State of Tennessee v. Sean Kirk Wagner

07/06/2026 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE February 18, 2026 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. SEAN KIRK WAGNER Appeal from the Circuit Court for Anderson County No. C2C00635 Hector Sanchez, Judge ___________________________________ No. E2025-00637-CCA-R3-CD ___________________________________ An Anderson County jury convicted the Defendant, Sean Kirk Wagner, of sexual battery by an authority figure, a Class C felony, and the trial court sentenced him to four years, 364 days of which were to be served at 100% in the county jail and the balance to be suspended and served on supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) when the trial court instructed the jury on sexual battery by an authority figure as a lesser-included offense to Count 1, rape, it constructively amended the indictment; (2) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; (3) the State improperly failed to elect specific facts to support his conviction; (4) the trial court erred when it allowed the State to elicit testimony that the Defendant had referred to the victim and her friends as “sluts”; and (5) the trial court erred when it did not allow the results of his polygraph test to be admitted into evidence. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J. ROSS DYER and JILL BARTEE AYERS, JJ., joined. Donald A. Bosch, Ann C. Short, and David Eldridge, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Sean Kirk Wagner. Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; James E. Gaylord, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and David S. Clark, District Attorney General; Ryan P. Dugan, Brian Gilliam and Emily Abbott, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. OPINION I. Facts  This case arises from allegations that the Defendant digitally penetrated his fifteen- year-old stepdaughter on September 19, 2021. With regard to these allegations, an Anderson County grand jury indicted him for Count 1 rape, a Class B felony, Count 2 incest, a Class C felony, and Count 3 sexual battery by an authority figure, a Class C felony. A. Pretrial 1. Polygraph Examination The Defendant filed a motion to introduce the results of a polygraph examination. At a hearing on the motion, he presented Richard Qulia who performed the polygraph examination. Mr. Qulia, who had retired from the FBI in 2004, testified about his credentials and license as a polygraph examiner. He discussed the psychophysiology of such an exam and said that he had performed approximately 3,000 during the course of his career. Mr. Quila discussed the fourteen polygraph protocols that can be used in the United States and the equipment he used to conduct the testing. The parties stipulated that Mr. Qulia was an expert in polygraphs, but the State did not concede that polygraphs were an accurate measure of whether someone was telling the truth. Mr. Quila said he conducted a polygraph on the Defendant regarding the topic of sexual contact and sexual penetration of the Defendant’s stepdaughter. The result indicated “no deception” in the Defendant’s responses. That meant that there was “no significant consistent physiological changes . . . seen at the relevant questions throughout” the examination. Further, when asked about sexual contact with his stepdaughter, the Defendant indicated that there had been none. During cross-examination, Mr. Quila testified that he had never testified in front of a jury. He said that his interview with the Defendant was not video recorded. Mr. Quila agreed that the Defendant arranged and paid for the polygraph test. Mr. Quila agreed that polygraph tests are not 100% accurate but said that the failure rate in clinical studies is 2%. Upon questioning from the judge, Mr. Quila explained that this statistic meant that in 2% of cases, a person passed a polygraph test, and the result was later determined to be conclusively false. The trial court denied the Defendant’s motion to introduce the polygraph examinations, finding that it was unreliable and citing several Tennessee Supreme Court decisions. The trial court noted that polygraph results could not be used to incriminate or exculpate a defendant because the results were not reliable and were unduly persuasive. 2 Ultimately, the trial court agreed with the State that “[I]t’s well established in Tennessee that the polygraph tests are not reliable, not relevant, not admissible and even if they were, there would be a tremendous risk that they would be unduly persuasive.” 2. Other Pretrial Motions The trial court held a hearing wherein the parties discussed lesser-included offenses, the State’s proposed notice of impeachment material, and the Defendant’s motion to exclude eleven Snapchat videos. The Defendant does not appeal the trial court’s decision regarding the Snapchat videos, so we will limit our recount of the facts to only those relevant to the lesser-included offense discussion and the impeachment material, i.e. the State’s introduction of evidence that the Defendant referred to the victim and her friends as “sluts.” The victim testified that she was eighteen years old at the time of the hearing and fifteen at the time that the allegations in this case occurred. The Defendant was her stepfather at the time that she alleged that he inappropriately touched her as she was sleeping on the couch because she was sick. Immediately after the inappropriate touching, the victim went into her room, shut and locked the door, and texted her mother to come into her room. When her mother came, the victim told her what had happened. Her mother left and went to speak to the Defendant, who then came into her room and apologized repeatedly saying he did not mean to do it. The victim was sitting on her bed at the time, and she had next to her a human-sized teddy bear. Because the Defendant kept saying sorry repeatedly, for hours, she decided to record him to show her friends how he was acting. She never thought of the videos as having evidentiary value, she simply intended to show her two best friends how the Defendant was acting. She said the Defendant was saying “outlandish stuff that was completely against . . . what he [had] just [done].” She recorded the videos because she thought her friends, who also knew her stepfather, would want to hear what he was saying. The videos recorded events within hours of the alleged rape. She took eleven, one-minute videos. The videos were then played sequentially for the trial court. During cross-examination, the victim testified that she believed that the alleged rape occurred around 3:30 a.m. because the Defendant got home from work around 3:00 a.m. The victim was then asked by the State about statements that the Defendant made that were sexual in nature towards the victim and her friends. When her friends were hanging out at the house, the Defendant would come in and say, “Hey, sluts.” The victim said that he called them “sluts all the time” and that she and her friends would “kind of laugh it off.” She said, looking back, she found the behavior “weird,” and she and her 3 friends always found his behavior weird. He “just always said weird things to us.” The Defendant’s behavior was witnessed by the victim, her friends, her sister, and her mother. The victim recalled that she was in eighth grade when the Defendant and her mother married, and the inappropriate touching occurred two years later. During cross-examination, the victim agreed that she and her friends never asked the Defendant not to call them “sluts.” The victim recalled that the Defendant had inappropriately touched her one other time in sixth grade. She was in her bed, and her mother was in bed with her because she was scared to sleep by herself. The Defendant came in and got into bed with her and her mother, on the other side of her mother. The Defendant began giving her mother a “massage or something,” and he reached over and touched her buttocks. The victim said that the touch was sexual in nature. The victim said she told her sister about the touching, and her sister told her mother, but nothing came of the allegation. The victim’s mother, April Wagner, testified that she was still married to the Defendant but that they were legally separated. She said she recalled the day she learned of the allegations. The victim, who had been sick that week, texted her and asked her to come to her room. Ms. Wagner believed it was to give her medicine, but, when she arrived, the victim was crying and told her about the inappropriate touching. Ms. Wagner immediately confronted the Defendant, who was in the kitchen, and asked him what was going on. She told the Defendant that the victim had said he had touched her sexually and demanded to know what happened. The Defendant went straight to the victim’s room and began apologizing. She described the Defendant as “begging for [the victim’s] forgiveness.” She said that he was saying how sorry he was and trying to convince the victim that he did not mean to do anything to her. Based on the Defendant’s admissions and statements, Ms. Wagner was “very angry and shocked and just upset . . . [and] disgusted . . .” in part because the Defendant compared his actions to “cheating” and said he had never done anything inappropriate “online.” Ms. Wagner said the recordings were a good sample of the Defendant’s whole conversation and that he never denied touching the victim. During cross-examination, Ms. Wagner agreed that the Defendant never said anything other than that he “touched” the victim. He later told her that he was referring to “spanking” the victim, but Ms. Wagner did not believe him. Ms. Wagner said she lived with the Defendant for less than two weeks after the victim’s allegation. He had moved out by the time DCS came to investigate approximately two months later. The victim had disclosed the allegations to a cheerleading coach who had reported it to authorities. 4  During redirect, Ms. Wagner said that, when she first confronted the Defendant, she told him that the victim had said that he had put his fingers in her private area. It was after that that the Defendant went to the victim’s room and repeatedly apologized. Later that evening or the next day, the Defendant alleged that he believed this confrontation was about him spanking the victim. Ms. Wagner said she heard the Defendant call the victim a “slut.” She said that “stuff like that” went on all the time. It seemed to be said in a joking manner like, “Hey, there’s the sluts,” when the victim and her friends would arrive. Concerning the appropriate lesser-included offenses, the Defendant’s counsel said that there had previously been a joint notice of lesser-included offenses that had been filed by prior counsel. The trial court went through the charges and applicable lesser-included offenses one by one. For Count 1, rape by force or coercion, the Defendant contended the correct lesser-included offenses were sexual battery by force or coercion and misdemeanor assault, as well as the attempts. The State posited that sexual battery by an authority figure was also a lesser-included offense of rape by the stepfather. It provided an email from the Defendant’s previous counsel in which he agreed to as much. The Defendant’s Counsel noted, however, that Count 3 was for sexual battery by an authority figure, so the lesser- included offense instruction of that under Count 1 did not make sense. The trial court took the matter under advisement and said it would issue a written ruling. For Count 2, incest, the parties agreed that criminal attempt was the only applicable lesser-included offense. For Count 3, sexual battery by an authority figure, the lesser-included offenses would be misdemeanor assault, offensive touching, and criminal attempt. The parties indicated that they would research whether child abuse was also an applicable lesser- included offense. The trial court filed a written order on these issues. About the 404(b) evidence, namely the reference by the Defendant to the victim and her friends as “sluts”, the trial court found that the “proposed evidence [wa]s relevant.” After discussing the 404(b) requirements, the trial court found: Here, this Court cannot find that the proposed evidence of referring to the alleged victim as a “slut” is overly prejudicial. This Court has found above that the material issue of intent exists in the proposed proof and the proposed proof is not being offered to prove the character of the Defendant to show that he acted in conformity with that character trait in the charged offense. The State asserts that the purpose of introducing evidence of such 5  acts demonstrates a degree of grooming to accomplish the charged offense of rape. Furthermore, sufficient proof was offered for this Court to find by clear and convincing evidence that these acts occurred and was common place. Finally, the probative value of the evidence is not outweighed by the danger for unfair prejudice. The trial court ruled that the Snapchat videos were admissible, and it denied the Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude those. The State filed superseding indictments, indicting the Defendant for: Count 1 rape; Count 2 incest; Count 3 sexual battery by an authority figure. The Defendant filed proposed jury instructions. They included an instruction for rape, and an instruction for sexual battery, sexual battery by an authority figure (pursuant to both applicable theories), child abuse, and assault as lesser-included offenses of rape. 3. Trial At trial, the parties presented the following evidence: The victim testified about her relationship with the Defendant who was her stepfather. She had known him since she was in fifth grade, which was seven years before trial. At the time of these allegations, the victim lived with her mother, the Defendant, and her sister. She thought the Defendant was “a good person,” and she “liked” him, having nothing against him. The victim said the Defendant always tried to be the “cool dad” around her and her friends. In jest, he would call her, her sister, and their friends “sluts.” She did not like it and found it weird and said it “weirded [her friends] out,” but she laughed it off. Leading up to this incident, the victim was in her sophomore year of high school, a member of the cheerleading team, and often busy with friends. She was very fond of her cheer coach, Ms. Holly Martinez, as was the whole team. On a Friday, September 18, 2021, she started feeling unwell and knew she was getting strep throat, a common problem for her. She went to the doctor but was still feeling unwell with body aches. She felt weak and her throat was hurting, so she laid on the couch in the living room, which was close to everything in the house and closer to where her mother slept. It made her feel better to be closer to her mother, who took care of her, as the two had a good, trusting, and happy relationship. The victim was awakened by the garage door opening when the Defendant returned home from work. She was lying on the couch with her eyes closed trying to fall back asleep. The Defendant came in through the garage door, walked over to the kitchen, and 6 she heard him walking around. She had her eyes closed and was facing away from him on the couch when she heard him come up behind her. The Defendant walked away, went back to the kitchen, and came back behind her. He did this a couple of times. The next time, he came back and was muttering words to himself. The victim heard the Defendant say, “[S]he’s so hot.” At one point the Defendant returned and touched her buttocks and was rubbing them. She was so shocked that she just lay there, frozen. She had on shorts, and the Defendant moved the middle side of her shorts over and inserted his fingers inside her and moved them in and out. The victim did not know what to do, was in shock, and froze. She said that he did not touch her for very long, maybe a minute, and then he stopped. The victim said the Defendant’s touching “hurt a little bit” and was a “very, very uncomfortable feeling.” The victim believed that the Defendant thought she was still asleep. The Defendant grabbed her hips and turned her flat on her back, so she was laying with her face up. He leaned on the couch and tried to take her shorts off. The victim said she “just couldn’t do it,” and she opened her eyes and shoved him off her and said, “what the f**k are you doing.” He backed up and started “freak[ing] out.” The Defendant kept saying “I’m sorry, I’m sorry over and over.” He went quickly to the kitchen, and the victim ran to her room and shut and locked the door. She texted her mother, Ms. Wagner, and asked her to come into her room. Ms. Wagner arrived in seconds, and the victim told her what had happened, and she became upset. Ms. Wagner left the room and confronted the Defendant. Shortly thereafter, the Defendant came into her room and kept saying “I’m sorry” and “don’t leave me” repeatedly. After thirty minutes of apologizing, the victim made a few Snapchat recordings of Defendant without his knowledge. She explained that she intended to show her friends, who knew the Defendant well, the videos of him apologizing after he had assaulted her. The State then played the eleven Snapchat videos. The lighting in the videos was dark, as the victim’s lights in her room were not illuminated. The victim explained that she laughed at one point because she found it ridiculous that the Defendant was being hysterical right after sexually assaulting her. She said that his apologies were repetitive and that she found it annoying. She had no intention of forgiving him and wanted him to get out of her room. The victim said that, at the time of the videos, she was in shock, overwhelmed, and annoyed. Ms. Wagner finally convinced the Defendant to stop going back into the victim’s room. Ms. Wagner then got into bed with the victim, and the two fell asleep together. 7  The victim never thought to call the police. She did not want the Defendant to get into trouble or to see Ms. Wagner and the Defendant divorce. The victim moved in with her father because the Defendant was still staying in the house with Ms. Wagner. She told her friends about the incident but not her father or her sister. She said she was scared and wanted to ignore it. She was also very busy with cheerleading. This incident very much affected the victim, and she wanted to tell someone because it bothered her so much. She felt she needed to tell an adult, and, after practice one day, she told her cheer coach, Ms. Martinez, about the incident. Ms. Martinez told her that she was going to have to report it. After Ms. Martinez reported the incident, the victim told her father and sister what had happened. She went to a child services center and told her story. Her forensic interview was played for the jury and in it, she recounted the events of the rape consistently with her trial testimony. She also spoke with a detective, told her the same story, and showed her the Snapchat videos. The victim said that the Defendant never spanked her or disciplined her. She said that the kitchen was clean when she went to sleep on the couch the evening of the incident. She said that the Defendant did not spank her that evening, but he inserted his fingers into her vagina. During cross-examination, the victim testified that she was lying approximately ten feet from her mother, but in different rooms, when this touching occurred. The victim did not recall how many times she texted her mother after the incident, either once or twice, but she agreed that she said twice in her forensic interview. She agreed that she may have only told her mother that the Defendant “touched” her and not told her to what extent. The victim agreed that she stayed in the same house with the Defendant for a few nights before moving to her father’s house. As far as she was aware, her mother never called the police, reported the incident, or filed for an order of protection. The victim said that the first Snapchat video was taken at 7:30 in the morning and the last video was taken at 7:58 a.m. She agreed that the touching may have occurred later during the night than she estimated and actually may have occurred at around six in the morning. The Defendant sometimes worked longer shifts and got home around that time. The victim testified that she texted her mother that morning by iMessage. She was uncertain why those messages were no longer on her phone, and she believed that they automatically deleted. The victim said that she did not delete any messages from her 8 phone. She said she did not remember sending text messages to her aunt after she recorded the Snapchat videos. Ms. Wagner testified that she and the victim’s father divorced in 2016, and she began a relationship with the Defendant around the same time. She married the Defendant in 2020 and lived with him and their daughters in his home. Ms. Wagner confirmed that the victim was sick with strep throat, which the Defendant knew, the weekend of this incident. Every time she got sick, she would sleep on the couch to be near the kitchen and her mother. Ms. Wagner said that she slept with three fans on for cool air and white noise. The morning of this incident, she awoke to a text message from the victim asking if she was awake. Ms. Wagner responded, “yes” and went to the victim’s room. Ms. Wagner said the victim was crying hysterically, and Ms. Wagner asked her what was wrong. The victim told her that the Defendant had been saying things he wanted to do to her sexually while he thought she was asleep. He then pulled down her covers, touched her sexually, and put his fingers inside her. Ms. Wagner went straight to the kitchen where the Defendant was located and shoved him and said “what the f**k is going on. [The victim] just said that you touched her sexually.” The Defendant responded that he did not mean to hurt her, and that he did not mean to touch her, and he started apologizing. He repeatedly asked for forgiveness and said that he did not know why he did it. Ms. Wagner asked him why he would do this. She also did not understand the quick switch in his demeanor from sexually abusing the victim to then profusely apologizing. She did not understand what he hoped to accomplish by asking her to forgive him that quickly after putting the victim through the sexual assault. Ms. Wagner said she and the Defendant had had previous conversations about infidelity. She told him that she would not tolerate being cheated on. In the victim’s room, the Defendant mentioned that comment, as evidenced by the victim’s recordings. She found it “absurd” to compare sexually touching her daughter to cheating on her. Clearly, sexually touching her daughter was “way worse,” but the implication that he had touched the victim sexually was clear in the comparison. When Ms. Wagner said this is way worse, the Defendant said, “I know.” Also, while they were in the victim’s room, as was recorded, the Defendant said, “I touched your daughter.” Ms. Wagner said, “do you honestly think that she should be able to brush this under the rug?” She explained that she said this because the Defendant was 9 acting like they should accept his apology and they could come together again as a family. She found this delusional. On the recordings, the Defendant also said, “I never do anything online,” which Ms. Wagner took to mean that he did not have inappropriate interactions with other women online. She responded that none of that mattered. Ms. Wagner felt sick and disgusted in part because the Defendant was admitting to what he had done and expecting the victim and her to be okay with his actions. After the Defendant went out of the victim’s room, Ms. Wagner collapsed, exhausted on the couch. The Defendant kept coming over to her apologizing. She asked him, “why would you do this?” She stayed on the couch for some time, and the Defendant went in and out of the house, and then she went back to the victim’s room and stayed there with her. She said that they talked and were trying to figure out what to do. Ms. Wagner thought the best course of action was to take the victim and her other daughter and leave, but she did not feel she had anywhere to go. She was embarrassed and ashamed and did not want to involve anyone else. She felt the right thing to do was for the Defendant to leave, but he did not. He locked himself in their bedroom, and she did not see him the rest of the evening. The next day the victim had left, and it was just the Defendant and Ms. Wagner present in the home. The Defendant was talking to himself out loud in Ms. Wagner’s presence. He said, “I was just tired, I worked a long shift and when I came home everything was a mess and I asked [the victim] to clean it up and she said, no, so I spanked her.” Ms. Wagner said, “that’s ridiculous,” and the Defendant kept saying “that’s what happened.” Ms. Wagner said that her kitchen was clean that night and that it would not have been the victim’s responsibility to clean it anyway, in part because she was sick. Ms. Wagner said that the Defendant had never disciplined her children and that the two had never had a conversation about him disciplining her children. The victim left home to stay with a friend because the Defendant did not move out immediately. Ms. Wagner said she was in shock and her state of shock lasted months. The Defendant left the home two weeks later. Ms. Wagner recalled the police involvement, saying that the victim was ready to tell someone, and she told her coach what had happened. Ms. Wagner was relieved that the victim had told her coach. Ms. Wagner spoke with DCS and told them what had happened. She said, however, that she did not want to be involved in the investigation because she was not strong enough mentally or emotionally to handle it at that time. 10  During cross-examination, Ms. Wagner testified that she and the Defendant both valued a clean house but neither of them became upset if it was not clean. If the Defendant saw a mess in the kitchen or elsewhere, he would clean it up himself. Further, the Defendant was a new stepfather, so if he was upset about something that her daughters had done, he would come to her. She was the disciplinarian of her own children. On the morning of this incident, the Defendant was working night shifts and would have arrived home at 6:40 or 6:45 a.m. She received the text from the victim at 7:00 a.m. Ms. Wagner said that the first time she heard the Defendant call the victim and her friends “sluts,” she told him that he should not do that. The victim and her friends, however, laughed, so it seemed light-hearted. The Defendant also interacted with her older daughter similarly, so it was not directed specifically at the victim. Ms. Wagner agreed that her trial testimony was more detailed and contained additional facts than her previous interview. She said that, when she first confronted the Defendant, she told him that the victim accused him of touching her sexually. The Defendant said that he did not mean to touch the victim and that he did not mean to hurt the victim. She disagreed that this supported his assertion that he was apologizing for spanking the victim rather than for raping her. Ms. Wagner was not aware the victim was recording these apologies, and she was not aware if the victim was texting Ms. Wagner’s sister shortly after these recordings were made. Ms. Wagner agreed that the victim stayed in the same home with the Defendant for two nights after the incident. She explained that she was in shock and, in hindsight, was not capable of adequately protecting her daughter. Ms. Wagner recalled that she did not call the police, in part because the victim asked her not to, and she regretted her decision. Ms. Wagner said she met with DCS investigator, Catherine Ortezia, in December of 2021. She met with her on the porch and did not invite her into the home because she did not want to be part of any investigation. Ms. Wagner said that the Defendant moved out of the home in October 2021. She agreed that her divorce paperwork from him indicated that they separated in October 2023, but she said she emailed her attorney to change that date and assumed it had been changed when she signed the paperwork. Ms. Wagner agreed that, after the October 2021 separation, she still spoke with the Defendant for hours on the phone and even went to see him while he was living at his sister’s house. Ms. Wagner agreed that she met with the Defendant, and he asked her to sign a statement, which she did. In the statement, it said that on the date of the incident the Defendant told her that he spanked the victim for making a mess in the kitchen and living room. It said that the Defendant told her that, when he touched the victim, he spanked her across the bottom three times. According to Ms. Wagner, the Defendant became upset that 11 he spanked the victim, and he apologized to her. The statement continued that the Defendant was tearful and remorseful and had always maintained his position. This statement was signed on November 15, 2022. During redirect examination, Ms. Wagner said she did not write anything included in the statement she signed, rather it was written by the Defendant. She said the statement was true, but he did not tell her that he spanked the victim until the following day. She said that the statement was simply the Defendant’s version of the events. Ms. Wagner explained that she was in a terrible mental state and that the rape and court process was taking a toll on the victim. Ms. Wagner just wanted the situation settled. Ms. Wagner reiterated that, on the morning of the incident, she told the Defendant that the victim alleged that he touched her sexually by inserting his fingers inside her to which the Defendant said he was sorry and that he did not mean to hurt her. The victim’s cheer coach, Holly Martinez, testified that she met the victim before her freshman year and was still her coach at the time of these allegations. She described the victim as “[q]uiet, reserved, nice.” She recalled the conversation where the victim disclosed that her stepfather had sexually assaulted her. The victim stayed after practice with a friend, C.G.,1 and told Ms. Martinez about an incident that had occurred. Ms. Martinez said she was required to report what the victim had said to administration, and she did so immediately. Ms. Martinez found her athletic director, who was also a principal, and reported the information. She also went to the head principal at Anderson County High School and met with him and the School Resource Officer (“SRO”) and told them what the victim had disclosed. During cross-examination, Ms. Martinez said that the victim told her that the Defendant had digitally penetrated her vagina. She did not recall whether the victim said that the Defendant tried to pull down her shorts. Ms. Martinez agreed that she later wrote an email to Officer Culver and Detective Baird regarding this incident. The email did not include that the victim said that the Defendant tried to pull down her pants or mention that he had “stuck his fingers in [the victim’s] vagina.” During redirect examination, the State asked Ms. Martinez what the victim had told her. Ms. Martinez said that the victim said that she was at her house on the couch, sleeping, facing way from the room. The Defendant came into the living room area, and the victim pretended to be asleep. He put his hands down her pants, and she still pretended to be asleep. The victim then knocked him away and got up and ran down the hallway to her 1 For her privacy, we will refer to the victim’s friend, who is a minor, by her initials. 12 bedroom. She reviewed the email from cross-examination and noted that it said that the Defendant put his hand down her pants or panties and that the victim got up from the couch and ran into her bedroom, locking the door. Tyler Culver, the SRO at the time, testified and confirmed Ms. Martinez’s account of the events. Because the allegations were sexual in nature, Officer Culver notified DCS. Officer Culver never spoke with the victim. The parties stipulated that the nurse practitioner who conducted the victim’s forensic medical examination did not find proof of rape. Proof of digital penetration was neither excluded nor included as part of the findings of the exam. DCS employee Catherine Oteiza testified that she interviewed the victim and the victim’s mother and father. During cross-examination she said that she was aware of the recordings on the victim’s phone and had listened to them once on the day of the forensic interview. She was unsure of how many videos she watched and listened to, and she agreed she watched them at the same time as Anderson County Sheriff’s Department Detective Sharon Baird, who was assigned to this case. Ms. Oteiza said that three referrals for this same case came into her office within twenty-four hours. The first referral was on October 3, 2021, and the second two followed. Ms. Oteiza interviewed the victim’s mother, Ms. Wagner, at her home. Ms. Wagner did not invite her in. Her notes from that day were as follows: [Ms. Wagner] reported [the Defendant] is no longer living in the home and they are not together. [Ms. Wagner] stated she and [the Defendant] have been married a year. [Ms. Wagner] stated she is not sure what she is going to do at this point. [Ms. Wagner] stated she and [the Defendant] have not been having any marital issues. [Ms. Wagner] stated [the Defendant] was a really good stepdad. [Ms. Wagner] stated she did not see anything that night. [Ms. Wagner] stated [the Defendant] said he did not do it. [Ms. Wagner] stated [the Defendant] said he spanked her. [Ms. Wagner] reported [the Defendant] told her he came home from work and was tired. [Ms. Wagner] stated [the Defendant] said he got upset because there were dishes all over the kitchen. [Ms. Wagner] stated [the Defendant] said [the victim] made this up because she was angry he spanked her. [Ms. Wagner] denied [the Defendant] had ever spanked [the victim] before then . . . . [Ms. Wagner] stated she did not spank [the victim]. [Ms. Wagner] stated she does not know what to believe but will support her daughter. [Ms. Wagner] stated [the 13  victim] will never be around [the Defendant] again. [Ms. Wagner] stated she will always put [the victim] first and did not see that there was a reason for [the victim] to lie about what happened. [Ms. Wagner] stated that this has been very hard on her. [Ms. Wagner] stated she does not want to be interviewed about this again. [DCS worker Oteiza] explained the global assessment and asked to schedule a time to complete. [Ms. Wagner] agreed but later declined stating any further questions and inquiries could be sent to her attorney. Ms. Oteiza agreed that Ms. Wagner had not filed an order of protection for the victim. Sharon Baird, a detective with the Anderson County Sheriff’s Department, testified that she was the assigned detective for this case. She observed the victim’s forensic interview from the audio/video room in real time. After the interview, she spoke briefly with the victim about the interview recorded on the victim’s cell phone. The victim attempted to retrieve the videos but was having trouble. Detective Baird was about to obtain a portion of the videos by recording them with her phone. She did not confiscate the victim’s phone at that time, which she deemed a mistake. Detective Baird said that she unsuccessfully attempted to interview Ms. Wagner. During cross-examination, Detective Baird testified that, if the victim was speaking by text with someone after she took the videos of the Defendant, she would have liked to interview that person. Detective Baird agreed that during the forensic interview, the forensic interviewer told the victim that they were going to need to collect her phone for evidentiary purposes. The forensic interviewer then left the room, and the victim began operating her phone. When someone came back into the room, the victim put her phone down again. During redirect examination, Detective Baird said that she viewed the videos on the victim’s phone after the conclusion of the forensic interview. The Defendant offered Matthew Ooten, who testified that he was the victim’s attorney. Ms. Wagner and the victim came to see him regarding a subpoena by the defense for the victim’s messages, text messages, and all other social media platforms. After being retained, he took the position that the victim should not have to surrender her whole phone, but they agreed to turn over information from a set date range that included the time period of these events. Mr. Ooten agreed that he reviewed the victim’s phone over a year after this alleged assault. Therefore, he only reviewed and turned over files that were still on her phone, or in her Snapchat account, as of the date of his review. He said that he did not search for anything in a deleted folder and only searched what was on her phone at that 14 time. Mr. Ooten further recalled that when he met with all the parties to turn over the phone evidence, nothing out of the ordinary occurred. He did not recall the victim saying that she felt intimidated. During cross-examination, Mr. Ooten agreed that there were times during the meeting that the Defendant’s counsel and the defense investigator were behind the victim leaning over her while she was looking at her phone attempting to retrieve the data. This was something that happened “a lot” during the meeting, and he was uncertain how the victim felt about this occurring. The meeting was long, and the victim, who was a minor, did not have either parent present. Elizabeth Sherrod testified that her husband, Dan Sher