðadmission€of€evidence€of€prior€inconsistent€statements€to€impeach€the€credibility€of€a€witness.€€òòSeeÐ  ` Ðalsoóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€24€S.W.3d€274,€279€(Tenn.€2000).€€Ô#†Xù`XXXù` Î#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`ÔHowever,€the€rule€requires€that€the€priorÐ ü L  Ðstatement€be€inconsistent€with€the€witnessðð€òòtrialóó€testimony€rather€than€other€pre„trial€statements€orÐ è 8  Ðtestimony.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Michael€Bradyóó,€No.€M1999„02253„CCA„R3„CD,€2001€WL€30220,€atÐ Ô$  Ð*9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€January€12,€2001),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€2001);€òòsee€alsoóóÐ À  ÐòòDoochin€v.€U.S.€Fidelity€&€Guar.€Co.óó,€854€S.W.2d€109,€114òòóó€(Tenn.€App.€1993)(ð ðAlthough€the€ruleÐ ¬ü  Ðdoes€not€define€an€inconsistent€statement€as€one€inconsistent€with€a€statement€offered€at€trial,€weÐ ˜è  Ðthink€that€is€all€it€can€mean.ðð).Ô#†Xù`XXXù`Ð#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€€Also,€Rule€613€clearly€contemplates€the€impeachment€of€a€witnessððÐ „Ô  Ðtrial€testimony€by€the€witnessðð€òòownóó€prior€statement,€not€by€a€third€partyððs€statement.€€òòState€v.€MichaelÐ pÀ ÐN.€Greyóó,€No.€M1999„01428„CCA„R3„CD,€2000€WL€1681220,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,Ð \¬ ÐNovember€9,€2000);€òòJames€William€Taylor€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9809„CC„00384,€2000€WL€641148,Ð H˜ Ðat€*7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€May€19,€2000),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€2000).€€Ô#†Xù`XXXù`6Ó#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`ÔÐ 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àIndeed,€even€assuming€satisfaction€of€the€above€requirements,€Tennessee€courts€haveÐ  \ Ðlong€held€that€ð ð[e]xtrinsic€evidence€of€a€prior€inconsistent€statement€of€a€witness€is€inadmissible€toÐ øH Ðimpeach€the€statement€of€a€witness€on€cross„examination€as€to€collateral€matters.ðð€€òòState€v.€Mayoóó,Ð ä4 Ð735€S.W.2d€811,€817€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€We€acknowledge€the€observation€of€one€notedÐ Ð  Ðauthority€that€ð ðneither€Rule€613€nor€any€other€provision€in€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€indicatesÐ ¼  Ðwhether€the€collateral€fact€rule€[still]€applies.ðð€€òòNeil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,€Tennessee€Law€of€EvidenceóóÐ ¨ø Ððð€613.5,€at€413„414€(Michie€ed.,€3d€ed.€1995).€€òòBut€seeóó€òòState€v.€Electroplating,€Inc.óó,€990€S.W.2d€211,Ð ”ä Ð226€n.17€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998)(observing€in€dicta€that€the€collateral€evidence€rule€is€applied€inÐ €Ð Ðconjunction€with€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€613).€€That€having€been€said,€the€witnessðð€trial€testimony€must€itselfÐ l¼ Ðsatisfy€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€including€rules€relating€to€relevance.€€In€other€words,€Tenn.Ð X ¨ ÐR.€Evid.€613€does€not€authorize€the€elicitation€of€testimony€from€a€witness€that€is€irrelevant€to€theÐ D!” Ðinstant€proceeding€for€the€sole€purpose€of€impeaching€the€testimony€with€a€prior€inconsistentÐ 0"€  Ðstatement.€€òòCf.óó€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€15€S.W.3d€880,€892€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,Ð #l! Ð(Tenn.€2000).Ô#†Xù`XXXù`¨Õ#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€€Ô#†Xù`XXXù`hÜ#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`ÔThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ð $X" ÐÌò òC.à0  àDNA€Evidenceó óÐà%0!$(#(# Ðà  àà ` àAnticipating€potential€discovery€issues€upon€retrial,€we€next€address€the€appellantððsÐ Ì&"% Ðcontention€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€exclude€DNA€evidence€proffered€by€the€State€or,€inÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€alternative,€grant€the€appellant€a€continuance€of€the€trial€date.€€The€appellant€filed€a€motion€onÐ ¤(ô#' ÐJanuary€24,€2000,€to€ð ðsuppressðð€any€DNA€evidence€proffered€by€the€State.Ô#†Xù`XXXù`¬Ü#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€€In€support€of€his€motion,Ð )à$( Ðthe€appellant€argued€that€the€State€had€violated€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16€by€failing€to€respond€to€hisÐ |*Ì%) Ðrequests€for€information€relating€to€DNA€testing€conducted€by€the€TBI.€€The€appellant€brought€theÐ h+¸&* Ðmotion€to€the€trial€courtððs€attention€on€January€26,€2000,€the€day€on€which€his€trial€was€toÐ ° Ðcommence.€€The€prosecutor€responded€that€the€appellantððs€motion€was€untimely€pursuant€to€Tenn.Ð œì ÐR.€Crim.€P.€12(b)(3).€€Additionally,€the€prosecutor€noted€that€the€appellant€had€been€grantedÐ ˆØ Ðcomplete€access€to€his€file,€and€Special€Agent€DePriest€had€invited€the€appellant€to€visit€the€TBIÐ tÄ ÐCrime€Laboratory€in€Nashville€and€review€any€materials€in€the€TBIððs€possession.€€The€prosecutorÐ `° Ðexplained€that€the€TBI€extended€the€invitation€to€the€appellant€instead€of€sending€requested€materialsÐ L œ ÐbecauseÐ 8 ˆ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àwhat€[defense€counsel]€.€.€.€requested€would€[have]€require[d]€threeÐ $ t Ðto€four€people€working€months€to€come€up€with€the€information€.€.€.Ð  ` Ð,€and€itððs€just€so€cumulative€and€itððs€so€burdensome,€it€would€requireÐ ü L  Ðthem€to€stop€everything€that€they€are€doing€and€respond€to€that.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ðè 8 ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€relevant€to€the€appellantððs€January€24,€2000€motion,€the€record€further€reflects€that,Ð À  Ðon€October€12,€1999,€defense€counsel€wrote€a€letter€to€the€prosecutor€assigned€to€the€appellantððs€caseÐ ¬ü  Ðrequesting€information€concerning€DNA€testing€conducted€by€the€TBI.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€On€October€15,€1999,€theÐ ˜è  Ðprosecutor€wrote€the€following€letter€to€defense€counsel:Ð ° Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThis€letter€is€to€acknowledge€receipt€of€your€letter€dated€October€12,Ð œì Ð1999,€and€this€letter€is€in€reference€to€you[r]€discovery€requests.