WPC> U:V % 0w@r 4   0  0D 0JA 0T 0^ 0h= 0r 0| 0 0 1u 0dU* BB)DC AM58@ D3AoS 0@q `s"',/`d2v~5vB7 AO=d= 0D*> D/n> B>,  AZ"Arial RegularX(`$TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7GXXdXXd7  DDQeUDD[UӀ^!(#(#3|x((3$ `!TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7LXXdXXd7    `   0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 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)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Arial d% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd-!C << G  !  #d#    ! \RA'\#d#      YYY FILEDX February12,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk   !#d#     \RA'\#d#   \RA'\7LXXdXXd7     Inthetechnicalrecord,theappellantssurnameisalsospelled McAmey.Consistentwiththepracticeofthiscourt,weadheretothespellingoftheappellantssurnameinthecharginginstrument.  !#d#     \RA'\#d#   \RA'\7LXXdXXd7     DonaldMcMahanwasindicted,alongwiththeappellant,onJuly8,1994,bytheCarterCountyGrandJury.McMahanwaschargedwithpossessionofcontrabandinapenalinstitutionandassault.Theappellantwaschargedonlywithaidingandabettingpossessionofcontraband. 6 !#d#     \RA'\#d#   \RA'\7LXXdXXd7     Heatontestifiedthatthedormitoryisa militarytypelayout,opendormitory,thirtyfivebeds.'dxd  !#d#     \RA'\#d#   \RA'\7LXXdXXd7     "Lightsoutatthecorrectionalfacilityis10:30p.m. e !#d#     \RA'\#d#   \RA'\7LXXdXXd7     Thebedsaresituatedapproximatelytwofeetapart.Eachbedhasanightstandandafootlockeratitsend.Therearenopartitionsbetweenthebeds.("$     g !#d#     \RA'\#d#   \RA'\7<XXdXXd7     Heatontestifiedthat,sinceitwasunlikelythataninmatewouldsuccessfullyfleethearea,hismainprioritywastotakepossessionofthecontraband. V !#d#     \RA'\#d#   \RA'\7<XXdXXd7     ThefollowingillustratestheStatestheoryofthecaseandtheconfusionastotheoffensechargedbytheindictment:8 generalfinney: ...OfficerHeatontestifiedhesawthecontraband,DefendantMcCameytookitandassisted,andwasassistingineludingwiththecontraband.HewasaidingandassistingthedefendantMcMahaninthecase,andthatiswhatheischargedwith.Notinpossessionofmarijuanabutaidingandassistinginthepossessionofcontrabandinapenalfacility. ...8 mr.street: Well,thatsfine,YourHonor,butbutmyclientisnotchargedwithpossession.8 generalfinney: Thatscorrect.8 thecourt: Heschargedwithaidingandabettingpossession.8  generalfinney: Thatscorrect.8 mr.street: Correct.  !#d#     \RA'\#d#   \RA'\7<XXdXXd7     In1989,ourlegislatureenactedTenn.CodeAnn.3911402(1990),criminalresponsibilityfortheconductofanother.Thissectionsimplyrestatestheprincipleofcriminalliabilitythatoneisliableforhisownconductandappliesthisprincipletosituationsinwhichtheconductinvolvedmaybethatofanotheroracombinationoftheconductofanotherandonesownconduct.Procedurally,thereislittledistinctionbetweenthecommonlaw aiderandabettorandthe1989 aiderundercriminalresponsibilityfortheconductofanother.Fromasubstantiveperspective,however,therearedistinctions.Forexample,underthecommonlaw,theaccusedspresencewasnecessaryforconvictionasanaiderandabettor,whileundercriminalresponsibility,thisfactisunnecessary.  !#d#     \RA'\#d#   \RA'\7<XXdXXd7     ConstructivepossessionbytheappellantoccurredpriortoMcMahansseizurebytheguardandactualpossessionbytheappellantoccurredfromthepointatwhichtheappellantgrabbedthemarijuanaandfled.  !#d#     \RA'\#d#   \RA'\7<XXdXXd7     TheindictmentallegespossessionofcontrabandinapenalinstitutiononoraboutJuly23,1993.Thestatute,atthetimeoftheoffense,didnotincludetheterm penalinstitution.ThestatutewasamendedtoincludethistermeffectiveJuly1,1994. V !#d#     \RA'\#d#   \RA'\7<XXdXXd7     "Apersonisanaccessoryafterthefactwho,afterthecommissionofafelony,withknowledgeorreasonablegroundtobelievethattheoffenderhascommittedthefelony,andwiththeintenttohinderthearrest,trial,convictionorpunishmentoftheoffender...providesoraidsinprovidingtheoffenderwithanymeansofavoidingarrest,trial,convictionorpunishment.Id.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! .      \RA'\#Xd##Xd#   ݛ R"$!A1-j|` e `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATKNOXVILLE@ JULYSESSION,1996 STATEOFTENNESSEE ,  )     ) No.03C019601CC00037 Appellee   )     ) CARTERCOUNTYvs.     )     ) Hon.ArdenL.Hill,Judge ROYMCCAMEY ,   )     ) (Poss.ofContraband Appellant   ) inapenalfacility)FortheAppellant:    FortheAppellee:StacyL.Street    CharlesW.BursonAttorneyforAppellant   AttorneyGeneralandReporterHampton&Street 630ElkAvenue    DarianB.TaylorElizabethton,TN37643   AssistantAttorneyGeneral       CriminalJusticeDivision      450JamesRobertsonParkway      Nashville,TN372430493                DavidE.Crockett      DistrictAttorneyGeneral      StevenR.Finney      Asst.DistrictAttorneyGeneral      CourthouseAnnex      Elizabethton,TN37243OPINIONFILED:򀀀REVERSEDANDREMANDED DavidG.Hayes Judge@ OPINION  Theappellant,RoyMcCamey, %   ׀appealsthejudgmententeredbytheCarterCountyCriminalCourtapprovingajuryverdictfindingtheappellantguiltyofpossessionofcontrabandinapenalfacility. (   ׀Tenn.CodeAnn.3916201(1991).Theappellantsubmitstwoissuesforourreview:first,whetherhisconviction,whichwasbasedupon aidingandabettingthepossessionofcontrabandofanother,canstandwhentheonlyactiononhispartoccurredafterthecrimeofpossessionofcontrabandinapenalfacilityhadbeencompleted;second,whetherthetrialcourterredindenyingtheappellantsrequestforaspecialjurychargedefiningtheterm possession. Forreasonsexplainedbelow,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisreversed. @ I.Background  OnJuly23,1993,BillyHeaton,acorrectionalofficerattheCarterCountyWorkCampinRoanMountain,wasperformingaroutinecheckintheNorthWingdormitoryofthecorrectionsfacility. )   ׀Atapproximately11:20p.m.,Heatonobserved Inmate[Donald]McMahansittingonbednumberseven,whichwasnotMcMahansassignedbed. +   ׀TheappellantwassittingdirectlyacrossfromMcMahanonbednumbereight. ,   ׀Heatonnoticed somethingon[McMahans]lap,whichhesuspectedwascontraband.AsHeatonapproachedthetwomen,theappellantstated HeresHeaton.Withthiswarning,McMahan madeaquickmovementtoput[theitemhehadonhislap]underneaththebed.HeatonorderedMcMahantosurrendertheitem,butMcMahan reacheddownandgotitandgotup. McMahanattemptedtofleetheareawiththeitem,butHeatongrabbedMcMahanfrombehind inabearhugandagaindemandedtheitem.Atthistime,theappellantgrabbedtheitemfromMcMahanandstartedrunning.HeatonreleasedMcMahan,atwhichtimeMcMahanhitHeatoninthe jawarea.Heatonthenpursuedtheappellant. .   ׀Theappellantrantotheothersideofthedormitoryunitandlaidtheobjectunderneaththenightstandatbedtwentyseven.Heatonrecoveredtheitem,a5X7photoframe,whichwaspartiallycoveredwithagreenleafymaterial.HeatonsuspectedthatthematerialwasmarijuanaanddeliveredthesubstancetoSergeantCarnettfortesting. Usingaprepackagedtestkit,Carnettdeterminedthatthesubstancewasmarijuana.DavidHolloway,aforensicchemistwiththeTennesseeBureauofInvestigationsCrimeLaboratory,confirmedCarnettstestresultandcalculatedthattheconfiscatedmarijuanaweighed4.5grams.@ II.Analysis  Webeginourreviewwiththeindictmentandtheoffensealleged. Theindictmentreadsasfollow:̛8 ... ROYMcCAMEY onoraboutthe23ddayofJuly,1993...did aidandassist ,asdefinedinSection3911402oftheTennesseeCodeAnnotated,DonaldMcMahan,intheunlawfulpossessionofcontraband,towit:Marijuana,aScheduleVIControlledSubstance,inapenalinstitution,bypreventinganofficeroftheCarterCountyWorkcampfromapprehendingthecontraband,inviolationofSection3916201oftheTennesseeCodeAnnotated....Althoughnoobjectionwasraisedatthetriallevelconcerningtheoffensechargedintheindictment,itisobviousfromareadingoftherecordthatconfusionexistedastotheactualoffensecharged.ThisissuefirstsurfacedduringtheappellantsmotionforjudgmentofacquittalatthecloseoftheStatesproof.Itresurfacedduringareviewofthetrialcourtsproposedjuryinstructions.TheStatearguedthattheindictmentchargedtheappellantwiththecrimeofaidingandabettingpossessionofcontrabandinapenalinstitution. /   ׀Thetrialcourtagreedwiththisposition.However,wearecompelledtonotethatourcriminalcodecontainsnosuchcrime.Withtheadoptionofthe1989CriminalCode,ourlegislatureabolishedthecommonlawdistinctionsbetweenprinciples,accessoriesbeforethefact,andaidersandabettors. 0   ׀ Onappeal,theState,recognizingthedilemmapresented,contendsthattheindictmentchargestheappellantwithpossessionofcontrabandinapenalinstitutionunderthetheoryofcriminalresponsibilityfortheconductofanother.Indeed,theindictmentmakesreferencetothecriminalresponsibilityprovision,Tenn.CodeAnn.3911402.Assumingthistobethecorrectcharge,wenotethatthetrialcourtdidnotchargethejuryunderthistheory.Infact,therecordreflectsthatthejurywasinstructedunderthelawthatexistedpriortotheadoptionofthe1989CriminalCode.Attrial,theappellantrepeatedlyarguedtothecourtandjurythattheindictmentdidnotchargethecrimeofpossessionofcontrabandinapenalfacility.Indeed,duringclosingargument,appellantscounsel,onseveraloccasions,concededthattheappellanthadpossessionofthecontraband.Althoughconcedingtheappellantspossession,hearguedthatthisfactdidnotestablishtheappellantsguiltofaidingandassistingMcMahanspossessionofcontraband. IftheStatespositiononappealiscorrect,thenweareconfrontedwiththefactthattheappellantscounselarguedhisclientsguilttothejury.Thisleadsustotheunmistakableconclusionthattheprincipalplayersinthiscasewerenot singingfromthesamesheetofmusic. Onappeal,theappellantinsiststhathisconvictioncannotstandbecauseitisbaseduponalegalimpossibility.Specifically,theappellant,relyingupontheallegationsoftheindictment,arguesthattheindictmentdoesnotchargehimwithpossessionofcontraband.Rather,itchargesthattheappellantaidedandassistedDonaldMcMahansunlawfulpossession.TheappellantcontendsthatMcMahanspossessionofcontrabandwas completeduponhisseizurebytheofficer.TheappellantassertsthathisinvolvementinthiscrimefollowedcompletionofMcMahanscrime,and,therefore,itislegallyimpossiblefortheappellanttohaveaidedandassistedinMcMahanspossession.Ourcriminalcodedoesnotrecognizethelegaldefenseof legalimpossibility.See3911203.SeealsoBandyv.State,575S.W.2d278,279280(1979);Statev.Barton,626S.W.2d296,297(Tenn.Crim.App.1981);Statev.McCoy(C.C.A.No.979(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,March30,1987). Again,theappellantdoesnotdenyhispossessionofthecontrabandfollowingMcMahansseizure,northatthisactioncouldhaveexposedhimtoothercriminalchargessuchasaccessoryafterthefact.HesimplyarguesthathisconductdoesnotimplicatehiminthecrimeofaidingandassistingMcMahanspossession.TheStatearguesthattheproofintherecordsupportstheappellantsconvictionbaseduponthepresenceofbothconstructiveandactualpossessionofthecontraband. 1   ׀ Next,theStateallegesthattheindictmentcontainsthenecessarylanguagetochargetheappellantwiththecrimeofpossessionofcontrabandinapenalinstitution. 2   ׀Tenn.CodeAnn.3916201(a)(2)providesthat:̜8 Itisunlawfulforanypersonto...knowinglyhaveinhisorherpossessionany[weapons,ammunition,explosives,intoxicants,legenddrugs,oranycontrolledsubstances]whilepresentinanystate,countyormunicipalinstitutionwhereprisonersarequarteredorundercustodialsupervisionwithouttheexpresswrittenconsentofthechiefadministratoroftheinstitution.̜Clearly,thedraftsmanoftheindictmentfailedinhisattempttostatethefactsconstitutingtheoffenseinordinaryandconciselanguage.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4013202(1990).Thelanguageoftheindictment,ineffect,importsnoticeoftwodifferentfactualbasesuponwhichtochargetheappellantwithpossessionofmarijuana:(1)theappellantsconstructivepossessionofthemarijuanaby aid[ing]andassist[ing]DonaldMcMahanspossession;and(2)achargebasedupontheappellantsactualpossessionofthemarijuana bypreventinganofficeroftheCarterCountyWorkhousefromapprehendingthecontraband.Additionally,whenthesetwotheoriesofcriminalliabilityarereadsimultaneously,thelanguageoftheindictmentinferstheculpabilityoftheappellantasanaccessoryafterthefact.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.3911411(1991). 3   ׀Nonetheless,forthereasonsstatedbelow,wefinditunnecessarytoaddressthesufficiencyoftheindictment. Again,iftheStatestheoryoftheappellantscriminalliabilitywasbaseduponTenn.CodeAnn.3911402,clearly,thetrialcourtdidnotchargethistheorytothejury.Thecourtinstructedon AidingandAbetting.Therewasnoobjectionenteredtothecourtsfailuretoinstructthejuryonthecriminalresponsibilityfortheconductofanother.Norwastheissueraisedonmotionfornewtrial.Usually,theappellantsfailuretoobjectornotethisissuewouldprecludereviewonappeal.SeeTenn.R.App.P.3(e)and36(a).However,thisinstructionwascentraltotheStatestheory,i.e.,theappellantsresponsibilityforMcMahansactions.Cf.Statev.Bowen,No.01C019303CC00076(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,March30,1994(Tipton,J.,concurring)(becausetrialcourtrefusedtoinstructjuryoncriminalresponsibility,evidenceinsufficienttosupportdefendantsconvictionsforburglary).Moreover,thejurywasinstructedonlawinapplicabletothiscase.Underthesecircumstances,weconcludethatitisnecessarytoreviewthisissueinordertoensurethatsubstantialjusticeisdone.SeeTenn.R.Crim.P.52(b). Atrialcourthasthedutytogiveacompletechargeoftheapplicablelawtothefactsofthecaseandthedefendanthasaconstitutionalrighttohaveeveryissueoffactraisedbytheevidenceandmaterialtohisdefensesubmittedtothejuryuponproperinstructionbythecourt.Statev.Stoddard,909S.W.2d454,460(Tenn.Crim.App.1994)(citationsomitted);seealsoStatev.Staggs,554S.W.2d620,626(Tenn.1977).Accordingly,thetrialcourtsfailuretoinstructthejuryconcerningcriminalresponsibilityfortheconductofanotherwaserror. Additionally,theappellantarguesthatthetrialcourtcommittederrorindenyingthefollowingrequestedinstructiononpossession:8 Therearetwotypesofpossessionrecognizedinthelaw:Actualpossessionandconstructivepossession.Apersonwhoknowinglyhasdirectphysicalcontroloveranobjectatagiventimeistheninactualpossessionofit.Apersonwho,althoughnotinactualpossession,knowinglyhasboththepowerandintentionatanygiventimetoexercisedominionandcontroloveranobjectistheninconstructivepossessionofit.ThisrequestedinstructioncontainslanguageidenticaltothatfoundinT.P.I.Crim.No.31.05.Atrialcourtmayonlyrefusearequestedinstructionwhenthejurychargeasgivenfullyandfairlystatestheapplicablelaw.Again,thetrialcourthadthedutytogiveacompletechargeofthelawapplicabletothefactsofthecase.Statev.Mize,No.03C019405CR00163(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,Sept.22,1995)(citingStatev.Brown,836S.W.2d530(Tenn.1992);Statev.Harbison,704S.W.2d314(Tenn.),cert.denied,476U.S.1153,106S.Ct.226191986);seealsoTenn.CodeAnn.4018110).Thetrialcourtsinstructionstothejurycompletelyomittedanyinstructionon possession,although possessionisanessentialelementoftheoffenseofpossessionofcontrabandinapenalinstitution.Inviewoftheproofdevelopedattrial,wefinderrorinthecourtsfailuretogivethisrequestedinstruction.SeeStatev.Cravens,764S.W.2d754,756(Tenn.1989)(Thecourtshoulddescribeanddefinealloftheelementsoftheindictedoffenseinitsinstructionstothejury.).Thus,thecourtsfailuretoinstructontheelementofpossessioniserrorsoplainastorequirereversal.SeeStatev.Ogle,666S.W.2d58,60(Tenn.1984);Tenn.R.Crim.P.52(b). Consideringtheentirerecord,weconcludethattheimpactofthecombinederrorsdeprivedtheappellantofafairtrialand,moreprobablythannot,affectedthejudgmentinthiscase.Tenn.R.App.P.36(b).Accordingly,thejudgmentofconvictionisreversed.Weremandthiscasetothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingsasnecessary.     ____________________________________     DAVIDG.HAYES,JudgeCONCUR:_______________________________JOEB.JONES,PresidingJudge_______________________________WILLIAMM.DENDER,SpecialJudge