State of Tennessee v. William "Bill" Bosley, Jr.

Citation: Not availableDocket: W2009-00783-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; May 27, 2010; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

William “Bill” Bosley, Jr. was convicted of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and sentenced to twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. He appealed the conviction on three grounds: (1) insufficient evidence to support the conviction; (2) the trial court's denial of a new trial motion based on alleged withholding of evidence by the State, violating Brady v. Maryland; and (3) the trial court's failure to consider a change of venue. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment but remanded for entry of a corrected judgment.

The case stemmed from a March 2008 indictment for the rape of a child, involving the defendant's grand-niece, E.L., who was five at the time of the incident in December 2007. During the trial, E.L. testified that Bosley engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct while she and her sister, L.L., were at his house. L.L. corroborated E.L.'s account, describing witnessing Bosley inappropriately touching E.L. and attempting to show them a "dirty movie." The girls reported the incident to their mother, Melissa Lowery, who subsequently notified the police and sought medical attention for the victim. The trial included testimonies from both sisters, their mother, and a family nurse practitioner who examined E.L. following the allegations.

The physical examination conducted revealed both corroborative and contradictory findings regarding the victim's claims of sexual touching. Fourteen-year-old Kirsten Mattner testified that she and her mother, Debbie Burgess, lived in the defendant’s home and that she was in her bedroom with the door open during the alleged incident. On the morning of the incident, Mattner reported playing with toys and dogs while watching cartoons, asserting she did not hear anything inappropriate and did not recall any negative event occurring. She noted that her mother was present and left approximately fifteen minutes before the defendant, who also went to the veterinarian. During cross-examination, Mattner acknowledged her earlier police statement indicated that she and others had run errands and returned after she woke up. On redirect, she clarified she awoke at 10:00 a.m. but stayed in bed until noon.

Debbie Burgess testified that she observed no unusual behavior that day, believing it impossible for the victim's allegations to be true since Mattner was in the house while she was away. She noted the girls did not behave as if anything wrong had happened. Rebecca Washburn, the defendant's sister, recounted a conversation with the victim's mother, who indicated she was leaving her husband due to concerns about his and his brother’s behavior towards the girls. Esther Bosley, the defendant’s mother, mentioned that the victim’s mother had expressed a desire to stay with her during a planned trip to Texas.

Ultimately, the jury convicted the defendant of aggravated sexual battery. The defendant contested the sufficiency of the evidence, and the standard applied for review is whether any rational trier of fact could find the crime's essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt when evidence is viewed favorably for the prosecution. The court emphasized that any credibility determinations and evidentiary weight are resolved by the trier of fact, and a jury's guilty verdict, supported by the trial judge, credits the State's witnesses and favors the State's theory.

In State v. Grace, the Tennessee Supreme Court emphasized the importance of live witness testimony in assessing credibility and weight, noting that trial judges and juries have the unique ability to observe witnesses directly. A jury conviction shifts the burden to the defendant to prove insufficient evidence on appeal. Under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-504, aggravated sexual battery can occur under various circumstances, including when the victim is under thirteen years old. The defendant claimed insufficient evidence regarding force or coercion; however, the victim, a six-year-old at the time of trial, satisfied the statutory criteria for aggravated sexual battery. Testimonies from the victim and her sister detailed inappropriate actions by the defendant, with the jury finding them credible despite rigorous cross-examination. 

Additionally, the defendant raised a Brady violation, asserting that the prosecution failed to provide a videotaped interview of the victim, which he argued could indicate potential 'victim' coaching. He contended that the prosecution's suppression of favorable evidence constituted a due process violation, referencing Brady v. Maryland, which protects against the withholding of material evidence that could impact guilt or sentencing.

To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must demonstrate that: (1) they requested the information, (2) the State suppressed it, (3) the information was favorable to the defense, and (4) the information was material, meaning there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have changed had it been disclosed. The burden of proof lies with the defendant, requiring a preponderance of the evidence. In the current case, there is no record of any discovery request or evidence of a videotape being made or requested. The defendant's claim of withheld evidence was first mentioned in a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied, but the hearing transcript is absent from the record. Consequently, the defendant has not met the burden of proving a Brady violation.

Additionally, the defendant contends that the trial court failed to address the need for a change of venue due to pretrial publicity, specifically citing a newspaper article that detailed the accusations against him. Under Tennessee law, a change of venue may be granted if undue excitement against the defendant could prevent a fair trial. The decision to grant such a motion is at the trial court's discretion and can only be reversed on appeal with clear evidence of abuse of that discretion. Merely being exposed to pretrial publicity is insufficient for a venue change; the defendant must show actual bias among the jurors. The defendant did not raise the issue of publicity during the trial, with the first mention occurring in the motion for new trial, which lacks a transcript in the record. The defendant must prove juror bias on appeal, which he has not done, as evidenced by the lack of affirmative responses from potential jurors regarding familiarity with the case during voir dire.

Potential jurors' awareness of case publicity is crucial for determining the actual jurors' potential bias; without evidence of awareness, the defendant's claim is unsubstantiated. The defendant also contends he did not receive a fair trial in Hardin County due to threats against two witnesses by the victim's family, but this claim, first raised in a motion for a new trial, lacks supporting evidence as no proof was presented in court. Furthermore, the relevance of a venue change regarding the alleged threats is unclear. Consequently, the defendant is not entitled to relief on these matters. The court affirms the trial court's judgment but notes an error in the statute citation for aggravated sexual battery, ordering a remand for correction to reflect the proper statute, Tenn. Code Ann. 39-13-504.