ÿWPC¾  ,tëNoL¯Rå¼ÊËÜÑÉ<_M“Wó3¯–$NQïcܼt¸[à_š'?Ò ÐÞÐ3Ô^9,«ÕØÓå¦<Ó´Òð€[ßÔáš½¥œ6DÓþKpMÊè6È7’ˆÆ(Kžä“°bjzÀ%GÑQk’27%£Uši¦½û‡Åçnµ-}àÛ0î£6šà½5ÁÚ‹\\<jß|KìÑðX±$‚öbѪÜw‘¬×0(Nþ•~bCjDP6xLÓö_Ö…@HÁ}8ý.T1Õ‰Üoyǃ(à¸æ‹¶ÄOîÆ/F&²p•°…äâ^ò2ùm“¨Å/r3>9»€0ñOÊn&mtR7˜“d*óï2ÍÞì‚Cé2Û\LÒÛ ôé#lûÿ*E:6µ_ô¯3aH> kÕfȤT²j/NcjÛ8¹«ìîIq)R6i—£-µ¢Ù÷µ67MO¶nì‚è {:ÐQ¾œDãbŒo‚kBœ¢¯KÃ0W0¾(Û¸Ò™üÓÿ]ÍŒæà¤åç]1ü’¸Ì,¯vÓT,µGŸû6šço쟕šVcsÆ£v¥q ;†u¢d«ú ήxëÐê|®ËŲ$‡XïaÄH ¶@2˜)#!>UN_ %­ 0(³U:Ûbw@4]q"€¢U:©ãU:êN$ & m( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( AQ? Æ 0DV 0Dš 0DÞ Þ D/" BQ Bn D3‹ ˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,Ù¹6 AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- < = > D? @ A B eC Ó€M P {Z='3|xP kidnapping ýÝ ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ XYXXXÔÔ€ 7ð X XYÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ XYX  7ðÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€22,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,–ûyAZ‹"Arial Regular ýÝ ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X(XXXXÔÔ€ØíXX(XÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X(XXØíÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€20,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,–ûyAZ‹"Arial RegularÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ !"#(Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd&&&&'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ŠáÞ‹XXÔÔ€ŠJŠ‹‹ŠáÞÔÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ8€ÕNXXdìdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑñB ñ›œñB ñò òñM ññC ñßr€ (<,(j 8` `€€@E f ` ttx0X` ð ærßñC ññM ññP ññM ñßr€ (<,(j 8` `€€@E f ` ttx0X` ð ærßñM ññC ñ›ñC ñ›››ñP ñÔ_Ôà@Ò Ò DàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ `  ÐÌñP ñßt€ (>.*jx´ÿº` `€€@EÔ ` 8ttxP d ð º tßñP ñà@††*DàAT€JACKSONˆÌÌà@!!'DàMAY€SESSION,€1999ˆÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À àà  à)à p àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9803„CR„00075Ð p Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àó óÐ r  Ðà ` àà ¸ àAppellee,ò òà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ t  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àSHELBY€COUNTYÐ v  ÐV.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€€Ð x  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ z  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àHON.€JAMES€C.€BEASLEY,€JR.,€ó óÐ | Ðò òDOROTHY€J.€FLEMING,€à À àà  à)à p àJUDGEó óÐ ~ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò òà  à)ó óà p àÐ €  Ѐà ` àà ¸ àAppellant.à h àà À àò òà  à)à p à(AGGRAVATED€ASSAULT)€Ð ‚" Ðó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à À àà  àà p àòòà È àFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð x Ðò òÌWAYNE€CHASTAINòòñB ñó óò òñB ñóóà h àà À àà  àà p àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ v  Ðó ó66€Monroe,€Suite€804à h àà À àà  àà p àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ x! ÐMemphis,€TN€38103€Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò òà  àà p àPETER€M.€COUGHLANÐ p# ÐSTEFFEN€SCHREINERó óà À àà  àà p àà È àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ r$ Ð369€North€Main€Streetà h àà À àà  àà p à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÐ t% ÐMemphis,€TN€38103ò òà h àó óà À àà  àà p à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€Ð p& Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àò òJOHN€W.€PIEROTTI€Ð d)  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àó óDistrict€Attorney€General€Ð f*!! ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àò òPAUL€H.€WULFFÐ ^,þ"# Ðó óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ `-$$ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àCriminal€Justice€Center,€Suite€301Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à201€Poplar€Avenue€Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àMemphis,€TN€38103ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDED€ÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÐ  ,:Ì01 ÐÔ€°/Î °‹ŠJŠÔò òòòà@÷÷,DàOPINIONóóó óÔ€ŠJŠ‹ °°/ÎԈР`  ÐÓ  Óñ; ñÌñ; ñÓÓÌà ` àOn€April€10,€1997,€the€Shelby€County€Grand€Jury€indicted€Appellant€DorothyÏJ.€Fleming€and€co„defendant€James€W.€Fleming€for€aggravated€assault.€€FollowingÏa€jury€trial€on€January€6ð!ð8,€1998,€Appellant€was€convicted€of€aggravated€assault€andÏthe€co„defendant€was€convicted€of€simple€assault.€€After€a€sentencing€hearing€onÏFebruary€6,€1998,€the€trial€court€sentenced€Appellant€as€a€Range€I€standard€offenderÏto€three€months€of€house€arrest€followed€by€two€years€and€nine€months€of€probationÏand€the€court€placed€the€co„defendant€on€judicial€diversion.€€Appellant€challengesÏher€conviction,€raising€the€following€issue:€whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€ruledÏthat€Appellant€could€not€introduce€evidence€about€an€alleged€prior€incident€in€whichÏthe€victim€acted€violently€towards€a€third€party.€€The€co„defendant€has€not€joined€inÏthis€appeal.€€After€a€review€of€the€record,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÏand€we€remand€this€matter€for€a€new€trial.ÌÌà@ÜÜ-Dàò òFACTSó óˆÐ L&ì ÐÌà ` àMichael€Smith€testified€that€in€November€of€1996,€he€was€living€in€anÏapartment€with€Appellantððs€daughter€Delois€Pate€Smith€and€two€of€Ms.€Smithððs€youngÏchildren.€€Although€Mr.€Smith€and€Ms.€Smith€were€not€married€at€that€time,€they€wereÏmarried€at€the€time€of€trial.ÌÌà ` àMr.€Smith€testified€that€while€he€was€alone€with€Ms.€Smithððs€two€small€childrenÏon€November€20,€1996,€he€received€a€telephone€call€from€Appellant€at€approximatelyÏâ â4:30€p.m.€€€During€the€conversation,€Appellant€and€Mr.€Smith€began€cursing€eachÐ ¼7\./ Ðother€and€Appellant€then€stated€that€she€was€going€to€come€to€the€apartment.€ÏShortly€thereafter,€Ms.€Smith€arrived€home€from€work.Ìâ âÌà ` àMr.€Smith€testified€that€later€that€day,€he€heard€pounding€on€the€door.€€WhenÏhe€opened€the€door,€Appellantððs€son€James€Fleming€entered€the€apartment,€pointedÏa€gun€at€him,€and€ordered€him€to€get€on€the€floor.€€Shortly€thereafter,€Appellant,ÏAppellantððs€son€Lemoyne€Pate,€and€Ms.€Smithððs€son€Terrence€Clark€entered€theÏapartment.€€Appellant€then€grabbed€Mr.€Smith€and€he€knocked€her€hand€away.€€ÌÌà ` àMr.€Smith€testified€that€at€this€point,€Appellant€stabbed€him€with€a€knife€andÏthen€Mr.€Fleming€stabbed€him.€€Mr.€Smith€then€fell€to€the€ground,€and€Appellant,€Mr.ÏClark,€Mr.€Pate,€and€Mr.€Fleming€began€kicking€him.€€Mr.€Smith€testified€that€he€wasÏunarmed€during€this€incident.€€ÌÌà ` àDelois€Pate€Smith€testified€that€on€November€20,€1996,€Mr.€Smith€opened€theÏdoor€to€their€apartment€and€Appellant,€Mr.€Fleming,€Mr.€Pate,€and€Mr.€Clark€cameÏrushing€in€and€Mr.€Fleming€began€waiving€a€gun.€€Ms.€Smith€then€took€her€two€smallÏchildren€to€a€back€room€and€when€she€returned,€she€saw€her€family€membersÏbeating€and€kicking€Mr.€Smith.€€Ms.€Smith€then€called€911€and€her€family€membersÏleft€the€apartment.ÌÌà ` àTracy€Rivers€testified€that€on€November€20,€1996,€she€looked€out€of€herÏapartment€and€saw€Appellant,€Mr.€Fleming,€Mr.€Pate,€and€Mr.€Clark€in€the€SmithsððÏâ âapartment.€€Rivers€could€hear€Appellant€and€Mr.€Smith€cursing€at€each€other€andÐ 8¸.. Ðshortly€thereafter,€she€saw€Mr.€Fleming€point€a€gun€at€Mr.€Smith€and€order€him€onÏthe€floor.€€Mr.€Fleming€then€stabbed€Mr.€Smith€with€a€knife.Ìâ âÌà ` àOfficer€Melanie€Lewis€of€the€Memphis€Police€Department€testified€that€onÏNovember€20,€1996,€she€went€to€Appellantððs€residence€and€talked€to€Appellant€aboutÏthe€stabbing.€€During€the€discussion,€Appellant€stated€that€she€had€stabbed€Mr.ÏSmith€and€thrown€the€knife€under€a€red€Ford€Escort€that€was€parked€next€to€theÏapartment€complex.€€Officer€Larry€Colburn€of€the€Memphis€Police€DepartmentÏtestified€that€on€November€20,€1996,€he€discovered€a€knife€under€a€red€Ford€EscortÏthat€was€parked€next€to€the€apartment€complex.ÌÌà ` àAppellant€testified€that€on€November€20,€1996,€she€telephoned€herÏgrandchildren€who€were€staying€at€the€Smithsðð€apartment.€€During€the€conversation,Ïshe€heard€Mr.€Smith€cursing€the€grandchildren€and€then€Smith€took€the€phone€andÏbegan€cursing€Appellant.€€Appellant€then€became€concerned€about€the€safety€of€herÏgrandchildren.ÌÌà ` àAppellant€testified€that€after€the€telephone€conversation,€she€went€to€theÏSmithsðð€apartment€to€get€her€grandchildren.€€After€she€arrived€at€the€apartment€andÏknocked€on€the€door,€Mr.€Smith€opened€the€door€and€then€grabbed€Appellant€andÏbegan€hitting€and€kicking€her.€€Mr.€Smith€then€stated,€ð ðIððm€go[ing]€to€beat€your€assÏjust€like€I€do€your€daughter€and€your€kids€too.ðð€€After€Mr.€Smith€got€on€top€ofÏAppellant€and€started€beating€her,€she€stabbed€him€with€a€knife€that€she€had€put€inÏher€pocket€after€peeling€some€pears€earlier€that€day.€€At€this€point,€Mr.€Fleming€andñ< ñÏñ< ññ< ñÐ 8¸.. ÐMñ< ññ= ñMñ= ñr.€Pate€entered€the€apartment€and€Mr.€Fleming€pulled€Mr.€Smith€off€of€Appellant.€ñ> ñÏñ> ñÐ  :À00 Ðà ` àAppellant€testified€that€the€only€reason€why€she€went€to€the€apartment€was€toÏretrieve€her€grandchildren.€€Appellant€testified€that€she€did€not€go€to€the€apartmentÏin€order€to€stab€Mr.€Smith€and€she€only€stabbed€him€because€she€was€afraid€heÏwould€kill€her€while€he€was€beating€her.€€Appellant€also€testified€that€she€never€sawÏMr.€Fleming€with€either€a€gun€or€a€knife.ÌÌà ` àTerrence€Clark€testified€that€he€went€with€Appellant€to€the€Smithsðð€apartmentÏon€November€20,€1996.€€When€Appellant€knocked€on€the€door,€Mr.€Smith€opened€theÏdoor,€pulled€Appellant€into€the€apartment,€and€began€beating€her.€€Mr.€Fleming€thenÏentered€the€apartment€and€pulled€Mr.€Smith€off€of€Appellant.€€Mr.€Clark€denied€thatÏhe,€Appellant,€Mr.€Fleming,€and€Mr.€Pate€had€kicked€Mr.€Smith.€€Mr.€Clark€alsoÏtestified€that€he€did€not€see€Appellant€stab€Mr.€Smith.ÌÌà ` àLemoyne€Pate€testified€that€he€drove€Appellant€to€the€Smithsðð€apartment€onÏNovember€20,€1996.€€Pate€testified€that€he€waited€in€his€vehicle€while€Appellant€wentÏinto€the€apartment.€€When€Appellant€did€not€return,€Pate€entered€the€apartment€andÏsaw€Mr.€Smith€on€top€of€Appellant.€€Pate€then€knocked€Mr.€Smith€off€of€Appellant€andÏPate€and€Appellant€left€the€apartment.€ÌÌà ` àJames€Fleming€testified€that€on€November€20,€1996,€his€younger€brotherÏTracy€called€him€and€stated€that€Appellant€was€upset€and€was€going€to€the€SmithsððÏapartment.€€Mr.€Fleming€then€went€to€the€Smithsðð€apartment€and€he€saw€AppellantÏand€Mr.€Clark€standing€in€front€of€the€door.€€Shortly€thereafter,€Mr.€Fleming€sawÏAppellant€being€pulled€into€the€apartment.€€When€Mr.€Fleming€entered€theÏapartment,€he€saw€Mr.€Smith€on€top€of€Appellant.€€Mr.€Fleming€then€pulled€Mr.€SmithÐ  :À00 Ðoff€of€Appellant€and€the€two€men€began€fighting.€€After€a€brief€altercation,€Mr.ÏFleming,€Appellant,€Mr.€Pate,€and€Mr.€Clark€left€the€apartment.€€Mr.€Fleming€did€notÏsee€Appellant€stab€Mr.€Smith.€€Mr.€Fleming€denied€that€he€had€a€gun€or€a€knife€whileÏhe€was€in€the€apartment.ÌÌà@""+Dàò òANALYSISó óˆÐ ˆ(  Ðà ` àÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€ruled€that€she€could€notÏtestify€about€an€alleged€prior€incident€in€which€Mr.€Smith€cut€Mr.€Clark€with€a€knifeÏand€she€could€not€question€other€witnesses€about€the€alleged€incident.€€AppellantÏargues€that€evidence€of€the€prior€alleged€incident€was€admissible€because€itÏsupported€her€claim€that€Mr.€Smith€was€the€first€aggressor€and€her€claim€that€sheÏstabbed€Mr.€Smith€because€she€was€afraid€that€he€would€kill€her.ÌÌà ` àThis€Court€has€noted€that€there€is€a€distinction€between€the€use€of€evidenceÏof€prior€acts€of€violence€by€the€victim€against€third€parties€to€corroborate€the€defenseÏtheory€that€the€victim€was€the€first€aggressor€and€the€use€of€such€evidence€toÏestablish€the€defendantððs€fear€of€the€victim€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð è+ˆ"" ÐRuaneóó,€912€S.W.2d€766,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€ð ðIf€the€defendant€was€awareÐ ð-$$ Ðof€the€victimððs€violent€conduct€against€other€individuals€at€the€time€of€the€offense,Ïsuch€proof€is€admissible€as€substantive€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€state€of€mind.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€John€D.€Joslinóó,€No.€03C01„9510„CR„00299,€1997€WL€583071,€at€*36€(Tenn.Ð 4¨** ÐCrim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Sept.€22,€1997),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1998).€Ð 6°,, Ðð ðBecause€such€evidence€is€offered€to€establish€the€defendantððs€state€of€mind€withÏrespect€to€the€victim,€the€defendantððs€knowledge€of€the€specific€violent€acts€of€theÐ  :À00 Ðvictim€is€required.ðð€€òòId.óó,€1997€WL€583071,€at€*36.€€ð ðThus,€the€defendant€may€testifyÐ `  Ðabout€the€victimððs€threatening€or€violent€conduct€toward€other€individuals€as€long€asÏthe€defendant€was€aware€of€that€conduct€at€the€time€of€the€offense.ðð€€òòId.óó,€1997€WLÐ p  Ð583071,€at€*36.ÌÌà ` àOn€the€other€hand,€if€the€defendant€was€not€aware€of€the€victimððs€violentÏconduct€toward€others,€the€evidence€is€not€admissible€as€substantive€evidence€of€theÏdefendantððs€state€of€mind,€but€is€admissible€for€the€limited€purpose€of€corroboratingÏa€self„defense€claim€that€the€victim€was€the€first€aggressor.€€òòId.óó,€1997€WL€583071,Ð  @ Ðat€*36.€€ÌÓÓà0 ` àThus,€individuals€other€than€the€defendant€may€testify€on€direct€or€cross„¼examination€about€threatening€or€violent€conduct€of€the€victim,€even€thoughÏthe€defendant€had€no€knowledge€of€the€conduct€at€the€time€of€the€offense,€asÏlong€as€the€testimony€is€offered€only€to€corroborate€the€defendantððs€self„¼defense€claim€that€the€victim€was€the€first€aggressor.Ð ` €%` €% ÐÌÓÓòòId.óó,€1997€WL€583071,€at€*36.Ð È#h ÐÌà@B B Dàò òA.€€Evidence€of€the€Victimððs€Prior€Acts€of€Violenceó óˆÐ Ø'x ÐÌà ` àThe€record€indicates€that€before€trial,€the€State€filed€a€motion€in€limine€in€whichÏit€asked€the€trial€court€to€prohibit€Appellant€and€her€co„defendant€from€makingÏreference€to€or€questioning€any€witnesses€about€prior€acts€of€violence€committed€byÏMr.€Smith€against€third€parties.€€After€a€hearing€on€the€motion,€the€trial€court€ruledÏthat€it€would€grant€the€motion€as€to€opening€statements€and€the€defense€could€notÏmention€the€specifics€of€any€acts€of€violence€during€its€opening€statement.Ìâ âÐ 8¸.. Ðà ` àAfter€Mr.€Smithððs€direct€examination,€the€defense€asked€the€trial€court€whetherÏâ âit€would€allow€cross„examination€of€Mr.€Smith€about€an€alleged€prior€incident€inÏwhich€he€cut€Mr.€Clark€with€a€knife.€€During€a€jury„out€hearing,€defense€counselÏasked€Mr.€Smith€whether€the€police€had€ordered€him€to€leave€the€apartment€after€heÏcut€Mr.€Clark€while€Mr.€Clark€was€living€in€the€apartment€during€October€of€1996.€€Mr.ÏSmith€initially€admitted€that€he€had€been€in€a€confrontation€with€Mr.€Clark€and€thatÏthe€police€had€been€called€as€a€result,€but€he€denied€that€he€cut€Mr.€Clark€with€aÏknife€during€the€confrontation.€€After€additional€questioning,€Mr.€Smith€admitted€thatÏhe€had€ð ðgrabbed€[Mr.€Clark]€and€shook€him€up.ðð€€Mr.€Smith€also€stated€that€he€couldÏnot€recall€whether€he€had€used€a€knife€during€the€confrontation.€€ÌÌà ` àAfter€listening€to€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Smith€during€the€jury„out€hearing,€theÏtrial€court€ruled€that€the€defense€could€not€cross„examine€Mr.€Smith€about€the€priorÏincident€because€it€was€not€relevant€to€any€issue€in€the€case.€€Defense€counsel€thenÏasked€for€permission€to€voir€dire€Appellant€about€the€prior€incident€in€order€toÏdemonstrate€the€relevance€of€the€evidence.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€request,€andÏdefense€counsel€called€Appellant€to€testify€during€the€jury„out€hearing.€€AppellantÏtestified€that€Mr.€Clark€had€come€to€live€with€her€after€he€had€been€in€a€confrontationÏwith€Mr.€Smith.€€Appellant€testified€that€Mr.€Clark€had€told€her€that€about€a€monthÏbefore€the€incident€in€this€case,€Mr.€Smith€had€cut€him€during€a€fight€that€ended€whenÏMs.€Smith€intervened.€€After€hearing€Appellantððs€testimony,€the€trial€court€ruled€thatÏevidence€of€the€prior€incident€was€not€admissible€because€the€proof€that€had€beenÏintroduced€up€to€that€point€did€not€implicate€a€self„defense€claim.€€The€trial€court€didÏâ âgrant€the€defenseððs€request€to€keep€Mr.€Smith€under€subpoena€in€order€to€allowÐ 8¸.. Ðeventual€cross„examination€about€the€prior€incident€if€further€proof€indicated€thatÏevidence€of€the€prior€incident€was€relevant.Ìâ âÌà ` àWhen€the€State€called€Ms.€Smith€as€its€next€witness,€defense€counsel€askedÏfor€a€bench€conference.€€During€the€bench€conference,€defense€counsel€asked€theÏtrial€court€whether€they€could€have€a€jury„out€hearing€to€question€Ms.€Smith€aboutÏthe€prior€confrontation€between€Mr.€Smith€and€Mr.€Clark.€€The€trial€court€ruled€thatÏit€would€not€allow€the€defense€to€question€Ms.€Smith€about€the€incident,€but€it€wouldÏagree€to€keep€Ms.€Smith€under€subpoena€so€that€the€defense€could€question€herÏabout€the€prior€incident€if€further€proof€indicated€that€the€evidence€was€relevant€to€anÏissue€in€the€case.ÌÌà ` àAt€the€close€of€the€Stateððs€proof,€the€defense€asked€for€a€jury„out€hearing€inÏorder€to€voir€dire€Mr.€Clark€about€his€prior€confrontation€with€Mr.€Smith.€€The€trialÏcourt€granted€the€request€and€allowed€the€defense€to€question€Mr.€Clark€about€theÏincident.€€Mr.€Clark€testified€that€about€a€month€before€November€20,€1996,€he€andÏMr.€Smith€were€involved€in€a€confrontation€during€which€Mr.€Smith€grabbed€him€andÏheld€a€knife€to€his€neck.€€Mr.€Clark€testified€when€he€turned€over,€Mr.€Smith€ð ðnickedððÏhim€in€the€back€with€the€knife.€€Mr.€Clark€also€testified€that€he€told€Appellant€aboutÏthis€incident€when€he€went€to€live€with€her€about€a€month€before€the€incident€in€thisÏcase.€€The€trial€court€then€ruled€that€evidence€about€the€prior€incident€was€stillÏinadmissible€because€it€was€not€relevant€to€Appellantððs€claim€of€self„defense.ÌÌà ` àAfter€Appellant,€Mr.€Clark,€and€Mr.€Pate€testified€on€Appellantððs€behalf,Ïdefense€counsel€made€one€more€attempt€to€convince€the€trial€court€to€admitÐ  :À00 Ðevidence€about€the€prior€incident€between€Mr.€Smith€and€Mr.€Clark.€€DefenseÏcounsel€argued€that€the€evidence€was€relevant€to€Appellantððs€state€of€mind€at€theÏtime€of€the€offense€and€to€Appellantððs€claim€that€Mr.€Smith€was€the€first€aggressor.€ÏThe€trial€court€ruled€that€it€would€instruct€the€jury€about€self„defense,€but€it€would€notÏchange€its€ruling€that€evidence€about€the€prior€incident€between€Mr.€Smith€and€Mr.ÏClark€was€not€admissible.ÌÌà0 ` àà  àò òà0` ` €%` €%àà  àà@#D` €%` €%àB.€€Appellantððs€Testimonyó óˆÐ ˜8 ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€prohibited€her€fromÏtestifying€about€the€prior€incident€in€which€Mr.€Smith€cut€Mr.€Clark€with€a€knife.€ÏSpecifically,€Appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€permitted€thisÏtestimony€because€it€was€substantive€evidence€of€her€state€of€mind€at€the€time€sheÏstabbed€Mr.€Smith.ÌÌà ` àWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€prohibited€Appellant€fromÏtestifying€about€the€prior€incident€in€which€the€victim€displayed€violent€conduct.€ÏThere€is€no€dispute€that€Appellant€had€knowledge€of€the€incident€in€which€Mr.€SmithÏcut€Mr.€Clark€with€a€knife.€€Indeed,€both€Appellant€and€Mr.€Clark€testified€during€jury„¼out€hearings€that€Mr.€Clark€told€Appellant€about€this€incident€one€month€beforeÏAppellant€stabbed€Mr.€Smith€with€the€knife.€€In€addition,€Appellant€testified€that€sheÏstabbed€Mr.€Smith€because€she€was€afraid€that€he€would€kill€her€while€he€wasÏbeating€her.€€Appellantððs€testimony€about€Mr.€Smithððs€violent€conduct€toward€Mr.ÏClark€was€clearly€relevant€to€establishing€the€reason€for€Appellantððs€belief€that€Mr.ÏSmith€would€kill€her.€€Because€Appellant€had€knowledge€of€the€prior€incident,Ð  :À00 ÐAppellantððs€testimony€about€the€incident€was€admissible€as€substantive€evidence€ofÏher€state€of€mind€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€òòJohn€D.€Joslinóó,€1997€WL€583071,€at€*36;Ð h  ÐòòRuaneóó,€912€S.W.2d€at€779;€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€885€S.W.2d€357,€361€n.1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð p  Ð1994).€€Thus,€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€excluded€this€evidence.ÌÌà ` àThe€State€contends€that€even€if€the€trial€court€erred,€the€error€was€harmlessÏbecause€evidence€about€the€prior€incident€of€violence€on€the€part€of€Mr.€Smith€hadÏalready€been€introduced€or€alluded€to€at€one€point€or€another.€€This€argument€isÏinaccurate.€€A€review€of€the€record€indicates€that€the€jury€was€never€informed€thatÏMr.€Smith€held€a€knife€to€Mr.€Clarkððs€throat€and€cut€him€on€the€shoulderÏapproximately€one€month€before€the€incident€at€issue€in€this€case.€€In€short,€the€trialÏcourtððs€error€prevented€Appellant€from€establishing€a€reason€for€her€belief€that€Mr.ÏSmith€would€kill€her.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððs€error€requires€aÏremand€for€a€new€trial.ÌÌà@ŠŠDàò òC.€€Testimony€of€Other€Witnessesó óˆÐ Ø'x ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€prohibited€her€from€askingÏother€witnesses€about€the€prior€incident€in€which€Mr.€Smith€cut€Mr.€Clark€with€a€knife.€ÏSpecifically,€Appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€permitted€the€otherÏwitnesses€to€testify€about€the€prior€incident€during€direct€or€cross„examinationÏbecause€the€testimony€was€offered€to€corroborate€her€claim€that€Mr.€Smith€was€theÏfirst€aggressor.Ìâ âÐ 8¸.. Ðà ` àInitially,€we€note€that€in€the€previous€cases€in€which€this€Court€has€addressedÏâ âthe€issue€of€whether€a€defendant€could€introduce€evidence€about€the€victimððs€priorÏacts€of€violence€in€order€to€corroborate€the€defendantððs€theory€that€the€victim€was€theÏfirst€aggressor,€the€defendant€was€unaware€of€the€victimððs€violent€acts€at€the€time€ofÏthe€offense.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòJohn€D.€Joslinóó,€1997€WL€583071,€at€*37;€òòRuaneóó,€912€S.W.2dÐ €  Ðat€781;€òòHillóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€361.€€However,€we€so€no€reason€why€a€defendant€shouldÐ ˆ(  Ðbe€prohibited€from€questioning€other€witnesses€about€the€victimððs€prior€violent€actsÏin€order€to€corroborate€the€defendantððs€claim€that€the€victim€was€the€first€aggressorÏsimply€because€the€defendant€was€aware€of€the€violent€acts€at€the€time€of€theÏoffense.€ÌÌà ` àWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€acted€properly€when€it€prohibited€AppellantÏfrom€cross„examining€Mr.€Smith€and€Ms.€Smith€about€the€prior€incident€during€theÏStateððs€case„in„chief.€€The€general€rule€is€that€before€witnesses€other€than€theÏdefendant€can€testify€about€violent€conduct€of€the€victim€in€order€to€corroborate€theÏdefendantððs€theory€that€the€victim€was€the€first€aggressor,€the€issue€of€first€aggressorÏmust€have€been€raised€by€the€evidence.€€òòRuaneóó,€912€S.W.2d€at€780.€€At€the€timeÐ à)€  Ðthat€Mr.€Smith€and€Ms.€Smith€testified,€no€proof€had€been€introduced€that€raised€theÏfirst€aggressor€issue.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€was€correct€when€it€initially€refused€toÏallow€cross„examination€about€Mr.€Smithððs€prior€incident€of€violence.ÌÌà ` àOn€the€other€hand,€we€conclude€that€after€Appellant€testified€that€Mr.€SmithÏwas€the€one€who€initiated€the€fight€by€immediately€attacking€her€when€he€opened€theÏdoor,€the€trial€court€should€have€allowed€Appellant€to€question€Mr.€Clark€about€theÏincident€on€direct€examination€and€to€question€Mr.€Smith€and€Ms.€Smith€about€theÐ  :À00 Ðincident€on€cross„examination€for€the€limited€purpose€of€corroborating€her€claim€thatÏMr.€Smith€was€the€first€aggressor.€€òòSeeóó€òòJohn€D.€Joslinóó,€1997€WL€583071,€at€*36Ð h  Ð(holding€that€individuals€other€than€the€victim€may€testify€on€either€direct€or€cross„¼examination€about€violent€conduct€of€the€victim€in€order€to€corroborate€theÏdefendantððs€theory€that€the€victim€was€the€first€aggressor).€€Because€the€proof€at€thatÏpoint€raised€the€first€aggressor€issue,€Appellant€was€entitled€to€question€the€otherÏwitnesses€about€Mr.€Smithððs€prior€violent€act.ÌÌà ` àThe€State€contends€that€even€if€the€trial€court€erred,€the€error€was€harmlessÏbecause€the€proof€that€Appellant€was€the€first€aggressor€was€overwhelming.€€WeÏdisagree.€€In€this€case,€the€issue€of€who€was€the€first€aggressor€was€hotly€contested.€ÏMr.€Smith€and€Ms.€Smith€both€testified€that€on€November€20,€1996,€Appellant,€herÏtwo€sons,€and€her€grandson€came€bursting€into€the€apartment€and€began€attackingÏMr.€Smith€almost€immediately.€€In€contrast,€Appellant€and€Mr.€Clark€both€testified€thatÏwhen€Mr.€Smith€opened€the€door€to€the€apartment,€he€immediately€grabbedÏAppellant€and€began€beating€her.€€In€addition,€Appellant,€Mr.€Clark,€Mr.€Pate,€and€Mr.ÏFleming€all€testified€that€Mr.€Pate€and€Mr.€Fleming€were€not€even€in€the€apartmentÏwhen€the€initial€confrontation€began€and€they€all€essentially€denied€that€anyone€otherÏthan€Appellant€had€a€weapon.€€In€short,€the€trial€courtððs€error€prevented€AppellantÏfrom€corroborating€her€claim€that€Mr.€Smith€was€the€first€aggressor.€Therefore,€weÏconclude€that€the€trial€courtððs€error€requires€a€remand€for€a€new€trial.ÌÌñ> ñ›ñ> ñÌñ> ñ›ñ> ñÌñB ñ›ñB ññB ññB ñÐ  :À00 Ðà@nn*Dàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ `  ÐÌà ` àFor€the€reasons€stated€above,€we€REVERSE€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÏand€we€REMAND€this€matter€for€a€new€trial.ÌÌà ` àÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JudgeÌÌñB ñœñB ññA ñÌœñ? ñà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JudgeÌÌñ? ññA ññB ññ? ñ›ñ? ññB ññ? ññ? ññB ññB ññ? ñÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€Judgeà h àÐ ¼ \ ÐÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€JudgeÌñ? ññ@ ñ›ÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________Ìñ@ ñ