WPC # VUNa % 0(L 0J) 0Ts 0^ 0l% 0D w 4  0h 0rv 0| 0d 0 1uz U, 0dU,U>U*B)DC< AM B 0Dv~ D3v 0@ AQ1 0D D/; BjHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0^'.(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  ((3$ !      0  (#$  0  Q+!(#(# 3|x26 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<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd-#C << G !   !!   YYY FILED!X September5,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.!AppellateCourtClerk   !    $       !! ` XTherealprobleminthiscaseisthatfollowingtheindictmentforattemptedmurder,theTennesseeSupremeCourtdecidedthecaseofStatev.Trusty,919S.W.2d305(1996).UndertheholdingofTrusty,aggravatedassaultisnotalesserincludedoffense,noralessergradeofattemptedmurder.Thus,sinceaggravatedassaultisnotchargedintheindictmenteitherexplicitlyorbynecessity,ifthedefenseofrenunciationisapplicableinthiscase,thedefendantwouldescapeanyaccountabilityforhisattackonthevictim. d(3$ !  PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@'''''dxdStyl{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#   !!INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEL$%#;+'h|`  `LATKNOXVILLE    MAYSESSION,1996    STATEOFTENNESSEE, ) C.C.A.NO.03C019511CR00357     )  Appellee,   )     )     ) HAMILTONCOUNTYVS.     )      ) HON.RUSSELLC.HINSON, CHARLESEDWARD   ) JUDGEBYDESIGNATION JACKSON,     )  Appellant.   ) (AttemptedFirstDegreeMurder)   CONCURRINGOPINION    IconcurfullyintheholdingoftheCourtthatthedefendantsconvictionandsentenceforattemptedfirstdegreemurdermustbeaffirmed.Iwriteseparatelyonlytoexpressmyviewsonthedefenseofrenunciationunderthecircumstancespresentedbycasessuchastheonesubjudice. ThetheorybehindthedefenseofrenunciationmaybefoundintheSentencingCommissioncommentstoTennesseeCodeAnnotatedSection3912104.Theavailabilityofthisdefenseisto provideanincentiveforoffenderstoabandontheircriminalpurposebeforetheyaccomplishtheircriminalgoal.Id.Thisis,however,alaudablegoalonlyifthedefendantabandonshisorhercriminalpurposebeforeanyactualphysicalorpecuniaryharmbefallsthevictimofthecriminalactivities.Toallowanindividualsuchasthedefendantinthiscasetouserenunciationtoavoidpunishmentaltogetherforaseriousaggravatedassaultsimplybecauseheultimatelyabandonedhisattempttokillthevictimwouldbeunconscionable. &    Iwouldlimittheavailabilityofrenunciationtothosesituationswheretheinchoatecrimesforwhichitisadefenseareabandonedbeforeanyharmbefallsthevictim.However,onceactualharmhasresultedfromthedefendantsactions,hisorherincentivetoabandonthecriminalenterprisemustcomefromthefactthatthecompletedcrimewillcarryfarmoreseriouspenaltiesthanattempt,solicitation,orconspiracy.            JERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE  X