STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ROBERT ALLEN ZALOBA - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Brittany Sims on Dec 26, 2012

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Kimberly S. Hodde, Peter J. Strianse, and David L. Raybin, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Robert Allen Zaloba.

Attorneys 2:

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Brent C. Cherry, Senior Counsel; Kim R. Helper, District Attorney General; and Mary Katharine White, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): PAGE

A Williamson County Grand Jury indicted appellant, Robert Allen Zaloba, for eight counts of rape of a child, one count of rape, and one count of aggravated sexual battery. The first five counts of rape of a child (counts 1-5) pertained to one victim, and the remaining three counts of rape of a child, one count of rape, and one count of aggravated sexual battery involved a second victim. The trial court severed counts six through ten for trial.1 The jury returned verdicts of guilty on all counts, for which the trial court sentenced appellant to serve an effective forty-eight-year sentence. Appellant raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court properly admitted a reference that appellant had engaged in sexual relations with another individual; (2) whether the trial court properly denied appellant’s request to admit the victim’s prior inconsistent statement as substantive evidence; (3) whether the trial court properly denied appellant’s request for a jury instruction that it could consider the victim’s prior inconsistent statement as substantive evidence; (4) whether the trial court properly instructed the jury that “recklessly” was a proper mens rea for rape of a child; (5) whether the trial court properly instructed the jury by using the disjunctive “or” to connect the requisite mental states; (6) whether the trial court erred in rejecting appellant’s mitigation proof at sentencing; (7) whether the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences; (8) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain appellant’s convictions; and (9) whether the circumstantial nature of the case rendered any errors by the trial court not harmless. Discerning no reversible error in the proceedings, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Attachments: