ÿWPCÚ …# VU:a %› 0(¡w@É4  , 0J4 0T~ 0^Ò 0h0 0r˜ 0| 0†† 0 1uœ 0d U*u B)Ÿ DCÈ AM üXv~TvÓÒ B¥ D3 0@õ AO5Æ„ 0DJ D/Ž B½˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 , øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡ ÆDÇÈDÉDÊËDÌÍeÎÏÓ€Ô¡¨ 3|xØ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ òÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌFebruary€12,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò d%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€¿òXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ќـ€ÙßR€!" A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌÌà@ àòòAT€NASHVILLEóóÌÌà@ àJUNE€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9511„CR„00367Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)à àDAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€THOMAS€H.€SHRIVER,ÌJIMMY€LEE€JONES,à àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà àà à)à à(Aggravated€Child€Abuse)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appellee:óóÌÌJ.€Paul€Newmanà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ1202€Stahlman€Buildingà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€TN€37201à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ì(At€trial)ÌÌJeffrey€A.€DeVasherà àà àà àà àRobin€L.€HarrisÌSenior€Assistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ1202€Stahlman€Buildingà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌNashville,€TN€37201à àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ(On€Appeal)à àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€372443„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àVictor€S.€Johnson,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€R.€ReedÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWashington€Square,€Suite€500Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à222€2nd€Avenue€N.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€___________________ÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€DISMISSEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÇà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌÓÓà àAppellant,€Jimmy€Lee€Jones,€appeals€as€of€right€his€convictions€in€theÏDavidson€County€Criminal€Court€of€two€counts€of€aggravated€child€abuse.€€HeÏreceived€the€minimum€sentence€of€eight€years€on€each€offense€as€a€Range€IÏstandard€offender.€€The€sentences€were€ordered€to€run€concurrently.Ìà àAppellant€argues€on€appeal€that:Ìà à(1)à àthe€evidence€was€not€sufficient€to€support€the€conviction;Ìà à(2)à àthe€trial€court€erred€in€denying€him€probation;€and€ÌÓÓà à(3)à àthe€trial€court€committed€plain€error€in€allowing€separate€convictions€forÏà àà àtwo€counts€of€aggravated€child€abuse€where€the€State€failed€to€proveÏà àà àseparate€criminal€episodes.€ÌÌÓÓAlthough€not€assigned€as€error€on€appeal,€we€have€determined€that€plain€error€existsÏwith€respect€to€the€admission€of€an€out„of„court€hearsay€statement€made€by€TonyaÏMedley€to€Dr.€Michael€Tramontana.€€The€hearsay€statement€was€crucial€andÏdevastating€to€the€appellant,€and€we€conclude€that€it€deprived€him€of€hisÏconstitutional€right€to€a€fair€trial.€€Moreover,€without€the€hearsay€statement,€theÏevidence€at€trial€was€insufficient€to€support€the€convictions.€€Accordingly,€we€have€noÏchoice€but€to€reverse€the€appellantððs€convictions€and€dismiss€the€case.Ìà àOn€the€evening€of€Saturday,€May€7,€1994,€seven„month„old€James€RonaldÏRose€was€taken€to€Vanderbilt€Hospital.€€The€doctors€in€the€emergency€roomÏdiscovered€that€he€suffered€from€a€broken€arm,€a€broken€leg,€a€skull€fracture,€aÍcircumferential€hand€grip€bruise€on€the€left€arm,€bruises€on€the€left€ear,€upper€thighÏbruises,€numerous€scratches€on€his€face,€and€bruises€and€scratches€on€the€lowerÏscrotum€and€rectal€area.€€Doctors€quickly€concluded€that€the€injuries€were€notÏconsistent€with€the€explanation€provided€and€suspected€that€James€had€beenÏabused.€€He€was€hospitalized€for€six€days.Ìà àThe€Department€of€Human€Services€and€the€Metro€Police€Department€wereÏnotified€and€an€investigation€ensued.€€Investigators€determined€that€James€and€hisÏmother,€Tonya€Medley,€were€living€in€a€motel€room€with€appellant.€€Tonya€andÏappellant€were€interviewed€several€times€in€the€course€of€the€investigation,€as€wasÏTonyaððs€mother€Cathy€Medley.€€The€investigation€revealed€that€appellant€and€TonyaÏwere€the€only€persons€who€had€contact€with€James€during€the€times€when€the€childÏsustained€the€injuries.€€It€was€also€learned€that€Cathy€Medley€had€discovered€JamesððÏinjuries€and€insisted€he€be€taken€to€the€hospital.€€Ìà àAppellant€gave€statements€to€authorities€on€three€different€occasions.€€TheseÏstatements€reflect€several€inconsistencies€about€the€time€of€the€childððs€injuries€andÏthe€events€surrounding€them.€€Tonya€also€talked€with€authorities€numerous€times.€ÏHer€accounts€varied€substantially,€ranging€from€the€story€that€the€child€had€ð ðhoppedððÏout€of€his€crib€to€utter€ignorance€of€how€the€child€obtained€some€of€his€injuries.€ÏLikewise,€Cathy€Medleyððs€statements€were€at€times€contradictory€to€the€explanationsÏprovided€by€Tonya€and€appellant.€€Ultimately,€Tonyaððs€statements€culminated€in€herÍtaking€full€responsibility€for€the€childððs€abuse.€€However,€this€occurred€after€appellantÏwas€arrested€for€the€abusive€acts.€€€Ìà àThe€investigation€was€complicated€by€the€fact€that€Tonya€suffered€fromÏpermanent€brain€damage.€€This€was€the€result€of€an€accident€that€occurred€when€sheÏwas€seven€years€of€age.€€Cathy€Medley€said€that€Tonya€is€ð ðkindly€like€a€mentally„retarded€person.€€She€only€has,€like,€a€two„year„old€mind€inside€of€her.ðð€€€This€wasÏevidenced€by€the€fact€that€Tonya€demonstrated€a€marked€inability€to€distinguishÏbetween€a.m.€and€p.m.€in€several€of€her€interviews.€€Although€Tonya€was€JamesððÏprimary€caretaker,€appellant€was€indicted€on€six€counts€of€aggravated€child€abuse.€ÏBecause€of€her€age,€charges€were€brought€against€Tonya€in€juvenile€court.Ìà àThe€State€introduced€testimony€from€several€witnesses€at€trial,€includingÏJamesðð€treating€and€attending€physicians,€Tonyaððs€mother€and€father,€the€detectiveÏfrom€the€Metro€Police€Department,€an€investigator€from€the€Department€of€HumanÏServices,€and€a€psychologist€who€evaluated€Tonyaððs€mental€capacity.€€Both€theÏemergency€department€doctor€and€the€treating€pediatrician€opined€that€JamesððÏinjuries€were€not€consistent€with€the€explanations€provided.€€They€testified€that€aÏsmall€child€could€not€ð ðhopðð€out€of€a€crib,€as€explained€by€Tonya,€nor€could€theÏmultiple€fractures€have€resulted€from€such€a€fall.€€The€doctors€concluded€that€theÏinjuries€were€intentionally€inflicted€and€had€occurred€over€a€period€of€time.€€TheÏinjuries€likely€resulted€from€the€child€being€forcefully€struck€into€a€firm€object€or€a€firmÍobject€being€forcefully€struck€against€the€child.€€The€doctors€could€not€determine€ifÏmore€than€one€person€had€inflicted€the€injuries.€€Neither€could€they€conclude€that€theÏabuse€was€inflicted€by€a€male€or€female.Ìà àIn€its€case„in„chief,€the€State€introduced€numerous€statements€that€TonyaÏmade.€€Because€Tonya€sought€Fifth€Amendment€protection€and€did€not€testify,€theseÏwere€primarily€offered€through€testimony€of€other€witnesses.€€In€one€instance,€a€tapeÏwas€played€from€a€recorded€phone€conversation€with€the€detective.€€Some€of€theseÏhearsay€statements€were€offered€as€substantive€evidence.€€Others,€however,€wereÏobviously€introduced€to€impeach€Tonya€as€they€were€exculpatory€of€the€appellant.€ÏMost€of€the€statements€were€properly€admitted€under€an€exception€to€the€hearsayÏrule,€although€several€were€rank€hearsay.Ìà àThe€State€had€no€direct€evidence€that€appellant€inflicted€the€abuse€on€James.€ÏAppellant€worked€during€the€day€and€some€evenings€and€did€not€care€for€the€childÏoften.€€None€of€the€witnesses€who€testified€could€ever€place€appellant€alone€withÏJames,€nor€had€anyone€seen€him€spank€or€discipline€the€child.€€A€rational€trier€of€factÏcould€have€concluded€that€appellant€had€the€opportunity€to€abuse€the€child,€i.e.€heÏmay€have€been€with€James€during€a€portion€of€the€time€the€injuries€were€inflicted,€butÏthe€evidence€proved€little€more.€Ìà àThe€most€damaging€evidence€against€appellant€was€a€statement€that€TonyaÏmade€to€a€psychologist.€€During€an€evaluation€of€Tonyaððs€mental€capacity,€Dr.ÍMichael€Tramontana€administered€a€sentence€completion€exercise€to€her.€€WhenÏgiven€the€statement€ð ðI€regretðð,€Tonya€completed€it€by€saying€ð ðFor€I€did.€€I€did€half€theÏstuff.ðð€€This€was€in€reference€to€the€injuries€sustained€by€James.€€The€obviousÏimplication€was€that€if€Tonya€inflicted€half€the€injuries,€appellant€inflicted€theÏremaining€half.€€Although€inculpatory€of€the€appellant,€no€objection€was€lodged€to€theÏadmission€of€this€hearsay€statement.€€Ìà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€Stateððs€proof,€appellant€moved€for€a€judgment€ofÏacquittal€on€all€six€counts.€€The€trial€court€granted€acquittals€on€counts€four€and€six€ofÏthe€indictment.€€Those€counts€were€for€the€bruised€scrotum€and€rectum.€€The€courtÏfound€these€injuries€did€not€amount€to€ð ðserious€bodily€injuryðð€within€the€meaning€ofÏthe€statute€defining€aggravated€child€abuse.€€Defense€proof€consisted€of€one€doctorððsÏtestimony€about€Tonyaððs€mental€condition.€€Appellant€did€not€testify.€Ìà àThe€State€elected€offenses€as€follows:€count€one€„€fractured€left€humerus;Ïcount€two„€fractured€left€fibula€and€tibia;€count€three€„€fracture€of€the€right€parietalÏarea€of€the€skull;€count€four€„€scrotal€hematoma;€count€five€„€bruised€area€of€theÏbuttocks,€including€the€flank€area;€and€count€six€„€bruised€area€of€the€rectum.€€In€lightÏof€the€acquittals,€the€jury€was€instructed€on€the€lesser€offense€of€child€abuse€forÏcounts€four€and€six.€Ìà àThe€jury€found€appellant€guilty€of€aggravated€child€abuse€on€counts€one,€twoÏand€five.€€At€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€StateÍdid€not€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€injury€alleged€in€count€five€wasÏserious€bodily€injury.€€A€new€trial€was€granted€on€that€count.€€Ìà àAppellant€does€not€raise€any€issue€with€respect€to€the€hearsay€statements€ofÏTonya€Medley€that€were€admitted.€€We€recognize€that€appellate€review€regularlyÏextends€only€to€those€issues€presented€for€review.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(b).€€However,Ïboth€the€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€and€the€Rules€of€Appellate€ProcedureÏrecognize€that€an€appellate€court€may€consider€issues€not€presented€for€review€ifÏthey€rise€to€the€level€of€ð ðplain€error.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(b)€and€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ï13(b).€€These€matters€lie€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€appellate€court€and€mayÏbe€addressed€to€prevent€needless€litigation,€prevent€injury€to€the€interests€of€theÏpublic,€prevent€prejudice€to€the€judicial€process,€prevent€manifest€injustice,€or€to€doÏsubstantial€justice.€€òòState€v.€Adkissonóó,€899€S.W.2d€626,€638„39€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1994).€€€€Ìà àRaising€an€issue€on€the€basis€of€plain€error€should€not€be€taken€lightly;€it€is€notÏa€routinely„administered€remedy.€€òòIdóó€at€639.€€It€should€only€be€invoked€in€the€face€ofÏan€egregious€error€which€affects€the€substantial€rights€of€the€accused.€€òòIdóó€at€639„40.€ÏA€substantial€right€is€a€right€ð ðof€fundamental€proportions€.€.€.,€a€right€to€the€proof€ofÏevery€element€of€the€offense,€and€is€constitutional€in€nature.ðð€€òòIdóó€at€639€(citationsÏomitted).€€Where,€as€here,€the€only€evidence€of€appellantððs€guilt€was€contained€inÍobvious€hearsay,€a€substantial€right€has€been€violated.€€Recognition€of€the€error€isÏnecessary€to€protect€the€fairness€and€integrity€of€judicial€proceedings.€€òòSeeóó€òòidóó€at€640.Ìà àTo€aid€the€appellate€courts€in€determining€when€application€of€thisÏextraordinary€remedy€is€proper,€the€following€considerations€have€been€outlined:€(1)Ïthe€record€must€clearly€establish€what€occurred€in€the€trial€court;€(2)€a€clear€andÏunequivocal€rule€of€law€must€have€been€breached;€(3)€a€substantial€right€of€theÏaccused€must€have€been€adversely€affected;€(4)€the€accused€did€not€waive€the€issueÏfor€tactical€reasons;€and€(5)€consideration€of€the€error€is€necessary€to€do€substantialÏjustice.€€òòIdóó€at€641„42.€€Because€the€appellantððs€constitutional€right€to€a€fair€trial,€aÏsubstantial€right,€was€impaired€in€an€extremely€prejudicial€manner€by€the€admissionÏof€Tonyaððs€hearsay€statements€made€to€Dr.€Tramontana,€we€believe€plain€error€wasÏcommitted.Ìà àA€defendantððs€right€to€a€fair€trial€is€as€old€as€our€nation€and€is€a€fundamentalÏconstitutional€right.€€The€right€is€substantial€and€there€is€no€reason€apparent€in€thisÏrecord€indicating€a€waiver€of€that€constitutional€right€for€tactical€reasons.€€Finally,Ïwithout€Tonyaððs€hearsay€statement,€there€was€a€dearth€of€evidence€against€appellantÏand€the€convictions€should€never€have€resulted.€€When€the€error€is€of€suchÏmagnitude€that€it€probably€changed€the€outcome€of€the€trial,€plain€error€has€occurred.€ÏòòAdkissonóó,€899€S.W.2d€at€642.€Ìà àWhen€the€jury€was€allowed€to€hear€Dr.€Tramontanaððs€testimony€that€TonyaððsÏsentence€completion€statement€was,€ð ðI€regret.€€For€I€did.€€For€I€did€half€the€stuff,ðð€it€wasÏpresented€with€a€statement€by€a€person,€not€present€nor€testifying,€directly€inculpatingÏthe€defendant,€who€could€not€challenge€that€declarantððs€veracity€on€cross„examination.€€The€statement€was€a€classic€example€of€hearsay.€€Hearsay€is€aÏstatement€made€out€of€court€used€in€court€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€801(c).€€Tonyaððs€statement€was€made€out€of€court,€specifically€in€aÏmental€health€setting.€€It€was€used€in€court€when€Dr.€Tramontana€repeated€herÏstatement€and€it€was€used€by€the€State€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted€„€thatÏappellant€was€responsible€for€at€least€half€the€injuries€to€the€child.Ìà àHearsay€evidence€is€generally€inadmissible€due€to€its€unreliable€nature.€€òòSeeóóÏNeil€P.€Cohen€et€al,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð801.2€at€491€(3d.€ed.€1995)€andÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€802.€€However,€it€may€be€admissible€if€it€falls€within€one€of€severalÏexceptions€to€the€rule,€which€generally€provide€some€assurance€of€reliability.€€òòIdóó€atÏ492.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803.€€At€appellantððs€trial,€no€exception€to€the€hearsayÏrule€was€offered€to€justify€admission€of€Tonyaððs€statement.€€Furthermore,€ourÏindependent€review€of€the€record€reveals€that€no€hearsay€exception€was€applicableÏto€admit€this€prejudicial€statement.€€At€first€glance,€the€exception€for€statements€madeÏfor€purposes€of€medical€diagnosis€and€treatment€appears€to€apply.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€803(4).€€However,€this€exception€fails€because€Dr.€Tramontana€was€aÍpsychologist€and€the€exception€applies€only€to€medical€doctors.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏBaroneóó,€882€S.W.2d€216,€220€(Tenn.€1993).€€Also,€we€note€that€the€statement€TonyaÏmade€to€the€doctor€was€not€for€the€purposes€of€diagnosis€and€treatment.€€She€visitedÏDr.€Tramontana€only€for€an€evaluation€of€her€mental€capacity.€€Thus,€it€is€clear€that€theÏstatement€was€not€covered€by€this,€or€any€other,€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule.€€Ìà àThe€admission€of€the€hearsay€statement€at€appellantððs€trial€violated€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.€€The€substantive€prejudice€appellant€suffered€as€aÏresult€of€this€procedural€error€was€the€inability€to€test€the€declarantððs€sincerity€andÏmemory€through€cross„examination.€€òòSeeóó€Neil€P.€œCohen€et€al,›€òòTennessee€Law€ofÏEvidenceóó€ðð801.2€at€491€(3d.€ed.€1995).€€The€extensive€variations€in€the€proof€offeredÏat€trial€exemplifies€the€compelling€need€for€this€truth„testing€to€protect€appellantððsÏright€to€a€fair€trial.€€The€State€introduced€several€statements€that€Tonya€made€andÏthese€statements€demonstrate€numerous€inconsistencies.€€It€is€obvious€that€TonyaÏwas€not€a€credible€declarant€and€this€was€compounded€by€her€limited€mentalÏcapacity.€€Her€stories€ranged€from€her€taking€no€responsibility€for€the€injuries€to€takingÏfull€responsibility€for€them,€as€well€as€sometimes€providing€detailed€explanations€ofÏthe€childððs€injuries€and€later€purporting€utter€ignorance€of€how€some€of€themÏoccurred.€€In€light€of€the€above€considerations,€we€find€it€difficult€to€imagine€a€caseÏwhere€there€was€a€more€compelling€need€for€cross„examination.€€We€hold€that€theÏtrial€courtððs€admission€of€the€unreliable€hearsay€statement€was€reversible€error.€€€€Ìà àThis€conclusion€is€inescapable€when€we€consider€the€nature€of€the€hearsayÏevidence.€€While€the€error€in€admitting€a€hearsay€statement€may€often€play€a€smallÏrole€in€the€overall€scheme€of€a€trial,€such€is€not€the€case€here.€€òòCf.óó€òòState€v.€Walkeróó,Ï910€S.W.2d€381,€388€(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.€Dickersonóó,€885€S.W.2d€90,€91€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1993)€and€òòState€v.€Youngóó,€866€S.W.2d€194,€198€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)€Ï(cases€finding€that€the€admission€of€inadmissible€hearsay€evidence€was€harmlessÏerror).€€The€impact€of€Tonyaððs€statement€could€only€be€considered€crucial€andÏdevastating.€€It€was€the€only€direct€evidence€offered€by€the€State€to€demonstrateÏappellantððs€guilt.€€None€of€the€witnesses€who€testified€for€the€State€directly€implicatedÏappellant€in€the€abuse€of€the€child.€€None€of€the€medical€evidence€was€indicative€thatÏa€male€had€inflicted€the€injuries€on€the€child.€€Neither€had€anyone€witnessed€theÏappellant€abuse€the€child,€nor€could€any€one€place€the€appellant€alone€with€the€child.€ÏAt€best,€the€evidence€may€have€demonstrated€that€appellant€had€an€opportunity€toÏabuse€the€child,€but€nothing€more.€€In€this€case,€Tonyaððs€hearsay€statement€wasÏclearly€the€crucial€element€in€the€Stateððs€proof.€€As€such,€we€are€compelled€to€findÏthat€it€was€impossible€for€appellant€to€receive€a€fair€trial€when€the€only€evidence€of€hisÏguilt€was€provided€by€an€extremely€prejudicial€and€unreliable€hearsay€statementÏmade€by€a€declarant€of€questionable€veracity.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Catherine€Wardóó,€No.Ï01C01„9307„CC„00224€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€February€2,€1996)€(hearsayÏtestimony€that€provided€the€only€direct€evidence€of€the€intent€to€commit€the€crime€wasÍprejudicial€and€could€not€be€considered€harmless)€and€òòState€v.€Myersóó,€764€S.W.2dÏ214,€216€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988)€(hearsay€evidence€that€was€devastating€toÏappellant€could€not€be€considered€harmless€when€the€proof€of€guilt€is€notÏoverwhelming).€€Ìà àAfter€excluding€this€prejudicial€statement,€it€is€incumbent€upon€us€to€examineÏthe€remaining€proof€in€the€record€and€test€its€sufficiency.€€The€strongest€view€of€theÏproof€demonstrates€only€that€appellant€was€with€James€at€some€time€during€theÏperiod€that€the€injuries€were€inflicted.€€Merely€placing€the€infant€in€the€appellantððsÏpresence€during€the€relevant€time€period€is€insufficient€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt€that€he€inflicted€the€injuries.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hixóó,€696€S.W.2d€22,€24€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1984).€à àFurthermore,€determining€the€culpable€party€or€parties€was€mostly€aÏmatter€of€speculation€for€the€jury€because€of€the€nature€of€the€evidence.€€From€theÏproof,€it€was€impossible€for€the€jury€to€conclude€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€theÏabuse€was€inflicted€by€appellant,€Tonya,€or€both.€€We€may€not€permit€a€conviction€toÏrest€solely€upon€conjecture,€guess,€speculation,€or€a€mere€possibility.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏTharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€896,€900€(Tenn.€1987).€€In€sum,€the€record€is€wholly€devoid€ofÏany€direct€evidence€that€appellant€knowingly€inflicted€serious€bodily€injury€upon€theÏchild€as€required€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„15„402.Ìà àSimilarly,€the€Stateððs€theory€of€criminal€responsibility€pursued€at€the€motion€forÏnew€trial€also€fails.€€The€record€contains€no€evidence€that€appellant€solicited,Ídirected,€aided€or€attempted€to€aid€Tonya€in€the€infliction€of€serious€bodily€injury.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð39„11„401€„€402€(1991).€€Finally,€any€remaining€circumstantialÏevidence€against€the€appellant€simply€does€not€exclude€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÏevery€other€reasonable€hypothesis€save€the€guilt€of€the€defendant.€€òòState€v.€Crawfordóó,Ï470€S.W.2d€610,€612€(Tenn.€1971).€€Although€there€is€evidence€that€appellant€gaveÏconflicting€statements€to€investigators,€this€standing€alone€is€insufficient€to€prove€hisÏguilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Therefore,€we€find€the€evidence,€both€direct€andÏcircumstantial,€insufficient€to€support€appellantððs€convictions.€€Ìà àIt€is€beyond€dispute€that€the€infliction€of€serious€injuries€upon€a€seven„month„old€child€is€a€reprehensible€crime.€€Human€nature€cries€out€for€punishment.€ÏHowever,€allowing€another€injustice€to€be€added€to€these€unfortunate€circumstancesÏprovides€no€remedy.€€In€sum,€we€find€that€hearsay€evidence€was€admitted€in€violationÏof€the€appellantððs€constitutional€right€to€a€fair€trial€and€that€exclusion€of€such€proofÏleaves€a€dearth€of€evidence€to€support€appellantððs€guilt.€€Although€the€proof€mayÏestablish€culpability€for€a€conviction€of€aggravated€assault€if€ð ð.€.€.€the€parent€orÏòòcustodianóó€of€a€child€.€.€.€intentionally€or€knowingly€fails€or€refuses€to€protect€such€childÏfrom€an€aggravated€child€abuse.€.€.,ðð€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„102(b)€(emphasis€added),€the€State€did€not€charge€this€offense.€€Therefore,€weÏdismiss€appellantððs€convictions€for€lack€of€sufficient€evidence.€€Discussion€of€theÏissues€raised€by€appellant€is€unnecessary.€€ÓÓà àÌà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ__________________________ÌJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_________________________ÌDavid€G.€Hayes,€Judge