ÿWPCL  …# VU:a %› 0¸¡4Y m | 0ü„ 0D€ nXÄ "UB*w@lU.¬Úbâ 0Dê D3. 0Ja 0T« 0^ÿ 0h] 0rÅ 0|7 0†³ 09 1uÉ 0d>b¢ BªB)ÇDCð 0@3 AMs†ÀfFf¬v~vÓ 0Dc AO§Æö 0D¼ D/ B/ ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 , øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX( 7$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ` ` ÑÓÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑ·‚^!(3|x¹(¬(3T6$¤¤Ý ƒ 7!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ` °ÑÓÓÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXPHR<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi ¥D¦§E¨©ªÊ«î¬î­Ó€¹%ä2¼A`ArialTT- ù-6 ÿÿ$Triangleððà0 à****'ÿÿdxd2 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- ù- d% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ |Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òNovemberÏ08,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ \Ñ\R AØ'\ÑPtPt HHøHÿöÿòV,(ühhØ hd'0ÿÎÿºF ® Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò6ûb$Triangleððà0 à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÑ ° ÑÑ€$ÑÑ7€?XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÓ ` ` šXÓIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÙ€€ÙœßL€./,;+'h|` à. `€€Lß›ÌMAY€1996€SESSIONó óÌÌœÌÌÌÌÌ›ÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àC.C.A.ÏNO.€€œ03C01„9510„CR„00330›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)à àœHAMILTON›€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.ÏœSTEPHEN€M.€BEVIL,›Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àà àà àœÏWILLIE€WILLIAMS,€JR.,à àà àà à)à àÌ›à àœà àà àà àà àà à)à àFirstÏdegree€murder;›Ìà àAppellantà àà àà àà àœ)à àPossession€of€prohibited€weapon.›à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌœÌÌÌ›ÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóóà àà àà àà àòòFOR€THEÏAPPELLEEóóÌÌœAlan€R.€Beard›à àà àà àà àà àCharlesÏW.€BursonÌœ737€Market€St.,€Suite€601à àà à›à àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€&€Reporter€€ÌœChattanooga,€TN€37402›ÌòòœOn€Appealóó›à àà àà àà àœà àà àDarian€B.ÏTaylorÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistantÏAttorney€General€€€€à àArvin€H.ÍReingoldà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌPark€Plaza€Buildingà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ì1010€Market€St.,€Suite€401à àà àà àà àà àÌChattanooga,€TN€37402à àà àà àà àGary€D.€GerbitzÌòòAt€trialóóà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àThomas€J.€EvansÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCounty„City€Court€Bldg.,€Suite€300Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€37402ÌÌÌÌÌÌ€ÌOPINION€FILED€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌREVERSED€and€REMANDEDÌÌÌJOHN€K.€BYERSÌSENIOR€JUDGEÌÌÓ  Óò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌÓÓà àThe€defendant€was€tried€by€jury€on€September€20„23,€1994€and€found€guiltyÏof€one€count€of€first€degree€murder€and€one€count€of€unlawful€possession€of€aÏmachine€gun.€€Ìà àIn€this€appeal,€the€defendant€presents€the€following€issues€for€our€review:à àÌà0 à(1)€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€testimony€of€the€deceased€givenÏin€an€unrelated€matter€in€juvenile€court€and€on€police€911€tapes;Ìà0 à(2)€Whether€the€defense€trial€attorney€provided€constitutionally€ineffectiveÏassistance;Ìà0 à(3)€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€evidence€of€a€prior€convictionÏwithout€proper€notice€of€the€Stateððs€intention€to€use€the€evidence€forÏimpeachment;€andÌà0 à(4)€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€voluntaryÏmanslaughter€and€other€lesser€charges.ÌÒ S ÒÒ „ Òà àBecause€the€trial€court€failed€to€charge€the€lesser€offense€of€voluntaryÏmanslaughter,€the€judgment€must€be€reversed.€€A€new€trial€is€ordered.ÌÓ óý Óà àà àAt€approximately€4:40€a.m.€on€July€24,€1993,€Delany€Thomas€was€foundÏdead€of€a€gunshot€wound€to€his€head€as€he€sat€in€the€driverððs€seat€of€hisÏautomobile€in€the€alley€adjoining€his€motherððs€home.€€The€carððs€engine€was€stillÏrunning.ÌÓ K Óà àPrior€to€discovering€Thomasðð€body,€the€Chattanooga€Police€DepartmentÏhad€received€several€telephone€calls€that€morning€concerning€Thomas€andÏdefendant.Ìà àAt€3:37€a.m.,€Thomas€phoned€911€and€reported€that€he€ð ð€.€.€.€had€a€conflictÏfor€my€[unintelligible]€mommaððs€brother„in„law,€he€just€shot€at€my€car.€€He€shot€itÏup.€€Thereððs€some€bullet€holes€in€it€right€now.€€If€they€donððt€come,€Iððm€gonna€getÏhim.ððÌà àAt€4:37€a.m.,€defendant€phoned€911€and€reported€ð ð€.€.€.€I€believe€I€shotÏsomebody€.€.€.€I€followed€him€and€he€laying€in€the€car€.€.€.€Get€the€police€out€hereÏright€now.€€The€man€might€be€dying,€he€might€be€dead,€I€donððt€know.€€He€aroundÏthe€corner€from€me.€€He€in€a€Cadillac€.€.€.€I€got€the€gun€in€the€house€now€.€.€.ððÌà àA€police€officer€arrived€and€found€defendant€at€his€home.€€She€went€withÍdefendant€and€defendantððs€brother€to€a€nearby€alley€where€she€found€ThomasÏdead€in€his€car.€€€Defendantððs€brother€went€into€defendantððs€house,€brought€out€aÏNorinco€AK„47€semi„automatic€rifle€and€gave€it€to€the€officer.€€Fourteen€shells€ofÏbullets€from€the€rifle€were€found€in€Thomasðð€car€and€on€the€street€nearby.€€Ìà àDefendant€gave€a€statement€to€police€indicating€that€Thomas€had€firedÏgunshots€at€his€home€and€that€in€response,€he€had€chased€Thomas€and€firedÏshots€to€draw€Thomas€away€from€his€home.€€Defendant€stated€he€only€fired€oneÏshot€toward€Thomas,€and€then€only€because€Thomas€pointed€a€handgun€at€himÏfrom€the€auto.€ÌÓ  Óà àThe€Hamilton€County€medical€examiner€testified€that€the€victim€was€notÏfacing€the€shooter€when€he€was€shot€and€that€had€the€victim€been€holding€a€gun,Ïthe€gun€should€have€been€in€his€hand€or€nearby€in€the€auto.€€No€such€gun€wasÏfound.Ìà àA€neighbor€testified€that€she€heard€shots€and€then€saw€a€man€drive€up€in€aÏsmall€car,€get€out,€approach€the€alley,€return€to€his€car€and€leave.€€Soon€afterward,Ïshe€saw€two€men€walk€down€the€street,€reach€behind€a€wall,€retrieve€a€gun€whileÏlooking€furtively€around,€and€walk€off.Ìà àEvidence€was€introduced€at€trial€that€Thomas€was,€at€the€time€of€his€death,Ïliving€with€a€woman€whose€daughter,€Glorissa€Buchanan,€had€been€in€a€knife€fightÏwith€defendantððs€sister,€Valencia€Williams.€€The€week€before€Thomas€wasÏmurdered,€Glorissa€Buchanan€had€been€found€delinquent€at€a€juvenile€hearingÏand€sent€to€a€juvenile€detention€facility.€›Ìœà àDefendant€first€raises€the€issue€of€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowingÍtestimony€about€Thomasðð€statement€at€Glorissa€Buchananððs€juvenile€hearing.€€TheÏfollowing€testimony€is€challenged:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓQ:à àWhat€did€your€boyfriend,€Delaney€Thomas,€the€victim€in€thisÏcase,€what€did€he€say€about€what€Willie€Williams€did€with€respectÏto€your€daughter€in€court,€what€did€he€testify€to?ÌÌA:€He€said€when€my€daughter€stabbed€Valencia,€Willie€hit€her€withÏa€rifle€here€and€here.ÌÌÒ S ÒÒ ° ÒÓ K ÓÓÓà àDefendant€says€this€testimony€was€inadmissible€hearsay.€€Ìà àHearsay€is€ð ða€statement,€other€than€one€made€by€the€declarant€whileÏÑ  Ñtestifying€at€the€trial€or€hearing,€offered€in€evidence€to€prove€the€truth€of€theÏmatter€asserted.ðð€€Rule€801,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ìà àWhen€the€declarant€is€unable€to€be€present€or€to€testify€because€of€hisÏdeath,€his€hearsay€statement€is€admissible€as€evidence€of€the€truth€of€theÏmatter€asserted€in€a€limited€number€of€situations.€€Rule€804(b)(1€„€4),€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.Ìà àDefendant€argues€that€Thomasðð€statement€at€the€juvenile€court€hearingÏwas€inadmissible€hearsay€because€it€was€admitted€for€the€truth€of€the€matterÏasserted€and€does€not€meet€the€test€of€the€exception€in€Rule€804(b)(1)€dealingÏwith€former€testimony.€€Rule€804(b)(1)€allows€hearsay€of€a€deceased€declarantÏwhen€the€declarations€are€in€the€form€of:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ€.€.€.€testimony€given€as€a€witness€at€another€hearing€of€the€sameÏor€a€different€proceeding€or€in€a€deposition€taken€in€complianceÏwith€law€in€the€course€of€the€same€or€another€proceeding,€if€theÏparty€against€whom€the€testimony€is€now€offered€had€both€anÏopportunity€and€a€similar€motive€to€develop€the€testimony€by€direct,Ïcross,€or€redirect€examination.€ÌÌÒ S ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓà àDefendant€argues€that€since€he€was€not€present€at€the€juvenile€hearing€andÏdid€not€have€an€opportunity€and€similar€motive€to€develop€the€testimony€by€direct,Ïcross,€or€redirect€examination,€the€testimony€is€inadmissible€under€Rule€804(b)(1).Ìà àWe€agree€with€defendant€that€the€evidence€is€hearsay€and€does€not€fallÏwithin€any€of€the€statutory€exceptions€to€the€hearsay€rule.€€The€rule€is€clear€thatÏformer€testimony€is€only€admissible€when€the€party€against€whom€the€testimony€isÏnow€offered€had€both€an€opportunity€and€a€similar€motive€to€develop€the€testimonyÏby€direct,€cross,€or€redirect€examination.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€Rule€804(b).€SinceÏdefendant€was€not€at€the€hearing,€the€testimony€is€inadmissible.€€At€retrial,€if€theÏdefendant€presents€a€witness€who€was€actually€present€at€the€altercation€betweenÏthe€two€girls€and€has€knowledge€of€defendantððs€intervention,€such€testimony€aboutÏthe€defendantððs€allegedly€ð ðhitting€her€with€a€rifle€here€and€hereðð€as€the€cause€ofÏð ðbad€bloodðð€between€the€victim€and€defendant€would€be€an€admissible€prior€badÏact€to€show€motive.€€However,€as€presented€for€this€appeal,€the€evidence€isÏinadmissible€and€therefore€it€was€error€for€the€trial€judge€to€allow€it.Ìà àDefendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€judge€erred€in€permitting€theÏintroduction€into€evidence€of€a€police€911€tape€on€the€day€of€the€murder€in€whichÏThomas€complained€that€defendant€was€shooting€at€his€house.€€Defendant€arguesÏthis€tape€was€inadmissible€because€it€was€prejudicial€and€not€relevant.Ìà àThe€State€argues€that€the€911€tape€is€admissible€as€a€public€record€(Tenn.ÏR.€Evid.€Rule€803[8]),€because€it€is€an€excited€utterance€(Tenn.€R.€Evid.€RuleÏ803[2]),€and€because,€although€prejudicial,€it€was€relevant€and€necessary€toÏestablish€the€sequence€of€events€and€who€called€the€police€at€what€times.€€Ìà àThe€argument€that€a€police€911€call€is€admissible€as€a€public€record€isÏunpersuasive€because€Rule€803(8)€specifically€excludes€ð ðmatters€observed€byÏpolice€officers€and€other€law€enforcement€personnel.ðð€€However,€we€find€theÏStateððs€other€arguments€to€be€persuasive.€€The€transcript€of€Thomasðð€911€call,€asÏquoted€òòinfraóó,€indeed€demonstrates€it€was€an€excited€utterance,€admissible€underÏ803(2).€€Furthermore,€the€jury€was€instructed€not€to€consider€the€tape€for€the€truthÏof€the€matter€asserted,€but€to€establish€the€time€of€the€call€and€the€identity€of€theÏcaller.€€Therefore,€we€find€defendantððs€argument€that€the€tape€is€inadmissible€to€beÏwithout€merit.Ìà àDefendant€next€argues€that€he€was€denied€a€fair€trial€by€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€He€asserts€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€because€he€(1)Ïfailed€to€file€a€formal€discovery€request,€(2)€failed€to€fully€investigate€the€crime,€(3)Ïfailed€to€develop€or€explain€to€him€a€ð ðconcrete€or€stated€defense€theory,ðð€(4)€failedÏto€file€various€pre„trial€motions€to€suppress€evidence,€and€(5)€failed€to€callÏdefendantððs€brother€as€a€witness.Ìà àDefense€counsel€testified€at€the€hearing€on€Motion€for€New€Trial€that€he€hadÏpracticed€criminal€defense€law€for€37€years.€€He€did€not€file€a€formal€discoveryÏrequest€because€he€participated€in€a€discovery€conference€with€the€DistrictÏAttorney€and€believed€the€entire€District€Attorneyððs€file€had€been€made€available€toÏhim.€Therefore,€he€was€not€surprised€or€prejudiced€at€trial€by€the€production€ofÏunexpected€evidence€by€the€State.Ìà àAs€to€the€second€allegation,€that€defense€counsel€failed€to€fully€investigateÏthe€crime,€defense€counsel€employed€the€services€of€a€private€investigator€toÍinvestigate€the€crime€before€trial€and€accompanied€the€investigator€on€severalÏoccasions.€He€was€unable€to€uncover€evidence€that€Thomas€had€a€gun€whenÏdefendant€shot€him€or€to€discover€who€might€have€retrieved€a€gun€from€the€areaÏafter€the€murder.Ìà àAs€to€the€allegation€that€defense€counsel€failed€to€develop€a€theory€ofÏdefense,€the€defense€theory€upon€which€counsel€initially€relied€based€uponÏstatements€made€to€him€by€the€defendant€was€that€Thomas€was€the€aggressor€andÏdefendant€reacted€in€fear.€€However,€counsel€then€discovered€that€€the€evidence,Ïespecially€the€police€911€tapes,€tended€to€contradict€what€he€had€been€told€by€theÏdefendant.€€As€a€result,€he€encouraged€defendant,€in€light€of€the€evidence,€toÏplead€guilty€to€second€degree€murder,€which€defendant€declined€to€do€on€theÏadvice€of€his€family.€€Ìà àDefendant€next€asserts€he€was€denied€effective€assistance€of€counselÏbecause€his€attorney€failed€to€file€motions€to€suppress€the€911€tape,€the€rifle€usedÏin€the€murder€and€statements€made€to€police€at€the€scene.€€Ìà àDefense€counsel€testified€at€the€hearing€on€Motion€for€New€Trial€that€hisÏinvestigation€and€interviewing€of€witnesses€led€him€to€conclude€that€the€rifle€wasÏvoluntarily€given€to€the€police.€€It€is€abundantly€clear€from€defendantððs€911€call€toÏpolice€that€he€was€voluntarily€providing€self„incriminating€statements€even€beforeÏthe€police€were€aware€that€a€murder€had€been€committed.€€The€on„scene€policeÏinvestigator€testified€that€defendant€was€read€his€rights,€waived€them,€andÏvoluntarily€gave€a€statement€when€first€contacted€at€the€scene.Ìà àFinally,€defendant€asserts€he€was€denied€effective€assistance€of€counselÏbecause€his€attorney€failed€to€call€his€brother€as€a€witness€at€trial.€€DefenseÏcounsel€testified,€however,€that€the€brother€had€provided€information€in€pre„trialÏinterviews€that€both€impeached€the€brother€and€tended€to€impeach€the€defendant.€ÏTherefore,€the€decision€not€to€call€defendantððs€brother€does€not€indicate€ineffectiveÏassistance.Ìà àTo€prevail€on€a€claim€of€constitutionally€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,Ïdefendant€must€prove€that€his€representation€was€not€reasonably€effective,€andÏthat€its€ineffectiveness€raised€a€reasonable€probability€that€but€for€counselððsÏdeficient€performance,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€ÏòòStrickland€v.€Washington,€óó466€U.S.€668€(1984);€òòState€v.€Melson,€óó772€S.W.2d€417Ï(Tenn.€1989).Ìà àDefendant€was€convicted€based€upon€his€own€unsolicited€911€phone€call€inÏwhich€he€admitted€that€he€shot€at€Thomasðð€car,€his€voluntary€statements€at€theÏcrime€scene€as€to€his€remorse€for€having€possibly€killed€Thomas,€and€his€sendingÏor€permitting€his€brother€to€retrieve€the€murder€weapon€from€his€home€and€provideÏit€to€the€police€at€the€crime€scene.Ìà àWe€can€find€nothing€in€the€conduct€of€the€investigation€or€trial€that€hisÏcounsel€could€have€done€to€overcome€the€overwhelmingly€inculpatory€evidenceÏdefendant€voluntarily€provided€before€he€obtained€counsel.€€Therefore,€we€findÏdefendantððs€issue€as€to€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€is€without€merit.Ìà àDefendant€next€raises€the€issue€of€whether€or€not€prejudicial€error€wasÏcommitted€when€the€trial€court€allowed€introduction€of€evidence€of€his€priorÍconviction€for€petit€larceny€without€first€providing€formal€notice€of€intent€to€do€so€asÏrequired€by€Rule€609,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€€Although€the€State€provided€defenseÏcounsel€with€a€copy€of€defendantððs€prior€criminal€record,€this€was€insufficient€toÏsatisfy€the€Rule€609€notice€requirement.€€òòState€v.€Barnard,€óó899€S.W.2d€617€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1994).€€The€State€concedes€that€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€was€error,€butÏavers€that€the€error€was€harmless.€€Taking€into€consideration€the€overwhelmingÏevidence€of€the€defendantððs€violent€acts€in€this€case,€we€find€it€incredible€toÏsuppose€that€defendantððs€prior€conviction€for€petit€larceny€had€any€influence€uponÏthe€verdict,€and€therefore€the€error€was€harmless.€€€€Ìà àFinally,€defendant€raises€the€issue€of€whether€or€not€the€trial€court€erred€inÏð ðnot€instructing€the€jury€on€voluntary€manslaughter€and€other€lesser€charges.ððÌà àIt€is€the€duty€of€all€judges€charging€juries€in€cases€of€criminal€prosecutionsÏfor€any€felony€wherein€two€(2)€or€more€grades€or€classes€of€offense€may€beÏincluded€in€the€indictment€to€charge€the€jury€as€to€all€of€the€law€of€each€offenseÏincluded€in€the€indictment,€without€any€request€on€the€part€of€the€defendant€to€doÏso.€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„110(óóaòò).€€Ìà àóóVoluntary€manslaughter€is€the€intentional€or€knowing€killing€of€another€in€aÏstate€of€passion€produced€by€adequate€provocation€sufficient€to€lead€a€reasonableÏperson€to€act€in€an€irrational€manner.€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„23„211.Ìà àóóVoluntary€manslaughter€is€a€lesser€grade€of€first„degree€murder€but€is€not€aÏð ðlesser€includedðð€offense€of€first„degree€murder€because€voluntary€manslaughter,Ïunlike€first„degree€murder,€requires€proof€that€the€offense€was€committed€in€ð ðaÍstate€of€passion€produced€by€adequate€provocation€to€lead€a€reasonable€personÏto€act€in€an€irrational€manner.ðð€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„211óó.Ìà àWhere€defendant€claims€adequate€provocation€and€self„defense€and€theÏstate€alleges€premeditation€and€deliberation,€defendant€is€entitled€to€a€juryÏinstruction€on€first„degree€murder€and€voluntary€manslaughter,€not€because€theÏlatter€is€a€lesser€included€offense€of€the€former€but€because€it€is€a€lesser€grade€ofÏthe€former.€€Defendants€are€entitled€to€jury€instructions€on€all€lesser€includedÏoffenses€and€on€all€offenses€which€are€lesser€grade€or€class€of€the€chargedÏoffense,€if€the€evidence€would€support€a€conviction€for€the€offense.€€òòState€v.€WayneÏTrusty,€óó919€S.W.2d€305€(Tenn.€1996).Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€trial€judge€declined€to€instruct€on€voluntary€manslaughterÏbecause:€ÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓI€felt€like€based€on€the€proof€that€was€before€the€Court,€it€wasÏeither€murder€in€the€first€degree€or€murder€in€the€second€degree€orÏit€was€nothing€at€all,€because€the€Court€did€not€find€based€on€theÏevidence€that€there€was€a€killing€in€the€heat€of€passion€basedÏupon€a€sudden€and€adequate€provocation.€€I€did€not€find€that€to€beÏthe€case.€€I€did€not€find€that€the€òòfactsóó€[emphasis€ours]€made€out€aÏcase€of€voluntary€manslaughter,€and€thatððs€why€I€did€not€charge€it.ÌÒ S ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓà àÌà àOn€the€rare€occasions€in€which€none€of€the€proof€offered€at€trial€might€permitÏan€inference€of€guilt€of€a€lesser€offense,€the€trial€judge€is€excused€from€thatÏobligation.€€òòState€v.€King,€óó718€S.W.2d€241€(Tenn.€1986).€€But€this€court€hasÏrecently€upheld€the€rule€that€if€there€is€any€proof€in€the€record€that€might€permitÏsuch€inference,€the€trial€court€must€instruct€jury€on€the€lesser€charge.€ÌÒ ` ÒÒ r ÒÓÓHowever€plain€it€may€be€to€the€mind€of€the€Court€that€one€certainÏoffense€has€been€committed€and€none€other,€he€must€not€confineÍhimself€in€his€charge€to€that€offense.€€When€he€does€so€he€invadesÏthe€province€of€the€jury,€whose€peculiar€duty€it€is€to€ascertain€theÏgrade€of€the€offense.€€However€clear€it€may€be,€the€Court€shouldÏnever€decide€the€facts,€but€must€leave€them€unembarrassed€to€theÏjury.ÌÌòòState€v.€Ruane,€óó912€S.W.2d€766,€783€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).ÌÌÒ S ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓà à€The€State€argues€that€there€is€no€evidence,€either€from€the€defendant€orÏany€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses,€that€the€defendant€intended€to€kill€Thomas€in€aÏheated€passion.€Ì€à à€Defendant€maintained€throughout€the€investigation€and€at€trial€that€heÏnever€intended€to€kill€Thomas.€€This€evidence,€however,€was€not€convincing€to€theÏjury,€as€indicated€by€defendantððs€conviction€for€first€degree€murder,€which€requiresÏan€intentional€killing.€€It€remains,€therefore,€for€us€to€determine€whether€there€wasÏany€evidence€of€heat€of€passion€based€upon€a€sudden€and€adequate€provocation.€ÏIf€so,€a€jury€charge€of€voluntary€manslaughter€was€required,€and€failure€to€giveÏsuch€charge€was€reversible€error.Ìà àThe€defendant€testified€that€as€he€was€returning€home€from€work€andÏparking€his€car€in€his€driveway,€he€heard€and€saw€Thomas€driving€past€his€houseÏshooting.€€He€told€his€wife,€ð ðWillene,€get€the€kids€and€get€in€the€back.ðð€€After€hisÏwife€and€children€had€run€to€the€back€of€the€house,€he€went€outside€and€sawÏThomas€driving€around€the€corner€towards€his€house€again.€€He€left€his€house€toÏentice€Thomas€away€from€shooting€at€it.€€Thomas€continued€to€shoot€at€the€house.€ÏOn€the€next€turn€around€the€block,€it€developed€that€Thomas€was€driving€straightÏtowards€defendantððs€car.