ÿWPC! …# VU:a %› 0¸¡4Y m | 0ü„ 0D€ 0DÄ w@ 0DH 0ëŒ D3w 0Jª 0Tô 0^H 0h¦ 0r 0|€ 0†ü 0‚ 1u 0d‡bëU*óB)DCF AM‰ BÖ†óœy 0@v~UvÓÓ 0D¦ AOêÆ9 0Dÿ D/C! Br!˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLhÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX( 7$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ` ` ÑÓÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÚƒç"3|xã(¬(3C6$¤¤Ý ƒ 7!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ` °ÑÓÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó6 ÿÿ$Triangleððà0 à ÏDÐDÑDÒÓÔeÕDÖDרӀ($Ó$‘‘òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(¬3 $¥¥Ý ƒ 7!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ` °ÑÓÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  ÝÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.****'ÿÿdxd2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ- ù-< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d |Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òDecemberÏ23,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ’Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€jury€also€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€an€assault€arising€out€of€thisÏcase,€but€the€trial€court€dismissed€the€conviction.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò6ûb$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  ݛр$ÑÑ7€OÐXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Ӝـ€ÙßR€)+(A1-j|` à. `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€€03C01„9703„CR„00089Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)à àLOUDON€COUNTYà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€E.€EUGENE€EBLEN,à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌNATHANIEL€DAVID€BIRCHFIELD,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àRobberyÌ€à àAppellantà àà àà àà à)à à€ÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóóà àà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEE€óóÌÌMary€Katherine€Longworthà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌSuite€One,€410€Wharf€Streetà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€501ÌLoudon,€TN€37774à àà àà àà àà àPeter€M.€CoughlanÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à2d€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌJOHN€K.€BYERSÌSENIOR€JUDGEÌÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓà àThe€defendant€was€convicted€of€robbery€and€sentenced€to€serve€eight€yearsÏand€to€pay€a€fine€of€$4,000.00× ƒ, ××  ×.Ìà àThe€defendant€raises€the€following€issues:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓ(1)€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€grant€defendantððs€pretrial€motion€to€vacateÏand€remand€or€dismiss€for€failure€of€the€state€to€record€the€preliminaryÏexamination;Ì(2)€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€error€in€forcing€defendant€to€go€to€trialÏin€leg€chains€where€the€state€did€not€show€any€necessity€for€chainingÏdefendant€during€the€trial€and€the€jury€was€not€instructed€to€disregard€chainsÏin€determining€guilt;€andÌ(3)€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€dismiss€counts€one€and€two€of€theÏindictment€which€charged€a€violation€of€the€definitional€statute€pertaining€toÏburglary,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Section€39„14„401.ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÌÓÓà àWe€reverse€this€case€and€remand€for€a€new€trial.Ìà àOn€August€11,€1994,€the€defendant,€along€with€four€others€who€areÏunidentified,€arrived€at€J.€B.ððs€Country€Store€at€8:15€to€8:30€p.m.€in€a€pick„up€truck.€ÏThe€defendant€pumped€gas€into€the€truck€and€he€and€another€person€he€arrivedÏwith€entered€the€store.Ìà àThe€defendant€selected€two€six€packs€of€beer,€went€to€the€counter,€and€gaveÏthe€clerk€a€credit€card€to€pay€for€the€gas€and€beer.€€The€credit€card€companyÏrefused€to€honor€the€credit€card€given€by€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€then€gaveÏthe€clerk€another€credit€card€which€was€also€refused.Ìà àAnother€employee€came€to€the€counter€to€help€deal€with€this€problem.€€AfterÏsome€discussion€between€the€defendant€and€the€employee,€the€clerk€told€theÏdefendant€if€he€did€not€pay€for€the€purchases€the€police€would€be€called.€€TheÏdefendant€answered€if€they€were€going€to€call€the€police€he€would€take€the€beerÏand€go.€€The€defendant€then€picked€up€the€beer€and€left€the€store€and€got€into€theÏtruck.Ìà àSarah€Sweetwood,€the€clerk€who€first€dealt€with€the€defendant,€followed€theÏdefendant€to€the€truck.€€Ms.€Sweetwood€testified€she€went€out€to€obtain€the€licenseÏÑ ½ Ñnumber€on€the€truck.€€When€asked€if€she€wanted€to€get€the€beer€from€the€defendantÏshe€said€she€did.Ìà àMs.€Sweetwood€testified€the€defendant€was€in€the€truck€when€she€gotÏoutside€and€that€the€defendant€got€out€of€the€truck€and€grabbed€her€by€the€throatÏand€told€her€to€get€back€in€the€store€ð ðor€else.ðð€€Ms.€Sweetwood€entered€the€storeÍand€had€no€more€contact€with€the€defendant.€€Ms.€Sweetwoodððs€neck€was€severelyÏbruised€in€this€encounter.Ìà àA€person,€who€is€unidentified€in€the€record,€assaulted€the€defendant€after€heÏhad€assaulted€Ms.€Sweetwood.€€The€beer€was€returned€to€the€store€by€anÏunidentified€person.€€The€defendant€came€back€into€the€store€and€again€took€theÏbeer€and€went€into€the€parking€lot.Ìà àThe€police€had€arrived€at€the€store€by€the€time€the€defendant€took€the€beerÏout€the€second€time€and€he€was€arrested.Ìà àWe€will€respond€to€the€second€issue€raised€on€this€appeal€first€because€weÏbelieve€it€to€be€the€only€issue€which€requires€a€reversal€of€the€conviction.Ìà àWhen€the€defendant€was€brought€into€the€courtroom,€he€was€in€leg€irons.€ÏThe€defendant€moved€to€have€the€leg€irons€removed,€whereupon€the€followingÏtranspired:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓThe€State:€€As€Your€Honor€is€aware,€and€the€record€reflects,€this€defendantÏleft€the€jurisdiction;€did€not€return€as€he€has€been€ordered€and€directed€to€byÏthe€Court.€€Also,€I€believe€we€should€acknowledge€that€the€defendant€isÏcurrently€facing€a€homicide€charge€in€the€State€of€North€Carolina.€€He€isÏcurrently€in€federal€custody€„„€we€have€temporary€custody€of€him€„„€on€someÏprior€sentences.€€And€we€feel€like€those€matters€show€that€he€is€a€risk.€€AndÏthatððs€justification,€if€Your€Honor€feels€so,€to€leave€him€in€the€leg€irons.ÌÌThe€Court:€€Well€under€the€circumstances,€with€him€failing€to€appear€before,Ïand€being€under€the€indictments€that€he€is€under,€and€with€his€otherÏsituation,€the€Court€feels€that€he€has€his€hands€unshackled,€and€that€wouldÏnot€be€prejudicial€under€these€circumstances,€and€probably€would€beÏnecessary€that€his€feet€stay€shackled€for€this€trial.ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÌÓÓà àThe€rule€on€the€use€of€restraints€of€an€accused€during€trial€is€set€out€very€wellÏin€the€brief€of€the€defendant€as€follows:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓà àThe€rule€regarding€the€use€of€restraint€of€an€accused€during€the€trial€isÏset€forth€in€òòWillocks€v.€Stateóó,€546€S.W.2d€819,€820€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976):Ïð ðWe€begin€our€examination€of€controlling€law€by€observing€that€the€conceptÏof€due€process€imbedded€in€our€state€and€federal€constitutions€guaranteesÏevery€criminal€defendant€a€fair€and€impartial€trial.€€Included€in€theÏpresumption€of€innocence,€which€is€mandated€by€due€process€and€whichÏattaches€in€each€criminal€case,€is€the€defendantððs€right€to€the€ððphysicalÏindicia€of€innocence.ðððð€òòKennedy€v.€Cardwellóó,€487€F.2d€101,€104€(6th€Cir.Ï1973),€òòcert.€denied€sub€nomóó€òòKennedy€v.€Grayóó,€416€U.S.€959€(1974),€citingÏòòUnited€States€v.€Samuelóó,€431€F.2d€610,€614€(4th€Cir.€1970),€òòcert.€deniedóó€401ÏU.S.€946€(1971).ðð€€The€court€added,€ð ðThe€rule€that€a€prisoner€brought€intoÏcourt€for€trial€is€entitled€to€appear€free€from€all€bonds€or€shackles€is€anÏimportant€component€of€a€fair€and€impartial€trial.€€And€shackles€should€neverÏbe€permitted€except€to€prevent€the€escape€of€the€accused,€to€protectÏeveryone€in€the€courtroom,€and€to€maintain€order€during€the€trial.ðð€€òòWillocksóó,Ï546€S.W.2d€at€820€(citing€òòWoodards€v.€Cardwellóó,€430€F.2d€978,€982€(1970),Ïòòcert.€deniedóó€401€U.S.€911€(1971).€€The€court€continued,€ð ðThe€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€has€described€such€physical€restraint€as€ððsomething€of€anÏaffront€to€the€very€dignity€and€decorum€of€the€judicial€proceedings€that€theÏjudge€is€seeking€to€upholdðð€and€has€approved€the€use€of€shackling€andÏgagging€only€as€a€ððlast€resort.ðð€€òòWillocksóó,€546€S.W.2d€at€820€(citing€òòIllinois€v.ÏAllenóó,€397€U.S.€337,€344€(1970).Ìà àA€review€of€Tennessee€law€reflects€it€is€in€the€discretion€of€the€trialÏcourt€to€decide€whether€to€shackle€a€defendant€during€trial.€€òòMatthews€v.ÏStateóó,€77€Tenn.€128€(1882);€òòPoe€v.€Stateóó,€78€Tenn.€673€(1882).€€Currently€aÏdefendant€may€be€shackled€during€a€trial€only€to€prevent€his€escape.€ÏòòWillocksóó,€546€S.W.2d€820€(courtððs€cites€omitted).€€Further,€the€burden€fallsÏupon€the€state€to€make€a€clear€showing€of€the€necessity€for€such€restraintÏand€òòrequires€an€adequate€jury€instruction€that€the€restraint€should€in€no€wayÏaffect€the€determination€of€guilt€or€innocence.óó€€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€832ÏS.W.2d€577,€580€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991)(emphasis€added).€€Absent€theseÏsafeguards,€ð ðin„court€shackling€is€inherently€prejudicial€to€the€defendant.€.€.€.ðð€ÏòòWillocksóó,€546€S.W.2d€at€822.ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÌÓÓà àThe€trial€court€conducted€no€hearing€on€this€matter€to€determine€if€there€wasÏserious€likelihood€that€the€defendant€would€attempt€to€escape€or€whether€someÏmethod,€less€prejudicial€than€restraints,€of€securing€the€prisoner€could€have€beenÏused.€€Further,€the€trial€court€did€not€instruct€the€jury€that€the€restraints€should€beÏignored€by€them€in€determining€the€guilt€or€innocence€of€the€defendant.Ìà àThe€state€argues€that€there€is€no€evidence€that€the€jury€saw€the€leg€irons€onÏthe€defendant.€€There€is€nothing€in€this€record€to€show€that€any€effort€to€conceal€theÏshackles€was€taken.€€The€burden€is€on€the€state€to€furnish€an€accused€a€fair€trialÏwith€proper€regard€for€the€preservation€of€constitutional€rights€of€persons€accusedÏof€crime.€€It€is€the€burden€of€the€state€to€show€there€was€no€constitutionalÏdeprivation€occasioned€by€the€actions€of€the€state.€€If€we€accept€the€stateððs€theoryÏon€this€issue,€we€must€assume€the€jury€did€not€see€what€was€there€to€be€seen.ÌÑ ° Ñà àIn€general,€we€assume€people€see€or€should€see€what€is€there€to€be€seen.€€IfÏwe€adopt€the€stateððs€view,€a€defendant€who€is€shackled€in€the€presence€of€a€jury€isÏcaught€in€the€proverbial€catch€22€„„€the€defendant€must€say€nothing€and€lose€anÏappeal€because€the€record€does€not€show€the€jury€saw€the€shackles,€or€theÏdefendant€must€bring€the€shackles€to€the€attention€of€the€jury€and€then€beÏconfronted€with€a€claim€the€defendant€created€the€error€and€cannot€complain€aboutÏthe€effect€it€had€on€the€jury.Ìà àWe€are€unwilling€to€assume€away€a€constitutional€right€of€an€accused€in€theÏcircumstances€here€shown.Ìà àThe€state€also€suggests€that€a€harmless€error€analysis€is€appropriate€inÏconstitutional€violations€in€the€course€of€a€trial.€òò€State€v.€Thompson,óó€832€S.W.2dÏ577€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€In€making€a€harmless€error€assessment,€the€strengthÏof€€the€doctrine€depends€upon€the€facts€of€the€case.€€If€evidence€of€guilt€is€strong€orÏoverwhelming,€the€use€of€the€doctrine€is€generally€acceptable.€€If€the€proof€of€guilt€isÏweak,€the€use€of€the€doctrine€is€less€justifiable.€€In€applying€the€doctrine€toÍconstitutional€issues,€the€rule€is€that€it€must€be€clear€that€the€constitutional€error€wasÏharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ìà àTo€reconcile€the€rule€with€the€facts€in€this€case,€we€point€out€the€testimony€ofÏthe€witnesses€is€weak€on€whether€œrobbery›€was€committed€in€this€case.Ìà àMs.€Sweetwood€testified€she€went€into€the€parking€lot€to€get€the€licenseÏnumber€from€the€truck€after€the€defendant€left€with€the€beer.€€The€state€then€askedÏthis€leading€question,€which€was€not€objected€to,€ð ðDid€you€want€to€try€to€keep€himÏfrom€getting€the€beer?ðð€€She€answered,€ð ðYeah,€I€was€going€to€get€the€beer€fromÏhim.ðð€€A€later€witness€testified€Ms.€Sweetwood€went€out€to€get€the€license€numberÏfrom€the€truck.€€There€is€in€fact€a€serious€jury€issue€in€this€case€on€whether€the€beerÏwas€taken€by€violence€or€by€putting€in€fear.€€Under€these€circumstances,€we€areÏunwilling€to€apply€the€harmless€error€rule€to€this€constitutional€error.Ìà àThe€matter€of€the€failure€to€make€available€to€the€defendant€a€recording€ofÏthe€preliminary€hearing€as€required€by€Rule€5.1(a)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏœCriminal›€Procedure€is€a€significant€issue.€€The€rule€should€be€carefully€followed€byÏthose€officials€whose€duty€it€is€to€ensure€a€preservation€of€the€due€process€rights€ofÏan€accused.€€However,€there€is€no€allegation€or€showing€that€the€defendant€wasÏprejudiced€by€this€failure€and€we€find€an€error,€if€any,€in€this€matter€is€clearlyÏharmless.Ìà àThe€indictment€in€this€case€charging€the€defendant€with€robbery€erroneouslyÏset€out€citation€to€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€39„14„401,€which€refers€to€burglary€ratherÏthan€robbery.€€The€body€of€the€indictment€charges€the€words€necessary€to€informÏthe€defendant€he€was€accused€of€robbery.€€The€insertion€of€the€code€sectionÍappears€to€be€a€clerical€error.€€Where€the€indictment€clearly€informs€the€accused€ofÏthe€offense€of€which€he€is€charged,€where€it€is€clear€from€the€indictment€that€theÏcourt€has€jurisdiction€of€the€case,€and€where€an€accused€would€be€protected€from€aÏfurther€prosecution€on€the€same€facts€by€reason€of€the€double€jeopardy€clause€ofÏthe€Constitution,€the€inadvertent€addition€of€the€incorrect€statute€in€the€chargingÏinstrument€does€not€make€the€charging€instrument€void.€€The€erroneous€addition€inÏsuch€cases€is€merely€surplusage,€and€a€trial€and€conviction€may€be€had€on€such€anÏinstrument.€€òòState€v.€Culp,óó€891€S.W.2d€232€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).Ìòòà àà àÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:òòÌÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌÌÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCurwood€Witt,€JudgeÌ