ÿWPCž' …# V %a 0 ¯g4 * U>9 0ów 0Dj ® w@¶ 0Jö 0T@ 0^” 0hò 0rZ 0|Ì H 0†P 0Ö 1ufU ,Û 0dU,kU 6— BÍ D3êU.B)K 0@tDC´ AM÷U*D”n@@B@‚¿Â—Ò¾êv~¨vÓ& AOù%ÆH& 0D' D/R' B'˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 X(‡,˜$¡¡ÑŒ °ÑѰÑÒ°ÒÒà°ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ7€¥XXdìXXdì7Ñà~| À( 3|x¤<èÀ( 9Z &Courier Regular(£(3›ë$¤¤Ý ƒ,˜!ÝÑŒ °ÑѰÑÒ°ÒÒà°ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ7€ÛcXXdÈdÈ7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ž ‘’U“–—˜™Ó€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New d))))'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Courier% Line 7 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò,,,,7Border 1dd€-.Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ŠÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€0XÔÌÌò òMayÏ13,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€0ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó 6Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„504€(1991).Ì 6Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„503€(1991).Ì 6Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„506€(1991).Ì µÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„607€(Supp.€1988).€€This€provision€wasÏrepealed€by€the€1989€Tennessee€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act.€€TheÏcurrent€sexual€battery€statute€is€codified€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„505€(Supp.€1995).€€The€appellant€was€convicted€under€bothÏstatutes.€€One€incident€of€sexual€battery€allegedly€occurred€onÏSeptember€1,€1989.€€The€Sentencing€Reform€Act€did€not€becomeÏeffective€until€November€1,€1989.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý›In€cases€involving€sexually€oriented€crimes€the€CourtÏendeavors€to€withhold€the€identity€of€young€victims€whenÏappropriateœ.Ì ÈÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝT.J.ððs€testimony€concerning€an€admission€the€appellant€made€toÏhim€about€appellant's€sexual€activity€with€one€of€the€other€boys€isÏnot€at€issue€here.€€Its€admissibility€is€conceded.Ì ´Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€procedure€for€determining€the€admissibility€of€evidenceÏembodied€in€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b)€was€first€established€by€theÏCourt€in€òòPartonóó,€694€S.W.2d€at€303.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€(ÔÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ#€++Xd#ÑÑ#€++Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÓ` °‚X˜XÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ñ7€ÛcXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÌÌÙ€€ÙœßL€/1.;+'h|` M3 `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à)€€€FORÏPUBLICATIONÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€FILED:€ÏMAY€œ13,›€1996Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€ÏHAMILTON€COUNTYÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€HON.ÏDOUGLAS€A.€MEYER,ÌDONALD€C.€MCCARYà àà àà àà à)à à€€ÏJUDGEÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà à)Ì€€€€€à àAppellant€€€€€à àà à€€à à)€€€NO.€03„S„01„9410„CR„00106ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó:òòà àà àà àà àà àForÏAppelleeóó:ÌÌBruce€H.€Guthrie,€II€€à àà àà àCharles€w.ÏBursonÌChattanooga,€TNà àà àà àà àAttorney€GeneralÏand€ReporterÌÌDaniel€G.€Davisà àà àà àà àAmy€L.ÏTarkingtonÌBeverly€Hills,€CA€à àà àà àà àAssistantÏAttorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TNÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àStanley€J.€LanzoÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TNÌÌà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòOPINIONÌÌÌóóÌÌ̛̜̜REVERSED;€REMANDED€FOR€NEW€TRIAL.›€€€€€à àà àà àBIRCH,€J.ÌÓÓœ›Çà àThe€appellant,€Donald€C.€McCary,€was€convicted€ofÏthirteen€sex€offenses:€€two€counts€of€aggravated€sexual€battery,× ƒ2 ××  ×Ïthree€counts€of€rape,× ƒ3 ××  ×€six€counts€of€statutory€rape,× ƒ4 ××  ×€and€two€countsÏof€sexual€battery.× ƒ5 ××  ×€€The€trial€court€imposed€the€maximum€sentenceÏfor€each€offense€and€ordered€each€to€be€served€consecutively„„anÏeffective€sentence€of€seventy„two€years.€€The€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals€affirmed€the€trial€court's€judgments.€€At€issue€is€whetherÏthe€trial€court€correctly€admitted€into€evidence€testimonyÏconcerning€uncharged€and€unindicted€sexual€offenses€committed€byÏMcCary€several€years€prior€to€the€date€of€the€alleged€commission€ofÏthe€offenses€on€trial.ÌÌà àWe€have€carefully€examined€the€record€and€thoughtfullyÏconsidered€the€issue.€€We€conclude€that€the€evidence€wasÏerroneously€admitted.€€Accordingly,€the€judgments€of€conviction€areÏreversed,€the€sentences€are€vacated,€and€the€cause€is€remanded€forÏa€trial€in€which€the€subject€testimony€shall€not€be€admitted.ÌÌà àIn€light€of€the€resolution€reached,€we€will€relate€onlyÏthose€facts€necessary€to€place€the€issue€in€proper€perspective.€€InÏ1991,€the€appellant€had€been€Minister€of€Music€at€a€large€HixonÏchurch€for€many€years.€€To€his€music€ministry€was€added€theÏresponsibility€for€youth€ministry.€€In€this€dual€capacity,€theÏappellant€planned,€led,€and€participated€in€virtually€every€church„sponsored€youth€activity.ÌÌà àFour€boys,€ranging€in€age€from€twelve€to€fifteen€years€atÏtrial,€testified€concerning€their€respective€sexual€conduct€in€1989Ïand€1991€with€the€appellant.€€While€certain€particulars€varied,€theÏappellant's€conduct€was,€in€the€main,€quite€similar€with€each€ofÏthe€four€boys.€€As€members€of€the€church,€the€boys€participated€inÏthe€youth€choir€directed€by€the€appellant.€€The€appellantÏ"selected"€them,€respectively,€for€a€"special€friendship."€€ThisÍ"special€friendship"€led€to€the€appellant€exposing€the€boys€toÏpornographic€magazines€and€video€tapes.€€This€exposure€progressedÏto€sexual€advances€by€the€appellant.€€Ultimately,€the€appellantÏengaged€the€boys€in€sexual€activities.€€The€sexual€battery€countsÏinvolve€charges€of€fondling€and€other€sexual€contact;€the€rapeÏcounts€involve€charges€that€the€appellant€performed€fellatio.ÌÌà àSpecifically,€the€issue€we€address€here€concerns€theÏadmissibility€of€certain€"other€crime"€evidence€that€surfaced€inÏthe€State's€case„in„chief€during€T.J.ððsœ× ƒ6 ××  ×›€testimony.œ× ƒ7 ××  ×›€€T.J.,€at€trialÏa€œcollege›€student,€testified€that€he€formerly€belonged€to€theÏappellant's€youth€group.€€He€described€in€detail€his€sexualÏactivities€with€the€appellant€that€began€when€T.J.€wasÏapproximately€fifteen€and€continued€through€his€twentieth€birthday.€ÏThese€activities,€as€described€by€T.J.,€included€viewingÏpornographic€magazines€and€videotapes,€kissing,€fondling,€andÍmasturbating.€The€appellant€had€not€been€prosecuted€for€any€conductÏwith€T.J.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€insists€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏadmitting€T.J.ððs€testimony€because€it€constituted€evidence€of€otherÏcrimes€not€relevant€to€the€offenses€charged.€€He€further€contendsÏthat€this€testimony€took€on€the€character€of€"propensity€evidence."€ÏThus,€argues€the€appellant,€the€testimony€should€have€beenÏexcluded.ÌÌà àAs€noted€by€both€the€appellant€and€the€State,€resolutionÏof€this€issue€is€controlled€by€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b)€and€by€òòStateÏv.€Partonóó,€694€S.W.2d€299€(Tenn.€1985).ÌÌà àRule€404(b)€provides:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àOther€Crimes,€Wrongs,€or€Acts.„„Evidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs,€orÏacts€is€not€admissible€to€prove€theÏcharacter€of€a€person€in€order€toÏshow€action€in€conformity€with€theÏcharacter€trait.€€It€may,€however,€beÏadmissible€for€other€purposes.€€TheÏconditions€which€must€be€satisfiedÏbefore€allowing€such€evidence€are:ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à(1)€€The€court€upon€requestÏmust€hold€a€hearing€outside€theÏjury's€presence;ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à(2)€€The€court€must€determineÏthat€a€material€issue€exists€otherÏthan€conduct€conforming€with€aÏcharacter€trait€and€must€upon€requestÏstate€on€the€record€the€materialÏissue,€the€ruling,€and€the€reasonsÏfor€admitting€the€evidence;€and€ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à(3)€€The€court€must€exclude€theÏevidence€if€its€probative€value€isÏoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfairÏprejudice.ÌÓÓÌà àThe€Advisory€Commission€Comment€to€Rule€404(b)€states:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àThe€Commission€drafted€Part€(b)€inÏaccord€with€the€Supreme€Court'sÏpronouncements€in€òòState€v.€Partonóó,Ï694€S.W.2d€299€(Tenn.€1985).€€ThereÏthe€Court€established€preciseÏprocedures€to€emphasize€that€evidenceÏof€other€crimes€should€usually€beÏexcluded.€€In€the€exceptional€caseÏwhere€another€crime€is€arguablyÏrelevant€to€an€issue€other€than€theÏaccused's€character„„issues€such€asÏidentity€(including€motive€and€commonÏscheme€or€plan),€intent,€or€rebuttalÏof€accident€or€mistake„„the€trialÏjudge€must€first€excuse€the€jury.€ÏThen€the€judge€must€decide€whatÏmaterial€issue€other€than€characterÏforms€a€proper€basis€for€relevancy.€ÏIf€the€objecting€party€requests,€theÏtrial€judge€must€state€on€the€recordÏthe€issue,€the€ruling,€and€the€reasonÍfor€ruling€the€evidence€admissible.€ÏFinally,€the€judge€must€always€weighÏin€the€balance€probative€value€andÏunfair€prejudice.€€If€the€danger€ofÏunfair€prejudice€outweighs€theÏprobative€value,€the€court€shouldÏexclude€the€evidence€even€though€itÏbears€on€a€material€issue€aside€fromÏcharacter.€€Finally,€according€toÏòòPartonóó,€the€trial€judge€must€findÏthat€the€evidence€is€"clear€andÏconvincing"€that€the€defendantÏcommitted€another€crime.ÌÓÓÌThus,€in€this€context,€Tennessee€recognizes€three€instances€inÏwhich€evidence€of€uncharged€crimes€may€be€admissible:€€(1)€to€proveÏidentity€(including€motive€and€common€scheme€or€plan);€(2)€to€proveÏintent;€and€(3)€€to€rebut€a€claim€of€mistake€or€accident€ifÏasserted€as€a€defense.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404€(Advisory€Comm'nÏComments);€òòPartonóó,€694€S.W.2d€at€302€(quoting€and€reaffirming€òòBunchÏv.€Stateóó,€605€S.W.2d€227,€229€(Tenn.€1980)).€€ÌÌà àNone€of€the€exceptions€are€present€in€this€case.€ÏIdentity€was€not€a€material€issue€here.€€Each€of€the€victims€was€aÏmember€of€the€youth€group€directed€by€the€appellant,€and€theÏcloseness€of€his€relationship€with€each€of€them€was€virtuallyÏconceded.€€As€a€matter€of€fact,€the€appellant€denied€havingÏcommitted€all€of€the€acts€charged€and€characterized€his€conduct,Íessentially,€as€non„criminal.€€Nor€is€T.J.ððs€testimony€admissibleÏto€prove€motive.€€Motive,€in€the€context€of€the€facts€here,€ifÏmaterial€at€all,€would€only€become€so€were€the€appellant€to€make€itÏmaterial.€€He€did€not.€€The€"common€scheme€or€plan"€exception,Ïalthough€recognized€in€Tennessee,€is€often€misunderstood.€€As€weÏexpressed€in€òòPartonóó,€it€"is€most€often€a€vehicle€for€admittingÏother€nearly€identical€crimes€òòwhen€the€identity€of€the€defendant€isÏin€issueóó."€€694€S.W.2d€at€303(emphasis€added).€€As€we€have€alreadyÏconcluded,€identity€was€not€a€material€issue€in€the€case.€ÏFurthermore,€T.J.ððs€testimony€was€clearly€not€admissible€to€showÏintent.€€The€charges€here€are€aggravated€sexual€battery,€sexualÏbattery,€rape,€and€statutory€rape.€€Intent€is€not€at€issue€hereÏbecause€it€is€not€an€element€of€either€of€these€offenses.€€Finally,Ïbecause€the€appellant€did€not€assert€accident€or€mistake€as€aÏdefense,€there€was€nothing€to€rebut.€€Hence,€this€exception€has€noÏapplication€here.€€Thus,€we€reach€the€inescapable€conclusion€thatÏthe€other€crime€evidence€was€inadmissible€on€any€material€issue€inÏthis€case.€€Its€character,€therefore,€was€that€of€"propensityÏevidence"„„a€result€condemned€by€òòPartonóó€and€Rule€404(b).ÌÌà àBecause€the€charges€here€involve€sexually€orientedÏcrimes,€we€take€this€opportunity€to€stress€our€holding€in€òòState€v.ÏRickmanóó,€876€S.W.2d€824€(Tenn.€1994).€€In€òòRickmanóó,€we€expresslyÏrejected€an€invitation€to€establish€a€"sex€crimes€exception"€to€theÏgeneral€rule€that€evidence€of€uncharged€crimes€is€inadmissible.€€WeÏconcluded:€€"Our€re„examination€of€the€authorities€convinces€usÏthat€the€general€rule,€which€excludes€evidence€of€other€crimes€orÏbad€acts€as€irrelevant€and€prejudicial€when€the€defendant€is€onÏtrial€for€a€crime€or€act€of€the€same€character,€remains€sound."€Ï876€S.W.2d€at€829.ÌÌà àMoreover,€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€unlike€theÏfederal€rules,€establish€several€procedural€prerequisites€to€theÏadmissibility€of€other€crime€evidence.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).× ƒ8 ××  ×€€OurÏrules€require€the€trial€court€to€hold€a€hearing€outside€the€jury'sÏpresence€to€determine€whether€"a€material€issue€exists€other€thanÏconduct€conforming€with€a€character€trait"€to€satisfy€the€relevancyÏrequirement.€€òòId.óó€€If€this€test€is€satisfied,€the€trial€court€mustÏdetermine€whether€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€outweighs€theÍdanger€of€unfair€prejudice€to€the€defendant.€€òòId.óó€€Only€if€theÏprobative€value€outweighs€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€should€theÏevidence€be€admitted.€€We€have€also€held€that€the€trial€court€mustÏfind€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€the€defendant€committedÏthe€other€crimes.€€òòPartonóó,€694€S.W.2d€at€303€(citing€òòWrather€v.ÏStateóó,€169€S.W.2d€854€(Tenn.€1943)).€Although€defense€counsel€inÏthe€present€case€properly€raised€this€issue€prior€to€theÏpresentation€of€T.J.ððs'€testimony,€the€trial€court€failed€toÏconduct€a€jury„out€hearing€to€make€the€required€determinations.ÌÌà àIt€is€clear€to€us€that€T.J.ððs'€testimony€was€profoundlyÏprejudicial€to€the€appellant's€case.€€By€permitting€T.J.ððs€toÏtestify€regarding€his€uncharged€sexual€conduct€with€the€appellant,Ïthe€trial€court€created€an€opportunity€for€the€jury€to€infer,Ïimpermissibly,€that€because€the€appellant€committed€the€unchargedÏacts,€he€must€have€committed€those€similar€acts€for€which€he€was€onÏtrial.€€We€cannot€say€that€admission€of€this€testimony€was€harmlessÏerror.€€Ìà àIn€the€interest€of€judicial€economy,€we€will€address€twoÏevidentiary€issues€likely€to€recur€should€the€case€be€retried;€theÏfirst€of€these€is€the€admissibility€of€the€appellantððs€diary.€€OnÍfirst„tier€appeal,€McCary€contended€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏadmitting€a€diary€containing€entries€made€during€1981€and€1982.€€HeÏurged€that€the€entries€were€too€remote€to€be€relevant€to€theÏoffenses€charged.€€The€diary€includes€expressions€of€his€feelingsÏfor€several€young€men;€however,€there€are€no€explicit€references€toÏany€sexual€encounters.€€None€of€the€young€men€named€in€the€diaryÏwas€a€witness€in€the€case€on€trial.€€Without€addressing€the€meritsÏof€McCaryððs€claim,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€held€that€"in€viewÏof€the€overwhelming€weight€of€evidence,€at€most,€any€error€would€beÏharmless."€€We€cannot€agree.€€As€Judge€Gary€R.€Wade€correctly€notedÏin€dissent,€not€only€was€this€evidence€too€remote€to€the€offensesÏcharged,€but€it€also€constituted€highly€prejudicial€"propensity"Ïevidence€which€"suggested€that€the€defendant€was€a€sexual€deviant."€ÌÌà àThe€second€of€these€remaining€issues€concerns€theÏadmissibility€of€certain€pornographic€magazines€and€videotapesÏseized€during€a€search€of€the€appellantððs€church€office.€€Not€onlyÏwere€the€magazines€and€videotapes€themselves€introduced€intoÏevidence,€but€their€contents€were€also€displayed€to€the€jury.€€€€ÌÌà àThe€admissibility€of€videotapes€is€governed€by€theÏstandards€defined€in€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947,€951€(Tenn.Ï1978)€and€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€807Ï(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465,€477€(Tenn.€1993).€ÏWhether€to€admit€such€evidence€is€within€the€discretion€of€theÏtrial€court€and€will€not€be€reversed€absent€a€clear€showing€of€anÏabuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòId.ó󀀜It›€is€fundamental€to€the€questionÏof€admissibility€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401€that€evidence€must€beÏrelevant€and€probative€to€some€issue€at€trial;€the€evidence€mustÏð ðmake€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€theÏdetermination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€than€itÏwould€be€without€the€evidence.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€Additionally,ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€403€provides€that€even€if€relevant,€ð ðevidence€may€beÏexcluded€if€its€probative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€by€theÏdanger€of€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,€or€misleadingÏthe€jury,€or€by€considerations€of€undue€delay,€waste€of€time,€orÏneedless€presentation€of€cumulative€evidence.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€ÏThese€materials€graphically€portrayed€various€heterosexual€andÏhomosexual€acts.€€As€this€Court€has€cautioned,€ð ð[œs]hocking›€andÏhorrifying€the€jury€emotionally€does€not€assist€them€in€making€aÍreasoned€determination€of€how€serious€the€crime€is€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòBanksóó,Ï564€S.W.2d€at€952.€€ÌÌà àThe€pornographic€materials€at€issue€here€are€ofÏquestionable€relevance.€€Although€the€State€promised€to€show€theÏrelevance€of€the€evidence,€it€never€did.€€Thus,€while€we€suspectÏthat€it€was€error€for€the€trial€judge€to€permit€the€jurors€to€viewÏthe€pornographic€magazines€and€videotapes€because€they€were€undulyÏprejudicial,€we€cannot€conclusively€so€find.€€The€appellant€movedÏpretrial€to€exclude€this€evidence€urging€that€the€probative€valueÏwas€outweighed€by€the€risk€of€unfair€prejudice.€€Written€findingsÏof€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€would€have€been€of€immeasurableÏassistance€to€us€in€this€regard.ÌÌà àIt€is€irrefutable€that€the€cumulative€effect€of€theÏevidence„based€errors€in€this€cause€denied€the€appellant€hisÏfundamental€right€to€a€fair€trial.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€ofÏthe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€is€reversed,€and€the€cause€isÏremanded€to€the€trial€court€for€a€new€trial€consistent€with€thisÏopinion.€ÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àADOLPHO€A.€BIRCH,€JR.,€JusticeÌÌCONCUR:ÌAnderson,€C.J.ÌReid,€White,€JJ.ÌÌDISSENT:ÌDrowota,€J.