ÿWPCQ 2# ÌUN× %% 0(+U:Sb 0c•w@ø 0‹84Ã׿ 0Jî 0T8 0^Œ 0hê 0rR 0|Ä 0†@ 0Æ 1uV 0dË AQ/ Æ€ 0DF 0@Š 0DÊ B D/+ BZ D3w U>ª U*è B) DC; AM~ 5Ë v~vÓ~˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù-(" „$Ô‡XTXXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó YZ[\]^_D`aÓ€m(;(2$µ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XpƒXXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ƒ‰#ÆìL (3|xm2 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 !"#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó d'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d,,,,7Border 1dd "-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ +Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌò òDecember€10,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€+ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€+ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€F>XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò ò›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€JACKSONÌÙ€ ÙœßR€./-A1-j|%ê` Å `€€@ÿRß›ÌAPRIL€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9505„CR„00154Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€W.€FRED€AXLEYó óÌò òJOSE€HOLMES,ó óà àà àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Direct€Appeal€„€Attempted€FelonyÏà àà àà àà àà àœà à)›à àMurder€„€EspeciallyÏAggravated€à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àRobbery)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌBRETT€B.€STEINà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌ100€N.€Main,€Ste.€3102à àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌMemphis,€TN€€38103à àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àELLEN€H.€POLLACKÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€W.€PIEROTTIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àLEE€COFFEEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à201€PoplarÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38103ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌCONVICTION€FOR€ATTEMPTED€FELONY€MURDER€REVERSED€ANDÌDISMISSED;€CONVICTION€FOR€ESPECIALLY€AGGRAVATED€ROBBERYÏAFFIRMED;€REMANDED€FOR€RE„TRIAL€ON€COUNT€2€OF€THE€INDICTMENT.ÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÓÓò òòòÔ€+„ÔOPINIONó óóóÔ€+XÔÌÓ  ÓÌà àœAppellant›€Jose€Holmes€was€convicted€by€a€jury€in€the€Shelby€CountyÏCriminal€Court€of€attempted€first€degree€murder€and€of€especially€aggravatedÏrobbery.€€He€was€sentenced€as€a€career€offender€to€sixty€years€in€the€Department€ofÏCorrection.€€On€appeal,€Appellant€raises€three€issues:ÌÌÓÓà8 à(1)à8 àWhether€the€trial€courtððs€instruction€to€the€juryÏconcerning€ð ða€reasonable€doubtðð€placed€a€higherÏburden€of€proof€upon€Appellant€than€is€required€by€dueÏprocess€clause?ÌÌà8 à(2)à8 àWhether€the€trial€courtððs€specific€instruction€concerningÏcriminal€responsibility€of€the€conduct€of€another€whenÏcoupled€with€a€general€instruction€on€criminalÏresponsibility€placed€an€undue€prominence€on€that€factÏto€the€prejudice€of€Appellant?à8 àÌÌà8 à(3)à8 àWhether€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€Appellantððs€motion€toÏstrike€his€alias€from€the€indictment€prejudiced€AppellantÏdenying€him€of€the€due€process€of€law?ÌÌà8 àÌÓÓà àAfter€careful€consideration€of€this€matter€we€must€reverse€and€dismiss€theÏconviction€for€attempted€felony€murder.€€Appellantððs€conviction€for€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery€is€affirmed.€€The€case€is€remanded€for€retrial€on€a€charge€ofÏattempted€second€degree€murder€as€alleged€in€Count€2€of€the€indictment.ÌÌà@ àò òI.€FACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óÌà àThe€proof€in€this€matter€shows€that€on€September€27,€1993,€Ms.€MaryanÏElam€was€leaving€a€parking€lot€at€the€Mall€of€Memphis€when€she€was€approachedÏby€two€men€wearing€stocking€masks.€€The€men€approached€œMs.›€Elamððs€car,€pointedÏa€gun€at€her,€and€demanded€that€she€give€them€money.€€When€œMs.›€Elam€refused,Ïthe€man€she€identified€as€Appellant€shot€her€through€the€window€of€her€carÏseriously€injuring€her.€€Appellant€and€his€compatriot€then€stole€$15,000€from€theÏtrunk€of€Ms.€Elamððs€vehicle.€€She€œhad›€just€withdrawn€this€money€from€the€bank€toÏtake€to€her€place€of€business.ÌÌà àThree€other€witnesses€positively€identified€Appellant€as€a€perpetrator€ofÏthese€crimes.€€One€was€a€mall€patron€who€actually€saw€Appellant€shoot€and€robÏMs.€Elam.€€Another€witness€saw€Appellant€fleeing€the€crime€scene.€€The€finalÏwitness€saw€Appellant€run€onto€a€nearby€hotel€property€and€then€toward€anÏundeveloped€area€around€Nonconnah€Creek.€€Approximately€an€hour€after€theÏshooting€and€robbery,€police€found€Appellant€lying€in€thick€brush€near€NonconnahÏCreek€and€near€the€mall.€€Under€his€head€was€the€$15,000€bundle€of€cash€takenÏfrom€Ms.€Elamððs€trunk.€€When€arrested€Appellant€identified€himself€as€ð ðThomasÏSmith.ðð€€It€was€discovered€sometime€later€that€his€name€was€actually€Jose€Holmes.ÌÌà@ àò ò2.€CONVICTION€FOR€ATTEMPTED€FELONY€MURDERó óÌà àNeither€party€to€this€appeal€addressed€the€propriety€of€Appellantððs€havingÏbeen€convicted€of€attempted€felony€murder.€€This€Court€therefore€orderedÏsupplemental€briefing€on€this€issue€in€light€of€our€state€supreme€courtððs€holding€inÏòòState€v.€Kimbroughóó,€924€S.W.2d€888€(Tenn.€1996);€that€attempted€felony€murder€isÏa€crime€which€does€not€exist€in€Tennessee.€€The€State€now€concedes€thatÏAppellantððs€conviction€cannot€stand€in€light€of€òòKimbroughóó.€€We€therefore€reverseÏand€dismiss€Appellantððs€conviction€on€this€charge.ÌÌà àHowever,€this€does€not€end€our€inquiry€regarding€the€charge€of€attemptedÏmurder.€€The€jury€acquitted€Appellant€of€attempted€premeditated€and€deliberate€firstÏdegree€murder€as€charged€in€Count€1€of€the€indictment,€but€the€jury€did€findÏAppellant€guilty€of€attempted€felony€murder€as€charged€in€Count€2.€€AlthoughÏòòKimbroughóó€counsels€us€that€such€an€offense€does€not€exist,€Count€2€alleges€thatÏAppellant€ð ðdid€unlawfully€and€knowingly€attempt€to€killðð€the€victim.€€Count€2€isÏtherefore€sufficient€to€charge€attempted€second€degree€œmurder,›€€òòSeeóó,€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„13„210(a)(1),€and€may€not€be€dismissed€outright.€€However,€the€juryÏinstructions€given€in€this€case,€while€appropriate€in€a€prosecution€for€an€attemptedÏhomicide€based€on€Appellantððs€participation€in€a€felony,€œare€›not€proper€in€aÏprosecution€for€an€attempted€second€degree€murder€prosecution€alleging€thatÍAppellant€ð ðknowinglyðð€attempted€to€kill€the€victim.€€For€the€reasons€discussed€òòinfraóó.,Ïwe€therefore€remand€Count€2€of€the€indictment€to€the€trial€court€for€retrial€onÏcharges€of€attempted€second€degree€murder.ÌÌà@ àò ò3.€JURY€INSTRUCTIONSó óÌà àAppellant€complains€that€the€jury€instructions€given€in€this€case€concerningÏresponsibility€for€the€criminal€conduct€of€another€as€an€aider€and€abettor€areÏimproper.€€The€allegedly€erroneous€instruction€reads€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àWhen€one€enters€into€a€scheme€with€others€toÏcommit€a€robbery€and€an€attempted€murder€ensues,€allÏdefendants€may€be€held€responsible€for€the€attemptedÏmurder,€regardless€of€who€actually€committed€theÏattempted€murder€and€whether€the€attempted€murderÏwas€specifically€contemplated€by€the€others.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àAs€long€as€the€defendant€intended€to€commit€theÏrobbery€and€an€attempted€murder€resulted€during€theÏperpetration€of€or€the€attempt€to€perpetrate€the€robbery,Ïeach€defendant€is€responsible€for€the€attempted€murder,Ïregardless€of€whether€he€intended€for€the€victim€to€die€orÏparticipated€in€the€act€of€attempted€murder.ÌÓÓÌà àRecently€our€state€supreme€court€addressed€the€issue€of€aider€and€abettorÏcriminal€liability€in€the€context€of€multiple€offender€felonies.€€In€òòState€v.€Carsonóó,€950ÏS.W.2d€951,€956€(Tenn.€1997);€the€Court€held€that€the€ð ðnatural€and€probableÏconsequenceðð€rule€applies€to€the€criminal€responsibility€of€one€participant€in€aÍfelony€to€the€acts€committed€by€another€participant.€€Thus,€under€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€Sections€39„11„401,€402,€an€individual€in€a€multiple€offender€felony€isÏresponsible€for€the€criminal€acts€of€any€of€the€other€participants€if€the€individualÏshares€in€the€intent€to€commit€the€primary€felony€and€the€criminal€acts€committed€byÏthe€other€participants€are€the€natural€and€probable€consequence€of€the€commissionÏof€the€primary€felony.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àIt€has€long€been€recognized€that€various€assaultive€offenses€are€the€naturalÏand€probably€consequence€of€armed€robbery€attempts.€€See€e.g.€òòState€v.€Groomsóó,Ï653€S.W.2d€271,€275€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€Thus,€the€instruction€given€in€thisÏcase€cannot€be€said€to€be€entirely€inappropriate€in€a€prosecution€for€an€attemptedÏhomicide€based€on€Appellantððs€participation€in€a€robbery.€€Nonetheless,€such€anÏinstruction€has€no€place€in€a€prosecution€of€Appellant€for€attempted€second€degreeÏmurder€based€on€his€personal€responsibility.€€We€cannot€say€that€absent€thisÏinstruction€a€jury€would€have€nevertheless€convicted€Appellant€of€attemptedÏsecond€degree€murder.€€We€therefore€remand€Count€2€on€the€indictment€for€retrialÏon€the€charge€of€attempt€to€commit€second€degree€murder.ÌÌà àAppellant€also€challenges€the€constitutionality€of€the€jury€instructionÏconcerning€ð ðreasonable€doubtðð.€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€jury:ÌÓÓà8 àà àA€reasonable€doubt€is€a€doubt€based€upon€reason€andÏcommon€sense€after€careful€and€impartial€consideration€of€all€theÏevidence€in€this€case.ÌÌà8 àà àIt€is€not€necessary€that€the€defendantððs€guilt€be€proved€beyondÏall€reasonable€doubt,€an€absolute€certainty€of€guilt€is€not€demandedÏby€the€law€to€convict€of€any€criminal€charge.ÌÌà8 àà àA€reasonable€doubt€is€just€that„„a€doubt€that€is€reasonable€afterÏan€examination€of€all€the€facts€of€this€case.ÌÌà8 àà àIf€you€find€the€State€has€not€proven€every€element€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt,€then€you€should€find€the€defendant€not€guilty.ÌÌÌÓÓAppellant€takes€issue€with€only€the€second€sentence€of€the€charge€which€refers€toÏthe€fact€that€ð ðabsolute€certainty€of€guilt€is€not€demanded.ððÌÌà àIt€is€Appellantððs€position€that€this€instruction€misled€the€jury€by€conveying€thatÏthe€State€has€a€lesser€burden€of€proof€than€is€required€by€due€process.€€òòSeeóó€òòIn€reÏWinshipóó,€397€U.€S.€358,€364€(1970)€(explicitly€holding€that€the€Due€Process€ClauseÏof€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€ð ðprotects€the€accused€against€conviction€exceptÏupon€proof€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€of€every€fact€necessary€to€constitute€theÏcrime€with€which€he€is€chargedðð).€€In€so€arguing,€Appellant€relies€upon€òòCage€v.ÏLouisianaóó,€498€U.€S.€39€91990),€in€which€the€Supreme€Court€held€unconstitutionalÏan€instruction€which€equated€a€reasonable€doubt€with€a€ð ðgrave€uncertaintyðð€and€anÏð ðactual€substantial€doubt.ðð€€The€Court€held€that€when€the€words€ð ðsubstantialðð€andÍð ðgrave,ðð€which€suggest€a€higher€degree€of€doubt€than€œi›œs›€required€under€theÏreasonable€doubt€standard,€are€considered€with€the€instructionððs€reference€toÏð ðmoral€certainty,ðð€the€jury€might€convict€a€defendant€on€less€proof€than€is€requiredÏunder€the€due€process€clause.€€òòIdóó.€at€41.ÌÌà àThe€jury€instruction€at€issue€contains€neither€the€phrase€ððsubstantial€doubtððÏnor€ð ðgrave€uncertaintyðð€nor€ð ðmoral€certainty.ðð€€Indeed,€it€was€as€a€result€of€theÏdecision€in€òòCage€v.€Louisianaóó€that€the€Committee€on€Pattern€Jury€Instructions€wroteÏthis€particular€instruction€to€appear€along€with€the€previous€instruction€whichÏincluded€the€term€ð ðmoral€certainty.ðð€€òòSeeóó€T.P.I.„„Crim.€2.03€(4th€Ed.€1995)Ïcomments.€€In€conclusion,€we€find€that€the€due€process€concerns€addressed€inÏòòCageóó€are€not€present€in€this€instruction€which€adequately€defines€ð ðreasonableÏdoubt.ððÌÌà àMoreover,€Tennessee€Courts€have€repeatedly€held€that€the€traditionalÏreasonable€doubt€instruction€given€in€Tennessee€is€constitutionally€adequate.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€734€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€115€S.€Ct.€909Ï(1995);€òòState€v.€Sextonóó,€917€S.W.2d€263,€266€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòPettyjohn€v.ÏStateóó,€885€S.W.2d€364,€366€(Tenn.€Crim.€œApp.€1994),›€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994);ÏòòState€v.€Hallockóó,€875€S.W.2d€285,€294€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó,Í(Tenn.€1994);€òòMarshall€v.€Stateóó,€528€S.W.2d€823,€825€(Tenn.€Crim.€œApp.€1975),›€òòcertóó.Ïòòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1975).ÌThat€instruction€states:ÌÓÓà8 àà àReasonable€doubt€is€that€doubt€engendered€by€anÏinvestigation€of€all€the€proof€in€the€case€and€an€inability,€after€suchÏinvestigation,€to€let€the€mind€rest€easily€as€to€the€certainty€of€guilt.€ÏReasonable€doubt€does€not€mean€a€captious,€possible€or€imaginaryÏdoubt.€€Absolute€certainty€of€guilt€is€not€demanded€by€the€law€toÏconvict€of€any€criminal€charge,€but€moral€certainty€is€required,€and€thisÏcertainty€is€required€as€to€every€proposition€of€proof€requisite€toÏconstitute€the€offense.ÌÓÓÌà àWe€recognize€that€one€federal€district€court€has€concluded€that€a€similarÏinstruction€suggested€a€standard€of€proof€lower€than€due€process€allows,€primarilyÏreferring€to€the€ð ðmoral€certaintyðð€language.€€See€òòRickman€v.€Duttonóó,€864€F.€Supp.Ï686,€708„09€(M.D.€Tenn.€1994).€€However,€the€United€States€Court€of€Appeals€forÏthe€Sixth€Circuit€has€held€that€the€traditional€reasonable€doubt€instruction€quotedÏabove€is€constitutionally€sound.€€òòAustin€v.€Bellóó,€___€F.3d€___,€1997€WL€602670€(6thÏCir.€1997).ÌÌà àThus,€while€the€instruction€on€reasonable€doubt€actually€given€the€jury€wasÏconstitutionally€adequate€it€does€not€enjoy€the€long€lineage€and€venerability€of€theÏtraditional€reasonable€doubt€instruction.€€Reasonable€doubt€is€so€fundamental€aÍconcept€to€our€system€of€criminal€justice€that€the€understanding€of€it€should€not€varyÏfrom€court€to€court.€€Trial€court€should€return€to€the€traditional€instruction.̛̜à@ àò ò4.€USE€OF€ALIAS€IN€THE€INDICTMENTó óÌà àIn€each€of€his€indictments,€Appellant€was€referred€to€as€ð ðJose€Holmesðð€(alsoÏknown€as€Thomas€œSmith).›€€Appellant€contends€that€informing€the€jury€ð ðon€the€frontÏend€by€virtue€of€an€indictmentðð€that€he€used€an€alias€ð ðplants€in€the€jurorsðð€minds€thatÏthere€is€something€wrong€with€[him]€because€he€wouldnððt€otherwise€use€anotherÏname.ðð€€In€a€pre„trial€oral€motion€which€the€trial€court€denied,€Appellant,€claimingÏundue€prejudice,€requested€that€the€trial€court€strike€the€phrase€ðð(also€known€asÏThomas€Smith)ðð€from€the€indictments.ÌÌà àAppellant€acknowledges€the€well„established€law€of€Tennessee€that€proof€ofÏa€defendantððs€use€of€an€alias€supports€its€inclusion€in€the€indictment.€€òòState€v.ÏZirkleóó,€910€S.W.2d€874,€887€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòYoung€v.€Stateóó,€566€S.W.2dÏ895,€899€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978)€(stating€that€one€who€misidentifies€himself€toÏpolice€officers€has€no€legitimate€complaint€if€an€alias€is€used€on€the€indictment).