Full Opinion

08/06/2026 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 20, 2026 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CASSEN JACKSON-GARRISON Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County No. 119856 Steven Wayne Sword, Judge ___________________________________ No. E2024-01828-CCA-R3-CD ___________________________________ Defendant, Cassen Jackson-Garrison, appeals his convictions for three counts of sexual battery by an authority figure, two counts of rape, two counts of aggravated statutory rape, and two counts of statutory rape by an authority figure, for which he received an effective twenty-six-year sentence. On appeal, Defendant challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for rape, sexual battery by an authority figure, and statutory rape by an authority figure; (2) the admission of evidence regarding the possibility of additional victims and the admission of evidence of grooming as violating Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b); (3) the exclusion of evidence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 412; and (4) the admission of rebuttal testimony. Defendant also contends he is entitled to relief due to the cumulative effect of the errors. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Criminal Court Affirmed MATTHEW J. WILSON, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, P.J., and JILL BARTEE AYERS, J., joined. Drew Justice, Murfreesboro, Tennessee (on appeal); Eric Lutton, District Public Defender; and Keith Lowe and Preston Pierce, Assistant Public Defenders (at trial), for the appellant, Cassen Jackson-Garrison. Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Ryan W. Davis, Assistant Attorney General; Charme P. Allen, District Attorney General; and Ashley McDermott and Heather Good, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. OPINION Factual and Procedural History A Knox County grand jury charged Defendant via presentment with four counts of sexual battery by an authority figure, two counts of rape, two counts of aggravated statutory rape, and two counts of statutory rape by an authority figure as a result of multiple acts of sexual abuse committed against a thirteen-year-old victim between September 11 and September 15, 2021. Defendant also was charged with one count of assault of the victim’s father. 1 Prior to trial, the State dismissed one count of sexual battery by an authority figure. Defendant’s trial commenced in July 2023. At the conclusion of the proof, the jury acquitted Defendant of the assault charge but was unable to reach a verdict on the remaining nine counts. Defendant was retried on the remaining nine counts in January 2024 during which the following evidence was presented. The State’s Proof—the Relationship Between Defendant and the Victim’s Family At the time of the offenses, the victim was thirteen years old and in the seventh grade, was approximately four feet eleven inches tall, and weighed approximately eighty- five pounds. Defendant was in his thirties, “tall and buff,” and a former collegiate and professional football player; he also had trained as a boxer. The victim’s family, which included the victim, her parents, and her twelve-year- old brother, shared a close relationship with Defendant’s family, which included Defendant, his four children, and his then-wife, Morgan Mynatt. The victim’s father and Defendant, both of whom were in their thirties, had known each other since high school; their children played together in youth sports; and the victim and her brother attended middle school with Defendant’s two oldest sons, C.J.G.1 and C.J.G.2, while Defendant’s youngest son, C.J.G.3, and daughter, C.J.G.4, attended the nearby elementary school. 2 The families were together two to four nights each week, and they often held cookouts at each other’s homes. The victim’s mother and Ms. Mynatt coordinated with each other in driving the children of both families to school, practices, and sporting events. The victim’s father testified that he and Defendant likely drove the other’s children to games on occasion. The victim’s father stated that around the time of the offenses, he considered Defendant to be 1 Defendant also was charged with one count each of solicitation of a minor, simulated sexual activity involving a minor, and distribution of material to a minor-charges that involved a different victim. Prior to trial, these counts were severed from the counts relevant to this appeal. 2 It is the policy of this court to protect the identities of minor victims and witnesses. Because Defendant’s children have the same initials, we will refer to them as C.J.G.1, C.J.G.2, C.J.G.3, and C.J.G.4. -2- one of his best friends and trusted him. The victim’s mother testified that she had trusted both Defendant and Ms. Mynatt with the victim and her brother. Defendant’s Prior Conduct The victim testified at trial regarding Defendant’s behavior toward her leading up to the offenses. On one occasion when the victim and C.J.G.4 were performing handstands in Defendant’s home, Defendant told the victim that he could see her underwear through her shorts. When the victim apologized, Defendant replied, “It’s fine. I like it.” The victim recalled that “[i]t was a little bit embarrassing” and that she laughed and walked away. On another occasion while at Defendant’s home, the victim and C.J.G.4 were standing by the sink in the master bathroom when Defendant walked over to the toilet, which was separated from the sink by a wall, and urinated. The victim only saw Defendant’s face while he was urinating and did not see his genitalia. She described the incident as “a little bit weird.” The victim recalled another occasion when she and C.J.G.4 were tumbling in the master bedroom in Defendant’s home and C.J.G.4 closed the door to the bedroom. The victim said Defendant became angry and stated that he did not want Ms. Mynatt to be suspicious because the bedroom door was closed. The victim testified that Defendant would often “pop” her back in front of her family. She stated that on one occasion when she asked Defendant to “pop” her back, he directed her to the recycling bins located by the street near her home. While they were standing by the recycling bins, Defendant popped her back and held her against his body. Defendant often hugged the victim’s family when they parted ways, but he would touch the victim’s buttocks when he hugged her. On one occasion, when the victim told Defendant that she was leaving for a trip on the following day, Defendant replied that he would “miss” her and that “[i]f you were older, you’d be my girlfriend. You’re my type.” The State presented other evidence of Defendant’s behavior toward the victim through Ms. Mynatt, and the victim’s father. Ms. Mynatt observed Defendant’s having the victim rub lotion on his back and shoulders during a joint-family outing at a water park on July 4, 2021. Ms. Mynatt believed Defendant’s conduct was “inappropriate.” Ms. Mynatt informed the victim’s father of Defendant’s request to the victim, and she expressed that she was uncomfortable with Defendant’s actions. The victim’s father testified that at the time, “I kind of blew it off a little bit” even though “I wouldn’t ask a 12-year-old girl to put lotion on my shoulder.” The victim’s father said he decided that he should “start looking . . . a little bit more in depth.” The victim’s father testified that he and his family went to Defendant’s home at the end of August or the first part of September 2021 to watch a football game. The victim’s -3- father realized that Defendant was alone upstairs with the victim and C.J.G.4. The victim’s father went upstairs where he found Defendant standing in the doorway of his bedroom and the victim and C.J.G.4 standing in the doorway of C.J.G.4’s bedroom. The victim’s father told the victim to go downstairs, but he did not say anything to Defendant at the time. Ms. Mynatt also recalled Defendant’s being alone with the victim and C.J.G.4 upstairs that evening; she testified that she “didn’t feel good about” the encounter. Later that night, the victim’s father saw Defendant hug the victim next to Defendant’s truck. The victim’s father described Defendant’s actions as “kind of creepy.” The victim’s father stated that although he began “really becoming suspicious,” he continued to associate with Defendant and his family because Defendant was one of his best friends at the time and “[he] wanted to believe it could have been innocent.” Ms. Mynatt recalled another occasion when Defendant became angry at Ms. Mynatt when she approached Defendant and the victim as he was showing the victim something on his truck. Ms. Mynatt told Defendant privately that she did not believe it was appropriate for him to have so much communication with the victim while the two of them were alone. Defendant called Ms. Mynatt “insecure” and “immature” and accused her of having an affair. The Night of the Cookout On Saturday, September 11, 2021, the victim’s family had a cookout at their home, and Defendant’s family and two other friends, Zack and Trevor Garett, attended. The victim’s mother and Ms. Mynatt left the cookout to go “downtown,” while Defendant and the victim’s father supervised the children. At one point, Defendant left in his red pickup truck to drive C.J.G.2 to a pool party at a country club, and C.J.G.3, C.J.G.4, the victim, and her brother went with him. The victim testified that she sat in the middle front seat next to Defendant, that C.J.G.4 sat in the front passenger’s seat, and that C.J.G.2, C.J.G.3, and her brother sat in the back seat. She stated that while stopped at a red light near a skating rink, Defendant grabbed a gray sweatshirt and laid it over his lap. Defendant then grabbed the victim’s wrist and put her hand over his penis, which was exposed underneath the sweatshirt. Defendant had his hand on top of the victim’s hand and moved her hand up and down while he was “grunting, sighing.” She stated that the drive from the stop light to the country club lasted for approximately fifteen minutes and that Defendant kept her hand on his penis during that entire time. The victim tried to move her hand once, but Defendant “still had his hand on my hand.” Defendant released the victim’s hand once they arrived at the country club. The victim testified that none of the other children gave any indication that they saw what had occurred. It was dark inside the truck because the truck had tinted windows and no lights were on, and the other children were not paying attention. C.J.G.4 was scrolling -4- on her cell phone, and the boys in the back seat were watching videos and laughing. Once they arrived at the country club, C.J.G.2 exited the truck and went to the pool party, and Defendant and the other children returned to the victim’s home. The victim stated that nothing occurred inside the truck during the return trip. The victim testified that after they returned to her home, she and C.J.G.4 hung out with three friends from her neighborhood. Defendant called C.J.G.4 and asked whether she and the victim wanted to go with him to pick up C.J.G.2, and they agreed to go. The victim stated that when C.J.G.4 tried to sit in the middle front seat of Defendant’s truck, Defendant yelled at her because he wanted the victim to sit beside him. The victim sat beside Defendant, and C.J.G.4 sat on the other side of the victim. The victim stated that when they arrived at the country club, it was dark outside, that Defendant parked in the back of the parking lot near some trees and away from other vehicles, that no vehicles were traveling around the parking lot, and that the children were at the pool. Defendant told C.J.G.4 to get her brother, and she exited the truck. The victim testified that after C.J.G.4 exited the truck, Defendant told the victim, “Give me head.” She said Defendant’s penis was exposed through a hole in his gym shorts. She stated that she knew what Defendant wanted her to do and that she did not want to do it. She laughed, and Defendant repeated the instruction. The victim testified that Defendant put his hand on the back of her head and pushed her head down on his penis and that his penis went into her mouth. She later testified that after her mouth was on Defendant’s penis, Defendant “put his hand on the back of [her] head and then, like, went up and down.” She agreed that Defendant forced her to perform fellatio. The fellatio continued for approximately three minutes, and the victim believed Defendant ejaculated “[b]ecause after, he told me to swallow and there was a weird residue in my mouth.” She stated that the fellatio stopped once Defendant observed C.J.G.2 and C.J.G.4 walking back to the truck. The victim did not believe the two children could see inside the truck while returning from the pool area because it was dark outside and the truck’s windows were tinted. Once they returned to the victim’s home and Defendant exited the truck, he kissed the victim on her mouth and told her that he loved her. The victim described the encounter as “awkward.” She exited the truck and went into the backyard, but she did not tell anyone what had occurred. The victim’s father testified that once Defendant returned from picking up C.J.G.2 from the party, Defendant announced that he was going to play hide-and-seek with the girls. The victim’s father said “that’s really . . . when my parent alert went up. It just, again, didn’t seem right. Why just the girls?” The victim’s father told Defendant that he needed help cleaning the dishes. -5- The victim testified that later that night, Defendant approached her and C.J.G.4 and asked for their assistance in locating his keys. The victim searched in the backseat of the truck on the driver’s side, while C.J.G.4 searched on the passenger’s side. The victim believed the adults and other children were inside the house, and she could not see or hear them from the truck. At some point, C.J.G.4 left the truck, and the victim did not know where she went. As the victim was searching the backseat with the truck’s door open, Defendant came up from behind her, pressed up against her, and rubbed his exposed penis on her buttocks over her clothing. The victim stated that she did not know what to do. She explained that although the front of the truck was facing the house, anyone on the porch would not have been able to observe Defendant’s actions because the truck’s opened door blocked the view. The victim did not believe the nearby bonfire was large enough to illuminate the area. The victim’s father testified that he saw Defendant and the victim standing together by Defendant’s truck but that an open truck door blocked his view. Defendant was standing behind the victim, and the backs of Defendant and the victim were facing her father. C.J.G.4 was by a tree, and the victim’s father did not know whether she could see what the victim and Defendant were doing. No other adults were in the area. The victim’s father stated that “the way they were standing just did not seem right” and that “I got a very, very uneasy feeling. . . . [A]t this point is when I was going to put an end to this.” The victim’s father testified that he approached the victim and told her to come with him. C.J.G.4 followed them into the garage, but the victim’s father did not want to say anything in front of C.J.G.4. He instructed the victim to go into the dining room where he told the victim that for her own protection, she needed to “stay away from adults,” which included Defendant. The victim testified that the confrontation with her father occurred while she was sitting with C.J.G.4 by a bonfire. She said her father was angry, yelled that she needed to spend less time with adults and more time with children. The victim stated that she did not understand her father’s yelling that he specifically did not want her around Defendant. The victim’s father said he turned off the radio because he was “done with this party.” Defendant threw his speaker and camping chairs in the back of his truck. The victim’s father testified that he asked the victim, who was standing on the patio, what she had done. The victim replied that she had told Defendant that the victim’s father had said she could no longer be around him. Once Ms. Mynatt and the victim’s mother returned, the victim’s father spoke to Ms. Mynatt and then explained to the victim that he was looking out for her best interests, that she did not understand what was occurring, and that she needed to “stay away from adults.” -6- The victim’s father testified that he then went downstairs and told all of the adults, including Defendant, that he expected the adults to abide by any rules that he made regarding his children. Defendant replied, “F**k you.” Defendant then told Ms. Mynatt, “F**k you, C**t. Had you not said anything, he wouldn’t believe anything right now.” The victim’s father determined that “this was not a good situation” due to the “sheer anger” in Defendant’s voice. The victim’s father went outside to the firepit, but Defendant came outside cursing at him and stating, “Can’t believe you’d believe this.” Defendant got in his face and said, “F**k you. I can’t believe you would treat your daughter like this. You’re not going to talk to your daughter like this.” The victim’s father backed up, but Defendant continued coming at him. The victim’s father put his hand on Defendant’s chest and told him to back up, and Defendant punched him in his eye. They started fighting, and the victim’s father acknowledged that Defendant had beaten him in the fight. Defendant left with his children and without Ms. Mynatt, while the victim’s father lay in the grass. The victim’s father’s eye was swollen shut, and his head was hurting. Defendant later sent Ms. Mynatt a text message saying that she had five minutes to get into his vehicle. Defendant returned and walked toward the victim’s father, who told him to “stay away from my kids. Stay away from us. We’re done.” The victim’s father considered that to be the end of his friendship with Defendant. Ms. Mynatt testified that she decided not to return to her home with Defendant, and she had a friend drive her to her home to retrieve her car. Ms. Mynatt never returned to live with Defendant after that night. Prior to September 11, 2021, she was primarily responsible for driving Defendant’s children, who were her stepchildren, to school, but after September 11, Defendant began driving his children to school. Monday, September 13, 2021 On Monday, September 13, 2021, the victim’s mother dropped the victim and her brother off near the school at approximately 7:30 a.m. The victim testified that Ms. Mynatt typically drove Defendant’s children to school, and the victim would sit in Ms. Mynatt’s vehicle and eat breakfast with the children until she had to go to school, which started at 8:30 a.m. Defendant had driven his children to school that day. The victim saw Defendant’s truck parked near where her mother had dropped her off, and Defendant, C.J.G.1 and C.J.G.2 were in the truck. The victim got into the backseat of the truck. The victim testified that following the fight between her father and Defendant, her parents did not tell her that they did not want her to be around Defendant. She stated that she did not know the reason for the fight and that Defendant told her that he and her father had “made up.” The victim stated that once C.J.G.1 and C.J.G.2 exited the truck, she moved to the middle seat next to Defendant. The victim testified that Defendant put his hand down her pants and underwear and that his fingers touched her vagina but did not penetrate it. She -7- told Defendant to stop because she was menstruating, and Defendant complied. The victim then exited the truck and entered the school. Tina Greer, the crossing guard at the middle school, testified that she saw the victim enter a red truck on the morning of September 13. Ms. Greer stated that the victim entered the front passenger’s side of the truck and remained in the truck for “several minutes.” Ms. Greer believed the victim exited the truck with the other children. At the time, Ms. Greer was facing the driver’s side of the truck and could not see inside the truck due to the dark tint on the side windows. Ms. Greer subsequently learned that Defendant was driving the truck. She contacted the victim’s mother, who stated that the situation was “under control” and instructed Ms. Greer not to involve herself. Tuesday, September 14, 2021 On Tuesday, September 14, 2021, the victim’s mother again dropped off the victim and her brother in the same area near the school. The victim saw Defendant’s truck parked nearby, and she and her brother entered the truck occupied by Defendant, C.J.G.1, and C.J.G.2 and ate breakfast with them. Defendant told the victim that he believed Daniel Marlow, a friend of her parents, was watching them because he saw Mr. Marlow’s truck parked nearby. The victim subsequently exited the truck with the other children and entered the school. Ms. Greer observed the victim and her brother entering the truck on Tuesday, September 14 and then exiting the truck together. Although Ms. Greer was unable to see inside the truck through the dark tint of the side windows, she was able to view Defendant inside the truck through the front windshield. Mr. Marlow dropped his children off at the middle school and saw the victim and her brother walking toward a red truck parked on a road near the school. Mr. Marlow used his cell phone to record the victim and her brother as they entered and later exited the red truck, and he later provided the recording to the police. At the time, Mr. Marlow was unaware of any animosity between the victim’s father and Defendant, and Mr. Marlow explained he chose to record the events because he did not know who owned the truck at the time. Mr. Marlow later learned the truck belonged to Defendant. Mr. Marlow could not see inside the truck and could not determine the number of occupants. The victim’s father and Preston Leslie also went to the school on the morning of September 14 to record any interactions between the victim and Defendant before the victim’s father made any accusations against Defendant. They were unable to obtain any recordings because Mr. Marlow had blocked their view. The victim’s father saw his children enter Defendant’s truck, later exit the truck, and enter the school. -8- Wednesday, September 15, 2021 The victim’s mother dropped the victim and her brother off at the same location on the morning of Wednesday, September 15, 2021, and the victim’s brother walked into the school with a friend. The victim testified that she walked to Defendant’s truck, which was occupied by Defendant, C.J.G.1, and C.J.G.2, and she went into the backseat. Defendant then drove to McDonald’s, where he purchased breakfast for his two sons, and he returned to the same road near the school. Once C.J.G.1 ate his breakfast, he exited the truck and walked into the school, and the victim moved to the front seat. Defendant said he believed someone standing on a porch at a nearby house was watching them, and Defendant moved to the car-rider line where C.J.G.2 exited the truck and walked into the school. The victim identified C.J.G.2 in a video recording exiting Defendant’s truck and entering the school between 8:22 and 8:23 a.m. before school began at 8:30 a.m. The victim remained inside the truck. The victim testified that Defendant parked his truck in the teachers’ parking lot and “had me straddle him and kiss him and he fingered me,” although she did not know the order in which the events occurred. She stated that Defendant was in the driver’s seat, that she was on top of him with her back to the steering wheel and windshield, and that Defendant kissed her and had his hands on her buttocks over her clothes. She said Defendant put his hand down her pants and inserted his finger into her vagina while she was sitting in the middle seat next to him. Defendant put on a condom and instructed the victim to “give him head,” and the victim refused, stating that she needed to go to school. She exited the truck and walked into the school. The victim identified herself in a video recording exiting Defendant’s truck and entering the school between 8:30 and 8:31 a.m. The victim testified that Defendant had taken the condom from a black fanny pack that was on the truck’s floorboard on the passenger’s side and that after he had put on the condom, he gave the condom wrapper to her. The victim placed the condom wrapper in a “little tampon pouch” that she kept in the front pocket of her backpack. Later that same day, the principal searched her backpack for her cell phone due to concern that Defendant had been sending text messages to her. At the time, the victim did not have a cell phone. The school officials did not look inside the pouch and did not find the condom wrapper. The victim stated that once she arrived home after school, she placed the condom wrapper in a box that was hidden under her bed. She explained that she believed her parents would find the wrapper if she threw it in the trash. The victim revealed the existence of the condom wrapper during a forensic interview, and she gave the wrapper and the box in which she placed the wrapper to her parents, who then gave the items to the police. The victim’s father asked Mr. Leslie to return to the school on the morning of Wednesday, September 15, 2021, in a vehicle that Defendant would not recognize. The -9- victim’s father told his children that he was going out of town, but he instead parked his vehicle and waited for Mr. Leslie to contact him. Mr. Leslie testified that he decided to drive his wife’s black Honda Accord to the middle school instead. He arrived at the middle school at approximately 7:30 a.m. and parked in the teachers’ parking lot. He saw the victim’s mother drop off the victim and her brother around 7:42 or 7:43 a.m. The victim and her brother exited the vehicle, crossed the road, and walked through the teacher’s parking lot and toward the school, and the victim’s brother entered the school. Before the victim reached the end of the teacher’s parking lot, she turned around, “hesitated,” walked back to the crosswalk, “retraced her steps back almost exactly to the circle where she was dropped off,” and entered Defendant’s truck. Mr. Leslie was alternating between recording the victim on his cell phone and calling the victim’s father. Mr. Leslie testified that within one to two minutes after the victim entered the truck, the truck left the area. Mr. Leslie said he was “kind of in a panic” and followed the truck while calling the victim’s father to report that the truck was leaving. He located the truck in the parking lot of McDonald’s. Once the truck left the drive-through line, the truck returned to the road near the middle school where it had originally been parked. Mr. Leslie saw one or two children exit the truck and walk into the school while the victim remained inside the truck. He then observed someone moving from the back seat to the front seat. He testified that due to the dark tint on the truck’s windows, he likely would not have been able to determine that the victim was inside the truck if he had not observed her entering the truck beforehand. The truck then pulled into the drop-off line where one child exited the truck and entered the school. The victim remained inside the truck. Mr. Leslie testified that the truck parked in an area of the parking lot where there were only one or two other vehicles. He was unable to see what was occurring inside the truck due to his distance from the truck and the dark tint on the truck’s windows. The truck remained parked in the same spot for eight to nine minutes before the victim exited the vehicle on the passenger’s side and walked into the school. Once the victim exited the truck, Defendant drove away. The victim’s father affirmed that Mr. Leslie called him numerous times, reporting that Defendant had taken the victim away from the school, had returned to the school, and then left again. As the victim’s father was driving toward the school, he met Defendant in his truck, rolled down his window, and informed Defendant that he was headed toward the school and intended to alert authorities. The victim’s father testified that he was upset that Defendant had taken the victim off school property twice and that Defendant did not have permission to be with the victim. Once the victim’s father arrived at the school, he approached Ms. Greer and asked her to contact the school resource officer. He also contacted the victim’s mother to come to the middle school. - 10 - Ms. Greer also saw the victim enter the red truck without her brother on the morning of September 15, and Ms. Greer did not see the victim exit the truck but saw the truck leave the parking lot. Ms. Greer saw the red truck again in the area at approximately 8:30 a.m. She observed a group of men encircling the truck and yelling. She then watched the truck leave the parking lot. Officer Dana Crocker of the Knoxville Police Department (“KPD”) was the school resource officer at the middle school in September 2021. On Wednesday, September 15, 2021, at approximately 8:30 a.m., Officer Crocker received a call from Ms. Greer reporting a commotion or altercation in the parking lot. Officer Crocker went to the parking lot where she saw Ms. Greer, the victim’s father, and a few other men. The victim’s father reported that Defendant was “messing with [his] daughter.” While Officer Crocker was speaking to the victim’s father, a red truck pulled up, and the victim’s father and the other men yelled, “[H]e has a gun.” Officer Crocker was approximately seventy-five feet away from the truck, could not see inside the truck due to its tinted windows, and did not know who was inside the truck. While those in the parking lot hid behind vehicles, Officer Crocker placed her hand on her gun and instructed the driver to roll down his window. The driver rolled down one of the windows, but Officer Crocker still could not see inside the truck. Officer Crocker instructed the driver to pull around, but the driver left the scene. Officer Crocker radioed officers and issued a be-on-the-lookout (“BOLO”) alert for the truck. KPD Officer Tim Edwards, the school resource officer at a nearby school, testified that he heard the BOLO for a red truck on the police radio. He then heard that a patrol officer had made a traffic stop near the high school. Because the patrol officer was not responding to the dispatcher, Officer Edwards went to the scene of the stop. When Officer Edwards arrived, he saw Defendant behind a red truck. Officer Edwards stated that the window tint on the back and side windows of the truck was “definitely darker than your legal tint,” making it difficult to see into the truck. He noted that the interior of the truck was dark and that a person standing outside would be required to be “right up close to be able to see in the vehicle from the front windshield.” Officer Edwards spoke to Defendant, and their interaction was recorded on Officer Edwards’s body camera. Defendant maintained that his wife and the victim’s father were having an affair, that they were “trying to weed me out,” and that they were “using my past against me.” Defendant stated that on Saturday night, the victim’s father became angry because Defendant and the victim were alone next to his truck while searching for his keys. Defendant said that while he was packing his things into his truck to leave, his children ran up to him and reported that the victim’s father was screaming at the victim and may have hit her. Defendant said that he confronted his wife and the victim’s father about their affair and the reason for their accusations against him, that Defendant and the victim’s father - 11 - yelled at each other, that the victim’s father “took a swing and missed,” and that Defendant “whooped his a**.” He maintained that he had not engaged in inappropriate conduct with the victim and that the victim and her brother “always come sit in my truck” when their parents drop them off at school and sit with his children until they go into the school. Defendant was not arrested that day. Forensic Interviews and Investigation The victim’s parents took the victim for a forensic interview at Childhelp. On cross- examination, the victim testified that during the initial forensic interview, she denied anything occurred between her and Defendant and that she later decided to return for a second forensic interview during which she revealed the sexual abuse. In response to defense counsel’s questioning on cross-examination, she stated that during the second forensic interview, she informed the interviewer that she decided to reveal the abuse “because I thought of [Defendant’s] daughter and the fact that he could do it to other girls.” Defense counsel asked the victim whether she recalled telling the forensic interviewer, “My parents told me he was doing it to other girls,” and the victim replied, “Yeah.” Defense counsel asked, “And so your parents told you he was doing it to other girls and so you decided to go talk to [the forensic interviewer] and to tell [the forensic interviewer] what you told her; is that right?” The victim replied, “Yeah.” She clarified that her parents told her that Defendant “could be” sexually abusing others. The victim affirmed that her parents made the statement to her after her father had lost a fight against Defendant and that her father was upset that he had been beaten by Defendant. The victim acknowledged that during the second forensic interview, she stated that Defendant also forced her to touch his penis while on the way back from the country club but clarified in her testimony that her statement was not accurate. She explained, “I was just confused. And I know that it only happened once, which was on the way there with everyone in the car.” On redirect examination, the victim testified that during the first forensic interview, she discussed Defendant’s “grooming” behavior because “I just felt they weren’t as bad as the other stuff.” At the time, she had not heard of the term “grooming.” The victim explained that following the first forensic interview, she told her mother about Defendant’s behavior toward her, which her mother informed her was considered “grooming.” The victim explained that she did not reveal the sexual abuse during the first forensic interview because she cared for Defendant’s children and “didn’t want him to lose his family.” The victim stated that during the second forensic interview, she explained why she decided to return and reveal more information. The State played a portion of a recording, and the victim confirmed that her statement in the recording was the reason for her decision to reveal the sexual abuse. - 12 - The victim’s parents did not watch the forensic interviews, remained in the lobby during the interviews, and did not know what the victim had said during the interviews. The victim’s mother testified that after the first forensic interview, she and her husband met with KPD Sergeant James Lockmiller, who “advised [them] that it might be wise to just sit down with [the victim] in the next few days and talk to her and just say, if there’s anything else bothering you, to let us know and that there could be other victims involved.” The victim’s mother testified that when she and the victim’s father sat down with the victim a few days later, they did not ask her what she had said during the forensic interview. The victim’s mother said they “just expressed to her that, if something was bothering her or she felt like there was more to be said, to let us know and we would contact Sergeant Lockmiller. And we also told her that she was being extremely brave and that there is a possibility of other victims.” The victim’s mother stated that they never told the victim to lie to get Defendant in trouble. Within one or two weeks, the victim approached her parents and told them that “there was more” and that she wanted to have a second forensic interview. Sergeant Lockmiller, who was the lead investigator, testified that he viewed both forensic interviews. He met with the victim’s parents after the initial forensic interview but did not disclose what the victim had stated during the interview. He informed the victim’s parents that “there were other people that needed to be interviewed and that there was the potential for other victims, but I wouldn’t know that until I could complete those interviews.” Sergeant Lockmiller said he did not intend for the victim’s parents to repeat his statement regarding the potential for other victims to the victim in an effort to elicit additional information. He explained that he made the statement to provide the victim’s parents with more information regarding the investigation process and its “extended duration.” Following the second forensic interview, Sergeant Lockmiller was aware that the victim had collected a condom wrapper. He asked the victim’s father to bring him the container in which the victim had placed the condom wrapper, and the victim’s father complied with the request. A warrant was subsequently issued for Defendant’s arrest, and on October 8, 2021, he was arrested following a traffic stop. KPD Investigator Philip Jinks, who was at the scene of the arrest, stated that the truck’s dark window tint limited his ability to see inside the truck. Upon searching the truck, officers seized a firearm in a black bag that also contained Defendant’s identification. Officers also observed an unopened gold condom in the black bag, but they did not seize the condom at that time. The truck was towed to the police impound lot. - 13 - Sergeant Lockmiller learned from Investigator Jinks that an unopened condom in a wrapper consistent with the wrapper submitted by the victim’s father was in Defendant’s truck. Sergeant Lockmiller obtained a search warrant for the truck, executed the search warrant in the police impound lot, and seized the unopened condom. He noted that the condom wrapper obtained from the victim’s father and the wrapper of the unopened condom from Defendant’s truck were the same brand and color and listed