ÿWPCu# …# VU>a %Ÿ 0G¥UBì 4. B n­Q 0Jþ 0‹H 0DÓ U: 0TQ ¥ 0^­ 0h  0rs 0|å 0†aw@ç 0' 1u·U,, 0dX B¼U,ÙU6U*;U.e D3“B)ÆDCï 0@2 AMr¬¿ÜkfGÒ­v~vÓý AOÐ!Æ" 0Då" D/)# BX#˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(¡+$¡¡Ò4°ÒÒh°ÒÔ€òÈ7òXXÔÔ€òë/òòòÈ7ÔÑ  ÑÑ7€7!XXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpià~| 3|xÇ«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(;(3‚$¤¤Ý ƒ¡+!ÝÒ4°ÒÒh°ÒÔ€òÅ òXXÔÔ€ò‰sòòòÅ ÔÑ  ÑÑ7€NYXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ä àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó+•ŸzAZ‹"Arial Regular2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ³D´µD¶·¸¹ºD»D¼Ó€2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Courier$$$$'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ¢Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ h ÒÔ€'ôÔÔ€(ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òAprilÏ2,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ h ÒÔ€'ôÔÔ€(ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Subsequent€to€the€defendant's€conviction,€by€agreement€of€the€parties,€theÏindictment€was€amended€to€show€the€defendant's€name€as€Akem€Ismil€Fuguan.Ì \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ ÈÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ h ÒÔ€'ôÔÔ€(ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„101€provides€that€"(a)€A€person€commits€assault€who:€(1)€Intentionally,Ïknowingly€or€recklessly€causes€bodily€injury€to€another;€(2)€Intentionally€or€knowingly€causes€another€toÏreasonably€fear€imminent€bodily€injury;€or€(3)€Intentionally€or€knowingly€causes€physical€contact€withÏanother€and€a€reasonable€person€would€regard€the€contact€as€extremely€offensive€or€provocative."ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€&&X„d&ÓÑ#€&&Xd#ÑÔ€'ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ h ÒÔ€'ôÔÔ€(ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€))Xd#ÑÑ#€))Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÙ€€ÙÑ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÓÓÔ€(XÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑßL€./,;+'h|` ´- `€€Lßà8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€NOVEMBER€1995€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,€à àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9503„CR„00089Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àHamilton€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€Hon.€Douglas€A.ÏMeyer,€Judge€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)ÌJOHNNY€LEE€CLEVELAND,€III,à à)à à€(AttemptedÏAggravated€Rape)Ìa/k/a€AKEM€ISMIL€FUGUAN,€€€€€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àAppellant.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌMary€Ann€Greenà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€ofÏTennesseeÌ701€Cherry€St.,€Suite€300à àà àà àà àandÌChattanooga,€TN€37402à àà àà àDarian€B.€TaylorÌ(AT€TRIAL)à àà àà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneral€of€Tennessee€à àà àà àà àà à450ÏJames€Robertson€Parkwayà àà àÌArdena€J.€Garthà àà àà àà àNashville,€TNÏ37243„0493ÌDistrict€Public€DefenderÌ€€€€€andà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€CoxÌDonna€Robinson€Millerà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌMary€Ann€Greenà àà àà àà à€€à àandÌAssistant€Public€Defendersà àà àH.€C.€BrightÌ701€Cherry€St.,€Suite€300à àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌChattanooga,€TN€37402à àà àà à600€Market€St.,€Suite€310Ì(ON€APPEAL)à àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€37402ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌJoe€D.€DuncanÌSpecial€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€defendant,€Johnny€Lee€Cleveland,€III,€a/k/a€Akem€Ismil€Fuguan,× ƒ0 ××  ×€wasÏconvicted€of€attempted€aggravated€rape€and€was€sentenced€to€the€Department€ofÏCorrection€for€twenty€(20)€years€as€a€Range€II,€multiple€offender.ÌÌà àThe€issues€presented€for€review€are€as€follows:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 à(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€the€defendant'sÏmotion€for€judgment€of€acquittal;ÌÌà8 à(2)€whether€improper€lay€witness€testimony,€regarding€theÏdefendant's€sanity,€was€allowed;ÌÌà8 à(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€the€defendantÏfunds€for€an€independent€psychiatric€examination;ÌÌà8 à(4)€whether€evidence€about€defendant's€prior€criminalÏhistory€was€improperly€allowed;ÌÌà8 à(5)€whether€certain€remarks€by€the€state's€attorney,€in€hisÏclosing€argument,€created€error;ÌÌà8 à(6)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€instruct€the€juryÏon€the€lesser€offense€of€aggravated€assault;€andÌÌà8 à(7)€whether€error€occurred€by€reason€of€one€of€the€jurorsÏbeing€absent€during€a€part€of€the€stateððs€closing€argument.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓ€We›€find€reversible€error€regarding€the€sixth€and€seventh€issues,€and€the€case€must€beÏremanded€for€a€new€trial.œÌÌà àIn€his€first€issue,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denyingÏhis€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal.ÌÌà àThe€state€presented€the€testimony€of€five€witnesses,€namely:€the€victim,Ïtwo€maintenance€men€from€the€apartment€building€where€the€crime€occurred,€and€twoÍpolice€officers.€€The€defendant€relied€on€the€defense€of€insanity,€but€he€neither€testifiedÏhimself€nor€called€any€witnesses€in€his€own€behalf.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€argued€at€trial€and€now€argues€on€appeal€that€aÏreasonable€doubt€as€to€his€sanity€was€raised€by€the€state's€evidence€which€thenÏshifted€the€burden€to€the€state€to€establish€his€sanity€to€the€satisfaction€of€the€juryÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€and€that€the€state€failed€to€carry€its€burden.€€Thus,€in€hisÏfirst€issue,€the€defendant€argues€that€because€the€state€did€not€carry€its€burden,€the€trialÏjudge€erred€in€denying€his€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal,€and€therefore€we€shouldÏreverse€his€conviction€and€dismiss€this€prosecution.€€We€find€no€merit€to€this€issue.ÌÌà àThe€actual€facts€surrounding€the€commission€of€this€crime€are€notÏseriously€disputed.€€The€victim,€Ms.€Rosie€Mae€Hughes,€was€sixty€years€old€and€livedÏin€an€apartment€in€the€Patten€Towers€in€Chattanooga.€€The€defendant€was€twenty„three€years€of€age€at€the€time€of€the€crime.€€They€were€acquainted€in€the€neighborhoodÏand€had€conversed€with€each€other€on€several€occasions€in€the€past.€€The€defendantÏhad€always€been€friendly€with€the€victim€and€ofttimes€referred€to€her€as€"Mama."€€HeÏhad€never€acted€"ugly"€towards€her€prior€to€this€occasion.ÌÌà àOn€April€14,€1993,€Ms.€Hughes€saw€her€daughter€and€the€defendantÏcoming€out€of€a€liquor€store,€nearby€where€she€lived.€€After€some€conversation,€theÍdefendant€asked€Ms.€Hughes€to€show€him€were€she€lived€so€that€he€could€come€andÏvisit€her€sometime.€€She€agreed.€€Ms.€Hughes€was€not€apprehensive€about€allowingÏthe€defendant€to€go€with€her€to€her€apartment€because€of€their€prior€cordialÏrelationship.€€Along€the€way€to€the€apartment€the€defendant€saw€several€people€withÏwhom€he€was€acquainted€and€had€conversations€with€them.ÌÌà àAfter€the€defendant€and€Ms.€Hughes€arrived€at€her€apartment,€theyÏcontinued€to€talk€in€a€friendly€manner.€€He€declined€her€invitation€to€have€a€drink€ofÏwater.€€He€looked€out€the€window€and€commented€on€the€beautiful€view.€€Then,€all€of€aÏsudden,€the€defendant€grabbed€Ms.€Hughes,€wrestled€her€to€the€floor,€forcibly€took€offÏmost€of€her€clothes€and€undressed€himself.€€At€one€point€in€his€attack€upon€the€victim,Ïthe€defendant€obtained€a€large€fork€from€the€kitchen,€ran€it€through€her€hair,€threatenedÏto€kill€her,€and€called€her€a€"bitch"€several€times.ÌÌà àSeveral€items€of€furniture€in€the€apartment€were€turned€over€as€a€result€ofÏthe€struggle€between€them.€€Finally,€Ms.€Hughes€was€able€to€pull€an€emergency€cord,Ïwhich€served€to€alert€the€building€office€that€something€was€amiss€in€the€victim's€room.ÌÌà àTwo€maintenance€men,€Danny€Sweeton€and€Thomas€Geppart,€answeredÏthe€emergency€call.€€After€they€arrived€at€the€apartment,€Sweeton€told€Geppart€to€goÏcall€the€police,€and€Sweeton€went€into€the€apartment€where€he€found€the€defendantÍand€the€victim,€both€in€a€state€of€undress.€€The€maintenance€men€told€the€defendant€heÏwould€have€to€leave€the€building,€and€he€did,€taking€off€running,€followed€by€Geppart.€ÏSubsequently,€the€police€apprehended€the€defendant€nearby.ÌÌà àClearly,€the€undisputed€evidence€is€overwhelming€to€show€that€theÏdefendant€attempted€to€commit€aggravated€rape€upon€the€victim.€€The€only€question€isÏwhether€the€defendant€was€legally€sane€at€the€time€the€offense€was€committed.€€TheÏjury€concluded€that€he€was€and€we€agree.ÌÌà àWhere€insanity€is€presented€as€a€defense€in€a€criminal€case,€theÏevidence€must€be€evaluated€in€the€light€of€several€well€recognized€principles€of€law.ÌÌà àFirst,€if€the€evidence€adduced€by€either€the€defendant€or€the€state€raises€aÏreasonable€doubt€as€to€the€defendant's€sanity,€then€the€burden€of€proof€falls€on€theÏstate€to€prove€that€the€defendant€had€the€capacity€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€hisÏconduct€and€the€ability€to€conform€his€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€law.€€òòState€v.ÏPattonóó,€593€S.W.2d€913€(Tenn.€1979);€òòGraham€v.€Stateóó,€547€S.W.2d€531€(Tenn.€1977).€ÏIn€òòEdwards€v.€Stateóó,€540€S.W.2d€641€(Tenn.€1976),€our€supreme€court€said:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àThis€burden€can€be€met€by€the€state€through€theÏintroduction€of€expert€testimony€on€the€issue,€or€through€layÏtestimony€where€a€proper€foundation€for€the€expressing€ofÏan€opinion€is€laid,€or€through€the€showing€of€acts€orÏstatements€of€the€petitioner,€at€or€very€near€the€time€of€theÍcommission€of€the€crime,€which€are€consistent€with€sanityÏand€inconsistent€with€insanity.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓ540€S.W.2d€at€646.ÌÌà àSecond,€a€jury€is€not€required€to€accept€testimony€of€medical€experts€onÏthe€issue€of€sanity€to€the€exclusion€of€lay€testimony€or€to€the€exclusion€of€evidence€ofÏthe€actions€of€the€defendant€that€are€inconsistent€with€insanity.€€òòState€v.€Pattonóó,€òòsupraóó;ÏòòEdwards€v.€Stateóó,€òòsupraóó.ÌÌà àThird,€the€issue€of€insanity€at€the€time€of€a€crime€is€a€question€for€the€juryÏto€decide.€€òòSpurlock€v.€Stateóó,€212€Tenn.€132,€368€S.W.2d€299€(1963).ÌÌà àPrior€to€the€trial,€the€defendant,€on€motion€of€his€counsel,€was€evaluatedÏas€to€his€mental€competency€on€two€occasions€by€the€Johnson€Mental€Health€Center.€ÏOn€October€6,€1993,€the€medical€authorities€at€the€center€advised€the€trial€court€that€theÏdefendant€was€mentally€competent€to€stand€trial€and€that€a€defense€of€insanity€couldÏnot€be€supported.€€On€January€13,€1994,€after€the€defendant's€reevaluation,€theÏmedical€authorities€at€the€center€advised€the€trial€court€the€same€thing.ÌÌà àWe€note€that€at€the€defendant's€trial,€neither€the€state€nor€the€defendantÏoffered€any€medical€testimony€regarding€the€defendant's€mental€condition.ÌÌà àAt€the€end€of€the€state's€proof,€the€defendant€moved€to€dismiss€the€case.€ÏThe€trial€court,€in€overruling€the€motion,€stated:€€".€.€.€I€guess€you€might€say€that€you'veÏraised€a€question€at€least€about€insanity€by€your€cross€examination€of€witnesses,€soÏthe€burden€has€shifted€to€the€state€to€prove€sanity."€€However,€the€trial€court€followedÏthis€statement€with€this€comment:€€"But€there€is€adequate€proof€on€which€the€jury€couldÏdetermine€that€he€was€sane€and€that€he€is€guilty€as€charged."ÌÌà àFrom€our€review€of€the€trial€evidence,€we€find€very€little€in€the€state's€proofÏthat€would€suggest€any€mental€abnormality€on€the€part€of€the€defendant€at€the€time€ofÏthe€crime.€€The€defendant€argues€that€certain€testimony€of€the€victim€raised€aÏreasonable€doubt€as€to€his€sanity€which€was€sufficient€to€shift€the€burden€of€proof€onÏthis€issue€to€the€state.ÌÌà àAt€one€point€in€the€victim's€direct€testimony,€she€stated:€€"He€snapped€justÏlike€that.€€He€just€turned€all€of€a€sudden."€€On€cross„examination,€defense€counselÏasked€her:€€"Do€you€recall€telling€me€in€your€phone€conversation€with€me€that€it€wasÏlike€he€just€went€like€you€snap€your€finger,€he€changed€that€fast?"€€Her€answer€was:€€Ï"Well,€it€happened€so€quick."ÌÌà àWe€seriously€question€whether€the€above€testimony€by€the€victim€couldÏbe€said€to€raise€a€reasonable€doubt€as€to€the€defendant's€sanity€so€as€to€place€anyÏburden€on€the€state€to€prove€his€sanity€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Further,€we€haveÏcarefully€reviewed€all€of€the€direct€and€cross„examination€testimony€of€the€other€stateÏwitnesses,€and€we€find€nothing€of€substance€in€that€testimony€that€related€to€anyÏmental€abnormality€on€the€part€of€the€defendant.Ñ€1ÑÇÌà àThus,€while€we€hesitate€to€agree€with€the€trial€judge€that€the€burden€ofÏproof€on€the€issue€of€the€defendant's€sanity€had€shifted€to€the€state,€we€are€inÏagreement€with€his€other€comment€that€there€was€adequate€proof€for€the€jury€toÏdetermine€that€the€defendant€was€sane€and€that€he€was€guilty€of€the€offense.ÌÌà àIn€support€of€this€latter€conclusion€on€our€part,€we€will€refer€to€a€fewÏexamples€in€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€about€the€actions€and€statements€of€theÏdefendant€at€and€near€the€time€of€the€crime€which€well€illustrate€that€the€defendant€hadÏthe€capacity€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€his€conduct€and€the€ability€to€conformÏhis€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law.€€€€€ÌÌà àFor€example,€the€victim€testified€that€on€the€way€to€her€apartment,€theÏdefendant€met€several€acquaintances,€and€that€he€stopped€and€had€normalÏconversations€with€them.€€Also,€the€defendant€signed€a€fictitious€name€in€the€PattenÏTowers€register€when€they€entered€the€building.€€It€is€reasonable€to€assume€that€evenÏat€the€outset€of€the€incident,€the€defendant,€by€signing€a€false€name,€was€laying€theÏgroundwork€to€confuse€his€identity.