WPC0 K`3#'=$i)kɆ:Fu;#nR7lE!x^gY Ho IK{ bY ,YWS;Ȫȯ6`J=Neӹ"s::J65H'#}S ܯM<_ZCo-$eV,;&VYC!-rM(%JnQ^fI@ VNj"FFTLcP(y*@Js}R66i:0zDl5vMOYiQ.p Ƙd+rAٴA-l\XOcH) LʱAY]8XՐ{krA"LQ)ZS&@(Rl?=rIN f_etTCt(n(?>5U.١7aXiߺ?a17X׸6l(i#P\6̬RjܹD`#!@UNa % 0YU, ^ : wF 4J ^ m mo < 0  0DU:U:UN-Hhf,................................................................. AQ. B-/ 0uJ/ 0u/ 0D4040 D3x0HP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$X:sXXXUSUS.,,  AZArial Тd'L @q'@؝3|xU 2  3$X;XXXUSUS.,T@R[A' LegalX3' Letter A' Legal3'T4X   2    _$XX;IwouldalsodisagreewiththeholdingofapanelofourcourtinStatev.Elder,982S.W.2d `  817(Tenn._Crim_.App.1998),whereinthetrialcourtrefusedtochargeattemptedvoluntary (  manslaughter,concludingtherewasno"evidenceinmyjudgmentthatthejurycouldpossiblyhave   usedtofindprovocationsufficientunderthestatutetojustifyachargeofattemptedvoluntary  X manslaughter."Thepaneldetermined,afterareviewoftherecord,thatanargumentbetweenthe   victimandthedefendantcouldnotqualifyasa"stateofpassion,"asdefinedbyTenn.CodeAnn. H  3913211,whentherehadbeenanintervaloffourandonehalfhoursbeforeashooting.Inmyview,  thetrialcourtinElderencroachedupontheprovinceofthejurybyreturningthechargeandno x appellatecourtshouldhavetheprerogativetoestablishanarbitrarystandardwithinwhichpassions @ mustnecessarilysubside.SeeTennesseeConstitution,art.I,6,9,and19stating"thejuryshall h  havetherighttodeterminethelawandthefacts." 0  ((21$ !XXXXUSUS.,  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T4X   0  (#$  0   ,  AZ"Arial Regular,  AZ"Arial Regular ##CXd#   3$X;XXXUSUS.,T@R[A' LegalX3' Letter A' Legal3'T4X   1    _$XX;In_Schad_Ԁv.Arizona,501U.S.644(1991),theSupremeCourtnotedthattheaimoftherule `  establishedinBeckv.Alabama,447U.S.625(1980),was"toeliminatethedistortionofthefactfinding (  processthatiscreatedwhenthejuryisforcedintoanallornothingchoice."_Schad_Ԁv.Arizona,501   U.S.at648.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 >  3$X;XXXUSUS.,T@R[A' LegalX3' Letter A' Legal3'T4X   3    _$XX;$$SeeStatev._Staggs_,554S.W.2d620(Tenn.1977)(apartoftheconstitutionalrighttotrialby `  juryistohaveeveryissuemadebytheevidencedeterminedbythejuryunderacorrectandcomplete (  chargeofthelaw);_Strader_Ԁv.State,362S.W.2d224(Tenn.1962).Recentcasesstatingrulethat   failuretochargelesseroffenseisaconstitutionaldeprivationrelyonStatev.Wright,618S.W.2d310  X (Tenn._Crim_.App.1981)(JoeD.Duncan,Judge),andincludethefollowing:Statev._Belser_,945   S.W.2d776(Tenn._Crim_.App.1996);Statev.Howard,926S.W.2d579(Tenn._Crim_.App.1996); H  Statev._Summerall_,926S.W.2d272(Tenn._Crim_.App.1995);Statev._Ruane_,912S.W.2d766(Tenn.  _Crim_.App.1995);Statev.Lewis,919S.W.2d62(Tenn._Crim_.App.1995);Statev.Boyce,920 x S.W.2d224(Tenn._Crim_.App.1995);Statev.King,905S.W.2d207(Tenn._Crim_.App.1995);Statev. @ _McKnight_,900S.W.2d36(Tenn._Crim_.App.1994);Statev.Vance,888S.W.2d776(Tenn._Crim_. h  App.1994);Statev.Banes,874S.W.2d73(Tenn._Crim_.App.1993);Statev.RichardDarrellMiller 0  andJohnnyWayneGarner,_C.C.A_ԀNo.01C019703CC00087(Tenn._Crim_.App.,atNashville,Sept.   11,1998);Statev.GeorgeRose,C.C.A.No.02C019710CR00405(Tenn._Crim_.App.,atJackson, `  July2,1998);Statev.HarveyPhillipHester,C.C.A.No.03C019704CR00144(Tenn._Crim_.App.,at (  Knoxville,June4,1998);Statev.BeckyDavis,C.C.A.No.03C019701CR00027(Tenn._Crim_.App., P  atKnoxville,May1,1998);Statev.WillieD.Graham,C.C.A.No.03C019707CC00314(Tenn._Crim_.   App.,atKnoxville,May7,1998);Statev.WarrenTyroneFowler,C.C.A.No.03C019709CC00391   (Tenn._Crim_.App.,atKnoxville,Apr.29,1998);Statev.Harvey_D'Hati_ԀMoore,C.C.A.No.03C01 H  9704CR00131(Tenn._Crim_.App.,atKnoxville,Mar.18,1998);Statev.DanielJoeBrown,C.C.A. p No.02C019611CC00385(Tenn._Crim_.App.,atJackson,Dec.3,1997);Statev.MichaelTyrone 8 Gordon,C.C.A.No.01C019606CR00213(Tenn._Crim_.App.,atNashville,Sept.18,1997);Statev.  GeorgeBrooks,C.C.A.No.02C019602CR00050(Tenn._Crim_.App.,atJackson,May15,1997); h Statev.Janice_Hansbrough_Ԅ_Eason_,C.C.A.No.02C019504CR00098(Tenn._Crim_.App.,at 0 Jackson,Dec.19,1996);Statev.HollisRayWilliams,C.C.A.No.03C019406CR00209(Tenn. X _Crim_.App.,atKnoxville,July23,1996);Statev.RandallScott,C.C.A.No.01C019307CR00240   (Tenn._Crim_.App.,atNashville,Jan.5,1996);Statev.Deborah_Gladish_,C.C.A.No.02C019404CC  00070(Tenn._Crim_.App.,atJackson,Nov.21,1995);Statev.EricJ.Fair,C.C.A.No.02C019403 P CR00055(Tenn._Crim_.App.,atJackson,Nov.15,1995). x #$$# \ [^%"XXXXUSUS.,  _XXXXv&XX   Ad FILEDμv&  November4,1999Cecil_Crowson_,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdA Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5[\]_C<<C d(M3^%$ !XXXXUSUS.,  (M3^%$ !XXXXUSUS.,  ($$   1  ZZZZ'dxd !XXXXUSUS.,  _TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T` 4XXXXXz_vY_@0,j: `@E tt( \v__@Z Z  INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE   @*ATKNOXVILLE@(JULY1999SESSIONSTATEOFTENNESSEE, @0) <` @0)  NO.03C019806CC00215  (L   Appellee,@0) 8  @0)  ANDERSONCOUNTY     VS. @0)   @0)  HON.JAMESB.SCOTT,   CURTISJ.ELY, @0)  JUDGE    @0) Appellant.@0)  (FelonyMurderLifeSentence#XXXX#XXXX)  #XXXX#@'DISSENTINGOPINION Bf   Somerecentdecisionsfromthesupremecourtmakeitdifficulttoquarrelwiththeanalysisintheleadopinionontheissueofwhetherthetrialcourtfailedtoprovidethejurywithinstructionsonthelesseroffensesofseconddegreemurder,recklesshomicide,orcriminallynegligenthomicide.Statev.Trusty,919 r# S.W.2d305,31011(Tenn.1996).JudgeRileyconcludesthatthereisnoerrorforthefailuretoinstructonalesseroffensewhentherecord"clearlyshowsthatthedefendantwasguiltyofthegreateroffense,andtherecordisdevoidofanyevidencepermittinganinferenceofguiltofthelesseroffenses."Slipop.at14(quotingStatev.Langford,994S.W.2d126,12628(Tenn.1999).Theleadopinion n,!% alsoreliesuponStatev.Vann,976S.W.2d93(Tenn.1998),whereinoursupreme :.