WPC$ jZo[wv|":\;ZRHјոLԽׇ{xGkTԶ>p$|ʕLbC|}As^ 4b.rI%GOm_g X aITm}&J%}FfHIQhMt?,aRV@kER5F_gIO;[:T!a5H5IU}W_MS! @\ߨkuO [n& oԀDP7rTΤr^I0VX3? p .hdJ(P=RMkBG2i>HJJ/[deSK\ĩjNE] %ʶL5cB DtL;2c** 7 %?hl gB&Yu2Puq2x! eIJ!A^%Y  S@y?>J @WB %F w@L 0 U:h 4   Z 0 b 0Dbx`U:ee=RRRRRRRRRRRRR B""""""""""" D3""" 0D"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" AO##r#r# 0D8$ D/|$ B$X EE eUbDDӀ(`$TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7GXXdXXd7  ,cAZ"Arial RegularuM%3|x XX  @T@R[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7,XXdXXd7 @  `   1    Rule31(c)oftheTennesseeRulesofCriminalProcedureisidenticaltoFed.R.Crim.P.  31(c).((3$ `!TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7,XXdXXd7    `   0  (#$  0   CXX  @T@R[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdd7 @  `   3    Theprinciplesgoverninglesseroffenseinstructionsespousedhereinarenotadopted  simplytoalleviatethedangersofan allornothingchoice,buttoassure,intheinterestofjustice,themostaccuratepossibleverdictencompassedbythechargeandsupportedbytheevidence.SeePeoplev.Breverman,960P.2d1094,1105(Cal.1998).  X  X,XXXXX,   Ad FILEDX,X  December9,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM  CXX  @T@R[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdd7 @  `   5    Similartoamotionfordirectedverdict,thetrialcourtmustviewtheevidenceinthelight  mostfavorabletothedefendant,indulginginallreasonableinferencesinhisfavor.SeeTenn.  RulesCiv.P.50.Theruledoesnotpermitaweighingoftheevidencebythetrialjudge.Obviously,areviewoftheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletotheState,followingconviction,wouldneverreachthedefendantstheoryofthecase.,cAZ"Arial Regular CXX  @T@R[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdd7 @  `   4    Thefollowingtwohypotheticalcasesprovideclassicillustrationsof criminalfacilitation:  8 ` Inthefirst,theoffendersellslargequantitiesofsugarandmalttoillegaldistillerswithknowledgeoftheirillegalintentions.Heknowsthathisconductmakesitpossiblefortheoffensetobecommitted,but,atthesametime,hehasnointentiontofurtherthecriminalobjective.Inthesecond,theoffender,adruggist,sellspoisonoussubstancestoawomanwithknowledgethatsheintendstopoisonherhusband.Asinthefirstcase,theactorknowsthathisconductfacilitatescommissionoftheoffensebuthehasnointentiontopromoteorcontributetoitsfruition. ` `  SeegenerallyKentuckyCrimeCommissionCommentary,Ky.Rev.Stat.Ann.506.080(citing tl  generallytotheNewYorkPenalCode). 3XX  @T@R[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7,XXdXXd7 @  `   2    Thetrialcourt,inWilliams,instructedonpremeditatedmurder,seconddegreemurder,  andrecklesshomicide,however,thetrialcourtdeniedtherequestforaninstructiononvoluntarymanslaughter.Thejuryconvictedthedefendantoffirstdegreemurder. d'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd `!TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7,XXdXXd7    Ӝ  /Vr *<,(j 8` `@E ` 8ttxP  rߛ@. . INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @(ATNASHVILLE@&MAYSESSION,1998STATEOFTENNESSEE, h   ) | t  `     h   )  No.01C019704CC00122 h`  ` Appellee   h   ) TL   `     h   )  MAURYCOUNTY @8  vs. `     h   )  (TransferredfromGilesCounty) ,$   `     h   )  Hon.WILLIAMB.CAIN,Judge   STEPHENJOHNABBOTT,  )    `     h   )  (SecondDegreeMurder(TwoCounts);    ` Appellant   h   )  attemptedFirstDegreeMurder;and (#     `     h   )  AttemptedSecondDegreeMurder)   @   SEPARATECONCURRINGINPARTANDDISSENTINGINPART ld   ` JudgeWade,writingforthemajority,findsreversibleerrorinthetrialcourt's D< failuretochargefacilitationuponeachoftheindictedcharges.JudgeSmithfindstheerrorharmless.Bothreachtheirrespectivepositionsafterreviewofoursupremecourt'srecentdecisioninStatev.WillieWilliams,No.03S019706CR   00060,(Tenn.Sept.21,1998)(forpublication),whereinthecourtapplieda t"l harmlesserroranalysistothetrialcourtsrefusaltoinstructonalesseroffense. ` Afterreviewingtheproof,IjoinwithJudgeWadeinconcludingthatthefailuretoinstructonfacilitationwasnotharmless.Iwriteseparately,however,asIbelievethetruetestfordeterminingwhether"harmlesserror"hasoccurredliesinthecommongroundleftunaddressedbyJudgesWadeandSmith. ` TheSupremeCourtinSansonev.UnitedStates,380U.S.343,349,85S.Ct. 0). 