WPCY nad1 Mk<" hI @D?4gǶ}P6[Xdb- 'ԣvMsUuq k/f %sW Pނ -k%9bt9!gӀvP܉ |8~/#Ԉ^ ɣnv܋PERZ]i_7xQ-[NoQ !m/q(%_@'LdB~ɇ)u.*jx9` `@E  ` 8ttxPD h 9 t @DINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@tt)DATNASHVILLESTATEOFTENNESSEE p )FORPUBLICATION < Ѐ   h      p )       h      p )FILED: F  EBRU  A  R  A   Y1,1999 __________,1998  Appellee h      p ) 2      h      p )DAVIDSONCOUNTYv.    h      p ) j      h      p )HON.WALTERC.KURTZ,WILLIAMHENRYBARNEY     p )  JUDGE   Ѐ   p ) `  Ѐ Appellant     p )NO.01S019802CR00033 6 ForAppellant:   h      p ForAppellee:  KARLDEAN    h      p JOHNKNOX_WALKUP_ H  PublicDefender h      p AttorneyGeneralandReporter ! ЀJEFFREYA._DEVASHER_Ԁ     p MICHAELE.MOORE "> AssistantPublicDefender   p SolicitorGeneral # _JERRILYN_ԀMANNING h      p GORDONW.SMITH L%  AssistantPublicDefender   p AssociateSolicitorGeneral "&!     h      p Nashville,TNJOANA.LAWSONAssistantPublicDefender   p VICTORS.JOHNSON,III ($ Nashville,TN   h      p DistrictAttorneyGeneral z)%     h      p WILLIAMR.REED    h      p &(]&XX`AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral#X`X&&(] # +p!(     h      p Nashville,TN@,DOPINION 18'/ AFFIRMED    h      p      x  BIRCH,J.  :/9   #X`XXX`# Thedefendant,WilliamHenryBarney,wasconvictedof   elevencountsofrapeofachildandsevencountsofaggravatedsexualbattery.Heiscurrentlyservingatotaleffectivesentenceofeightyyears.UpontheCourtofCriminalAppealss_affirmance_ofthesejudgments,thedefendantfiledanapplicationforpermissiontoappealtothisCourt.WegrantedtheapplicationinordertodeterminewhetherthelanguageoftheindictmentwassufficientunderStatev.Hill,954S.W.2d725(Tenn.1997),andto @  determinewhetherthemultipleconvictionsforrapeofachildandaggravatedsexualbatteryviolatetheconstitutionalprinciplesofdueprocessordoublejeopardy.WeconcludethattheindictmentissufficientunderHill.Inaddition,weconcludethat,underthe d factsandcircumstancesofthiscase,multipleconvictionsforrapeofachildandaggravatedsexualbatteryarejustifiedanddonotviolatetheconstitutionalprinciplesofdueprocessordoublejeopardy.  I   ThesalientfactspresentedattrialshowedthatinJuly1992,thedefendant,afortysevenyearoldman,movedinwiththevictimsfamilyasanannyforthevictimandhistwoolderbrothers.Thedefendanttookaspecialinterestinthetenyearoldvictim.InNovember1992,thedefendantquitthenannyjobandleftthestate.InMay1993,hereturnedunexpectedlyandaskedthefamilysnewnannywhetherhecouldvisitwiththevictim.Thevictimbecameupsetandrefusedtoseethedefendant.Whenthenannyaskedthevictimwhyhewasupset,thevictimtoldherthat 7$-6 thedefendanthad molestedhimX`XXX`previously#X`XXX`&#.Thenannycalledthe   victimsfather,whotoldhertocallthepolice.Afterthedefendantgaveastatementimplicatinghimselfintheallegedsexualconduct,investigatorsarrestedhim. Attrial,thevictimtestifiedthat , onatleastfiveoccasions,thedefendantenteredthevictimsbedroom,rubbedthevictimspeniswithhishand,andthenperformedfellatioonthevictim.Thevictimalsorecalledatleastfouroccasionswhenthedefendantanallypenetratedhimandatleasttwooccasionswhenthedefendantperformed_anilingus_Ԁonhim. Attheconclusionoftheproof,theStateelectedtosubmitsixdiscretesexualencounterstothejury.Fiveoftheseoccurredinthevictimsbedroomatthevictimshome:thefirstinJuly1992whenthedefendantfondledandanallypenetratedthevictim;thesecondinAugust1992whenthedefendantfondled,performedfellatio,anallypenetrated,andperformed_anilingus_Ԁonthevictim;thethirdinSeptember1992whenthedefendantfondled,performedfellatio,anallypenetrated,andperformed_anilingus_Ԁonthevictim;thefourthinOctober1992whenthedefendantfondled,performedfellatio,andanallypenetratedthevictim;andthefifthinNovember1992whenthedefendantfondled,performedfellatio,andanallypenetratedthevictim.Thesixthencounteroccurredinthevictimslivingroomwhenthedefendantperformedfellatioonthevictim. 7$-6 Ї  II   Thedefendantcontendsthattheindictmentinthiscaseisfatallydeficientbecauseitfailedtoallegeaspecificculpablementalstatefortheoffensesofrapeofachildandaggravatedsexualbattery.Ofthefourteencountsoftheindictmentchargingrapeofachild,sevenofthecountsallegedthat8 8 WILLIAMHENRYBARNEYonadaybetweenJuly1,1992,andNovember30,1992,inDavidsonCounty,Tennesseeandbeforethefindingofthisindictment,didengageinunlawfulsexualpenetrationof[_K.B._],     #  1      ׀achildlessthanthirteen : (13)yearsofage,inviolationofTennesseeCodeAnnotated3913522,andagainstthepeaceanddignityoftheStateofTennessee. xx Sevenothercountsallegedthat8 8 WILLIAMHENRYBARNEYonadaybetweenJuly1,1992,andNovember30,1992,inDavidsonCounty,Tennesseeandbeforethefindingofthisindictment,didcause[_K.B._],achildlessthanthirteen(13)yearsofage,toengageinunlawfulsexualpenetrationofWilliamHenryBarney,inviolationofTennesseeCodeAnnotated3913522,andagainstthepeaceanddignityoftheStateofTennessee. xx Therewerealsosevencountschargingaggravatedsexualbattery.Eachofthosecountsallegedthat .5*3 8 8 WILLIAMHENRYBARNEYonadaybetweenJuly1,1992,andNovember30,1992,inDavidsonCounty,Tennesseeandbeforethefindingofthisindictment,didengageinunlawfulsexualcontactwith[_K.B._],achildlessthanthirteen(13)yearsofage,inviolationofTennesseeCodeAnnotated3913504,andagainstthepeaceanddignityoftheStateofTennessee. xx  InStatev.Hill,954S.W.2d725,729(Tenn.1997),this j  Courtheldthatwherethelanguageofanindictmentallegingaggravatedrapeas unlawfullysexually_penetrat[ing_]apersonundertheageofthirteenmettheconstitutionalandstatutoryrequirementsofnoticeandform,andwhereaculpablementalstatecouldbelogicallyinferredfromsuchlanguage,theindictmentwasvalid.Statev.Stokes,954S.W.2d729(Tenn.1997),extendedthe r rationaleofHilltoanindictmentchargingrapeofachild.Under ! theHillanalysis,wefindthatthecountsoftheindictment "> chargingrapeofachildwereconstitutionallyvalidandsufficienttovestthetrialcourtwithjurisdiction. Morerecently,theHillanalysiswasextendedtoan z)% indictmentchargingaggravatedsexualbattery.SeeRuffv.State, &+ ' 978S.W.2d95(Tenn.1998).WefindthatthelanguagerecitedaboveforthechargesofaggravatedsexualbatteryissubstantiallyidenticaltothelanguageupheldasconstitutionallyandstatutorilysufficientinRuff.Thosechargeswerelikewisevalid 1J'/ andsufficienttovestthetrialcourtwithjurisdiction. 8-7 Ї  III   Next,thedefendanturgesthathisactofrubbingthevictimspeniswas essentiallyincidentaltothefellatioandthatthetwoacts(rubbingandfellatio)thusconstitutebutasinglecrimeforwhichasinglepunishmentisappropriate.Hecontends,then,thatdueprocessprinciplesprohibitseparateconvictionsforfiveofthecountsofaggravatedsexualbatteryandfiveofthecountsofrapeofachild.Foritspart,theStateinsiststhattherubbingandthefellatiowerediscreteactsforwhichseparatepunishmentsareappropriate. The essentiallyincidentaltestfordeterminingwhetherdueprocessprinciplessupportseparateconvictionsfortwoormorefeloniesarisingfromoneparticularcourseofconductwasdevelopedinStatev.Anthony,817S.W.2d299(Tenn.1991).In "> Anthony,thisCourtdeterminedthatbecausethedetentionofthe v$ victimwas       es  sent  ial mere ly    incidentaltothecommissionoftherobbery,dueprocessprinciplesprohibitedaseparateconvictionfor_kidnapping_.Id.at307.WehavesincerefinedtheAnthonytestin z)% severalcases,includingStatev.Dixon,957S.W.2d532(Tenn. &+ ' 1997),inwhichweheldthatseparateconvictionsforattemptedsexualassaultand_kidnapping_Ԁwereconstitutionallyvalidbecausethedefendantsconduct exceededthatrestraintnecessarytoconsummatetheactofattemptedsexualbattery,lessenedtheriskofdetection,andsubstantiallyincreasedtheriskofharmtothevictim.Id.at535. .5*3   6N,5  InStatev.Denton,938S.W.2d373,378(Tenn.1996),we    notedthat [_w]hile_ԀourdecisioninAnthonyaddressedthe 8  particularlyanomalousnatureofthe_kidnapping_Ԁstatute,itisconceivablethattheprincipleofAnthonycouldapplyto  circumstancesinvolvingoffensesotherthan_kidnapping_.Uponreflection,wefindthatthe essentiallyincidentaltest,asdevelopedinAnthonyanditsprogeny,isnothelpfulinthecontext   ofsexualoffensesbecauseeachseparatesexualact iscapableofproducingitsownattendantfear,humiliation,pain,anddamagetothevictim.Statev.Phillips,924S.W.2d662,665(Tenn.1996).   Ѐ XXXXFordeterminingwhethertwoormoresexualactsmaybe d thesubjectofseparateconvictions,wefindthetestarticulatedinPeoplev._Madera_,282Cal._Rptr_.674(Ct.App.1991),tobe H  instructive.In_Madera_,thecourtuphelddualconvictionsfora !h defendantwhorubbedayoungboyspenisandthenengagedinfellatio._     #  2      _ԀThedefendantcontendedthatthetouchingwasmerely L%  incidentalandpreparatorytothecommissionofthefellatioandarguedthattherubbingwasapartofthefellatio.Thecourtreasonedthat_Madera_sintentwasthecriticalconsideration.Specifically,thepivotalquestionwas whether[_Madera_s]touchingof[thevictims]peniswastocommitaseparatebasecriminalactortofacilitatetheoralcopulations...thatshortlyfollowed. T/$, Id.at679.Thecourtheldthatiftheactinquestiondirectly   facilitatesorismerelyincidentaltotheaccompanyingsexualconduct(suchas,forexample,applyinglubricanttotheareaofintendedcopulation),convictionsforbothactswouldbebarred.  Id.at680.If,however,theactinquestionis preparatoryonly < inthesensethatitisintendedtosexuallyarouseeitherthevictimortheperpetrator,separateconvictionsarenotbarred.Id.;accordPeoplev.Scott,85P.2d1040(Cal.1994). @  #XXXX5# XXXX#XXXXK<# XXXX Wesuggestthatseveralfactorsmayberelevantin   determiningwhetherconductisdirectlyfacilitative,andthusincidental,ormerely_prepatory_Ԁinthesenseofintendingtoarousethevictimorperpetrator .Thesefactorsare :8 8 1. h  t T emporalproximitythegreater ! theintervalbetweentheacts,themorelikelytheactsareseparate ; .     xx 8 8 2. h  s S patialproximitymovementor v$ repositioningtendstosuggestseparateacts ; .     xx 8 8 3. h  o O ccurrenceofanintervening 'B# eventaninterruptiontendstosuggestseparateacts ; .     xx 8 8 4. h  s S equenceoftheactsserial &+ ' penetrationofdifferentorificesasdistinguishedfromrepeatedpenetrationsofthesameorificetendstosuggestseparateoffenses ; .     and  xx 8 8 5. h  t T hedefendantsintentas 1t&. evidencedbyconductandstatements. xx >#XXXX<#    Consideringthesefactorsinlightofthe  facts    ofthis X4)2 case,thevictimtestifiedthatthedefendantenteredthevictimsbedroom,rubbedthevictimspeniswithhishand,andthen 7$-6 performedfellatioonthevictim.      Afterathoroughreviewofthe  evicence   evidence ,weconclude  ,however,  thatthe    evidencesupportsthejurysverdictofseparateconvictionsfortherubbingandthefellatio.Thus,    wefindnodueprocessviolation.  @.DIV ThedefendantinsistsalsothatdualconvictionsforbothaggravatedsexualbatteryandrapeofachildviolatethedoublejeopardyprovisionsoftheConstitutionsoftheUnitedStatesandofTennessee.ArticleI,10oftheTennesseeConstitutionprovidesthat nopersonshall,forthesameoffence,betwiceputinjeopardyoflifeorlimb.InDenton,wearticulatedthetest  fordeterminingwhethertwooffensesarethe samefordoublejeopardypurposesundertheStateConstitution.Crucialtothisanalysisislegislativeintent.Thefactorstobeconsideredare:8 8 1.ananalysisofthestatutoryoffensesunder_Blockburger_Ԁv.United &l" States ,     #  3      ׀todetermine whethereach 'B# provisionrequiresproofofanadditionalfactwhichtheotherdoesnot; f f  #  4      ׀P*&xx 8 8 2.ananalysis,guidedbytheprinciplesof_Duchac_Ԁv.State,    #  5         of ,F")   ,F")  whetherthesameevidenceisrequiredtoproveeachoffense; xx 8 8 3.aconsiderationofwhetherthereweremultiplevictimsordiscreteacts;and xx  2 (0 8 8 4.acomparisonofthepurposesoftherespectivestatutes. xx ]H Noneofthesestepsisdeterminative;rathertheresultsofeachmustbeweighedandconsideredinrelationtoeachother.Denton,  938S.W.2dat381. WeaddressedthisissueinrelationtomultiplesexoffensesinPhillips,wherewenotedthatthefollowingfactorsmay @  besignificant:8 8 1. h  t T henatureoftheact;nxx 8 8 2. h  t T heareaofthevictimsbody  invadedbythesexuallyassaultivebehavior; xx 8 8 3. h  t T hetimeelapsedbetweenthe r discreteconduct; xx 8 8 4. h  t T heaccusedsintent,inthe !h sensethatthelapseoftimemayindicateanewlyformedintenttoagainseeksexualgratificationorinflictabuse;and xx 8 8 5. h  t T hecumulativepunishment.&l"xx FR [_T]he_Ԁpresenceandabsenceofanyonefactororacombinationofthemotherthanthenatureoftheactisnotdeterminativeoftheissue.924S.W.2dat665._ ThedefendantinPhillipscommittedthreeactsof *0%- penetrationwithinthecourseofthreehours:penetrationofthevictim'svaginabyaninanimateobject;cunnilingus;andpenilepenetrationofthevagina.Wenoted:8 8  [A]lthoughseparateactsofintercoursemaybesorelatedasto 8-7 constituteonecriminaloffense,generallyrapeisnotacontinuousoffense,buteachactofintercourseconstitutesadistinctandseparateoffense.Moreover,eachoftheabove-describedactsisseparatelydefinedinTenn.CodeAnn.39-13-501(7)asadiscretetypeofsexualpenetrationsubsumedbyTenn.CodeAnn.39-13-502,theaggravatedrapestatute.Eachact,inouropinion,iscapableofproducingitsownattendantfear,humiliation,pain,anddamagetothevictim.Eachtypeofpenetrationrequiresapurposefulactonthepartoftheperpetrator. xx  8WId.at664665(footnoteomitted)(quoting75C.J.S.Rape4(1952 n &Supp.1995)).OurconclusionwasthatPhillipscommittedthreeseparateoffenses. ApplyingtheDentonandPhillipscriteriatothiscase, *! wefindthefollowingfactssignificant:first,theoffenseofaggravatedsexualbatteryrequiresanintentionaltouchingofavictimsintimatepartsforthepurposeofsexualarousalorgratification.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913501,504(1991).Rapeofachildrequiressexualpenetrationofthevictim,andthementalstaterequiredmayrangefromintentionaltoknowingorreckless.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913501,13522,11301(c)(1991&Supp.1992).Thus,eachoftheoffensesrequiresproofofanadditionalfactthattheotherdoesnot,andtheoffensesarenotthesameunderBlockburger.Second,toproveaggravatedsexualbatterythe 1V'/ Statemustpresentevidencethatthedefendantintentionallytouchedtheintimatepartsofthechildvictimandthatsuchtouchingwasforthepurposeofsexualgratification.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913501,504.Incontrast,rapeofachildcanbe 8.7 provensolelybyevidenceofsexualpenetration,regardlessofthemotivationfortheact.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913501,522.Thus,differentevidenceisrequiredtoproveeachoffense,sotheoffensesarenotthesameunderDuchac.Third,thenatureandtype  ofthecontactineachinstancewasdifferent,i.e.,atouchingofthepeniswiththehandasopposedtoatouchingofthepenis(andtheconcomitantpenetration)withthemouth.Fourth,theacts,althoughcloseintime,werenotperformedsimultaneously.Finally,webelievethecumulativepunishmentinthiscase,eightyyears,isnotexcessiveconsideringthefrequencyandpervasivenessoftheabuseofthisvictim. LiketheactscommittedagainstthevictiminPhillips,  webelievethateachactwas capableofproducingitsownattendantfear,humiliation,pain,anddamagetothevictim.Phillips,924S.W.2dat665.Furthermore,eachactrequireda # differentbodypositionandengageddifferentbodyparts,evidencingaseparateintentonthepartofthedefendant.Id.We &l" concludethatundertheprinciplesofDentonandPhillips,theacts ($ ofaggravatedsexualbatteryandrapeofachildwerediscreteactsthatjustifiedseparateconvictions.Weconclude,therefore,thatdoublejeopardyprinciplesarenotviolatedthroughtheimpositionofmultipleconvictionsinthecaseundersubmission.@/DV Tosummarize,weconcludethatthelanguageoftheindictment s inthiscasewassufficienttovestthetrialcourtwith 7$-6 jurisdictionovertheoffenses.Weconclude,also,thatseparateconvictionsforaggravatedsexualbatteryandrapeofachildwereconstitutionallyjustifiedunderthefactspresentedattrial.Accordingly,thejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsisaffirmed.Costsshallbeassessedagainstthedefendant.XXXX    h     ______________________________    h     ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.,Justice CONCUR PANEL :  Anderson,C.J._Drowota_,Holder,JJ.#XXXXrd#  Barker,J.,notparticipating