^#' courtruledthatthetrialcourtdidnoterrbyfailingtogiveajuryinstructiononseconddegreemurderorfacilitationofafelonywhenalloftheproofofferedestablishedthatthevictimhadeitherbeenkilledduringtheperpetrationofarape,diedfromanaccidentalchoking,orhadcommittedsuicide.IntheVannopinion,our j5*/ supremecourtruledthat"thiscaseisdevoidofevidencetosupportajurychargeontheoffensesofseconddegreemurderandfacilitationofafelony."Id.at101.By 9&.3 theuseofthatauthority,JudgeRileyhasdeterminedinthiscasethattheevidence :/5 z 8aXXdXXd8   wouldnothavebeensufficienttosupportanyofthelesseroffenses. `    Inhisconcurringopinion,JudgeWellespointsoutaflawinthat   rationale.RelyingonStatev.Cleveland,959S.W.2d548(Tenn.1997),hebelieves  thattrialcourtsareunderadutyto"instructthejuryonalllessergradesorclasses  ofoffensesandalllesserincludedoffensesiftheevidencewillsupportaconviction `  forthoseoffenses....[A]llowingconsiderationofthelesserincludedoffensesand @  the...lessergrades...,iftheevidencesupportsguiltonthoseoffenses,moreevenly   balancestherightsofthedefenseandtheprosecutionandservestheinterestsof ` justice.Id.at553.JudgeWellesnotonlypointsoutthattheproofofferedinthis @ case___would_Ԁhavebeensufficienttosupportthelesseroffensesbuthealsoillustrates   potentialdamagetotheinterestsofthestatewhenthetrialjudgedeniesarequest  forinstructionsonlessercrimes. #  1      ׀InStatev.Bolden,979S.W.2d587(Tenn.1998),  forexample,thedefendant,whowaschargedwithpremeditatedfirstdegree !` murder,waswillingtogambleonan"allornothing"verdictbyaskingthetrialjudge #@ nottochargethelesserincludedoffenseofseconddegreemurder;thetrialjudge %  refusedandthedefendantwasconvictedonthatlessercrime.Whileoursupreme `'  courtaffirmedtheseconddegreemurderconviction,itsopinionemphasizedthe @)" mandateofthestatuterequiringtrialcourtsto"instructthejuryonalllesseroffenses  +!$ iftheevidenceintroducedattrialislegallysufficienttosupportaconvictionofthe -#& lesseroffense."Id.at593.InBolden,oursupremecourtacknowledgedthata .%( "purposeofthestatuteistoprotecttherighttotrialbyjurybyinstructingthejuryon 0`'* theelementsofalloffensesembracedbytheindictment[andto]facilitate[]the 2@), overalltruthseekingfunctionoftheprocess."Id.at593. `    Inthiscase,theevidencepresentedmighthaveallowedthejuryto   inferthatthedefendantwasnotinvolvedintherobberyofthevictimbutknowingly  participatedinthekillingofthevictim.Thecircumstances,inmyview,wouldhave  atleastwarrantedaninstructiononseconddegreemurder.Ibelievethatunderour `  system,itisthedutyofthejurytoassessthefactsandcircumstances,weighthe @  credibilityofthewitnesses,anddrawtheirowninferencesfromtheevidence   presentedattrial.SeeWrightv.State,549S.W.2d682(Tenn.1977);Johnsonv. ` State,397S.W.2d170,1974(1965).While,asJudgeWellesindicates,thatmay @ nothavemadeadifferenceinthiscase,thefunctionofthejuryissoimportant,in   myopinion,thatthereshouldbeastrictharmlesserroranalysis.    MyparticularconcernabouttheconcurringopinionofJudgeWellesis !` hisrelianceuponStatev.Williams,977S.W.2d101(Tenn.1998),toadequately #@ assesstheeffectoftheerror.  #  2      ׀InWilliams,oursupremecourtrecognizedthatthe %  trialcourthaderredbyfailingtochargevoluntarymanslaughterwheninstructions `'  hadbeengivenonfirstdegreepremeditatedmurderandseconddegreemurder. @)" Nonetheless,amajorityofthesupremecourtruledthatthefailuretosoinstruct  +!$ violatedonlythestatuteandthattherequirementtochargelesserincludedoffenses -#& wasnotbasedonaconstitutionalrighttotrialbyjury.Inconsequence,themajority `  opinionrejectedtheconstitutionalerroranalysisandinsteadadoptedthestandard @  providedinRule52oftheTennesseeRulesofCriminalProcedure:   8 8 (# (#(a)HarmlessError.Nojudgmentofconvictionshallbe  reversedonappealexceptforerrorswhichaffirmatively  appeartohaveaffectedtheresultofthetrialonthe  merits.p   8 8 (# (#(b)PlainError.Anerrorwhichhasaffectedthe P  substantialrightsofanaccusedmaybenoticedatany @  time,eventhoughnotraisedinthemotionforanewtrial 0  orassignedaserroronappeal,inthediscretionofthe   appellatecourtwherenecessarytodosubstantialjustice.p  (Emphasisadded). P   JudgeWellessuggeststhattheburdenplacedupontheappealing  partytoshowthat"theerrormoreprobablythannotaffectedthejudgment"isso  onerousthatareversalwouldrarelyresultforthefailuretochargealesser_offense._  p SeeStatev.Williams,977S.W.2dat105. "P   Sometimestheegregiousnessofthefactsobscurethelegitimacyofa p& legalissue.Asunlikelyasitmayhavebeeninthiscaseforthejurytoaccreditany P(! theoryofferedbythedefense,thetrialjudgehadatleastthestatutorydutyto 0* # instructthejurybecausetheproofwouldhavebeensufficienttosupportasecond ,"% degreemurder: -$' 8 8 (# (#Itisthedutyofalljudgeschargingjuriesincasesof /p&) criminalprosecutionsofanyfelonywhereintwoormore 0`'* gradesorclassesofoffensemaybeincludedinthe 1P(+ indictment,tochargethejuryastoallofthelaweach 2@), offenseincludedintheindictment,withoutanyrequest 30*- onthepartofthedefendanttodoso.4 +.  Tenn.CodeAnn.4018110(emphasisadded).AsearlyasMcGowanv.State, `6-0 17Tenn.84(1836),oursupremecourtdeterminedthatthisstatutorymandateis @8.2 foundedinthetermsofourstateconstitution.Anumberofdecisionssincesupport `  thatview. #  3      ׀InBolden,decidedshortlyafterWilliams,oursupremecourtruledthat @  thefailuretoinstructonalesseroffenseshouldbesubjecttoerroranalysisunder   theconstitutionalstandardofharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.Itiswhenthe  recordispracticallydevoidofanyevidenceofalesseroffensethattheerroris  harmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.Whilethatisanimprecisestandard,itplaces `  theburdenappropriatelyuponthestatetoassurethattherewasnotan @  impermissibleinvasionofthejury'sroleasfactfinder.Becausetheevidencehere   wouldhavesupportedaconvictionforseconddegreemurder,thejuryshouldhave ` receivedinstructionsonthatoffense.Icannotsaythattheerrorwasharmless @ beyondareasonabledoubt.Thejuryshouldhavebeenallowedthechoicebetween   felonymurderandseconddegreemurder.      Ithereforedissent. `     <      D __________________________________      <      D GaryR.Wade,PresidingJudge