State of Tennessee v. Travis Smith, W2015-02360-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Defendant Travis Smith, cousin of the victim’s mother, lived intermittently in the victim’s home May–Oct 2010; victim was 8–9 years old then.
Victim testified Smith woke her three times at night during that residency: first instance was kissing/rubbing; second she testified he undressed her in the bathroom, held up her leg, and penetrated her (bathroom rape); third was a living-room rape (she later could not recall couch vs. floor).
Victim disclosed in April–May 2011 after an incident at a family event; forensic interview and hospital exam followed; no physical injury or DNA due to delay.
Smith was indicted for rape of a child (timeframe amended to May 15–Oct 17, 2010). At close of State’s proof, State elected the bathroom-floor rape as the charged act; jury convicted; sentence 25 years.
On appeal Smith challenged sufficiency, admission/exclusion rulings (indecent-exposure event outside courtroom; evidence about uncle McDowell; 2011 events), adequacy of bill of particulars/election timing/jury instruction, admissibility of CAC video (forensic interview), and alleged Brady violation for nondisclosure of his cellphone; the court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Smith)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence	Victim’s testimony (corroborated in parts by family testimony, bedwetting history, behavior at hospital) suffices to prove rape of a child beyond reasonable doubt	No physical/DNA evidence and alleged lack of corroboration render conviction unsupported	Affirmed; child’s uncorroborated testimony alone can support conviction; additional corroboration existed; evidence viewed in State’s favor
Admission of victim’s account of indecent exposure outside courtroom	Irrelevant to charged 2010 offenses; no indication victim lied about it	Needed to impeach/attack victim’s credibility and make record; should be allowed for confrontation/credibility	Excluded as irrelevant; trial court did not abuse discretion; Confrontation Clause claim waived for insufficient appellate briefing
Admission of other persons’ crimes (McDowell) / 2011 events	Several 2011 events relevant to circumstances of disclosure; testimony largely admissible; not Rule 404(b) bad-acts evidence	Evidence of uncle’s prior sexual crime and other 2011 events should be excluded as irrelevant or as improper 404(b) evidence	Evidence about McDowell’s unrelated crime properly excluded as irrelevant; 2011 disclosure events relevant to why victim delayed reporting and admissible; 404(b) objections waived or inapplicable
Election timing and jury unanimity instruction	State may elect at close of its case-in-chief; election was specific (bathroom-floor incident) so standard instructions suffice	Election should have been earlier; victim’s generic memory required a modified-unanimity instruction per Qualls	No error: election at close of State’s proof is proper; evidence described distinct incidents (non-generic), so modified-unanimity instruction not required
Admission of forensic interview video	Video admissible under Tenn. Code §24-7-123 when statutory requirements met; victim available for cross	Should have been admitted only as prior consistent statement after impeachment	Admitted properly under the statute; trial court’s pretrial findings satisfied statutory trustworthiness and availability
Brady claim re: cellphone/photographs	No evidence State possessed or suppressed phone; defendant failed to show materiality or prejudice	Prosecution withheld cellphone (exculpatory) that would show no photos, undermining State’s account	No Brady violation proved: no preponderant proof phone was in State’s possession; even if phone existed absence of photos not clearly material; defendant did not pursue available steps to obtain phone

Key Cases Cited

State v. Qualls, 482 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2016) (modified-unanimity rule applies to "generic" repeated-abuse testimony)
State v. Knowles, 470 S.W.3d 416 (Tenn. 2015) (State must elect particular offense at close of its case-in-chief when indictment covers multiple incidents)
State v. Shelton, 851 S.W.2d 134 (Tenn. 1993) (State may identify an incident by unique circumstances when victim cannot give exact dates)
State v. Herron, 461 S.W.3d 890 (Tenn. 2015) (limits on admitting prior statements note statutory distinctions for forensic-interview evidence)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (suppression of materially exculpatory evidence violates due process)