€€ð ðThatððs€when€I€see€his€car€coming€up€real€quick.€€And€I,Ïand€I€panicked,€and€I€just€started€shooting€my€gun,€not€trying€to€hit€him,€but€trying€toÍscare€him€.€.€.€€what€was€in€my€mind?€€Iððm€thinking€heððs€coming€back€to€shoot€againÏat€me,€and€I€panicked.ððÌà àDefendantððs€assertion€that€he€ð ðpanickedðð€is€verified€by€the€police€911€tapeÏin€which€he€repeatedly€insisted€that€the€dispatcher€send€the€police€immediatelyÏbecause€ð ð€.€.€.€He€came€by€here€shooting,€and€uh,€he€came€by€here€shooting€aÏcouple€of€times,€and€I€believe€I€shot€him.€€And€I€followed€him€and€he€laying€in€theÏcar€.€.€.€Please€send€the€police€.€.€.€and€an€ambulance,€please.ððÌà àThis€evidence,€even€if€uncorroborated,€raises€a€factual€issue€which€can€onlyÏbe€resolved€by€the€jury.€€If€there€is€evidence€in€the€record€from€which€the€jury€couldÏhave€concluded€that€the€lesser€offense€was€committed,€there€must€be€anÏinstruction€for€the€lesser€offense.€€òòSee€Johnson€v.€State,€óó531€S.W.2d€558€(Tenn.Ï1975).€€Ìà àWe€find€the€failure€of€the€trial€judge€to€instruct€on€voluntary€manslaughterÏwhen€there€was€evidence€in€the€record€from€which€the€jury€could€have€convictedÏdefendant€of€this€offense€was€fatal€error,€and€thus€we€reverse€the€conviction€andÏremand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€a€new€trial.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àÌà àòòà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:òò›ÌÌœÌÌ›€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌœJerry€L.›€SÔ% € Ômith,€œJudgeÑ ` Ñ›Ñ  ÑÑ7€ »Þ XXdÈXXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ€0ÑÇÓ  Óà àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÓ  Óà@ àMAY€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9510„CR„00330ó óÌà àà àAppellee,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHAMILTON€COUNTYó óÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€STEPHEN€M.€BEVIL,ÌWILLIE€WILLIAMS,€JR.,à àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óAppellant.ò òà àà àà à)à àó ó(First„degree€murder)ò òÌó óÌÌÌÓ  Óà@ àò òòòCONCURRING€OPINIONó óóóÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àI€concur€in€all€œof€Judge€Byersðð€holdings›€œin›€the€lead€opinion.€€I€writeÏseparately€to€distinguish€the€case€of€òòState€v.€Atkinsóó,€681€S.W.2d€571€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€œ1984),›€from€the€case€presently€under€review.€€The€dissent,€relying€on€òòAtkinsóó,Ïwould€hold€that€any€error€in€the€instant€case€œarising€from›€the€trial€courtððs€failure€toÍcharge€the€jury€on€the€offense€of€œmanslaughter›€is€at€most€œharmless,›€requiring€noÏreversal.€€I€disagree.ÌÌà àà àIn€òòAtkinsóó,€this€Court€found€that€ð ðthere€was€no€evidence€introduced€byÏthe€defendant€contradicting€the€Stateððs€evidence.ðð€€œ681€S.W.2d€at€577.€€We›€held€ð ðItÏwould€have€been€pure€speculation€for€the€jury€to€have€found€that€the€defendantÏcommitted€the€offense€upon€a€sudden€heat€produced€by€adequate€provocation€orÏthat€the€defendant€did€not€intend€death€nor€bodily€harm€when€he€shot€the€victim,Ïand€that€death€was€accidentally€caused€by€some€unlawful€act€or€an€act€notÏunlawful€in€itself€but€done€in€an€unlawful€manner€and€without€due€caution.€€SinceÏthere€was€no€evidence€to€support€a€finding€of€either€degree€of€manslaughter,€theÏtrial€judge€did€not€err€in€failing€to€charge€these€offenses.ðð€€òòAdamsóó,€681€œS.W.2d€at›Ï577.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€case€under€review,€the€defendant€testified€that€the€victim€wasÏdriving€past€his€house€shooting,€œcausing€him€to€tell›€his€wife€to€take€the€œchildren›€toÏthe€back€of€the€house.€€He€further€testified€that€after€his€wife€and€children€had€runÏto€the€back€of€the€house,€he€went€outside€and€saw€the€victim€drive€towards€himÏagain€and€that€he€panicked€and€started€shooting€his€gun,€not€trying€to€hit€him,€butÍthinking€that€the€victim€was€coming€back€to€shoot€at€him€œagain,›€and€that€he€hadÏpanicked.€€This€testimony€was€somewhat€supported€by€the€police€911€tape€œmadeÏwhen›€the€defendant€notified€the€authorities€œabout€the€shooting€and›€by€the€fact€thatÏthe€victim€had€previously€called€œ911,›€and€œthat›€tape€revealed€that€the€victim€œhadÏstated›€that€if€they€[the€police]€did€not€œcome,›€he€was€going€to€get€the€defendant.ÌÌà àà àBased€on€the€above€œproof›€offered€on€behalf€of€the€defendant,€it€isÏobvious€that€there€was€evidence€that€could€support€a€finding€of€manslaughter€andÏtherefore€failure€to€so€charge€cannot€œbe€harmless€error.›ÌÌà àà àI€therefore€concur€with€the€opinion€by€Judge€Byers€and€amÏauthorized€to€state€that€he€joins€in€this€separate€concurring€opinion.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ€1ÑÇÑ€$ÑÑ7€?XXdæ XXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌMAY€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9510„CR„00330Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHAMILTON€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€STEPHEN€M.€BEVIL,ó óÌWILLIE€WILLIAMS,€JR.,à àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(First€Degree€murder;Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àPossession€of€prohibited€weapon.)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓòòCONCURRING€IN€PART€DISSENTING€IN€PARTÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àóóI€respectfully€dissent€from€the€holding€of€the€Court€that€the€failure€of€the€trialÏcourt€to€instruct€the€jury€on€voluntary€manslaughter€requires€a€reversal€ofÏAppellantððs€first€degree€murder€conviction.€€As€the€majority€states,€there€is€sufficientÏevidence€in€this€record€to€trigger€the€need€for€an€instruction€on€voluntaryÏmanslaughter.€€It€was€error€for€the€trial€judge€œnot€to›€give€such€an€instruction.€ÏHowever,€it€€must€be€remembered€that€the€jury€was€instructed€with€respect€toÏsecond€degree€murder€and€yet€rejected€this€lesser€offense€in€favor€œof›€a€finding€thatÏAppellant€killed€Delaney€Thomas€with€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€UnderÍthese€circumstances€it€seems€illogical€to€me€to€believe€the€jury€having€rejectedÏsecond€degree€murder€in€favor€of€murder€in€the€first€degree€would,€had€aÏmanslaughter€instruction€been€given,€have€œacquitted€on€first€and€second€degreeÏmurder€in€favor€of€the€less€serious€offense€of€voluntary€manslaughter.›ÌÌà àIn€a€similar€situation€this€Court€has€previously€held€that€the€failure€to€give€anÏinstruction€on€manslaughter€offenses€in€a€œmurder›€prosecution€was€at€mostÏharmless€error€where€the€jury€was€instructed€on€second€degree€murder€and€yetÏconvicted€the€defendant€of€œmurder€in€the€first€degree.€›€€òòState€v.€Atkinsóó,€681,€S.W.2dÏ571,€577€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€I€believe€the€logic€of€òòAtkinsóó€is€sound€and€that€theÏerror€in€the€instant€case€is€at€most€harmless€error€requiring€no€reversal.ÌÌà àI€concur€in€all€other€respects€with€the€opinion€of€the€Court€and€I€would€affirmÏAppellantððs€conviction€of€murder€in€the€first€degree.ÌÓÓà àÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌœ