State of Tennessee v. Angela Montgomery, M2016-00459-CCA-R3-CD

Angela Montgomery was convicted by a jury of six counts of rape of a child for sexual acts against her son occurring circa 1999–2002; she received an effective 40-year sentence at 100% and appealed.
The victim testified to multiple incidents including oral sex, digital penetration, and partial penile penetration when he was under thirteen; he described fear of punishment and that his mother framed the acts as "teaching" sex.
At trial the State introduced evidence the defendant used corporal punishment (spankings with a wooden spoon or switch) to show household dynamics and the victim’s acquiescence; the court admitted that evidence after a jury-out offer of proof.
The State impeached defense witness M.W. with prior inconsistent statements he made to a psychotherapist, introduced through the therapist’s testimony after M.W. denied recalling the statements.
Montgomery challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence, (2) admission of corporal-punishment evidence, and (3) admissibility of the therapist’s testimony about M.W.’s prior statements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Montgomery)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for six counts of rape of a child	Victim’s testimony alone is sufficient; jury credited it	Testimony had inconsistencies creating reasonable doubt	Affirmed; evidence sufficient — jury credibility determinations stand
Admissibility of corporal punishment evidence	Relevant to relationship, context, and victim’s acquiescence	Irrelevant and prejudicial; not necessary to show complete story	Waived on appeal (not raised in new-trial motion); no plain-error review granted
Use of therapist testimony to impeach M.W. via prior statements	Proper impeachment under Tenn. R. Evid. 613; relevant to credibility	Irrelevant; should not have been admitted as substantive evidence	Admissible for impeachment; probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice
Preservation/plain error on evidentiary issues	N/A	Failed to preserve corporal-punishment and Rule 404(b) claims in new-trial motion	Court enforces preservation rule; declines sua sponte plain-error review

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542 (Tenn. 1984) (deference to jury on conflicts in testimony)
State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832 (Tenn. 1978) (appellate review and jury credibility)
State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997) (jury resolves credibility and weight of evidence)
State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913 (Tenn. 1982) (defendant’s burden on sufficiency review)
State v. Pendergrass, 13 S.W.3d 389 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) (direct and circumstantial evidence treated equally)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (weighing direct vs. circumstantial evidence)
State v. Bonds, 189 S.W.3d 249 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005) (victim testimony alone can support conviction)
State v. Banks, 564 S.W.2d 947 (Tenn. 1978) (unfair prejudice definition under Rule 403)
State v. Collins, 986 S.W.2d 13 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (when evidence is unfairly prejudicial)
Fahey v. Eldridge, 46 S.W.3d 138 (Tenn. 2001) (requirements to preserve issues in motion for new trial)