€Ð ˆØ ÐPlease€be€advised€that€this€office€has€an€open€file€policy€concerningÐ tÄ Ðdiscovery€and€as€such€you€are€welcome€at€any€time€to€come€and€copyÐ `° Ðmy€entire€file.€€Also,€I€have€spoken€to€the€TBI€crime€lab€concerningÐ L œ Ðthis€matter€and€informed€them€that€you€may€be€calling€forÐ 8 ˆ Ðinformation.€€Any€information€concerning€the€TBI€and€DNA€testingÐ $ t Ðwill€have€to€come€from€them.€€If€you€have€any€difficulty€or€run€intoÐ  ` Ðany€problems€in€this€endeavor€please€do€not€hesitate€to€call€upon€me.Ðü L ` x` x ÐIn€turn,€defense€counsel€responded€in€a€letter€datedòòóóÔ#†Xù`XXXù`(ß#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€October€18,€1999,€that€he€did€ð ðnot€feelÐ è 8  Ðcomfortableðð€with€the€prosecutorððs€open€file€policy.€€He€further€informed€the€prosecutor€that€he€was,Ð Ô$  Ðtherefore,€filing€a€formal€motion€for€discovery€and€requesting€a€formal€response€by€the€State.€Ð À  ÐSimultaneously,€defense€counsel€contacted€the€TBI€directly€and€requestedÔ#†Xù`XXXù`ßê#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€the€items€originally€listedÐ ¬ü  Ðin€his€October€12,€1999€letter€to€the€prosecutorÔ#†Xù`XXXù`ì#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô.Ô#†Xù`XXXù`@í#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`ÔÐ ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€October€20,€1999,€defense€counsel€filed€a€motion€for€discovery,€to€which€the€StateÐ pÀ Ðresponded€by€reiterating€its€open€file€policy.Ô#†Xù`XXXù`ƒí#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€€Ô#†Xù`XXXù`‹î#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`ÔAccordingly,€on€December€3,€1999,€the€appellant€filedÐ \¬ Ða€motion€to€compel€discovery.€€The€trial€court€conducted€a€hearing€on€the€appellantððs€motion€onÐ H˜ ÐDecember€16,€1999.€€At€the€hearing,€the€appellant€principally€complained€that€he€had€not€yetÐ 4„ Ðreceived€ð ðdot„blotsðð€or€charts€of€preliminary€DNA€testing€performed€by€Special€Agent€Chad€JohnsonÐ  p Ðat€the€TBI€laboratory€in€Jackson.€€In€particular,€he€complained€that€he€had€experienced€someÐ  \ Ðdifficulty€determining€whether€the€ð ðdot„blotsðð€were€located€at€the€TBI€laboratory€in€Jackson€or€theÐ øH ÐTBI€laboratory€in€Nashville.€€The€prosecutor€clarified€that€Special€Agent€Johnsonððs€final€report€wasÐ ° Ðincluded€in€his€file€and€available€to€defense€counsel,€but€other€items€including€the€ð ðdot„blotsðð€wereÐ œì Ðlikely€located€at€the€laboratory€in€Nashville€where€the€TBI€was€conducting€further€testing.€Ð ˆØ ÐAdditionally,€the€prosecutor€noted€that€the€special€agent€conducting€the€testing€in€Nashville€had€notÐ tÄ Ðyet€issued€a€final€report.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€granted€the€appellantððsÐ `° Ðmotion.€€The€order€granting€the€appellantððs€motion€provides:Ð L œ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€Court€specifically€ordered€all€dot€blots€(good€qualityÐ 8 ˆ Ðphotographic€copies€(not€xerox€copies))€generated€in€the€case€(allÐ $ t Ðtests)€to€be€provided€Defendantððs€counsel€no€later€than€January€3,Ð  ` Ð2000.Ðü L ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€January€3,€2000,€the€State€notified€defense€counsel€that€photographic€copies€ofÐ Ô$  Ðthe€ð ðdot„blotsðð€generated€by€the€DNA€testing€performed€by€Special€Agent€Johnson€were€available.€Ð À  ÐAdditionally,€in€a€letter€dated€January€3,€2000,€the€prosecutor€communicated€to€defense€counsel:Ð ¬ü  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àI€have€also€talked€with€the€agent€in€Nashville€who€has€conducted€theÐ ˜è  Ðmore€precise€testing€and€he€has€informed€me€that€the€testing€that€heÐ „Ô  Ðdoes€cannot€be€photographed.€€Additionally,€Agent€Depriest€hasÐ pÀ Ðinformed€me€that€he€would€be€willing€to€allow€you€to€go€to€NashvilleÐ \¬ Ðand€follow€him€through€his€testing€of€DNA€samples.ÐH˜` x` x ÐSpecial€Agent€DePriest€reiterated€the€above€invitation€in€a€letter€dated€January€12,€2000,€that€wasÐ 4„ Ðaddressed€to€the€prosecutor€and€apparently€forwarded€to€and€received€by€defense€counsel€by€JanuaryÐ  p Ð14,€2000.€€In€the€letter,€DePriest€stated:Ð  \ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àI€have€recently€received€and€reviewed€the€two€DNA€discoveryÐ øH Ðrequests€(dated€12/8/99€and€1/11/2000)€for€laboratory€informationÐ ä4 Ðregarding€[the€appellantððs€case].€€In€[light]€of€the€short€time€periodÐ Ð  Ðand€vast€amount€of€information€requested,€I€have€been€authorized€toÐ ¼  Ðoffer€the€defense€the€opportunity€to€visit€the€TBI€crime€laboratory€toÐ ¨ø Ðview€and€discuss€all€of€the€requested€information.€€Given€the€volumeÐ ”ä Ðof€material,€this€would€greatly€facilitate€efficient€use€of€time€by€bothÐ €Ð Ðthe€state€and€defense€counsel.Ðl¼` x` x ÐThe€ð ðOfficial€Serology/DNA€Reportðð€setting€forth€the€results€of€Special€Agent€DePriestððs€DNAÐ X ¨ Ðtesting€was€attached€to€the€January€12,€2000€letter.€Ô#†Xù`XXXù`Ïî#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€The€appellant€filed€a€copy€of€DePriestððs€letterÐ D!” Ðand€a€copy€of€the€ð ðOfficial€Serology/DNA€ReportððÔ#†Xù`XXXù`ý#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€with€the€trial€court€on€January€18,€2000.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€ruling€upon€the€appellantððs€January€24,€2000€motion€to€exclude€DNA€evidenceÐ $X" Ðproffered€by€the€State,€the€trial€court€added€that,€following€the€hearing€on€the€appellantððs€motion€toÐ ô$D # Ðcompel€discovery,€the€court€again€met€with€the€parties€in€chambers€to€discuss€the€appellantððsÐ à%0!$ Ðdiscovery€of€DNA€evidence€and€that,€since€the€meeting€in€chambers,€the€court€had€received€noÐ Ì&"% Ðcommunications€from€defense€counsel€indicating€any€dissatisfaction€with€the€Stateððs€provision€ofÐ ¸'#& Ðdiscovery.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€agreed€with€the€State€that€the€appellantððs€motion€wasÐ ¤(ô#' Ðuntimely€under€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12.€€Moreover,€the€court€found:Ð )à$( Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIððve€got€to€look€to€the€spirit€of€Rule€16,€and€in€this€case,€itððs€beenÐ |*Ì%) Ðundisputed€that€the€State€has€agreed€to€furnish€their€experts€to€defenseÐ h+¸&* Ðcounsel,€to€defense€experts.€€Theyððve€offered€the€phone€numbers,€theÐ ° Ðlocation.€€Theyððve€offered€the€Stateððs€laboratory€procedures€andÐ œì Ðprotocol€and€everything€be€furnished,€and€you€go€up€there€at€yourÐ ˆØ Ðleisure€and€discover€all€that€you€want€to€discover,€and€I€take€it€thatððdÐ tÄ Ðbe€much€more€than€could€be€put€on€your€desk.€€I€think€that€sometimesÐ `° Ðdiscovery€can€get€over€burdensome,€but€theyððve€got€around€that€byÐ L œ Ðfurnishing€everything€to€you,€by€someone€appearing€on€behalf€of€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐDefendant,€be€it€an€expert€or€counsel,€or€both,€or€five€people,Ð $ t Ðwhatever€it€would€take,€and€thatððs€through€Mr.€DePriestððsÐ  ` Ðcooperation,€that€being€the€expert€witness.€€I€think€the€spirit€was€metÐ ü L  Ðunder€Rule€16.Ðè 8 ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àInitially,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(b)(3)€does€require€that€ð ð[m]otions€to€suppressÐ À  Ðevidenceðð€be€filed€prior€to€trial.€€Courts€have€interpreted€the€phrase€ð ðprior€to€trialðð€to€mean€that€aÐ ¬ü  Ðmotion€to€suppress€must€be€raised€ð ðððsometime€earlier€than€ð ðthe€day€of€the€trial€when€the€jury€isÐ ˜è  Ðwaiting€in€the€hall.ðððððð€òòSpicer€v.€Stateóó,€12€S.W.3d€438,€444€n.6€(Tenn.€2000);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,Ð „Ô  Ð701€S.W.2d€216,€217€(Tenn.€1985);€òòState€v.€Hamiltonóó,€628€S.W.2d€742,€744€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð pÀ Ð1981).€€Moreover,€ð ð[t]he€mere€filing€of€a€motion€to€suppress€is€not€sufficient€to€raise€an€issue€for€theÐ \¬ Ðcourt€to€decide.€€The€proponent€must€bring€the€motion€to€the€attention€of€the€trial€judge€and€obtainÐ H˜ Ða€ruling€thereon.ðð€€òòState€v.€Marvin€K.€Fergusonóó,€No.€03C01„9406„CR„00235,€1997€WL€401825,€atÐ 4„ Ð*2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€July€17,€1997),€òòaffirmed€byóó€òòState€v.€Fergusonóó,€2€S.W.3d€912Ð  p Ð(Tenn.€1999);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Burtisóó,€664€S.W.2d€305,€310€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€AlthoughÐ  \ Ðdefense€counsel€in€this€case€filed€his€motion€to€suppress€DNA€evidence€two€days€prior€to€trial,€heÐ øH Ðfailed€to€bring€the€motion€to€the€attention€of€the€trial€court€until€the€morning€of€trial.Ô#†Xù`XXXù`Pþ#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€€Accordingly,Ð ä4 Ðif€the€appellantððs€motion€was€subject€to€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(b)(3),€the€motion€was€indeed€untimely.€Ð Ð  ÐHowever,€in€òòState€v.€Cookóó,€9€S.W.3d€98,€101€(Tenn.€1999),€our€supreme€court€recently€quoted€withÐ ¼  Ðapproval€òòóóthe€following€construction€of€the€federal€counterpart€to€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(b)(3)€by€theÐ ¨ø ÐUnited€States€Court€of€Appeals€for€the€First€Circuit:Ð ”ä Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAt€least€as€used€in€12(b),€ð ðsuppressðð€has€a€rather€definite€and€limitedÐ €Ð Ðmeaning€.€.€.€.€€Motions€to€suppress€are€described€as€ð ðobjections€toÐ l¼ Ðevidence€on€the€ground€that€it€was€illegally€obtainedðð,€includingÐ X ¨ Ðð ðevidence€obtained€as€a€result€of€an€illegal€searchðð€and€ð ðother€formsÐ D!” Ðof€illegality€such€as€the€use€of€unconstitutional€means€to€obtain€aÐ 0"€  Ðconfession.ðð€€Put€generally,€then,€suppression€motions€concern€theÐ #l! Ðð ðapplication€of€the€exclusionary€rule€of€evidenceðð,€or€matters€ofÐ $X" Ðð ðððpolice€conduct€not€immediately€relevant€to€the€question€of€guiltððððÐ ô$D # Ð.€.€.€.Ðà%0!$` x` x ÐòòUnited€States€v.€Barlettaóó,€644€F.2d€50,€54€(1òòstóó€Cir.€1981)(citation€omitted).€€As€the€appellantððs€motionÐ Ì&"% Ðin€this€case€was€grounded€in€the€Stateððs€failure€to€fully€comply€with€the€rules€of€discovery€rather€thanÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€Stateððs€illegal€acquisition€of€the€DNA€evidence,€it€is€uncertain€whether€the€appellant€was€requiredÐ ¤(ô#' Ðunder€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(b)(3)€to€file€his€motion€prior€to€trial.Ð )à$( ÐÌà  àà ` àThat€having€been€said,€this€court€has€held€that€under€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(b)(4),Ð h+¸&* Ðð ð[f]ailure€to€complain€of€the€alleged€discovery€violation€and€to€seek€a€remedy€as€soon€as€the€defenseÐ ° Ðlearns€of€it€may€be€treated€as€waiver.ðð€€òòState€v.€Quincy€L.€Hendersonóó,€No.€02C01„9706„CR„00227,Ð œì Ð1998€WL€242608,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€May€12,€1998).€€As€indicated€above,€theÐ ˆØ Ðappellant€was€at€least€aware€by€January€14,€2000,€twelve€days€prior€to€trial,€of€the€alleged€discoveryÐ tÄ Ðviolation.€€Nevertheless,€he€waited€until€the€day€of€trial€to€bring€the€alleged€violation€to€the€trialÐ `° Ðcourtððs€attention.€€Accordingly,€the€appellant€has€waived€his€complaint.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àà ` àNotwithstanding€waiver,€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€State€did€not€violateÐ $ t ÐTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16.€€In€òòState€v.€Zane€Allen€Davis,€Jr.óó,€No.€M2000„00737„CCA„R3„CD,€2000€WLÐ  ` Ð1879518,€at€**4„5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€December€28,€2000),€we€observed€that€Tenn.€R.Ð ü L  ÐCrim.€P.€16(a)(1)(C)€&€(D)€authorizes€the€discovery€of€both€results€or€reports€of€scientific€tests€andÐ è 8  Ðdocuments€and€tangible€objects€necessary€to€determine€the€accuracy€of€the€tests€and€test€results.€€òòCf.Ð Ô$  Ðthe€discussion€inóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Liquid€Sugars,€Inc.óó,€158€F.R.D.€466,€469„473€(E.D.€Cal.€1994).€Ð À  ÐIn€this€case,€the€State€provided€the€appellant€complete€access€both€to€the€results€of€DNA€testingÐ ¬ü  Ðconducted€by€the€TBI€and€to€information€relating€to€the€accuracy€of€the€tests€and€test€results.€€TheÐ ˜è  Ðsole€dispute€was€whether€defense€counsel€should€be€required€to€visit€the€TBI€laboratory€in€NashvilleÐ „Ô  Ðin€order€to€obtain€the€latter€information.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àThis€court€has€previously€noted€that,€generally€speaking,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16€doesÐ H˜ Ðnot€obligate€the€State€ð ðto€furnish€the€appellant€with€information,€evidence,€or€material€which€isÐ 4„ Ðavailable€or€accessible€to€him€or€which€he€could€obtain€by€exercising€reasonable€diligence.ðð€€òòStateÐ  p Ðv.€Dickersonóó,€885€S.W.2d€90,€92€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Gilford€E.€Williamsóó,€No.Ð  \ ÐW1999„01556„CCA„R3„CD,€2001€WL€43176,€at€*5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€January€17,Ð øH Ð2001),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€2001).€€This€principle€underlies€our€holdings€that,€whenÐ ä4 Ðdefense€counsel€is€granted€complete€access€to€the€Stateððs€file,€ð ð[t]he€State€is€not€obliged€to€determineÐ Ð  Ðwhether€defense€counsel€is€aware€of€each€and€every€item€in€the€file.€€That€is€the€function€of€defenseÐ ¼  Ðcounsel€to€whom€the€file€is€opened.ðð€€òòHendersonóó,€No.€02C01„9706„CR„00227,€1998€WL€242608,Ð ¨ø Ðat€*4;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€David€Dotsonóó,€No.€45,€1988€WL€74595€at€*2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,Ð ”ä ÐJuly€21,€1988).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Similarly,€we€have€held€that€ð ð[s]ome€responsibility€must€be€placed€upon€aÐ €Ð Ðdefendant,€with€full€knowledge€that€an€expert€will€testify,€to€adequately€investigate.ðð€€òòWilliamsóó,€No.Ð l¼ ÐW1999„01556„CCA„R3„CD,€2001€WL€43176,€at€*5;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Chico€Lopez€Chiganoóó,€No.Ð X ¨ Ð1333,€1991€WL€188875,€at€*8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€September€26,€1991);€òòState€v.€DanÐ D!” ÐBaron€Reidóó,€No.€16,€1986€WL€8297,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€July€30,€1986).€€In€short,Ð 0"€  Ðabsent€evidence€that€the€Stateððs€invitation€to€defense€counsel€to€visit€the€TBI€laboratory€in€NashvilleÐ #l! Ðwas€a€tactic€designed€to€hinder€the€appellantððs€discovery€of€material€evidence€or€otherwise€harassÐ $X" Ðthe€appellant,€Ô#†Xù`XXXù`K #ÔòòóóÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ôit€was€indeed€the€responsibility€of€defense€counsel€to€visit€the€laboratory€and€therebyÐ ô$D # Ðobtain€the€requested€information.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€recognize€that€the€Stateððs€invitation€to€defense€counsel€to€visit€the€TBI€laboratoryÐ ¸'#& Ðin€Nashville€was€issued€approximately€three€weeks€prior€to€trial.€€Conceivably,€defense€counselÐ ° Ðwould€have€faced€some€difficulty€scheduling€a€visit€to€the€TBI€laboratory€in€Nashville€within€thoseÐ œì Ðthree€weeks.€€However,€the€appellant€never€requested€a€continuance€of€the€trial€date€for€the€purposeÐ ˆØ Ðof€arranging€a€visit€to€the€laboratory,€nor€in€fact€did€the€appellant€ever€request€a€continuance€due€toÐ tÄ Ðthe€Stateððs€alleged€discovery€violation.€€Rather,€the€appellant€asserted€in€his€motion€ð ðthat€the€leastÐ `° Ðrelief€he€should€receive€is€the€suppression€of€all€state€offered€DNA€evidence.ðð€€Even€assuming€thatÐ L œ Ðthe€State€violated€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16,€a€prerequisite€to€the€remedy€of€exclusion€was€the€appellantððsÐ 8 ˆ ÐdemonstrationÔ#†Xù`XXXù`ç##ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€he€was€ð ðactually€prejudiced€by€the€failure€toÐ $ t Ðcomply€with€the€discovery€[rule]€and€that€the€prejudice€[could€not]€be€otherwise€eradicated.ðð€€òòStateÐ  ` Ðv.€Garlandóó,€617€S.W.2d€176,€185€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981);€òòsee€alsoóóÔ#†Xù`XXXù`»(#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€Ô#†Xù`XXXù`4*#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`ÔòòState€v.€Danny€Jerome€Jonesóó,Ð ü L  ÐNo.€01C01„9307„CR„00233,€1994€WL€369728,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€July€14,Ð è 8  Ð1994)(citing,€among€other€authorities,€òòState€v.€Brownóó,Ô#†Xù`XXXù`w*#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€836€S.W.2d€530,€548€(Tenn.€1992)Ô#†Xù`XXXù`˜+#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô).€€òòóóÔ#†Xù`XXXù`û+#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`ÔIn€thisÐ Ô$  Ðregard,€ð ð[t]he€inquiry€is€what€prejudice€has€resulted€from€the€discovery€violation,€not€simply€theÐ À  Ðprejudicial€effect€the€evidence,€otherwise€admissible,€has€on€the€issue€of€a€defendantððs€guilt.ðð€Ð ¬ü  ÐòòHendersonóó,€No.€02C01„9706„CR„00227,€1998€WL€242608,€at€*5Ô#†Xù`XXXù`G,#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô.€€Suffice€it€to€say€that€the€appellantÐ ˜è  Ðfailed€to€demonstrate€that€the€Stateððs€requirement€that€Ô#†Xù`XXXù`Ú-#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ôdefense€counsel€visit€the€TBI€laboratory€inÐ „Ô  ÐNashville€in€order€to€obtain€requested€information€was€so€prejudicial€as€to€preclude€any€remedy€otherÐ pÀ Ðthan€exclusion.€€òòCf.óó€òòid.óó€(ð ðThis€court€will€not€presume€prejudice€from€a€mere€allegation.€€Moreover,Ð \¬ Ðprejudice€arising€from€a€discovery€violation€will€not€be€found€if€it€is€shown€that€the€defense€wasÐ H˜ Ðotherwise€aware€of€the€undisclosed€evidence.ðð).Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àFinally,€we€note€that,€on€appeal,€the€appellant€cites€for€the€first€time€òòBrady€v.Ð  \ ÐMarylandóó,€373€U.S.€at€83,€83€S.€Ct.€at€1194Ô#†Xù`XXXù`“.#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô,€for€the€proposition€that€the€trial€court€should€haveÐ øH Ðexcluded€DNA€evidence€proffered€by€the€State.€€Although€the€appellant€made€a€cursory€referenceÐ ä4 Ðto€due€process€in€his€motion€to€exclude€the€DNA€evidence,€defense€counselððs€argument€before€theÐ Ð  Ðtrial€court€focused€exclusively€upon€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16.€€Moreover,€the€sole€òòBradyóó€violationÐ ¼  Ðalleged€in€the€appellantððs€motion€for€new€trial€related€to€the€Stateððs€failure€to€provide€the€appellantÐ ¨ø Ðexculpatory€evidence€concerning€other€sexual€behavior€by€the€victim.€€A€party€may€not€make€anÐ ”ä Ðobjection€based€upon€a€non-constitutional€ground€at€trial,€and€assert€a€constitutional€ground€for€theÐ €Ð Ðobjection€post-trial.€€òòState€v.€Adkissonóó,Ô#†Xù`XXXù`„1#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€899€S.W.2d€626,€635€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Moreover,Ð l¼ Ðon€the€basis€of€the€record€before€this€court,€the€appellant€is€not€otherwise€entitled€to€relief.€€Tenn.€R.Ð X ¨ ÐCrim.€P.€52(b);€Ô#†Xù`XXXù`5#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`ÔòòSmithóó,€24€S.W.3d€at€282„283Ô#†Xù`XXXù`/6#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð D!” ÐÌò òD.à0  àEvidence€of€the€Appellantððs€Characteró óÐ#l!(#(# Ðà  àà ` àThe€appellant€also€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€excluding€evidence€at€trialÐ $X" Ðconcerning€his€truthfulness,€yet€another€issue€that€may€resurface€upon€retrial.€€As€relevant€to€thisÐ ô$D # Ðissue,€the€appellant€introduced€at€trial€the€testimony€of€his€ex„wife,€Connie€Sue€Gary,€that€she€wasÐ à%0!$ Ðpreviously€married€to€the€appellant€for€four€years€and€she€ð ðguessedðð€that€the€appellant€ð ðwas€alwaysÐ Ì&"% Ðhonest€with€[her]ðð€during€that€time€period.€€The€State€objected€to€Garyððs€testimony€on€the€basis€thatÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€appellant€had€not€yet€testified.€€The€appellant€responded€that€the€State€had€introduced€intoÐ ¤(ô#' Ðevidence€the€appellantððs€statement€to€the€police,€thereby€placing€the€appellantððs€truthfulness€at€issue.€Ð )à$( ÐFollowing€argument€by€counsel,€the€trial€court€concluded:Ð |*Ì%) Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIððve€never€understood€the€law€to€allow€this€type€testimony,€as€brief€asÐ h+¸&* Ðit€was,€without€the€Defendantððs€testimony€coming€first.€€I€have€noÐ ° Ðidea€whether€the€defendant€is€going€to€testify€or€not.€€I€donððt€think€itððsÐ œì Ðprior€testimony.€€I€believe€the€objection€is€good€at€this€point€in€time.€Ð ˆØ ÐOnce€the€Defendant€takes€the€stand,€if€you€want€to€offer€this€proofÐ tÄ Ðand€other€proof,€but€at€this€point€Iððm€just€going€to€sustain€theÐ `° Ðobjection€and€ask€that€it€be€stricken.ÐL œ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àÔ#†Xù`XXXù`’6#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`ÔTenn.€R.€Evid.€404(a)€provides€that€ð ð[e]vidence€of€a€personððs€character€or€a€trait€ofÐ $ t Ðcharacter€is€not€admissible€for€the€purpose€of€proving€action€in€conformity€with€the€character€or€traitÐ  ` Ðon€a€particular€occasion.ðð€€Exceptions€to€this€general€proscription€include€evidence€admissibleÐ ü L  Ðpursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€608.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(a)(3).€€Rule€608(a)€provides:Ð è 8  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€credibility€of€a€witness€may€be€attacked€or€supported€by€evidenceÐ Ô$  Ðin€the€form€of€opinion€or€reputation,€but€subject€to€these€limitations:€Ð À  Ð(1)€the€evidence€may€refer€only€to€character€for€truthfulness€orÐ ¬ü  Ðuntruthfulness,€and€(2)€the€evidence€of€truthful€character€is€admissibleÐ ˜è  Ðonly€after€the€character€of€the€witness€for€truthfulness€has€beenÐ „Ô  Ðattacked.ÐpÀ` x` x ÐòòId.óó€€The€trial€court€evidently€relied€upon€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€608(a)€in€excluding€Garyððs€testimony.€€Ô#†Xù`XXXù`È=#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`ÔThisÐ \¬ Ðcourt€will€not€find€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€McLeodóó,Ô#†Xù`XXXù`NB#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`ÔÐ H˜ Ð937€S.W.2d€867,€871€(Tenn.€1996).Ô#†Xù`XXXù`C#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`ÔÐ 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€òòMcKinney€v.€Stateóó,€552€S.W.2d€787,€790€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977),€this€courtÐ  \ Ðobserved,€ð ðAn€accused€may€not,€of€course,€show€evidence€of€his€credibility€as€a€witness€by€the€useÐ øH Ðof€character€witnesses€unless€he€first€testifies.ðð€€òòMcKinneyóó,€however,€was€written€prior€to€theÐ ä4 Ðadoption€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.Ô#†Xù`XXXù`C#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€€Moreover,€the€appellant€correctly€notes€that,Ð Ð  Ðnotwithstanding€Rule€608(a)ððs€unambiguous€reference€to€the€ð ðcredibility€of€a€witness,ðð€this€court€hasÐ ¼  Ðsince€suggested€that€a€defendantððs€right€under€the€rule€to€present€evidence€of€his€truthful€characterÐ ¨ø Ðupon€attack€by€the€State€ð ðis€not€contingent€upon€his€relinquishment€of€his€Fifth€AmendmentÐ ”ä Ðprivilege.ðð€€òòState€v.€Phippsóó,€883€S.W.2d€138,€153€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Nevertheless,€ourÐ €Ð Ðconclusion€in€òòPhippsóó€constituted€dictum,€and€nothing€in€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€608(a)€or€the€AdvisoryÐ l¼ ÐCommission€Comments€thereto€suggests€an€intent€by€the€drafters€to€abandon€òòMcKinneyóóððs€limitationÐ X ¨ Ðupon€an€accusedððs€use€of€character€evidence€for€the€purpose€of€bolstering€his€credibilityòòóó.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àAdditionally,€we€note€our€agreement€with€the€State€that€the€appellant€minimally€atÐ #l! Ðbest€complied€with€the€requirement€that€he€establish€a€proper€foundation€for€the€introduction€ofÐ $X" Ðopinion€testimony€concerning€his€character.€€òòState€v.€Duttonóó,€896€S.W.2d€114,€118€(Tenn.€1995);€òòseeÐ ô$D # Ðalsoóó€òòState€v.€Sammy€Goffóó,€No.€W1999„01976„CCA„R3„CD,€2001€WL€91951,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð à%0!$ ÐApp.€at€Jackson,€January€31,€2001),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€2001).€€Gary€did€not€indicateÐ Ì&"% Ðwhen€she€and€the€appellant€were€married,€nor€did€she€indicate€the€extent€of€her€contact€with€theÐ ° Ðappellant€since€their€divorce.€€As€one€commentator€has€observed,Ð œì Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[s]ince€the€reputation€or€opinion€evidence€is€introduced€to€provideÐ ˆØ Ðevidence€of€a€witnessððs€character€so€that€the€trier€of€fact€can€moreÐ tÄ Ðaccurately€assess€the€witnessððs€credibility,€the€key€issue€is€theÐ `° Ðwitnessððs€character€at€or€near€the€time€of€testimony.€€Accordingly,€theÐ L œ Ðreputation€or€opinion€proof€under€Rule€608(a)€should€relate€to€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðwitnessððs€character€at€the€time€of€the€proceeding.Ð$ t` x` x ÐòòNeil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,€Tennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€608.2,€at€346€(Michie€ed.,€3d€ed.€1995).€Ô#†Xù`XXXù`‹E#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`ÔÐ  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àÔ#†Xù`XXXù`ˆO#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`ÔEven€assuming€that€the€appellant€established€a€proper€foundation,€the€appellant€wasÐ è 8  Ðnot€entitled€to€present€Garyððs€testimony€because€the€State€had€not€yet€attacked€the€appellantððsÐ Ô$  Ðcharacter€for€truthfulness.€€In€this€regard,€we€note€that€the€United€States€Court€of€Appeals€for€theÐ À  ÐNinth€Circuit,€in€interpreting€the€essentially€identical€federal€counterpart€to€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€608(a),Ð ¬ü  Ðcarefully€distinguished€between€attacks€by€the€State€upon€a€witnessðð€credibility€in€the€current€caseÐ ˜è  Ðand€attacks€by€the€State€upon€the€witnessðð€prior€history€or€general€character€for€truthfulness,€statingÐ „Ô  Ðthat€only€the€latter€triggers€rehabilitation€under€Rule€608(a).€€òòUnited€States€v.€Dringóó,€930€F.2d€687,Ð pÀ Ð690„692€(9òòthóó€Cir.€1991).Ô#†Xù`XXXù`øO#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€€AccordinglyÔ#†Xù`XXXù`ªS#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô,€the€Stateððs€introduction€of€testimony€by€other€witnessesÐ \¬ Ðcontradicting€the€appellantððs€version€of€the€facts€generally€does€not€trigger€rehabilitation€under€RuleÐ H˜ Ð608(a).€€òòId.óó€at€691;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Angelinióó,€678€F.2d€380,€382€n.1€(1òòstóó€Cir.€1982);€òòUnitedÐ 4„ ÐStates€v.€Danehyóó,€680€F.2d€1311,€1314€(11òòthóó€Cir.€1982);Ô#†Xù`XXXù`ùS#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€òòUnited€States€v.€Jacksonóó,€588€F.2d€1046,Ð  p Ð1055€(5òòthóó€Cir.€1979);òòóó€òòcf.óó€òòPeople€v.€Milleróó,€890€P.2d€84,€93„96€(Colo.€1995);€òòState€v.€Rabeóó,€687€P.2dÐ  \ Ð554,€561€(Haw.€Ct.€App.€1984)Ô#†Xù`XXXù`âU#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô;€òòState€v.€Rossóó,€685€A.2d€1234,€1236€(N.H.€1996);Ô#†Xù`XXXù`W#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€òòSpector€v.€Stateóó,Ð øH Ð746€S.W.2d€946,€950„951€(Tex.€Ct.€App.€1988);€òòState€v.€Eugenioóó,€579€N.W.2d€642,€648„649€(Wis.Ð ä4 Ð1998)Ô#†Xù`XXXù`•W#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ôòòóó.€€One€commentator€explained,€ð ð[C]ontradiction€evidence€might€be€offered€to€prove€the€witnessÐ Ð  Ðhas€intentionally€lied,€but€for€reasons€that€are€case„specific€and€have€nothing€to€do€with€generalÐ ¼  Ðtrustworthiness.ðð€€28€òòCharles€Alan€Wright€&€Victor€James€Gold,€Federal€Practice€andÐ ¨ø ÐProcedureóó€ðð€6116,€at€70€(West€Publishing€Co.€ed.,€1993).€€The€record€before€this€court€reflects€thatÐ ”ä Ðthe€State€did€nothing€more€than€offer€evidence€contradicting€the€appellantððs€statement€to€the€policeÐ €Ð Ðconcerning€whether€or€not€he€raped€RB.€€Certainly,€the€appellantððs€motive€to€lie€about€those€factsÐ l¼ Ðwas€entirely€case„specific.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àOf€course,€ð ð[e]vidence€barred€by€Rule€608€may€be€admissible€by€another€evidenceÐ 0"€  Ðrule.ðð€€4€òòJack€B.€Weinstein€&€Margaret€A.€Berger,€Weinsteinððs€Federal€Evidence€ððÐ #l! Ðóó608.02(3)(c),€at€608„13€(Joseph€M.€McLaughlin€&€Matthew€Bender€&€Co.€eds.,€2d€ed.€2001).€€InÐ $X" Ðcontrast€to€Rule€608(a),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(a)(1)€addresses€the€admissibility€of€proof€of€the€characterÐ ô$D # Ðof€the€accused€as€substantive€evidenceÔ#†Xù`XXXù`X#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô.€€Specifically,€Rule€404(a)(1)€permits€the€introduction€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðð ð[e]vidence€of€a€pertinent€character€trait€offered€by€the€accused€or€by€the€prosecution€to€rebut€theÐ Ì&"% Ðsame.ðð€€Under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€405(a),€such€ð ðproof€may€be€made€by€testimony€as€to€reputation€or€byÐ ¸'#& Ðtestimony€in€the€form€of€an€opinion.ððÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àà ` àLike€Rule€608(a),€Rule€404(a)(1)€is€substantially€identical€to€its€federal€counterpart.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐAccordingly,€we€note€that€the€United€States€Court€of€Appeals€for€the€Fifth€Circuit€has€opined€thatÔ#†Xù`XXXù`Ï]#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`ÔÐ h+¸&* Ðð ðpertinentðð€is€a€term€synonymous€with€ð ðrelevant,ðð€and€a€defendantððs€truthfulness€is€relevant€in€theÐ ° Ðfollowing€three€situations:Ð œì Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)€The€offense€charged€is€crimen€falsi;€i.e.,€a€lie€by€the€defendant€isÐ ˆØ Ðan€element€of€the€crime.€€(2)€The€defendant€has€testified€on€his€ownÐ tÄ Ðbehalf€and€his€credibility€has€been€attacked.€€(3)€The€truth€of€out„of„Ð `° Ðcourt€statements€made€by€the€defendant€has€been€attacked.ÐL œ` x` x ÐòòUnited€States€v.€Hewittóó,€634€F.2d€277,€279€(5òòthóó€Cir.€1981)Ô#†Xù`XXXù`}`#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ôòòóó(citations€omitted);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòUnited€StatesÐ 8 ˆ Ðv.€Lechocoóó,€542€F.2d€84,€88€(D.C.€Cir.€1976)(holding€that,€when€the€State€challenged€the€veracityÐ $ t Ðof€a€defendantððs€statements€to€psychiatrists,€on€which€statements€the€doctors€based€their€opinionsÐ  ` Ðconcerning€the€defendantððs€mental€state€at€the€time€of€the€offense,€evidence€of€the€defendantððsÐ ü L  Ðcharacter€for€truthfulness€ð ðwent€to€the€heart€of€his€guilt€or€innocenceðð€and€was€admissibleÐ è 8  Ðsubstantively).Ô#†Xù`XXXù`[c#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€€Consistent€with€òòHewittóó,€this€court€held€inÔ#†Xù`XXXù`Þe#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€òòState€v.€William€B.€Thurbleyóó,€No.€03C01„Ð Ô$  Ð9709„CC„00414,€1999€WL€301591,€at€*15€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€May€11,€1999),€òòperm.Ð À  Ðto€appeal€grantedóó,€(Tenn.€1999),€thatÔ#†Xù`XXXù`Rf#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô,€when€evidence€of€a€defendantððs€character€for€truthfulnessÐ ¬ü  Ðrelates€to€the€credibility€of€a€statement€that€he€gave€to€the€police,€the€evidence€is€admissible€underÐ ˜è  ÐTenn.€R.€Evid.€404(a)(1).Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àÔ#†Xù`XXXù`rg#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`ÔOf€course,€the€issue€of€whether€the€appellant€established€an€adequate€foundation€forÐ \¬ ÐGaryððs€testimony€is€equally€of€concern€whether€determining€the€admissibility€of€Garyððs€testimonyÐ H˜ Ðunder€Rule€608(a)€or€Rule€404(a)(1).€€Moreover,€Garyððs€testimony€that€she€ð ðguessedðð€that€theÐ 4„ Ðappellant€was€truthful€with€her€during€their€marriage€was€hardly€a€ringing€endorsement€of€hisÐ  p Ðcharacter€for€truthfulness.€€Accordingly,€the€exclusion€of€the€evidence,€if€error,€does€not€afford€anÐ  \ Ðindependent€basis€for€the€reversal€of€the€appellantððs€convictions.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a);€Tenn.€R.Ð øH ÐApp.€P.€36(b).€Ð ä4 ÐÌò òE.à0  àSufficiency€of€the€Evidenceó óм (#(# Ðà  àà ` àThe€appellant€next€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€underlying€hisÐ ¨ø Ðconvictions€of€rape.€€In€order€to€prevail,€the€appellant€must€demonstrate€to€this€court€that€no€ð ðrationalÐ ”ä Ðtrier€of€factðð€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€offenses€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€Ð €Ð ÐòòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979);€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2dÐ l¼ Ð913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€In€other€words,€on€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€theÐ X ¨ Ðstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€Ð D!” ÐòòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983).€€All€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence,Ð 0"€  Ðincluding€questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses€and€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€theÐ #l! Ðevidence,€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact€and€not€the€appellate€courts.€€òòState€v.€Pruettóó,€788€S.W.2dÐ $X" Ð559,€561€(Tenn.€1990).€€These€standards€apply€to€convictions€based€upon€direct€evidence,Ð ô$D # Ðcircumstantial€evidence,€or€both.€€òòState€v.€Carruthersóó,€35€S.W.3d€516,€557€(Tenn.€2000),€òòcert.€deniedóó,Ð à%0!$ Ð__€U.S.€__,€121€S.€Ct.€2600€(2001);€òòState€v.€Vannóó,€976€S.W.2d€93,€111„112€(Tenn.€1998)(appendix).Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àà ` àAgain,€the€State€charged€the€appellant€in€this€case€with€three€counts€of€rape,€eachÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcount€relating€to€a€separate€act€of€penetration.€€òòState€v.€Phillipsóó,Ô#†Xù`XXXù`Éh#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€924€S.W.2d€662,€665€(Tenn.Ð )à$( Ð1996)(Ô#†Xù`XXXù`àr#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ôð ððð[A]n€accused€may€be€convicted€of€more€than€one€offense€when€the€rape€involves€separateÐ |*Ì%) Ðactsðð€of€sexual€penetration.ðð).Ô#†Xù`XXXù`Xs#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€€With€respect€to€each€count,€the€State€was€required€to€prove€beyondÐ h+¸&* Ða€reasonable€doubt€that€(1)€Ô#†Xù`XXXù`2t#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ôthe€appellant€engaged€inÔ#†Xù`XXXù`ét#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€unlawful€sexual€penetration€of€RB;€(2)€theÐ ° Ðappellant€used€force€to€accomplish€the€act;€and€(3)€the€appellant€acted€intentionally,€knowingly,€orÐ œì Ðrecklessly.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„503€(1997).€Ô#†Xù`XXXù`Cu#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€€The€appellant€challenges€his€convictions€on€theÐ ˆØ Ðbasis€that€ð ð[t]here€is€not€evidence€of€force,€coercion€in€this€case.ðð€€We€note€as€a€preliminary€matterÐ tÄ Ðthat€each€count€of€the€indictment€in€this€case€charged€only€rape€by€force€rather€than€rape€by€force€orÐ `° Ðcoercion.€€Accordingly,€notwithstanding€the€trial€courtððs€instructions€to€the€jury,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€we€will€onlyÐ L œ Ðaddress€whether€the€evidence€established€the€appellantððs€use€of€force€to€commit€the€charged€rapes.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐòòCf.óó€òòState€v.€Fitzóó,€19€S.W.3d€213,€215€&€217€n.5€(Tenn.€2000).Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àOur€legislature€has€defined€ð ðforceðð€as€ð ðcompulsion€by€the€use€of€physical€power€orÐ ü L  Ðviolenceðð€and€has€directed€that€the€term€ð ðbe€broadly€construed€to€accomplish€the€purposes€of€thisÐ è 8  Ðtitle.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(a)(12)€(1997).€€Briefly€summarizing€the€evidence€in€this€case,Ð Ô$  ÐRB€first€testified€that€she€was€unsuccessfully€attempting€to€push€the€appellantððs€hands€away€fromÐ À  Ðher€body€when€he€penetrated€her€vagina€with€his€finger.€€Second,€the€appellant€engaged€in€a€struggleÐ ¬ü  Ðwith€RB€to€pull€her€boxer€shorts€down€her€legs€prior€to€performing€cunnilingus€upon€her;€he€heldÐ ˜è  Ðher€hands€down€during€cunnilingus;€and€he€persisted€in€performing€cunnilingus€despite€RBððs€effortÐ „Ô  Ðto€ð ðsmash[]€his€head€with€[her]€legs.ðð€€Third,€the€appellant€continued€to€hold€RBððs€hands€down€whileÐ pÀ Ðpenetrating€her€vagina€with€his€penis.€€According€to€RB,€the€appellantððs€confinement€of€her€handsÐ \¬ Ðprevented€her€from€moving.€€She€concluded€that,€although€she€did€not€suffer€any€bruises€as€a€resultÐ H˜ Ðof€the€appellantððs€offenses,€she€was€ð ðsoreðð€following€the€offenses.€€In€short,€the€evidence€adducedÐ 4„ Ðat€trial€established€the€appellantððs€use€of€ð ðcompulsion€by€the€use€of€physical€powerÔ#†Xù`XXXù`rv#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ôðð€with€respect€toÐ  p Ðeach€count€of€the€indictment.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€McKnightóó,€900€S.W.2d€36,€48€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð  \ Ð1994);€òòState€v.€Arthur€Clarkóó,€No.€W1999„01747„CCA„R3„CD,€2000€WL€1224756,€at€*3€(Tenn.Ð øH ÐCrim.€App.€at€Jackson,€August€25,€2000),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€2001);€òòcf.óó€òòState€v.€WadeÐ ä4 ÐHenry€Allen€Marshóó,€No.€E1998„00057„CCA„R3„CD,€2000€WL€555231,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÐ Ð  ÐKnoxville,€May€8,€2000),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€2001).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ¼  ÐÌò òF.à0  àLesser„Included€Offensesó óДä(#(# Ðà  àà ` àFinally,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€instruct€the€juryÐ €Ð Ðon€sexual€battery€as€a€lesser„included€offense€of€each€count€of€rape.€€Initially,€we€note€that€theÐ l¼ Ðappellant€failed€to€object€to€the€trial€courtððs€jury€instructions.€€Nevertheless,€a€trial€courtððs€duty€toÐ X ¨ Ðcharge€a€jury€as€to€the€law€of€each€offense€included€in€an€indictment€exists€regardless€of€any€requestÐ D!” Ðor€objection€by€the€appellant.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€464€(Tenn.€1999);€Tenn.€CodeÐ 0"€  ÐAnn.€ðð€40„18„110(a)€(1997).Ô#†Xù`XXXù`K#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€€Sexual€battery€is€a€lesser„included€offense€of€rape€under€the€testÐ #l! Ðenunciated€by€our€supreme€court€in€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€466„467.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Timothy€R.€Bowlesóó,Ð $X" ÐNo.€M1997„00092„SC„R11„CD,€2001€WL€856575,€at€*4€(Tenn.€at€Nashville,€July€31,Ð ô$D # Ð2001)(publication€pending).Ô#†Xù`XXXù`…#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€€Accordingly,€with€respect€to€each€count€of€rape,€the€trial€court€wasÐ à%0!$ Ðobligated€to€instruct€the€jury€on€sexual€battery€òòóóif€there€existed€evidence€that€reasonable€minds€couldÐ Ì&"% Ðaccept€as€to€the€lesser„included€offense€and€this€evidence€was€legally€sufficient€to€support€aÐ ° Ðconviction€of€the€lesser„included€offense.€€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€469.€€In€determining€whether€theÐ œì Ðevidence€warranted€an€instruction€on€sexual€battery,€the€court€was€required€to€ð ðview€the€evidenceÐ ˆØ Ðliberally€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€existence€of€the€lesser„included€offense€without€makingÐ tÄ Ðany€judgments€on€the€credibility€of€such€evidence.ððÔ#†Xù`XXXù` †#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€€òòId.óóÔ#†Xù`XXXù`Ó‰#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`ÔÐ `° ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€relevant€to€this€case,€the€offense€of€sexual€battery€comprises€the€followingÐ 8 ˆ Ðessential€elements:€(1)€unlawful€sexual€contact€with€the€victim€by€the€defendant;€(2)€force€was€usedÐ $ t Ðto€accomplish€the€act;€and€(3)€the€defendant€acted€intentionally,€knowingly,€or€recklessly.€€Tenn.Ð  ` ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„505€(1997).€€ð ðððSexual€contactðð€includes€the€intentional€touching€of€the€victimððs,Ð ü L  Ðthe€defendantððs,€or€any€other€personððs€intimate€parts,€.€.€.€if€that€intentional€touching€can€beÐ è 8  Ðreasonably€construed€as€being€for€the€purpose€of€sexual€arousal€or€gratification.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð Ô$  Ððð€39„13„501(6)€(1997).€€In€proving€the€offenses€of€rape,€the€State€necessarily€proved€all€the€essentialÐ À  Ðelements€of€sexual€battery€with€the€exception€of€the€requirement€that€the€sexual€contact€be€for€theÐ ¬ü  Ðpurpose€of€sexual€arousal€or€gratification.€€Ô#†Xù`XXXù` Š#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`ÔòòBowlesóó,€No.€M1997„00092„SC„R11„CD,€2001€WLÐ ˜è  Ð856575,€at€*4.€€Because€the€jury€could€reasonably€have€construed€the€sexual€contact€in€this€case€toÐ „Ô  Ðbe€for€the€purpose€of€sexual€arousal€and€gratification,€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€instruct€the€jury€onÐ pÀ Ðsexual€battery€was€error.€€In€this€regard,€we€reiterate€our€supreme€courtððs€observation€that€ð ð[w]hetherÐ \¬ Ðsufficient€evidence€supports€a€conviction€of€the€charged€offense€does€not€affect€the€trial€courtððs€dutyÐ H˜ Ðto€instruct€on€the€lesser€offense€if€evidence€also€supports€a€finding€of€guilt€on€the€lesser€offense.ððÔ#†Xù`XXXù`…Ž#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`ԀР4„ ÐòòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€472.Ô#†Xù`XXXù`o‘#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô€€Additionally,€we€cannot€conclude€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€trialÐ  p Ðcourtððs€error€was€harmless€as€the€jury€was€not€afforded€an€opportunity€to€consider€an€intermediateÐ  \ Ðlesser„included€offense.€€òòBowlesóó,€No.€M1997„00092„SC„R11„CD,€2001€WL€856575,€at€*5;€òòState€v.Ð øH ÐCurtis€Jason€Elyóó,€Nos.€E1998„00099„SC„R11„CD€&€E1999„00170„SC„R11„CD,€2001€WL€605097,Ð ä4 Ðat€*14€(Tenn.€at€Knoxville,€June€5,€2001)(publication€pending)Ô#†Xù`XXXù`ä‘#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`Ô.Ô#†Xù`XXXù`%”#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`ÔÐ Ð  ÐÌà@MM"ìàò òòòIII.€€Conclusionó óóóˆÐ ¨ø Ðà  àà ` àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€reverse€the€appellantððs€convictions€of€rape€and€remandÐ ”ä Ðthese€cases€to€the€trial€court€for€a€new€trial.Ô#†Xù`XXXù`h”#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`ÔÐ €Ð ÐÔ#†Xù`XXXù`·•#ÔÔ‡Xù`XXXù`ÔÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð X ¨ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNORMA€McGEE€OGLE,€JUDGEÔ#†Xù`XXXù`–#Ô