ÿWPC¯ ¿OÈò*B MÌŠê=ŒÐ× /]LYBªÑ-¬V›$ÞÜo6ÎÏï±6d+îEæÔß½;•ñb#Á\ % N# 0ˆ% UN­ ­ ­ zû Òu zG ÒÁ ^ “ wŸ Æ£ Æi Æ/Æõ4»NÏÑàEâ mä AŸûšššššššššššššššššššššb¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ 0몪ªª B•• 0¤² D5V D-‹ 0K¸¸ ASÆV 0¤ 0DÀ A«˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular ˜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.wpt ˜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.wpt!”œ)â Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5•jW)ì¼§k1à3ª3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀX[Z‘ I&mage <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK - ù-(|G2Èþ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€B»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô÷åò»»Ô d(|3G„$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€B»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G„$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€B»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€B»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼B»»»ÔÑ8€XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îI\BÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼B»îîI\ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAugust€22,€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XX»¼BÔÌò òÔ#†¼B»XX#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€CORNELIUS€MICHAEL€HYDEòòóóÔ‡XX»¼BÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Ô_ÔBlountÔ_Ô€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€C„10230€€€€€€D.€Kelly€Thomas,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2000„00042„CCA„R3„CD€Ð ¥õ  ÐDecember€28,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÌÓäÓò òó óòòÓ  ÓJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ô,Ô#†¼B»àX“#ÔÔ‡XX.¼BÔ€J.óó,€concurring€and€dissenting.òòóóÐ d´ ÐÌÌÓ Óò òó óÔ#†¼B»XXj#ÔòòóóÓ  ÓÔ€XX»¼BÔ€€€€€€€€€€€€I€concur€in€the€reasoning€and€most€of€the€results€reached€in€the€majority€opinion.€€I€departÐ (x Ðonly€in€my€opinion€that€the€failure€to€instruct€on€aggravated€assault€constitutes€reversible€error.Ð d ÐÌà  àFirst,€I€believe€that€we€need€to€begin€by€recognizing€the€significance€of€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔDuckerÔ_Ôóó,€27Ð ì< ÐS.W.3d€889€(Tenn.€2000),€in€the€extent€that€it€limits€the€culpable€mental€state€of€ð ðknowingðð€neededÐ Ø( Ðfor€the€offense€of€child€abuse.€€The€offense€of€child€abuse€is€committed€by€a€ð ðperson€who€knowingly,Ð Ä Ðother€than€by€accidental€means,€treats€a€child€under€eighteen€(18)€years€of€age€in€such€a€manner€asÐ ° Ðto€inflict€injury€or€neglects€such€a€child€so€as€to€adversely€affect€the€childððs€health€and€welfare.ðð€Ð œì ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„15„401(a).€€In€òòÔ_ÔDuckerÔ_Ôóó,€the€defendantððs€two€young€children€died€after€beingÐ ˆØ Ðleft€in€their€car€seats€in€the€car€for€more€than€eight€hours€during€hot€weather.€€Convicted€ofÐ tÄ Ðaggravated€child€abuse,€the€defendant€argued€that€the€òòmensóó€òòÔ_ÔreaÔ_Ôóó€of€ð ðknowingðð€applied€to€the€injuryÐ `° Ðprong€as€well€as€the€treatment€and€neglect€prongs€of€the€child€abuse€statute.€€However,€our€supremeÐ L œ Ðcourt€disagreed,€concluding€that€the€ð ðmens€Ô_ÔreaÔ_Ô€of€ððknowingðð€refers€only€to€the€conduct€elements€ofÐ 8!ˆ  Ðtreatment€or€neglect€of€a€child€under€the€child€abuse€statute,ðð€thus€concluding€that€child€abuse€is€notÐ $"t! Ða€result„of„conduct€offense.€€27€S.W.3d€at€897.€€Ð #`" ÐÌà  àIn€reaching€its€conclusions,€the€supreme€court€viewed€ð ðknowinglyðð€in€the€statute€as€clearlyÐ è$8 $ Ðmodifying€ð ðtreatsðð€and€ð ðneglects,ðð€noting€as€well€that€the€ð ðÔ_ÔactusÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔreusÔ_Ôðð€is€modified€by€the€clauseÐ Ô%$!% Ðð ðððother€than€by€accidental€means.ðððð€The€court€then€stated€the€following:Ð À&"& ÐÌà8  àAccordingly,€the€statute€requires€that€the€act€of€treating€a€child€in€an€abusive€mannerÐ ˜(è#( Ðor€neglecting€the€child€must€be€knowing€conduct.€€For€instance,€[Ô_ÔDuckerÔ_Ô]€must€haveÐ „)Ô$) Ðknowingly€left€or€abandoned€her€children€in€the€car€for€more€than€eight€hours.€€If€theÐ p*À%* Ðdefendant€had€been€unaware€that€her€children€were€present€in€the€car€when€she€leftÐ \+¬&+ Ðher€car€parked€in€front€of€the€hotel,€the€neglect€of€her€children€would€have€beenÐ H,˜', Ðaccidental€or€unknowing.€€Contrary€to€the€defendantððs€assertions,€application€of€theÐ 4-„(-ý¶ ÐÔ_Ômens€rea€to€the€actus€reus€of€this€statute€precludes€this€statute€from€being€a€strictÐ ° Ðliability€statute.€€ÐœìÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àOnce€the€knowing€mens€rea€is€established,€the€next€inquiry€under€the€plainÐ tÄ Ðlanguage€of€the€statute€is€simply€whether€the€child€sustained€an€injury€or,€in€the€caseÐ `° Ðof€child€neglect,€whether€the€child€suffered€an€adverse€effect€to€the€childððs€health€orÐ L œ Ðwelfare.€€The€legislature€has€employed€the€phrases€ð ðso€as€to€injureðð€and€ð ðso€as€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðadversely€affectðð€when€defining€the€injury€aspect€of€the€child€abuse€statute.€€TheseÐ $ t Ðphrases€clearly€indicate€that€if€an€injury€results€from€knowing€abuse€or€neglect,€theÐ  ` Ðactor€has€committed€child€abuse.Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àAs€a€practical€matter,€the€defendantððs€argument€could€render€the€child€abuseÐ Ô$  Ðstatute€ineffectual.€€Defendants€in€child€abuse€cases€could€argue€that,€while€they€inÐ À  Ðfact€knowingly€punished€or€spanked€the€child,€they€did€not€know€harm€would€occur.€Ð ¬ü  ÐWe,€therefore,€reject€the€defendantððs€argument€and€hold€that€the€mens€rea€ofÐ ˜è  Ðð ðknowingðð€refers€only€to€the€conduct€elements€of€treatment€or€neglect€of€the€childÐ „Ô  Ðunder€the€child€abuse€statute€and€conclude€that€the€child€abuse€offenses€are€not€aÐ pÀ Ðresult€ð!ð€of€ð!ð€conduct€offenses.Ð\¬Ð Ð  ÐÌ27€S.W.3d€at€897.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àStrictly€construed,€òòDuckeróó€stands€for€the€proposition€that€no€òòmensóó€òòreaóó€attaches€to€theÐ  \ Ðoccurrence€of€an€injury,€only€to€the€treatment€that€results€in€injury.€€If€such€be€so,€then€the€defendantÐ øH Ðin€the€present€case€would€not€be€entitled€to€a€jury€instruction€on€aggravated€assault.€€This€is€becauseÐ ä4 Ðno€question€exists€about€the€defendant€knowing€he€was€spanking€or€hitting€the€victim.€€Thus,Ð Ð  Ðwhatever€ignorance€or€level€of€awareness€he€claimed€to€have€regarding€the€injuries€that€resulted€fromÐ ¼  Ðhis€spanking€the€victim€would€be€wholly€irrelevant.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àHowever,€several€points€militate€against€such€a€limited€interpretation€of€òòDuckeróó.€€The€firstÐ €Ð Ðpoint€relates€to€the€fact€that€another€part€of€the€child€abuse€statute€refers€to€an€allegation€ð ðthatÐ l¼ Ðunreasonable€corporal€punishment€was€administeredðð€to€a€child€by€a€ð ðparent,€guardian€or€custodian.ðð€Ð X ¨ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„15„401(b)(1).