ÿWPCQ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ 0d- U>‘ U*Ï B)ù DC" AMe² BËv~èvÓf D39 0@l AO¬Æû 0DÁ D/ B4˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- âDãDäDåæçDèéDê%eëÓ€Úƒç"3|xö2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òOctober€7,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€EfXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òœÙ€€ÙßR€#$"A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌFEBRUARY€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)€€€€€€€C.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9509„CC„00286Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óÌà àà àAppellee,ò òà àà àà à)€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€ANDERSON€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€HON.€JAMES€B.€SCOTT,€JR.,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€JUDGEó óÌò òJOHN€PARNELL€YAUGHER,à àà à)à àó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò òà à)ó óÌà àà àAppellant.à àà àò òà à)€€€€€€€€(RAPE€OF€A€CHILD)Ìó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àòòà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌò òJ.€THOMAS€MARSHALL,€JR.à àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌó óDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌò òNANCY€CAROL€MEYERó óà àò òà àà àEUGENE€J.€HONEAÌó óAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ101€South€Main€Street,€Suite€450à àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€ÌClinton,€TN€37716à àà àà àà à2nd€Floor,€Cordull€Hull€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òà àJAMES€N.€RAMSEY€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àó óà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òà àJANICE€G.€HICKSó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à127€Anderson€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àClinton,€TN€€37716ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€ °ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€ ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant,€John€Parnell€Yaugher,€appeals€as€of€right€pursuant€toÏRule€3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€The€Defendant€wasÏconvicted€following€a€jury€trial€in€Anderson€County€of€the€offense€of€rape€of€aÏchild.€€€On€appeal,€the€Defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€allegations€inÏthe€indictment€to€charge€an€offense.€€Also,€the€Defendant€challenges€theÏsufficiency€of€the€evidence€to€sustain€the€conviction€and€specifically€argues€thatÏhis€confession€was€uncorroborated,€that€there€was€no€proof€of€penetration,€andÏthat€the€State€failed€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€he€was€sane€atÏthe€time€of€the€offense.€€Further,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏdenying€a€motion€to€suppress€his€statement€to€investigators€and€by€charging€inÏthe€jury€instructions€the€lesser€grade€offense€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.€ÏFinding€no€error,€and€that€the€indictment€and€the€evidence€are€sufficient,€we€affirmÏthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àI.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€€INDICTMENTÌÌà àThe€Defendant€contends€that€the€indictment€fails€to€state€an€offense€inÏthat€no€culpable€mental€state€is€alleged.€€He€relies€upon€òòState€v.€Roger€DaleÍHill,€Sr.óó,€€No.€01C01„9508„CC„00267,€Wayne€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€JuneÏ20,€1996),€òòapp.óó€òògrantedóó€(Tenn.€Jan.€6,€1997),€in€which€this€court€held€that€anÏallegation€that€the€Defendant€unlawfully€sexually€penetrated€a€victim€did€notÏallege€the€necessary€mental€state€for€rape,€which€is,€at€least,€recklessness.€€WeÏnote€that€other€panels€of€this€court€have€concluded€that€such€allegations€areÏsufficient.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€James€Disonóó,€No.€03C01„9602„CC„00051,€SevierÏCounty€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Jan.€31,€1997),€òòapplic.óó€òòfiledóó€(Tenn.€Mar.€14,€1997);ÏòòState€v.€Phillip€Ray€Griffis€and€Melissa€Faith€Rogersóó,€No.€01C01„9506„CC„00201,€Maury€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Apr.€30,€1997,€òòapplic.óó€òòfiledóó€(Tenn.€JuneÏ19,€1997).ÌÌà àHowever,€we€believe€that€the€indictment€in€this€case€is€sufficientÏregardless€of€which€view€is€taken.€€The€indictment€charges,€in€pertinent€part,€thatÏthe€Defendant€ð ðdid€.€.€.€unlawfully€and€òòfeloniouslyóó€engage€in€sexual€penetrationÏof€a€child€less€than€thirteen€years€of€age,€in€violation€of€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„522,Ïagainst€the€peace€and€dignity€of€the€State€of€Tennessee.ðð€€(Emphasis€added).€ÏHistorically,€the€word€ð ðfeloniouslyðð€has€meant€ð ð[p]roceeding€from€an€evil€heart€orÏpurpose;€done€with€a€deliberate€intention€of€committing€a€crime.ðð€€òòBlackððs€LawÏDictionaryóó€6th€ed.€1990).€€As€our€supreme€court€has€previously€noted,€ð ðoneÏmeaning€attached€to€the€word€is:€ððIn€a€legal€sense,€done€with€the€intent€toÏcommit€a€crime.ðððð€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€119€Tenn.€521,€105€S.W.€68,€70€(1907).€ÍCertainly,€the€mental€state€necessarily€inherent€in€the€word€ð ðfeloniously,ðð€wouldÏinclude€the€€mental€state€required€by€present€law.€€There€is€no€merit€to€this€issue.ÌÌà@ àII.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCE€€ÌÌ€€à àThe€standard€for€when€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€theÏconvicting€evidence€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÏessential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.ÏVirginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€theÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€inferences€therefrom.€€òòState€v.ÏCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Because€a€verdict€of€guiltÏremoves€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€it€with€a€presumption€ofÏguilt,€the€accused€has€the€burden€in€this€court€of€illustrating€why€the€evidence€isÏinsufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639ÏS.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.Ï1973).ÌÌà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€toÏbe€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence,€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,Í623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.€1987).€€Nor€may€thisÏcourt€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€A€juryÏverdict€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€Stateððs€witnesses€and€resolvesÏall€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€476.ÌÌà àThe€Stateððs€proof€was€that€the€victim,€T.T.€(we€will€refer€to€the€victim€ofÏchild€sexual€abuse€by€initials),€and€her€mother€and€father,€David€and€DarlaÏTaylor,€and€the€victimððs€two€(2)€siblings€had€resided€in€their€home€in€Oak€RidgeÏsince€March€1987.€€The€Defendant,€his€wife€and€daughter€lived€across€the€streetÏand€had€resided€there€since€July€of€1992.€€The€victim,€seven€(7)€years€old€at€theÏtime€of€the€offense,€and€the€Defendantððs€daughter,€nine€(9)€years€old,€wereÏclose€friends€and€often€spent€the€night€at€each€otherððs€homes.€€ÌÌà àOn€an€occasion€in€March€1993,€after€being€asked€to€spend€the€night€withÏthe€Defendantððs€daughter,€T.T.€refused€and€almost€began€crying.€€Her€motherÏbecame€suspicious€and€asked€her€daughter€if€she€wanted€to€tell€her€something.€ÏThe€victim€was€visibly€upset€and€obviously€did€not€want€to€talk€in€the€presenceÏof€her€brother€and€sister.€€Ms.€Taylor€took€the€victim€to€the€bedroom€where€sheÏbegan€to€cry€and€was€displaying€signs€of€embarrassment.€€Concerned€by€herÏdaughterððs€behavior,€Ms.€Taylor€retrieved€a€coloring€book€which€concerned€goodÏand€bad€secrets€and€included€advice€to€keep€ð ðgoodðð€secrets€to€oneself€and€notÍkeep€ð ðbadðð€secrets.€€After€reviewing€the€coloring€book,€T.T.€told€her€mother€thatÏthe€Defendant€had€touched€her.€€Ms.€Taylor€called€the€Tennessee€DepartmentÏof€Human€Services€two€(2)€days€later€and€subsequently€confronted€theÏDefendant€and€his€wife€with€the€victimððs€allegations.€€ÌÌà àThe€Stateððs€proof,€through€the€testimony€of€the€victim,€further€showed€thatÏT.T.€went€to€sleep€on€the€living€room€floor€on€the€last€occasion€that€she€spentÏthe€night€with€the€Defendantððs€daughter.€€The€room€was€dark€and€T.T.€did€notÏknow€if€Defendant€went€to€sleep€on€the€floor€with€them.€€T.T.€was€sleeping€inÏher€motherððs€t„shirt€and€panties.€€During€the€night€she€awoke€and€the€DefendantÏwas€touching€her€with€his€hands€and€fingers,€first€on€her€stomach€and€down€toÏher€bladder,€then€inside€her€panties€and€on€her€back€side.€€At€the€time,€T.T.€didÏnot€say€anything€but€could€hear€the€Defendant€breathing€heavily.€€She€testifiedÏthat€the€Defendant€rubbed€her€ð ðchina,ðð€which€was€her€term€for€the€vagina,€butÏthat€it€did€not€hurt€her.€€At€trial,€T.T.€stated€that€the€Defendantððs€finger€did€not€goÏinside€her.€€She€was€not€aware€if€the€Defendant€put€any€cream€on€her€while€heÏwas€rubbing€her.€€She€testified€that€she€informed€her€mother€of€the€incident€aÏfew€days€later€and€then€talked€with€two€(2)€police€officers€about€the€occurrence.€ÌÌà àDr.€Tanya€Vargas,€a€physician,€examined€T.T.€and€testified€that€the€victimÏwas€worried€that€she€might€have€gotten€a€disease€from€the€Defendant.€€T.T.Íresponded€affirmatively€to€Dr.€Vargasðð€questions€as€to€whether€anyone€hadÏtouched€her€in€an€inappropriate€place.€€The€victim€stated€to€Dr.€Vargas€in€theÏexamination€that€the€Defendant€stuck€his€fingers€in€her€ð ðchinaðð€when€she€wasÏstaying€at€his€daughterððs€house€overnight.€€Dr.€Vargas€asked€her€what€ð ðchinaððÏmeant€and€showed€her€a€picture€of€the€female€body.€€The€victim€pointed€to€theÏvagina.€€€Dr.€Vargas€testified€that€she€noted€from€the€examination€that€the€childððsÏvaginal€mucosa€was€very€red,€but€there€was€no€discharge.€€T.T.€was€sufferingÏfrom€scratches€which€were€secondary€to€scabies.€€All€other€physical€examsÏwere€normal.ÌÌà àGeorge€Staffney,€a€detective€with€the€Oak€Ridge€Police€Department,€andÏGaynor€Byrge,€an€employee€of€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Human€Services,Ïinvestigated€the€victimððs€allegations€against€Defendant.€€On€March€11,€1993,Ïthey€contacted€the€Defendant€at€his€home€and€made€an€appointment€for€him€toÏcome€to€an€interview€on€March€12€at€the€Oak€Ridge€Police€Department.€€WhenÏthe€Defendant€arrived€on€March€12,€Detective€Staffney€told€the€Defendant€that€ifÏhe€did€not€want€to€answer€the€questions,€or€if€he€wanted€to€leave,€that€he€wasÏfree€to€go€as€he€was€not€under€arrest.€€Byrge€and€Staffney€did€not€perceiveÏDefendant€having€any€difficulty€understanding€and€comprehending€what€wasÏgoing€on,€even€though€the€Defendant€told€them€he€had€previously€suffered€aÏstroke€and€it€affected€his€memory€slightly.€€When€informed€of€the€allegations,ÍDefendant€told€the€investigators€that€T.T.ððs€face€was€against€his€back€whileÏthey€were€sleeping€and€she€snuggled€up€against€him.€€He€turned€and€began€toÏrub€her€stomach.€He€stated€that€he€ð ðhad€to€put€some€medicine€on€her€and€whenÏhe€put€cream€on€her€vagina€his€finger€slipped€in.ðð€€Defendant€told€them€ð ð[i]t€wasÏfor€medical€purposes,€not€sexual.ðð€€€Defendant€stated€that€he€was€afraid€heÏwould€get€in€trouble€and€asked€if€he€could€get€counseling€or€some€other€kind€ofÏhelp.€€He€also€made€the€statement€that€ð ða€good€time€to€teach€about€sex€wasÏ[at]€eight€(8)€years€old.ðð€€After€these€verbal€statements€were€made,€theÏinvestigators€read€a€waiver€of€rights€form€to€Defendant.€€When€the€investigatorsÏasked€Defendant€if€he€wanted€to€make€a€written€€statement,€he€repliedÏaffirmatively.€€Detective€Staffney€told€Defendant€to€be€descriptive€about€what€heÏactually€did€to€the€child€and€to€include€the€portion€regarding€what€happened€withÏhim€penetrating€the€victim€with€his€finger.€€Defendant€also€drew€a€diagram€of€theÏscene€in€his€home€at€the€time€of€the€incident€on€the€written€statement.€TheÏinvestigators€stated€that€they€never€made€any€threats€or€promises€to€DefendantÏand€he€never€gave€any€indication€that€he€did€not€want€to€talk€to€them.€€ÌÌà àThe€statement€written€by€Defendant€in€his€handwriting€and€signed€by€himÏstates€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àI€had€Sexual€Contact€Rubbing€&€with€Finger€in€the€Private€AreaÏ[T.T.]€on€€March€2nd€„€1993€„€My€Home€112„Wain€Wright,€OakÏRidge.ÌÌà8 àSarah€my€Daughter€„€[T.T.]€&€I€myself€was€Sleeping€on€the€LivingÏRoom€Floor.ÌÌà8 à[T.T.]€move€over€to€my€Side€&€I€touch€her€Tummy€&€her€Leg€„€I€PutÏMy€Finger€Inside€Her€Private€Area€„€Vagina.€€She€move€herselfÏaway.ÌÓÓÌà àThe€Defendant€testified€and€offered€the€testimony€of€various€witnesses.€€ÏHis€wife€testified€that€T.T.ððs€mother€confronted€her€regarding€the€allegations€ofÏabuse€by€stating€that€ð ðJohn€[Defendant]€touched€her€butt.