ÌÌà àAdditionally,€when€Mr.€Sweeton,€the€maintenance€man,€answered€theÏemergency€call€to€the€victim's€apartment,€he€knocked€on€the€door€and€asked€ifÍ"everything€was€okay,"€and€the€defendant€replied,€"Yeah,€everythings€[sic]€okay;€goÏaway."€€When€Sweeton€entered€the€room€and€told€the€defendant€to€put€his€clothes€on,Ïthe€defendant€complied€and€said€he€"didn't€want€any€trouble."ÌÌà àWhile€they€were€on€the€elevator,€the€defendant€was€polite€in€manner€andÏtold€Sweeton€that€he€and€the€victim€had€been€dating€for€a€month,€and€that€she€wentÏcrazy€when€her€daughter€came€and€knocked€on€the€door.€€We€point€out€that€there€wasÏno€evidence€in€the€case€to€support€these€allegations,€and€from€these€statements,€it€isÏreasonable€to€conclude€that€the€defendant€was€trying€to€come€up€with€a€story€whichÏmight€convince€Sweeton€that€his€wrongful€conduct€should€be€excused.ÌÌà àThe€other€maintenance€man,€Mr.€Geppart,€told€about€the€defendantÏrunning€away€from€the€apartment€building,€and€quite€clearly,€this€attempt€to€avoidÏapprehension€by€the€police€demonstrates€rationality€on€the€defendant's€part.ÌÌà àAlso,€in€an€attempt€to€exculpate€himself€from€his€crime,€the€defendantÏsaid€to€Officer€Mike€Stro,€who€caught€the€defendant,€that€"I€haven't€done€anything.€€I'veÏbeen€on€Martin€Luther€King€partying€all€day."ÌÌà àFurther,€soon€after€the€incident,€Detective€Sergeant€Charles€Dudley€ofÏthe€Chattanooga€Police€Department,€interviewed€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€hadÍno€problem€answering€questions.€€Detective€Dudley€said€the€defendant€was€veryÏ"alert,€very€cooperative,"€answered€his€questions€"appropriately,"€and€did€not€say€orÏbehave€in€any€way€to€suggest€that€he€was€not€in€control€of€his€faculties.€€The€defendantÏdenied€to€Detective€Dudley€that€he€had€attacked€the€victim,€admitted€that€he€had€seenÏher€earlier€in€the€day,€but€denied€going€to€the€victim's€apartment.ÌÌà àWe€need€not€cite€other€examples€of€the€defendant's€acts€and€statementsÏthat€are€demonstrated€by€the€evidence€that€are€consistent€with€his€sanity€andÏinconsistent€with€insanity.€€Suffice€it€to€say,€even€if,€arguably,€one€could€say€that€theÏburden€of€proof€regarding€the€defendant's€sanity€had€shifted€to€the€state,€the€evidenceÏin€this€case€clearly€shows€that€the€state€carried€this€burden.ÌÌà àUnder€this€first€issue,€the€defendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€shouldÏhave€given€the€jury€an€instruction€on€diminished€capacity.€€There€is€no€merit€to€thisÏargument.€€Even€if€the€defendant€had€requested€such€an€instruction,€which€he€did€not,Ïthe€trial€court€would€not€have€been€authorized€to€give€it.€€The€defendant€did€not€put€onÏany€evidence€of€diminished€capacity€on€his€part,€nor€was€there€any€other€proofÏdeveloped€in€the€testimony€of€the€state's€witnesses,€that€would€serve€to€negate€theÏmens€rea€element€of€attempted€aggravated€rape.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€854€S.W.2dÏ116,€122€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€correctly€overruled€the€defendant's€motion€for€judgment€ofÏacquittal.ÌÌà àIn€his€second€issue,€the€defendant€complains€about€the€testimony€ofÏDetective€Dudley.€€He€says€that€Dudley's€testimony€about€the€defendant's€appearanceÏand€behavior€was€irrelevant€on€the€issue€of€sanity,€citing€òòState€v.€Claytonóó,€656€S.W.2dÏ344€(Tenn.€1983),€and€òòState€v.€Hammockóó,€867€S.W.2d€8,€13€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).ÌÌà àAs€we€have€mentioned€previously€in€our€discussion€of€the€defendant'sÏfirst€issue,€the€trial€court€denied,€at€the€end€of€the€state's€proof,€the€defendant's€motionÏfor€judgment€of€acquittal,€ruling€that€there€was€adequate€proof€from€which€the€juryÏcould€determine€that€the€defendant€was€sane€and€guilty€as€charged.Ì›Ìà àUnder€this€second€issue,€the€defendant€seems€to€argue€that€the€trial€courtÏwas€basing€this€conclusion€solely€on€the€testimony€of€Detective€Dudley,€but€the€recordÏis€clear€that€the€trial€court€was€considering€all€of€the€evidence€that€had€been€offered€byÏthe€state's€witnesses€in€arriving€at€this€ruling.ÌÌà àIt€is€true€that€in€òòClaytonóó€and€òòHammockóó,€the€courts€held€that€lay€testimonyÏregarding€the€outward€appearance€of€the€defendant€to€be€nonprobative€on€the€issue€ofÍsanity,€but€Detective€Dudley's€testimony€went€much€further€than€describing€theÏdefendant's€outward€appearance.ÌÌà àDetective€Dudley€did€not€testify€simply€as€to€how€the€defendant€looked,Ïwhich€was€the€objectionable€testimony€in€òòClaytonóó.€€He€testified€about€the€defendant'sÏbehavior,€his€actions€and€statements,€all€of€which€pass€muster€under€our€case€law.€ÏòòState€v.€Sparksóó,€891€S.W.2d€607,€616„617€(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.€Jacksonóó,€890€S.W.2dÏ436,€440€(Tenn.€1994);€òòEdwards€v.€Stateóó,€òòsupraóó;€òòState€v.€Cherryóó,€639€S.W.2d€683,€686Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).ÌÌà àAdditionally,€Detective€Dudley€did€not€violate€the€rule€in€òòSparksóó,€òòsupraóó,Ïwhich€prohibits€an€officer€in€Dudley's€position€from€giving€a€lay€opinion€on€aÏdefendant's€sanity.€€He€merely€testified€that€the€defendant€did€not€say€or€behave€in€anyÏway€to€suggest€that€he€was€not€in€control€of€his€faculties,€and€that€the€defendantÏ"seemed€to€be€in€control€of€his€faculties€as€far€as€intoxication€goes."€€On€cross„examination,€Detective€Dudley€conceded€that€he€was€not€a€"psychiatrist,"€and€that€heÏhad€come€across€people€who€at€first€seemed€to€be€normal,€but€later€turned€out€to€beÏmentally€ill.ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€acted€properly€in€considering€DetectiveÏDudley's€testimony,€along€with€all€of€the€other€evidence,€in€overruling€the€defendant'sÏmotion€for€judgment€of€acquittal.ÌÌà àIn€his€third€issue,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€œjudge›€erred€in€notÏgranting€his€motion€for€funds€to€pay€for€an€independent€psychiatric€examination.ÌÌà àThe€trial€œjudge›€was€of€the€opinion€that€under€Tennessee€law€he€was€notÏauthorized€to€order€the€expenditure€of€funds€on€behalf€of€indigent€defendants€for€theÏemployment€of€expert€witnesses€in€non„capital€cases.€€With€regard€to€the€prevailingÏlaw€in€Tennessee€at€the€time€of€the€present€trial,€the€trial€œjudge›€ruled€correctly.€€òòState€v.ÏWilliamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€411€(Tenn.€1983);€òòGraham€v.€Stateóó,€547€S.W.2d€531,€536Ï(Tenn.€1977);€òòState€v.€Aucoinóó,€756€S.W.2d€705,€713„14;€òòState€v.€Chapmanóó,€724ÏS.W.2d€378,€380€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).ÌÌà àWe€do€point€out€that€in€the€recent€case€of€òòState€v.€Barnettóó,€909€S.W.2dÏ423€(Tenn.€1995),€our€supreme€court,€for€the€first€time€regarding€a€non„capital€case,Ïheld€that,€pursuant€to€òòAke€v.€Oklahomaóó,€470€U.S.€68,€105€S.€Ct.€1087,€84€L.€Ed.2d€53Ï(1985),€constitutional€due€process€requires€the€state€to€provide€an€independentÏpsychiatric€expert€to€an€indigent€criminal€defendant€if€that€defendant,€at€an€òòexóó€òòparteóóÍhearing,€makes€a€threshold€showing€of€particularized€need€for€the€assistance€of€anÏexpert.ÌÌà àAt€the€hearing€on€the€defendantððs€motion,€the€defendant€testified€aboutÏhaving€had€some€emotional€and€behavioral€problems€of€a€sexual€nature,€beginningÏwhen€he€was€eleven€or€twelve€years€old.€€He€told€about€having€undergone€someÏpsychiatric€counseling€during€times€when€he€was€institutionalized€in€penal€facilities,Ïand€about€medications€that€had€been€prescribed€to€him€in€the€past.ÌÌà àWhile,€as€we€have€indicated€above,€the€decision€in€òòBarnettóó€post„datedÏthe€trial€of€the€present€case,€still,€even€under€the€dictates€of€òòBarnettóó,€the€defendant€wasÏnot€entitled€to€a€favorable€ruling€on€his€motion€because€the€record€shows€that€he€failedÏto€make€the€required€threshold€showing€of€a€particularized€need€for€an€independentÏpsychiatric€examination.ÌÌà àThe€record€shows€that€at€the€time€of€the€hearing€on€the€defendantððsÏmotion,€the€defendant,€at€defense€counselððs€request,€had,€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€33„7„301,€undergone€two€evaluations€by€the€Johnson€Mental€Health€Center,€regarding€hisÏmental€status.€€Each€evaluation€had€been€conducted€by€separate€clinical€psychiatrists,Ïand€the€result€of€each€evaluation€was€that€the€defendant€was€mentally€competent€toÏstand€trial,€and€that€an€insanity€defense€could€not€be€supported.ÌÌà àAt€the€hearing,€defense€counsel€suggested€that€the€court€should€appointÏsomeone€to€ð ðgo€step€by€step€through€[defendantððs]€psychological€history€to€determine€ifÏthere€were€not€some€œpatterns›€that€would€lead€to€a€mental€disease€or€defect€beingÏidentified€which€might€support,€might€lend€credence€to€a€defense€of€not€guilty€byÏreason€of€insanity.ðð€€In€òòBarnettóó,€the€supreme€court€held€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€inÏrefusing€further€psychiatric€testing€when€ð ð[a]ll€the€facts€and€circumstances€takenÏtogether€demonstrate€that€further€testing€was€being€sought€in€the€ððmere€hope€orÏsuspicionðð€that€favorable€evidence€could€be€obtained.ðð€€909€S.W.2d€at€431.ÌÌà àIn€his€ruling€denying€the€defendantððs€motion,€the€trial€œjudge,›€takingÏcognizance€of€the€fact€that€the€defendant€had€already€been€twice€examined€regardingÏhis€mental€status,€commented€that€he€saw€no€need€for€additional€examinations.€€WeÏagree.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àIn€his€fourth€issue,€the€defendant€says€that€the€assistant€district€attorneyÏgeneral€improperly€argued€the€absence€of€expert€witnesses€who€were€to€testifyÏregarding€the€defendant's€sanity.ÌÌà àSpecifically,€the€defendant€complains€that€in€the€assistant€district€attorneyÏgeneral's€closing€argument€he€improperly€remarked€to€the€jury:€€"I€guess€all€of€you€areÍsurprised.€€Where's€all€those€witnesses?€€Where's€all€those€Doctors€who€says€he'sÏcrazy?"ÌÌà àThe€defendant€did€not€interpose€an€objection€to€these€remarks.€€Thus,€theÏissue€has€been€waived.€€òòState€v.€Pritchettóó,€621€S.W.2d€127,€135€(Tenn.€1981);€òòState€v.ÏComptonóó,€642€S.W.2d€745,€747€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982);€T.R.A.P.€36.ÌÌà àMoreover,€we€note€that€in€the€defense€counsel's€opening€statement€to€theÏjury,€she€stated€that€the€defense€would€call€witnesses€regarding€the€defendant'sÏmental€problems.€€Also,€the€record€shows€that€the€defense€had€witnesses€available€toÏtestify€in€support€of€his€insanity€defense,€but€chose€not€to€call€them.€€Therefore,€someÏcomment€on€absent€witnesses€was€proper.ÌÌà àHowever,€we€do€not€see€in€the€record€that€the€defendant€had€specificÏdoctors€available€to€testify€in€his€behalf.€€It€appears€that€the€defendant€intended€to€relyÏon€counselors,€other€lay€witnesses,€and€medical€records,€rather€than€specific€doctors,Ïto€support€his€plea,€and€so,€to€this€extent,€the€prosecuting€attorney's€reference€toÏ"Doctors"€should€not€have€been€made.€€Nevertheless,€had€a€timely€objection€beenÏmade,€the€trial€court€could€have€easily€solved€the€problem€by€giving€a€curativeÏinstruction.€€In€the€context€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€this€case,€this€minor€errorÏwas€harmless.ÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€stated,€this€issue€is€overruled.ÌÌà àNext,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowingÏevidence€of€his€prior€criminal€history.ÌÌà àAfter€the€defendant€was€arrested,€he€gave€a€tape€recorded€statement€toÏDetective€Dudley.€€He€denied€that€he€had€been€to€the€victim's€apartment,€and€said€thatÏwhen€he€was€arrested,€after€stepping€out€of€the€"Alleyway,"€he€was€on€his€way€to€meetÏhis€"parole€officer."€€At€another€point€in€his€statement,€he€said€he€and€someone€namedÏ"Paul"€had€"been€out€to€Silverdale"€together€on€a€prior€occasion.€€He€said€that€just€priorÏto€his€arrest€he€"asked€Paul€what€time€it€was,"€and€Paul€said€"about€2:00€something,"Ïand€that€he€then€advised€Paul€he€"had€to€go€meet€his€parole€officer."ÌÌà àThe€tape,€containing€the€defendant's€statement,€was€played€to€the€jury,Ïwithout€any€objection€on€the€defendant's€part.€€The€defendant€argues€that€hisÏstatement€should€have€been€redacted€so€as€to€delete€the€portions€of€which€he€nowÏcomplains,€but€the€defendant€never€at€any€time€requested€any€redaction€of€hisÏstatement.€€Further,€this€issue€was€not€listed€as€a€ground€for€relief€in€the€defendant'sÏmotion€for€a€new€trial.€€Under€all€of€these€circumstances,€this€issue€has€been€waived.€ÍòòState€v.€Suttonóó,€562€S.W.2d€820€(Tenn.€1978);€òòState€v.€Leachóó,€684€S.W.2d€655,€658Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).ÌÌà àMoreover,€even€on€the€merits€of€the€issue,€the€defendant€would€not€beÏentitled€to€relief.€€The€evidence€did€not€go€to€show€the€defendant's€propensity€toÏcommit€the€crime€on€trial.ÌÌà àThe€ambiguous€reference€to€his€parole€officer€conveyed€no€information€toÏthe€jury€about€the€specifics€or€nature€of€the€defendant's€prior€criminal€history.€€Also,€theÏbrief€statement€that€he€had€been€with€"Paul"€in€"Silverdale,"€which€the€defendant€saysÏin€his€brief€was€a€county€workhouse,€told€the€jury€nothing€about€any€specific€crime€inÏwhich€the€defendant€might€have€been€involved.ÌÌà àAlso,€it€is€reasonable€to€say€that€the€evidence€was€beneficial€to€theÏdefendant,€as€he€needed€to€offer€some€explanation€in€support€of€his€contention€that€heÏwas€not€at€the€victim's€apartment,€but€was€instead€occupied€with€other€matters.ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€defendant€sustained€no€prejudice€as€a€result€of€thisÏunobjected€to€evidence.€€Any€error€was€harmless.ÌÌà àIn€his€sixth€issue,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€œjudge›€erred€inÏfailing€to€charge€the€jury€on€the€lesser€included€offense€of€aggravated€assault.€€WeÏagree.ÌÌà àAs€a€general€rule,€if€there€is€any€evidence€which€reasonable€minds€couldÏaccept€as€to€the€existence€of€a€lesser€included€offense,€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€anÏinstruction€thereon.€€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€531€S.W.2d€558,€559€(Tenn.€1975).€€If€a€lesserÏoffense€can€be€inferred€from€any€of€the€facts€in€the€case,€it€is€obligatory€on€the€trialÏœjudge›€to€charge€the€jury€concerning€the€lesser€offense.€€òòState€v.€Staggsóó,€554€S.W.2dÏ620,€626€(Tenn.€1977).ÌÌà àThe€defendant€was€charged€with€the€offense€of€attempted€aggravatedÏrape.€€The€indictment€alleged,€in€part,€that€the€defendant€"did€unlawfully,€forcibly,€orÏcoercively€attempt€to€engage€in€sexual€penetration€with€Rosie€Hughes,€while€he€wasÏarmed€with€a€deadly€weapon€or€an€article€used€or€fashioned€in€a€manner€to€lead€theÏvictim€to€believe€it€to€be€a€weapon€.€.€.€."ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€charged€the€jury€on€six€lesser€included€offenses€ofÏattempted€aggravated€rape,€namely,€attempted€rape,€aggravated€sexual€battery,Ïattempted€aggravated€sexual€battery,€sexual€battery,€attempted€sexual€battery€andÏassault.€€The€trial€court€specifically€declined€to€charge€aggravated€assault.ÌÌà àAs€set€forth€in€our€review€of€the€evidence,€the€victim€testified€that€theÏdefendant€assaulted€her,€knocked€her€down,€choked€her,€took€her€clothes€off,€got€aÏlarge€fork€which€he€ran€through€her€hair€and€threatened€to€kill€her€with€it,€saying,€"BitchÏyou€see€this€what€I'm€gonna€kill€you€with."€€Also,€the€record€shows€that€the€victimÏœsustained›€"visible€abrasions,€scratch€marks€about€her€neck,"€and€a€"carpet€burn€or€aÏrub€type€burn€on€her€shoulder€area."ÌÌà àT.C.A.€ðð€39„13„102€states€that:€ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 à(a)€œA€person›€commits€aggravated€assault€who:ÌÌà8 à(1)€Commits€an€assault€as€defined€in€ðð€39„13„101,× ƒ2 ××  ×€andÌÌà8 à€€€€€(A)€Causes€serious€bodily€injury€to€another;€orÌÌà à€€€€€(B)€Uses€or€displays€a€deadly€weapon€.€.€.€.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌà àWe€agree€with€the€state's€assertion€that€Ms.€Hughes'€injuries€would€notÏrise€to€the€level€of€being€"serious€bodily"€injuries.€€We€disagree,€however,€with€theÏstate's€argument€that€the€large€fork€used€in€this€attack€was€not€a€"deadly€weapon."ÌÌà àT.C.A.€ðð€39„11„106(a)(5)(A)€and€(B)€defines€the€term€"deadly€weapon"€as:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 à(A)€A€firearm€or€anything€manifestly€designed,€made€orÏadapted€for€the€purpose€of€inflicting€death€or€serious€bodilyÏinjury;€orÌÌà8 à(B)€Anything€that€in€the€manner€of€its€use€or€intended€use€isÏcapable€of€causing€death€or€serious€bodily€injury.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌà àThe€large€fork€used€in€the€present€assault€would€clearly€fall€within€theÏdefinition€of€a€"deadly€weapon"€as€described€in€subsection€(B)€of€the€statute.ÌÌà àSome€weapons€are€deadly€per€se,€such€as€firearms.€€Others€are€deadlyÏby€reason€of€the€manner€in€which€they€are€used.€€òòMorgan€v.€Stateóó,€220€Tenn.€247,€415ÏS.W.2d€879,€882€(1967).€€A€dangerous€or€deadly€weapon€is€any€weapon€or€instrumentÏwhich,€from€the€manner€it€is€used€or€attempted€to€be€used€is€likely€to€produce€death€orÏcause€great€bodily€harm.€€òòIdóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Haynesóó,€720€S.W.2d€76,€81€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1986).ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€during€the€defendant's€assault€on€the€victim,€he€ranÏthe€large€fork€through€her€hair€and€threatened€to€kill€her€with€it.€€Under€theÏcircumstances€in€this€case,€the€large€fork€was€clearly€a€"deadly€weapon."ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Reedóó,€689€S.W.2d€190,€193€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984),€whereÏthe€court€held€that€the€offense€of€aggravated€assault€could€be€a€lesser€includedÏoffense€of€aggravated€rape,€depending€upon€the€allegations€in€the€indictment€and€theÏproof,€the€court€pointed€out€that€where€the€"aggravated"€element€is€predicated€on€theÏfact€that€a€deadly€weapon€was€used,€this€is€particularly€true.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.ÏJohnsonóó,€670€S.W.2d€634,€637€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).ÌÌà àThe€proof€in€the€present€case€establishes€the€main€offense€and€all€lesserÏincluded€offenses,€and€the€defendant€had€a€constitutional€right€to€have€a€"correct€andÏcomplete€charge€of€the€law€given€by€the€Judge."€€òòState€v.€Staggsóó,€òòsupraóó€at€626.ÌÌà àTherefore,€since€the€evidence€in€this€case€established€the€elements€ofÏaggravated€assault,€and€given€the€allegations€in€the€indictment,€we€conclude€thatÏaggravated€assault€was€a€lesser€included€offense€of€attempted€aggravated€rape,€theÏprincipal€offense€charged€in€the€indictment.€€Thus,€a€charge€on€aggravated€assaultÏshould€have€been€included€in€the€trial€court's€charge€to€the€jury.€€Since€it€was€not,€weÏfind€reversible€error.ÌÌà àWe€also€find€merit€to€the€defendant's€final€issue€in€which€he€claims€thatÏerror€occurred€because€one€of€the€jurors€was€absent€during€a€portion€of€the€finalÏarguments€in€this€œcase.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€914€S.W.2d€481€(Tenn.€1996).Ì›Ìà àOn€the€morning€of€the€second€day€of€the€trial,€one€of€the€original€jurors,ÏChad€Parker,€was€not€present€in€court.€€The€trial€court€stated:€€"We're€ready€to€proceedÏand€we€will€use€the€alternate€as€the€twelfth€juror."€€ÌÌà àThe€jury€was€brought€into€the€courtroom€and€the€trial€court€announced:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àMs.€œRunnion,€you€are€now€a€regular€juror.€€Something€mustÏhave€happened€to€Mr.€Parker.€€He's€not€with€us.€€CouldÏhave€been€an€accident€or€anything€could€happen,€so€youÏare€now€one€of€the€regular€jurors,€so€we€have€twelve€jurorsÏto€continue€the€case.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌÌÌÌà àThe€state€had€rested€its€case€at€the€end€of€the€prior€day,€and€after€theÏalternate€juror,€Ms.€Runnion,€was€seated€with€the€jury,€the€defense€announced€(in€theÏabsence€of€juror€Parker)€that€it€rested€also,€without€putting€on€any€proof.ÌÌà àThe€case€then€proceeded€to€final€argument,€and€after€the€prosecutingÏattorney€had€almost€completed€his€opening€argument,€juror€Parker€arrived€at€court.€€AtÏthat€point,€the€prosecuting€attorney€said€to€the€court:€"Do€I€need€to€start€over?"€€The€trialÍcourt€suggested€he€should€start€over,€but€the€prosecuting€attorney€responded:€€"I€tellÏyou€what,€I'll€let€the€other€jurors€tell€him€about€it."ÌÌà àSubsequently,€the€prosecuting€attorney€finished€his€opening€argumentÏby€making€a€few€more€remarks,€then€after€defense€counsel€argued,€the€prosecutingÏattorney€made€his€final€argument.€€Then,€the€trial€court€excused€the€alternate€juror,€Ms.ÏRunnion,€leaving€the€tardy€juror,€Mr.€Parker,€to€deliberate€with€the€other€eleven€jurorsÏin€deciding€the€case.ÌÌà àThe€record€indicates€that€the€trial€court€was€of€the€view€that€since€jurorÏParker€had€heard€all€of€the€proof,€and€had€heard€all€of€the€defense€argument€and€theÏprosecuting€attorney's€rebuttal€argument,€missing€only€a€portion€of€the€prosecutingÏattorney's€opening€argument,€then€it€would€be€in€order€to€allow€the€case€to€proceed€inÏthe€manner€it€did,€and€that€no€harm€had€been€done€to€the€defendant.ÌÌà àThe€state€argues€essentially€the€same€thing€on€appeal,€and€says€theÏdefendant€was€not€prejudiced.€€Also,€the€state€argues€that€the€complaint€has€been€ÌÌÌÌwaived€because€the€defendant€did€not€object€at€the€time,€nor€did€he€raise€theÏcomplaint€in€his€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€Ordinarily,€we€would€be€inclined€to€agree€thatÏthe€Ìcomplaint€has€been€waived,€but€this€error€is€the€type€that€must€be€noticed€by€us€asÏplain€error.ÌÌà àAlso,€we€are€not€in€a€position€to€categorically€say€that€no€prejudiceÏresulted€to€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€was€entitled€to€have€twelve€jurors€to€hear€theÏwhole€case,€and€that€included€all€of€the€closing€arguments.€€While€it€appears€that€jurorÏParker€only€missed€about€twenty€minutes€of€the€proceedings,€he€was€not€aware€ofÏwhat€had€taken€place€during€his€absence,€unless,€as€the€prosecuting€attorney€hadÏsuggested,€he€learned€it€from€the€other€jurors.€€And€quite€clearly,€this€is€not€the€properÏway€for€jurors€to€learn€about€the€in„court€proceedings€in€a€case.ÌÌà àAmong€the€essentials€of€a€right€to€trial€by€jury€is€the€right€guaranteed€to€allÏdefendants€to€have€the€facts€involved€tried€and€determined€by€twelve€jurors.€€òòState€v.ÏBoboóó,€814€S.W.2d€353€(Tenn.€1991);€òòWillard€v.€Stateóó,€130€S.W.2d€99€(Tenn.€1939).€ÏAlso€included€in€the€guarantee€of€right€to€trial€by€jury€is€the€right€to€have€all€the€jurorsÏpresent€for€all€the€proceedings.€€In€òòBoboóó,€òòsupraóó,€the€supreme€court€held€that€"anyÏerrors€affecting€the€constitutional€right€to€trial€by€jury€will€result€in€such€prejudice€to€theÏjudicial€process€that€automatic€reversal€is€required."€€òòIdóó.€at€358,€citing€T.R.A.P.€36(b),ÍòòState€v.€Perryóó,€740€S.W.2d€723€(Tenn.€1987),€and€òòState€v.€Onidasóó,€635€S..W.€2d€516Ï(Tenn.€1982).€€"Such€violations€are€defects€in€the€structure€of€the€trial€mechanism€andÏthus€defy€analysis€by€harmless€error€standards."€€òòBoboóó€at€358.ÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€stated,€we€find€reversible€error€to€be€present€regardingÏthe€defendant's€two€final€issues.€€The€defendant's€conviction€is€reversed€and€the€caseÏis€remanded€for€a€new€trial.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJoe€D.€Duncan,€Special€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge