585 S.W.3d 431
Tenn. Crim. App.2019Background
- Defendant Cordarious Franklin was convicted by a Shelby County jury of rape of a child, aggravated sexual battery, and child abuse based on allegations that he orally and anally penetrated his then‑four‑year‑old daughter and instructed her to touch his penis.
- The child made an outcry to her mother, was examined at Le Bonheur and the Rape Crisis Center (no DNA or definitive genital/anal injury found), and gave a recorded forensic interview at the Memphis Child Advocacy Center eight days after the outcry.
- The trial court admitted the child’s forensic interview under Tenn. Code Ann. § 24‑7‑123 after an extensive pretrial hearing finding the interview trustworthy and the interviewer qualified; the child also testified at trial and was cross‑examined.
- Prior to and during trial the State moved to exclude the public (except necessary persons and those the child requested) from the courtroom while the child testified; the trial court granted the motion over defense objection and excluded the defendant’s family during the child’s testimony.
- On appeal defendant raised multiple issues including admissibility of the forensic interview, sufficiency of the evidence, denial of access to sealed medical records, failure to give a Ferguson instruction, juror questions as extraneous information, sentencing, and a claim of plain error based on courtroom closure and alleged ex parte communications.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed on most evidentiary and sentencing claims but found structural constitutional error in excluding the public during the child’s testimony, reversed the judgments, and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of child’s forensic interview | State: interview met §24‑7‑123 trustworthiness factors; interviewer qualified; child available for cross‑examination | Franklin: interview untrustworthy, violated Confrontation Clause and was prejudicial | Court: affirmed admission — trial court did not abuse discretion; Confrontation claim waived and cross‑examination occurred |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | State: victim’s consistent statements to mother, nurse, and interviewer + mother’s observations support convictions | Franklin: without the video the State has virtually nothing; alleged inconsistencies and lack of physical evidence | Court: evidence sufficient to sustain convictions when viewed in the light most favorable to the State |
| Defendant’s access to victim’s medical records | State: records sealed and reviewed in camera | Franklin: requested copies to locate exculpatory material and potential witnesses | Court: issue waived — sealed records not included in appellate record; cannot review |
| Failure to give Ferguson jury instruction re: missing underwear | State: no duty to collect/preserve underwear; not constitutionally material | Franklin: missing underwear could be exculpatory evidence | Court: trial court properly denied instruction — no duty to collect in these circumstances |
| Juror questions / extraneous information | State: juror questions inferred from trial evidence and court admonished jury | Franklin: juror questions raised extraneous prejudicial matters warranting mistrial | Court: waived at trial; questions were not extraneous prejudicial information; instruction cured any potential concern |
| Sentencing (length / enhancements) | State: enhancements supported maximum within‑range sentence | Franklin: trial court erred in describing vaginal penetration and misused child’s age to increase sentence | Court: sentence (40 years for rape of a child) within range and properly supported by enhancement factors; no abuse of discretion |
| Closure of courtroom during victim’s testimony (plain error) | State: closure was necessary to protect child; trial court considered Waller factors and accommodations | Franklin: exclusion of public (including family) violated Sixth Amendment public‑trial right; error not harmless; requires automatic reversal | Court: closure granted without evidentiary support, court focused on confrontation rather than public‑trial right, Waller factors not satisfied; structural constitutional error found — automatic reversal and new trial ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- McCoy v. State, 459 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2014) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for evidentiary rulings and discussion of forensic interview admissibility)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause framework for testimonial out‑of‑court statements)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (test for closure of judicial proceedings: overriding interest, narrowness, alternatives, findings)
- Press‑Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (public‑trial and pretrial hearing closure standards)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- State v. Sams, 802 S.W.2d 635 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) (reversal for denial of a public trial where relatives were excluded and prosecutor’s motives implicated)