ÿWPC$ @# UN› %é 0 (ïw@4Wkbz 0D‚Æ 0lÎ 0D: AQ~ 0JÏ 0TÆm 0^3 0h‘ 0rù 0|k 0†ç 0m 1uý Br 0d 0Dó 0@7 0Dw D/» Bê D3 U >: U*x y¢ U*B)EDCn AM±,þf*™Í)?öÖ5Ó ÞU6øv~.vÓ¬˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ H I UJ PK {L M DN UO DP Ó€Z Ýu:#3|xZ - ù-(3¯$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó"#$&Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) dP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd 'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial oÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ )ÝÝ  ÝÌÌÌ< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d22227Border 1dd#3Cþÿ << Gÿÿ "Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€/ÔÔ€/ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€/XÔÌÌSeptember€29,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€ð ðððRelevant€evidenceðð€means€evidence€having€any€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€anyÏfact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€than€itÏwould€be€without€the€evidence.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.Ì ÃÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýà àð ðAll€relevant€evidence€is€admissible€except€as€provided€by€the€Constitution€of€theÏUnited€States,€the€Constitution€of€Tennessee,€€these€rules,€or€other€rules€or€laws€of€generalÏapplication€in€the€courts€of€Tennessee.€€Evidence€which€is€not€relevant€is€not€admissible.ðð€€Tenn.ÏR.€Evid.€402.Ì 5Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝRule€404(b)€€provides€as€follows:ÌÌà8 àà àÔ€.&Ô(b)€€Other€Crimes,€Wrongs,€or€Acts.€„„€Evidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs,€orÏacts€is€not€admissible€to€prove€the€character€of€a€person€in€order€to€show€action€inÏconformity€with€the€character€trait.€€It€may,€however,€be€admissible€for€otherÏpurposes.€€The€conditions€which€must€be€satisfied€before€allowing€such€evidence€are:€€Ìà8 àà àÌà8 à€à à(1)€€The€court€upon€request€must€hold€a€hearing€outside€the€jury's€presence;ÌÌà8 àà à(2)€€The€court€must€determine€that€a€material€issue€exists€other€than€conductÏconforming€with€a€character€trait€and€must€upon€request€state€on€the€record€theÏmaterial€issue,€the€ruling,€and€the€reasons€for€admitting€the€evidence;€andÌÌà8 àà à(3)€€The€court€must€exclude€the€evidence€if€its€probative€value€is€outweighedÏby€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.Ô€.XÔÌ ÌÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝRule€404(b)€was€drafted€in€response€to€this€Courtððs€opinion€in€òòState€v.€Partonóó,€694ÏS.W.2d€299€(Tenn.€1985).€€In€òòPartonóó,€ð ðthe€Court€established€precise€procedures€to€emphasize€thatÏevidence€of€other€crimes€should€usually€be€excluded.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b)€advisoryÏcommissionsððs€comments.Ì ÉÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€ð ð€Although€relevant,€evidence€may€be€excluded€if€its€probative€value€is€substantiallyÏoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,€or€misleading€the€jury,€orÏby€considerations€of€undue€delay,€waste€of€time,€or€needless€presentation€of€cumulative€evidence.ðð€ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€403.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIntent€and€absence€of€accident€are€closely€related€factual€issues.€€òòTennessee€Law€ofÏEvidenceóó,€ðððð€404.9,€404.10.€€Ì< Œ 9p`(Courier NewPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€.ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€/ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€öfXdìdÈ7Ñ›Ò € ÒÒ À ÒÑ€ ÑÖ€0ÖÑ  ÑØ ØÓ&€11X°d&ÓœÞ ÞÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSeptember€29,€1997Ì›à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEE̜ـÙßR€453A1-j|´J`  `€€@ÿRß›Ìà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àPlaintiff„Appellee,à àà àœà à(›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€Williamson€CriminalÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à(€Hon.€Henry€Denmark€Bell€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€Appeal€No.€01S01„9602„CC„00029ÌJAMES€DUBOSE,à àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àDefendant„Appellant.à àà à(ÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiff„Appelleeóó:à àà àà àòòFor€Defendant„Appellantóó:ÌÌCharles€W.€Bursonà àà àà àà àRobert€H.€Plummer,€Jr.ÌAttorney€General€&€Reporterà àà àFranklinÌNashvilleÌÌMichael€E.€MooreÌSolicitor€GeneralÌNashvilleÌÌMichael€W.€CatalanoÌAssociate€Solicitor€GeneralÌNashvilleÌÌAmy€TarkingtonÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌNashvilleÌœÌJoseph€D.€BaughÌDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌFranklinÌà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌJUDGMENT€OF€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÌAPPEALS€AND€JUDGMENT€OF€TRIAL€ÌCOURT€AFFIRMED.›à àà àà àà àà àœà àà àREID,›€J.ÌÌÓÓÓ` °‚X˜XÓà àThis€case€presents€for€review€the€decision€of€the€Court€of€CriminalÏÑ ° ÑAppeals€affirming€the€conviction€of€James€DuBose€of€first€degree€murder€byÏaggravated€child€abuse.€€The€defendant€was€sentenced€to€imprisonment€for€life.€ÏPermission€to€appeal€was€granted€in€order€to€review€the€trial€courtððs€rulingÏallowing€the€introduction€of€evidence€of€prior€injuries€suffered€by€the€victim.ÌÌà@ àò òIó óÌÌà àThe€victim€was€16„month„old€Rufus€Jones,€Jr.,€whose€death€wasÏcaused€by€the€application€of€significant€force,€consistent€with€a€blow€with€a€œfist›€toÏhis€abdomen,€which€had€developed€massive€internal€scarring€as€the€result€ofÏœolder,›€undiagnosed€injuries.€€The€victim€was€pronounced€dead€at€the€hospitalÏemergency€room€at€approximately€9€p.m.€on€July3,€1993,€where€he€was€taken€byÏhis€mother,€Ann€Jones,€and€the€œdefendant.€€Jones€and€the€defendant›€were€livingÍtogether€in€a€mobile€home€with€her€children:€€Rufus,€the€victim;€Nick,€age€10;€andÏJoey,€age€6.€€The€defendantððs€son,€Jamie,€age€4,€also€lived€with€them.ÌÌà àThe€conviction€is€based€on€circumstantial€evidence.€€On€the€date€ofÏthe€victimððs€death,€the€defendant€went€to€work€and€Jones€œand€the€children›€spentÏthe€morning€with€a€friend€and€her€small€child.€€After€the€defendant€returned€homeÏfrom€work,€he,€Jones,€and€all€the€children€visited€in€the€home€of€the€defendantððsÏparents€until€late€afternoon,€when€they€all,€except€Jamie,€returned€to€the€mobileÏœhome.€€They›€remained€together€until€some€time€later€when€Jones€left€to€get€pizzaÏand€a€movie€video.€€When€she€left,€the€victim€was€sitting€at€the€kitchen€tableÏeating€a€hot€dog.€€According€to€Jones,€the€victim€had€appeared€to€be€well€in€theÏmorning€but€somewhat€ð ðlazyðð€later€in€the€day.€€However,€there€was€no€evidenceÏthat€he€sustained€any€injury€during€the€day.€€€€ÌÌà àNick€testified€that€after€œhis€mother›€left€to€get€the€pizza€and€œmovie,›€theÏvictim€fell€asleep€at€the€kitchen€table€and€was€carried€by€the€defendant€to€theÏbedroom.€€Nick€stated€that€while€the€defendant€and€the€victim€were€in€theÏbedroom€he€heard€a€noise,€which€the€defendant€explained€to€Nick€was€made€byÏsome€toys€falling.€€ÌÌà àWhen€Jones€returned,€the€defendant€told€œher€that›€he€had€put€theÏvictim€to€bed.€€She€went€into€the€bedroom€and€saw€him€lying€on€a€blanket€on€theÍfloor.€€She€assumed€the€child€was€asleep.€€Later,€the€defendant€went€into€theÏbedroom€and€returned€carrying€the€victim.€€He€told€Jones€the€child€was€notÏbreathing.€€The€victim€vomited€when€his€mother€gave€him€mouth€to€mouthÏresuscitation;€otherwise,€he€exhibited€no€sign€of€life.Ì€€Ìà àAt€the€hospital,€the€defendant€stated€that€he€found€the€child€pinnedÏbetween€the€bed€and€the€wall.€€His€explanation€was€that€the€victim€had€droppedÏhis€bottle€behind€the€bed€and€had€been€trying€to€retrieve€it.€€The€detective€whoÏinvestigated€the€death€visited€the€home€that€night.€€He€made€numerousÏphotographs€and€measured€the€distance€between€the€bed€and€the€wall.€€WhenÏthe€detective€returned€the€next€day,€he€found€under€the€bed€a€babyððs€bottle€whichÏhad€not€been€there€the€previous€night.€€The€detective€also€noticed€that€the€bedÏhad€been€moved€a€few€inches€farther€away€from€the€wall.€€Lastly,€the€detectiveÏdiscovered€a€rolled€up€blanket€which€the€mother€identified€as€the€blanket€onÏwhich€the€victim€had€been€lying€on€the€night€he€died.€€The€blanket€was€damp€inÏone€spot€with€what€appeared€to€be€blood€and€mucus.€€The€stain€on€the€blanketÏwas€consistent€with€a€sample€of€blood€taken€from€the€victim.€ÌÌà àThe€medical€examiner,€Dr.€Julia€Goodin,€performed€the€autopsy.€ÏShe€testified€that€the€victim's€abdominal€cavity€was€full€of€blood,€there€wereÏcontusions€on€the€œintestines,›€and€lacerations€or€tearing€on€the€connective€tissueÏto€the€small€intestines,€which€likely€were€caused€by€a€knuckle€on€the€perpetratorððsÍfist.€€The€injury€which€caused€the€tearing€probably€had€occurred€within€24€hoursÏof€œdeath€and€certainly€had€occurred›€within€36€œhours€of€death.›€€Exterior€bruises€onÏthe€victim€corresponded€to€the€internal€abdominal€injuries.€€The€bruises€wereÏconsistent€with€blows€to€the€abdomen€with€a€fist.€€According€to€Dr.€Goodin,€thisÏtype€of€blow€typically€is€administered€by€an€œadult,›€not€another€child.€€In€Dr.ÏGoodin's€opinion,€the€defendant's€explanation€of€what€happened€wasÏinconsistent€with€the€injuries€she€observed.€€She€œtestified€that›€there€was€noÏindication€that€the€child€had€been€pinned€in€any€way,€nor€were€there€signs€ofÏasphyxiation.€€€€ÌÌà àDr.€Goodin€also€testified€that€there€was€evidence€of€other€œinternalÏinjuries›€œin€the€abdominal€area€which›€were€at€least€a€week€old€and€could€haveÏbeen€several€months€old.€€She€stated€œthat€the›€old€injuries€had€been€caused€byÏsignificant€force€and€had€resulted€in€internal€scarring.€€Her€conclusion€was€thatÏthe€mass€of€scarring€caused€by€the€old€injuries€prevented€the€soft€connectiveÏtissue€from€moving€freely€in€the€abdominal€cavity€when€force€was€applied,Ïthereby€resulting€in€the€tearing€which€caused€the€child€to€bleed€to€death.€€InÏaddition,€Dr.€Goodin€testified€that€on€various€parts€of€the€body€there€were€exteriorÏcontusions€and€bruises,€some€of€which€were€as€much€as€a€week€œold.€€She€alsoÏfound€evidence€of€prior›€contusions€to€the€back€of€the€scalp€area€œwhich€had›Ïresulted€in€œthe€development€of€scar›€tissue€between€the€scalp€and€the€œskull.€€TheÏmedical€examiner€did€not€associate€the€injuries€to€the€victimððs€head€with€hisÍdeath.€€›ÌÌà àIn€addition€to€the€injuries€found€by€the€medical€examiner,€proof€wasÏintroduced€concerning€an€incident€in€March€1993€when€the€victim's€fingers€wereÏinjured€while€œhe€was€with€the€defendant;€the€defendant€told€Jones›€œthat€the€victimÏhad€smashed€his€fingers€in€the€cabinet€door.€€Because€the€defendant€had€takenÏthe€child€to€his€sisterððs€house,€the€mother€did€not€see€the€fingers€until€later€theÏnext€day.€€Two€of€the€victim's€fingernails€were€missing€and€there€was€pus€on€theÏfingers.€€€She€immediately€took€the€victim€to€the€emergency€room€where€he€wasÏtreated€by€Dr.€Woodrow€Wilson.€€Dr.€Wilson€concluded€that€the€injuries€wereÏinconsistent€with€the€fingers€being€accidentally€smashed€in€a€cabinet€door,Ïalthough€it€was€possible€that€the€victim€could€have€sustained€the€injury€by€placingÏhis€fingers€in€the€hinged€door€of€the€cabinet€and€then€pulling€his€fingers€whileÏpushing€against€the€cabinet€door.€€He€described€the€injury€as€a€ð ðsuperficialÏdegloving,ðð€in€which€the€skin€is€peeled€off€and€there€are€no€fractures.€€HeÏsuspected€child€abuse€and€discussed€his€concerns€with€the€mother.€€ÌÌà àHarvey€Wood,€the€motherððs€brother„in„law€and€also€the€defendantððsÏuncle,€testified€that€the€defendant€showed€hostility€toward€the€victim.€€WoodÏexplained€that€the€defendant€disliked€the€victimððs€father,€Rufus€Jones,€Sr.€€TheÏdefendant€had€told€Wood€that€the€victim€ð ðlooked€just€like€his€daddy,€sounded€likeÏhis€daddy,€cried€like€his€daddy€and€that€he€couldnððt€stand€that€little€bastardÍeither.ðð€€Wood€testified€that€on€one€occasion€he€had€seen€the€defendant€strike€theÏvictim€on€the€head.€€Wood€also€stated€that€the€defendant€had€tried€to€get€him€toÏchange€his€testimony.ÌÌà àThe€defendantððs€basic€defense€was€that€there€was€not€sufficientÏadmissible€evidence€to€prove€the€charge.€€The€defendant€initially€claimed€that€theÏchildððs€death€was€accidental€„€that€it€was€caused€by€his€becoming€caughtÏbetween€the€bed€and€the€wall.€€At€trial,€he€insisted€that€there€was€no€evidenceÏshowing€the€cause€of€the€fatal€injury,€that€the€evidence€showed€the€injury€couldÏhave€been€caused€accidentally€by€the€children€at€play€or€intentionally€by€personsÏother€than€the€defendant.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€however,€found€that€theÏevidence,€though€circumstantial,€was€sufficient€to€support€the€conviction.€€TheÏdefendantððsÑ€6ÑÇapplication€for€permission€to€appeal€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€was€notÏgranted.€€The€only€issue€before€this€Court€is€the€admissibility€of€the€evidence€ofÏprior€injuries.€€€€ÌÌà@ àò òIIó óÌÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€committed€reversibleÏerror€in€allowing€the€jury€to€hear€evidence€of€the€prior€injuries€sustained€by€theÏvictim.