ÿWPC¼# …# VU:a %› 04¡4Õé 0xø 0Dp ´ 0J¼ w@ 0TF 0^š 0hø 0r` 0|Ò 0†N 0Ô 1ud U,Ù 0dU,iU *•B)¿ BèDC AMH!•z¶Â0 D3ò%[+ 0@†v~ÆvÓD AO"Æf" 0D,# D/p# BŸ#˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Óà~| tÔôÔô3|x (((3ÝÙ$¤¤Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô  D U   D   e  Ó€2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d####7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌò òMay€13,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€"ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó pÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÒ ž ÒÒ ° ÒThe€specific€symptoms€identified€by€the€expert€in€òòBallardóó€were€bed„wetting,€clinging,€fear,€irritability,€nightmares,€anxiety€and€discipline€problemsÏat€school.Ì ¸Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€Judges€Wade€and€Hayes€found€that€theÏà àadmission€of€the€social€workerððs€testimony€was€error,€but€determined€that€it€wasÏà àharmless€in€light€of€the€amount€of€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€guilt€in€the€record.€Ì$$$$'ÿÿdxd üÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAggravated€rape€is€defined€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„502(a)€as€theÏ"unlawful€à àsexual€penetration€of€a€victim€by€the€defendant€or€the€defendant€by€aÏvictim€...".€€à à"Sexual€penetration€is€defined€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„501(7)€asÏ"sexual€à àintercourse,€cunnilingus,€fellatio,€anal€intercourse,€or€any€other€intrusion,Ïhowever€à àslight,€of€any€part€of€a€person's€body€or€of€any€object€into€the€genital€orÏanal€à àopenings€of€the€victim's,€the€defendant's,€or€any€other€person's€body,€but€theÏà àemission€of€semen€is€not€required."€Ì QÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAggravated€sexual€battery€is€defined€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„504(a)€asÏà à"unlawful€sexual€contact€with€a€victim€by€the€defendant€or€the€defendant€by€theÏà àvictim€...€".€€"Sexual€contact"€is€defined€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„501(6)€asÏ"the€à àintentional€touching€of€the€victim's,€the€defendant's,€or€any€other€person'sÏintimate€à àparts,€or€the€intentional€touching€of€the€clothing€covering€the€immediateÏarea€of€the€à àvictim's,€the€defendant's,€or€any€other€person's€intimate€parts,€if€thatÏintentional€à àtouching€can€be€reasonably€construed€as€being€for€the€purpose€of€sexualÏarousal€à àor€gratification."€Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÑ , ÑÑ ` ÑÑ7€áXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÙ€€ÙßL€&'%;+'h|` Å `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURTÏOF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLE€ÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àFiled:€May€13,Ï1996à àà àAppellee,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àCUMBERLAND€CRIMINALÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌDAREL€G.€BOLIN,à àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Leon€Burns,€Judge€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€03S01„9508„CC„00096à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌJoe€L.€Finley,€Jr.à àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌCookeville,€TennesseeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMichael€E.€MooreÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSolicitor€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àGordon€W.€SmithÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Solicitor€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌà@ àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€E.ÏGibsonà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrictÏAttorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCookeville,€TennesseeÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDavid€A.€PattersonÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCookeville,€TennesseeÌà@ àÌÌÔ€"„Ôà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌÔ€"XÔCOURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALSÌÓÓAFFIRMED.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDROWOTA,€J.Çà àThe€defendant,€Darel€G.€Bolin,€appeals€from€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals'€affirmance€of€his€conviction€for€the€aggravated€sexual€battery€of€a€nineÏyear€old€girl.€€This€case€presents€two€issues€for€our€determination:€(1)€whether€theÏadmission€at€trial€of€a€social€worker's€testimony,€which€consisted€of€a€generalÏstatement€that€young€victims€of€repeated€sexual€abuse€have€troubleÏremembering€when€the€specific€events€of€abuse€occurred,€constitutes€reversibleÏerror;€and€(2)€whether€the€verdict€was€an€impermissible€"patchwork"€because€theÏevidence€did€not€support€the€jury's€finding€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€For€theÏreasons€set€forth€below,€we€conclude€that€no€reversible€error€occurred,€andÏtherefore,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.€€ÌÌÓ  Óòòò òFACTS€AND€PROCEDURAL€HISTORYóóà àó óà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÓ  Óà àÌà àIn€March€1992€K.N.,€the€nine„year€old€daughter€of€the€defendant's€live„inÏgirlfriend,€wrote€a€note€to€her€teacher€in€which€she€stated€that€"my€dad€likes€me€inÏthe€wrong€way,€he€touches€my€middle€part."€€The€teacher€then€informed€theÏDepartment€of€Human€Services€(DHS),€who€conducted€a€series€of€interviews€inÍwhich€K.N.€related€the€details€of€the€events.€€As€a€result€of€these€interviews,€inÏMay€1992€the€Cumberland€County€Grand€Jury€indicted€the€defendant€for€theÏaggravated€rape€of€K.N.€€The€indictment€stated€that€this€offense€occurred€"onÏseveral€occasions€during€the€past€three€(3)€years."€€ÌÌà àAt€trial€K.N.€testified€that€on€numerous€occasions€the€defendant€went€intoÏthe€bathroom€with€her,€required€her€to€hold€Playboy€magazines€in€front€of€herÏface,€and€"made€me€put€my€hand€on€his€thing€and€made€me€go€up€and€down,Ïand€sometimes€he€made€me€put€my€mouth€on€it."€€K.N.€stated€that€on€oneÏparticular€occasion€she€was€required€to€perform€fellatio€on€the€defendant,€andÏthat€she€spat€the€"icky€stuff"€that€came€out€of€his€penis€into€the€sink.€€K.N.€alsoÏstated€that€the€defendant€sometimes€cornered€her€in€a€bedroom€and€tried€to€putÏhis€penis€inside€her,€but€that€she€"scooted€away"€from€him.€€K.N.€testified€that€theÏdefendant€threatened€to€kill€her,€her€mother€and€her€twelve€year€old€brother€ChadÏif€she€told€anyone€of€their€activities.€€€K.N.€could€not€say€exactly€when€the€sexualÏevents€occurred,€but€stated€that€they€happened€when€she€was€probably€"goingÏon€nine."€€On€cross„examination€K.N.€admitted€that€she€and€Chad€had€told€theirÍmother€in€the€summer€of€1992€that€the€events€did€not€occur.€€K.N.€also€testifiedÏthat€she€and€Chad€had€made€these€untrue€statements€in€order€to€protect€theirÏmother.€€ÌÌà àThe€State€also€called€Chad€as€a€witness.€€Chad€stated€that€on€oneÏoccasion€he€observed€the€defendant€and€K.N.€in€the€bedroom,€that€their€pantsÏwere€down,€and€that€the€defendant€was€holding€K.N.'s€wrists€and€trying€to€put€hisÏpenis€inside€her.€€Chad€testified€that€he€did€not€tell€anyone€about€this€becauseÏ"I'd€be€put€in€foster€care,€Darel€would€be€put€in€jail,€and€mama€would€be€all€upsetÏand€everything."€€Chad€also€admitted€that,€in€the€late€spring€or€summer€of€1992,Ïhe€had€told€his€mother€that€nothing€had€occurred€between€the€defendant€andÏK.N.€€However,€he€also€explained€that€he€told€his€mother€this€so€as€not€to€upsetÏher.ÌÌà àThe€State's€final€witness€was€K.N.'s€mother.€€She€testified€that€theÏdefendant€lived€with€her€and€the€children€intermittently€since€1987,€and€full„timeÏfrom€August€1991€to€March€1992.