WPC* u.cr֭+ wl>R2 v[gysvVǝStX}G7jGO4X"MKZ~}tP@l0ز qp a1tڣ4RYn>GQ7 )Z0 v+I2E& 5)h[m:ɥe])pC2:W2Ћapc2 bJ 'Z*jie}jG⧿c)%)npXB7M{o$|Esx|ZX]T5( t| t.:yrnl,3Vrq>MmMl, 4q;&||G#糁{%V(PlCX<-0s{;].b g_C1A'SiAKu;Tz./c7P{I2Ð߻4<%փ$b#\ % UN# 0q UN 1G  z  1u [ 72q 0Ds9 0 cNb^ dwpEt(vE4 mb 0'''' B 0/ D3 D- 0K33 AS~ 0 0D; AHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular( CEMU]emu}AutoList2(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)  R $      3    _ItremainsunclearwhethersituationsotherthantheWilliamsscenariomayprovideabasisforfindingan  erroneousfailuretoinstructonlesseroffensesharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.However,inviewofholdinginfra, t weneednotaddressthatquestionhere. C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)  R $      2    _TennesseeCodeAnnotatedSection4018110(a)speaksof gradesorclasses...includedintheindictment  .... i)(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(;3$2#  0  .3  0  L*+   R $      4    _Therobberymayalsobecomeaggravatedrobberyifthevictimsuffersseriousbodilyinjury.SeeTenn.Code  Ann.4013402(a)(2). ; R $      1    _Thisprinciple,currentlyreflectedinTennesseeCodeAnnotatedSection4018110(a),wasfirstadoptedin  thisstatein1877.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4018110.Yo)3|xU- -(|G2 $ !.8Bdd8         0   d(|3G$ !.8Bdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G$ !.8Bdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Bdd8     _  B8!XXdd8  @ttV,BINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#BV, #Ԉ &   AssignedonBriefsFebruary6,2001 L X!XB #BXX!#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.RICKIEBOYDX!XB  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheCriminalCourtforShelbyCounty  J @@No.9710523JosephB.Dailey,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200001010CCAR3CDFiledSeptember10,_2001_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     X!XXX!Thedefendant,RickieBoyd,wasconvictedbyaShelbyCounty,Tennesseejuryoftheoffenseof x  aggravatedrobbery.Hewassentencedto18yearsincarcerationasaRangeII,multipleoffender. d Inthisappealhemaintainsthetrialcourterredinfailingtoinstructthejurywithrespecttothelesser P includedoffenseoftheftofproperty.Weconcludethatiswaserrortofailtoinstructthejurywith < respecttotheftofproperty.However,wealsoconcludethatthiserrorwasharmlessbeyonda (x reasonabledoubt,andwethereforeaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.#X!XXX!##BXX!z#X!XB d  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtisAffirmed.  <   #BX!#X!X.BJerryL.Smith,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJosephM._Tipton_,J.,joinedand  JoeG.Riley,J.,filedaconcurringopinion.  RebeccaG.CoffeeandLouisP._Chiozza_,III,Memphis,Tennessee,forappellant,RickieBoyd.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;J.RossDyer,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;William ` L.Gibbons,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andJennifer_Nichols_,DistrictAttorneyGeneral,forappellee, L  StateofTennessee. 8!  o OPINION #BXX!#X!XB #`" #BXX! #X!XB  X!XXX!@!FactualBackground $8 $   OnJune23,1997,_Tomiko_ԀWadewasworkingatthe_Mapco_ԀExpressat298East_Mallory_. &"& Sometimeafter2:00a.m.,amanenteredthestorewithaplasticbagoverhisfaceanddemanded '"' moneyinthecashregister.AfterMs.Wadeemptiedthefirstcashregister,theintruderdemanded (#( thatsheemptythesecondregister.AccordingtoMs.Wade,therobbercarriedagreentotebag.He )$) heldhishandinthetotebagasifhehadagunpointedatMs.Wade.Ms.Wadetestifiedshewas p*%* terrifiedandimmediatelygavetherobberthestoresmoney.#X!XXX!@ #X!XXX!#BXX! #X!XBԀAftertakingthemoneyfrombothcash \+&+  registers,therobberfledthepremises. H,',   AccordingtoMs.Wade,shecouldseetheintrudersfaceeventhoughheworeaplasticbag   overit.Ms.Waderecognizedthedefendantastherobber.Threedayspriortotherobbery,the  defendanthadenteredthestoreandtriedtosellMs.Wadeapurse.AfterMs.Waderefusedtobuy  apursefromthedefendant,hestayedandtalkedtoacoworkerofMs.Wadesforaboutanhour. t   OnJune27,1997,Ms.Wadereturnedtothe_Mapco_ԀExpress.Asshepulledintotheparking ` lot,shenoticedthatthedefendantwasstandingatoneofthepumpsputtinggasinhiscar.Whenshe L  enteredthestore,Ms.WadeinformedOfficerCurtis_Hafley_ԀandOfficerDavidHawkinsthattheman 8  whorobbedthestorewasoutside.Bythetimeeveryoneturnedtolook,thedefendanthadfledthe $ t scene.Atthispoint,Officer_Hafley_ԀstayedinthestorewithMs.WadeandOfficerHawkinspursued  ` thedefendant.Afewblocksfromthe_Mapco_ԀExpress,OfficerHawkinscaughtupwiththe  L  defendantandarrestedhim.Whenthedefendantwasreturnedtothe_Mapco_ԀExpress,Ms.Wade  8  identifiedhimasthemanwhohadrobbedherat_gunpoint_Ԁafewnightsbefore. $    Thenextday,Ms.Wadewenttothepolicestationtoanswerquestionsandgiveastatement   abouttherobbery.Whileatthepolicestation,Ms.Wadereviewedaphotospreadofpossible   suspects.Afterreviewingthephotos,Ms.Wadeidentifiedthedefendantasthemanwhorobbedthe   store.     Basedontheforegoing,theShelbyCountyGrandJuryreturnedasinglecountindictment p allegingthatthedefendantcommittedtheoffenseofaggravatedrobbery.SeeTenn.CodeAnn. \ 3913402.Attrial,followingapresentationofalltheevidenceandargument,thetrialjudge H instructedthejuryastotheindictedoffenseofaggravatedrobberyandonthelesserincludedoffense 4 ofsimplerobbery.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.3913401.Thejuryrejectedafindingofguiltonthe  p lesserincludedoffenseofsimplerobberyandinsteadconcludedbeyondareasonabledoubtthatthe  \ defendanthadcommittedaggravatedrobbery.   p  H @P P  FailuretoInstructonTheftofProperty 4   Thedefendantcontendsthatthetrialjudgecommittedreversibleerrorinfailingtoinstruct   thejurythatitmightconsiderwhetherthedefendantscrimewasnothingmorethantheoffenseof   theftofproperty,aviolationofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedSection3914103.TheStatearguesthat  anyerrorinfailingtoinstructthejuryonthecrimeoftheftofpropertywasharmlessanddoesnot  requireareversal.    TheTennesseeSupremeCourthasinarecentlineofcasesdealtextensivelywiththe l questionsofwhatconstitutesalesserincludedoffensetothechargedoffense;whendoestheduty X  ofatrialjudgearisetoinstructthejuryastotheselesseroffenses;and,intheeventthetrialjudge D! erroneouslyfailstogivealesserincludedoffenseinstruction,whatisthestandardofreviewasto 0"  whethersucherrorisharmless.Whilemanycorollaryquestionsinthisareaofthelawremainfor #l! thecourtstosortout,thebroadquestionssetforthabovehavebeenansweredbythesupremecourt. $X"   Althoughthepropositionthatatrialcourthasaduty,withorwithoutaspecialrequest,to $D # instructthejurywithrespecttocertainlesseroffensestotheoffensechargedhasbeenapartof %0!$ Tennesseejurisprudenceformanyyears,  #  1      ׀thequestionofwhatoffensesshouldbeofferedtothejury &"% forconsiderationprovedsomewhatvexatious.Priorto1996Tennesseelawprovidedthatanoffense '#& wasnecessarilyincludedinanotherif theelementsofthegreateroffense,asthoseelementsareset (#' forthintheindictment,include,butarenotcongruentwith,alltheelementsofthelesser.Howard  v.State,578S.W.2d83,85(Tenn.1979).Thus,wheretheevidence,uponanyviewthejurymight  takeofit,permittedaninferenceofguiltastoalesserincludedoffense,itbecamethedutyofthe  trialjudgetoinstructthejuryonthelesserincludedoffense.Id. t   Followingtheadoptionofthe1989CriminalSentencingReformAct,astrict elementstest ` forlesserincludedoffensesbecameinadequatefordeterminingwhichlesseroffensestotheindicted L  offenseshouldbesubmittedtothejury.Thenin1996thesupremecourtrendereditsopinionin 8  Statev.Trusty,919S.W.2d305(Tenn.1996),overruledbyStatev.Burns,6S.W.3d453(Tenn. $ t 1999);Statev._Dominy_,6S.W.3d472(Tenn.1999).InTrustythecourtexpandedthedutyofthe  ` trialcourttoinstructthejuryinappropriatecases,notonlyonlesseroffensesnecessarilyincluded  L  intheindictedoffense,butalsoon lessergradesorclassesofoffensestotheindictedoffense.   #  2      ׀See  8  id.at311.Trustyprovedunworkableinpracticeandin1999theTennesseeSupremeCourtdecided $  Statev._Dominy_,inwhichtheTrustyanalysiswithrespecttolesseroffenseswasrejected.See   _Dominy_6S.W.3dat47375.Simultaneouslytothedecisionin_Dominy_,thecourthandeddownits   opinioninStatev.Burns,6S.W.3d453(Tenn.1999).InBurnsthecourtheldthatanoffense   qualifiesasalesserincludedoffenseif:    ( 83 "3"  8  3z,2 (  a  )3  0`     allofitsstatutoryelementsareincludedwithinthestatutoryelementsofthe p offensecharged;or3z,,݌\` `  Ќ  "3"  8  3-2 (  b  )3  0`     itfailstomeetthedefinitioninpart(a)onlyintherespectthatitcontainsa H statutoryelementorelementsestablishing(1)adifferentmentalstate 4 indicatingalesserkindofculpability;and/or(2)alessseriousharmorrisk  p ofharmtothesameperson,propertyorpublicinterest;or3-.݌ \` `  Ќ  "3"  8  302 (  c  )3  0`     itconsistsof[facilitationof,attempttocommit,orsolicitationtocommit]the H offensechargedoronanoffensethatotherwisemeetsthedefinitionoflesser 4 includedoffenseinpart(a)or(b)....30H0݌ ` `  Ќ  8      Id.at46667.    Onceitisdeterminedthatanoffenseisalesserincludedoffensethetrialcourtmust  determine whethertheevidencejustifiesajuryinstructiononsuchlesseroffense.Id.at467.As l statedinBurns, [_t]he_Ԁmereexistenceofalesseroffensetoachargedoffenseisnotsufficientalone X  towarrantachargeonthatoffense.Id.at468.AccordingtoBurns,thetestfordecidingthatajury D! instructiononaparticularlesseroffenseismandatedisasfollows: 0"  8  First,thetrialcourtmustdeterminewhetheranyevidenceexiststhatreasonable #l! mindscouldacceptastothelesserincludedoffense.Inmakingthisdetermination, $X" thetrialcourtmustviewtheevidenceliberallyinthelightmostfavorabletothe $D # existenceofthelesserincludedoffensewithoutmakinganyjudgmentsonthe %0!$ credibilityofsuchevidence.Second,thetrialcourtmustdetermineiftheevidence, &"% viewedinthislight,islegallysufficienttosupportaconvictionforthelesser '#& includedoffense.(#'   ЇId.at469;seealsoStatev._Bowles_,___S.W.3d___(Tenn.2001).    Thesupremecourthasadditionallystated:  Ѐ t 8  Iftheevidencewouldsupportafindingofguiltonthelesseroffense,anerrorin ` failingtochargethatlesseroffensewillnotbenegatedmerelybecausetheevidence L  isalsosufficienttoconvictonagreateroffense,forthedefendantneednot 8  demonstrateabasisforacquittalonthegreateroffense.SeeId.at472.$ t   Id.at___;seealsoBurns6S.W.3dat472.  L    PriortoBurns,theTennesseeSupremeCourthaddecidedthecaseofStatev.Williams,977 $  S.W.2d101(Tenn.1998).Inthatcasethecourtdeterminedthatanerroneousfailuretoinstructthe   juryonalesserincludedoffensewassubjecttoharmlesserroranalysis.Id.at105.However,it   remainedsomewhatunclearastowhetherthestandardfordeterminingwhentheerrorwasharmless   wasthe moreprobablythannotaffectedthejudgmentstandardofTenn.R.App.P.36(b),orthe   morestringentstandardofharmlesserrorreviewreservedforconstitutionalerrors,i.e.whetherthe p errorcanbesaidtobeharmless beyondareasonabledoubt.SeeChapmanv.California,386U.S. \ 18,24,87S.Ct.824,17L.Ed.2d705(1967);Statev.Scott,33S.W.3d746,755(Tenn.2000). H Thisquestionturnedonwhetherthedutytochargelesserincludedoffensestotheindictedcharge 4 arisesmerelyfromthestatutorymandateofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedSection4018110(a),from  p thestateconstitution,orfrombothsources.  \   ThesupremecourtansweredthequestionjustposedinthecaseofStatev.Ely&Bowers, H ____S.W.3d____(Tenn.2001);inthatcasethecourtdeterminedthatatrialcourtsobligationto 4 chargeonlesserincludedoffensesderivednotonlyfromstatute,butmoreimportantlyfromArticle   I,Sec.6oftheConstitutionofTennessee.Id.at____.Therefore,thecourtheld,whenreviewing   anerroneousfailuretoinstructthejuryonalesserincludedoffensetotheindictedoffense,an  appellatecourt,ifitistoaffirmtheconviction,mustbesatisfiedthatthestatehasproventhatthe  errorwasharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.Id.at____. p         MostrecentlyoursupremecourtdecidedthecaseofStatev._Bowles_,___S.W.3d____ l (Tenn.2001),inwhichthecourtdeterminedthatthesituationpresentedinWilliams,providedthe X  paradigmforfindingthatanerroneousfailuretoinstructthejuryonalesserincludedoffensewas D! harmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt._Bowles____S.W.3dat____.  #  3      ׀InWilliams,thejurywasgiven 0"  instructionsregardingthechargedoffenseoffirstdegreemurderandthelesserincludedoffensesof #l! seconddegreemurderandrecklesshomicide.Id.at104.Itconvictedthedefendantoffirstdegree $X" @@(#murder.Id.Onappealthedefendantarguedthejuryshouldhavebeengiveninstructions $D # regardingthelesserincludedoffenseofvoluntarymanslaughter.Id.TheWilliamscourtrecognized %0!$ voluntarymanslaughterasalesserincludedoffenseoffirstdegreemurderbutfoundthatthefailure &"% ofthetrialjudgetoinstructthejurywasharmless.Id.at10407. [_B]y_Ԁfindingthedefendantguilty '#& ofthehighestoffensetotheexclusionoftheimmediatelylesseroffense,seconddegreemurder,the  jurynecessarilyrejectedallotherlesseroffenses,includingvoluntarymanslaughter.Id.at106;see  also,_Bowles_,____S.W.3dat____(findingthaterrorinfailingtoinstructonsexualbatteryharmless  beyondareasonabledoubtwherejurydeclinedtofindthedefendantguiltyofrapeoraggravated t sexualbatteryandconvictedonmostseriouschargeofaggravatedrape);butseeEly&Bowers, ` ___S.W.3dat____(distinguishingWilliamsandrefusing,when thejury...wasgivennooption L  toconvictofalesseroffense,toholdharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubtafailuretoprovide 8  lesserincludedoffenseinstructions). $ t   Withthisbackgroundinmind,wenowturntothescenariopresentedbythecasesubjudice.  ` Inthiscasethedefendantwasconvictedofaggravatedrobberyandthejurydeclinedtofindhim  L  guiltyofsimplerobbery.Hemaintainsthataninstructionontheftofpropertyshouldhavebeen  8  given.Itistruethattheftofpropertyisalesserincludedoffenseofaggravatedrobberyandrobbery. $  _Bowles_,____S.W.3dat____;Statev._Fitz_,19S.W.3d213,216(Tenn.2000);Statev.Hayes,7   S.W.3d52,56(Tenn._Crim_.App.1999).Theftiselevatedtorobberywhenthetheftisaccomplished   byputtingthevictiminfearorbyviolence._Bowles_,___S.W.3dat___[citingJamesv.State,385   S.W.2d86,88(Tenn.1964)].Iftherobberyisaccomplishedbyusingadeadlyweapon,or   displaying anyarticleusedorfashionedtoleadthevictimtoreasonablybelieveittobeadeadly p weapon,therobberybecomesaggravatedrobbery.  #  4      ׀SeeTenn.CodeAnn.3913402(a)(1). \   Therecordrevealsthatthedefendantenteredthe_Mapco_Ԁstorewithagreentotebag.Hehad H hishandinthebagasthoughheheldagun,andhepointedthebagatthestoreclerk.Theclerk 4 testifiedshewasterrifiedforherlifeandsosheimmediatelyturnedoverthestoresmoney.Clearly  p theevidenceissufficientforanaggravatedrobberyconviction.Thereisnoproofthatthedefendant  \ actuallydisplayedaweaponorverballythreatenedthestoreclerkwithharm.However,asnotedin H _Bowles_,___S.W.3dat򀀀,itisnotnecessarythatthedefendantestablishabasisforacquittalon 4 theoffenseofwhichhewasconvicted;heonlyhastodemonstratethatevidenceexistswhich   rationalmindscouldacceptastotheoffenseoftheft.Becausealloftheelementsoftheftarealso   demonstratedbytheproofinthiscaseitwaserrorforthetrialcourtnottoinstructthejuryregarding  thatoffense.Id.    However,thiscasepresentsexactlythescenariopresentedinWilliams.Here,asinthatcase,  thejurywaspresentedwithanopportunitytoconsideranintermediatelesserincludedoffensebut l rejectedit.Underthesecircumstanceswemustconcludethattheerroneousfailuretochargeonthe X  lesserincludedoffenseoftheftwasharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.Thejudgmentofthetrial D! courtisthereforeaffirmed.#X!XXX!##BXX!#X!XB 0"     `     h     ___________________________________ %0!$    `     h     JERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE