ÿWPC« Pu!ìß0ã•ÿò\ìKÙn*Ž€q¿Ñr䕌”¢ù©Sݰœ¼üþyü‚IPT׿5«ˆh‡JÜ'¯÷yäëb˜ t”Y›*’R_U“Þë¢3MNsRF¥^cŸdn«þ頻_] Ûçê.¿Ûa$Ý ŽqÀå6Eß©yt¹¤¼‘À–{…s¬'N3oùÓŠˆôRTp8ÊÀ‰»lNú¡¾ÌV[¶ºôÞÈ"]Ì^ü¨ÜMäÁ2á‚ï«ÍÐþóXj¦1"/Zf‘ö‹;ÝžZ¼`½YŸRS Ðãt?€ô ïú®ˆß‹}ñi¢}°©ýÚ×ùH+Ä’“› ˆf9ÑsŸÃ¼Ûÿ–Õéq)Jí›óþø¼‘ÿgìd{õ1[ã]{‡pwQ“q»y ÛùÖ-ÿFó·* €ë/H*oZ2Ša>wˆÌòõ:ŒWߴư²qï4Ù6ln-.Á}êªò ƒÐ%ßè»\[¤apbJˆªüõñ­m‘¿6ü”²Rœ=ö°{pfÒ@´Ùò_ÅO‚æY.®@&¸`>ök˜jzÌ<7ð-Ý Î[ú¼«`–’–‹LdwOG»üh~<¯§šëB~4¥EîÏ/Êýø}j>{°.¹¬B8jb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ 0D‘ ÆÕ Æ› Æa Æ'%íN1ªEEïñ¨ù-¡U@Î’b                                     0먨¨¨ B““ 0¤° D3T D-‡ 0K´´ ASÿÆR 0¤ 0D¼ A«»ìz~) (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularõ}|) œd„ 3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 Ý ƒR$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€X^qX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô€ô±ÝòXX^qÔDue€to€the€age€of€the€victim€and€the€nature€of€the€offenses,€we€identify€the€victim€by€initials€only.Ð ° ÐÌ€ 'Ý ƒR$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€X^qX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô€ô±ÝòXX^qÔIn€addition€to€the€natural€child,€incest€may€also€be€committed€with€ð ð[the]€natural€parent,€child,€grandparent,Ð ° Ðgrandchild,€uncle,€aunt,€nephew,€niece,€stepparent,€stepchild,€adoptive€parent,€adoptive€childðð€or€a€ð ðpersonððs€brother€orÐ œì Ðsister€of€the€whole€or€half„blood€or€by€adoption.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„15„302(a)(1)€and€(2)€(1997).  Ý ƒR$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€X^qX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô€ô±ÝòXX^qÔIndeed,€in€òòDentonóó€we€noted€that€the€statutory€elements€of€the€offenses€of€aggravated€assault€and€attemptedÐ ° Ðvoluntary€manslaughter€indicated€òòóóthat€the€offenses€are€separate€for€purposes€of€double€jeopardy,€but€nonetheless€reasonedÐ œì Ðthat€ð ð[b]ecause€the€evidence€.€.€.€consisted€of€a€single€attack€by€[defendant]€on€the€victim,€the€State€necessarily€relied€onÐ `° Ðthe€same€evidence€to€establish€bothðð€charges.€€òòDentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€832.€  žÝ ƒR$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€X^qX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô€ô±ÝòXX^qÔòòSeeóó€€òòBlockburger€v.€United€Statesóó,€284€U.S.€299,€52€S.€Ct.€180,€76€L.€Ed.€306€(1932)€(setting€forth€a€testÐ ° Ðwhich€compares€the€elements€of€each€offense€for€purposes€of€determining€whether€two€offenses€are€the€ð ðsameðð).€ #Ñ#€CXÿÿd#Ñ(âx-  Z(Times New Roman  ˆÝ ƒR$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€X^qX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô€ô±ÝòXX^qÔòòSeeóó€òòDuchac€v.€Stateóó,€505€S.W.2d€237€(Tenn.€1973)€(setting€forth€a€test€which€compares€the€evidence€usedÐ ° Ðto€establish€each€offense€for€purposes€of€determining€whether€two€offenses€are€the€ð ðsameðð).- ù-(|G2$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X^qX»»Ô d(|3¿p$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3¿p$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼»»»ÔÑ  ÑÑ€û#Ñà@7 7 ìàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° ÐÔ  Ôà@''%ìàAT€JACKSONˆÐ  Ðà@¶¶ìàApril€11,€2000€SessionˆÐ Ô$ ÐÔ‡X^qX»¼ÔÌò òÔ#†¼»XX^q‹#ÔÓ  ÓÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€FREDERICK€Ô_ÔBEAUREGARDÔ_ÔÔ‡X^qX»¼Ôó óÐ æ 6 ÐÓÑÓÌà@î î ìàò òAppeal€By€Permission€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€€ˆÐ æ 6 Ðà@| | ìàCriminal€Court€for€Ô_ÔHardemanÔ_Ô€CountyˆÐ Ò " Ðà@  ìàNo.€5990€€€€€€Jon€Kerry€Blackwood,€JudgeˆÐ ¾   ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` A߈Ð ‚Ò  ÐÌà@e e ìàNo.€W1997„00060„SC„R11„CD€„€Filed€November€30,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ԈР}Í  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` Aßó óÔ#†¼»XX^q(#Ô€Ô‡X^qX»¼ÔÐ U¥ ÐÔ#†¼»XX^qÞ#ÔÔ€X^qX»¼ÔÌÌIn€this€appeal,€we€consider€whether€the€constitutional€principle€of€either€double€jeopardy€or€dueÐ ? Ðprocess€is€violated€and€therefore€bars€separate€convictions€for€both€rape€and€incest€when€the€offensesÐ +{ Ðarise€from€a€single€act€committed€against€the€same€victim.€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmedÐ g Ðthe€defendantððs€convictions€for€rape€and€incest.€€After€our€review€of€the€record€and€applicableÐ S Ðauthorities,€we€conclude€that€the€separate€convictions€for€rape€and€incest€did€not€violate€doubleÐ ï? Ðjeopardy€principles€under€the€United€States€or€Tennessee€Constitutions€because€the€offenses€requireÐ Û+ Ðdifferent€elements,€different€evidence,€and€have€different€purposes.€€We€also€conclude€that€theÐ Ç Ðconvictions€for€rape€and€incest€did€not€violate€due€process€under€the€United€States€or€TennesseeÐ ³ ÐConstitutions€because€neither€offense€was€ð ðessentially€incidentalðð€to€the€other.€€Accordingly,€weÐ Ÿï Ðaffirm€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.€Ð ‹Û ÐÌò òà@ddìàTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€Appeal€by€Permission;€Judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsˆÐ c ³ Ðà@bb&ìàAffirmedó óˆÐ O!Ÿ ÐÌòòE.€Riley€Anderson,€C.óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòÔ_ÔAdolphoÔ_Ô€A.€Birch,€jr.,Ð '#w! ÐJanice€M.€Holder,óó€and€òòWilliam€M.€Barker,€JJ.óó,€joined.€€€òòFrank€F.€Ô_ÔDrowotaÔ_Ôóó,€III,€J.,€notÐ $c" Ðparticipating.Ð ÿ$O # ÐÌC.€Michael€Robbins,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€and€Gary€F.€Ô_ÔAntricanÔ_Ô,€District€Public€Defender,Ð ×&'"% ÐSomerville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant€Frederick€Ô_ÔBeauregardÔ_Ô.Ð Ã'#& ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€J.€RossÐ ›)ë$( ÐDyer,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Elizabeth€Rice,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Jerry€Norwood,Ð ‡*×%) ÐAssistant€District€Attorney,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð s+Ã&* ÐÌÐ K-›(,ý ÐÑû#Ñâ âÑ8€^qXXdì»»d8Ñâ âÑ  ÑÔ_Ôà@ìì*ìàˆÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óòòóóˆÐ œì ÐÌà@%ìàòòò òBACKGROUNDó óóóˆÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant,€Frederick€Beauregard,€was€charged€in€a€two„count€indictment€with€rape€andÐ L œ Ðincest€of€his€thirteen„year„old€daughter,€S.J.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€On€the€day€in€question,€S.J.€was€visiting€herÐ 8 ˆ Ðgrandmotherððs€home,€where€her€father,€Beauregard,€resided.€€S.J.€was€lying€down€in€a€bedroom€whenÐ $ t ÐBeauregard€entered€the€room€and€sat€down€on€the€bed€next€to€her.€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àBeauregard€asked€S.J.€if€she€knew€how€to€ð ðnutðð€and€whether€S.J.€had€ever€had€sex.€€WhenÐ è 8  ÐBeauregard€then€began€feeling€her€breasts,€S.J.€unsuccessfully€tried€to€push€Beauregard€away.€Ð Ô$  ÐBeauregard€pulled€S.J.ððs€jeans€and€panties€down€to€her€knees€and€ð ðstuck€his€penisðð€in€her€genitalÐ À  Ðarea.€€Beauregard€stopped€when€the€telephone€in€the€living€room€rang€and€he€went€to€answer€it.€Ð ¬ü  ÐWhen€Beauregard€left€the€room,€S.J.€put€her€clothes€back€on€and€used€the€bedroom€telephone€to€callÐ ˜è  Ða€friend€of€her€motherððs€and€ask€the€friend€to€pick€her€up.€€S.J.€then€locked€herself€in€the€bathroomÐ „Ô  Ðand€remained€there€until€she€heard€a€car€pull€up€to€the€house€and€the€horn€blow.€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àS.J.€was€later€examined€at€a€hospital€by€Dr.€Ram€Madasu.€€Dr.€Madasu€found€seminal€fluidÐ H˜ Ðat€the€entrance€to€S.J.ððs€vagina€and€completed€a€sexual€assault€kit.€€Sherri€Harrell,€a€forensicÐ 4„ Ðserologist,€tested€the€items€from€S.J.ððs€sexual€assault€kit€and€found€semen€and€spermatozoa€on€theÐ  p Ðslides.€€Joe€Minor,€a€forensic€scientist,€conducted€further€tests€and€testified€that€Beauregard€couldÐ  \ Ðnot€be€excluded€as€the€source€of€the€semen.€€Minor€opined€that€the€semen€was€from€Beauregard€orÐ øH Ða€close€relative.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àAfter€considering€all€the€evidence€at€trial,€the€jury€convicted€Beauregard€of€both€rape€andÐ ¼  Ðincest.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed,€holding€that€the€separate€convictions€for€rape€andÐ ¨ø Ðincest€did€not€violate€double€jeopardy€or€due€process€protections€under€the€United€States€orÐ ”ä ÐTennessee€Constitutions.€€We€then€granted€Beauregardððs€application€for€permission€to€appeal.Ð €Ð Ðà  àÌÌÓ  Óòòò òANALYSISóóó óÐ D!” ÐÌòòò òDouble€Jeopardyó óóóÐ #l! ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€double€jeopardy€clause€in€the€United€States€Constitution€provides€that€no€person€ð ðshallÐ ô$D # Ð.€.€.€be€subject€for€the€same€offense€to€be€twice€put€in€jeopardy€of€life€or€limb€.€.€.ðð€€U.S.€Const.Ð à%0!$ Ðamend€V.€€Similarly,€the€Tennessee€Constitution€states€that€ð ðno€person€shall,€for€the€same€offense,Ð Ì&"% Ðbe€twice€put€in€jeopardy€of€life€or€limb.ðð€€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€10.€€Ð ¸'#& Їà  àThe€constitutional€right€against€double€jeopardy€protects€against:€€1)€a€second€prosecutionÐ ° Ðafter€an€acquittal;€2)€a€second€prosecution€after€a€conviction;€and€3)€multiple€punishments€for€theÐ œì Ðsame€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòWhalen€v.€United€Statesóó,€445€U.S.€684,€688,€100€S.€Ct.€1432,€1435,€63€L.€Ed.€2dÐ ˆØ Ð715€(1980);€òòState€v.€Dentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€373€(Tenn.€1996).€òòóó€òòóóIn€this€case,€we€must€determine€whetherÐ tÄ Ðconvictions€for€both€rape€and€incest€constitute€multiple€punishments€for€the€ð ðsame€offense.ðð€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Dentonóó,€we€established€a€framework€for€determining€whether€a€defendant€hasÐ 8 ˆ Ðreceived€multiple€punishments€for€the€ð ðsame€offense.ðð€€The€reviewing€court€must€consider:€òòóó€(1)€òòóótheÐ $ t Ðstatutory€elements€of€the€offenses;׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€(2)€the€evidence€used€to€prove€the€offenses;òòóó׃@×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€(3)€whether€thereÐ  ` Ðwere€multiple€victims€or€discrete€acts;€and€(4)€the€purposes€of€the€respective€statutes.€€òòDentonóó,€938Ð ü L  ÐS.W.2d€€at€381.€€In€applying€this€analysis€in€òòDentonóó,€we€concluded€that€double€jeopardy€precludedÐ è 8  Ðseparate€convictions€for€aggravated€assault€and€attempted€voluntary€manslaughter€where€the€offensesÐ Ô$  Ðwere€based€upon€a€single€act€committed€against€a€single€victim.€€òòId.óó€at€382.€€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àòòóóIn€this€case,€the€first€component€of€òòDentonóó€requires€a€comparison€of€the€statutory€elementsÐ ˜è  Ðof€rape€and€incest.€€The€offense€of€rape€is€defined,€in€relevant€part,€as€the€ð ðunlawful€sexualÐ „Ô  Ðpenetration€of€a€victimðð€without€the€victimððs€consent€and€ð ðaccompanied€by€.€.€.€[f]orce€or€coercion.ðð€Ð pÀ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„503€(1997).€€The€offense€of€incest€is€defined,€in€relevant€part,€as€theÐ \¬ Ðð ðsexual€penetration€.€.€.€with€a€person,€knowing€such€person€to€be€.€.€.€[t]he€personððs€natural€.€.€.Ð H˜ Ðchild.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„15„302€(1997).׃¸×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€A€comparison€of€the€statutory€elements€of€rape€andÐ 4„ Ðincest€demonstrates€that€the€elements€are€dissimilar.€€Rape,€unlike€incest,€requires€non„consensualÐ  p Ðsexual€penetration€accompanied€by€force€or€coercion;€incest,€unlike€rape,€requires€that€the€victim€beÐ  \ Ðthe€natural€child€of€the€defendantòòóó,€regardless€of€whether€the€victim€consented.Ð øH ÐÌà  àWe€next€consider€the€evidence€required€to€establish€the€offenses€of€rape€and€incest.€€òòóóWeÐ Ð  Ðrecognize€that€the€same€evidence€was€necessary€to€establish€the€element€of€ð ðsexual€penetrationðð€thatÐ ¼  Ðis€essential€for€both€offenses.€€Since€the€remaining€elements€of€each€offense€differ,€however,€òòóótheÐ ¨ø Ðevidence€required€to€establish€each€offense€necessarily€will€differ€in€these€material€respects.׃ô×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€ForÐ ”ä Ðexample,€to€establish€the€incest€charge,€the€State€had€to€prove€the€family€relationship€between€theÐ €Ð Ðdefendant€and€the€victim.€€Conversely,€to€establish€the€rape€charge,€the€State€had€to€prove€the€forceÐ ° Ðor€coercion€and€the€lack€of€consent.€€Thus,€the€evidence€at€trial€underlying€the€rape€and€incestÐ œì Ðconvictions€was€different€and€not€identical.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àòòóóAs€to€the€remaining€factors€under€òòDentonóó,€we€observe€that€this€case€does€involve€a€singleÐ `° Ðvictim€and€a€single€act€of€sexual€penetration.€€Finally,€the€legislative€purpose€of€the€separate€statutoryÐ L œ Ðoffenses€of€rape€and€incest€is€similar€but€distinct.€€Although€both€statutes€address€sexual€offenses,Ð 8 ˆ Ðthe€offense€of€rape€is€contained€within€the€ð ðoffenses€against€personsðð€provisions€of€the€statutory€codeÐ $ t Ðand€the€offense€of€incest€is€contained€within€the€ð ðoffenses€against€familyðð€provisions€of€the€statutoryÐ  ` Ðcode.€€òòóóThe€sentencing€commission€comments€following€the€incest€statute€indicates€that€the€statuteÐ ü L  Ðis€intended€to€ð ðpromote€family€solidarity€by€prohibiting€relationships€with€anyone€with€parentalÐ è 8  Ðauthority€which€may€be€abused€to€sexual€ends.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€39„15„302€(1997).€€As€anotherÐ Ô$  Ðstate€court€has€observed€in€this€regard:Ð À  ÐÌà8  à[T]he€statutes€prohibiting€incest€and€criminal€sexual€penetration€achieve€differentÐ ˜è  Ðpolicy€objectives.€€The€sanction€against€criminal€sexual€penetration€is€to€preventÐ „Ô  Ðforcible,€nonconsensual€sexual€activity€and€to€protect€a€personððs€important€interestÐ pÀ Ðin€uncoerced€choice€of€sexual€partners.€€The€incest€statute,€on€the€other€hand,€is€moreÐ \¬ Ðnarrowly€directed€toward€prohibiting€sexual€relations,€whether€consensual€or€not,Ð H˜ Ðbetween€relatives.€.€.€.€Accordingly,€there€is€no€double€jeopardy€impediment€toÐ 4„ Ðconvicting€and€sentencing€.€.€.€[a€defendant]€for€both€incest€and€criminal€sexualÐ  p Ðpenetration€arising€out€of€the€same€act.Ð \Ð Ð  ÐÌòòSwafford€v.€Stateóó,€810€P.2d€1223,€1235€(N.M.€1991)€(internal€citation€omitted)òòóó;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.Ð ä4 ÐCalleóó,€881€P.2d€155,€161€(Wash.€1995)€(discussing€different€purposes€served€by€the€offense€of€rapeÐ Ð  Ðand€the€offense€of€incest).€€In€our€view,€the€statutory€offenses€of€rape€and€incest€have€a€related€butÐ ¼  Ðseparate€legislative€purpose€and€achieve€contrasting€policy€objectives.€€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€application€of€the€òòDentonóó€analysis€to€this€case€reveals€that€only€one€factor€ð!ð€thatÐ €Ð Ðthe€offenses€involved€a€single€victim€and€a€single€act€ð!ð€supports€Beauregardððs€claim€that€the€rape€andÐ l¼ Ðincest€convictions€were€for€the€ð ðsame€offenseðð€and€barred€by€double€jeopardy€principles.€€TheÐ X ¨ Ðremaining€three€òòDentonóó€factors,€however,€demonstrate€that€the€offenses€are€not€the€same€for€doubleÐ D!” Ðjeopardy€purposes:€€the€statutory€elements€of€the€offenses€are€dissimilar;€the€evidence€required€toÐ 0"€  Ðestablish€the€offenses€differs;€and€the€purpose€of€each€statutory€offense€is€separate€and€distinct.€€WeÐ #l! Ðtherefore€conclude€that€the€rape€and€incest€convictions€did€not€constitute€the€ð ðsame€offenseðð€andÐ $X" Ðwere€not€barred€by€double€jeopardy€principles.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àPrior€to€establishing€the€analytical€framework€in€òòDentonóó,€we€reached€the€same€conclusionÐ Ì&"% Ðabout€the€offenses€of€rape€and€incest.€€òòSeeóóòòState€v.€Brittmanóó,€639€S.W.2d€652€(Tenn.€1982)€(rape€andÐ ¸'#& Ðincest€were€not€the€same€offense€under€double€jeopardy€analysis).€€Our€conclusion€is€also€consistentÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwith€a€majority€of€state€jurisdictions€that€have€òòóóheld€that€convictions€for€rape€and€incest€arising€fromÐ )à$( Ða€single€act€are€not€barred€on€double€jeopardy€grounds.€€òòE.g.óó,€òòSmith€v.€Stateóó,€491€A.2d€587€(Md.€Ct.Ð |*Ì%) ÐSpec.€App.€1985);€òòFults€v.€Stateóó,€779€S.W.2d€688€(Mo.€Ct.€App.€1989);€òòSwafford€v.€Stateóó,€810€P.2dÐ h+¸&* Ð1223€(N.M.€1991);€òòCommonwealth€v.€Whiteóó,€491€A.2d€252€(Pa.€Super.€Ct.€1985);€òòMartinez€v.€Stateóó,Ð ° Ð662€S.W.2d€393€(Tex.€Ct.€App.€1983);€òòState€v.€Calleóó,€888€P.2d€155€(Wash.€1995);€òòState€v.€Peyattóó,Ð œì Ð315€S.E.2d€574€(W.€Va.€1983).€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àIn€addition€to€the€double€jeopardy€argument,€òòóóBeauregard€asserts€the€related€claim€thatÐ `° Ðconvictions€for€rape€and€incest€are€precluded€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„109(b)€(1991),€whichÐ L œ Ðstates:€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àòòóóWhen€the€same€conduct€may€be€defined€under€two€(2)€or€more€specific€statutes,€theÐ  ` Ðperson€may€be€prosecuted€under€òòeitheróó€statute€unless€one€(1)€specific€statuteÐ ü L  Ðprecludes€prosecution€under€another.€€òòóóÐè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌ(Emphasis€added).€€€In€discussing€this€statute€in€òòDentonóó,€we€observed€that€the€ð ðlegislatureððs€choiceÐ À  Ðof€terminology€is€indicative€of€its€intent€that€the€State€be€limited€to€a€single€conviction€underÐ ¬ü  Ðcircumstances€where€a€single€act€exposes€an€accused€to€prosecution€under€more€than€one€statute.ðð€Ð ˜è  ÐòòDentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€383.€€We€recognized,€however,€that€the€legislatureððs€use€of€the€phrase€ð ðmayÐ „Ô  Ðbe€prosecutedðð€is€problematic€and€conflicts€with€court€decisions€and€rules€of€court€that€allow€theÐ pÀ Ðprosecution€to€charge€two€or€more€offenses€based€on€the€same€conduct€in€one€indictment.€€òòIdóó.€at€383Ð \¬ Ðn.22.Ð H˜ ÐÌòòóóà  àIn€any€event,€we€conclude€that€neither€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„109(b)€nor€the€òòdictaóó€inÐ  p ÐòòDentonóósupports€Beauregardððs€contention€under€the€facts€of€this€case.€€First,€our€decision€inÐ  \ ÐòòDentonóócited€with€approval€òòState€v.€Brittmanóó,€in€which€this€Court€held€that€rape€and€incestÐ øH Ðconvictions€based€on€a€single€act€with€a€single€victim€were€not€the€ð ðsame€offenseðð€for€doubleÐ ä4 Ðjeopardy€purposes.€€òòBrittmanóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€654.€Moreover,€the€discussion€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ Ð  Ð39„11„109(b)€in€òòDentonóó€came€òòafteróó€we€had€applied€the€four„pronged€analysis€and€concluded€thatÐ ¼  Ðconvictions€for€aggravated€assault€and€attempted€voluntary€manslaughter€that€arose€out€of€a€singleÐ ¨ø Ðact€against€a€single€victim€violated€double€jeopardy€principles.€€It€was€under€those€circumstances€thatÐ ”ä Ððð„109(b)€provided€additional€support€for€our€conclusion.€€In€contrast,€application€of€the€òòDentonóóÐ €Ð Ðanalysis€in€this€case€reveals€that€the€offense€of€rape€and€incest€were€not€the€ð ðsame€offenseðð€forÐ l¼ Ðdouble€jeopardy€purposes.€€Similarly,€the€rape€and€incest€statutes€do€not€expressly€precludeÐ X ¨ Ðprosecution€or€conviction€for€the€other€offense.€€Thus,€to€construe€the€statute€as€broadly€as€is€urgedÐ D!” Ðby€Beauregard€would€supplant€the€framework€in€òòDentonóó€in€all€cases€involving€a€single€victim€andÐ 0"€  Ða€single€act.€€€This€we€decline€to€do.Ð #l! ÐÌÓ  Óà @ àòòò òDue€Processó óóóÐ ô$D # ÐÌÓ  Óà  àWe€next€consider€Beauregardððs€argument€that€the€convictions€for€rape€and€incest€violated€dueÐ Ì&"% Ðprocess€principles€under€the€United€States€Constitution€or€article€I,€section€8€of€the€TennesseeÐ ¸'#& ÐConstitution.€€Beauregard€relies€on€òòState€v.€Anthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€299€(Tenn.€1991),€in€which€òòóóweÐ ¤(ô#' Ðheld€that€dual€convictions€for€kidnapping€and€robbery€violate€due€process€when€the€detention€of€theÐ )à$( Ðvictim€resulting€in€the€kidnapping€conviction€is€incidental€to€the€robbery.€€We€held€that€courts€mustÐ |*Ì%) Ðconsider:Ð h+¸&* Ї€à8  àwhether€the€confinement,€movement,€or€detention€is€òòessentially€incidentalóó€to€theÐ ° Ðaccompanying€felony€and€is€not,€therefore,€sufficient€to€support€a€separate€convictionÐ œì Ðfor€kidnapping€.€.€.€.€[O]ne€method€of€resolving€this€question€is€to€ask€whether€theÐ ˆØ Ðdefendantððs€conduct€ð ðsubstantially€increased€[the]€risk€of€harm€over€and€above€thatÐ tÄ Ðnecessarily€present€in€the€crime€of€robbery€itself.ððÐ`°Ð Ð  ÐÌÌòòId.óó€at€306€(emphasis€added)€(citation€omitted).€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àð ð[D]ue€process€is€flexible€and€calls€for€such€procedural€protections€as€the€particular€situationÐ ü L  Ðdemands.ðð€€òòPhillips€v.€State€Bd.€of€Regentsóó,€863€S.W.2d€45,€50€(Tenn.€1993)€(citation€omitted).€Ð è 8  Ðð ðThe€flexible€nature€of€procedural€due€process€requires€an€imprecise€definition€because€due€processÐ Ô$  Ðembodies€the€concept€of€fundamental€fairness.ðð€€òòSeals€v.€Stateóó,€òòóó23€S.W.3d€272,€277€(Tenn.€2000)Ð À  Ð(citations€omitted).Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÔ‡X^qXXX^qÔà  àNeither€the€principles€of€due€process€nor€our€decision€in€òòAnthonyóó€warrant€relief€under€theÐ „Ô  Ðfacts€of€this€case.€€In€òòAnthonyóó,€we€addressed€the€ð ðparticularly€anomalous€nature€of€the€kidnappingÐ pÀ Ðstatute,ðð€in€which€the€offense€of€kidnapping€is€inherent€in€another€offense,€such€as€rape€or€robbery.€Ð \¬ ÐThat€concern€is€not€applicable€in€this€case.€€òòóóThe€offense€of€incest€can€be€committed€withoutÐ H˜ Ðcommitting€rape€because€one€may€have€consensual€sex€with€a€person€who€is€within€the€prohibitedÐ 4„ Ðrelationships.€€€Likewise,€the€offense€of€rape€can€be€committed€without€committing€incest.€€In€short,Ð  p Ðneither€offense€is€ð ðnecessarily€incidentalðð€to€the€other.€€Accordingly,€Beauregardððs€convictions€forÐ  \ Ðboth€rape€and€incest€were€in€no€wayò ò€ó ófundamentally€unfair€and€did€not€violate€due€process€under€theÐ øH ÐUnited€States€or€Tennessee€Constitutions.€€Ô#†X^qXXX^q´N#Ô€€Ð è8 ÐÌÓ  Óòòò òCONCLUSIONó óóóÐ À ÐÌÓSÓà  àWe€hold€that,€under€this€Courtððs€test€announced€in€òòState€v.€Dentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€373€(Tenn.Ð ˜è Ð1996),€Beauregardððs€convictions€for€rape€and€incest€did€not€violate€double€jeopardy€principles€underÐ „Ô Ðthe€United€States€Constitution€or€article€I,€section€10€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€We€alsoÐ pÀ Ðconclude€that€the€convictions€did€not€violate€due€process€under€the€United€States€Constitution€orÐ \ ¬ Ðarticle€I,€section€8€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€We€therefore€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Court€ofÐ H!˜ ÐCriminal€Appeals.€€It€appearing€that€the€defendant€is€indigent,€costs€of€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€StateÐ 4"„  Ðfor€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ð  #p! ÐÌÓ  ÓÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________Ð ä%4!$ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àE.€RILEY€ANDERSON,€CHIEF€JUSTICE€Ð Ð& "% Ð