State of Tennessee v. David Banks, W2016-00173-CCA-R3-CD

Defendant David Banks was tried by a jury on multiple sex-offense counts for assaults on two minor victims (Victim 1 and Victim 2); convictions included attempted rape of a child, two counts of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of child abuse.
Victim 1 testified to repeated abuse beginning at age nine through at least sixth grade, including forcible intercourse and oral contact; she disclosed the abuse in a letter in November 2012 and later attempted suicide.
Victim 2 testified to assaults in Victim 1’s home when she was about twelve, including forced sexual contact, attempted oral sex, and the defendant masturbating and ejaculating in the house.
The State dismissed two counts relating to offenses after Victim 1 turned thirteen and amended allegations as to timing for Victim 2; the jury convicted on the elected counts and the court imposed an effective sentence of 24 years (with 100% release eligibility).
Defense sought to introduce testimony from a DCS worker (Jane Cain) about a referral note stating Victim 1 exhibited behavioral issues including "lying;" the trial court excluded this evidence under Tenn. R. Evid. 608 and 404.
On appeal the defendant challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence and (2) exclusion of Ms. Cain’s testimony; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Banks)	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence	Victim testimony (Victim 1 and Victim 2) was credible and, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, supports convictions	Convictions rest solely on victim testimony which is inconsistent and incredible; timelines and disclosure delays undermine guilt	Affirmed — jury accredited victims; one victim’s uncorroborated testimony can support conviction and inconsistencies were for jury to resolve
Exclusion of DCS worker's note/Testimony under Tenn. R. Evid. 608	Admission unnecessary; State relied on victim credibility already tested; objection maintained that Cain lacked foundation for opinion or reputation evidence	Cain’s referral note indicating Victim 1’s history of “lying” was admissible under Rule 608 to challenge Victim 1’s truthfulness	Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; Cain lacked sufficient personal familiarity or foundation to offer opinion or reputation evidence, and evidence was properly excluded under Rule 404/608 analysis

State v. Pope, 427 S.W.3d 363 (Tenn. 2013) (standard for appellate sufficiency review)
State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997) (credibility and factfinder’s role)
State v. Wyrick, 62 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) (conviction may rest on uncorroborated testimony)
State v. Dutton, 896 S.W.2d 114 (Tenn. 1995) (foundational requirements for opinion or reputation testimony under Rule 608)
State v. Franklin, 308 S.W.3d 799 (Tenn. 2010) (trial court’s discretion on evidentiary rulings and abuse-of-discretion standard)
State v. Elkins, 102 S.W.3d 578 (Tenn. 2003) (when inconsistencies warrant reversal only if so improbable as to create reasonable doubt)