ÿWPC=3 b#Ál %-^ 3 0 ˆ?wÇUNË4 z-Ò§y ˆ mŠ Æ¡ Æg Æ- Æó N¹ E» 0J½ 0T J[ m¥ 0^ 0hp 0rØJ 0|R 0†Î 0T 1uä 0dY½ÑL 0D`ašÁb[¨cp U$>{$U*¹$Pã$v~3'vÓ±( 0ë„. Bo/ 0XŒ/ D5ä/ D-0 0KF0 AS‘0Æä0 0¤ª1 0DN2 A«’2˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»k+s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular-C +  1xðn ˜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.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô @Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€1ôÔÔ_ÔThe€defendant€later€stated€that€he€found€the€coat€hanger€in€the€backseat€of€the€taxi.Ì cÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€1ôÔÔ_ÔThe€jury€imposed€a€fine€of€$5,000€for€aggravated€robbery,€$2,000€for€false€imprisonment,€and€$3000€forÏsexual€battery.€€Following€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€ten€years€for€aggravatedÏrobbery;€nine€months€for€false€imprisonment;€one€year€and€four€months€for€sexual€battery;€and€approved€the€finesÏassessed€by€the€jury.€€The€trial€court€ordered€that€the€one„year„€and„four„months€sentences€be€served€consecutively€toÏthe€ten„year€sentence€and€that€the€nine„month€sentence€be€served€concurrently€to€the€ten„year€sentence,€therebyÏresulting€in€an€effective€sentence€of€eleven€years€and€four€months.€Ì2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô 2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô !"$%& ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ …Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€1ôÔÔ_Ôð ðIntimate€parts.€.€.€includes€the€primary€genital€area,€groin,€inner€thigh,€buttock€or€breast€of€a€humanÏbeing.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„501(2).Ì ÇÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€1ôÔÔ_ÔWhile€the€dissent€characterizes€our€reliance€upon€the€plural€term€used€in€the€statute€as€a€ð ðstartlingÏconclusion,ðð€the€law€is€clear€that€the€plain€language€of€a€statute€is€the€best€indication€of€legislative€intent.Ì(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó VÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€1ôÔÔ_ÔUnpublished€intermediate€appellate€court€opinions€are€persuasive€authority.€€òòSeeóó€Sup.€Ct.€R.€4(H)(1).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€1ôÔÔ_ÔThe€dissent€misstates€our€holding€when€it€asserts€that€multiple€acts€of€sexual€contact€will€alwaysÏconstitute€only€a€single€offense€of€sexual€battery.€€We€are€merely€holding€that€where,€as€here,€the€sexual€contactÏoccurs€quickly€and€virtually€simultaneously,€only€one€offense€is€established.€€In€so€holding,€we€announce€no€newÏrule,€we€are€merely€applying€well„established€law,€with€which€the€dissent€obviously€disagrees.Ì- ù- žÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€1ôÔÔ_ÔThe€dissentððs€assertion€that€our€analysis€provides€no€guidance€for€future€cases€is€plainly€wrong.€€We€haveÏfully€explained€our€application€of€the€òòPhillipsóó€factors.€€Trial€courts€apply€such€factors€on€a€regular€basis€and€are€wellÏable€to€do€so€in€future€cases€of€this€type.€€We€need€not€articulate€a€bright„line€rule.€€Indeed,€òòPhillipsóó€rejected€such€aÏrule€in€favor€of€a€case„by„case€application€of€the€relevant€factors.€Ì fÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€1ôÔÔ_ÔThe€òòÔ_ÔPelayoÔ_Ôóó€court€relied€upon€another€unpublished€opinion€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€òòState€v.ÏRonald€St.€Clairóó,€No.€1158,€1990€WL€146519€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.,€Knoxville,€Oct.€8,€1990)€(Birch,€J.,€author).€€InÏòòSt.€Clairóó,€the€defendant€received€two€assault€convictions€for€accosting€a€ninety„two„year„old€woman€in€her€home,Ïthreatening€her€with€a€knife,€threatening€to€kill€her,€dragging€her€into€or€toward€another€room€and€choking€herÏseverely,€all€within€a€matter€of€minutes.€€The€issue€on€appeal€was€whether€the€legislature€intended€that€twoÏpunishments€be€imposed€for€a€single€criminal€act.€€The€Panel€concluded€that€the€events€coalesced€into€anÏunmistakable€single€act€of€assault€with€a€weapon,€and€therefore,€the€defendant€had€been€twice€convicted€for€a€singleÏoffense€in€violation€of€double€jeopardy.€Ì< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Times FÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€1ôÔÔ_ÔThe€dissent€refuses€to€apply€existing€law€and€concludes€that€dual€convictions€are€appropriate€becauseÏcourts€in€other€states€uphold€dual€convictions€in€similar€cases.€€This€Court€applies€existing€Tennessee€precedentÏunless€a€valid€reason€exists€for€departing€from€it.€€€In€this€case,€we€perceive€no€valid€reason€for€departing€fromÏestablished€law.ÌPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  Serv Geneva ÒÒ  Serv Geneva Ò(|G2ÀO$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€€­»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô/Åò»»Ô d(0"ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3s$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€€­»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔÑ#€22¼d#ÑÑ#€22¼d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ8€ËAXXdì»»d8Ñà@ àÔ€1îÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÔ€1¼ÔÌÓ  ÓFebruary€8,€2001€SessionÌÔ€1XÔÌò òÔ€1¼ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€ROBERT€DERRICK€JOHNSONÔ€1XÔó óÌÌà@ àò ò€Appeal€by€Permission€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÌCriminal€Court€for€Bedford€County€ÌNo.€14272€€€€€€William€Charles€Lee,€JudgeÌÌßA€V) °°` d€÷E<•` AßÌNo.€M1998„00546„SC„R11„CD€„€Filed€August€22,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÌßA€V) °°` dE<h` Aßó óÌÓ  ÓÔ€1¼ÔÌØ ØÓ&€22¼Ðd&Óà àÔ€1XÔWe€granted€this€appeal€to€consider€two€issues:€whether€the€evidence€introduced€at€trialÏindicated€two€separate€offenses€of€sexual€battery€such€that€the€trial€court€€erred€in€failing€to€requireÏthe€State€to€make€an€election€at€the€close€of€the€proof;€and€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failingÏto€give€the€jury€an€enhanced€unanimity€instruction.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€found€that€noÏelection€was€required€because€the€proof€did€not€establish€two€separate€offenses€but€concluded€thatÏthe€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€give€an€enhanced€unanimity€instruction.€€However,€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals€found€the€error€harmless€and€affirmed€the€defendantððs€conviction.€€After€a€carefulÏand€thorough€review€of€the€record€and€relevant€authority,€we€agree€with€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals€that€the€proof€in€this€case€indicates€only€one€offense,€with€the€two€touches€establishing€oneÏelement,€sexual€contact,€of€the€charged€offense,€sexual€battery.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€the€trialÏcourt€did€not€err€in€failing€to€require€an€election.€€However,€we€do€not€agree€that€the€trial€court€erredÏin€failing€to€give€the€jury€an€enhanced€unanimity€instruction.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgmentÏof€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeal€on€the€separate€grounds€stated.ÌÓ  ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€Appeal€by€Permission;Ì€Judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€Affirmedó óÌÌÓ  ÓòòFrank€F.€Ô_ÔDrowotaÔ_Ô,€IIIóó,€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòÔ_ÔAdolphoÔ_Ô€A.€Birch,€Jróó.€andÏòòWilliam€M.