ÿWPCö# …# VUNa %¯ 0 Dµbùw@ 4A U d 0ˆl 0Dô D38 0Jk 0Tµ 0^ 0hg 0rÏ 0|A 0†½ 0C 1uÓ 0dH B¬ 0@ÉU > U*GB)qDCš AMÝ2*þ\FZ¼ q\Í+Õv~vÓ~ AOQ"Æ " 0Df# D/ª# BÙ#˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0ß6&I(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ñþ$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°Ò- ù- ¨!©!{ª!E«!¬!­!D®!¯!D°!±!Ó€Úƒç"3|x¼!(8(3I¸$¤¤Ý ƒñþ!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó****'ÿÿdxd2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô !"#$% ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d22227Border 1dd€-3Cþÿ << Gÿÿ (Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€1XÔÌÌò òDecemberÏ9,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€1ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ôÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ôÔ€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„703.Ì <Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ôÔ€We€have€chosen€to€address€the€issues€in€a€different€order€than€they€appear€in€theÏDefendantððs€brief.Ì ²Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ôÔ€Although€the€issue€is€not€before€us,€we€note€that€it€does€not€appear€that€double€jeopardyÏprinciples€would€bar€the€State€from€re„indicting€and€re„trying€the€Defendant.€€òòSeeóó€òòMontana€v.€Hallóó,€481ÏU.S.€400,€402„04,€107€S.Ct.€1825,€1826„27,€95€L.Ed›.2d€354€(1987)€(double€jeopardy€does€notÏprevent€retrial€after€a€conviction€is€reversed€because€of€a€defect€in€the€charging€instrument);€òòseeÏgenerallyóó€Raybin,€Tennessee€Criminal€Practice€and€Procedure,€ðð€16.117.Ì gÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ôÔ€It€appears€from€the€record€that€Robert€Miller€was€acquitted€of€the€burglary€of€the€HatfieldÏresidence€and€the€theft€of€their€personal€possessions.Ì þÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ôÔ€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„702.Ì !Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ôÔ€As€with€the€second€issue,€we€are€addressing€this€argument€with€the€assumption€that€theÏpresentment€properly€charged€the€Defendant.€€We€are€assuming€that€the€false€statement€of€which€theÏDefendant€stands€accused€was€his€representation€that€he€could€not€identify€the€individual€standing€atÏKatherine€Leonardððs€car€as€Robert€Miller.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€0ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÔ€0ŠÔÔ€1ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€FXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€453A1-j|` à. `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€œKNOXVILLE›ÌÌœJULY›€SESSION,€œ1997›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,›à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€œ03C01„9611„CR„00419›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœSULLIVAN›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œFRANK€L.€SLAUGHTERó ó›Ìò òœJASON€BRADLEYó ó›à àà àœò ò)›à àœJUDGEó óÌò òCUTSHAW,à àà àà à)ó ó›Ìà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àœò ò)ó óà à(Aggravated€Perjury)›ÌÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌœCRIMINAL›€COURT€OF€œSULLIVAN€COUNTY›ó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœLESLIE€S.€HALE›à àà àà àà àœJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€839ÌBlountville,€TN€37617à àà àà àTIMOTHY€F.€BEHANÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌGERALD€L.€GULLEY,€JR.à àà à425€5th€Avenue€NorthÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àNashville,€TN€37243ÌP.O.€Box€1708ÌKnoxville,€TN€37901„1708à àà àGREELEY€WELLSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àEDWARD€E.€WILSONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSullivan€County€Justice€CenterÌà àà àà àà àà àà àBlountville,€TN€37617›ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœCONVICTION€REVERSED;€PRESENTMENT€DISMISSED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€1°Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€1ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€Defendant,€Jason€Bradley€Cutshaw,€appeals€as€of€right€pursuant€toÏRule€3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€He€was€convicted€byÏa€Sullivan€County€jury€of€aggravated€perjury.× ƒ6 ××  ×€€The€trial€court€sentenced€him€asÏa€Range€I€standard€offender€offender€to€four€years,€the€first€two€of€which€were€toÏbe€served€on€community€corrections€followed€by€two€years€of€probation.€€TheÏtrial€court€also€imposed€a€two€thousand€dollar€($2,000)€fine€and€ordered€theÏDefendant€to€perform€œtwo€hundred€(200)›€hours€of€community€service€per€yearÏwhile€on€community€corrections.€€In€this€appeal,€the€Defendant€raises€fourÏissues:× ƒ7 ××  ×ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ(1)€That€the€presentment€charging€him€with€aggravated€perjury€wasÏfatally€defective;Ì(2)€that€the€evidence€was€legally€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict;Ì(3)€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€lesserÏincluded€offense€of€perjury;€and,Ì(4)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€grant€judicial€diversion.ÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓAfter€carefully€reviewing€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€first€œissue›€œhas›€merit.€ÏAccordingly,€we€reverse€the€Defendantððs€conviction€for€aggravated€perjury€andÍdismiss€the€presentment€against€œhim.€€We€also€believe€the€trial€judge€abused€hisÏdiscretion€by€not€òòconsideringóó€the€defendantððs€eligibility€for€judicial€diversion.›ÌÌà àWe€begin€with€a€summary€of€the€pertinent€facts.€€The€record€reveals€that€onÏthe€night€of€March€27,€1993,€the€home€of€Robert€and€Mary€Melissa€Hatfield€locatedÏat€2547€Bay€Street€in€Bristol,€Tennessee€was€burglarized.€€Ralph€Callahan,€anÏofficer€with€the€Bristol€Police€Department,€was€on€a€routine€patrol€that€night€whenÏhe€observed€an€individual€near€the€home€at€2547€Bay€Street€carrying€a€blanketÏwrapped€around€what€appeared€to€be€rifles.€€The€barrels€of€the€guns€wereÏprotruding€from€one€end€of€the€blanket.€€Officer€Callahan€decided€to€investigate€theÏsituation€and€exited€his€vehicle.€€As€he€did€so,€the€individual€carrying€the€blanketÏdropped€the€guns€and€fled.€€Callahan€lost€the€individual€after€a€short€chase.ÌÌà àOfficer€Callahan€then€returned€to€where€the€individual€had€discarded€theÏguns.€€He€began€to€ask€questions€of€the€occupants€of€the€homes€near€the€scene.€ÏOne€of€these€occupants€was€the€Defendant.€€Callahan€asked€the€Defendant€andÏanother€occupant€of€the€home,€Katherine€Leonard,€if€they€had€seen€the€individualÏcarrying€the€guns€and€if€they€knew€the€identity€of€that€individual.€€Both€theÏDefendant€and€Leonard€stated€that€they€did€not€know€who€the€perpetrator€was.€ÏCallahan€then€asked€them€if€they€would€mind€traveling€to€the€police€station€to€giveÍstatements€to€the€detectives€working€the€case.€€Leonard€and€the€Defendant€agreedÏto€go€to€the€station€to€give€statements.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€gave€a€sworn€statement€in€the€early€morning€hours€of€MarchÏ28,€1993,€to€Bill€Smith,€a€lieutenant€with€the€Bristol€Police€Department.€€TheÏstatement€reads€as€follows:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓI€have€known€Robert€Miller€for€about€four€(4)€years..€€I€use€[sic]€to€dateÏhis€cousin.€€Late€in€the€night€of€3/27/93€I€was€with€this€girl€that€I€hadÏmet€tonight€and€we€were€in€her€car€and€we€picked€up€Robert€Miller€atÏ421€Shopping€Center.€€We€were€[sic]€back€to€the€girlððs€apartment€toÏparty.€€The€girl€was€driving.€€We€drove€to€the€girlððs€apartment€and€weÏall€went€inside.€€We€were€in€the€apartment€for€a€few€minutes€andÏRobert€said€that€he€would€be€back€in€a€few€minutes€and€he€left€theÏapartment.€€After€Robert€left€the€girl€found€that€her€car€keys€wereÏmissing.€€About€10€or€15€minutes€after€Robert€left€the€apartment€IÏlooked€out€the€window€and€saw€Robert€going€to€the€girlððs€car€and€heÏwas€carrying€a€blanket€with€something€in€it€but€I€could€not€tell€whatÏwas€in€the€blanket.€€I€saw€the€trunk€of€the€car€raise€and€I€went€outsideÏand€asked€Robert€what€he€was€doing€and€he€said€ð ðShut€up€and€goÏon.ðð€€I€went€on€into€the€house€at€that€time.€€Just€as€I€was€going€intoÏthe€house€I€saw€blue€lights€and€I€stayed€in€the€house.€€Lt.€SmithÏshowed€me€six€(6)€photos€and€the€photo€of€Robert€Miller€is€the€oneÏthat€I€put€my€initials€on€the€back€of.ÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓThe€Defendant€signed€the€statement€and€it€was€notarized.€€Lieutenant€Smith€andÏDetective€George€Eden,€who€was€taking€the€statement€of€Katherine€Leonard,€bothÏtestified€that€the€Defendant€was€coherent,€did€not€appear€to€be€intoxicated,€andÏwas€willing€to€give€a€statement.€€In€addition,€Lieutenant€Smith€stated€that,€prior€toÏtaking€the€statement,€he€specifically€asked€the€Defendant€if€he€was€under€theÍinfluence€of€alcohol€or€drugs.€€According€to€Smith,€the€Defendant€respondedÏnegatively.ÌÌà àSubsequent€to€the€taking€of€the€statements,€police€officers€searchedÏKatherine€Leonardððs€car€with€her€permission.€€Because€she€was€unable€to€locateÏher€keys,€officers€gained€access€to€the€trunk€by€taking€out€the€back€seat.€€TheÏofficers€recovered€jewelry€and€other€items€from€the€trunk.€€These€items€and€the€gunsÏdropped€by€the€perpetrator€as€he€fled€were€identified€by€the€Hatfields€as€havingÏbeen€stolen€from€their€home€at€2547€Bay€Street.€€In€addition,€Mary€Melissa€HatfieldÏtestified€that€in€the€early€morning€hours€of€March€28,€1993,€the€DefendantÏapproached€her€and€stated,€ð ðI€didnððt€break€into€your€house,€Robert€Miller€did€it.ððÌÌà àOn€April€1,€1993,€the€Defendant€gave€a€second€statement€to€Captain€DonÏWhite€of€the€Bristol€Police€Department.€€The€Defendantððs€second€statement€readsÏas€follows:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓOn€Sat.€night€3/27/93,€I€was€with€Albert€Miller€and€a€girl€by€the€nameÏof€Kathy.€€I€donððt€know€Kathyððs€last€name,€but€I€know€she€lived€outÏnear€Skate€Fun€in€Bristol,€TN.€€We€all€had€been€drinking€and€after€aÏwhile€we€left€Kathyððs€house€to€go€get€more€to€drink.€€While€we€wereÏout€in€Kathyððs€car€we€picked€up€Robert€Miller€and€he€went€back€toÏKathyððs€house€with€us.€€Robert€Miller€was€with€us€for€about€10€to€15Ïmins€and€then€left.€€After€Robert€Miller€left,€Kathy€missed€her€car€keysÏand€could€not€find€them.€€On€Sunday€morning€3/28/93,€Albert€MillerÏcalled€Robert€Miller€over€at€Robertððs€girlfriends€[sic]€house€and€ask€[sic]Ïhim€if€he€had€taken€Kathyððs€car€keys€and€Robert€said€he€had€the€carÏkeys.€€Me€and€Albert€Miller€rode€over€to€see€Robert€Miller.€€He€was€stillÍat€his€girlfriends€[sic]€house.€€When€we€walked€up€to€Robert€Miller,€heÏhad€Kathyððs€car€keys€in€his€hand,€and€that€is€when€he€gave€the€keysÏto€Albert€Miller€and€then€we€left€and€went€back€to€Kathyððs€house.ÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓWhite€testified€that€he€detected€no€odor€of€alcohol€about€the€Defendant€at€the€timeÏof€the€second€statement.ÌÌà àWith€this€information,€Robert€Miller€was€œcharged€with€the›€burglary€of€theÏHatfield€residence€œand€tried€in€the›€Sullivan€County€Criminal€Court€in€case€numbersÏS33,609€and€S33,610.€€The€Defendant€was€called€as€a€witness€at€that€trial€by€theÏState€and€testified€on€July€15,€1993.€€The€Defendantððs€testimony€at€Robert€MillerððsÏtrial€was€substantially€the€same€as€his€two€statements€to€the€police.€€He€testifiedÏthat€he€was€with€Katherine€Leonard,€Robert€Miller€and€Albert€Miller€(Robert€MillerððsÏbrother)€on€the€evening€of€March€27,€1993.€€€€They€had€a€considerable€amount€ofÏliquor€to€drink€and€eventually€went€to€Leonardððs€house.€€The€keys€to€Leonardððs€carÏwere€on€top€of€a€television€in€the€house.€€After€a€short€time€there,€Robert€Miller€leftÏthe€residence.€€Shortly€thereafter,€the€Defendant€saw€someone€carrying€somethingÏstanding€at€Leonardððs€car.€€The€Defendant€denied€going€outside€and€speaking€withÏthe€individual€at€the€car.€€He€then€saw€police€officers,€and€the€individual€atÏLeonardððs€car€fled.€€The€next€day,€when€he€and€Albert€Miller€went€to€Robert€MillerððsÏgirlfriendððs€home,€the€Defendant€initially€testified€that€Albert€Miller€walked€into€theÏresidence€alone€and€returned€with€Leonardððs€keys€and€that€he€(the€Defendant)€didÏnot€see€Robert€Miller.€€On€redirect€examination,€however,€the€Defendant€admittedÍthat€he€had€seen€Robert€Miller€that€morning,€but€walked€out€of€the€homeÏimmediately€upon€seeing€Miller.ÌÌà àThere€were,€however,€some€noteworthy€differences€between€theÏDefendantððs€statements€to€police€officers€and€his€testimony€at€Robert€Millerððs€trial.€ÏFor€instance,€in€his€first€œstatement,€the€sworn›€statement€given€to€Lieutenant€Smith,Ïthe€Defendant€stated€œthat›€upon€seeing€Robert€Miller€carrying€something€toÏLeonardððs€car,€he€went€outside€and€spoke€with€Miller,€who€told€him€to€ð ð[œs]hut›€upÏand€go€on.ðð€€At€Robert€Millerððs€trial,€the€Defendant€denied€leaving€Leonardððs€home.€ÏThe€principal€difference€between€the€Defendantððs€statements€to€police€and€hisÏtestimony€at€Robert€Millerððs€trial€was€that€he€identified€Robert€Miller€as€the€individualÏstanding€at€Leonardððs€car€in€his€first€statement€but€testified€at€trial€that€he€could€notÏidentify€the€individual€standing€at€Leonardððs€car.ÌÌà àWhen€confronted€with€these€differences€during€his€testimony€at€Robert€MillerððsÏtrial,€the€Defendant€did€not€deny€making€the€statements€to€police.€€Instead,€heÏtestified€that€he€was€so€drunk€at€the€time€that€he€could€not€remember€what€he€hadÏsaid€to€the€police€officers.€€When€asked€about€the€statement€made€to€CaptainÏWhite€on€April€1,€1993,€four€days€after€the€first€statement,€the€Defendant€testifiedÏthat€he€was€drunk€on€that€occasion€as€well.ÌÌà àGiven€these€circumstances,€on€August€23,€1993,€the€Sullivan€County€grandÏjury€returned€a€presentment€charging€the€Defendant€with€aggravated€perjury,Ïalleged€to€have€been€committed€while€testifying€at€the€trial€of€Robert€Miller.€€TheÏpresentment€reads€as€follows:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àThe€Grand€Jurors€of€Sullivan€County,€Tennessee,€dulyÏempaneled€and€sworn,€upon€their€oath,€present€that€òòJason€BradleyÏCutshawóó€on€the€œ15th›€day€of€July,€1993,€in€Sullivan€County,ÏTennessee,€and€before€the€finding€of€this€Presentment,€did€unlawfully,Ïfeloniously€and€knowingly€while€under€oath€as€a€witness€in€a€trial€inÏthe€Criminal€Court€for€Sullivan€County,€Tennessee,€in€a€case€styledÏòòState€of€Tennessee€versus€Robert€B.€Milleróó€bearing€Sullivan€CountyÏCriminal€Court€case€numbers€S33,609€and€S33,610€with€intent€toÏdeceive,€made€material€false€statements€in€violation€of€œT.C.A.›€39„16„703,€all€of€which€is€[œa]gainst›€the€peace€and€dignity€of€the€State€ofÏTennessee.ÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓThe€Defendant€was€tried€and€convicted€as€charged€on€March€8,€1995.€€He€nowÏappeals€to€this€Court,€challenging€both€his€conviction€and€his€sentence.ÌÌà àIn€his€first€issue€on€appeal,€the€Defendant€contends€that€the€presentmentÏcharging€him€with€aggravated€perjury€was€fatally€defective.€€Prior€to€trial,€theÏDefendant€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€the€presentment€for€duplicity.€€The€essence€ofÏhis€argument€was€that€the€language€of€the€presentment€did€not€sufficiently€specifyÏwhich€statements€made€by€the€Defendant€at€Robert€Millerððs€trial€were€false,€andÏthus€the€presentment€improperly€charged€more€than€one€offense€in€a€single€count.€ÏThe€trial€court€denied€the€motion.€€The€Defendant€now€raises€this€issue€on€appeal,Íarguing€that€the€presentment€was€defective€in€that€it€did€not€specify€whichÏstatements€made€by€the€Defendant€were€allegedly€false.ÌÌà àInitially,€we€note€that€the€State€argues€on€appeal€that€the€Defendant€failed€toÏfile€his€motion€for€new€trial€in€a€timely€fashion,€thereby€waiving€consideration€of€theÏfirst,€third€and€fourth€issues.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e).€€We€disagree.€€Rule€33€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€indicates€that€a€motion€for€new€trialÏshould€be€made€in€writing,€or€if€made€orally,€reduced€to€writing,€within€thirty€days€ofÏthe€date€the€order€of€sentence€is€entered.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€33(b).€€Rule€45€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€describes€the€principles€governing€theÏcomputation€of€time.€€It€provides€thatÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓthe€day€of€the€act€or€event€from€which€the€designated€period€of€timeÏbegins€to€run€shall€not€be€included.€€The€last€day€of€the€period€soÏcomputed€shall€be€included€unless€it€is€a€Saturday,€a€Sunday,€a€legalÏholiday,€or€a€day€when€the€clerkððs€office€for€filing€is€closed,€in€whichÏevent€the€period€runs€until€the€end€of€the€next€day€which€is€not€aÏSaturday,€a€Sunday,€a€legal€holiday,€or€a€day€when€the€clerkððs€officeÏfor€filing€is€closed.ÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€45(a).ÌÌà àIn€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€the€order€of€sentence€was€entered€on€April€28,€1995.€ÏThus,€the€first€day€of€the€thirty„day€period€in€which€to€file€a€motion€for€new€trial€wasÏApril€29,€1995.€€As€a€result,€the€thirtieth€day€of€the€period€was€May€28,€1995.€€MayÏ28,€1995,€was€a€Sunday.€€Accordingly,€under€Rule€45(a)€of€the€Tennessee€RulesÍof€Criminal€Procedure,€the€last€day€of€the€period€was€extended€to€Monday,€MayÏ29,€1995.€€May€29,€1995,€however,€was€Memorial€Day,€a€legal€holiday.€€Thus,ÏRule€45(a)€extended€the€last€day€of€the€period€to€Tuesday,€May€30,€1995.€€TheÏDefendant€filed€his€motion€for€new€trial€on€May€30,€1995.€€We€therefore€concludeÏthat€the€Defendant€timely€filed€his€motion€for€new€trial€and€has€not€waivedÏconsideration€of€his€first,€third€and€fourth€issues€on€appeal.ÌÌà àWe€now€turn€to€the€merits€of€the€first€issue.€€The€law€is€well„established€inÏTennessee€that€an€indictment€or€presentment€must€provide€notice€of€the€offenseÏcharged,€an€adequate€basis€for€the€entry€of€a€proper€judgment,€and€suitableÏprotection€against€double€jeopardy.€€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€305,€310€(Tenn.Ï1996);€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,€820€S.W.2d€739,€741€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Lindsayóó,€637ÏS.W.2d€886,€890€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€The€indictment€or€presentment€ð ðmustÏstate€the€facts€in€ordinary€and€concise€language€in€a€manner€that€would€enable€aÏperson€of€common€understanding€to€know€what€is€intended,€and€with€a€degree€ofÏcertainty€which€would€enable€the€court€upon€conviction,€to€pronounce€the€properÏjudgment.ðð€€òòWarden€v.€Stateóó,€214€Tenn.€391,€381€S.W.2d€244,€245€(1964);€òòseeÏalsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„13„202.ÌÌà àA€lawful€accusation€is€an€essential€jurisdictional€element,€and€thus,€aÏprosecution€cannot€proceed€without€an€indictment€or€presentment€that€sufficientlyÍinforms€the€accused€of€the€essential€elements€of€the€offense.€€òòState€v.€œPerkinson›óó,Ï867€S.W.2d€1,€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992);€òòState€v.€Morganóó,€598€S.W.2d€796,€797Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979).€€A€judgment€based€on€an€indictment€or€presentment€thatÏdoes€not€allege€all€the€essential€elements€of€the€offense€is€a€nullity.€€òòWardenóó,€381ÏS.W.2d€at€245;€òòMcCracken€v.€Stateóó,€489€S.W.2d€48,€53€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1972).ÌÌà àAside€from€the€general€principles€governing€indictments€and€presentments,Ïthere€is€also€a€statutory€provision€dealing€specifically€with€allegations€of€perjury.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„13„213.€€This€provision€provides€that€in€an€indictment€orÏpresentment€for€perjury,€it€is€not€necessary€to€set€forth€the€records€or€proceedingsÏwith€which€the€oath€is€connected€or€the€commission€or€authority€of€the€court€orÏperson€before€whom€the€perjury€was€committed.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„13„213(a).€ÏThe€provision€continues€as€follows:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àIt€is€sufficient€in€such€case€to€give€the€substance€of€theÏcontroversy€or€matter€in€respect€to€which€the€offense€was€committed,€inÏwhat€court€or€before€whom€the€oath€alleged€to€be€false€was€taken,Ïand€that€the€court€or€person€before€whom€it€was€taken€had€authorityÏto€administer€it,€with€proper€allegations€of€the€falsity€of€the€matter€onÏwhich€the€perjury€is€assigned.ÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„13„213(b).ÌÌà àApplying€these€precepts€to€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€we€conclude€that€theÏpresentment€charging€the€Defendant€with€aggravated€perjury€was€defective€in€thatÍit€did€not€sufficiently€state€the€facts€constituting€the€alleged€offense.€€As€we€set€forthÏabove,€the€presentment€alleged€only€that€while€under€oath€as€a€witness€in€the€trialÏof€Robert€Miller,€the€Defendant€knowingly,€ð ðwith€intent€to€deceive,€made€materialÏfalse€statements€in€violation€of€œT.C.A.›€39„16„703.ðð€€This€language€essentially€tracksÏthe€statutory€elements€of€the€offense€of€aggravated€perjury.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€39„16„703,€„702(a)(1).€€The€presentment,€however,€must€not€only€allege€theÏessence€of€the€criminal€offense,€but€also€state€which€of€the€Defendantððs€actionsÏbring€him€within€the€statute€so€as€to€give€him€sufficient€notice€of€the€facts€sought€toÏbe€proved€against€him€and€of€what€offense€he€is€called€upon€to€answer.€€òòSeeóóÏòòChurch€v.€Stateóó,€œ206€Tenn.€336,€333›€S.W.2d€799,€809€œ(1960)›€(stating€that€theÏdescription€of€the€offense€charged€must€be€sufficient€in€distinctness,€certainty€andÏprecision€to€enable€the€accused€to€know€what€offense€he€or€she€is€charged€withÏand€to€understand€the€special€nature€of€the€charge€he€or€she€is€called€upon€toÏanswer);€òòsee€generallyóó€David€L.€Raybin,€Tennessee€Criminal€Practice€andÏProcedure,€ðð€16.19;€14€Tennessee€Jurisprudence,€òòIndictmentsóó,€œòòInformationsóó›€andÏòòPresentmentsóó,€ðð€19.€€In€other€words,€the€presentment€must€state€sufficient€facts€andÏcircumstances€as€will€constitute€the€offense€and€not€merely€a€legal€result€orÏconclusion.€€òòSeeóó€òòWardenóó,€381€S.W.2d€at€245;€Raybin,€œòòIndictmentsóó,›€œòòInformations›óóÏand€œPresentments,›€œòòsupraóó.›€€We€believe€that€the€presentment€in€the€case€at€bar€didÏnot€allege€sufficient€facts€to€identify€the€offense€for€which€the€Defendant€was€beingÏprosecuted.ÌÌà àThe€present€case€is€similar€to€òòMcLemore€v.€Stateóó,€œ215€Tenn.€332,€385›ÏS.W.2d€756€œ(1965).›€€In€òòMcLemoreóó,€the€indictment€charged€the€accused€withÏð ðunlawfully€œengag[ing›]€in€the€business€of€real€estate€salesman,€without€firstÏobtaining€a€license€issued€by€the€Tennessee€Real€Estate€Commission.ðð€ÏòòMcLemoreóó,€385€S.W.2d€at€756.€€Our€supreme€court€held€that€the€indictment€wasÏdeficient€œbecause,€rather›€than€containing€a€description€of€such€facts€andÏcircumstances€as€would€constitute€the€offense,€it€merely€stated€a€legal€conclusion.€ÏòòId.óó€at€757„58.€€The€court€concluded€that€the€indictment€was€not€a€sufficient€charge€toÏplace€the€accused€upon€notice€as€to€the€facts€he€was€called€upon€to€defend.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àLikewise,€the€presentment€in€the€case€at€bar€stated€only€that€the€DefendantÏhad€made€material€false€statements€with€the€intent€to€deceive€while€under€oath€asÏa€witness€at€the€trial€of€Robert€Miller.€€œWe€do€not€believe€that€this€presentmentÏsufficiently€identifies€ð ðthe€matter€on€which€the€perjury€is€assigned.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„13„213(b).€€By›€not€identifying€the€allegedly€false€statements€with€moreÏcertainty,€the€presentment€did€not€sufficiently€place€the€Defendant€upon€notice€as€toÏthe€facts€against€which€he€was€called€upon€to€defend.€€Accordingly,€we€can€onlyÏconclude€that€the€presentment€was€fatally€defective€in€that€it€did€not€allege€sufficientÏfacts€to€identify€the€offense€for€which€the€Defendant€was€being€prosecuted.€€As€aÍresult,€we€must€reverse€the€Defendantððs€conviction€and€dismiss€the€presentmentÏagainst€him.œ× ƒ8 ××  ×›ÌÌà àIn€the€interest€of€complete€appellate€review,€we€will€briefly€consider€theÏDefendantððs€remaining€issues€even€though€the€first€issue€is€dispositive.€€In€hisÏsecond€issue,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€evidence€was€legally€insufficient€toÏsupport€the€verdict.€€He€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€in€three€ways:€(1)Ïthat€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€prove€that€he€knowingly€testified€falsely€atÏRobert€Millerððs€trial;€(2)€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€prove€that€any€falseÏstatements€he€made€at€Robert€Millerððs€trial€were€material;€and,€(3)€that€the€evidenceÏwas€insufficient€in€that€it€did€not€negate€the€defense€of€retraction.ÌÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€theÏstandard€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏprosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€theÏcrime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979).€ÏQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€beÏgiven€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence,€areÍresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,€623Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€Nor€may€this€court€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€ÏòòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€ÌÌà àA€jury€verdict€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€Stateððs€witnesses€andÏresolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476Ï(Tenn.€1973).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€ofÏthe€evidence€and€all€inferences€therefrom.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€ÏBecause€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€itÏwith€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused€has€the€burden€in€this€court€of€illustratingÏwhy€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact.€ÏòòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€òòGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€476.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€was€charged€with€aggravated€perjury.€€Aggravated€perjury€isÏdefined€as€follows:€ð ðA€person€commits€an€offense€who,€with€intent€to€deceive:€(1)Ï[œc]ommits›€perjury€as€defined€in€ðð€39„16„702;€(2)€[t]he€false€statement€is€made€duringÏor€in€connection€with€an€official€proceeding;€and€(3)€[t]he€false€statement€is€material.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„703(a).€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„16„702Ïdefines€perjury,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:€ð ðA€person€commits€an€offense€who,Ïwith€intent€to€deceive:€(1)€œMakes›€a€false€statement,€under€œoath€.›€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„16„702(a)(1).€€ð ðStatementðð€is€defined€as€ð ðany€representation€of€fact.ðð€ÍTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„701(4).€€ð ðOfficial€proceedingðð€is€defined€as€ð ðany€type€ofÏadministrative,€executive,€judicial,€or€legislative€proceeding€that€is€conducted€beforeÏa€public€servant€authorized€by€law€to€take€statements€under€oath€in€thatÏproceeding.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„701(3).ÌÌà àAfter€reviewing€the€record,€we€believe€œthat›€had€the€presentment€properlyÏalleged€that€the€Defendant€falsely€stated€that€he€could€not€identify€the€individualÏstanding€next€to€Katherine€Leonardððs€car€as€Robert€Miller,€the€evidence€presentedÏwas€legally€sufficient€to€support€his€conviction.€€At€the€trial€of€Robert€Miller,€theÏDefendant€testified€that€he€saw€ð ðsomebodyðð€at€Leonardððs€car.€€According€to€theÏDefendantððs€testimony,€police€officers€asked€him€if€that€individual€was€Robert€Miller,Ïand€he€replied€that€he€could€not€be€sure€because€it€was€dark.€€In€his€swornÏstatement€given€to€Lieutenant€Smith€in€the€early€morning€hours€of€March€28,€1993,Ïimmediately€after€the€incident,€the€Defendant€stated€that€he€did€recognize€theÏindividual€at€Leonardððs€car€as€Robert€Miller.€€Furthermore,€the€Defendant€stated€thatÏhe€exited€Leonardððs€home,€approached€Robert€Miller,€and€actually€spoke€with€him.€ÏMoreover,€the€State€œoffered›€the€testimony€of€Mary€Melissa€Hatfield€at€theÏDefendantððs€trial.€€Hatfield€testified€that€the€Defendant€approached€her€and€told€herÏthat€Robert€Miller€had€burglarized€her€home.ÌÌà àOf€course,€the€Defendant€claimed€that€he€was€so€drunk€at€the€time€of€theÏsworn€statement€to€Lieutenant€Smith€that€he€could€not€remember€what€he€hadÏsaid.€€In€fact,€at€his€trial€he€presented€testimony€from€Roy€œOððNeal›,€who€stated€thatÏhe€observed€the€Defendant€and€Robert€Miller€on€the€night€of€March€27,€1993,€andÏthat€they€were€highly€intoxicated.€€Yet€the€State€offered€testimony€from€police€officersÏthat€the€Defendant€was€coherent€and€cooperative€and€did€not€appear€to€beÏintoxicated.€€The€resolution€of€this€conflicting€testimony€was€a€question€for€the€jury.€ÏWe€believe€that€a€rational€juror€could€have€rejected€the€Defendantððs€explanation€forÏthe€statements€that€contradicted€his€testimony€at€Robert€Millerððs€trial€and€found€thatÏthe€Defendant€knowingly€testified€falsely€regarding€whether€he€had€seen€RobertÏMiller€at€Leonardððs€car€on€the€night€in€question.€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€theÏevidence€would€have€been€legally€sufficient€to€support€the€conviction€forÏaggravated€perjury€had€the€presentment€properly€charged€the€Defendant.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€also€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€prove€thatÏany€false€statements€he€made€at€Robert€Millerððs€trial€were€material.€€He€assertsÏthat€any€discrepancies€between€his€testimony€at€trial€and€his€statements€to€policeÏwere€insignificant.€€In€addition,€he€argues€that€the€evidence€presented€at€his€trial€didÍnot€demonstrate€that€ð ðbut€forðð€a€change€in€his€testimony,€the€result€of€Robert€MillerððsÏtrial€would€have€been€different.× ƒ9 ××  ×ÌÌà àA€conviction€for€aggravated€perjury€requires€that€the€false€statement€beÏmaterial.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„703(a)(3).€€The€statutory€œlanguage›Ïconcerning€perjury€defines€ð ðmaterialðð€as€meaning€that€ð ðthe€statement,€irrespective€ofÏits€admissibility€under€the€rules€of€evidence,€òòcould€have€affectedóó€the€course€orÏoutcome€of€the€official€proceeding.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„701(1)€(emphasisÏadded).€€The€allegedly€false€representation€made€by€the€Defendant€at€RobertÏMillerððs€trial€concerned€the€identification€of€Miller€as€the€perpetrator€of€the€burglary€ofÏthe€Hatfield€residence.€€Aside€from€the€Defendantððs€identification€of€Miller,€the€StateÏhad€no€evidence€directly€linking€Miller€to€the€crime.€€In€fact,€Detective€George€EdenÏspecifically€stated€that€it€was€the€Defendantððs€initial€statements€to€police€thatÏdeveloped€the€case€against€Miller.€€Given€these€circumstances,€we€believe€that€theÏDefendantððs€failure€to€identify€Robert€Miller€at€trial€could€easily€have€affected€theÏoutcome€of€the€proceeding.€€We€therefore€conclude€that€there€was€sufficientÏevidence€presented€at€the€Defendantððs€trial€to€establish€the€materiality€of€hisÏallegedly€false€representation€that€he€could€not€identify€the€individual€at€KatherineÏLeonardððs€car.