Appellate panel hears challenge to sufficiency of evidence and prosecutor—s language in Simons appeal

An appellate panel in Tennessee heard oral arguments on the appeal of Mr. Simons—s conviction for attempted aggravated sexual assault, focusing on whether the state proved the defendant had a specific intent to commit sexual penetration and whether the prosecutor—s closing remarks were improper.

The question before the court was twofold: defense counsel argued the record is too thin to show a —substantial step— toward the charged sexual offense and therefore the conviction must be reversed; the state countered that the defendant—s words and corroborating physical acts supported both intent and a substantial step, and that the prosecutor—s use of the word —evil— in closing was brief and not reversible error.

Defense counsel (identified in the transcript as Mr. Bridal) told the panel that the proof is —remarkably thin,— noting the trial record consisted primarily of the victim—s testimony and limited corroboration from her son and a responding officer. Counsel argued the victim—s subjective fear that —he was going to [sexually assault] me—, and her statements that the defendant said —this is gonna happen,— do not supply the specific intent element needed for attempted aggravated sexual assault. Counsel cited appellate precedents (identified in argument as Fowler/Follard and Bullard) to argue that those cases found substantial steps…