€Barker,€Ô_ÔJJ.óójoinedÔ_Ôòò.€€E.€Riley€Anderson,€C.J.óó€filed€a€dissenting€opinion€in€whichÏòòJanice€M.€Holderóó,€J.,€joined.ÌÌJohn€E.€Ô_ÔHerbisonÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Robert€Derrick€Johnson.ÌÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Marvin€E.ÏClements,€Jr.,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€William€Michael€Ô_ÔMcCownÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General;ÏRobert€G.€Ô_ÔCriglerÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔHollynnÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔHewgleyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€Attorneys€General,€for€the€appellee,ÏState€of€Tennessee.ÌÓ  ÓÌà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌØ ØÓ&€22¼Ðd&ÓÌòòò òBackgroundóóó óÌÓ  Óà àOn€December€27,€1997€at€approximately€11:45€a.m.,€the€victim,€Wendy€Smith,€a€driver€forÏBrownððs€Taxi,€picked€up€the€defendant€Robert€Derrick€Johnson€at€ð ðThe€Pantryðð€in€Ô_ÔShelbyvilleÔ_Ô,ÏTennessee.€€The€defendant€put€his€jacket€in€the€back€seat€of€the€taxi,€but€rode€in€the€front€seat€withÏthe€victim.€€The€defendant€asked€the€victim€to€drive€him€to€Ô_ÔWartraceÔ_Ô.€€They€arrived€in€Ô_ÔWartraceÔ_Ô,€butÏthe€defendant€was€unable€to€direct€Smith€to€his€friendððs€house,€and€they€became€lost.€€Eventually,Ïthe€defendant€told€Smith€his€leg€was€hurting,€and€he€asked€her€to€stop€the€taxi.€€Smith€pulled€over,Ïand€the€defendant€got€into€the€back€seat€of€the€taxi.€€Smith€resumed€driving,€following€theÍdefendantððs€directions.€€Smith€continued€to€drive,€but€she€expressed€concern€because€the€area€wasÏremote€and€the€road€was€hilly,€curvy,€and€snow„covered.€€ÌÌà àDespite€her€concerns,€Smith€continued€to€drive,€following€the€defendantððs€directions.€€AtÏsome€point€as€she€was€driving,€the€defendant€reached€forward,€wrapped€a€coat€hanger€around€herÏneck,× ƒ ××  ×€and€demanded€to€know€how€much€money€she€had.€€When€Smith€replied€that€she€hadÏ$57.50,€the€defendant€insisted€that€she€give€him€the€money.€€Smith€immediately€handed€theÏdefendant€the€bank€bag€containing€€money.€€Because€she€was€having€trouble€breathing,€Smith€askedÏthe€defendant€to€loosen€the€coat€hanger€and€begged€him€not€to€kill€her€because€she€wanted€to€seeÏher€children€again.€€The€defendant€loosened€the€coat€hanger,€but€he€did€not€remove€it.€€Eventually,Ïthe€defendant€removed€the€coat€hanger€from€Smithððs€neck,€climbed€into€the€front€seat€of€the€taxi,Ïand€continued€to€give€driving€directions.€€€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€repeatedly€asked€whether€Smith€intended€to€report€him,€and€she€reassuredÏhim€that€she€would€not€and€that€she€would€give€the€police€an€incorrect€description.€€Upon€hearingÏthis,€the€defendant€said€that€he€would€let€Smith€go,€but,€he€reached€over,€rubbed€Smithððs€breast€andÏbetween€her€legs€over€her€clothing,€and€asked€if€she€ð ðhad€ever€been€with€a€black€man.ðð€€When€heÏtouched€Smith€between€her€legs,€he€realized€that€she€had€urinated€on€herself,€and€he€stoppedÏtouching€her.€€Smith€asked€to€stop€and€use€the€restroom,€but€the€defendant€would€not€allow€it,€andÏhe€jerked€the€steering€wheel€when€Smith€tried€to€stop€at€a€store,€telling€Smith€not€to€do€anythingÏstupid.€€He€reached€beneath€his€shirt,€and€Smith€testified€that€she€did€not€know€whether€he€had€ð ðaÏgun€or€what.ðð€€€€€€Ì€Ìà àEventually,€the€defendant€threw€the€coat€hanger€out€the€window€and€told€Smith€to€drive€himÏto€Ô_ÔShelbyvilleÔ_Ô€Central€High€School.€€She€complied,€and€after€the€defendant€had€gotten€out€of€theÏtaxi,€Smith€asked€the€dispatcher€at€Brownððs€Taxi€to€call€the€police.€€Smith€drove€back€to€the€taxiÏstation€where€she€met€the€police€and€reported€the€incident.€€Smith€had€seen€the€defendant€before€theÏincident€and€was€able€to€identify€him€from€police€photographs.€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€was€arrested€and€indicted€for€aggravated€robbery,€aggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô,€andÏaggravated€sexual€battery.€€At€trial,€Smith€identified€the€defendant€as€the€person€who€robbed€her€andÏtouched€her€breast€and€between€her€legs.€€The€defendant€admitted€that€he€robbed€Smith,€but€heÏdenied€touching€her.€€The€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€aggravated€robbery,€falseÏimprisonment,€and€sexual€battery.× ƒ ××  ×€€ÌÌà àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€defendantððs€convictions€and€sentences.€€€WithÏregard€to€the€sexual€battery€conviction,€the€intermediate€court€held€that€the€proof€in€this€caseÏindicated€only€one€offense€of€sexual€battery,€thereby€eliminating€the€need€for€the€State€to€make€anÏelection€of€offenses€at€the€close€of€the€proof.€€€The€intermediate€court€further€held,€however,€that€theÍtrial€court€erred€in€failing€to€give€an€enhanced€unanimity€instruction,€but€found€that€the€error€wasÏharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€ÌÌà àThereafter,€we€granted€the€defendantððs€application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€determineÏwhether€the€facts€of€this€case€establish€two€separate€offenses€so€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failingÏto€require€the€State€to€elect€the€facts€upon€which€it€was€relying€to€establish€the€offense€of€sexualÏbattery;€and€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€give€the€jury€an€enhanced€unanimityÏinstruction.€ÌÌò òòòà@ àElection€of€Offensesóóó óÌà àThis€Court€has€consistently€held€that€the€prosecution€must€elect€the€facts€upon€which€it€isÏrelying€to€establish€the€charged€offense€if€evidence€is€introduced€at€trial€indicating€that€the€defendantÏhas€committed€multiple€offenses€against€the€victim.€€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔKendrickÔ_Ôóó,€38€S.W.3d€566,€568Ï(Tenn.€2001);€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€992€S.W.2d€389,€391€(Tenn.€1999);€òòState€v.€Waltonóó,€958€S.W.2dÏ724,€727€(Tenn.€1997);€òòÔ_ÔTidwellÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€922€S.W.2d€497,€500€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔSheltonÔ_Ôóó,€851ÏS.W.2d€134,€137€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€election€requirement€safeguards€the€defendantððs€stateÏconstitutional€right€to€a€unanimous€jury€verdict€€by€ensuring€that€jurors€deliberate€and€render€aÏverdict€based€on€the€same€evidence.€€òòBrownóó,€992€S.W.2d€at€391.€ÌÌà àThe€election€requirement€was€first€adopted€in€òòJamison€v.€Stateóó,€117€Tenn.€58,€94€S.€W.€675Ï(1906).€€This€Court€in€òòJamisonóó€held€that€proof€of€all€sexual€acts€allegedly€committed€by€theÏdefendant€against€the€victim€could€be€admitted€into€evidence,€but€to€avoid€the€prosecution€ofÏuncharged€sex€crimes,€the€State€was€required€to€elect€the€specific€act€upon€which€it€was€relying€toÏobtain€a€guilty€verdict.€€òòJamisonóó,€94€S.€W.€at€676.€€Since€òòJamisonóó,€the€election€requirement€has€beenÏapplied€almost€exclusively€in€the€sex€crimes€context,€and€specifically,€when€the€defendant€is€allegedÏto€have€committed€a€series€of€sexual€acts€over€a€lengthy€period€of€time€against€young€children€whoÏare€unable€to€identify€the€exact€date€on€which€any€one€act€was€perpetrated.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòBrownóó,€992ÏS.W.2d€at€389€(finding€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€require€an€election€when€the€defendantÏwas€charged€with€rape€of€a€child€in€a€one€count€indictment€that€covered€a€six„month€time€frame,€butÏthe€proof€showed€that€at€least€ten€instances€of€digital€penetration€occurred€during€the€six€monthsÏalleged,€five€occurring€on€one€day€and€five€others€on€different€days);€òòWaltonóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€724Ï(finding€an€election€should€have€been€required€where€sexual€offenses€were€charged€in€a€multi„count,Ïopen„ended€indictment€and€where€the€child€victim€testified€she€was€raped€by€the€defendant€or€thatÏhe€performed€cunnilingus€on€her€on€a€daily€basis€for€over€a€year);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔBurlisonÔ_Ôóó,€501€S.W.2dÏ801,€804€(Tenn.€1973)€(finding€an€election€should€have€been€required€where€the€defendant€wasÏcharged€with€having€ð ðcarnal€knowledgeðð€of€the€victim€on€ð ðdivers€days€between€the€summer€ofÏ1964€and€August,€1969,"€but€the€proof€did€not€show€any€particular€date).ÌÌà àIn€1994,€this€Court€overruled€òòJamisonóó€to€the€extent€it€had€established€a€ð ðsex€crimesÏexceptionðð€that€permitted€proof€of€all€sexual€acts€allegedly€committed€by€the€defendant€against€theÏvictim,€whether€charged€or€uncharged.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔRickmanÔ_Ôóó,€876€S.W.2d€824,€829€(Tenn.€1994)Ï(overruling€òòJamison)óó.€€€Nonetheless,€we€recognized€in€òòÔ_ÔRickmanÔ_Ôóó€that€out€of€necessity€indictmentsÏoften€charge€general€time€frames€that€encompass€several€months.€€In€those€instances,€we€concludedÏthat€the€State€may€introduce€evidence€of€sex€crimes€allegedly€committed€against€the€victim€duringÏthe€time€frame€charged€in€the€indictment,€but,€at€the€close€of€the€proof,€the€State€must€elect€the€factsÏupon€which€it€is€relying€for€conviction.€€òòId.óó€ÌÌà àHowever,€as€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€recognized,€the€defendantððs€right€to€aÏunanimous€jury€verdict€is€not€implicated€in€this€case€because€the€State€charged€only€one€offense€andÏoffered€proof€of€only€one€offense€ð!ð€sexual€battery.€€The€facts€of€this€case€are€significantly€differentÏfrom€previous€decisions€applying€and€discussing€the€election€requirement.€€Here,€the€indictmentÍalleged€that€the€offense€occurred€on€a€specific€date€certain.€€The€proof€did€not€show€that€theÏdefendant€had€committed€a€series€of€sexual€acts€over€a€lengthy€period€of€time.€€As€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals€stated,€ð ð[Ô_Ôi]tÔ_Ô€is€apparent€from€the€evidence€that€all€of€this€happened€quickly€andÏvirtually€simultaneously.ðð€€à àÌÌà àIn€our€view,€the€defendantððs€assertion€that€the€proof€in€this€case€established€multipleÏoffenses€is€simply€incorrect.€€At€most,€the€proof€in€this€case€established€two€touches€that€constituteÏone€òòelementóó€of€sexual€battery,€the€offense€charged.€€Sexual€battery€is€defined€as€follows:ÌÌà8 à[Ô_ÔU]nlawfulÔ_Ô€sexual€contact€with€a€victim€by€the€defendant€or€the€defendant€by€aÏvictim€accompanied€by€any€of€the€following€circumstances:Ìà8 à(1)€Force€or€coercion€is€used€to€accomplish€the€act;Ìà8 à(2)€The€sexual€contact€is€accomplished€without€the€consent€of€the€victim€and€theÏdefendant€knows€or€has€reason€to€know€at€the€time€of€the€contact€that€the€victim€didÏnot€consent;Ìà8 à(3)€The€defendant€knows€or€has€reason€to€know€that€the€victim€is€mentally€defective,Ïmentally€incapacitated€or€physically€helpless.€.€.€.ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„505.€€Simply€stated,€the€elements€of€sexual€battery€are€(a)€sexual€contact;Ï(b)€with€a€victim€by€the€defendant€or€the€defendant€by€the€victim;€(c)€accompanied€by€one€of€theÏcircumstances€listed€as€1„3€above.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔHammondsÔ_Ôóó,€30€S.W.3d€294,€298€(Tenn.€2000)Ï(listing€the€elements€of€aggravated€assault);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔDuckerÔ_Ôóó,€27€S.W.3d€895,€889€(Tenn.€2000)Ï(listing€the€elements€of€reckless€killing€of€a€child).€€One€òòelementóó€of€the€offense,€ð ðsexual€contact,ðð€isÏfurther€defined€as:ÌÌà8 àthe€intentional€touching€of€the€victimððs,€the€defendantððs,€or€any€other€personððsÏòòintimate€partsóó,€or€the€intentional€touching€of€the€clothing€covering€the€immediate€areaÏof€the€victimððs,€the€defendantððs,€or€any€other€personððs€intimate€parts,€if€thatÏintentional€touching€can€be€reasonably€construed€as€being€for€the€purpose€of€sexualÏarousal€or€gratification.ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„501(6)€(emphasis€added).€€€Significantly,€the€statute€uses€the€pluralÏð ðpartsðð€rather€than€the€singular€ð ðpart.ðð€€Therefore,€the€statute€contemplates€that€the€element€ofÏð ðsexual€contactðð€may€be€established€by€proof€that€the€defendant€touched€more€than€one€of€theÏareas€included€within€the€definition€of€ð ðintimate€parts.ðð× ƒ) ××  ×€€Simply€stated,€the€òòelementóó€ð ðsexualÏcontactðð€was€proven€in€this€case€by€the€victimððs€testimony€that€the€defendant€intentionally€touchedÏher€breast€and€her€groin€area€for€the€purpose€of€sexual€arousal€or€gratification.€€This€proofÏestablished€one€element€of€the€charged€offense,€not€two€separate€offenses,€and€the€trial€court€did€notÏerr€in€refusing€to€require€an€election.Ô_Ô× ƒ* ××  ×Ô_Ô€ÌÌà àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€has€correctly€and€consistently€recognized€that€the€sexualÏbattery€statute€is€aimed€at€preventing€sexual€contact€which€may€consist€of€more€than€one€touch.€ÍAddressing€the€issue€in€an€unpublished€opinion,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€aptly€explained€theÏsignificant€point:ÌÌà8 àThe€gravamen€of€the€[€]€sexual€battery€statute€is€physical€sexual€contact€for€theÏpurpose€of€sexual€arousal€or€gratification.€€Unlike€the€definition€of€penetration,€theÏdefinition€of€this€offense€does€not€contain€òòphysical€actsóó€of€sexual€contact€listedÏseparately€and€alternatively.€€Indeed,€the€language€more€closely€resembles€theÏgeneral€language€used€to€define€aggravated€assault€in€òò[State€v.]€Ô_ÔPelayoÔ_Ôóó€[881€S.W.2dÏ7€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1994)].€ÌòòÌState€v.€Ô_ÔBainÔ_Ôóó,€No.€03C01„9311„CR„00384,€1995€WL€495932€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.,€Knoxville,€Aug.Ï21,€1995)€(emphasis€added)€(concluding€that€three€touches€of€various€parts€of€victimððs€body€duringÏone€brief€encounter€constituted€one€offense€of€aggravated€sexual€battery);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€PerryÏHinkleóó,€No.€02€C01„9603„CR„00076,€1996€WL€601726€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.,€Jackson,€Oct.€22,Ï1996)€(upholding€defendantððs€conviction€for€one€count€of€aggravated€sexual€battery€for€touchingÏchild€on€breasts€and€vagina€during€one€encounter).× ƒ, ××  ×ÌÌà àIf€the€entire€instance€of€sexual€contact€occurs€quickly€and€virtually€simultaneously,€thenÏonly€one€offense€has€occurred,€even€if€more€than€one€touching€has€occurred.Ô_Ô× ƒ- ××  ×Ô_Ô€€Accordingly,€theÏprosecution€need€not€elect€which€touch€it€is€relying€upon€to€establish€sexual€contact€ð!ð€an€element€ofÏthe€charged€offense€ð!ð€€sexual€battery.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€24€S.W.3d€289,€297€(Tenn.€2000)Ï(ð ðOur€cases€have€not€required€that€a€jury€unanimously€agree€as€to€facts€supporting€a€particularÏelement€of€a€crime€so€long€as€the€jury€agrees€that€the€appellant€is€guilty€of€the€crime€charged.ðð)ÌÌà àThis€conclusion€is€also€supported€by€several€other€prior€decisions€of€this€Court.€€ForÏexample,€we€have€previously€held€that€a€general€verdict€of€guilt€of€first€degree€murder€poses€noÏconstitutional€problems€even€though€some€jurors€may€have€convicted€based€on€proof€ofÏpremeditation€and€some€jurors€may€have€convicted€based€on€proof€of€felony€murder.€€òòSee,€e.g.,óóÏòòState€Ô_Ôv.CribbsÔ_Ôóó,€967€S.W.2d€773,€787€(Tenn.€1998).€€The€crucial€point€is€all€jurors€unanimouslyÏagreed€that€the€defendant€was€guilty€and€had€committed€the€single€offense€charged€even€if€someÏfound€premeditation€and€others€found€commission€during€the€course€of€a€felony.€€Likewise,€in€òòStateÏv.€Ô_ÔLemacksÔ_Ôóó,€996€S.W.2d€166,€171€(Tenn.€1999),€we€held€that€the€prosecution€was€not€required€toÏelect€criminal€responsibility€or€direct€liability€when€seeking€a€conviction€for€the€single€offenseÏcharged,€driving€under€the€influence.€€Again,€the€crucial€point€is€all€jurors€unanimously€agreed€theÏdefendant€was€guilty€of€the€single€offense€charged€even€if€some€found€criminal€responsibility€andÏothers€based€their€verdict€on€direct€liability.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔSuttlesÔ_Ôóó,€30€S.W.3d€252,€262€(Tenn.Ï2000)€(holding€that€the€prosecution€need€not€elect€the€proof€upon€which€it€is€relying€to€establish€theÏ(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(5)€aggravating€circumstance€which€itself€has€alternative€prongs).€€Likewise,€in€the€present€case,Ïso€long€as€the€jurors€agreed€that€the€defendant€engaged€in€sexual€contact€on€the€date€charged,€theÏdefendant€was€afforded€his€constitutional€right€to€juror€unanimity.€€This€is€true€even€though€someÏof€the€jurors€may€have€based€their€finding€on€one€touching,€and€others€may€have€based€their€findingÏon€the€other€touching.€€€ÌÌà àAlso€relevant€to€the€analysis€in€this€case€is€òòState€v.€Phillipsóó,€924€S.W.2d€662€(Tenn.€1996),€aÏcase€in€which€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€multiple€sexual€offenses.€€Before€this€Court,€€PhillipsÏalleged€that€the€multiple€convictions€violated€his€constitutional€protection€against€double€jeopardyÏbecause€he€had€committed€a€single€criminal€offense.€€In€determining€whether€the€defendantððsÏmultiple€convictions€arose€from€a€single€criminal€offense€we€considered€the€following€factors:€(1)Ïthe€nature€of€the€acts€committed€by€the€defendant;€(2)€the€area€of€the€victimððs€body€invaded€by€theÏdefendantððs€sexually€assaultive€behavior;€(3)€the€time€elapsed€between€the€defendantððs€discrete€actsÏof€sexually€assaultive€conduct;€(4)€the€defendantððs€intent€in€the€sense€that€the€lapse€of€time€mayÏindicate€a€newly€formed€intent€to€again€seek€sexual€gratification€or€inflict€abuse;€and€(5)€theÏcumulative€punishment.€€òòId.óó€at€665.€€In€òòPhillipsóó,€we€determined€that€the€multiple€acts€of€penetration,Ïdistinct€in€nature€and€separated€in€time,€constituted€discrete€offenses€so€that€the€prosecution€couldÏconstitutionally€seek€multiple€convictions.ÌÌà àIn€contrast,€application€of€the€òòPhillipsóó€factors€does€not€militate€in€favor€of€a€finding€of€twoÏoffenses€in€this€case.€€The€nature€of€the€act€is€touching.€€Two€parts€of€the€victimððs€body€wereÏtouched.€€There€were€no€discrete€acts€of€sexually€assaultive€conduct,€such€as€occurred€in€òòPhillipsóó.€ÏLittle€or€no€time€elapsed€between€the€touching;€therefore,€no€evidence€exists€to€indicate€a€newlyÏformed€intent€to€òòagainóó€seek€sexual€gratification.€€The€proof€showed€only€one€instance€of€sexualÏcontact,€whereas€the€proof€in€òòPhillipsóó€showed€separate€acts€of€penetration.€€As€to€cumulativeÏpunishment,€the€way€in€which€sexual€battery€is€defined€by€statute€suggests€that€the€GeneralÏAssembly€intended€to€punish€for€each€instance€of€sexual€contact,€not€for€each€separate€touch€thatÏmay€comprise€one€instance€of€sexual€contact.€€Applying€the€òòPhillipsóó€factors,€we€conclude€that€theÏproof€in€this€case€indicates€only€one€offense.× ƒ/ ××  ×ÌÌ€à àWere€we€to€hold€that€the€prohibited€touching€in€this€case€which€occurred€within€a€matter€ofÏminutes€establishes€two€separate€offenses,€then€a€defendant€involved€in€an€assault€could€be€charged,Ïconvicted,€and€punished€for€each€individual€blow€struck,€even€if€the€entire€assault€occurs€in€only€aÏmatter€of€minutes.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€has€already€rejected€such€a€result€in€òòState€v.ÏÔ_ÔPelayoÔ_Ôóó,€881€S.W.2d€7€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1994),€where€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€two€countsÏof€aggravated€assault€for€cutting€the€victim€first€on€the€arm,€and€again,€a€few€moments€later,€on€theÏleg€as€she€attempted€to€escape.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€concluded€that€the€defendant€hadÏcommitted€only€one€offense,€stating:€ð ð[Ô_Ôw]hileÔ_Ô€the€assaults€were€separated€by€time€and€place,€.€.€.€Ïthey€coalesced€into€an€ððunmistakable€single€act,ðð€though€separated€by€a€few€seconds€and€feet.ðð€€òòId.óóÏat€13.€€In€so€holding€the€intermediate€court€noted€that€the€aggravated€assault€statute€focuses€on€theÏact€of€causing€injury,€fear,€or€physical€contact.€€òòId.óó€€The€òòÔ_ÔPelayoÔ_Ôóó€court€noted€that€the€GeneralÍAssembly€did€not€intend€for€a€defendant€to€be€punished€separately€ð ðfor€each€blow€or€injury.ðð€€òòId.óó× ƒ0 ××  ×€€Ìà àÌà àUnder€existing€Tennessee€law,€therefore,€dual€convictions€for€the€conduct€at€issue€in€thisÏcase€would€be€constitutionally€prohibited.× ƒ: ××  ×€€That€being€the€case,€there€is€no€legal€or€logical€reason€toÏhold€that€these€facts€establish€two€offenses€for€purposes€of€election.ÌÌà àWhile€we€affirm€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€conclusion€that€the€proof€in€this€caseÏindicates€only€one€criminal€offense,€we€cannot€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€failing€to€provide€the€jury€with€an€enhanced€unanimity€instruction.€€The€recordÏreflects€that€the€jurors€were€instructed€to€render€a€unanimous€verdict.€€The€record€does€not€reflectÏthat€the€defendant€requested€an€enhanced€unanimity€instruction.€€Moreover,€the€evidence€indicatedÏonly€one€offense,€so€there€was€no€need€for€such€an€instruction.€€Finally,€such€an€instruction€is€notÏrequired€even€in€cases€where€the€proof€does€indicate€more€than€one€offense.€€The€electionÏrequirement€itself€alleviates€any€unanimity€concerns.€€Those€states€which€require€an€enhancedÏunanimity€instruction€appear€to€rely€upon€it€instead€of,€not€in€addition€to,€an€election€requirement.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Greeneóó,€623€A.2d€1342,€1344„45€(N.H.€1993);€òòState€v.€Weaveróó,€964€P.2d€713,€720Ï(Mont.€1998).€€Accordingly,€we€do€not€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€by€failing€to€give€an€enhanced€unanimity€instruction.ÌÌÌà@ àò òòòConclusionóóó óÌà àHaving€concluded€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€either€by€failing€to€require€the€State€to€makeÏan€election€or€by€failing€to€give€the€jury€an€enhanced€unanimity€instruction,€we€affirm,€on€theÏseparate€grounds€stated,€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.€€It€appearing€that€theÏdefendant€is€indigent,€costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€State.€€€ÌÌà àÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÔ_Ô__________________________________________Ô_ÔÌà àà àà àà àà àà àFRANK€F.€Ô_ÔDROWOTAÔ_Ô,€III,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJUSTICE