State of Tennessee v. Fred Chad Clark, II, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 913

Background

Father (Fred Chad Clark II) was tried for sexual abuse of his two daughters after recorded conversations with his wife in which he admitted digitally penetrating the children; he was convicted of seven counts of rape of a child and two counts of aggravated sexual battery (later reduced on appeal to five upheld convictions).
Investigators organized controlled, recorded calls and a monitored face-to-face meeting between Clark and his wife; police arrested Clark after the in-person conversation and later obtained a retraction during a formal interrogation.
The daughters testified at trial briefly that their father touched their "private" parts; prior statements to others were used as prior consistent statements for impeachment, not substantive proof.
Defense presented an expert (Dr. James Walker) to testify Clark had high interrogative suggestibility and was dominated by his wife; the State sought to introduce evidence Clark viewed adult pornography to rebut the submissiveness theory.
Trial court admitted the recorded confessions and allowed pornography evidence (with a limiting instruction); Clark was convicted and sentenced to an effective 34 years.
On appeal the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed in part and reversed four rape counts for election problems; the Tennessee Supreme Court granted review on voluntariness, corroboration, pornography evidence admissibility, and mens rea jury instructions.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Clark's Argument	Held
Sufficiency/corroboration of confession	Children’s in-court testimony corroborated key details and provided prima facie proof injury occurred; confession thus corroborated under the modified trustworthiness standard	Confession alone cannot support conviction; State failed to provide sufficient independent corroboration	Affirmed: children’s testimony satisfied the modified trustworthiness rule (State v. Bishop) and corroborated the confession for the upheld convictions
Suppression/voluntariness of recorded conversations	Wife’s cooperation with police did not transform her into a state agent for Fifth Amendment purposes in a way that bars voluntary statements; totality shows confession voluntary	Wife was acting as an instrument of the State and used coercion/false promises to overbear Clark’s will; statements therefore involuntary	Affirmed: trial court’s factual findings supported voluntariness; misplaced trust doctrine applies (per State v. Sanders) and confession admissible
Admissibility of adult pornography evidence	Evidence was probative to rebut defense expert’s portrayal of Clark as submissive; limiting instruction would prevent propensity misuse	Evidence was impermissible 404(b)/propensity evidence and unduly prejudicial, especially in child-sex case; its admission during State’s case-in-chief was reversible error	Error to admit pornography evidence and to instruct jury to use it for credibility; but error was harmless under Tenn. R. App. P. 36(b) given the detailed confession and other evidence
Mens rea jury instruction (recklessness) for rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery	Pattern instruction (intentional, knowing, or reckless) was proper under the generic mens rea statute; recklessness can apply to elements as framed	Allowing recklessness risks lowering State’s burden for these sex offenses	For rape of a child: upheld — recklessness, knowing, or intentional suffice. For aggravated sexual battery: clarified that "sexual contact" requires intentional touching for sexual arousal/gratification (per statute), but any error in instruction was harmless here

Key Cases Cited

State v. Bishop, 431 S.W.3d 22 (Tenn. 2014) (clarifies Tennessee’s modified trustworthiness corroboration standard for confessions)
State v. Rodriguez, 254 S.W.3d 361 (Tenn. 2008) (warnings about admitting pornography/propensity evidence in child sex prosecutions; harmful-error analysis)
State v. Sanders, S.W.3d (Tenn. 2014) (companion case addressing misplaced trust and Fifth Amendment protections where private actor cooperates with police)
State v. Hawkins, 406 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. 2013) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence in criminal appeals)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (circumstantial evidence sufficiency principles)
United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1971) (misplaced-trust principle: no constitutional protection for voluntary disclosures to a confidant)