€ÏHere,€the€record€reflects€that€Appellant€identified€himself€to€the€police€using€theÏname€ð ðThomas€Smith.ðð€€Even€if€no€such€proof€existed€and€the€inclusion€of€the€aliasÏwere€erroneous,€the€error€does€not€warrant€a€reversal€unless€is€can€be€shown€thatÍthe€defendant€was€prejudiced.€€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€540€(Tenn.Ï1994).€€Because€of€the€overwhelming€amount€of€proof€incriminating€Appellant,Ïthere€is€no€prejudice€in€this€case.€€See,€òòState€v.€Laneyóó,€654€S.W.2d€383,€386€œ(Tenn.Ï1983)›€€(erroneous€inclusion€of€defendantððs€alias€in€indictment€was€not€prejudicialÏwhere€stateððs€evidence€clearly€established€defendantðð€guilty),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€464ÏU.S.€1003€(1983).ÌÌà àDespite€Appellantððs€acknowledgment€of€the€applicable€law€with€respect€toÏthis€issue,€he€insists€that€the€precise€issue€that€he€raises€has€not€been€previouslyÏaddressed,€that€is,€whether€the€inclusion€of€an€alias€in€the€indictment€violates€theÏdue€process€clause€by€eroding€Appellantððs€presumption€of€innocence.€€In€supportÏof€this€argument,€Appellant€cites€as€analogous€the€obviously€improper€situation€ofÏalleging€in€the€indictment€that€a€defendant€has€confessed€to€the€crime.€€However,ÏAppellant€apparently€misperceives€the€nature€of€an€indictment€which€is€defined€byÏstatute€as€ð ðan€accusation€in€writing€.€.€.€charging€a€person€with€an€indictableÏoffense.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„13„101(a)€(1990).€€While€charging€someone€withÏan€offense€does€not€require€a€recitation€of€the€proof€against€that€person,€it€doesÏrequire€a€clear€designation€of€the€person€who€is€charged.€€Recognizing€this€fact,ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„13„203€provides€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àCertainty€as€to€person€charged.„„The€indictment€must€beÏcertain€as€to€the€person€charged;€but€when€œ[his]›€name€isÍunknown€to€the€grand€jury,€it€may€be€so€alleged€withoutÏfurther€identification,€or€œ[he]›€may€be€indicted€under€anyÏname€by€which€œ[he]›€is€generally€know.ÌÓÓÌThe€record€is€unclear€as€to€the€point€at€which€Appellantððs€real€name€wasÏdiscovered,€but€at€the€time€of€his€arrest,€Appellant€was€known€to€the€officer€by€hisÏalias.€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€purpose€of€the€indictment€was€best€servedÏby€the€inclusion€of€Appellantððs€alias.ÌÌà àLastly,€we€point€out€that€appellant€has€not€cited€any€legal€authority€for€theÏproposition€that€the€inclusion€of€an€alias€in€the€indictment€unconstitutionallyÏdetracts€from€his€presumption€of€innocence.€€While€ð ð[t]he€presumption€of€innocenceÏ.€.€.€is€a€basic€component€of€a€fair€trial€under€our€system€of€criminal€justice,ðð€we€findÏno€specific€case€which€is€either€on€point€or€which€lends€support€by€analogy€toÏAppellantððs€argument.€€òòEstelle€v.€Williamsóó,€425€U.S.501,€503€(1976);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòStateÏv.€Bradenóó,€874€S.W.2d€624,€626€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòWillocks€v.€Stateóó,€546ÏS.W.2d€819,€820€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).€€We€therefore€find€that€Appellant€was€notÏdeprived€of€the€due€process€of€law€by€the€inclusion€of€his€alias€in€the€indictment.ÌÌà àIn€summary,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€finding€Appellant€guilty€ofÏattempted€felony€murder€is€reversed€and€dismissed.€€The€judgment€of€conviction€forÍespecially€aggravated€robbery€is€affirmed.€€Count€2€of€the€indictment€is€remandedÏfor€trial€on€a€charge€of€attempted€second€degree€murder.ÌÓÓœ›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCURÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌ____________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGE