WPC  # VU>a % 0 UB 4  n  w@ 0M 0DU 0J 0T 0^7 0h 0r 0|o 0 0q 1uU,v 0d BU,#U6O D3U.U* 0@B)PDCy AM v~v( AOJ 0D D/T B HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 <( 9Z &Courier RegularX(W$X  7OXXdXXd7    iUX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXi<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiԡ 3|xn<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@ \]^e_U`VaebcDdeӀ((3Z$ W!X  7~kXXdd7    iUX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXi     0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Courier New$$$$'dxd<  9p`(Courier<  9p`(Arial("$    % Line 7 d....7Border 1dd-/C << G  !  #d#)   X   #d#  ` X  ,,   YYY FILED,XMay24,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !  #d#)   X   #d#  ` X  $       ,,Othershavebeenlesskindintheirsuggestiontoforegouseoftheterm. Lawyersandjudgesshouldneverstooptoutterthetermresgestae.Thetermdefiesdefinition,causesconfusion,andthwartseffortsatseriousanalysis.WigmoredescribedthesemeaninglessLatinwordsasuseless,vicious,andpositivelyharmful.NeilP.Cohen,etal.,TennesseeLawofEvidence803(2).1at532(3ded.1995).PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &((Xd&#((Xd#)   X   #++Xd##++Xd#  ` X      \RA'\,ԛL01/;+'h|` - `Lߛ8 @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLE@   JANUARY1996SESSIONSTATEOFTENNESSEE,  ) ̀    ) Appellee,  ) No.01C019501CC00023    )    ) GilesCountyv.    )    ) Hon.JimT.Hamilton,Judge    )HUGHPETERBONDURANT,JR.,) (MurderintheSecondDegree)andKENNETHPATTERSON )BONDURANT,   )     ) Appellants.  )@  CONCURRINGOPINION  Iconcurintheresultsreachedinthemajorityopinion.Idisagree,though,withthatopinionsuseof resgestaeasalegalconceptthatexistsseparatelytojustifytheadmissionofevidenceundertheTennesseeRulesofEvidence,particularlyRule404(b).Thetermresgestaehasbeencriticizedforits vaguenessandimprecision,leadingtorecommendationsthatitbeomittedfromuseinanyevidentiaryanalysis.2JohnW.Strong,etal.,McCormickonEvidence,268at207208(4thed.1992)( Theancientphrasecanwellbejettisoned,withdueacknowledgmentthatitserveditseraintheevolutionofevidencelaw.) 2   ׀Themajorityopinionsinclusionofeventstwodaysafterthevictimsdeathaspartoftheresgestaeforthemurderindicateshowthetermsvaguenessmayleadtoanundulybroadapplication. Thiscourthaspreviouslystatedthatweshould avoidthemurkyconceptofresgestae.Statev.Carpenter,773S.W.2d1,9(Tenn.Crim.App.),app.denied(Tenn.1989).Infact,oursupremecourthasattemptedtoconsignresgestaetohistory:  8  We...mustconcedethatovertheyearsthatthecourtshavefrequentlyusedthetermresgestaewhenadmittingevidenceofothercrimesorsimilarevidencebeforeandafteracrime.WethinkthoughthattheauthorofWigmoreOnEvidence,3rdEdition,Vol.1,atSec.218,correctly[analyzes]thetheoryandreasonforthisadmissionwhenhesays:8 8  Theterm resgestaeshouldbeonceandforallabandonedasuselessandconfusing.Letitbesaidthatsuchactsreceivableas necessarypartsoftheproofofanentiredeed,or inseparableelementsofthedeed,or concomitantpartsofthecriminalact,oranythingelsethatcarriesitsownreasoninganddefinitionwithit;butletlegaldiscussionssedulouslyavoidthismuchabusedandwhollyunmanageableLatinphrase.8 Thuswethinkthatthisissoundreasoninginthattherealreasonforadmissionofthesecrimesbeforeandafterthecrimeforwhichtheplaintiffinerrorisherebeingtriedisthattheywereinseparablecomponentsofacompletedcrime.  Gibbsv.State,201Tenn.491,300S.W.2d890,892(1957).Insimilarfashion,thevariousactswhichthemajorityopinionviewsasadmissibleaspartoftheresgestaeareactuallyadmissibleaseitherinseparablecomponentsofthedefendantsactsofmurderorasrelevantevidencetendingtoshowmotive,theelementofmalice,orthedestructionofevidence.Thus,theactsareadmissibleunderrecognizedexceptionstoRule404(b)withoutanyneedtorelyuponresgestae. Also,Idisagreewiththemajorityopinionsconclusion,albeitindictum,thatRule30(c),Tenn.R.Crim.P.,doesnotrequiresupplementaljuryinstructions̜duringdeliberationstobewritten,readanddeliveredtothejury.InStatev.Crocker,697S.W.2d362(Tenn.Crim.App.),app.denied(Tenn.1985),thiscourtreviewedcomplaintsaboutthetrialcourtgivingsomesupplementalinstructionsorallyanddeliveringotherwrittensupplementalinstructionstothejurywithoutthembeingreadtothejury.Thiscourtstatedthefollowing:  8  Itiselementarythateverywordofthejudgesinstructionstothejuryshouldbeinwritingandreadtothejury.Tenn.R.CrimP.30(c).8  Clearly,thetrialcourtsoralcommentstothejuryanditsfailuretopersonallyreadanddelivertothejurythesupplementalchargewerehighlyirregularandimproper.  ӀIdat365.Juryinstructionsgivenattheendofatrialaremeanttoassistandguidethejuryinitsdeliberations.Inthisrespect,whethersupplementalinstructionsaremeanttoclarify,explain,addto,correctorevenrephrasetheinstructionsalreadygiven,theyarenolessaidsandguidestojurydeliberationthantheoriginalinstructionsandshouldbetreatedthesame. Ibelievethatthereislittleriskthatthejurywillplaceundueemphasisonsupplementalinstructionsiftheyareinwriting.Actually,iftheonlyinstructionspossessedbythejuryarethosethatconfusedit,thereisagreaterriskofamiscarriageofjusticeiftheexplanatoryinstructionsarenotinwritingforthejuryscontinuedreview.Anyconcernthatasupplementalinstructionmaybeundulyemphasizedcanbeaddressedbyinstructingthejurytoconsideritinconjunctionwiththeremainderoftheinstructions.Inanyevent,IbelievethattherequirementofawrittenchargeprovidedbyRule30(c)coversalljuryinstructionsattheendofthecasegivenforthepurposeofaidingthejuryinitsdeliberations,whetherthoseinstructionsareviewedasoriginalorϜsupplemental. IamauthorizedtostatethatJudgeWadeconcursinthisopinion.      ______________________________      JosephM.Tipton,Judge