€€He€objects€specifically€to€the€testimony€of€the€mother€and€of€theÏemergency€room€physician€about€the€injury€to€the€victimððs€fingers€in€March€1993Ïand€the€testimony€of€the€medical€examiner€about€the€prior€internal€and€externalÏinjuries.€€The€State€contends€that€the€evidence€was€admissible€to€show€the€causeÏof€death,€and€also€that€the€injury€was€caused€ð ðknowingly,€other€than€by€accidentalÏmeans,ðð€as€provided€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„15„401(a)(1991).€€The€defendantÏwould€invoke€Rule€404(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€to€exclude€theÏevidence€of€prior€injuries.€€He€contends€that€the€evidence€was€not€probative€ofÏany€element€of€the€offense€and,€further,€even€if€relevant€its€probative€value€wasÏoutweighed€by€unfair€prejudice.€€ÌÌà@ àò òIIIó óÌÌà àThe€first€issue€to€be€resolved€is€the€standard€of€review€of€the€trialÍcourtððs€decision€regarding€the€admissibility€of€the€evidence.€€€The€standard€ofÏreview€where€the€decision€of€the€trial€judge€is€based€on€the€relevance€of€theÏproffered€evidence€under€Rules€40l× ƒ7 ××  ×€and€402× ƒ8 ××  ×€is€abuse€of€discretion.€€Neil€P.ÏCohen€et€al.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€401.5€at€86„87€(3d€ed.€1995);ÏòòDockery€v.€Board€of€Professional€Responsibilityóó,€937€S.W.2d€863,€866€(Tenn.Ï1996);€òòcfóó.€òòState€v.€Porterfieldóó,€746€S.W.2d€441,€450€(Tenn.€),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€486ÏU.S.€1017€(1988).€€Where€the€admissibility€of€the€proffered€evidence€must€alsoÏcomply€with€Rule€404(b)× ƒ9 ××  ×€and€the€trial€court€has€followed€the€procedureÏmandated€by€that€rule,€it€appears€that€the€same€standard,€abuse€of€discretion,Ïwould€be€applicable.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€932€S.W.2d€1,€24€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Í1996).€€However,€in€view€of€the€strict€procedural€requirements€of€Rule€404(b),€theÏdecision€of€the€trial€court€should€be€afforded€no€deference€unless€there€has€beenÏsubstantial€compliance€with€the€procedural€requirements€of€the€Rule.€€TheÏprocedure€for€determining€admissibility€of€evidence€of€other€ð ðcrimes,€wrongs,€orÏactsðð€is€set€forth€in€the€rule.× ƒ: ××  ×€€The€court€must€find€on€ð ðevidence€heard€outside€theÏjuryððs€presenceðð€that€the€evidence€is€relevant€to€a€ð ðmaterial€issueðð€and€that€theÏprobative€value€of€the€evidence€is€not€ð ðoutweighed€by€the€dangerðð€that€theÏevidence€will€cause€unfair€prejudice.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b)(1)(2)€&€(3);€òòState€v.ÏMcCaryóó,€922€S.W.2d€511,€513„14€(Tenn.€1996).€€If€the€evidence€is€admitted,€theÏtrial€court€ð ðmust€upon€request€state€on€the€recordðð€the€material€issue€to€which€theÏevidence€is€relevant€and€the€courtððs€reasons€for€admitting€the€evidence.€€òòIdóó.€atÏ404(b)(2).€€The€trial€court€did€not€comply€fully€with€these€procedures.€€However,Ïwhere,€as€in€this€case,€there€was€a€hearing€outside€the€presence€of€the€jury,€butÏthe€trial€court€failed€to€determine€and€state€on€the€record€the€material€issue€toÏwhich€the€evidence€was€relevant€and€also€failed€to€find€that€the€probative€value€ofÏthe€evidence€was€not€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€theÏdetermination€of€admissibility€will€be€made€by€the€reviewing€court€on€theÏevidence€presented€at€the€jury€out€hearing.€€ÌÌà@ àò òIVó óÌÌà àSince€in€this€case€the€Court€must€apply€a€different€standard€ofÏreview€if€Rule€404(b)€is€applicable,€the€next€issue€to€be€considered€is€whether€theÏadmissibility€of€the€evidence€of€prior€injuries€is€controlled€by€Rules€40l€and€402€orÏwhether€Rule€404(b)€is€also€applicable.€€The€admissibility€of€the€evidence€of€priorÏinjuries€to€the€victimððs€abdominal€area,€and€the€evidence€of€prior€injuries€to€theÏvictimððs€hand€and€head,€must€be€considered€separately.€€ÌÌà àIn€regard€to€the€evidence€of€prior€injuries€to€the€victimððs€abdominalÏarea,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€medical€examinerððs€testimony€regardingÏprior€injuries€is€irrelevant€unless€the€injuries€can€be€attributed€to€the€defendant.€ÏThat€interpretation€is€unduly€restrictive€of€the€meaning€of€relevance.€€Rule€404(b)Ïapplies€to€ð ðevidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs€or€actsðð€of€the€person€on€trial,€andÏexcludes€evidence€of€such€acts€only€when€offered€for€the€purpose€of€provingÏcharacter€or€trait€of€character.€€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€732€(Tenn.Ï1994),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€513€U.S.€1114€(1995).€€Evidence€of€crimes,€wrongs€or€acts,€ifÏrelevant,€are€not€excluded€by€Rule€404(b)€if€they€were€committed€by€a€personÏother€than€the€accused€and€are€only€conditionally€excluded€if€committed€by€theÏaccused.€€Since€the€evidence€admitted€did€not€show€the€identity€of€the€personÏwho€caused€the€prior€abdominal€injuries€sustained€by€the€victim,€it€was€notÏinadmissible€under€Rule€404(b)€as€reflecting€upon€the€character€of€the€defendant.€€€ÌÌà àConsequently,€the€admissibility€of€the€evidence€is€dependent€uponÏits€relevance€under€rules€401€and€402.€The€relevance€of€proffered€evidence€isÏdetermined€by€the€issues€presented€for€resolution€in€the€trial,€which,€in€turn,€areÏdetermined€by€the€elements€of€the€offense€charged€and€the€defense€asserted€byÏthe€accused.€€As€stated€in€the€Advisory€Commission€Comment€to€Rule€401,€ð ð[t]oÏbe€relevant,€evidence€must€tend€to€prove€a€material€issue.ðð€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€was€charged€with€and€convicted€of€first€degreeÏmurder€by€aggravated€child€abuse,€which€was€defined€as:€ð ðA€reckless€killing€of€aÏchild€less€than€thirteen€(13)€years€of€age,€if€the€child's€death€results€fromÏaggravated€child€abuse,€as€defined€by€ðð€39„15„402,€committed€by€the€defendantÏagainst€the€child.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(4)€(Supp.€1993)€(currentÏversion€at€ðð€39„13„202(a)(2)€(Supp.€1996)).€€The€offense€of€aggravated€childÏabuse€is€defined€in€the€statute€as€follows:€ð ðA€person€is€guilty€of€the€offense€ofÏaggravated€child€abuse€who€commits€the€offense€of€child€abuse€as€defined€in€ððÏ39„15„401€and:€€(1)€The€act€of€abuse€results€in€serious€bodily€injury€to€the€child;Ïor€(2)€A€deadly€weapon€is€used€to€accomplish€the€act€of€abuse.€...ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„15„402€(a)(1991).€€The€offense€of€child€abuse€was€defined€as€follows:Ïð ðAny€person€who€knowingly,€òòother€than€by€accidental€meansóó,€treats€a€child€underÏeighteen€(18)€years€of€age€in€such€a€manner€as€to€inflict€injury€or€neglects€such€aÏchild€so€as€to€adversely€affect€the€child's€health€and€welfare€is€guilty€of€a€Class€AÍmisdemeanor.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„15„401€(a)(1991)(amendedÏ1994)(emphasis€added).€€These€statutes€required,€for€conviction€of€first€degreeÏmurder€by€aggravated€child€abuse,€proof€that€the€defendant€knowingly,€otherÏthan€by€accidental€means,€inflicted€upon€the€victim€serious€bodily€injury€thatÏcaused€his€death.€€€€ÌÌà àHere,€the€evidence€of€prior€injuries€to€the€abdominal€area€wasÏadmissible€to€show€causation.€€According€to€Dr.€Goodin,€the€scarring€€of€theÏabdominal€area€caused€by€the€prior€injuries€created€a€condition€which€allowedÏthe€later€blows€to€cause€the€injuries€which€resulted€in€the€victimððs€death.€€ThisÏevidence€was€relevant€to€causation€regardless€of€the€identity€of€the€perpetrator.€ÏThe€external€bruises€to€the€abdomen€were€consistent€with€the€internal€injuriesÏand€were€in€fact€evidence€of€the€same€injuries.€€Thus€the€prior€injuries€to€theÏabdominal€area€were€admissible€because€they€directly€related€to€the€cause€ofÏdeath€and€also€because€they€tended€to€prove€that€the€injuries€were€caused€byÏsomeone€intentionally€and€not€accidentally.€ÌÌà àThe€next€issue€is€whether€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€of€theÏabdominal€injuries€was€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€Since,€asÏstated€above,€Rule€404(b)€is€not€applicable€to€this€evidence,€its€admissibility€mustÍbe€considered€under€Rule€403,€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.× ƒ; ××  ×€€Rule€403€permitsÏa€court€to€exclude€relevant€evidence€ð ðif€its€probative€value€is€òòsubstantiallyóóÏoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.ðð€€(Emphasis€added.)€€The€CourtÏhas€stated€that€unfair€prejudice€is€ð ð[a]n€undue€tendency€to€suggest€decision€on€anÏimproper€basis,€commonly,€though€not€necessarily,€an€emotional€one.ðð€€òòState€v.ÏBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947,€951€(Tenn.€1978);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€McCaryóó,€922€S.W.2dÏat€515.€€The€medical€examinerððs€testimony€regarding€prior€injuries€to€the€victimÏwas€not€particularly€graphic€or€emotional.€€Rather,€the€testimony€simply€recountedÏin€a€clinical€manner€the€location€of€various€bruising€and€scarring€on€the€victimððsÏbody.€€There€was€no€supposition€as€to€who€caused€the€prior€injuries.€€The€CourtÏconcludes€that€the€probative€value€of€this€evidence€was€not€substantiallyÏoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€as€required€for€exclusion€underÏRule€403,€and,€therefore,€that€the€trial€judge€did€not€abuse€his€discretion€inÏallowing€its€admission.ÌÌà àThe€remaining€issues€concern€the€admissibility€of€the€testimonyÏabout€the€injury€to€the€victimððs€fingers€in€1993€and€the€testimony€regardingÏinjuries€to€his€head.€€Because,€on€the€evidence,€€the€defendant€could€beÏidentified€as€the€person€responsible€for€these€injuries,€admissibility€of€theÍevidence€is€governed€by€Rule€404(b).€€First,€the€evidence€that€the€defendant€wasÏresponsible€for€the€hand€and€head€injuries€must€be€clear€and€convincing€asÏrequired€under€Rule€404(b)€analysis.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€McCaryóó,€922€S.W.2d€at€514;ÏòòState€v.€Partonóó,€694€S.W.2d€at€303.€€Then,€two€issues€must€be€determined:€Ïwhether€there€was€a€material€issue,€other€than€conduct€conforming€with€aÏcharacter€trait,€to€which€evidence€of€the€injury€to€the€victimððs€fingers€was€relevant;Ïand,€if€so,€whether€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€outweighed€the€danger€ofÏunfair€prejudice.€€òòIdóó.€€The€test€for€relevance€under€Rule€401,€that€the€evidenceÏtends€to€prove€a€material€issue,€is€the€same€under€Rule€404(b).€€However,€the€testÏin€Rule€404(b)€for€balancing€probative€value€against€prejudicial€effect€differs€fromÏthat€established€in€Rule€403.€€To€be€excluded€under€Rule€403,€the€danger€ofÏunfair€prejudice€must€ð ðsubstantially€outweighðð€the€probative€value.€€Under€RuleÏ404(b),€however,€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€must€simply€ð ðoutweighðð€theÏprobative€value.€€The€restrictive€approach€of€Rule€404(b)€recognizes€thatÏevidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs€or€acts€carries€a€significant€danger€of€unfairÏprejudice.€€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€ðð€404.7€at€172.€ÌÌà àThe€evidence€of€the€injury€to€the€victimððs€hand€in€1993€and€that€heÏwas€struck€on€the€head€by€the€defendant€was€relevant€to€two€closely€relatedÏmaterial€issues:€€intent€and€absence€of€accident.€€The€statutes€defining€theÏoffense€require€proof€that€the€act€of€abuse€was€committed€ð ðknowinglyðð€and€not€byÍð ðaccidental€means.ðð× ƒ< ××  ×€€Since€the€defendant€claimed€the€injury€was€accidental€and,Ïapparently€in€the€alternative,€if€the€injury€was€inflicted€intentionally€it€could€haveÏbeen€done€by€others,€proof€that€he€was€responsible€for€the€prior€injuries€wasÏhighly€probative€of€both€his€intent€to€harm€the€child€and€also€that€the€fatal€injuryÏwas€not€accidental.€ÌÌà àThe€evidence,€though€probative€of€intent€and€lack€of€accident,Ïundoubtedly€was€prejudicial.€€But€the€issue€is€whether€the€evidence€was€òòunfairlyóóÏprejudicial.€€The€evidence€was€highly€relevant€to€material€issues,€it€did€notÏintroduce€any€extraneous€issues€and€it€did€not€cause€the€jury€to€decide€the€caseÏon€an€improper€basis.€€òòCfóó.€òòWoodson€v.€Porter€Brown€Limestone€Coóó.,€916€S.W.2dÏ896,€907„908€(Tenn.€1996).€€On€this€record,€the€prejudice€was€not€unfair.€ÏTherefore,€the€Court€concludes€that€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€was€notÏoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€Accordingly,€the€evidence€wasÏproperly€admitted.ÌÌà@ àò òVó óÌÌà àOne€additional€matter€should€be€mentioned.€€Where€the€evidence€ofÏother€crimes,€wrongs,€and€acts€may€reflect€upon€the€character€of€the€accused,€theÍprocedure€set€forth€in€Rule404(b)€should€be€followed,€even€though€the€evidenceÏis€offered€to€prove€a€material€fact€not€necessarily€related€directly€to€the€accused.€ÏIf,€after€hearing€the€evidence,€the€trial€court€finds€that€the€evidence€does€notÏimplicate€the€accused,€the€weighing€of€probative€value€against€unfair€prejudiceÏwill€be€made€pursuant€to€Rule€403.€€If€the€court€finds€that€the€evidence€reflectsÏupon€the€character€of€the€accused,€the€weighing€will€be€made€pursuant€to€RuleÏ404(b).€€ÌÌà@ àò òVIó óÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirming€theÏdefendant's€conviction€and€sentence€is€affirmed.ÌÌà àCosts€are€taxed€against€the€defendant.€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àReid,€J.ÌÌConcur:ÌÌAnderson,€C.J.,€Drowota,€andÌ€€€€€Holder,€JJ.ÌÌDissenting€Opinion:ÌÌBirch,€J.Ô€=Ô