€€The€necessary€implication€by€the€legislatureððs€use€of€theseÐ D!” Ðwords€is€that€reasonable€corporal€punishment€by€a€childððs€parent,€guardian€or€custodian€does€not€fallÐ 0"€  Ðwithin€the€ambit€of€child€abuse.€€To€conclude€otherwise€would€render€a€parentððs€disciplining€a€childÐ #l! Ðby€corporal€punishment€a€thing€of€the€past.€€Bodily€injury€ð ðincludes€a€cut,€abrasion,€bruise,€burn€orÐ $X" Ðdisfigurement;€physical€pain€or€temporary€illness€or€impairment€of€the€function€of€a€bodily€member,Ð ô$D # Ðorgan,€or€mental€faculty.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(a)(2).€€Needless€to€say,€the€discipline€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðspanking€is€intended€to€have€a€painful€result.€€However,€we€also€note€that€a€statute€provides€thatÐ Ì&"% Ðteachers€and€school€principals€ð ðmay€use€corporal€punishment€in€a€reasonable€manner€against€anyÐ ¸'#& Ðpupil€for€good€cause€in€order€to€maintain€discipline€and€order€within€the€public€schools.ðð€€Tenn.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€49„6„4103.€€I€seriously€doubt€that€the€legislature€intended€for€parents,€guardians€andÐ )à$( Ðcustodians€to€be€criminally€liable€for€corporal€punishment€that€would€be€condoned€for€use€by€schoolÐ |*Ì%) Ðprincipals.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àWith€the€existence€of€lawful€corporal€punishment,€what€remains€is€a€consideration€of€whatÐ ° Ðconstitutes€ð ðunreasonable€corporal€punishment.ðð€€Given€the€fact€that€the€nature€of€corporalÐ œì Ðpunishment€is€that€it€is€intentionally€or,€at€least,€knowingly€done,€the€determination€of€reasonablenessÐ ˆØ Ðmust€include€consideration€of€the€actorððs€level€of€awareness€relative€to€the€conduct,€theÐ tÄ Ðcircumstances€surrounding€the€conduct,€and€the€resulting€injury.€€In€this€respect,€I€do€not€believe€thatÐ `° Ða€parent€may€be€held€liable€for€child€abuse€unless€it€is€shown€that€the€parent,€at€least,€should€haveÐ L œ Ðknown€that€the€conduct,€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€conduct€or€the€result€ð!ð€those€matters€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðmake€up€corporal€punishment€ð!ð€€was€unreasonable.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àRelative€to€the€present€case,€a€question€arises€regarding€whether€the€defendant,€who€is€theÐ ü L  Ðlive„in€boyfriend€of€the€victimððs€mother,€is€to€be€considered€a€guardian€or€custodian€of€the€victimÐ è 8  Ðas€those€terms€are€used€in€the€child€abuse€statute.€€When€viewed€as€a€matter€of€fact,€if€the€victimððsÐ Ô$  Ðmother€had€entrusted€the€victim€to€the€defendantððs€care,€then€the€defendant€could€be€said€to€haveÐ À  Ðphysical€custody€of€the€victim.€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€defendant€cannot€be€liable€forÐ ¬ü  Ðreasonable€corporal€punishment€and€the€jury€should€have€been€so€instructed.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€second€point€relates€to€the€fact€that€in€òòDuckeróó,€the€supreme€court€did€not€consistentlyÐ pÀ Ðlimit€the€ð ðknowingðð€òòmensóó€òòreaóó€to€the€òòtreatmentóó€of€the€victim.€€It€€stated€that€ð ðthe€statute€requires€thatÐ \¬ Ðthe€act€of€treating€a€child€òòin€an€abusive€manneróó€.€.€.€must€be€knowing€conduct.ðð€€27€S.W.3d€at€897Ð H˜ Ð(emphasis€added).€€It€also€referred€to€the€injury€resulting€from€ð ðknowing€abuse.ðð€€òòId.óó€€In€other€words,Ð 4„ Ðthe€court€implied€that€more€is€required€than€just€knowing€treatment€of€a€child€that€results€in€injury.€Ð  p ÐHowever,€when€knowing€treatment€constitutes€knowing€abuse€is€left€unstated.€€We€recognize€thatÐ  \ Ðour€supreme€court€has€stated€that€the€child€abuse€statute€should€be€read€in€òòparióó€òòmateriaóó€with€otherÐ øH Ðprovisions€sharing€the€same€subject€matter€and€purpose€and€that€statutory€construction€shouldÐ ä4 Ðinvolve€considering€the€other€statutes.€€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€24€S.W.3d€289,€295„96€(Tenn.€2000).€€In€thisÐ Ð  Ðrespect,€we€note€that€regarding€juveniles€and€juvenile€court€proceedings,€ð ðabuseðð€is€deemed€to€existÐ ¼  Ðð ðwhen€a€person€under€the€age€of€eighteen€(18)€is€suffering€from,€has€sustained,€or€may€be€inÐ ¨ø Ðimmediate€danger€of€suffering€from€or€sustaining€a€wound,€injury,€disability€or€physical€or€mentalÐ ”ä Ðcondition€caused€by€brutality,€neglect€or€other€actions€or€inactions€of€a€parent,€relative,€guardian€orÐ €Ð Ðcaretaker.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„102(b)(1).€€On€the€other€hand,€the€child€abuse€statute€limits€theÐ l¼ Ðresult€to€actual€injury.€€In€this€respect,€a€ð ðknowingðð€abusive€treatment€necessarily€entails€awarenessÐ X ¨ Ðthat€the€risk€of€injury€results€from€the€conduct.€€In€other€words,€by€saying€that€a€defendant€must€knowÐ D!” Ðthat€his€treatment€of€a€child€is€in€an€abusive€manner,€the€supreme€court€necessarily€implies€that€someÐ 0"€  Ðlevel€of€òòóómental€culpability€regarding€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€conduct€and€the€potentialÐ #l! Ðresult€must€exist,€even€if€the€actual€injury€or€its€extent€need€not€be€known€for€the€defendant€to€beÐ $X" Ðguilty€of€child€abuse.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àIn€any€event,€I€believe€that€the€facts€in€the€present€case€would€justify€an€instruction€onÐ Ì&"% Ðaggravated€assault€regarding€the€issue€of€abuse.€€Considering€it€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÐ ¸'#& Ðdefendant,€I€believe€that€the€evidence€would€easily€cast€a€reasonable€doubt€as€to€the€defendantððsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðknowledge€that€his€treatment€of€the€victim€was€abusive.€€Thus,€the€jury€should€have€been€instructedÐ )à$( Ðregarding€aggravated€assault.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àI€believe€that€the€failure€to€instruct€the€jury€regarding€the€next€lesser„included€offense€thatÐ ° Ðthe€evidence€would€support€to€exist€ð!ð€as€opposed€to€the€greater€offense€ð!ð€violates€due€process€andÐ œì Ðthe€state€constitutional€right€to€have€the€jury€determine€what€facts€make€out€what€crime.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð ˆØ ÐConst.€art.€IV,€ðð€9.€€When€the€evidence,€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€lesser„included€offense,Ð tÄ Ðsupports€a€conviction€for€the€lesser€offense,€as€opposed€to€the€greater€offense,€the€failure€of€the€trialÐ `° Ðcourt€to€instruct€on€the€lesser€operates€as€an€improper€determination€by€the€trial€court€as€to€a€matterÐ L œ Ðof€fact.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThus,€the€failure€to€instruct€on€lesser„included€offenses€in€the€present€case€constituted€errorÐ  ` Ðof€a€constitutional€dimension.€€Such€error€places€the€burden€upon€the€party€who€benefitted€from€it,Ð ü L  Ðin€this€case€the€state,€to€show€that€the€error€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€I€do€not€believeÐ è 8  Ðthat€the€state€has€met€its€burden€in€this€case.€€Therefore,€I€would€reverse€the€conviction€and€remandÐ Ô$  Ðthe€case€to€the€trial€court€for€a€new€trial.€€Ð À  Ðò òó óÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð \¬ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGE