Accordingly, we conclude that no reasonable jury could conclude that the Defendant committed an assault by extremely offensive or provocative physical contact. See, e.g., State v. Michael Cammon, No. M2001-00592-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 31414089, at *3-4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 25, 2002) (concluding that a lesser-included instruction on assault by extremely offensive or provocative touching was not warranted were there was proof that the deputy sustained bodily injuries—minor cuts and abrasions, a chipped tooth, and bite marks on his hands—during the struggle with the defendant). The Defendant, using a tree branch, struck the victim's backside, leaving visible bruising.
Accordingly, even if corroboration of the victim's testimony were required, the appellant has waived this issue on appeal. See id.; see also State v. Shawn Rafael Bough, No. E2002-00717-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 50798, at *11 (Tenn.Crim.App. at Knoxville, Jan. 12, 2004); State v. Michael Cammon, No. M2001-00592-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 31414089, at *2 (Tenn.Crim.App. at Nashville, Oct. 25, 2002). This issue is without merit.
Accordingly, he has waived this issue on appeal. See id.; see also State v. Michael Cammon, No. M2001-00592-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 31414089, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Oct. 25, 2002).