State of Tennessee v. Joseph Nathaniel Nance, 393 S.W.3d 212

Defendant Joseph Nathaniel Nance was convicted of six counts of rape of a child and one count of aggravated sexual battery, with a total effective sentence of 64 years after consecutive service.
Victim M.L., age 12 at trial, testified to multiple rapes and sexual assaults by Nance between November 2007 and May 2008 in various locations of the mobile home.
Defense challenged admissibility of evidence under Rule 412, including victim’s MySpace entries and extrinsic evidence of prior sexual abuse; medical and factual testimony about injuries were contested.
The trial court denied a judgment of acquittal and the State presented medical testimony and other corroborating evidence; on appeal, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
The Tennessee Court addressed Rule 412 admissibility and plain error review, evidentiary sufficiency, and sentencing, ultimately upholding convictions and the 64-year term.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rule 412 admissibility of MySpace entries	Nance	Nance sought admission to explain credibility and knowledge of sexual matters	Entries under Rule 412(c) were improperly excluded; however, error was harmless under Rule 412(d) analysis
Prior sexual history evidence for impeachment	State	Defense sought extrinsic proof of prior abuse to impeach credibility	Court properly limited extrinsic evidence; no plain error found; no Confrontation Clause violation
Sufficiency of the evidence	State	Discrepancies in victim’s testimony undermine credibility	Evidence sufficient; jury credited victim’s testimony to support six counts of rape of a child and one count of aggravated sexual battery
Consecutive sentencing and dangerous offender finding	State	Challenge to consecutive sentences and Wilkerson factors; excessive 64-year term	Consecutive sentencing affirmed; trial court did not err; no Wilkerson dangerous offender determination required; sentence within statutory and discretionary bounds

State v. Brown, 29 S.W.3d 427 (Tenn. 2000) (Rule 412 and relevance considerations in sexual behavior)
State v. Sheline, 955 S.W.2d 42 (Tenn. 1997) (Rule 412 abuse of discretion standard for sexual-behavior evidence)
State v. Davenport, 2008 WL 2368931 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008) ( cited for prior abuse testimony; WL citation not used here due to lack of official reporter)
State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274 (Tenn. 2000) (plain error review and admissibility standards)
State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995) (Dangerous offender standard discussion in Wilkerson factors)
State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008) (sentencing guidance post-2005 amendments; de novo review principles)
State v. Imfeld, 70 S.W.3d 698 (Tenn. 2002) (sentencing discretion and factor consideration)
State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274 (Tenn. 2000) (previously cited for plain error framework)
State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997) (enhancement factors and sentencing scope)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (Confrontation Clause cross-examination standard)