IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
FILED
February 1, 1999
Cecil W. Crowson
STATE OF TENNESSEE ) FOR PUBLICATION
) Appellate Court Clerk
) FILED: FEBRUARY 1, 1999
Appellee )
) DAVIDSON COUNTY
v. )
) HON. WALTER C. KURTZ,
WILLIAM HENRY BARNEY ) JUDGE
)
Appellant ) NO. 01-S-01-9802-CR-00033
For Appellant: For Appellee:
KARL DEAN JOHN KNOX WALKUP
Public Defender Attorney General and Reporter
JEFFREY A. DEVASHER MICHAEL E. MOORE
Assistant Public Defender Solicitor General
JERRILYN MANNING GORDON W. SMITH
Assistant Public Defender Associate Solicitor General
Nashville, TN
JOAN A. LAWSON
Assistant Public Defender VICTOR S. JOHNSON, III
Nashville, TN District Attorney General
WILLIAM R. REED
Assistant District Attorney General
Nashville, TN
OPINION
AFFIRMED BIRCH, J.
The defendant, William Henry Barney, was convicted of
eleven counts of rape of a child and seven counts of aggravated
sexual battery. He is currently serving a total effective sentence
of eighty years. Upon the Court of Criminal Appeals’s affirmance
of these judgments, the defendant filed an application for
permission to appeal to this Court. We granted the application in
order to determine whether the language of the indictment was
sufficient under State v. Hill, 954 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1997), and to
determine whether the multiple convictions for rape of a child and
aggravated sexual battery violate the constitutional principles of
due process or double jeopardy. We conclude that the indictment is
sufficient under Hill. In addition, we conclude that, under the
facts and circumstances of this case, multiple convictions for rape
of a child and aggravated sexual battery are justified and do not
violate the constitutional principles of due process or double
jeopardy.
I
The salient facts presented at trial showed that in July
1992, the defendant, a forty-seven-year-old man, moved in with the
victim’s family as a nanny for the victim and his two older
brothers. The defendant took a special interest in the ten-year-
old victim. In November 1992, the defendant quit the nanny job and
left the state. In May 1993, he returned unexpectedly and asked
the family’s new nanny whether he could visit with the victim. The
victim became upset and refused to see the defendant. When the
nanny asked the victim why he was upset, the victim told her that
2
the defendant had “molested” him previously. The nanny called the
victim’s father, who told her to call the police. After the
defendant gave a statement implicating himself in the alleged
sexual conduct, investigators arrested him.
At trial, the victim testified that, on at least five
occasions, the defendant entered the victim’s bedroom, rubbed the
victim’s penis with his hand, and then performed fellatio on the
victim. The victim also recalled at least four occasions when the
defendant anally penetrated him and at least two occasions when the
defendant performed anilingus on him.
At the conclusion of the proof, the State elected to
submit six discrete sexual encounters to the jury. Five of these
occurred in the victim’s bedroom at the victim’s home: the first
in July 1992 when the defendant fondled and anally penetrated the
victim; the second in August 1992 when the defendant fondled,
performed fellatio, anally penetrated, and performed anilingus on
the victim; the third in September 1992 when the defendant fondled,
performed fellatio, anally penetrated, and performed anilingus on
the victim; the fourth in October 1992 when the defendant fondled,
performed fellatio, and anally penetrated the victim; and the fifth
in November 1992 when the defendant fondled, performed fellatio,
and anally penetrated the victim. The sixth encounter occurred in
the victim’s living room when the defendant performed fellatio on
the victim.
3
II
The defendant contends that the indictment in this case
is fatally deficient because it failed to allege a specific
culpable mental state for the offenses of rape of a child and
aggravated sexual battery. Of the fourteen counts of the
indictment charging rape of a child, seven of the counts alleged
that
WILLIAM HENRY BARNEY on a day
between July 1, 1992, and November
30, 1992, in Davidson County,
Tennessee and before the finding of
this indictment, did engage in
unlawful sexual penetration of
[K.B.],1 a child less than thirteen
(13) years of age, in violation of
Tennessee Code Annotated §39-13-522,
and against the peace and dignity of
the State of Tennessee.
Seven other counts alleged that
WILLIAM HENRY BARNEY on a day
between July 1, 1992, and November
30, 1992, in Davidson County,
Tennessee and before the finding of
this indictment, did cause [K.B.], a
child less than thirteen (13) years
of age, to engage in unlawful sexual
penetration of William Henry Barney,
in violation of Tennessee Code
Annotated §39-13-522, and against
the peace and dignity of the State
of Tennessee.
There were also seven counts charging aggravated sexual battery.
Each of those counts alleged that
1
Due to the age of the victim and the nature of the offenses,
we identify the victim by initial only.
4
WILLIAM HENRY BARNEY on a day
between July 1, 1992, and November
30, 1992, in Davidson County,
Tennessee and before the finding of
this indictment, did engage in
unlawful sexual contact with [K.B.],
a child less than thirteen (13)
years of age, in violation of
Tennessee Code Annotated §39-13-504,
and against the peace and dignity of
the State of Tennessee.
In State v. Hill, 954 S.W.2d 725, 729 (Tenn. 1997), this
Court held that where the language of an indictment alleging
aggravated rape as “unlawfully sexually penetrat[ing]” a person
under the age of thirteen met the constitutional and statutory
requirements of notice and form, and where a culpable mental state
could be logically inferred from such language, the indictment was
valid. State v. Stokes, 954 S.W.2d 729 (Tenn. 1997), extended the
rationale of Hill to an indictment charging rape of a child. Under
the Hill analysis, we find that the counts of the indictment
charging rape of a child were constitutionally valid and sufficient
to vest the trial court with jurisdiction.
More recently, the Hill analysis was extended to an
indictment charging aggravated sexual battery. See Ruff v. State,
978 S.W.2d 95 (Tenn. 1998). We find that the language recited
above for the charges of aggravated sexual battery is substantially
identical to the language upheld as constitutionally and
statutorily sufficient in Ruff. Those charges were likewise valid
and sufficient to vest the trial court with jurisdiction.
5
III
Next, the defendant urges that his act of rubbing the
victim’s penis was “essentially incidental” to the fellatio and
that the two acts (rubbing and fellatio) thus constitute but a
single crime for which a single punishment is appropriate. He
contends, then, that due process principles prohibit separate
convictions for five of the counts of aggravated sexual battery and
five of the counts of rape of a child. For its part, the State
insists that the rubbing and the fellatio were discrete acts for
which separate punishments are appropriate.
The “essentially incidental” test for determining whether
due process principles support separate convictions for two or more
felonies arising from one particular course of conduct was
developed in State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991). In
Anthony, this Court determined that because the detention of the
victim was essentially incidental to the commission of the robbery,
due process principles prohibited a separate conviction for
kidnapping. Id. at 307. We have since refined the Anthony test in
several cases, including State v. Dixon, 957 S.W.2d 532 (Tenn.
1997), in which we held that separate convictions for attempted
sexual assault and kidnapping were constitutionally valid because
the defendant’s conduct “exceeded that restraint necessary to
consummate the act of attempted sexual battery,” lessened the risk
of detection, and substantially increased the risk of harm to the
victim. Id. at 535.
6
In State v. Denton, 938 S.W.2d 373, 378 (Tenn. 1996), we
noted that “[w]hile our decision in Anthony addressed the
particularly anomalous nature of the kidnapping statute, it is
conceivable that the principle of Anthony could apply to
circumstances involving offenses other than kidnapping.” Upon
reflection, we find that the “essentially incidental” test, as
developed in Anthony and its progeny, is not helpful in the context
of sexual offenses because each separate sexual act “is capable of
producing its own attendant fear, humiliation, pain, and damage to
the victim.” State v. Phillips, 924 S.W.2d 662, 665 (Tenn. 1996).
For determining whether two or more sexual acts may be
the subject of separate convictions, we find the test articulated
in People v. Madera, 282 Cal. Rptr. 674 (Ct. App. 1991), to be
instructive. In Madera, the court upheld dual convictions for a
defendant who rubbed a young boy’s penis and then engaged in
fellatio.2 The defendant contended that the touching was merely
incidental and preparatory to the commission of the fellatio and
argued that the rubbing was a part of the fellatio. The court
reasoned that Madera’s intent was the critical consideration.
Specifically, the pivotal question was “whether [Madera’s] touching
of [the victim’s] penis was to commit a separate base criminal act
or to facilitate the oral copulations . . . that shortly followed.”
2
The Madera court did not specifically answer the dual
conviction question under a due process challenge. Instead, the
defendant in Madera argued that a particular California code
section concerning dual punishment prohibited his being punished
twice for one felonious episode. Despite the focus on this
California code section, our review of the Madera opinion results
in our conclusion that the same analysis would support a due
process challenge.
7
Id. at 679. The court held that if the act in question directly
facilitates or is merely incidental to the accompanying sexual
conduct (such as, for example, applying lubricant to the area of
intended copulation), convictions for both acts would be barred.
Id. at 680. If, however, the act in question is “preparatory” only
in the sense that it is intended to sexually arouse either the
victim or the perpetrator, separate convictions are not barred.
Id.; accord People v. Scott, 85 P.2d 1040 (Cal. 1994).
We suggest that several factors may be relevant in
determining whether conduct is directly facilitative, and thus
incidental, or merely prepatory in the sense of intending to arouse
the victim or perpetrator. These factors are:
1. temporal proximity--the greater
the interval between the acts, the
more likely the acts are separate;
2. spatial proximity--movement or
re-positioning tends to suggest
separate acts;
3. occurrence of an intervening
event--an interruption tends to
suggest separate acts;
4. sequence of the acts--serial
penetration of different orifices as
distinguished from repeated
penetrations of the same orifice
tends to suggest separate offenses;
and
5. the defendant’s intent as
evidenced by conduct and statements.
Considering these factors in light of the facts of this
case, the victim testified that the defendant entered the victim’s
bedroom, rubbed the victim’s penis with his hand, and then
8
performed fellatio on the victim. After a thorough review of the
evidence, we conclude that the evidence supports the jury’s verdict
of separate convictions for the rubbing and the fellatio. Thus, we
find no due process violation.
IV
The defendant insists also that dual convictions for both
aggravated sexual battery and rape of a child violate the double
jeopardy provisions of the Constitutions of the United States and
of Tennessee. Article I, § 10 of the Tennessee Constitution
provides that “no person shall, for the same offence, be twice put
in jeopardy of life or limb.” In Denton, we articulated the test
for determining whether two offenses are the “same” for double
jeopardy purposes under the State Constitution. Crucial to this
analysis is legislative intent. The factors to be considered are:
1. an analysis of the statutory
offenses under Blockburger v. United
States3 to determine “whether each
provision requires proof of an
additional fact which the other does
not”;4
2. an analysis, guided by the
principles of Duchac v. State,5 of
whether the same evidence is
required to prove each offense;
3. a consideration of whether there
were multiple victims or discrete
acts; and
3
284 U.S. 299, 52 S. Ct. 180, 76 L. Ed. 306 (1932).
4
Id. at 304, 52 S. Ct. at 182, 76 L. Ed at 309.
5
505 S.W.2d 237 (Tenn. 1973).
9
4. a comparison of the purposes of
the respective statutes.
“None of these steps is determinative; rather the results of each
must be weighed and considered in relation to each other.” Denton,
938 S.W.2d at 381.
We addressed this issue in relation to multiple sex
offenses in Phillips, where we noted that the following factors may
be significant:
1. the nature of the act;
2. the area of the victim’s body
invaded by the sexually assaultive
behavior;
3. the time elapsed between the
discrete conduct;
4. the accused’s intent, in the
sense that the lapse of time may
indicate a newly formed intent to
again seek sexual gratification or
inflict abuse; and
5. the cumulative punishment.
“[T]he presence and absence of any one factor or a combination of
them other than the nature of the act is not determinative of the
issue.” 924 S.W.2d at 665.
The defendant in Phillips committed three acts of
penetration within the course of three hours: penetration of the
victim's vagina by an inanimate object; cunnilingus; and penile
penetration of the vagina. We noted:
“[A]lthough separate acts of
intercourse may be so related as to
10
constitute one criminal offense,
generally rape is not a continuous
offense, but each act of intercourse
constitutes a distinct and separate
offense.” Moreover, each of the
above-described acts is separately
defined in Tenn. Code Ann. §
39-13-501(7) as a discrete type of
sexual penetration subsumed by Tenn.
Code Ann. § 39-13-502, the
aggravated rape statute. Each act,
in our opinion, is capable of
producing its own attendant fear,
humiliation, pain, and damage to the
victim. Each type of penetration
requires a purposeful act on the
part of the perpetrator.
Id. at 664-665 (footnote omitted)(quoting 75 C.J.S. Rape § 4 (1952
& Supp. 1995)). Our conclusion was that Phillips committed three
separate offenses.
Applying the Denton and Phillips criteria to this case,
we find the following facts significant: first, the offense of
aggravated sexual battery requires an intentional touching of a
victim’s intimate parts for the purpose of sexual arousal or
gratification. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-501, -504 (1991). Rape of
a child requires sexual penetration of the victim, and the mental
state required may range from intentional to knowing or reckless.
Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-501, -13-522, -11-301(c) (1991 & Supp.
1992). Thus, each of the offenses requires proof of an additional
fact that the other does not, and the offenses are not the same
under Blockburger. Second, to prove aggravated sexual battery the
State must present evidence that the defendant intentionally
touched the intimate parts of the child victim and that such
touching was for the purpose of sexual gratification. Tenn. Code
Ann. §§ 39-13-501, -504. In contrast, rape of a child can be
11
proven solely by evidence of sexual penetration, regardless of the
motivation for the act. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-501, -522. Thus,
different evidence is required to prove each offense, so the
offenses are not the same under Duchac. Third, the nature and type
of the contact in each instance was different, i.e., a touching of
the penis with the hand as opposed to a touching of the penis (and
the concomitant penetration) with the mouth. Fourth, the acts,
although close in time, were not performed simultaneously.
Finally, we believe the cumulative punishment in this case, eighty
years, is not excessive considering the frequency and pervasiveness
of the abuse of this victim.
Like the acts committed against the victim in Phillips,
we believe that each act was “capable of producing its own
attendant fear, humiliation, pain, and damage to the victim.”
Phillips, 924 S.W.2d at 665. Furthermore, each act required a
different body position and engaged different body parts,
evidencing a separate intent on the part of the defendant. Id. We
conclude that under the principles of Denton and Phillips, the acts
of aggravated sexual battery and rape of a child were discrete acts
that justified separate convictions. We conclude, therefore, that
double jeopardy principles are not violated through the imposition
of multiple convictions in the case under submission.
V
To summarize, we conclude that the language of the
indictment in this case was sufficient to vest the trial court with
12
jurisdiction over the offenses. We conclude, also, that separate
convictions for aggravated sexual battery and rape of a child were
constitutionally justified under the facts presented at trial.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is
affirmed. Costs shall be assessed against the defendant.
______________________________
ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., Justice
CONCUR:
Anderson, C.J.
Drowota, Holder, JJ.
Barker, J., not participating
13