Sate of Tennessee v. William Alan Ladd

Nashville, TN - Criminal defense attorney represented William Alan Ladd, with aggravated sexual battery and sexual exploitation of a minor by electronic means charges.

The Defendant was charged with aggravated sexual battery and sexual exploitation

of a minor after he showed pornographic videos to his then-girlfriend's minor daughter

and forced her to touch his penis on one occasion between January 1, 2012, and

December 31, 2015. The victim disclosed the abuse to the Defendant's younger daughter

05/25/2021- 2 -

shortly after it occurred, and the Defendant's daughter was overheard discussing the

victim's disclosure in October of 2016 while she and the victim were on a school bus.

Following a referral to the Department of Children's Services ("DCS”), an investigation

was conducted, and the victim disclosed the abuse during a forensic interview. The

Defendant later was arrested and charged as a result.

The victim, who was twelve years old and in the sixth grade at the time of trial,

testified that when she was in the second grade, she, her mother, the Defendant, and the

Defendant's daughter moved into a two-story house in Rockvale, Tennessee. The victim

and the Defendant's daughter each had their own bedroom on the first floor, while the

Defendant and the victim's mother slept in a loft area on the second floor. The second

floor also included a bathroom and a storage area where the victim and the Defendant's

daughter played. The loft area included a bed, a couch, and a television. The victim

stated that she and the Defendant's daughter watched movies and played video games on

the second floor and would occasionally fall asleep in the area.

The victim recalled an occasion when she woke up from sleeping on the second

floor and had to use the bathroom. She did not know what time she awoke. She stated

that her mother was sleeping on the bed and that the Defendant's daughter was sleeping

on either the couch or the floor. The victim approached the upstairs bathroom and

noticed that the door was closed. She testified that she knocked on the door, that the

Defendant told her to enter, and that she walked into the bathroom and closed the door.

The Defendant was sitting naked on the toilet with a towel over his lap and holding his

cell phone.

The victim testified that the Defendant told her that he would purchase a video

game for her and instructed her not to tell anyone. The Defendant showed the victim at

least two videos on his cell phone and told her that the videos depicted a man and his

daughter. The victim stated that in the first video, the man was naked and that the female

was clothed. She said the second video depicted a different man and a girl, who appeared

to be a teenager, and the victim did not believe the girl was wearing clothing. The victim

stated that the females in the videos each had their mouths on the man's body part and

identified male genitalia in a diagram of the human body as the area on which the females

had their mouths.

The victim testified that after showing her the videos, the Defendant got up from

the toilet while holding the towel over his lap, sat at the edge of the bathtub, and removed

the towel. The victim said the Defendant asked her to touch "it” and identified male

genitalia in a diagram of the human body as the area in which the Defendant asked her to

touch. The victim stated that when she refused, the Defendant grabbed her wrist and

forced her to do so. The victim pulled her hand back, and the Defendant instructed her to - 3 -

not tell anyone. The victim testified that the Defendant mentioned his intention of doing

the same thing to his daughter. He instructed the victim to leave and to close the door

behind her, and the victim complied.

The victim testified that after leaving the bathroom, she saw the Defendant's

daughter in the hallway and took her to their playroom where the victim told the

Defendant's daughter what had occurred. The victim explained that she wanted to warn

the Defendant's daughter since the Defendant had stated that he would do the same thing

to his daughter. The Defendant's daughter did not believe the victim, and the victim

instructed her not to tell anyone. They did not discuss the incident any further, and the

victim acted as if nothing had occurred. The victim testified that she did not intend to tell

anyone else about the incident.

The victim stated that sometime after the incident, she overheard the Defendant's

daughter telling two girls about the incident while they were on the school bus going to

the home of the Defendant's parents after school. The victim said she was surprised,

explaining that she believed that "because the Defendant's daughter doesn't really

remember things, she would have forgotten it.” The victim stated that she was "surprised

and slightly confused” because she had "completely forgot about it at that point.” A

middle school student, who was sitting next to the victim, overheard the conversation and

asked the victim about it, and the victim responded.

On the following day, the victim was called to the school counselor's office where

she saw the middle school student. The school counselor asked the victim questions

about the incident. The victim testified that she also spoke to others who asked her about

what had occurred in the bathroom and that the victim did not respond. The victim stated

that at one point after she, her mother, the Defendant, and the Defendant's daughter

moved out of the Rockvale home and into a home in Murfreesboro, her mother asked her

about the incident and that the victim did not respond. The victim believed she told her

mother and two other people that the incident did not occur and explained that at that

time, she did not want to discuss it. The victim testified that at some point, she

underwent a forensic interview during which she disclosed what had occurred. She

maintained that she was truthful during the interview. She also disclosed what had

occurred to her mother, who cried and hugged her.

On cross-examination, the victim testified that she did not recall ever lying to get

someone into trouble. She denied ever stating that she liked to lie to get people into

trouble and did not recall telling an adult that she loved to lie because people would get

into trouble. She said, "I wouldn't have said that to an adult.”- 4 -

The victim testified that while the incident occurred on a weekend, she could not

recall her age or the month, year, or season in which it occurred. She did not recall how

much time had passed between the incident and the conversation on the school bus, but

she agreed that more than one month but not quite a year had passed. She stated that the

Defendant never did anything else to her and that she had forgotten about the incident

until the conversation on the bus. She agreed that she was "content” living in the house

with her mother, the Defendant, and the Defendant's daughter. On redirect examination,

the victim testified that she was still living in the Rockvale home when the conversation

on the school bus occurred and that she was living in the home in Murfreesboro when she

was questioned by others about the incident.

The middle school student who overheard the conversation on the bus testified that

in the fall of 2016, when she was in the eighth grade, she and other middle school

students rode the school bus with several elementary school students. The middle school

student stated that one day, she overheard a conversation between the Defendant's

daughter and another student while the middle school student was sitting next to the

Defendant's daughter on the bus. The middle school student asked the victim, who was

sitting in the seat in front of her, about the conversation. The victim did not respond but

acted nervous and scared. As a result, the middle school student sent a text message to

the middle school student's mother.

When the middle school student arrived at her home, she spoke to her mother, who

contacted an officer, a family friend. The next morning, her parents went to the

elementary school and spoke to the school resource officer ("SRO”). A woman from the

sheriff's department spoke to the middle school student, who relayed the conversation on

the bus.

Ms. Emily Vogt, the school counselor at the elementary school the victim

attended, testified that on October 11, 2016, the SRO contacted her about the victim. Ms.

Vogt questioned the victim, who was in the fourth grade at that time, about what Ms.

Vogt had learned from the SRO. Ms. Vogt testified that while the victim was

"embarrassed,” she confirmed what Ms. Vogt had learned from the SRO. As a result,

Ms. Vogt contacted DCS. The victim withdrew from the school on October 17th.

The victim's mother testified that she began a relationship with the Defendant

during the summer of 2012 and that they moved into a two-story house in Rockvale with

the victim and the Defendant's daughter in April of 2013 when the victim was seven

years old. The victim's mother stated that she and the Defendant slept on the second

floor, that the second floor included an open area with a couch and two televisions with

video game consoles, and that the victim and the Defendant's daughter occasionally slept

on the second floor. They moved out of the house in August of 2015 when the victim - 5 -

was nine years old, after their landlord sold the house. The Defendant and his daughter

moved in with his parents, and the victim and her mother moved in with the victim's

grandmother until the Defendant and the victim's mother could find another home. In

early 2016, the Defendant, his daughter, the victim, and her mother moved into a house in

Murfreesboro. The Defendant and the victim's mother reported the girls as living at the

address of the Defendant's parents so that the girls could continue to attend school in

Rockvale. After school each day, the girls rode the school bus to the home of the

Defendant's parents.

On October 11, 2016, the Defendant, his daughter, the victim, and her mother

were living in the Murfreesboro home; the victim's mother and the Defendant were

engaged; and the Defendant had been unemployed for about three weeks after being

terminated from his job. Neither the Defendant's vehicle nor the vehicle of the victim's

mother was operable, so they were using a truck borrowed from the Defendant's parents.

The victim's mother testified that on October 11th, she received a call from DCS

personnel, who informed her that allegations involving the Defendant and the victim had

been reported and asked her to meet with DCS personnel. The victim's mother left work

and met with a detective and DCS personnel. The victim's mother said she did not

contact the Defendant prior to the meeting.

Following the meeting, the victim's mother went to the school to retrieve the

victim, who had archery practice, and learned that the Defendant's mother already had

done so. The victim's mother then went home to retrieve the Defendant before going to

his parents' home as she had been doing since the Defendant lost his job. The victim's

mother explained that she did not want to show up to his parents' home alone while

driving their truck. She stated that she did not believe she had been instructed by the

detective or DCS personnel at that point that the Defendant should not be around the

victim. She did not want to be around the Defendant and stated that she knew the victim

did not want to be around him even though the victim's mother acknowledged that she

had not yet spoken with the victim and was unsure what the victim would say. The

victim was outside the home when her mother and the Defendant arrived, and the

victim's mother was too nauseated to leave the truck. The victim's mother, the

Defendant, and the victim went to their home, while the Defendant's daughter remained

with his parents for the night.

The victim's mother testified that she did not inform the Defendant of the

investigation. At some point that evening, the victim's mother received a message from

the detective, and, as a result, she told the Defendant that he needed to meet with the

detective. The victim's mother denied telling the Defendant the purpose of the meeting. - 6 -

She acknowledged that when she was upset, nauseated, and sitting on the bathroom floor,

she told the Defendant that the meeting was about what he had done to the victim.

The Defendant left the home on the night of October 11th, telling the victim's

mother that he was going to meet with the detective. The victim's mother testified that

after the Defendant left, she spoke to the victim, who seemed as if she wanted to talk

about the allegations but did not provide many details. The Defendant returned that night

to retrieve his clothes and to put gasoline in the truck, and a friend drove him away from

the home. A detective and a member of DCS personnel were present to ensure that the

Defendant left the home.

The Defendant returned the next day to work on repairing the vehicles while the

victim was at school and her mother was at work. The victim's mother testified that the

Defendant sent her approximately forty text messages throughout the day, stating that the

allegations were false and that law enforcement and DCS personnel acted illegally in

removing the girls from class and questioning them outside the presence of the Defendant

or the victim's mother. The Defendant said that he planned to hire an attorney to sue

based upon the "illegal” actions and that he wanted to return to the home and continue his

relationship with the victim's mother. The victim's mother stated that the Defendant

"was just making it seem like everything was okay, like nothing happened.”

The victim's grandmother retrieved the victim after school while the victim's

mother returned to her home where the Defendant was continuing to work on repairing

the vehicles. The victim's mother testified that the Defendant convinced her to call the

detective and DCS personnel and tell them that the allegations were false. While the

victim's mother did not recall what the Defendant said to convince her to make the calls,

she stated, "[I]t was like nonstop.” The Defendant was angry when he instructed her to

call, and the victim's mother stated that she did not feel that she had a choice. She also

stated that while she "had a feeling” that the allegation was true, she was not entirely

certain. The Defendant remained beside the victim's mother while she spoke with the

detective.

When the victim arrived home, her mother sent her to her room and instructed her

to complete her homework. While the Defendant was outside working on the vehicles,

the victim's mother spoke to the victim about the allegations. The victim's mother

testified that the victim was more forthcoming and that the victim's statements to her

were consistent with the information that the victim's mother had been provided

regarding the allegations. The victim's mother stated that she did not recall being

instructed that the Defendant was not supposed to be on the premises with the victim but

that she recalled feeling as if he was not supposed to be there. After the Defendant

worked on the vehicles, he came inside the home, fell asleep on the couch, and remained - 7 -

in the residence overnight. The victim's mother said that when she confronted the

Defendant about the allegations, he "just made it sound like he got away with

something.”

The victim's mother scheduled a forensic interview with the victim the following

day. The victim's mother drove the victim to the interview in the truck belonging to the

Defendant's parents, and following the interview, she and the victim drove to another

town to search for a place to live. The victim's mother stated that the Defendant had sent

her text messages throughout the day, asking what was occurring and demanding that she

return the truck. Later, the victim's mother met Ms. Venessa Hyer with DCS in a parking

lot to return the truck to the Defendant. The victim's mother left the truck in the parking

lot with the keys and the ring that the Defendant had given her inside the truck and got

into a car with the victim's grandmother. The victim's mother testified that the

Defendant arrived with his sister, who stopped in front of the car where the victim's

mother was sitting. The Defendant exited the vehicle, approached the window near

where the victim's mother was sitting, and began asking what she was doing and what

was happening. At that point, the victim's mother had not informed the Defendant that

she was cooperating in the investigation. The victim's mother stated that she felt

threatened and instructed the victim's grandmother to drive to the detective's office. The

Defendant and his sister closely followed the victim's mother and the victim's

grandmother while they were driving to the detective's office and turned off shortly

before they arrived.

The victim's mother and the Defendant subsequently arranged for the Defendant

to retrieve his belongings from their home, which occurred without incident. The

victim's mother then ceased all further communication with the Defendant. The victim's

mother removed the victim from the school where she was attending and enrolled her in

another school, and they moved approximately one month later.

The victim's mother testified that the Defendant had six or seven different cell

phones during their relationship and that the cell phones often broke and had to be

replaced. The Defendant had a different cell phone while living in Rockvale than he did

while living in Murfreesboro. He had access to the internet from his cell phone and used

the internet on a regular basis.

The victim's mother testified that Mr. Jack Collopy was a friend of the

Defendant's parents with whom neither she nor the victim spent a great amount of time.

The victim's mother stated that she would not have agreed for him to babysit the victim.

On cross-examination, the victim's mother testified that Mr. Collopy often visited the

Defendant's parents in their home. She noted that Mr. Daniel Horne lived with her and - 8 -

the Defendant for about six months in the Rockvale home and moved out when the

Defendant and the victim's mother left the home.

The victim's mother stated that she called both the detective and DCS personnel

and told them that the allegations were untrue. The Defendant was with her when she

called the detective. He then instructed her to contact DCS personnel and called her to

ensure that she had made the call as instructed. The victim's mother stated that while the

Defendant did not threaten her "outright,” he was yelling and using "aggressive body

language.”

The victim's mother acknowledged that she had sexual relations with the

Defendant on the evening after he returned home following the allegations. She

explained that she had told the Defendant that she had not yet spoken to the victim about

the allegations and that she did not want the Defendant to know her plans to cooperate

with the investigation.

The victim's mother testified that she never witnessed the Defendant acting

inappropriately toward a child, and she agreed that it would not be like the Defendant to

touch a child inappropriately. The victim's mother recalled two occasions when they first

moved into the Rockvale home during which the Defendant asked her to watch

pornographic films with him and she refused. She was unaware of the Defendant

watching pornographic films alone. On redirect examination, the victim's mother

testified that while they were still living in the Rockvale home, the Defendant told her

that he watched pornography while in the bathroom.

Ms. Venessa Hyer, a child protective service investigator with DCS, testified that

on October 11, 2016, she received a referral regarding the victim. Ms. Hyer and

Detective Andrea Knox went to the elementary school and spoke to the victim and the

Defendant's daughter. The Defendant's daughter did not provide any information.

However, the information provided by the victim was consistent with the information that

Ms. Hyer had been provided in the referral. Ms. Hyer and Detective Knox then went to

the middle school where they spoke to the middle school student who had been on the

bus with the victim and the Defendant's daughter.

Ms. Hyer and Detective Knox obtained the victim's address from the school and

went to the address in an effort to locate the victim's mother. When they arrived, they

learned that the address was the home of the Defendant's parents. Once Ms. Hyer and

Detective Knox returned to the Sheriff's Department, they called the victim's mother,

who then met with them. - 9 -

Ms. Hyer later met with the Defendant at the police station after he met with

Detective Knox. Although DCS generally did not record such interviews, Ms. Hyer

learned that a portion of her interview with the Defendant was recorded. That portion of

the interview was played for the jury at trial. During the interview, Ms. Hyer told the

Defendant that he could not be in the same house as the victim but that he could return to

the home to work on the vehicles while the victim was at school. Ms. Hyer agreed to

arrange for the Defendant to retrieve some of his belongings from the home. The

Defendant stated that the victim's mother knew that he did not commit the acts and that

she had told him that he needed to go to the Sheriff's Department. The Defendant also

stated that this was not the first time that the victim had falsely blamed him for something

that he did not do. Ms. Hyer testified that after the interview, she followed the Defendant

back to the residence so that he could retrieve some of his belongings and to ensure that

the Defendant did not have any contact with the victim.

Ms. Hyer stated that the victim's mother called her to schedule a forensic

interview. Ms. Hyer observed the interview through a closed-circuit television and stated

that the information obtained from the victim during the interview was consistent with

the information that Ms. Hyer already knew. Ms. Hyer also accompanied the victim's

mother to return the truck belonging to the Defendant's parents to the Defendant and his

family. On cross-examination, Ms. Hyer testified that she did not recall the victim's

mother calling her and stating that she did not believe that the allegations were true.

Detective Andrea Knox, who was a member of the Criminal Investigations

Divisions, Special Victims Unit of the Rutherford County Sheriff's Department,

investigated the allegations against the Defendant. She testified that she and Ms. Hyer

met with the victim at her school. The victim told Detective Knox about a "secret” that

was "very inappropriate” and related to "adult stuff.” Detective Knox eliminated

consuming alcohol and smoking cigarettes as the topics. The victim reported that she had

been touched, but she did not want to reveal the body part involved. The victim wrote

"sex” in Ms. Hyer's notebook, which led Detective Knox to believe that the victim had

been sexually assaulted. The victim told Detective Knox that the touching occurred in

front and below the waist, that it occurred at a former residence while upstairs, and that

she told the Defendant's daughter about the assault in order to protect her. Detective

Knox testified that this information was consistent with the information that she had

received from the DCS referral and that she determined that an investigation was

necessary.

Detective Knox testified that she also interviewed the middle school student from

the bus and that the information provided by the student was consistent with the

information that Detective Knox received in the DCS referral. Detective Knox met with

the victim's mother, who seemed shocked but appeared to be supportive of the victim. - 10 -

According to the victim's mother, they lived in the home in Rockvale where the victim

stated that the incident occurred from 2012 until 2015.

Detective Knox called the Defendant and asked to meet with him, and the

Defendant voluntarily came to the Sheriff's Department on October 11, 2016. When

Detective Knox called the Defendant, she asked to speak to him about a "private matter”

and did not inform him of the allegations until the interview. Detective Knox testified

that she believed the Defendant had spoken to someone connected to the case before he

arrived. She stated that the Defendant was not in custody during the interview and that

the interview was video recorded. The recording was played for the jury at trial

During the interview, the Defendant denied forcing the victim to touch his penis or

otherwise sexually assaulting her. He stated that he likely took something away from the

victim and that the victim became angry and made up the allegations. The Defendant

gave examples of when the victim had lied previously, and the Defendant stated that the

victim previously had blamed him for things that he did not do. He also stated that the

victim lied whenever she believed she was going to be in trouble.

The Defendant told Detective Knox that he always locked the bathroom door and

that the only time that he would have called the victim to the bathroom was when he

needed toilet paper. He stated that during those instances, he always covered himself

with a towel and that the victim may have seen him in the nude when he was reaching for

a towel. Detective Knox testified that she first became aware that a towel might be

involved during the Defendant's interview.

At the time of the Defendant's interview, Detective Knox was unaware of any

allegations that the Defendant had showed the victim pornographic videos. She learned

of the videos during the victim's forensic interview. Detective Knox spoke to the

victim's mother about the videos and learned that the Defendant did not have the same

cell phone in 2016 as he had between 2012 and 2015.

On cross-examination, Detective Knox testified that the victim told her that the

incident occurred around fall break or between Thanksgiving and Christmas. The victim

never expressed to Detective Knox any reservations about being around the Defendant

after the incident occurred.

Ms. Amanda Pruitt, a forensic interviewer with the Child Advocacy Center of

Rutherford County, conducted the forensic interview of the victim on October 13, 2016.

The interview was audio and video recorded and played for the jury at trial. During the

interview, the victim stated that she was ten years old and in the fourth grade. She said

that when she was eight or nine years old, she walked into a bathroom in her former - 11 -

house where she saw the Defendant sitting on the toilet with a towel on his lap. The

Defendant talked to the victim about video games and then showed her a couple of

"inappropriate videos” on his cell phone. The victim stated that the videos showed a

nude man and a teenage girl, who was wearing clothes and whose mouth was on the

man's "pp.” The victim said the Defendant told her that the videos depicted a father and

his teenage daughter. The victim did not want to say the Defendant's additional

statements about the videos but was willing to write down the statement. Ms. Pruitt gave

the victim a piece of paper on which the victim wrote, "This is how to have sex.”

The victim told Ms. Pruitt that the Defendant removed his towel and told her to

touch "it.” Upon further questioning, the victim agreed to write down the Defendant's

statement. Ms. Pruitt handed the victim a piece of paper, and the victim wrote, "He said

to touch his pp.” Ms. Pruitt showed the victim a diagram of the human body, and the

victim circled the male genitalia as the area that the Defendant instructed her to touch.

The victim said that when she refused, the Defendant grabbed her hand and made her

touch his "pp.” The victim demonstrated how the Defendant formed her hand in a circle

before forcing her to touch his penis. She stated that when she pulled her hand back, the

Defendant then touched his penis. The Defendant instructed her not to tell anyone and

said it would happen to his daughter too. The victim said she told the Defendant's

daughter, who did not believe her. Ms. Pruitt testified that to her knowledge, the victim

never recanted her disclosure.

In his defense, the Defendant presented the testimony of his parents and his sister,

as well as Mr. Jack Collopy, who was a friend of the Defendant's parents, and Mr. Daniel

Horne, who lived with the Defendant and the victim's mother for a time period. They

each testified that the victim and the Defendant had a good relationship and were

affectionate toward each other and that the Defendant treated the victim like his own

daughter.

The Defendant testified in his own defense, denying ever touching the victim

inappropriately or forcing the victim to touch his penis. He stated that he would not have

allowed the victim to enter the bathroom while he was inside. He denied showing the

victim pornographic videos and said he did not know why the victim made up the story.

The Defendant testified that he asked the victim's mother to watch pornography

with him when they first began their relationship and that the victim's mother declined.

He said that he "let it go” and that he never told the victim's mother that he watched

pornography in the bathroom.

The Defendant stated that he did not know why the detective wanted to speak to

him when the detective called him, and he said the victim's mother never told him why - 12 -

she was upset prior to his interview with the detective. He maintained that during the

interview, he was not asked to waive his right to counsel and was not given the

opportunity to contact an attorney. The Defendant denied threatening or coercing the

victim's mother to call the detective and stated that the allegations were false. He

maintained that the victim's mother made the call of her own volition. He said he and the

victim's mother engaged in sexual relations that evening. He moved out of the home in

October of 2016 and was arrested for the charges in March of 2017.

On cross-examination, the Defendant agreed that Detective Knox did not violate

any of his rights during the interview. He agreed that he was free to leave at any time and

that he was free to have an attorney present if he so chose. He stated that others told him

that law enforcement was not allowed to interview children outside the presence of an

adult and that he repeated what he had been told to the victim's mother. The Defendant

agreed that he returned to the home and was around the victim even though he had been

instructed that he was not to be in her presence.

The jury convicted the Defendant of aggravated sexual battery and sexual

exploitation of a minor by electronic means. At the sentencing hearing, the parties agreed

to an effective sentence of eight years' incarceration, and the trial court imposed the

agreed-upon sentence. The Defendant filed a motion and an amended motion for new

trial, and the trial court denied the motions following a hearing. The Defendant appeals,

arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court

erred in excluding extrinsic evidence of a prior statement by the victim.

ANALYSIS

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence

The Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his

convictions, arguing that the State solely relied on the victim's testimony and prior

statements, which he claims were inconsistent, not credible, and lacking in detail. The

State responds that the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions. We agree with

the State.

When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the relevant question

for this court is "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime

beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). On appeal,

"'the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and to all

reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn therefrom.'” State v. Elkins, 102

S.W.3d 578, 581 (Tenn. 2003) (quoting State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274, 279 (Tenn. - 13 -

2000)). Therefore, this court will not re-weigh or reevaluate the evidence. State v.

Matthews, 805 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). Instead, it is the trier of fact,

not this court, who resolves any questions concerning "the credibility of witnesses, the

weight and value to be given the evidence, as well as all factual issues raised by the

evidence.” State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997).

A guilty verdict removes the presumption of innocence and replaces it with a

presumption of guilt. State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992). The burden is

then shifted to the defendant on appeal to demonstrate why the evidence is insufficient to

support the conviction. State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). This court

applies the same standard of review regardless of whether the conviction was predicated

on direct or circumstantial evidence. State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370, 381 (Tenn.

2011). "Circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to support a conviction, and the

circumstantial evidence need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of

guilt.” State v. Wagner, 382 S.W.3d 289, 297 (Tenn. 2012).

As related to this case, aggravated sexual battery is the "unlawful sexual contact

with a victim by the defendant or the defendant by a victim” where the victim is less than

thirteen years old. T.C.A. § 39-13-504(a)(4). Aggravated sexual battery is a Class B

felony. T.C.A. § 39-13-504(b). "Sexual contact” is defined as "the intentional touching

of the victim's, the defendant's, or any other person's intimate parts, or the intentional

touching of the clothing covering the immediate area of the victim's, the defendant's, or

any other person's intimate parts, if that intentional touching can be reasonably construed

as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification.” T.C.A. § 39-13-501(6).

"Intimate parts” includes "the primary genital area.” T.C.A. § 39-13-501(2).

Furthermore, Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-529(b) sets forth the

offense of sexual exploitation of a minor by electronic means, providing,

It is unlawful for any person eighteen (18) years of age or older, directly or

by means of electronic communication, electronic mail or internet service,

including webcam communications, to intentionally:

....

(2) Display to a minor, or expose a minor to, any material containing

simulated sexual activity that is patently offensive or sexual activity if the

purpose of the display can reasonably be construed as being for the sexual

arousal or gratification of the minor or the person displaying the material[.]- 14 -

T.C.A. § 39-13-529(b)(2) (Supp. 2012 & 2014). "Sexual activity” includes "oral

intercourse.” T.C.A. § 39-13-529(e)(4)(A) (Supp. 2012), (d)(4)(A) (2014). The offense

constitutes a Class C felony if the minor is less than thirteen years old. T.C.A. § 39-13-

529(f)(2) (Supp. 2012), (e)(2) (2014).

When viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence presented at

trial established that one morning between 2012 and 2015, when the victim was less than

thirteen years old, she awoke from sleeping upstairs in the house where she lived in

Rockvale, needing to use the bathroom. She knocked on the bathroom door, and the

Defendant told her to enter. Upon entering the bathroom, the victim saw the Defendant

sitting nude on the toilet with a towel over his lap. The victim testified that after

discussing video games, the Defendant showed her multiple videos on his cell phone.

According to the victim's testimony at trial, the videos depicted a man and a woman or

teenage girl with the female's mouth on the man's genitals. After showing her the

videos, the Defendant sat on the edge of the bathtub, removed his towel, and asked the

victim to touch his penis. The victim testified that when she refused, the Defendant

grabbed her wrist and forced her to touch it. The victim's testimony at trial regarding

these events was consistent with her statements during the forensic interview.

The Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions

because the victim's testimony was inconsistent and not credible and there was not

physical evidence to support her testimony. However, "there is no requirement that the

victim's testimony be corroborated.” State v. Smith, 42 S.W.3d 101, 106 (Tenn. Crim.

App. 2000). Rather, our courts have repeatedly held that the testimony of a sexual assault

victim standing alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction. See, e.g. State v. James

Chesteen, No. W2012-01998-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL, 4267458, at *7 (Tenn. Crim. App.

Aug. 24, 2014); State v. Wyrick, 62 S.W.3d 751, 767 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). While

the Defendant challenges the credibility of the victim's testimony, any questions

concerning "the credibility of witnesses, the weight and value to be given the evidence, as

well as all factual issues raised by the evidence” were resolved by the jury as the trier of

fact, and we may not reconsider the jury's credibility assessment. Bland, 958 S.W.2d at

659. Rather, we conclude that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to

the State, is sufficient to support the convictions.

II. Exclusion of Extrinsic Evidence of the Victim's Prior Statement

The Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in excluding extrinsic evidence that

the victim previously had stated that she liked to lie in order to get others into trouble.

The Defendant contends that the evidence was admissible pursuant to Tennessee Rule of

Evidence 613 as a prior inconsistent statement because the victim denied on crossexamination that she had ever made such a statement. The Defendant also contends that - 15 -

the trial court's exclusion of the evidence violated his confrontation rights. The State

responds that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in excluding the evidence

and that the Defendant waived his claim that his constitutional right to confront witnesses

was violated by raising the claim for the first time on appeal. We agree with the State.

A. Trial Proceedings

Prior to trial, the State filed a motion requesting that the trial court instruct the

defense against presenting any evidence or making any statements regarding a witness's

personal opinion as to the credibility of the victim's account of the abuse that fails to

meet the relevancy standards in Tennessee Rule of Evidence 401 and invades the

province of the jury. The State also requested that the trial court instruct the defense that

any attempts to impeach the credibility of any of the State's witnesses though the use of

character evidence must strictly comply with the requirements of Tennessee Rules of

Evidence 404 and 608.

At trial, defense counsel questioned the victim on cross-examination as follows:

Q. Okay. And has anyone—have you ever lied to get someone in trouble?

A. Not that I remember.

Q. Okay. Have you ever said that you like to lie to get people in trouble?

A. No.

Q. Do you recall telling any adults or any grownups that you love to lie

because ... it gets people in trouble?

A. No.

Q. And that's something you never would have said?

A. I wouldn't have said that to an adult.

After the close of the State's proof, the State renewed its pretrial motion. Defense

counsel announced that he planned to present witnesses to testify about specific instances

during which the victim lied and stated that she liked to lie to get people into trouble.

Defense counsel argued that the evidence was admissible pursuant to Tennessee Rules of

Evidence 404 and 608. The State responded that pursuant to Rule 608, the Defendant

was "stuck” with the victim's answer on cross-examination in which she denied stating - 16 -

that she ever told an adult that she lied in order to get people into trouble and that Rule

608 provided that specific instances of conduct may not be proven through extrinsic

evidence. The trial court found that the evidence was inadmissible but allowed the

Defendant to make an offer of proof.

During a hearing outside the presence of the jury, Ms. Kayla Ladd, the

Defendant's sister, testified that she had been around the victim on multiple occasions

and had babysat her in the past. She recalled an occasion during which she was playing

basketball with the victim and the Defendant's daughter when the victim was seven or

eight years old. The victim became angry and threw the basketball at the Defendant's

daughter, striking her in the face and causing her to cry. Ms. Kayla Ladd stated that

when she asked the victim why she struck the Defendant's daughter, the victim said she

did not know, denied striking the Defendant's daughter, and maintained that the

Defendant's daughter struck her. Ms. Kayla Ladd asked the victim why she was lying,

and the victim said she did not know. Ms. Kayla Ladd testified that the victim later was

asked why she liked to lie and that the victim responded that "she enjoys getting people

in trouble, that she doesn't get in trouble, and she thinks it's funny.”

Mr. Collopy testified that while he was at the home of the Defendant's parents, he

overheard the victim state that she liked to lie in order to get people into trouble. Mr.

Collopy stated that he knew the victim to lie previously and that as a result, he was not

comfortable being alone around her. Mr. Ronald Ladd, the Defendant's father, also

testified that he overheard the victim state that she enjoyed lying to get people into

trouble and that she did not get into trouble. He stated that the victim "lies about

everything” and that he was not comfortable being alone with the victim as a result.

The trial court disallowed the proof, finding that the proof constituted extrinsic

evidence of specific instances of conduct used for attacking the victim's character, which

was prohibited under Rule 608. The Defendant requested permission to seek an

interlocutory appeal, and the trial court denied the request.

Following a recess, the State announced that it had changed its position on the

admissibility of the proof and now believed that evidence that the victim previously

stated that she like to lie to get people into trouble was admissible for impeachment as a

prior inconsistent statement pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 613 because the

victim testified on cross-examination that she had never made such a statement. In

excluding the evidence, the trial court noted that despite the State's pretrial motion,

defense counsel provided no notice of the evidence and did not reveal the prior statement

before defense counsel "spr[a]ng” it on the victim on cross-examination. The trial court

also noted that although defense counsel was aware of when the statement was made,

those who were present, and the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement, - 17 -

defense counsel did not provide this contextual information in questioning the victim in

order to allow her to adequately examine her memory. Rather, defense counsel only

asked the victim if she had ever made the statement. The trial court found that defense

counsel failed to provide the victim with sufficient information regarding the prior

statement in order to allow the victim to provide a responsive answer when questioned

about it. The trial court stated that to permit extrinsic evidence of the victim's prior

statement under these circumstances would be unfair. The trial court also found that the

victim's prior statement did not relate to any of the material issues at trial but related to

an incident that occurred while the victim was playing with another child.

B. Analysis

On appeal, the Defendant does not challenge the trial court's decision to exclude

extrinsic evidence that the victim lied about striking the Defendant's daughter with a

basketball. Rather, the Defendant limits his challenge to the trial court's exclusion of

extrinsic evidence that the victim previously had stated that she liked to lie to get others

into trouble. The Defendant does not contend that such evidence was admissible

pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 608 but maintains that the evidence is admissible

for purposes of impeachment as a prior inconsistent statement under Rule 613.

Appellate courts, generally, review a trial court's decision regarding the

admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Franklin, 308 S.W.3d

799, 809 (Tenn. 2010); see also State v. Roderick Quatel Bates, No. E2014-01741-CCAR3-CD, 2015 WL 9019818, at *6 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 15, 2015) ("We review the trial

court's decision to admit extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement pursuant to

Rule 613(b) for an abuse of discretion.”). "A trial court abuses its discretion when it

applies an incorrect legal standard, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its decision on a

clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employs reasoning that causes an

injustice to the complaining party.” State v. Davis, 466 S.W.3d 49, 61 (Tenn. 2015)

(citing State v. Clark, 452 S.W.3d 268, 287 (Tenn. 2014); State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90,

116 (Tenn. 2008)).

Tennessee Rule of Evidence 613(b) provides in pertinent part that "[e]xtrinsic

evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless and until

the witness is afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the same and the opposite party

is afforded an opportunity to interrogate the witness thereon, or the interests of justice

otherwise require.” Our supreme court has held that "extrinsic evidence remains

inadmissible until the witness either denies or equivocates as to having made the prior

inconsistent statement.” State v. Martin, 964 S.W.2d 564, 567 (Tenn. 1998) (citations

omitted).- 18 -

Our supreme court recognized that Rule 613(b) "substantially maintains former

Tennessee procedure.” Id. at 568; see Tenn. R. Evid. 613, Advisory Comm'n Comments

(noting that the implementation of Rule 613 "will not change drastically [former]

Tennessee procedure”). This procedure "required that a witness' attention be drawn to

the place, persons present, time of the statement, and to the substance of the statement

before extrinsic evidence of the prior inconsistent statement could be used to impeach the

witness' credibility.” Martin, 964 S.W.2d at 567 (citing Middle Tenn. R.R. Co. v.

McMillan, 134 Tenn. 490, 515-16, 184 S.W. 20 (1916)). The purposes of these

foundational requirements were to "(1) provide the witness an opportunity to admit, deny,

or explain the prior inconsistent statement; (2) refresh with witness' memory; and (3)

allow the witness to respond intelligently to the impeachment attempt.” Id. (citing

Middle Tenn. R.R. Co., 134 Tenn. at 515-16; Moore v. Bettis, 30 Tenn. 67, 69 (1850)).

However, pursuant to Rule 613(b), the trial court may depart from the foundational

requirements when "'the interests of justice otherwise require.'” Id. at 568 (quoting

Tenn. R. Evid. 613(b)). "This clause provides flexibility to deal with the extraordinary

case in which the strict application of the [foundational requirements] would lead to

injustice.” Id. (citation omitted).

In the present case, the trial court found that the Defendant did not meet the

foundational requirements for admission of extrinsic evidence of the victim's prior

statement by failing to provide the victim with an opportunity to explain or deny the

statement. When questioning the victim about the statement on cross-examination,

defense counsel did not draw the victim's attention to when and where she made the

statement, who was present, or the circumstances under which the statement was made.

Rather, defense counsel simply asked the then-twelve-year-old victim whether she had

ever stated that she liked to lie to get others into trouble. "It is not enough to ask a

witness a general question, whether he has ever said 'so and so,' or whether he has

always told the same story.” State v. Neil Vader, No. M2011-02394-CCA-R3-CD, 2013

WL 1279196, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 28, 2013) (citations omitted). By failing to

provide any details regarding the statement, defense counsel did not afford the victim an

effective opportunity to admit, deny, or explain the statement, did not attempt to refresh

the victim's memory, and did not grant the victim the opportunity to respond intelligently

to the impeachment attempt. The trial court properly found that the Defendant failed to

meet the foundational requirements for admission of extrinsic evidence of a prior

inconsistent statement pursuant to Rule 613(b). See id. (holding that defense counsel

failed to meet the foundational requirements for the admission of extrinsic evidence of a

prior inconsistent statement pursuant to Rule 613(b) when defense counsel only asked the

witness on cross-examination whether he had made the statement to "anybody else”).

The circumstances of this case also did not present an extraordinary case in which

strict application of the foundational requirements would lead to injustice. See Martin, - 19 -

964 S.W.2d at 568. The trial court found that when questioning the victim on crossexamination, defense counsel was aware of the victim's statement, when and where it

was made, who was present, and the circumstances under which she made the statement.

Defense counsel simply chose not to reveal those details to the victim. Therefore, we

conclude that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in excluding the extrinsic

evidence.

Although the Defendant contends on appeal that the exclusion of the evidence

violated his constitutional rights to present a defense and confront witnesses, the

Defendant did not raise these issues in the trial court. Accordingly, these issues are

waived. See Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a); State v. Rodney Darnell Robinson, No. M2019-

00303-CCA-R3-CD, 2020 WL 1923152, at *45 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 2, 2020), perm.

app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 7, 2020).

Upon reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs and arguments, and the applicable

law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.