ðð€€She€related€that€theÏDefendant€appeared€to€be€shocked€when€first€confronted€about€the€allegationsÏand€stated€that€all€he€had€done€was€put€some€cream€on€her€tummy€and€lowerÏback€for€itching.€€T.T.ððs€mother€admitted€she€had€made€a€mistake€when€talkingÏto€Defendantððs€wife.€€However,€investigators€came€to€the€house€a€few€daysÏlater.€€Ms.€Yaugher€went€with€her€husband€to€his€interview€at€the€policeÏdepartment€on€March€12th,€and€she€had€never€observed€him€being€that€upsetÏor€emotional€before.€€He€was€crying€uncontrollably€and€wringing€his€hands€afterÏthe€interview,€stating€that€he€could€not€believe€all€of€this€was€happening.€ÏFrightened€about€what€she€observed,€the€Defendantððs€wife€took€him€to€see€Dr.ÏAnn€Carter,€who€made€arrangements€for€him€to€be€admitted€to€MethodistÏHospital€in€Oak€Ridge.€€ÌÌà àRegarding€the€Defendantððs€mental€state,€Ms.€Yaugher€also€testifiedÏabout€Defendantððs€behavior€prior€to€the€interview€at€the€police€department€andÏhis€hospitalization.€€One€month€prior€to€the€allegations€being€made€known,€Ms.ÏYaugher€noticed€her€husbandððs€behavior€was€out€of€the€ordinary.€€He€wasÏforgetful€at€times.€€As€an€example,€she€stated€that€Defendant€bought€her€a€cardÏfor€Valentineððs€Day€without€purchasing€the€envelope.€€Michael€Walker,€theÏDefendantððs€brother„in„law,€also€testified€as€to€the€Defendantððs€mental€state€atÏthe€time€of€the€offense.€€In€January€1993,€he€visited€with€Mr.€and€Ms.€Yaugher.€ÏMr.€Walker€observed€that€while€the€Defendant€was€normally€very€precise€in€hisÏdeeds€and€actions,€that€during€this€particular€visit€Defendant€was€not€able€toÏapply€the€directions€concerning€a€job€he€was€performing€while€doing€renovationÏwork€at€his€home.€€On€another€occasion,€Walker€testified€that€the€DefendantÏcalled€him€and€was€lost€and€could€not€find€his€way€to€a€neighborhood€carÏdealership€located€one€and€one„half€(1ðð)€miles€from€his€home.€€Additionally,ÏWalker€stated€that€on€the€occasion€Defendant€went€to€the€store€to€get€aÏValentine€gift€for€his€wife,€he€arrived€at€the€cash€register€with€an€Easter€basket.€ÏWalker€acknowledged€that€the€Defendant€had€discussed€his€concerns€regardingÏhis€behavior€with€Mr.€Walker.€€Upon€discharge€from€the€hospital,€WalkerÏobserved€that€the€Defendant€was€a€completely€different€person€who€was€ableÏto€communicate€and€properly€show€his€feelings.ÌÌà àDr.€Michael€Fisher€testified€regarding€the€Defendantððs€psychiatricÏtreatment.€€He€met€Defendant€on€March€12,€1993€after€a€referral€due€to€theÏDefendantððs€depression€and€suicidal€tendencies.€€He€determined€that€DefendantÏwas€suffering€from€major€depression€and€pre„senile€dementia,€which€is€theÏoccurrence€of€dementia€in€a€person€who€has€not€yet€reached€the€age€of€sixty„five€(65)€years.€€Dr.€Fisher€testified€that€these€conditions€would€have€significantlyÏimpaired€the€Defendantððs€ability€to€reason€and€his€capacity€to€conform€hisÏconduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law€on€the€date€of€the€alleged€sexual€abuse.€ÏIn€his€expert€opinion,€Defendant€had€been€suffering€from€dementia€for€at€leastÏthree€(3)€months€prior€to€the€exam€on€March€12.€€Dependent€upon€theÏcircumstances,€Defendantððs€mental€condition€could€affect€his€capacity€to€resistÏthe€will€of€another€person.€€ÌÌà àRegarding€Defendantððs€interview€with€the€investigators,€Dr.€Fisher€opinedÏthat€Defendant€could€not€have€thought€clearly€enough€to€know€or€understandÏhis€legal€rights.€€During€cross„examination,€Dr.€Fisher€admitted€that€theÏDefendantððs€medical€tests,€including€an€EEG€and€CT€scan,€appeared€normalÏand€did€not€show€any€damage€to€the€brain.€€He€also€admitted€that€theÏDefendant€in€a€general€way€understood€that€it€is€wrong€to€use€a€seven€(7)€yearÏold€child€as€a€sexual€object.€Ìà àIn€summary,€Dr.€Fisher€testified€that€Defendant,€on€the€date€of€the€offense,Ïwas€mentally€impaired€due€to€his€dementia€and€depression,€was€unable€toÏconform€his€conduct€to€the€requirement€of€law,€and€had€a€ð ðsubstantialÏimpairment€of€his€capacity€to€appreciate€the€lawfulness€of€the€alleged€offense.ðð€ÏHe€admitted€that€the€Defendant€understood€that€the€offense€alleged€in€the€caseÏwas€wrongful€conduct,€but€explained€that€the€Defendant€had€a€problem€withÏhis€judgment,€which€included€ð ðimpulse€control.ðð€€It€was€Dr.€Fisherððs€opinion€that€ð ðifÏin€fact€the€Defendant€committed€the€offense,€it€was€an€impulsive€act.ðð€€OnÏredirect€examination,€Dr.€Fisher€stated€that€the€CT€scan€and€EEG€test€wereÏdone€to€ð ðrule€out€any€treatable€causes€for€dementia,ðð€and€indicated€the€resultsÏwere€not€inconsistent€with€diagnosis€of€dementia.Ìà àÌà àThe€Defendantððs€testimony€at€trial€was€that€the€victim€woke€him€up€on€theÏnight€of€the€incident,€and€she€was€scratching€herself.€€He€noticed€the€scratchesÏwere€bleeding€and€remembered€that€there€was€some€cream€ointment€in€theÏhouse.€€He€applied€it€to€the€victimððs€stomach.€€He€testified€he€believed€that€if€heÏattempted€to€leave€the€police€interview,€he€would€be€placed€in€jail.€€He€claimedÏthat€Detective€Staffney€got€tough€with€him,€yelling€that€he€(Staffney)€was€tired€ofÏthis€ð ðB.S.ðð€and€that€the€Defendant€was€going€to€prison.€€He€claimed€to€haveÏbecome€scared€at€this€point€and€went€into€ð ðshockðð€when€Detective€StaffneyÏinformed€him€that€they€would€take€Defendantððs€daughter€away€from€him.€€HeÍclaimed€that€the€investigators€told€him€what€to€draw€on€the€statement€and€forcedÏhim€to€write€that€he€had€placed€his€finger€inside€the€victimððs€vagina.ÌÌà àIn€rebuttal,€Dr.€Margaret€Delmonico,€a€forensic€psychologist,€testified€thatÏshe€evaluated€the€Defendant€to€determine€whether€he€was€competent€to€standÏtrial€and€to€determine€his€mental€condition€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€She€statedÏher€conclusions€were€that€Defendant€was€competent€to€stand€trial€and€wasÏboth€able€to€understand€the€wrongfulness€of€his€conduct€and€to€conform€hisÏconduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law€at€the€time€of€the€alleged€incident.ÌÌÔ€ ôÔà@ àA.€€CORROBORATIONÔ€ ŠÔ€Ô€ ôÔOF€CONFESSIONÔ€ ŠÔ€€ÌÌà àDefendant€argues€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€convict€himÏbecause€his€confession€was€uncorroborated€by€independent€proof.€€DefendantÏwas€convicted€of€the€offense€of€rape€of€a€child,€which€is€the€unlawful€sexualÏpenetration€of€a€victim€by€the€defendant€€.€.€.€if€such€victim€is€less€than€thirteenÏ(13)€years€of€age.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„522.€€Only€slight€evidence€of€theÏòòcorpusóó€òòdelictióó€is€necessary€to€corroborate€a€confession€in€order€to€sustain€theÏconviction.€€òòState€v.€Ervinóó,€731€S.W.2d€70,€72€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€ÌÌà àIn€òòErvinòòóó,€óóthe€defendant€was€convicted€of€aggravated€rape€andÏaggravated€sexual€battery.€€The€eleven€(11)€year€old€victim€in€that€case€toldÏseveral€people€prior€to€trial€that€the€defendant€had€fondled€her€private€parts€andÏinserted€his€fingers€into€her€vagina€on€various€occasions.€€A€pelvic€examinationÏof€the€victim€indicated€an€enlarged€vaginal€opening€which€could€be€caused€byÏdigital€penetration.€€The€defendant€gave€a€tape€recorded€confession€admittingÏthat€he€had€placed€his€fingers€inside€the€victimððs€vagina.€€Prior€to€trial,€the€victimÏrecanted€€the€allegations€of€sexual€abuse€by€the€defendant.€€At€trial,€she€deniedÏthat€appellant€had€sexually€abused€her.€€The€defendant€did€not€testify€at€hisÏtrial.€€Rejecting€the€defendantððs€argument€that€his€confession€was€notÏcorroborated,€and€therefore€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€sustain€the€conviction,Ïour€court€€held:ÌÓÓÌà8 àThe€corroborative€evidence€which€tends€to€prove€the€truthfulness€ofÏthe€defendantððs€statements€need€not€be€sufficient€to€establish€theÏòòcorpusóó€òòdelictióó€of€the€offense€charged.€€òòÌÌÌState€v.€Ervinóó€at€72.ÌÌÓÓÌà àIn€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€even€though€the€victim€denied€that€DefendantððsÏfingers€went€inside€her,€she€testified€that€his€fingers€went€inside€her€panties€andÏhe€rubbed€her€vaginal€area.€€In€addition,€Dr.€Vargas€testified€that€the€vaginalÏmucosa€was€red,€without€discharge.€€Under€this€courtððs€holding€in€òòState€v.€Ervinóó,€Íwe€find€that€there€was€sufficient€evidence€to€corroborate€DefendantððsÏconfession,€and€this€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà@ àÔ€ ôÔB.€€PROOF€OF€PENETRATIONÌÌÔ€ ŠÔà àDefendant€argues€that€there€was€insufficient€proof€of€penetration€toÏsupport€his€conviction.€€Defendant€signed€a€written€statement€to€investigators€inÏwhich€he€confessed€to€the€digital€penetration€of€the€victim.€€We€have€heretoforeÏheld€that€there€was€sufficient€corroboration€of€this€confession€to€sustain€theÏconviction.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àÔ€ ôÔC.€€DEFENSE€OF€INSANITYÌÌÔ€ ŠÔà àDefendant€asserts€that€the€State€did€not€prove€his€sanity€at€the€time€ofÏthe€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€We€note€that€the€offense€in€this€caseÏoccurred€prior€to€the€effective€date€of€the€amendment€to€the€statute€setting€forthÏthe€insanity€defense.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„501€(Supp.€1996).€€WeÏtherefore€address€this€issue€according€to€the€law€prior€to€July,€1995.ÌÌà àThe€law€presumes€that€one€who€is€accused€of€any€crime€is€sane.€€òòStateÏv.€Overbayóó,€874€S.W.2d€645,€650€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€If,€however,Íevidence€introduced€during€the€course€of€a€trial€creates€reasonable€doubt€on€theÏsanity€issue,€the€burden€of€proof€shifts€from€the€defendant€to€the€State.€€At€thatÏpoint,€the€State€must€establish€the€defendantððs€sanity€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€òòOverbayóó,€874€S.W.2d€at€650.ÌÌà àAs€stated€in€òòState€v.€Overbayóó:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€test€of€sanity€was€established€in€[òòGraham€v.€Stateóó,€547ÏS.W.2d€531€(Tenn.€1977)];€the€òòStateóó€must€show€by€sufficient€proofÏð ð(1)€that€at€the€time€of€the€offense€the€defendant€was€not€sufferingÏfrom€a€mental€disease€or€defect,€òòoróó€(2)€if€he€was,€that€his€illnessÏwas€not€such€as€to€prevent€him€from€knowing€the€wrongfulness€ofÏhis€conduct€òòandóó€from€conforming€his€conduct€to€the€requirements€ofÏlaw.ððÌÌÌòòState€v.€Overbayóó,€874€S.W.2d€at€650€(emphasis€in€original).ÌÌÓÓÌà àIn€summary,€the€Defendant€offered€proof€from€Dr.€Fisher€and€also€layÏtestimony€which€raised€the€issue€of€Defendantððs€sanity.€€The€State€offered€theÏproof€of€Dr.€Delmonico,€who€testified€that€Defendant€was€able€to€understand€theÏwrongfulness€of€his€conduct€at€the€time€of€the€offense€and€that€he€had€aÏsubstantial€capacity€to€conform€his€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law.€ÌÌà àWhile€Dr.€Delmonicoððs€examination€was€limited€to€a€one€(1)€hourÏinterview,€and€Dr.€Fisher€saw€the€Defendant€on€several€occasions,€we€agreeÍwith€the€State€€that€the€basic€foundation€of€Dr.€Fisherððs€conclusion€was€basedÏupon€the€fact€that€if€Defendant€did€commit€the€act,€it€was€ð ðimpulsive€behavior.ðð€ÏIn€òòGraham€v.€Stateóó,€547€S.W.2d€531€(Tenn.€1977),€our€supreme€courtÏspecifically€rejected€application€in€Tennessee€of€an€insanity€defense€basedÏupon€the€ð ðirresistible€impulse€test.ðð€€In€doing€so,€the€supreme€court€held:ÌÓÓÌà8 àUnder€[the€irresistable€impulse]€test,€a€criminal€defendant€is€said€toÏbe€relieved€of€criminal€responsibility€when€his€mental€condition€isÏsuch€as€to€deprive€him€of€his€willpower€to€resist€the€impulse€toÏcommit€the€crime,€despite€his€knowledge€of€whether€the€act€is€rightÏor€wrong.€€This€test€does€not€stand€alone€as€a€test€for€insanity€inÏany€jurisdiction,€and€we€reject€it,€believing€that€it€is€not€sufficientlyÏcomprehensive.ÌÌòòÌGrahamóó,€547€S.W.2d€at€540.ÌÌÓÓÌà àOne€expert€witness€testified€that,€in€his€opinion,€the€Defendant€met€theÏinsanity€test€of€òòGraham€v.€Stateóó.€€Another€expert€witness€called€by€the€StateÏcontradicted€this€proof.€€As€stated€above,€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€theÏweight€and€value€to€be€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raisedÏby€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€and€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.ÏPappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌà@ àIII.€€ADMISSION€OF€CONFESSIONÌÌà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€motion€toÏsuppress€his€statement€of€March€12,€1993€to€Detective€Staffney€and€Ms.€ByrgeÏof€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Human€Services.€€The€motion€to€suppressÏwas€taken€up€by€the€trial€court€during€two€separate€hearings.€€At€the€firstÏhearing,€Dr.€Michael€Fisher,€the€psychiatrist,€was€called€to€testify€by€theÏDefendant.€€He€testified€that€on€the€date€Defendantððs€statement€was€given€toÏthe€authorities,€March€12,€1993,€that€Defendant€was€suffering€from€two€(2)Ïmental€illnesses,€a€major€depressive€episode€and€pre„senile€dementia.€ÏAccording€to€Dr.€Fisher,€Defendant€had€a€moderate€to€severe€impairment€due€toÏthe€mental€illness.€€Based€upon€his€expertise,€Dr.€Fisher€relayed€that€he€did€notÏthink€Defendant€could€ð ðexert€a€will€of€his€own,ðð€and€that€ð ð[Defendant]€wouldÏhave€difficulty€understanding€most€anything€that€day.ðð€€ÌÌà àThe€doctor€stated€that€in€taking€Defendantððs€history,€he€was€informed€thatÏthe€Defendant€had€a€three€(3)€month€history€prior€to€March€12,€1993€of€sufferingÏmajor€depressive€symptoms€in€addition€to€symptoms€of€dementia.€€In€responseÏto€a€question€from€the€trial€court€as€to€whether€the€Defendantððs€voluntarilyÏcoming€for€treatment€indicated€that€he€knew€and€had€the€capacity€to€understandÏthere€was€something€wrong,€Dr.€Fisher€agreed€that€Defendant€ð ðunderstoodÏsomething€was€wrong.ðð€While€Dr.€Fisher€concluded€that€the€Defendant,€underÍthe€circumstances€of€interrogation€by€law€enforcement€officers,€could€not€fullyÏcomprehend€what€he€was€doing€at€the€time,€he€admitted€that€everyone€has€theÏpower€to€decide,€ð ðeven€the€most€mentally€incompetent€person.ðð€€He€admittedÏthat€it€was€doubtful€that€Defendant€would€ð ðjump€off€of€a€bridgeðð€if€he€had€beenÏapproached€by€a€total€stranger€who€requested€him€to€so€do.€€ÌÌà àDr.€Fisher€did€not€go€out€and€investigate€the€circumstances€surroundingÏthe€interrogation€of€Defendant,€and€did€not€talk€to€the€police€officer€or€anyoneÏelse€who€was€present€at€the€time€of€the€interrogation.€€He€also€admitted€that€theÏDefendant€could€walk€around€in€society,€perform€a€job,€and€talk€rationally€toÏpeople€while€suffering€from€the€pre„senile€dementia€and€depression.€€ÌÌà àAt€a€subsequent€hearing€on€the€motion€to€suppress,€Detective€StaffneyÏtestified€that€he€and€employees€from€the€Department€of€Human€Services€wentÏto€the€Defendantððs€home€the€day€before€Defendant€gave€the€statement.€€TheyÏadvised€Defendant€of€a€referral€of€possible€child€abuse€and€that€they€wanted€toÏspeak€to€him€the€following€day€at€police€headquarters.€€Defendant€agreed€toÏcome,€and€did€show€up€for€the€meeting€on€March€12€at€police€headquarters.€ÏDefendant€was€free€to€leave€at€any€time,€and€was€told€so€by€DetectiveÏStaffney.€€After€giving€a€verbal€statement,€Defendant€was€read€a€waiver€ofÏrights€form€and€signed€it.€€The€Defendant€subsequently€gave€the€writtenÍconfession€that€is€detailed€above€in€this€opinion.€€According€to€DetectiveÏStaffney,€he€did€not€tell€the€Defendant€what€to€put€in€the€statement€other€thanÏhe€asked€Defendant€to€include€details€involving€sexual€contact€in€the€writtenÏstatement.€€The€Defendant€wrote€the€entire€statement€himself.€€ÌÌà àMs.€Byrge€testified€that€she€did€not€notice€anything€unusual€about€theÏDefendant€either€at€his€home€on€March€11€or€during€the€interrogation€theÏfollowing€day€at€police€headquarters.€€There€was€nothing€to€indicate€DefendantÏwas€under€the€influence€of€alcohol€or€drugs€at€the€time€of€the€interrogation.€€TheÏDefendant€was€cooperative€throughout€the€interview€on€March€12,€never€askedÏfor€an€attorney,€and€never€gave€any€indication€that€he€wanted€to€leave€or€endÏthe€interrogation€prior€to€its€conclusion€by€Detective€Staffney€and€Ms.€Byrge.€ÏDefendant€also€asked€for€some€help€for€his€problem.€€The€Defendant€told€Ms.ÏByrge€and€Detective€Staffney€that€he€had€previously€suffered€a€stroke,€whichÏaffected€his€memory€a€little€bit.€€He€never€indicated€at€any€time€during€theÏinterview€that€he€was€having€trouble€remembering€events€being€discussed.€€ÌÌà àIn€his€ruling,€the€trial€court€specifically€found€that€the€law€enforcement€officerÏand€the€Department€of€Human€Services€worker€who€interviewed€Defendant€didÏnothing€to€coerce€him€into€giving€a€confession.€€While€the€trial€court€specificallyÏfound€that€Dr.€Fisherððs€expert€opinion€had€not€been€rebutted,€he€did€ð ðnot€findððÍthat€it€necessarily€reflects€that€[Defendantððs]€condition€was€as€he€[Dr.€Fisher]Ïrelated€it.ÌÌà àWith€regard€to€the€standard€of€review€for€a€suppression€issue,€ourÏsupreme€court€recently€stated€in€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18€(Tenn.€1996):ÌÓÓÌà8 àQuestions€of€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€ofÏthe€evidence,€and€resolution€of€conflicts€in€the€evidence€are€mattersÏentrusted€to€the€trial€judge€as€the€trier€of€fact.€€The€party€prevailing€inÏthe€trial€court€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏevidence€adduced€at€the€suppression€hearing€as€well€as€allÏreasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€from€thatÏevidence.€€So€long€as€the€greater€weight€of€the€evidence€supports€Ïthe€trial€courtððs€findings,€those€findings€shall€be€upheld.€€In€otherÏwords,€a€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€in€a€suppression€hearing€willÏbe€upheld€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.ÌÌòòÌOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€23.ÌÌÓÓÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Greenóó,€613€S.W.2d€229€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980),€our€courtÏheld:ÌÓÓÌà8 àNo€Tennessee€case€has€discussed€the€effect€that€insanity€hasÏupon€the€competency€of€a€confession.€€The€general€rule€is€that€aÏconfession€is€admissible€even€though€it€was€made€at€a€time€whenÏthe€accused€was€under€the€influence€of€narcotic€drugs€or€alcohol,€ifÏat€that€time€the€accused€was€capable€of€making€a€narrative€ofÏpast€events€or€of€stating€his€own€participation€in€the€crime.€[citationsÏomitted].€€òòWe€think€this€rule€should€apply€equally€to€the€issue€ofÏinsanityóó.€ÌÌÌòòGreenóó,613€S.W.2d€at€232„33€(emphasis€added).ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àThe€Defendant€relies€upon€the€case€of€òòState€v.€Bentonóó,€759ÏS.W.2d€427€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988)€in€support€of€his€argument.€€While€our€courtÏdid€hold€in€that€case€that€the€confession€was€not€ð ðvoluntaryðð€within€the€meaningÏof€the€due€process€clause€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment,€the€Fifth€Amendment€ofÏthe€United€States€Constitution,€and€Article€I,€ðð€9€of€the€Constitution€of€the€State€ofÏTennessee,€we€can€readily€distinguish€that€case€from€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó.€€InÏòòBentonóó,€the€defendant€was€a€forty„three€(43)€year€old€man€whose€mindÏfunctioned€as€a€five€(5)€year€old€child.€€The€defendantððs€ability€to€communicateÏwas€even€poorer€in€that€he€was€unable€to€read,€write,€or€count,€and€could€onlyÏunderstand€very€simple€verbal€instructions.€€In€addition,€the€defendant€in€òòBentonóóÏwas€taken€into€custody,€transported€in€a€police€vehicle€to€headquarters,€andÏsubjected€to€questioning€in€spite€of€his€retardation€and€his€expressed€desire€forÏhis€father€to€be€present€with€him€during€interrogation.€€ÌÌà àWe€simply€do€not€find€a€similar€set€of€facts€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó.€€WeÏagree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Fisher€does€not€necessarilyÏreflect€that€the€Defendantððs€condition€was€such€that€he€could€not€form€his€ownÏwill€or€that€Defendant€was€subjected€to€coercion€by€the€interrogators.€ÍDefendant€was€able€to€relate€specific€€events€and€wrote€out€the€confessionÏhimself.€€The€testimony€of€the€investigators€also€rebuts€the€conclusions€made€byÏDr.€Fisher.€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àIV.€€JURY€INSTRUCTIONSÌÌà àDefendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€instructing€the€jury€on€theÏlesser€grade€offense€of€aggravated€sexual€battery€over€his€objection.ÌÌà àWhile€this€issue€is€titled€by€the€Defendant€in€his€brief€as€a€challenge€toÏthe€legal€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€to€sustain€ð ða€conviction€for€aggravatedÏsexual€battery,ðð€it€clearly€relates€to€the€trial€court€giving€the€jury€the€instruction€onÏthe€lesser€offense€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€As€such,€the€issue€was€notÏcontained€in€either€the€Defendantððs€original€motion€for€new€trial€or€subsequentlyÏfiled€amended€motion€for€new€trial,€and€is€therefore€waived.€€T.R.A.P.€3(e).€€WeÏnote€that€even€if€not€waived,€the€issue€would€be€totally€without€merit.€ÏDefendant€was€convicted€of€the€offense€of€rape€of€a€child.€€We€fail€to€see€howÏa€jury€instruction€on€the€lesser€offense€of€aggravated€sexual€battery,€even€ifÏerroneously€given,€could€be€prejudicial€to€the€Defendant€in€such€circumstances.€ÏThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àFinding€no€reversible€error,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€ÌÓÓÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€Judge