State of Tennessee v. Roger Knoblock

Citation: Not availableDocket: E2004-01961-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; August 16, 2005; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Roger Knoblock was convicted of aggravated sexual battery against a minor after a jury trial in Knox County. On appeal, he contended that the trial court incorrectly permitted the introduction of his prior aggravated sexual battery conviction during his cross-examination. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, allowing the use of the prior conviction. The indictment charged Knoblock with unlawfully and intentionally having sexual contact with a child under thirteen. Prior to the trial, the State notified the court of its intention to use the prior conviction, and although Knoblock sought to exclude it, the court indicated it would allow inquiry into the conviction if he testified. During the trial, the victim, A.M., recounted incidents of sexual contact with Knoblock, detailing how he introduced her to a game called "truth or dare," during which he touched her inappropriately. A.M. stated that Knoblock would ask to touch her breasts and did so under her clothing, further describing the nature of the contact.

Defendant exposed himself to the victim while they were playing in his garage, which the victim described as empty. The victim testified about inappropriate physical contact initiated by Defendant, including patting or rubbing her thighs, which persisted despite her requests for him to stop. On occasions, Defendant would wear only boxers, leading to further exposure. During one incident, he suggested showering together, which the victim declined. An investigator, Chris Line, reported that Defendant admitted to touching the victim in various contexts, including an instance where he unintentionally went without underwear while they were at the kitchen table. He characterized his actions as playful and did not perceive them as inappropriate. The victim's account included multiple offenses that fell within the indictment's timeframe, prompting the State to select the incident in the garage for jury consideration. The court ruled against admitting Defendant's prior record under Rule 609 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence due to potential prejudice. The court also denied Defendant's motion for acquittal. Defendant's wife testified in his defense, describing him positively and noting her limited knowledge of the charges against him.

Defendant was the final witness at trial, testifying that he never touched A.M. inappropriately or exposed himself to her. He described his garage as cluttered, limiting movement, and stated the only time A.M. might have seen him in a compromising state was when he wore a robe while preparing for a shower, with A.M. crawling under the table while he spoke to her sister. He admitted to playfully smacking A.M. on the buttocks and touching her breasts once while helping her down from a tree, which he claimed was inadvertent and for which he apologized. He denied any inappropriate touching or sexual intent, citing impotence due to heart problems for four years. 

Before cross-examination, the State sought to question Defendant about a past conviction for aggravated sexual battery under Rule 404(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence. The court deliberated on the prejudicial impact versus the relevance to motive and intent raised by Defendant's testimony. Ultimately, the court allowed limited questioning about the prior conviction, acknowledging its potential prejudicial effect but recognizing its probative value regarding the issues raised in the trial.

Defendant admitted during cross-examination to teaching the victim how to play truth or dare and acknowledged they played together a few times, although he could not recall specific questions. He also admitted to "patting" the victim's thigh and confirmed a prior conviction for aggravated sexual battery involving a minor under thirteen. He received a twelve-year sentence and subsequently filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. On appeal, Defendant contended that the trial court improperly allowed evidence of his prior conviction. The State argued for dismissal of the appeal as untimely, noting Defendant's notice was filed after the thirty-day limit. However, in the interest of justice, the court considered the merits of the appeal.

The trial court had admitted the prior conviction under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b), which permits evidence of other crimes for purposes other than character conformity, provided a jury-out hearing is conducted. The court found that Defendant’s intent was a material issue and ruled that the prior conviction was relevant to prove intent and motive related to the touching incident. The trial court concluded that the probative value of the conviction outweighed any prejudicial effect. The appellate review standard is whether the trial court abused its discretion, with an abuse found only if an incorrect legal standard was applied or if the decision was illogical. The appellate court agreed with the trial court's ruling, affirming that Defendant's intent was a contested issue, thus justifying the admission of the prior conviction.

The culpable mental state required for aggravated sexual battery is intent, as established in Ruff v. State. To convict for aggravated sexual battery, the State must demonstrate that the defendant intentionally touched the victim's intimate parts for sexual gratification, per Tenn. Code Ann. 39-13-501, 504. In this case, the victim testified that the defendant prompted her to allow him to touch her breasts, which he did under her shirt. The defendant claimed his touching was inadvertent while assisting her and denied any sexual intent. He acknowledged teaching the victim the game "truth or dare" but insisted it was innocent.

Rule 404(b) prevents evidence of prior bad acts to avoid bias against the defendant based on character rather than evidence strength, with heightened risk when prior acts are similar to the current charges. However, the court found that the prejudicial impact of the defendant's prior conviction for aggravated sexual battery did not outweigh its relevance, particularly since the trial court restricted its mention during closing arguments.

The defendant argued that the trial court neglected to instruct the jury on the limited use of his prior conviction. However, he did not request this instruction during the trial or object to its omission, failing to preserve the issue for appeal. Therefore, the court treated the issue as waived. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.