€€The€mother€stated€that€she€and€the€defendantÍhad€planned€to€get€married€in€April€of€1992.€€She€also€testified€she€knew€nothingÏof€any€improper€contact€between€K.N.€and€the€defendant,€and€that€the€onlyÏincident€between€them€having€any€connection€to€sex€occurred€in€February€1992Ïwhen€the€defendant€informed€the€mother€that€K.N.€had€walked€in€on€him€while€heÏwas€masturbating€in€the€bathroom.€€The€mother€stated€that€at€no€time€did€K.N.Ïever€tell€her€that€the€defendant€had€done€anything€to€her.€€€€à8 àÌÌà àThe€defense€called€as€its€first€witness€Dr.€William€Colburn.€€Dr.€ColburnÏtestified€that€there€was€no€clear€medical€evidence€that€K.N.€had€been€abused.€ÏHowever,€Dr.€Colburn€also€stated€that€K.N.€told€him€that€the€defendant€hadÏattempted€to€place€his€penis€inside€her€several€times,€but€that€she€had€alwaysÏeluded€him.€€Dr.€Colburn€also€testified€that€K.N.€had€told€him€that€she€had€neverÏbeen€abused€by€anyone€other€than€the€defendant.ÌÌà àThe€defense€next€called€Dr.€Mary€Sentef,€a€pediatrician€who€testified€thatÏin€January€1988€K.N.€reported€being€sexually€abused€by€her€babysitter's€elevenÏyear€old€son.€€Dr.€Sentef€testified€that€she€examined€K.N.,€concluded€that€sexualÍabuse€had€possibly€occurred,€and€then€contacted€DHS.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€then€took€the€stand.€€He€denied€having€any€improperÏcontact€with€K.N.,€although€he€did€mention€the€bathroom€incident€testified€to€byÏthe€mother.€€The€defendant€testified€that€K.N.€and€her€brother€disliked€him€andÏwere€jealous€of€his€relationship€with€the€mother;€the€defendant€also€hypothesizedÏthat€K.N.€fabricated€the€charges€against€him€so€as€to€get€rid€of€him€and€thwart€theÏimpending€marriage€between€him€and€their€mother.ÌÌà àThe€final€witness€called€by€the€defense€was€Dorothy€Terwilliger,€a€socialÏworker€employed€by€DHS.€€Terwilliger€testified€that€she€interviewed€K.N.€onÏMarch€31,€1992€„„€soon€after€K.N.€wrote€the€note€to€the€teacher€„„€€and€that€K.N.Ïtold€her€that€the€defendant€had€held€her€wrists€and€tried€to€place€his€penis€insideÏher.€€Terwilliger€testified€that€K.N.€did€not€mention€that€she€had€ever€been€madeÏto€perform€oral€sex€on€the€defendant€during€the€first€interview€session;€sheÏtestified€that€these€details€had€surfaced€in€later€interviews.€€Terwilliger€also€statedÏthat€K.N.€could€not€specify€when€the€abuse€occurred:€K.N.€first€said€in€theÍinterview€that€the€abuse€occurred€"about€five€years€ago,"€but€after€furtherÏquestioning,€she€said€that€it€occurred€"about€two€years€ago."€€On€the€State'sÏcross„examination€of€Terwilliger,€the€following€colloquy€took€place:€€ÌÌÓÓà8 àQ:€Has€K.N.€ever€made€a€statement,€to€your€knowledge,€that'sÏinconsistent€with€her€original€statement?€€I€know€there's€been€moreÏdetail€that's€come€out€across€the€course€of€this€investigation.€€DoÏyou€know€of€any€inconsistency?ÌÌà8 àA:€I€would€say€that€the€time€frames€with€[K.N.]€may€be€inconsistent.€ÏAnd€if€you're€abused€over€a€long€period€of€time€...€(interrupted)ÌÌà8 àDefense€Counsel:€I'm€going€to€object,€your€honor,€to€all€theseÏinterpretations€on€how€to€tell€what€the€truth€is.€€That's€the€jury's€job.ÌÌà8 àThe€Court:€Well,€she€may€answer€the€question.€€Overruled.ÌÌà8 àDefense€counsel:€But€she€didn't€answer€the€question.€€The€questionÏwas,€did€she€make€inconsistent€statements,€not€a€psychologicalÏopinion.ÌÌà8 àThe€Court:€You€may€answer€the€question.ÌÌà8 àA:€òòChildren€that€are€abused€over€a€long€period€of€time€or€areÏabused€on€multiple€occasions€have€a€difficult€time€rememberingÏwhen,€where€and€how€each€event€takes€place.€€It's€hard€to€get€aÏchild€to€remember€what€they€had€for€supper€last€night€sometimes.€ÏThe€child€who€is€traumatized€certainly€can't€remember€what,€whenÏand€how€on€specific€dates.€€We€try€to€get€them€to€focus€on€whatÍgrade€they€may€have€been€in€school€at€the€time,€was€it€cold€or€warmÏoutside,€was€it€around€Christmas€time,€or€try€to€pin€them€down,€butÏit's€just€about€impossibleóó.ÌÌ(emphasis€added.)ÌÓÓÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€proof,€the€State€elected€to€proceed€on€the€incidentÏwhere€the€defendant€allegedly€forced€K.N.€to€perform€fellatio€upon€him€in€theÏbathroom.€€The€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„504(a).€€The€defendant€then€appealed€from€thisÏjudgment€to€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€and€that€court€affirmed€the€judgment.€ÏWe€granted€the€defendant's€application€for€permission€to€appeal€pursuant€to€RuleÏ11,€Tenn.R.App.P,€to€address€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€theÏemphasized€testimony€of€the€social€worker,€and€whether€the€error,€if€any,€requiresÏreversal€of€the€conviction.€€ÌÌÓ  Óòòò òIó óóó.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€first€issue€we€address€is€whether€the€admission€of€the€testimony€wasÏerroneous.€€In€òòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557€(Tenn.€1993),€we€held€that€theÏadmission€of€expert€testimony€as€to€the€"child€sexual€abuse€syndrome"€„„€aÏconstellation€of€symptoms€supposedly€exhibited€by€young€victims€of€sexualÏabuseœ× ƒ( ××  ×›€„„€was€error.€€We€stated€that:ÌÌÓÓà8 àResearch€has€led€us€to€conclude€that€no€one€symptom€or€group€ofÏsymptoms€are€readily€agreed€upon€in€the€medical€field€that€wouldÏprovide€a€reliable€indication€of€the€presence€of€sexual€abuse.€€AÏbehavioral€profile€that€is€sufficient€for€the€purposes€of€psychologicalÏtreatment€between€patient€and€doctor€does€not€rise€to€the€strictÏrequirements€necessary€for€admissibility€in€a€criminal€court€of€law.€ÏA€dysfunctional€behavioral€profile€may€be€brought€on€by€anyÏnumber€of€stressful€experiences,€albeit,€including€sexual€abuse.€ÏHowever,€the€list€of€symptoms€described€by€[the€expert€in€this€case]Ïare€too€generic.€€The€same€symptoms€may€be€exhibited€by€manyÏchildren€who€are€merely€distressed€by€the€turbulence€of€growing€up.€€ÌÌà8 àFurther,€because€no€consensus€exists€on€the€reliability€of€aÏpsychological€profile€to€determine€abuse,€expert€testimonyÏdescribing€the€behavior€of€an€allegedly€sexually€abused€child€is€notÏreliable€enough€to€'substantially€assist'€a€jury€in€an€inquiry€ofÍwhether€the€crime€of€child€sexual€abuse€has€taken€place.€ÌÌÓÓòòÌBallardóó,€855€S.W.2d€at€562€(citation€omitted.)€€After€setting€forth€our€objections,Ïwe€concluded€that€"expert€testimony€of€this€type€invades€the€province€of€the€juryÏto€decide€on€the€credibility€of€witnesses."€€òòIdóó.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€880ÏS.W.2d€720€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€Schimpfóó,€782€S.W.2d€186€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1989).€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€emphasized€testimony€of€the€social€workerÏis€akin€to€expert€testimony€of€the€"child€sexual€abuse€syndrome."€€Therefore,€heÏcontends,€its€admission€was€error.€€ÌÌà àOn€the€other€hand,€the€State€points€out€that€the€social€worker€was€notÏqualified€as€an€expert.€Thus,€it€argues,€the€testimony€was€not€expert€testimony€atÏall,€and€it€does€not€violate€òòBallardóó.€€Moreover,€the€State€argues€that€the€testimonyÏwas€not€even€"opinion"€evidence,€either€expert€or€lay,€because€it€was€based€uponÏher€personal,€factual€observation€of€children€as€a€Department€of€Human€servicesÍcounselor.€€Therefore,€the€State€concludes,€the€testimony€was€consistent€with€theÏrule€that€an€"ordinary€witness€must€confine€his€testimony€to€a€narration€of€factsÏbased€on€first„hand€knowledge€and€avoid€stating€mere€personal€opinion."€ÏòòBlackburn€v.€Murphyóó,€737€S.W.2d€529,€531€(Tenn.€1987),€quoting€D.€Paine,€òòLawÏof€Evidenceóó€(1974),€ðð€168,€p.€186.