WPC # VUNa % 0(4 0l 0Dl w@  0J 0TB 0^ 0h 0r\ 0| 0J 0 1u` U, 0dU,eU>U*B)DC" Be AMU* D3+,xW 0@v~v AO` 0Du D/ BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($~| 3|xY((3$ !      0  (#$  0   EDFPG{HIUJUKDLUMNӀ2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Times% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd d-&C << G<  9p`(Arial'''''dxd ! !  #d##  ))   YYY FILED)X May13,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.)AppellateCourtClerk  n !  #d##  $       Sincethestateelectedtoproceedontheincidentinthebathroom,inwhichdefendant allegedlyforcedthevictimtoperformfellatio,thevictimwasactuallytheonlywitness.("$    PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &""Xd&#""Xd##     \RA'\ћ7vqXXdd7  # &$$X8d&ӜL(+&;+'h|`  `Lߛ@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@ ATKNOXVILLESTATEOFTENNESSEE, ) FORPUBLICATION     ) Appellee,   )     )v.     ) CumberlandCriminal     )̜DARELG.BOLIN,  ) Hon.LeonBurns,Judge     )  Appellant.   ) No.03S019508CC00096̜@ DISSENTINGOPINION  Idissentfromthemajoritysholdingthattheadmissionofthesocialworkerstestimony probablydidnotaffectthejudgment...and...didnotresultinprejudicetothejusticesystemasawhole.Inmyopiniontheconclusionisfostered,notbyalegalanalysisoftheeffectoftheclearlyinadmissibletestimony,butbythejustifieddisgustoverdefendantsdespicableoffense. Thevictimandherbrothertestifiedtoactswhichcouldconstitutetheoffenseofaggravatedsexualbattery. ,   ׀Theybothadmittedthattheyhadtoldtheirmother,whensheaskedthemtotellherthetruth,thattheeventsdidnotoccur.Numerousotherinconsistenciesweredevelopedincrossexaminationofthevictim,herbrother,andhermother. Defendanttestifiedanddeniedtheaccusations.Hepresentedevidencethatthevictimhadreportedpriorsexualabusebyherbabysittersson.Defendantalsocalledasocialworkerandtwodoctorswhodescribedotherdetailsinconsistentwiththevictimstestimony. Thus,asinmostcasesofthisnature,thejurystaskwastodeterminewhethertobelievethevictimorthedefendant.Thevictimspriorinconsistentstatementandthenumerousinconsistenciesinthedetailsoftheoffense,accordingtothejuryinstructionsgivenbythetrialjudge,requirethejurytoweightheevidenceandentitlethejurytodisregardtheevidenceandtreatitasuntrue,ifitisnotindependentlycorroborated.See󛀜Statev.Matthews,888S.W.2d446,449(Tenn.Crim.App.),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1993). Thistaskofweighingconflictingevidenceandascertainingwhichevidencetoacceptisthejurysfunction.Itis,inessence,thereasonthejurysystemexists.Seee.g.,Statev.Anderson,880S.W.2d720,726(Tenn.Crim.App.),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1994);Statev.Shropshire,874S.W.2d634,639(Tenn.Crim.App.1993),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1994);Byrgev.State,575S.W.2d292,295(Tenn.Crim.App.),cert.denied,(Tenn.1978).Appellatecourtsoftencautiontrialjudgesagainstinvadingthatsacredprovince.Seee.g.,Morganv.TennesseeCentralRy.Co.,216S.W.2d32,37(Tenn.1948);Statev.Shropshire,874S.W.2d634,639(Tenn.Crim.App.1993),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1994);Lorentzv.Deardan,834S.W.2d316,320(Tenn.App.),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1992).Westrictlyapplytherulesofevidencetoassurethatcredibilityisattackedorbolsteredonlybyappropriate,authorizedmeans.Seee.g.,Statev.Dutton,896S.W.2d114,118(Tenn.1995);Statev.Morgan,541S.W.2d385(Tenn.1976);Statev.Walton,673S.W.2d166,169(Tenn.Crim.App.),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1984). Triallawyersaretaughtthatthehallmarkofagoodimpeachmentcrossexaminationareattacksonaccuracyofobservation,memory,andtruthfulness.SeegenerallyG.Lilly,AnIntroductiontotheLawofEvidence,79,at279(1978).Awitnesswhoisdiscreditedbyhisorherowncontradictionsorfaultyorinsufficientrecollectionisnotasbelievableasonewhofareswellundercrossexamination.Ouracceptanceofthispropositionisrecognizedinourrulesofevidenceandourcaselawandrepeatedinjuryinstructions.Seee.g.,Tenn.R.Evid.607609;Johnstonv.CincinnatiN.O.&T.P.Ry.Co.,240S.W.429,436(Tenn.1922);TennesseePatternJuryInst.Civil2.20.Theseuniversallyrecognizedandjustifiedrulesareamongthosemostrememberedandoftencitedbylawstudents,professors,andlawyersinthecontextofvirtuallyeverykindoflegaldispute.Yetinthecontextofchildwitnessesandsexualoffensesprosecutionsthesefamiliarrulesarealltoooftenbrushedaside.Thedesiretopurgesocietyofpedophiles,tominimizethetraumaexperiencedbyinnocentchildvictims,andtoprosecuteandpunishharshlythosewhocommitsexualabuseisunderstandable.Butaccomplishingthosedesirablegoalsbystretchingevidentiaryrulesbeyondrecognitionisneitherjustifiednoracceptable. Inthiscase,andalltoooftenincasesofthisnature,anunqualifiedwitnesswasallowedtotellthejurywhotobelieveandwhy.Thesocialworkerstestimonydiscountedallthefamiliarfacetsofimpeachment.First,shetoldthejurythatrecollectionandmemory,oftenafirstlineattackincredibilityskirmishes,wasnotimportantwithchildvictimsandshouldnotbeconsidered.Secondly,shediscountedtheimportanceofdetails,anotherfertilebasisforcrossexaminationandimpeachment.Finally,andmoresubtly,sheexplainedawaytheimportanceofinconsistenciesinchildrenstestimony. InnoothercontextinAmericanjurisprudencedoweallowawitness,ofanytypeofskillortraining,totellajurytodisregard,indeterminingcredibility,theveryfactorswhichweinstructthemtoconsider.Innoothertypeofcasedoweallowawitness,regardlessofbackgroundoreducation,toexplaintothejurytheinconsistent,nondetailedsketchytestimonyofanother.Statedsuccinctly,innoothercontext,doweallowwitnessestoinvadethejuryssoleprovinceofdeterminingthecredibilityofthewitnessesandfindingthefacts. Giventheextremelylimitedevidenceinthiscase,Idisagreewiththemajoritysconclusionthatthecaseagainstdefendantwas strong.Theadmissibleevidenceagainstdefendantwasthatofthevictimwhosetestimonywasimpeachedbyinconsistencies,lackofdetail,andlackofmemory.Themajoritystatesthatthiscasedoesnotrestontheunsubstantiatedtestimonyofthevictim.Infact,itdoesjustthat.Onlyonewitness,thevictim,testifiedtothecriminalactonwhichthestateelectedtoproceed.Nophysicalevidencecouldcorroboratetheact.Inthiscontext,theclearlyinadmissibletestimonyofthesocialworkerexplainingtheinconsistencies,sketchiness,andvagueriesofthesolewitnesstestimonycannotbeconsideredharmless. Equallyimportanttotheanalysisoftheharmfulnessofthisevidenceistheharmwhichthiserrorcastsontheadministrationofjustice.Sincetheonsetofeffortstorelaxtheevidentiaryrulesinthiscontext,wehavesteadfastlyremindedthebenchandbarthattherulesmustbeapplieduniformlydespiteundesired,disgustingresults.SeeStatev.Ballard,855S.W.2d557(Tenn.1993).SeealsoStatev.Schimpf,782S.W.2d186(Tenn.Crim.App.1989),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1990).Notwithstandingtheclarityoftheserulings,theproblemsarerecurrentandfrequent.Upholdingtheverdictinthiscasedespiteerror,throughtheharmlesserrorescapehatchis,inmyopinion,adisservicetotheadministrationofjusticeandarelinquishmentofourobligationtouniformapplicationofthelaw.Byrescuingprosecutorswhouseclearlyinadmissibleevidence,weencouragethemtocomecloserandclosertotheethicallineintheirattemptstowinthesedifficultcases.Weshould,inmyopinion,applytherulesofevidence,theveryskeletonofoursystem,consistentlyanduniformly,despitethedreadedresultofoverturningtheconvictionofonechargedwithamostdespicableoffense.    ____________________________________    PennyJ.White,Justice ̛̛CONCUR:Reid,J.̛