1004,1009(1965),held:8 ` ThebasicprinciplescontrollingwhetherornotalesserincludedoffensechargeshouldbegiveninaparticularcasehavebeensettledbythisCourt.Rule31(c)oftheFederalRulesofCriminalProcedure[  #  1      ] <64/4 providesinrelevantpart,thatthe'defendantmaybefoundguiltyofanoffensenecessarilyincludedintheoffensecharged.'Thus,'[i]nacasewheresomeoftheelementsofthecrimechargedthemselves 817 constitutealessercrime,thedefendant,iftheevidencejustifie[s]it***[is]entitledtoaninstructionwhichwouldpermitafindingofguiltofthelesseroffense.'Berrav.UnitedStates,[351U.S.131,]134,76  S.Ct.[685,]688. ` !` ! Morerecently,theSupremeCourthasinterpretedlesseroffenseprinciplestoinclude"whethertheevidencewouldpermitajurytorationallyfindthedefendantguiltyofthelesserandacquithimofthegreater.Keeblev.UnitedStates.,412   U.S.205,208,93S.Ct.1993,1995(1973).SeealsoStatev.Trusty,919S.W.2d   305,311(Tenn.1996);Statev.Elder,No.03C019702CR00053(Tenn.Crim.   App.atKnoxville,Apr.23,1998). Accordingly,beforeinstructingonalesseroffense,thetrialcourtmustdeterminewhethertheevidence,whenviewedinthe 6. lightmostfavorabletothedefendantstheoryofthecase,wouldjustifyaverdictin  accordwith[that]theory....Elder,No.03C019702CR00053(emphasisadded)  (citationsandfootnoteomitted). ` Wherethetrialcourtfailstoinstructthejuryonanylesseroffenses,althoughraisedsufficientlybytheproof,thejuryisleftwiththesoleoptionofeithertoconvictthedefendantofthegreateroffenseoracquit.Thus,thejurymaychoosetofindthedefendantguiltyofthegreateroffenseratherthantoacquithimaltogethereventhoughithadareasonabledoubtthathereallycommittedthegreateroffense.Beck j'b $ v.Alabama,447U.S.625,634,100S.Ct.2382,2388(1980).Alternatively,thejury 6)."& mayfindthedefendantnotguiltyofthegreateroffenseandlethimgounpunishedeventhoughheisinfactguiltyofalesseroffense.Thiserrorcanneverbeheldharmless;theharmisautomatic.See,e.g.,Schadv.Arizona,501U.S.624,646 .', 647,111S.Ct.2491,2505(1991);Spazianov.Florida,468U.S.447,455,104S.Ct. f0^). 3154,3159(1984);Beckv.Alabama,447U.S.at634,100S.Ct.at2388;Statev. 22*+0 Jiminez,953S.W.2d293,299(Tex.App.1997);Saundersv.State,913S.W.2d 3,2 564(Tex.Crim.App.1995). b9Z28  ` Informulatingaharmlesserrorrule,oursupremecourtinWilliams  recognizedtheevilsofthe allornothingapproachcondemnedinBeck.In  determiningwhetherthetrialcourtsfailuretoinstructonalesseroffenseisharmless,thecourtappliedthepresumptionthat, byfindingthedefendantguiltyof l d thehighestoffensetotheexclusionoftheimmediatelylesseroffense,...thejurynecessarilyrejectedallotheroffenses.  #  2      ׀Williams,No.03S019706CR00060    (emphasisadded).Thatis,whenthejuryisprovidedaninstructionontheimmediatelessor,the allornothingoptionisremoved;thejuryisgiventheopportunitytocompromise.SeeBeckv.Alabama,447U.S.at634,100S.Ct.at tl 2388.However,thejurysrejectionofthe interveninglessormaynotineveryinstancerenderharmlessthetrialcourtsfailuretoinstructuponanotherlesseroffensealsoraisedbytheevidence.Theexistenceofthe interveninglesserwillonly savethecourtsfailuretochargeonanotherwarrantedlesserwherethe interveninglesserinstructionindicatesalackoflikelihoodthatthejurywouldhaveadoptedtheuninstructedlesseroffense.Inotherwords,aninstructiononan interveninglesserwillonlyholdharmlessthecourtsfailuretoinstructonanotherlesserwhenthe interveninglesserencompassesthedefendantstheoryofthecase. ` UndertheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenthAmendment,criminaldefendantsmustbeaffordedameaningfulopportunitytopresentacompletedefense.Californiav.Trombetta,467U.S.479,485,104S.Ct.2528,2532(1984). ,%* Implicitwithintherighttopresentadefenseistherighttohavethejury,viaajury .', instruction,considerthedefense.Asageneralproposition,adefendantisentitledtoaninstructionastoanyrecognizeddefenseforwhichthereexistsevidencesufficientforareasonablejurytofindinhisfavor.SeeMatthewsv.UnitedStates, 4,2 485U.S.58,64,108S.Ct.883,887(1988)(citingStevensonv.UnitedStates,162 5.4 U.S.313,16S.Ct.839(1896);4C.Torcia,Wharton'sCriminalProcedure538,p.11(12thed.1976)).Paralleltotherighttoaninstructiononaparticulardefenseistherighttoaninstructiononalesseroffensesufficientlyraisedbytheproof.See   Matthewsv.UnitedStates,485U.S.at64,108S.Ct.at887(citingFed.RuleCrim. l d Proc.31(c);Keeblev.UnitedStates,412U.S.at208,93S.Ct.at1995;Sansonev. 80 UnitedStates,380U.S.at349,85S.Ct.at1009).Failuretoprovideinstructions   encompassingthedefendantstheoryofthecase,whetheritbeintheformofa defenseinstructionora lesseroffenseinstruction,sufficientlyraisedbytheevidence,rendersthedueprocessrighttopresentadefenseonlyhalfaright.Moreover,itsubvertstheadversarialprocessinthatitonlypermitstheprosecution'stheoryofthecasetogotothejury.However,therighttohavethejuryconsiderthedefendantstheoryofthecasedoesnotequatewitharighttohavethetrialcourtchargeondefensetheoriesthathavenoevidentiarysupportorthatareinconsistentwiththedefendantstheoryofthecase.   #  3      ׀ d\  ` Thus,wherethe interveninglesserinstructionfailstopresentthedefendantstheory,whichissufficientlyraisedbytheevidence,thereviewingcourtmustdeterminewhethertheevidencesupportingthejudgmentofconvictionissorelativelystrongandtheevidencesupportingadifferentoutcomeissocomparativelyweakthatthereisnoreasonableprobabilitytheerrorofwhichthedefendantcomplainsaffectedtheresult.Ifthecourtsodetermines,theerrorisharmless.Ifthecourtdeterminesotherwise,theerrorisreversible. ` TheproofbeforeusestablishedthatthedefendantandRousehadbeenfriendsforapproximatelyoneandonehalfyears.Duringthisperiod,thedefendant,ondifferentoccasions,hadheardRousethreatentokillhisbrother,aStateTrooper,acoach,ateacher,andanexgirlfriend.Previoustotheschoolshootings,the 5.4 defendantknewofnoattemptsbyRousetocarryoutanyofthesethreats.Onthemorningoftheshootings,thedefendantrodewithhisfriendRousetoschoolashehaddoneonotheroccasions.Onthewaytoschool,theystoppedatthehouseoftheirfriend,StephenRay.Raysawtherifleinthetruckandasked,"Whoareyougoingafter?"Rousereplied,"Hobbsandwhoevergetsintheway."RaythoughtRousewasjokinganddidnotconsiderhiscommentsasserious.Aftertheshootings,Rousetoldaninvestigatorthathedidnotbelievethedefendanthadtakenhimseriously.Thedefendant,attrialandinhisstatementstothepolice,admittedthathewasawareofRouse'sthreatstokillonthedateoftheshooting.Hetestified,however,thatheneverbelievedRousewoulddosuchathing. ` ThetrialcourtinstructedthejuryupontheStatestheorythatthedefendantwascriminallyliableasaprincipleoffenderbasedupontheconductofthecodefendant,Rouse.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.3911402(3).Thistheoryisapplicable d\ whenitisbaseduponthepremisethatthedefendantknowingly,voluntarily,andwithcommonintentunitedwiththecodefendantinthecommissionofthecrime.SeeStatev.Carson,950S.W.2d951(Tenn.1997).Moreover,inCarson,our #  supremecourtheldthatcriminalresponsibility,underanaidingandabettingtheory, requiresthatadefendantactwithaculpablementalstate,specifically,theintenttopromoteorassistthecommissionoftheoffenses....Id.at954. ,)$"&  ` ThedefendantcontendsthatthetrialcourterredinsubmittingtothejuryonlytheStatestheoryofthecase,i.e.,thatthedefendantwasaprincipleoffender.Heinsiststhat,atbest,theproofestablishedculpabilityforfacilitating,asubordinatedegreeofcriminalresponsibility.Thedefendantsposition,attrial,wasthatheactednotwiththeintenttopromoteorassistmurder,butonlywiththeintentto assisthishighschoolfriend.Theserespectivetheoriesillustratetheprincipal 5.4 distinctionbetween criminalfacilitationand criminalresponsibility.  #  4      ׀Criminal   facilitationisestablished,inthiscase,iftheproofdemonstratedthatthedefendanthadknowledgethatRouseintendedtocommitmurderandthedefendantfurnishedsubstantialassistanceinthemurderbutwithouttheintenttopromote,assistor l d benefitinthemurderscommittedbyRouse. 80  ` Inthiscase,thejurywasonlyinstructedonthetheoryofcriminalresponsibility.Thus,thejurywaspermittedtoconsiderthedefendantsguiltorinnocenceonlyuponthisonetheory.Theproofintherecord,whenreviewedinthelightmostfavorabletothedefendant,clearlysupportsthedefendantstheoryoffacilitation.x   #  5      ׀SeeElder,No.03C019702CR00053.ContrarytoJudgeSmiths  assertion,thejurycouldnothaverejectedthedefendantstheoryof facilitation,  becausetheywereprecludedbythetrialcourtfromevenconsideringthistheory.  Moreover,JudgeSmithconcludes,utilizingtheWilliamspresumption,that,because d\ thejurywasinstructedonoffenseslesserthanthoseforwhichthedefendantwasconvicted,anyerrorinrefusingtochargefacilitationwasharmless.Ibelievethisanalysistoonarrowandtoomechanicalinitsapplication.Underthisrationale,thefailuretochargevoluntarymanslaughterwouldalwaysbeharmlessinacaseoffirstdegreemurderaslongasthetrialcourtinstructedonseconddegreemurder,eventhoughtheproofwasrepletewithuncontestedevidenceofadequateprovocationandpassionsandthedefendantconcededtheelementsofmanslaughter. *#(  /VX  ќ̛ ` Thus,Iconcludethatthefailureofthetrialcourttoinstructonalesseroffenseisharmlessonlywherethejurysresolutionofdisputedfactscompelstheconclusionthatthejury,bytheirverdict,necessarilyrejectedanalternativeresolutionoffactthatwouldhavesupportedthelesseroffensewhichwasnotinstructed.SeeTurnerv.Commonwealth,476S.E.2d504,508(Va.App.1996).   Intheinstantcase,thejurywasnotprovidedtheopportunitytoresolve disputedfactsregardingthetheoryofcriminalliability.Insum,Ifindthetrialcourtsfailuretoprovidethejuryofitsoptiontofindthedefendantguiltyoffacilitationimpairedthejurystruthascertainmentfunctionbyforcingthejurytomakean allornothingchoicebetweenconvictionasaprincipaloffenderofthecrimeschargedoracquittal,therebydenyingthejurytheopportunitytoconsiderthedefendantstheoryofthelessergradeofcriminalresponsibilitywhichwasestablishedbytheevidence.See  Breverman,960P.2dat1094.Thus,theerrorcannotbeheldharmless. d\  ` Additionally,Iamunabletojoinintheconclusionthatthedefendantwasproperlyclassifiedasadangerousoffenderthuswarrantingconsecutivesentences.Thefactthataninherentlydangerousoffenseoccurred,asisclearlythecasebeforeus,doesnotnecessarilytranslatetothefactthatallofthecriminalactorsinvolvedweredangerousoffenders.Thedecisiontoimposeconsecutivesentencesshouldbebaseduponthepresenceofaggravatingcircumstances.SeeGrayv.State,538 *#( S.W.2d391,393(Tenn.1976).Thedefendantsunlawfulconductinthiscaseinvolvedtheoperationofavehicletothecrimesceneattherequestofthecodefendant.Iamunabletoconcludethatthisfactaloneestablishesthatthedefendanthaslittleornoregardforhumanlife.Accordingly,Iwouldfindthatthedefendantsconductinthiscasefailstoestablishaggravatingcircumstancesnecessaryforclassificationasadangerousoffender. `  ` Fortheforegoingreasons,Iconcurinpartanddissentinpart.̜ `     h   ____________________________________ `     h   DAVIDG.HYEAYES,jUDJudge