ÿWPC’ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ U.H 0zv 0Dð 0J4 0T~ 0^Ò 0h0 0r˜ 0| 0†† 0 1uœ 0d BuU>’B)ÐDCù AM<à‰Àiv~) D3§vÓÚ 0@­ AOíÆ< 0D D/F Bu˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ 6787e9D:;D<D=>D?Ó€Ô¡¨ 3|xH%ä2¼A`ArialTT(*(2`$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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 d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÖÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌMarch€27,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ¶Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Our€Supreme€Court€has€recently€recognized€that€when€ð ðtime€and€location€separateÏand€distinguish€the€commission€of€the€offenses,€the€offenses€cannot€be€said€to€have€arisenÏout€of€a€single€wrongful€act.ðð€€òòState€v.€Phillipsóó,€924€S.W.2d€662,€665€(Tenn.€1996).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h""""'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  Ý›Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ќـ€ÙÓ  ÓÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€&'%A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àOCTOBER€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òNO.€01C01„9601„CC„00038ó óÌà àAppellee,à@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òWILLIAMSON€COUNTYÌVS.ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òHon.€Henry€Denmark€Bell,ÏJudgeÌCHRISTOPHER€CLAY€KENNEDY,ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à à(Reckless€Endangerment€With€a€Ìà àAppellant.à@ à)à àDeadly€Weapon€and€Leaving€theÌà@ à)à àScene€of€an€Accident)ÌÌÌò òòòÌFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌERNEST€W.€WILLIAMSà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.ÏBURSONó óÌ320€Main€Street,€Suite€101à àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌFranklin,€TN€37064Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òMICHAEL€J.€FAHEY,€IIó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òJOSEPH€D.€BAUGH,€JR.ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òJEFF€BURKSó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÏGeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€937Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFranklin,€TN€37064ÌÌÌÌò òOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌJ.€STEVEN€STAFFORD,ÌSpecial€JudgeÇÑ7€UXXdìXXdì7ÑÓÓà@ àòòOPINIONó óóóÌÌà àThe€appellant,€Christopher€Clay€Kennedy,€appeals€his€convictions€fromÏthe€Williamson€County€Circuit€Court.€€He€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€two€(2)Ïcounts€of€reckless€endangerment€with€a€deadly€weapon€(a€Class€E€felony)€andÏone€(1)€count€of€leaving€the€scene€of€an€accident.€€He€was€ordered€to€serveÏconcurrent€sentences€of€three€(3)€years€for€each€count€of€felony€recklessÏendangerment€and€30€days€for€leaving€the€scene€of€an€accident.€€On€appeal,ÏKennedy€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence€for€two€counts€ofÏreckless€endangerment.€€Secondly,€he€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€notÏð ðspecifically€and€separatelyðð€charging€the€jury€on€both€felony€recklessÏendangerment€and€misdemeanor€reckless€endangerment.€€He€further€claimsÏthat€the€jury€verdict€form€misled€and€confused€the€jury€by€creating€an€inferenceÏof€guilt.€€Finally,€he€contends€that€his€due€process€rights€have€been€violatedÏunder€the€Constitutions€of€the€United€States€and€the€State€of€TennesseeÏbecause€the€statutory€definitions€of€ð ðreckless€endangermentðð€and€ð ðdeadlyÏweaponðð€are€vague.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àò òòòFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óóóÌÌà àThe€proof€at€trial€showed€that€Franklin€Police€Officer€Rob€Hollon€noticed€aÏred€pickup€truck€spinning€its€tires€in€downtown€Franklin.€€Officer€Hollon€activatedÏhis€blue€lights€and€pulled€alongside€the€truck€so€that€the€driversðð€doors€wereÍside€by€side.€€As€Officer€Hollon€was€attempting€to€speak€with€the€driver,€theÏdriver€stuck€his€head€out€of€the€window.€€Officer€Hollon€was€able€to€observe€theÏdriver€of€the€truck€for€about€10„15€seconds.€€The€driver€was€later€identified€asÏClay€Kennedy.Ìà àWhen€Officer€Hollon€tried€to€turn€his€vehicle€around€behind€the€truck,ÏKennedy€sped€down€the€road.€€Kennedy€proceeded€down€the€road€and€made€aÏright€turn€onto€Bridge€Street.€€As€he€was€turning,€however,€his€right€tires€jumpedÏthe€curb,€causing€him€to€temporarily€lose€control€of€the€vehicle.€€At€the€sameÏtime€Kennedyððs€vehicle€was€ð ðfishtailing,ðð€Franklin€Police€Officer€James€GibsonÏwas€traveling€in€the€opposite€direction€on€Bridge€Street.€€Fortunately,€OfficerÏGibson€was€able€to€narrowly€evade€the€oncoming€truck.€€The€truck€continuedÏdown€Bridge€Street€and€turned€south€on€Fourth€Avenue.Ìà àWhen€Kennedy€reached€the€intersection€of€Fourth€Avenue€and€MainÏStreet,€he€ran€a€red€light€and€hit€the€left€rear€bumper€of€a€truck€driven€byÏJonathan€Nesmith.€€The€collision€caused€Nesmith€to€spin€around€so€that€theÏdriversðð€side€doors€of€both€trucks€were€almost€side€by€side.€€Nesmith€recognizedÏthe€driver€as€the€defendant.€€Kennedy€did€not€stop€the€truck,€but€acceleratedÏdown€Fourth€Avenue.€€Because€the€license€plate€on€the€vehicle€readÏð ðBIGDOG2,ðð€several€witnesses€identified€the€truck€as€belonging€to€Kennedy.€ÏThere€was€testimony€that€Kennedy€then€extinguished€his€headlights€and€ranÏseveral€stop€signs€on€Fourth€Avenue.Ìà àFollowing€the€incident,€Kennedy€proceeded€to€Mercury€Drive.€€He€and€aÏpassenger€(later€identified€as€Chad€Hall)€parked€the€truck€on€the€side€of€theÍstreet.€€They€both€got€into€Hallððs€truck€and€drove€away€in€a€hurried€fashion.€€TheÏpolice€found€Kennedyððs€truck€parked€at€that€location.ÌÌà@ àò òòòSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óóóÌÌà àKennedy€claims€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€a€guilty€verdictÏfor€two€counts€of€felony€reckless€endangerment.€€Instead,€he€submits€that€theÏevidence€only€supports€one€conviction€because€both€convictions€arose€out€of€aÏsingle€act€of€driving.€€He€argues€that€because€of€the€proximity€in€time€andÏlocation€of€the€incidents,€the€two€counts€of€reckless€endangerment€should€haveÏbeen€consolidated€by€the€trial€court.€€Therefore,€he€contends€that€one€convictionÏfor€felony€reckless€endangerment€should€be€set€aside.Ìà àWhere€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged,€the€relevant€question€forÏan€appellate€court€is€whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÏessential€elements€of€the€crime€or€crimes€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJacksonÏv.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307€(1979);€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€63€(Tenn.€1985);ÏT.R.A.P.€13(e).€€The€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏevidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòStateÏv.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832€(Tenn.€1978).Ìà àT.C.A.€ðð€39„13„103(a)€defines€reckless€endangerment€as€ð ðrecklesslyÏ[engaging]€in€conduct€which€places€or€may€place€another€person€in€imminentÏdanger€of€death€or€serious€bodily€injury.ðð€€The€crux€of€appellantððs€argument€isÍthat€the€events€leading€up€to€his€arrest€are€part€of€a€single€course€of€conduct.Ìà àKennedy€relies€on€òòState€v.€Ramseyóó,€903€S.W.2d€709€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1995),€to€support€his€argument.€€In€òòRamseyóó,€the€defendant€was€speeding€whileÏhe€and€his€passenger€were€arguing.€€As€his€vehicle€came€over€a€hill,€heÏtemporarily€lost€control€of€his€vehicle,€swerved€into€the€oncoming€lane€of€traffic,Ïand€narrowly€œmissed›€an€oncoming€vehicle.€€However,€his€car€continued€to€veerÏinto€the€oncoming€lane€and€hit€a€second€vehicle.€€The€defendant€was€convictedÏof€three€(3)€counts€of€reckless€endangerment€€because€of€the€number€of€victimsÏin€the€two€oncoming€cars.Ìà àThis€Court€reversed€two€(2)€of€the€convictions,€stating€that€even€thoughÏseveral€people€were€victimized€by€the€defendantððs€actions,€only€one€(1)Ïconviction€is€appropriate€when€the€defendantððs€actions€constitute€a€singleÏcourse€of€conduct.€€òòIdóó.€at€713.€€The€Court€focused€on€the€distance€between€theÏtwo€vehicles,€the€time€between€the€incidents,× ƒ( ××  ×€and€the€fact€that€the€recklessÏconduct€was€one€continuous€act.€However,€the€Court€noted€that€ð ð[w]e€need€notÏfashion€a€blanket€rule€that€provides€that€a€defendantððs€continuous€operation€of€aÏvehicle€may€òòonlyóó€result€in€one€act€of€reckless€endangerment€under€the€statute.€ÏMany€scenarios€could€be€created€where€such€a€rule€would€not€be€prudent.ðð€€òòIdóó.Ïat€713.Ìà àIn€the€present€case,€we€find€that€Kennedy€committed€two€separate€andÏdistinct€acts.€€The€first€act€was€committed€when€he€made€a€right€turn€onto€BridgeÍStreet€and€veered€into€the€oncoming€lane€of€traffic,€endangering€and€almostÏhitting€Officer€Gibson.€€He€chose€to€continue€to€drive€at€an€accelerated€rate€ofÏspeed.€€Two€blocks€later€he€ran€a€red€light€through€a€busy€intersection€inÏFranklin€crashing€into€Nesmithððs€vehicle,€thereby€committing€the€second€act.€€ByÏdoing€so,€he€chose€to€consciously€disregard€the€risk€that€lives€would€be€placedÏin€danger€of€death€or€serious€bodily€injury.Ìà àòòRamseyóó€is€distinguishable€because,€in€that€case,€the€defendant€swervedÏinto€the€oncoming€lane€of€traffic€and€immediately€veered€into€the€oncoming€laneÏof€traffic€again.€€The€incident€happened€within€1/10€of€a€mile€and€withinÏseconds.€€On€the€other€hand,€Kennedy€had€time€between€the€two€acts€to€getÏcontrol€of€his€car€and€to€think€about€what€he€was€doing.€€As€such,€he€had€time€toÏform€the€necessary€criminal€intent€to€commit€the€second€act€of€recklessÏendangerment.€€Therefore,€because€we€find€that€the€two€offenses€did€not€ariseÏout€of€a€single€wrongful€act,€we€conclude€that€both€convictions€for€recklessÏendangerment€should€stand.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Phillipsóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€665;€9€DavidÏL.€Raybin,€òòTennessee€Practice:€Criminal€Practice€and€Procedureóó€ðð€16.20€(1984Ï&€Supp.€1995).Ìà àKennedy€also€contends€the€trial€judge€failed€to€exercise€his€role€as€theÏthirteenth€juror.€€T.R.Cr.P.€33(f).€€We€find€nothing€in€the€record€indicating€the€trialÏjudgeððs€dissatisfaction€with€the€verdict.€€òòState€v.€Moatsóó,€906€S.W.2d€431€(Tenn.Ï1995).ÌÌà@ àò òòòJURY€INSTRUCTIONSóóó óÌÌà àKennedy€maintains€that€the€trial€courtððs€jury€charge€on€felony€recklessÏendangerment€and€misdemeanor€reckless€endangerment€was€unclear.€ÏReckless€endangerment€with€a€deadly€weapon€is€a€Class€E€felony,€otherwiseÏreckless€endangerment€is€a€Class€A€misdemeanor.€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„103(b).€€HeÏargues€that€the€trial€judge€did€not€clearly€establish€that€misdemeanor€recklessÏendangerment€was€a€lesser€included€offense€of€the€felony,€which€resulted€inÏconfusion€to€the€jury.Ìà àThe€defendant€did€not€object€to€the€jury€instructions€at€trial,€nor€did€heÏraise€this€issue€in€the€motion€for€new€trial.€€Therefore,€this€issue€is€waived.€ÏT.R.A.P.€3(e);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Sextonóó,€917€S.W.2d€263,€266€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1995);€òòState€v.€Keelóó,€882€S.W.2d€410,€417„418€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòStateÏv.€McPhersonóó,€882€S.W.2d€365,€375€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€œ1994).›€€KennedyððsÏargument€rests€on€the€fact€that€the€instruction€to€the€jury€was€unclear.€€MereÏmeagerness€of€a€jury€instruction€is€not€reversible€error,€in€the€absence€of€aÏspecial€request€for€an€additional€charge.€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€795€S.W.2d€689,€697Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990);€òòState€v.€Haynesóó,€720€S.W.2d€76,€85€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1986);€òòState€v.€Rollinsóó,€605€S.W.2d€828,€832€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€KennedyÏneither€contemporaneously€objected€to€the€instructions€given€nor€made€aÏspecial€request€for€an€additional€charge.Ìà àAfter€an€examination€of€the€jury€charge€and€the€trial€judgeððs€remarks,€weÏfurther€conclude€Kennedy€suffered€no€prejudice.€€At€most,€this€was€harmlessÏerror.€€T.R.A.P.€œ36(b).›€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòJURY€VERDICT€FORMó óóóÌÌà àKennedy€contends€that€the€jury€verdict€form€was€confusing€and€misledÏthe€jury.€€Apparently,€the€trial€judge€mistakenly€filled€in€the€amount€for€a€potentialÏfine€assessment.€€This€could€have€given€the€jurors€the€impression€that€the€fineÏamount€was€pre„set€if€the€defendant€was€found€guilty.€€Kennedy€moved€for€aÏmistrial,€which€was€overruled€by€the€trial€court.€€Ultimately,€no€fine€was€assessedÏby€the€court.Ìà àOnce€again,€this€issue€was€not€raised€in€the€motion€for€new€trial.€€As€such,Ïit€is€waived€and€cannot€be€raised€on€appeal€unless€it€amounts€to€plain€error.€ÏT.R.A.P.€3(e),€52(b).€Ìà àAny€error€was€harmless,€at€best.€€The€decision€to€grant€or€deny€a€mistrialÏis€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€McKinneyóó,€929€S.W.2d€404Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€We€will€not€disturb€that€finding€absent€an€abuse€ofÏdiscretion.€€òòIdóó.€€Contrary€to€Kennedyððs€assertion,€the€mistake€on€the€jury€form€didÏnot€give€rise€to€an€inference€of€guilt.€€The€fine€amount€was€relevant€òòonly€ifóó€theÏjury€found€him€guilty€òòandóó€decided€to€assess€a€fine.€€There€was€no€abuse€ofÏdiscretion€by€the€trial€judge.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòRECKLESS€ENDANGERMENT€WITH€A€DEADLY€WEAPONóóó óÌÌà àFinally,€Kennedy€argues€that€the€definitions€of€ð ðreckless€endangermentððÍand€ð ðdeadly€weaponðð€are€constitutionally€vague.€€He€suggests€that€any€time€aÏperson€recklessly€places€another€individual€in€danger€of€serious€bodily€injury€orÏdeath€while€in€an€automobile,€that€person€is€automatically€guilty€of€felonyÏreckless€endangerment.€€Thus,€he€asserts€that€his€rights€to€due€process€of€lawÏhave€been€violated.Ìà àœA›€person€commits€the€offense€of€reckless€endangerment€when€he/sheÏrecklessly€engages€in€conduct€which€may€place€another€person€in€danger€ofÏdeath€or€serious€bodily€injury.€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„103(a).€€A€deadly€weapon€can€beÏð ð[a]nything€that€in€the€manner€of€its€use€or€intended€use€is€capable€of€causingÏdeath€or€serious€bodily€injury.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„106(a)(5)(B).Ìà àThis€Court€has€previously€held€that€an€automobile€can€be€a€deadlyÏweapon€if€used€in€a€manner€capable€of€causing€death€or€serious€bodily€injury.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Tateóó,€912€S.W.2d€785€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(aggravatedÏassault);€€òòState€v.€Scott€W.€Longóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9301„CR„00032,€GreeneÏCounty€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€August€19,€1993,€at€Knoxville)€(recklessÏendangerment).€€ð ð[T]his€does€not€mean€that€an€automobile€is,€under€allÏcircumstances,€a€deadly€weapon.€€The€method€of€use€is€the€controlling€factorÏand€must€be€examined€on€a€case„by„case€basis.ðð€€òòState€v.€Longóó,€òòsupraóó.Ìà àWe€find€nothing€vague€in€either€of€these€statutes.€€The€jury€wasÏadequately€instructed€on€the€meanings€of€ð ðreckless€endangermentðð€and€ð ðdeadlyÏweapon.ðð€€Furthermore,€we€find€overwhelming€evidence€to€show€that€KennedyÏused€his€automobile€in€a€manner€capable€of€causing€death€or€serious€bodilyÏinjury.€€He€blatantly€disregarded€the€risk€that€someone€could€have€been€injuredÍor€killed€by€his€actions.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òJ.€STEVEN€STAFFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSpecial€Judgeó óÌÌÌÌÌÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEó ó