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€also€argues€that€the€evidence€was€legally€insufficient€in€that€itÏdid€not€negate€the€defense€of€retraction.€€He€contends€that€his€testimony€at€RobertÏMillerððs€trial€constituted€a€retraction€of€a€previous€false€statement,€œnamely,›€his€initialÏstatements€to€police.€€Thus,€he€asserts€that€his€conviction€cannot€stand€given€theÏretraction€defense€available€at€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„16„704.ÌÌà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„16„704€provides€that€it€ð ðis€a€defenseÏto€prosecution€for€aggravated€perjury€that€the€person€retracted€the€false€statementÏòòbefore€completion€of€the€testimony€at€the€official€proceeding€during€which€theÏaggravated€perjury€was€committedóó.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„704€(emphasisÏadded).€€By€its€own€terms,€the€retraction€defense€applies€where€the€aggravatedÏperjury€and€the€retraction€occur€in€the€same€official€proceeding.€€œWe›€do€not€believeÏthat€this€defense€applies€to€the€situation€raised€by€the€Defendant€in€the€presentÏcase,€œthat›€he€initially€made€a€false€statement€to€police€by€identifying€Robert€MillerÏand€then€retracted€that€statement€months€later€at€Robert€Millerððs€trial.€€Given€thatÏwe€have€concluded€that€the€retraction€defense€was€not€applicable€to€theÏDefendantððs€case,€we€need€not€address€whether€there€was€sufficient€evidence€toÏnegate€the€defense.ÌÌà àIn€his€third€issue,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€toÏinstruct€the€jury€on€the€lesser€included€offense€of€œperjury.›× ƒ: ××  ל€€The€record€reveals€thatÏthe€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€only€on€aggravated€perjury.€€The€trial€judgeððsÏproposed€instructions€were€made€available€to€counsel€prior€to€his€giving€the€charge.€ÏPursuant€to€Rule€30€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€the€DefendantÏsubmitted€a€special€request€regarding€several€definitions€involved€in€the€aggravatedÏperjury€instruction.€€He€did€not€submit€a€request€for€an€instruction€on€perjury.ÌÌà àAfter€the€trial€court€had€instructed€the€jury,€the€prosecutor€mentioned€the€lack€ofÏan€instruction€on€simple€perjury.›€€In€response,€the€trial€judge€commented€that€ð ð[t]heÏCourt€charged€that€thereððs€one€offense€indicted€and€one€for€which€they€could€hear.ðð€ÏDefense€counsel€then€noted€an€objection€under€Rule€30(b)€of€the€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Criminal€Procedure€and€submitted€a€handwritten€request€for€an€instruction€onÏperjury.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€request.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€now€contends€that€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€give€anÏinstruction€on€perjury€was€error.€€He€argues€that€an€instruction€on€perjury€wasÏwarranted€in€that€the€jury€could€have€concluded€that€his€false€statement€was€theÏone€given€to€police€officers€rather€than€his€testimony€at€Robert€Millerððs€trial.€€In€thatÍcase,€the€false€statement€would€not€have€been€made€ð ðduring€or€in€connection€withÏan€official€proceedingðð€and€would€therefore€not€qualify€as€aggravated€perjury.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„703(a)(2).€€In€addition,€he€argues€that€a€perjury€instructionÏwas€warranted€œbecause€the›€jury€could€have€concluded€that€any€false€statementÏmade€at€Robert€Millerððs€trial€was€not€ð ðmaterialðð€and€therefore€did€not€qualify€asÏaggravated€perjury.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„703(a)(3).ÌÌà àIt€is€well„established€in€Tennessee€that€the€trial€court€has€the€duty€of€giving€aÏcorrect€and€complete€charge€of€the€law€applicable€to€the€facts€of€the€case€and€theÏdefendant€has€the€right€to€have€every€issue€of€fact€raised€by€the€evidence€andÏmaterial€to€the€defense€submitted€to€the€jury€upon€proper€instructions€by€the€trialÏcourt.€€òòState€v.€œTeel›óó,€793€S.W.2d€236,€249€(Tenn.€1990),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€498€U.S.Ï1007,€111€S.Ct.€571,€112€L.Ed.2d€577€(1990);€òòState€v.€Bryantóó,€654€S.W.2d€389,Ï390€(Tenn.€1983);€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€519€S.W.2d€789,€792€(Tenn.€1975)€(citingÏòòPoe€v.€Stateóó,€212€Tenn.€413,€370€S.W.2d€488€(1963)).€€Moreover,€a€defendant€hasÏa€right€to€a€jury€instruction€on€lesser€grades€or€classes€or€the€charged€offense€asÏwell€as€all€lesser€included€offenses,€if€the€facts€are€susceptible€of€an€inference€ofÏguilt€on€any€of€those€offenses.€€œòòState›€v.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€305,€310€(Tenn.€œ1996);Ïòòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„110(a).›€œ€However,›€œð ð[w]here›€the€evidence€in€a€recordÏclearly€shows€the€defendant€was€guilty€of€the€greater€offense€and€is€devoid€of€anyÏevidence€permitting€an€inference€of€guilt€of€the€lesser€offense,€the€trial€courtððs€failureÍto€charge€on€a€lesser€offense€is€not€error.ðð€€òòState€v.€œStephenson›óó,€878€S.W.2d€530,Ï550€(Tenn.€1994);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€797€S.W.2d€589,€593€(Tenn.€1990),€òòcert.Ïdeniedóó,€498€U.S.€1074,€111€S.Ct.€800,€112€L.Ed.2d€861€(1991).ÌÌà àThe€Defendantððs€first€contention€is€that€an€instruction€on€perjury€wasÏwarranted€œbecause€the›€jury€could€have€concluded€that€his€false€statement€wasÏone€given€to€police€officers€rather€than€his€testimony€at€Robert€Millerððs€trial.€€UnderÏthe€circumstances€of€this€case,€we€do€not€believe€that€this€possibility€entitled€theÏDefendant€to€an€instruction€on€perjury.€€The€Defendantððs€argument€ignores€the€factÏthat€the€presentment€specifically€charged€him€with€making€false€statements€duringÏthe€trial€of€Robert€œMiller.€€Moreover,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€the€ð ðofficialÏproceedingðð€contemplated€by€the€charge€of€aggravated€perjury€in€this€case€wasÏthe€trial€of€Robert€Miller.›€€Thus,€if€the€jury€concluded€that€the€Defendantððs€falseÏstatement€was€one€given€to€police€and€that€he€was€being€truthful€at€Robert€MillerððsÏtrial,€the€jury€would€have€to€find€him€not€guilty,€given€the€specific€charge€in€theÏpresentment.ÌÌà àThe€Defendantððs€argument€would€be€more€persuasive€if€the€presentmentÏhad€charged€him€in€accordance€with€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„16„707.€€That€section€provides€as€follows:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓInconsistent€statements€„„€Except€as€provided€in€ðð€39„16„704€[theÏretraction€defense],€a€charge€of€perjury€that€alleges€the€person€chargedÏhas€made€two€(2)€or€more€statements€under€oath,€any€two€(2)€ofÏwhich€cannot€both€be€true,€need€not€allege€which€statement€is€false€ifÏboth€statements€were€made€within€the€period€of€the€statute€ofÏlimitations.€€At€trial,€the€prosecution€need€not€prove€which€statement€isÏfalse.ÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„707.€€If€the€presentment€had€alleged€that€the€DefendantÏidentified€Robert€Miller€in€his€initial€statement€to€Lieutenant€Smith€œbut€during€MillerððsÏtrial›€represented€that€he€could€not€identify€the€individual€standing€at€KatherineÏLeonardððs€œcar,›€a€jury€instruction€on€perjury€might€very€well€have€been€required.€€InÏsuch€a€case,€if€the€jury€concluded€that€the€testimony€at€Millerððs€trial€was€false€andÏthat€the€false€statement€was€material,€the€offense€would€be€aggravated€perjuryÏbecause€the€false€statement€occurred€during€an€official€proceeding.€€On€the€otherÏhand,€if€the€jury€concluded€that€the€initial€statement€to€police€was€false,€the€offenseÏwould€be€perjury€because€the€false€statement€did€not€occur€during€an€officialÏproceeding.€€Thus,€given€similar€facts€and€circumstances,€an€instruction€on€perjuryÏwould€œhave€been›€œwarranted€had€the€presentment€followed€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€39„16„707.€€Of€course,€the€presentment€in€the€present€case€didÏnot€follow€section€39„16„707.›ÌÌà àThe€Defendantððs€second€contention€is€that€a€perjury€instruction€wasÏwarranted€in€that€the€jury€could€have€concluded€that€any€false€statement€made€atÏRobert€Millerððs€trial€was€not€ð ðmaterial.ðð€€We€agree€that€if€the€jury€concluded€that€anyÍfalse€statement€made€by€the€Defendant€at€Robert€Millerððs€trial€was€not€ð ðmaterial,ððÏthe€Defendant€would€have€been€guilty€of€perjury€rather€than€aggravated€perjury.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„703(a)(3),€„702(a)(1).€€Thus,€an€instruction€on€perjuryÏmight€ordinarily€have€been€warranted.€€Under€the€facts€of€this€case,€however,€weÏdo€not€believe€that€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€instruct€the€jury€on€perjury€was€error.ÌÌà àAs€we€stated€above,€we€are€mindful€of€the€principle€that€where€the€recordÏclearly€shows€that€the€defendant€was€guilty€of€the€greater€offense€and€is€devoid€ofÏany€evidence€permitting€an€inference€of€guilt€of€the€lesser€offense,€the€trial€courtððsÏfailure€to€charge€on€the€lesser€offense€is€not€error.€€òòœStephenson›óó,€878€S.W.2d€at€550;ÏòòBoydóó,€797€S.W.2d€at€593.€€In€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€we€believe€that€the€record€isÏdevoid€of€any€evidence€permitting€an€inference€that€the€Defendantððs€alleged€falseÏstatement€at€Robert€Millerððs€trial€was€immaterial€for€purposes€of€the€offense€ofÏaggravated€perjury.œ× ƒ; ××  ×›€€The€alleged€false€statement€involved€the€identification€of€theÏaccused,€Robert€Miller,€as€the€perpetrator€of€the€burglary€of€the€Hatfield€residence.€ÏThe€Defendantððs€identification€of€Robert€Miller€in€his€initial€statement€was€a€highlyÏsignificant€part€of€the€Stateððs€case€against€Miller€and,€according€to€police,€played€aÏkey€role€in€the€development€of€the€case€overall.€€It€appears€that€the€DefendantððsÍidentification€of€Miller€was€the€only€evidence€directly€linking€Miller€to€the€crime.€€ForÏpurposes€of€the€offense€of€aggravated€perjury,€ð ðmaterialðð€means€ð ðthe€statement,Ïirrespective€of€its€admissibility€under€the€rules€of€evidence,€could€have€affected€theÏcourse€or€outcome€of€the€official€proceeding.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„701(1).€ÏFrom€these€facts,€we€can€only€conclude€that€no€rational€juror€could€have€found€theÏDefendantððs€alleged€false€statement€to€be€immaterial.€€Accordingly,€because€theÏrecord€was€devoid€of€any€evidence€permitting€an€inference€that€the€DefendantððsÏalleged€false€statement€at€Millerððs€trial€was€immaterial€and€therefore€constituted€onlyÏsimple€perjury,€we€believe€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€refusing€to€instruct€the€juryÏon€that€œoffense.ÌÌà àEven€though€we€have€concluded€that€the€trial€judge€did€not€err€by€failing€toÏcharge€the€jury€on€the€lesser€included€offense,€the€better€practice€when€the€questionÏis€close€is€to€charge€the€lesser€included€offenses.€€ð ðHowever€plain€it€may€be€to€theÏmind€of€the€Court€that€one€certain€offense€has€been€committed€and€none€other,€heÏmust€not€confine€himself€in€his€charge€to€that€offense.€€When€he€does€so€heÏinvades€the€province€of€the€jury,€whose€peculiar€duty€it€is€to€ascertain€the€grade€ofÏthe€offense.€€However€clear€it€may€be,€the€Court€should€never€decide€the€facts,€butÏmust€leave€them€unembarrassed€to€the€jury.ðð€€òòPoole€v.€Stateóó,€61€Tenn.€288,€294Ï(1872).›ÌÌà àIn€his€fourth€issue,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€toÏgrant€him€judicial€diversion.€€The€Defendant€was€convicted€of€aggravated€perjury,€aÏclass€D€felony.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„703(c).€€He€was€classified€as€a€Range€IÏstandard€offender€and,€thus,€the€applicable€sentencing€range€was€two€to€fourÏyears.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(4).€€The€trial€court€sentenced€him€to€theÏmaximum€of€four€years,€the€first€two€of€which€were€to€be€served€on€communityÏcorrections€followed€by€two€years€of€probation.€€The€trial€court€also€imposed€a€fineÏof€two€thousand€dollars€($2,000)€and€ordered€the€Defendant€to€perform€200€hoursÏof€community€service€per€year€while€on€community€corrections.ÌÌà àThe€record€indicates€that€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€conducted€on€April€28,Ï1995,€the€Defendant€requested€that€the€trial€court€place€him€on€judicial€diversion.€ÏThe€trial€judge€commented€as€follows:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àWell,€what€do€you€say€to€the€proposition€that€if€persons€comeÏhere€and€search€the€records€to€find€out€how€many€people€have€everÏbeen€convicted€that€lied€in€court€and€came€up€with€the€conclusionÏnone?€€I€donððt€grant€judicial€diversion.€€I€think€itððs€.€.€.€contrary€to€goodÏorder€and€efficient€function€of€the€judicial€system.ÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓDefense€counsel€stated€that€she€wished€to€file€the€motion€for€judicial€diversionÏanyway.€€The€trial€judge€then€denied€the€motion,€briefly€noting€the€pernicious€effectÏof€perjury€on€the€criminal€justice€system€and€making€a€vague€reference€that€heÏð ðœobserve[d›]€from€the€probation€report€that€this€defendant€hasnððt€exactly€been€aÏSunday€School€teacher.ððÌÌà àThe€sentencing€option€commonly€known€as€ð ðjudicial€diversionðð€is€codified€atÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„313.€€Tennessee€courts€haveÏrecognized€the€similarities€between€judicial€diversion€and€pretrial€diversion€and,€thus,Ïhave€drawn€heavily€from€the€case€law€governing€pretrial€diversion€to€analyzeÏcases€involving€judicial€diversion.€€For€instance,€in€determining€whether€to€grantÏpretrial€diversion,€a€district€attorney€general€should€consider€the€defendantððs€criminalÏrecord,€social€history,€mental€and€physical€condition,€attitude,€behavior€since€arrest,Ïemotional€stability,€current€drug€usage,€past€employment,€home€environment,€maritalÏstability,€family€responsibility,€general€reputation€and€amenability€to€correction,€asÏwell€as€the€circumstances€of€the€offense,€the€deterrent€effect€of€punishment€uponÏother€criminal€activity,€and€the€likelihood€that€pretrial€diversion€will€serve€the€ends€ofÏjustice€and€best€interests€of€both€the€public€and€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏWashingtonóó,€866€S.W.2d€950,€951€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Hammersleyóó,€650ÏS.W.2d€352,€355€(Tenn.€1983).€€A€trial€court€should€consider€the€same€factors€whenÏdeciding€whether€to€grant€judicial€diversion.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bonestelóó,€871€S.W.2dÏ163,€167€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€857€S.W.2d€571,€572„573Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Moreover,€a€trial€court€should€not€deny€judicial€diversionÏwithout€explaining€both€the€specific€reasons€supporting€the€denial€and€why€thoseÏfactors€applicable€to€the€denial€of€diversion€outweigh€other€factors€for€consideration.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòBonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€at€168.ÌÌà àIn€addition,€this€Court€applies€ð ðthe€same€level€of€review€as€that€which€isÏapplicable€to€a€review€of€a€district€attorney€generalððs€action€in€denying€pre„trialÏdiversion.ðð€€òòState€v.€Georgeóó,€830€S.W.2d€79,€80€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó,ÏòòBonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€at€168;€òòAndersonóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€572.€€In€other€words,€thisÏCourt€reviews€the€record€to€determine€whether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòBonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€at€168;€òòAndersonóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€572.€€To€find€anÏabuse€of€discretion,€we€must€determine€that€no€substantial€evidence€exists€toÏsupport€the€ruling€of€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòBonestelóó,€871€S.W.2d€at€168;€òòAndersonóó,Ï857€S.W.2d€at€572.ÌÌà àIn€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€the€trial€judge€did€not€sufficiently€explain€his€reasoningÏin€denying€judicial€diversion.€€His€cursory€denial€of€the€Defendantððs€request€wasÏinadequate€in€light€of€the€requirements€set€forth€in€òòBonestelóó€and€òòAndersonóó.€€EvenÏmore€troubling,€however,€are€his€initial€statements€that€he€did€not€grant€judicialÏdiversion€in€perjury€cases€because€it€was€contrary€to€good€order€and€the€efficientÏfunctioning€of€the€judicial€system.€€This€language€is€reminiscent€of€the€situationÏinvolved€in€òòHammersleyóó.ÌÌà àIn€òòHammersleyóó,€the€defendant€was€denied€pretrial€diversion.€€650€S.W.2d€atÏ353.€€The€record€revealed€that,€although€the€defendant€met€the€statutory€eligibilityÍrequirements€for€pretrial€diversion,€the€district€attorney€general€did€not€consider€hisÏindividual€characteristics€in€arriving€at€the€decision€to€deny€diversion.€€Instead,€theÏdistrict€attorney€general€based€the€denial€on€the€fact€that€the€defendant€stoodÏaccused€of€larceny€and€that€larceny€was€a€serious€crime€in€the€county.€€òòId.óó€at€356.€ÏIn€essence,€the€district€attorney€general€had€a€blanket€policy€to€deny€diversion€toÏthose€defendants€accused€of€larceny,€regardless€of€their€personal€characteristics.€ÏòòId.óó€€Our€supreme€court€held€that,€by€failing€even€to€consider€the€defendantððsÏpersonal€eligibility€for€pretrial€diversion,€the€district€attorney€general€had€abused€hisÏdiscretion.€€òòId.óó€at€356„57.ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€it€appears€that€the€trial€court€denied€the€DefendantððsÏrequest€for€judicial€diversion€solely€because€he€had€been€convicted€of€aggravatedÏperjury.€€We€believe€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€consider€the€personal€characteristicsÏof€the€Defendant.€€Certainly€aggravated€perjury€is€a€serious€offense€that€strikes€atÏthe€heart€of€the€judicial€system.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Perryóó,€882€S.W.2d€357,€360Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€As€such,€a€conviction€for€aggravated€perjury€would€inÏand€of€itself€ordinarily€weigh€against€the€granting€of€judicial€diversion.€€The€statutoryÏprovisions€governing€judicial€diversion,€however,€do€not€exclude€defendantsÏconvicted€of€aggravated€perjury€from€consideration.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„313.€€As€a€result,€we€must€conclude€that€the€trial€judge€abused€his€discretion€byÏfailing€even€to€òòconsideróó€the€Defendantððs€personal€eligibility€for€judicial€diversion.€€òòœCf›.óóÍòòHammersleyóó,€650€S.W.2d€at€356„57.€€Thus,€were€we€not€reversing€the€DefendantððsÏconviction€based€on€the€defective€presentment,€we€would€remand€this€case€for€aÏnew€sentencing€hearing.ÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€set€forth€in€the€discussion€above,€we€conclude€that€theÏDefendantððs€first€and€fourth€issues€on€appeal€have€merit.€€We€therefore€reverse€theÏDefendantððs€conviction€and€dismiss€the€presentment€charging€him€with€aggravatedÏperjury.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌœÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€K.€BYERS,€SENIOR€JUDGE