€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àWe€cannot€agree€with€the€State's€argument.€€Taking€the€latter€point€first,Ïwe€note€that€although€the€social€worker's€testimony€may€have€been€based€onÏfactual€observations,€it€was€not€presented€that€way:€the€testimony€contains€noÏreferences€to€any€such€observations,€and€was€stated€in€a€general€and€abstractÏmanner.€€Therefore,€it€must€be€classified€as€"opinion"€evidence.€€Moreover,€evenÏif€the€testimony€was€not€"opinion"€evidence,€this€does€not€mean€that€it€is€notÏ"expert"€evidence.€€Rule€702€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€provides€that:ÌÌÓÓà8 àIf€scientific,€technical,€or€other€specialized€knowledge€willÏsubstantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact€to€understand€the€evidence€or€toÏdetermine€a€fact€in€issue,€a€witness€qualified€as€an€expert€byÏknowledge,€skill,€experience,€training,€or€education€may€testify€òòinÏthe€form€of€an€opinionóó€òòor€otherwiseóó.ÌÌ(emphasis€added.)ÌÌÓÓÌNot€only€does€the€rule€governing€expert€testimony€not€require€it€to€be€given€in€theÏform€of€an€opinion,€the€Court€of€Appeals€has€held€that€expert€testimony€does€notÏhave€to€be€so€presented.€€òòPichon€ex€rel.€Pichon€v.€Opryland,€USA,€Incóó.,€841ÏS.W.2d€326€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€ÌÌà àAs€to€the€State's€first€point,€it€is€true€that€the€social€worker€was€not€formallyÏqualified€as€an€expert.€€However,€it€is€also€true€that€the€average€juror€would€notÏknow,€as€a€matter€of€course,€that€abused€children€often€confuse€or€forget€theÏspecific€dates€of€the€abuse.€€Therefore,€the€testimony€was€clearly€"specializedÏknowledge"€intended€to€"substantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact€to€understand€theÏevidence€or€to€determine€a€fact€in€issue,"€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702.€€Thus,€it€constitutesÏexpert€proof.€€Because€the€social€worker's€testimony€is€closely€related€to€the€childÏsexual€abuse€syndrome€„„€indeed,€it€is€but€a€specific€symptom€in€theÏ"constellation"€„„€we€conclude€that€it€violates€the€rule€enunciated€in€òòBallardóó€andÍthat€its€admission€was€error.€€ÌÌà àHaving€determined€that€the€admission€of€the€testimony€was€error,€we€nowÏmove€to€the€next€inquiry:€whether€the€error€was€prejudicial€to€the€defendant.€€AnÏerror€is€prejudicial,€and€thus€not€harmless,€if,€after€considering€the€whole€record,€itÏinvolves€a€substantial€right€which€more€probably€than€not€affected€the€judgment,Ïor€results€in€prejudice€to€the€judicial€process.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€testimony€was€not€harmless€because€itÏeffectively€"explained€away"€the€inconsistencies€of€K.N.€and€Chad's€testimonyÏand€their€recantations€of€the€accusations.€€This,€the€defendant€insists,€coupledÏwith€the€lack€of€medical€proof€of€abuse,€renders€the€erroneously€admittedÏtestimony€prejudicial€to€the€defendant.€€ÌÌà àWe€find,€however,€that€the€defendant€construes€the€social€worker'sÏtestimony€too€broadly.€€The€testimony€essentially€consists€of€an€explanation€of€aÏnarrow€issue€„„€why€K.N.€could€not€assign€reasonably€specific€time€or€dates€toÍany€of€the€alleged€events€of€sexual€abuse.€€Therefore,€the€testimony€does€not,Ïunlike€the€testimony€in€òòBallardóó,€purport€to€completely€vouch€for€the€overallÏcredibility€of€the€victim,€and€thus€it€cannot€be€said€to€have€"explained€away"€theÏinconsistencies€and€recantations€„„€the€heart€of€the€defense€theory.€€Hence,€theÏdamaging€effect€of€the€testimony€is€minimal.ÌÌà àMoreover,€the€likelihood€that€the€error€could€have€affected€the€judgment€isÏslight€in€view€of€the€entire€record.€€While€there€was€no€conclusive€medicalÏevidence€that€K.N.€had€been€abused,€neither€did€the€medical€evidence€rule€outÏthe€possibility€of€abuse.€€K.N.€related€episodes€of€sexual€abuse€to€three€differentÏparties€„„€the€teacher,€the€social€worker,€and€Dr.€Colburn€„„€over€a€period€ofÏseveral€weeks€or€months.€€Furthermore,€her€older€brother€witnessed€improperÏsexual€contact€occurring€between€the€defendant€and€K.N.€€Aside€from€theÏrecantation€„„€for€which€a€reasonable€explanation€was€offered€„„€the€only€possibleÏinconsistencies€in€K.N.'s€stories€that€we€can€glean€from€the€record€are€that€sheÏdid€not€mention€any€oral€sex€during€the€first€interviews,€but€revealed€thisÏinformation€at€a€later€time;€and€that€she€told€Dr.€Colburn€that€she€had€not€beenÍabused€when€in€fact€she€had€possibly€been€abused€some€years€ago€by€anÏeleven€year€old€boy.€€In€summation,€the€evidence€of€the€defendant's€guilt€isÏstrong;€this€is€not€a€case€where€the€only€evidence€of€the€defendant's€guilt€is€theÏunsubstantiated€testimony€of€the€alleged€victim.× ƒ) ××  ×€ÌÌà àAfter€considering€the€entire€record,€we€are€satisfied€that€this€error€did€notÏaffect€the€judgment;€and€we€are€convinced€that€it€did€not€result€in€prejudice€to€theÏjudicial€system€as€a€whole.€€ÌÌÓ  Óòòò òIIó óóó.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€next€issue€that€we€address€is€whether€the€jury's€finding€of€aggravatedÏsexual€battery€constituted€an€impermissible€"patchwork"€verdict€of€the€typeÏcondemned€in€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€851€S.W.2d€134€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€defendantÏargues€that€the€verdict€is€impermissible€because€the€evidence€supporting€theÍincident€upon€which€the€State€elected€to€proceed€„„€the€fellatio€incident€„„€showsÏ"sexual€penetration,"an€element€of€aggravated€rape,× ƒ+ ××  ×€and€not€"sexual€contact,"Ïan€element€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.× ƒ, ××  ×€€Because€the€evidence€supporting€theÏincident€does€not€fit€the€crime€of€aggravated€sexual€battery,€the€defendantÏargues,€the€jury€must€have€based€its€verdict€on€incidents€other€than€the€oneÏelected€by€the€State.€ÌÌà àThe€defendant's€argument€is€without€merit.€€First,€the€evidence€in€theÍrecord€shows€that€the€defendant€forced€K.N.€to€perform€fellatio€in€the€bathroom€inÏaddition€to€masturbating€him.€€Because€the€jury€is€free€to€believe€only€part€of€aÏwitness'€testimony,€òòWilson€v.€Stateóó,€574€S.W.2d€52,€55€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978);ÏòòBatey€v.€Stateóó,€527€S.W.2d€148,€150€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975),€the€jury€may€haveÏsimply€believed€K.N.'s€testimony€about€the€masturbation€but€disbelieved€herÏallegations€of€oral€sex.€€Such€a€finding€would€constitute€the€element€of€"unlawfulÏsexual€contact"€required€for€the€crime€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€Second,€theÏtrial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€aggravated€sexual€battery€was€a€lesser€includedÏoffense€of€aggravated€rape.€€It€is€well„settled€that€when€a€jury€is€instructed€as€to€aÏlesser€included€offense€of€that€charged€in€the€indictment,€a€conviction€of€theÏlesser€included€offense€may€stand,€even€if€the€technical€requirements€of€thatÏoffense€are€not€present,€if€the€evidence€supports€the€greater€offense.€€òòState€v.ÏMellonsóó,€557€S.W.2d€497,€499€(Tenn.€1977);€òòReagan€v.€Stateóó,€155€Tenn.€397,Ï293€S.W.2d€755€(1927);€òòCraig€v.€Stateóó,€524€S.W.2d€504,€506€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1975).€€Because€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€supports€a€finding€of€aggravatedÏrape,€the€jury's€verdict€of€aggravated€sexual€battery€may€stand.€€ÌÌà àBecause€we€conclude€that€there€is€no€prejudicial€error€in€this€record,€theÏjudgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€is€hereby€affirmed.€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àJUSTICEÌÌÌConcur:ÌÌAnderson,€C.J.ÌBirch,€J.ÌÌReid€and€White,€JJ.„€Dissenting.