State of Tennessee v. Christopher Bostick, W2016-00573-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Defendant Christopher Bostick was convicted by a Shelby County jury of rape of a child (Class A) and aggravated sexual battery (Class B) for sexual offenses against a seven-year-old victim (B.T.), his mentee, and sentenced to an effective 34 years at 100% service.
Bostick met the family through a mentoring program, spent substantial time in the home, and sometimes stayed overnight. The children were young (B.T. age 6–7 at the alleged events).
Victim B.T. disclosed multiple incidents of oral and anal sexual contact by Bostick in a forensic interview and at trial; forensic and medical exams showed no definitive physical injury but corroborated a chin scratch and the expected absence of anal injury after delay.
The State elected specific incidents for each charged count: (1) rape of a child — first incident occurring when mother and sister were at majorette practice and Bostick allegedly anally penetrated B.T.; (2) aggravated sexual battery — incident when sister M.T. entered and allegedly observed Bostick performing oral sex on B.T.
Defense contested sufficiency (insisting the State failed to prove the particular elected acts) and argued the trial court improperly limited cross-examination about an unrelated school incident involving M.T. that defense claimed could suggest fabrication. The trial court excluded the proffered evidence as irrelevant.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for rape of a child (election: anal penetration on specified occasion)	State: forensic interview and trial testimony supplied specific details of the elected incident; jurors could credit that evidence	Bostick: proof did not establish anal penetration as elected (victim inconsistent and lacked physical corroboration)	Affirmed — viewing evidence in light most favorable to State, jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt; forensic interview provided sufficient specifics to support the election and conviction
Sufficiency for aggravated sexual battery (election: oral contact observed when sister entered)	State: B.T.’s trial testimony described Bostick placing his mouth on B.T.’s penis when M.T. entered; jury credited that account	Bostick: M.T. did not testify to observing sexual contact, so evidence insufficient for the elected act	Affirmed — B.T.’s testimony was sufficient to support the election and conviction; jury resolved conflicts in credibility
Limitation on cross-examination about M.T.’s prior school incident (impeachment/motive to fabricate)	Bostick: evidence that a boy at M.T.’s school touched her (and was sent home) could show motive/plot or tendency to fabricate, relevant to impeachment	State: incident was irrelevant to B.T.’s allegations; no proof B.T. knew of it or that siblings conspired; admission would be speculative	Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; proffered evidence was too remote/speculative and lacked probative link to the allegations

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency review: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Adams, 24 S.W.3d 289 (Tenn. 2000) (purpose and requirements of election of offenses in multi-act child sexual abuse prosecutions)
State v. Shelton, 851 S.W.2d 134 (Tenn. 1993) (election protects against patchwork verdicts and ensures juror unanimity)
State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997) (appellate courts do not reweigh credibility; jury determines witness credibility)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (sufficiency standard applies equally to circumstantial evidence)
State v. Elkins, 102 S.W.3d 578 (Tenn. 2003) (a child victim’s testimony alone can suffice to support a sexual-offense conviction)