State of Tennessee v. Douglas Curtis, M2015-01372-CCA-R3-CD

Victim (born Dec. 27, 1985) alleged four discrete incidents of sexual abuse by her father, Douglas Curtis, occurring when she was about 11–12 years old (1997–1998), including digital vaginal penetration and forced oral sex.
Victim disclosed the abuse in 2011 after discussing concerns with a pastor’s wife; Investigator Johnny Hilburn conducted the investigation and recorded a controlled "perp" phone call in which the defendant made incriminating statements and expressed remorse.
The State tried four counts of rape of a child (victim under 13); jury convicted Curtis on all counts. Trial counsel chose not to object when the State used specific, leading questions to limit the victim from volunteering uncharged acts.
At trial the victim described post-abuse adult relationship with the defendant as “a very husband and wife kind of relationship.” No contemporaneous objection was made to that testimony, nor to the State’s leading questions about dates.
Defendant moved for a new trial raising (1) insufficiency of the evidence (victim’s age at time of acts and use of leading questions) and (2) denial of fair trial from victim’s remark and alleged Rule 404(b) prior-bad-acts testimony; motion denied and convictions affirmed on appeal.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence that victim was under 13 and penetration occurred	Victim’s testimony plus defendant’s admissions on recorded call and corroborating details permit a rational juror to find elements beyond a reasonable doubt	Victim’s age proof was only from leading questions and thus unreliable; State improperly used leading questions	Affirmed — viewing evidence in light most favorable to State, evidence (victim testimony + recorded call) was sufficient; defendant waived contemporaneous objection to leading questions and tactical waiver defeats plain-error review
Alleged unfair prejudice from victim saying relationship was “very husband and wife” and 404(b) claim	Testimony was relevant to explain victim’s continued contact with defendant; no objection preserved; even if error, not plain error or outcome-determinative	Statement implied other uncharged rapes and constituted improper prior-bad-acts evidence under Rule 404(b)	Affirmed — no plain error: remark was brief, relevant, not shown to have affected outcome; defendant failed to request required 404(b) hearing so appellate plain-error relief not warranted

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard under due process)
State v. Elkins, 102 S.W.3d 578 (Tenn. 2003) (appellate review gives State strongest legitimate view of evidence)
State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274 (Tenn. 2000) (plain-error factors for appellate review)
State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997) (credibility and weight of evidence are for the jury)