WPC ^9Xed{jl}[á#/<Լ0@A:g'|<ƌ+Cw.on@|v3ԸGqٟ-h" á>> t(f?DDoFǙ]y4T`eTdIRR%5Z1MȼJ b̽mƶN>tUR4U+E*}kg 0wFI yBGs[2;ހEfwИ"9K۔X#MGS6E !tcCO-]X^&+Ho"=*ە+Tƈ/6QOU^Jy{bW@7 -5+)=J[ITF3ӋLOތS_giғ-FjS5iexw- Gyθ{IW2u!GB3YS3HQ]Ǎvڔm4ʒ%b#\ % U N# 0q UN UNG ^ z  w 4      h m.NEU@GGEb 0 B|| 0 D3= D-p 0K AS; 0 0D AHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular{2)  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptr')RDPE~1tw3|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5U(9 Z(Times New Roman - -(|G22$ !.8Gd d 8         0  X:X d(|3N$ !.8Gd d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3N$ !.8Gd d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Xd d8     _e$@HHINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @$ATNASHVILLE  @!APRIL2000SESSION $ X$Xe$ #e$XX$n#  STATEOFTENNESSEEv.ROBERTC.COPASX$Xe$  " @; ;  AppealasofRightfromtheCriminalCourtforSumnerCounty  " @  No.10151998Jane_Wheatcraft_,Judge   @*AV) ` dE<` A߈      `  No.M199900841CCAR3CDFiledSeptember15,2000 }  AV) ` dE<T` A U      `    #e$XX$#X$Xe$ Thedefendant,RobertC._Copas_,wasindictedbyaSumnerCountyGrandJuryforonecountof < aggravatedrape.Afterdiscoveringthattherecordingofthedefendantspreliminaryhearingwas (x inaudible,thedefendantmovedtodismisstheindictmentandremandforanewpreliminaryhearing d pursuanttorule5.1oftheRulesofCriminalProcedure.Followingahearing,thetrialcourtdidnot P dismisstheindictment,butremandedforanewpreliminaryhearing.Thestatethenmovedto < dismisstheindictment,arguingthatcaselawrequiresdismissaloftheindictmentunderthese ( circumstances.Thecourtagreedanddismissedtheindictmentbutthestatethenbroughtthisappeal.  Becausethetrialcourtsdismissaloftheindictmentandremandforanewpreliminaryhearingwas  anappropriateremedyforaviolationoftheTenn.R._Crim_.P.5.1(a)thejudgmentofthetrialcourt  isaffirmed.  #e$XX$#X$Xe$ X$XXX$_TENN.R._ԀAPP.R.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtofSumnerCounty ` isAffirmed  L JerryL.Smith,J.#e$X$v #X$X.e$,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJohnEverettWilliams,J.,and $ t RobertW._Wedemeyer.J._,joined. !`  MarkT.Smith,_Gallatin_,Tennesseefortheappellee,RobertC._Copas_. "8" PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter,ElizabethT.Ryan,AssistantAttorneyGenerals $ $ fortheappellant,StateofTennessee. % % @66' OPINION #e$XX$ #X$Xe$Ԉ \)$)  X$XXX$RecordingofPreliminaryHearing#e$XX$ # e$ 4+&+  #e$  #X$Xe$  Thestatearguesthatthetrialcourterredwhenitgrantedthedefendantsmotiontoremand  ,p', foranewpreliminaryhearingfollowingthedefendantsdiscoverythatataperecordingofthe  -\(- preliminaryhearingwasinaudible.Rule5.1(a)oftheTennesseeRulesofCriminalProcedure  provides,inrelevantpart:      8  theproceedingsshallbepreservedbyelectronicrecordingoritsequivalentandwhen  thedefendantissubsequentlyindictedsuchrecordingshallbemadeavailablefor t listeningtobythedefendantordefendant'scounseltotheendthattheymaybe ` _apprised_Ԁoftheevidenceintroduceduponthepreliminaryexamination.L    Tenn.R._Crim_.P.5.1(a).Thestatearguesthatbecausedefensecounselwaspresentatthe $ t preliminaryhearing,thepurposeoftherule,i.e.,to_apprise_Ԁthedefendantorthedefendantscounsel  ` oftheevidenceintroduced,wasmetinthepresentcase.Accordingly,arguesthestate,no  L  preliminaryhearingisrequired.  8    Thestatecorrectlynotesthatmostofthecasesaddressingthisissuehavedonesointhepost $  trialcontext.SeeStatev.Carter,970S.W.2d509,512(Tenn._Crim_.App.1997);Statev.Butts,640   S.W.2d37,38(Tenn._Crim_.App.1982);Statev._McBee_,644S.W.2d425,427(Tenn._Crim_.App.   1982).Inthosecases,however,thiscourtappliedaharmlesserroranalysistoaviolationoftherule.   Thiscourthasaddressedatleastonecaseinthesameproceduralpostureastheinstantcase.InState   v._Malvin_ԀLouis_Rushton_,weaffirmedatrialcourtsdismissalofanindictmentinsimilar p circumstances.No.1260,1990WL60662,at*4(Tenn._Crim_.App.,Nashville,May11,1990).In \ thatcase,however,oneofthereasonsthatthetrialcourtsdeterminationwasaffirmedwasbecause H thedefendantstrialattorneywasnotpresentatthepreliminaryhearing.Id.at*3.Thus,the 4 defendantstrialattorneywasnotproperly_apprised_Ԁoftheevidenceadducedatthepreliminary  p hearing.Thiscourtopined,indictum,thatifthedefendantstrialattorneyhadbeenpresentatthe  \ preliminaryhearing,thetrialcourtcouldhaveproperlyoverruledthedefendantsmotiontodismiss H theindictmentbecausethepurposeoftherulewouldhavebeensatisfied.Id.Thecourtinthatcase 4 reliedonStatev._Roberson_,644S.W.2d696,699(Tenn._Crim_.App.1982),inwhichthiscourtheld   thatnoprejudiceresultedfromafailuretorecordapreliminaryhearingbecausethedefendants   attorneywaspresentatthepreliminaryhearing.    Althoughwearemindfulthatthepurposeofapreliminaryhearingistoadjudicateprobable  cause,theruleitselfisveryclear.Theword shallisusedtwice,anditsobligatorytoneisclear.  Furthermore,althoughtherulestatesnosanctionforfailuretoprepare,preserve,andmakeavailable l sucharecording,inCarterweheldthat [_t]he_Ԁproperremedywhenanelectronicrecordingofa X  preliminaryhearingislostorunavailablewouldbetorequestthetrialcourttodismisstheindictment D! andremandtotheGeneralSessionsCourtforasecondpreliminaryhearing.Carter970S.W.2dat 0"  512.Weareunwillingtoconditiona_rememdy_Ԁforaviolationofrule5.1(a)onwhethertheattorney #l! incriminalcourtandatthepreliminaryhearingareoneinthesame. $X"   Finally,notwithstanding_Rushton_sdictum,weareunwillingtoassumethattheerrorcannot, $D # underanycircumstances,worktotheprejudiceofthedefendant.Weneednotengageinharmless %0!$ erroranalysisorspeculateaboutthepossibleprejudiceofafailuretoabidebythemandatesofthe &"% rulewhenacaseispresentedinthisproceduralposture.Thisissuehasnomerit. '#&   Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisAFFIRMED.   (#'    `     h     ___________________________________ h+&*    `     h     JERRYL._SMITH_  ___#X$XXX$S ##e$XX$#__X$Xe$_