State of Tennessee v. Prentis Lee, W2015-01538-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Victim awoke on a living-room floor after drinking and sleeping at defendant Prentis Lee’s home and felt a man having sexual intercourse with her; she later identified the attacker by tactile features (facial and navel hair) and by seeing Lee naked in bed shortly after.
Lee and others (victim’s boyfriend McGowan, brother Nicholas Lee, and girlfriend Banks) had been at parties; Lee sent McGowan and Banks to a store shortly before the assault; a used condom wrapper was found in the residence.
Lee gave a recorded police statement admitting sexual intercourse but insisting it was consensual and that he flushed the condom; he refused to sign the typed statement after learning he would be arrested. The written Miranda waiver was missing from the file.
At trial the jury acquitted on one forcible-rape count but convicted Lee of rape without consent and rape of a physically helpless person (merged), and the court sentenced him to 10 years at 100% confinement.
On appeal Lee raised multiple claims: suppression of his statement, missing preliminary-hearing record, insufficiency of identity evidence, limits on cross-examination, admission of victim-impact evidence, use of rebuttal witnesses who had remained in court, failure to instruct assault as a lesser-included offense, sentencing, and cumulative error. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Lee)	Held
Suppression of statement (Miranda/voluntariness)	Officers properly advised rights and obtained waiver; statement admissible	Lee said he was not advised of rights, did not knowingly waive, and his statement was involuntary	Trial court credited officers; statement was admissible and voluntary; denial of suppression affirmed
Missing preliminary-hearing recording (Rule 5.1)	Defendant failed to timely move for a new preliminary hearing; waived relief	Recording unavailable; dismissal or new preliminary hearing required	Motion untimely (did not move within 60 days of arraignment); no relief
Sufficiency as to identity	Circumstantial and direct evidence (tactile ID, condom, timing, Lee alone awake, his statement) supports conviction	Without his statement, identity was not proven beyond reasonable doubt	Evidence sufficient; convictions affirmed
Limitation of cross-examination & victim-impact evidence	Exclusions were within discretion; victim-impact rebutted defense motive theory	Exclusion impaired ability to show motive and bias; victim-impact was improper	Trial court did not abuse discretion; victim-impact testimony admissible to rebut defense
Rebuttal witnesses who remained in courtroom (Rule 615)	State had genuine surprise and need; limited sequestration applied; error harmless if any	Rule 615 violated because unsequestered witnesses heard prior testimony	Court found genuine surprise and need; victim’s presence permitted by constitutional victim-rights; any error was harmless
Lesser-included-offense instruction (assault)	Jury instructed on sexual-battery lesser offenses; assault not required	Failure to instruct assault was error	Even if error, harmless because jury convicted of greater offense (rape) and rejected intermediate lesser-included (sexual battery)
Sentencing (enhancement application)	Court applied proper factors; within-range sentence supported by record	Trial court misapplied victim-vulnerability enhancement leading to excessive sentence	Sentencing affirmed; court did not apply §40-35-114(4) as enhancement and reasons for confinement were supported
Cumulative error	No cumulative prejudicial errors to warrant reversal	Claimed aggregated errors denied fair trial	No cumulative-error relief; convictions affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation warnings and waiver requirement)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000) (distinction between Miranda waiver and voluntariness analysis)
Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (1986) (knowing and intelligent waiver standard under totality of circumstances)
State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999) (test for lesser-included offenses)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (appellate review of within-range sentencing and abuse-of-discretion standard)
State v. Freeland, 451 S.W.3d 791 (Tenn. 2014) (State’s burden to prove Miranda waiver by preponderance)
State v. Climer, 400 S.W.3d 537 (Tenn. 2013) (totality of circumstances for waiver and voluntariness)
State v. Huddleston, 924 S.W.2d 666 (Tenn. 1996) (factors for voluntariness of confession)