State v. Smith

• Decision Date: 08 January 2001
• Citation: 42 S.W.3d 101
• Parties: STATE of Tennessee v. Stevie SMITH.
• Court: Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals

42 S.W.3d 101

STATE of Tennessee v. Stevie SMITH.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, at Knoxville.

May 23, 2000.

Application for Permission to Appeal Denied January 8, 2001.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Mark E. Stephens, District Public Defender, R. Scott Carpenter, Assistant Public Defender, and Paula R. Voss, Assistant Public Defender, Knoxville, TN, for appellant, Stevie Smith.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter, Patricia C. Kussmann, Assistant Attorney General, Randall E. Nichols, District Attorney General, Charme Knight, Assistant District Attorney General, and Steve Garrett, Assistant District Attorney General, for appellee, State of Tennessee.

Application for Permission to Appeal Denied by Supreme Court January 8, 2001.

OPINION

WOODALL, J. delivered the opinion of the court, in which TIPTON, J. and OGLE, J. joined.

Defendant Stevie Smith was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated sexual battery and one count of assault. The trial court subsequently imposed an effective sentence of nine years. Defendant challenges his convictions, raising the following issues: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions for aggravated sexual battery; (2) whether the trial court should have suppressed a statement that Defendant gave to police; and (3) whether the trial court properly admitted evidence about the manner in which offenders make confessions during questioning by police. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

I. FACTS

Twelve year old B.N. (it is the policy of this Court to refer to the victims of child sexual abuse only by their initials) testified that around Christmas of 1996, Defendant started visiting the residence she lived in with her mother and her siblings. B.N. initially thought that Defendant was a good person, but her feelings changed when he began "rubbing his private parts against her bottom" and rubbing her chest.

B.N. testified that on one occasion while she was cooking in the kitchen, Defendant "bent down and pressed his private part against her bottom." When B.N. told Defendant that she was uncomfortable, he backed away. On another occasion while B.N. was washing dishes in the kitchen, Defendant bent his knees and "placed his private on her bottom." On one occasion while B.N. was in the living room, Defendant grabbed her and had her sit on his lap. Defendant then rubbed B.N.'s chest with his hand. On another occasion while B.N. was lying on a couch, Defendant lay down behind her. Defendant then put his arms around B.N. and "put his private against her bottom." Defendant also told B.N. not to tell what had happened.

Debbie Greene of the Department of Children's Services testified that on April 24, 1997, she and Investigator Sam Brown of the Knoxville Police Department interviewed Defendant at the police station. After Brown read Defendant's rights to him, Defendant signed a waiver of rights form. Defendant initially responded to Brown's questions by stating that he could not recall having any inappropriate contact with B.N. Defendant then said that he might have rubbed her, and some of the allegations might be true. Defendant then gave the following written statement:

I, Stevie Smith, have rubbed on B.N. before Christmas '96. B.N. was sitting on the couch watching tv & her mom was gone. I rubbed her on her bottom. The second time, on couch in the living room, I rubbed her chest over her clothes & kissed her mouth & I could have accidentally rubbed her on her vagina over her clothes. The third time, I kissed her on the neck. B.N. was in the kitchen doing dishes & I touched her bottom & rubbed my penis against her bottom. One time in a chair, B.N. was sitting on my lap & rubbing my chest. I rubbed her on her butt. I have rubbed my penis against her several times. I know I need help. I have thoughts, sexual fantasies, about women & kids. I have been like this since I was young.

Defendant's mother testified for the defense that Defendant was born with meningocele and as a result, he had developmental problems and learning disabilities.

Defendant testified that he had never been alone with B.N. and he had never touched her in an inappropriate manner. Defendant also testified that he was shocked when Brown informed him of the allegations made by B.N.

Defendant testified that during the interview, he denied the allegations at least seven or eight times. Defendant admitted that his signature was on the waiver of rights form, but he could not recall reading or signing the form. Defendant admitted that he had signed the written statement, but he denied that he wrote the statement or read the statement. Defendant testified that he blacked out toward the end of the interview. Defendant claimed that he could not remember making any of the admissions that were contained in the written statement. Defendant subsequently claimed that he did not make the statements.

Dr. Peter Young testified that he had previously evaluated Defendant. Dr. Young opined that Defendant suffered from basic language processing difficulties and he had a poor grasp of higher level language and abstract reasoning. Dr. Young determined that Defendant had an IQ of 72, which was above the level of mental retardation. Dr. Young also determined that Defendant could read at a sixth-grade level.

Dr. Young testified on cross-examination that as a person reading at a sixth-grade level, Defendant could have understood every statement included in his written confession. Dr. Young opined that Defendant would have been able to read everything on the waiver of rights form, but he was not sure whether Defendant would have understood his rights. Dr. Young also opined that Defendant would not black out and lose awareness of what was happening to him.

Investigator Sam Brown of the Knoxville Police Department testified in rebuttal that during the interview with Defendant, he informed Defendant of each of his rights individually. Defendant initialed each individual right and he never indicated that he did not understand his rights. Brown also reviewed the paragraph containing a waiver of rights and he made sure that Defendant understood it. Brown denied yelling at or arguing with Defendant.

II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for aggravated sexual battery. Defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence for his assault conviction.

The record indicates that Defendant was indicted and tried for three counts of aggravated sexual battery. The State made the following election of offenses: for count one, the State chose to rely on the evidence that Defendant had placed his private part against B.N.'s bottom while she was cooking in the kitchen; for count two, the State chose to rely on evidence that Defendant rubbed B.N.'s chest while she was sitting on his lap; and for count three, the State chose to rely on evidence that Defendant lay down behind B.N. on the couch and placed his private part against her bottom. The record also indicates that the jury convicted Defendant of the lesser-included offense of assault under count one and the charged aggravated sexual battery offenses under counts two and three.

Where the sufficiency of the evidence is contested on appeal, the relevant question for the reviewing court is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the accused guilty of every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573 (1979). In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court does not reweigh or reevaluate the evidence. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn.1978). Nor may this Court substitute its inferences for those drawn by the trier of fact from circumstantial evidence. Liakas v. State, 199 Tenn. 298, 305, 286 S.W.2d 856, 859 (1956). To the contrary, this Court is required to afford the State the strongest legitimate view of the evidence contained in the record as well as all reasonable and legitimate inferences which may be drawn from the evidence. State v. Tuttle, 914 S.W.2d 926, 932 (Tenn.Crim.App.1995). Since a verdict of guilt removes the presumption of a defendant's innocence and replaces it with a presumption of guilt, the defendant has the burden of proof on the sufficiency of the evidence at the appellate level. State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn.1982).

Under Tennessee law, "aggravated sexual battery is unlawful sexual contact with a victim by the defendant or the defendant by a victim accompanied by any of the following circumstances:. . . the victim is less than thirteen (13) years of age." Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-504(a)(4) (1997). In addition, "`sexual contact' includes 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." Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-501(6) (1997). Further, "`intimate parts' includes the primary genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttock or breast of a human being." Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-501(2) (1997).

Defendant does not dispute the fact that B.N. was less than thirteen years of age when the events at issue in this case occurred and there is no question that the State established that element of the aggravated sexual battery offenses.

Defendant initially argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for aggravated sexual battery because the State failed to prove that there was any touching of Defendant or B.N.'s "intimate parts." We disagree. In regard to the conviction under count two, B.N. testified that Defendant grabbed her, had her sit on his lap, and rubbed her chest with his hand. In addition, Defendant...