State of Tennessee v. William "Bill" Douglas Farr, Sr.

Citation: Not availableDocket: M2016-01216-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; September 26, 2017; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

William “Bill” Douglas Farr, Sr. was convicted of child rape, a Class A felony, and sentenced to forty years in prison. On appeal, he raised several issues: 1) alleged prosecutorial misconduct for vouching for a witness's credibility and labeling him a “monster” during closing arguments; 2) the trial court's failure to provide jury instructions on specific unanimity and election of offenses; 3) insufficient evidence to support his conviction; and 4) incorrect application of law in determining his sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to twenty-five years, remanding for an amended judgment.

The indictment against Farr involved allegations of sexual penetration of his two granddaughters between July 2011 and August 2012, with one count being nolle prosequied before trial. The trial focused on the ten-year-old victim's testimony, detailing instances of sexual abuse, including inappropriate touching and acts of penetration. The victim described how her grandfather would touch her and engage in sexual acts, noting specific incidents that occurred when she was dropped off at his house. Her testimony indicated a clear understanding of boundaries regarding her body and detailed the nature of the abuse over several occasions.

During cross-examination, the victim testified that the Defendant engaged in inappropriate touching on multiple occasions, specifically using his tongue on her private area, but did not penetrate. On redirect, she expressed a misunderstanding about female anatomy. Criminal investigator Amy Moore detailed her involvement after being alerted by the Department of Children’s Services about the allegations against the Defendant. She conducted a forensic interview with the victim and her sister and later tried to contact the Defendant, eventually meeting him on June 23, 2014, at the sheriff’s office. The Defendant, after being informed of his rights, expressed disbelief that his daughter did not approach him first regarding the allegations. He claimed there was more to the situation but declined to provide details. He suggested that the victim and her sister had inappropriate knowledge about sex, hinting that someone else might have influenced them. Despite being pressed, he refused to admit to any wrongdoing. The Defendant characterized his relationship with the girls as affectionate and hinted at undisclosed influences on their behavior. He expressed a desire to discuss matters privately with his daughter before cooperating further with investigators. Subsequently, the victim’s mother, who had lived with the Defendant while her family settled in Tennessee, testified about their living arrangements during that period when the Defendant babysat her children.

The victim's mother reported concerns about inappropriate behavior between the Defendant and her daughters to investigators, who recorded a subsequent phone call with the Defendant. During the call, the Defendant claimed that the girls had initiated sexual interactions, stating they asked him to watch TV in the bedroom and encouraged him to remove his shorts. He described the incidents, suggesting he was curious about the girls' knowledge of sexual behavior and claimed to have been passive, stating he wanted to see how much they knew. The victim's mother confronted him about his role as the adult and expressed outrage over his actions. The Defendant deflected responsibility by suggesting the girls' stepbrother might have influenced their behavior and accused the victim’s older sister of being the instigator.

When asked about specific incidents, the Defendant admitted to bathing with the girls but insisted nothing inappropriate occurred. He recalled an instance where the victim attempted to engage him sexually but claimed he could not become aroused. He laughed while recounting this, which the victim's mother found troubling. The Defendant attributed the girls' knowledge to external influences, claiming he was trying to understand their behaviors rather than abusing them. He maintained that he did not touch them inappropriately and denied any further misconduct, insisting that he was the victim of their actions. Throughout the conversation, he repeatedly downplayed the severity of the situation and attempted to shift blame, stating he was not abusing the girls but rather they were "abusing" him.

Erica Prince from the Department of Children’s Services outlined the investigative process for child abuse or neglect allegations, noting her observation of the victim's interview regarding sexual abuse, which was followed by a medical examination. The Defendant alleges prosecutorial misconduct, claiming the State improperly vouched for the victim's credibility and referred to the Defendant as a "monster" during closing arguments. The Defendant seeks relief under the plain error doctrine, which requires establishing five specific factors related to the trial's conduct and its impact on the Defendant's rights. These factors include a clear record of events, a breach of law, adverse effect on a substantial right, lack of tactical waiver, and necessity for error consideration to ensure justice.

Prosecutorial misconduct typically arises from misrepresentation of evidence, personal opinions on guilt, inflammatory arguments, deviation from the case's facts, or referencing outside facts. Tennessee courts allow latitude in closing arguments but require them to be evidence-based and relevant. For a new trial due to improper remarks, it must be shown that the comments prejudiced the jury's verdict, assessed through various factors including context, curative measures, intent, cumulative errors, and case strength. The Defendant specifically criticizes the State for vouching for the victim's credibility and appealing to juror sympathy, citing comments about the victim's bravery in testifying and the call to convict to protect the victim.

The victim's testimony sufficiently established the offense's elements, and the Defendant's recorded admissions of sexual misconduct supported the victim's claims. The State's comments praising the victim's bravery did not adversely affect the Defendant's rights or the verdict. Although the State referred to the Defendant as a "monster" multiple times during closing arguments, this language did not impact the outcome, despite the court not endorsing it. 

The Defendant claimed the trial court erred by not providing specific jury instructions on unanimity and the election of the offense. He acknowledged that relief would only be granted under the plain error doctrine, requiring the record to demonstrate five specific factors. The State elected to proceed on the charge of rape of a child based on a specific incident described by the victim. The trial court provided a unanimity instruction, emphasizing that a unanimous agreement was necessary for a verdict, and clarified the process for deliberation and decision-making regarding the charges. The court reiterated the State's election concerning the offense that the jury was to consider based on testimony.

The victim described an incident involving the Defendant, where he allegedly sat on her face and licked her privates in his bedroom in St. Joseph, Tennessee. The trial court instructed the jury to consider only this specific incident. The Defendant argued that the jury instructions were inadequate because they did not follow the Tennessee Pattern Jury Instruction on jury unanimity in election cases. Tennessee law requires that defendants receive a correct and complete charge of the law, ensuring that all factual issues are presented to the jury properly. Although the trial court is expected to provide a comprehensive legal charge, it is not obligated to use specific pattern instructions as long as the law is adequately conveyed. Instructions are deemed prejudicially erroneous only if they do not fairly submit legal issues or mislead the jury. The trial court emphasized the necessity for a unanimous verdict based on the specific incident described.

The Defendant also contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, specifically challenging the element of penetration. The reviewing court must determine if, viewing the evidence favorably towards the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential crime elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence is insufficient, findings of guilt may be overturned. Credibility of witnesses and the weight of evidence are determined by the trier of fact, and a guilty verdict implies endorsement of the prosecution's testimony and resolution of conflicts in favor of the State's theory. The Defendant did not demonstrate a violation of a clear legal standard or that his substantial rights were compromised.

The Tennessee Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the trial judge and jury in assessing witness credibility and the weight of testimony, as they experience the trial's human atmosphere, which cannot be replicated in written form. A jury conviction shifts the presumption of innocence to one of guilt, placing the burden on the defendant to prove insufficiency of evidence on appeal. Rape of a child, as defined under Tennessee law, involves unlawful sexual penetration of a victim aged over three but under thirteen. The definition of sexual penetration includes various forms of intrusion, but does not require emission of semen. The defendant contested that the State did not prove he performed cunnilingus; however, case law clarified that cunnilingus does not necessitate vaginal penetration. The victim's testimony confirmed that the defendant licked her while she was positioned on him, which a rational jury could interpret as sufficient to establish guilt. Regarding sentencing, the defendant argued that the court improperly applied a 2011 amendment to the law, as he claimed the offense occurred before the new law took effect. The 2012 statute specifies that rape of a child is a Class A felony with defined sentencing ranges, differing from the previous law which mandated a minimum sentence of twenty-five years. The 2010 version of the statute indicated the punishment range for this crime was fifteen to sixty years.

The statute allows for higher sentencing ranges for multiple or persistent offenders, permitting sentences above the twenty-five-year minimum for each conviction if warranted. For a Range I offender convicted of a Class A felony, the maximum sentence is set at twenty-five years. In this case, the trial court initially indicated a range of fifteen to twenty-five years but later accepted the State's argument that the applicable range was twenty-five to forty years based on statute requirements. The Defendant contested the application of the 2012 law, arguing that the State failed to prove the offense occurred after January 1, 2012, noting evidence only established that the offense happened between July 2011 and July 2012. The court found that, despite defense counsel’s concession regarding the appropriate range, there was insufficient evidence to confirm that the offense occurred after the statutory amendment. Consequently, the court determined that the trial court incorrectly applied the 2012 sentencing provisions, modifying the Defendant's sentence to the twenty-five years mandated by the pre-2012 law, while affirming the conviction and remanding for amended judgment entry.