ÿWPCû Uc¤uJe-ÌQjzÍùè¶W ›ŸÒëæ@Úã‡_èN[ŸünMŒ0Ô—Ñ‹Ä ‡”v´’ ÌÔ’:q×ã]¦‰Ì¥ ™ØiÞÁ릗Á”&° , zkå©cøšÍA0{‰ ' *« úô<>šOyânœsP¬WÍÌ¡«c 5©ü:2 ÷Áfz”ÖØ'ö[ÈÆ “ø]öDGm‘æàþ(,SÆÈ¬•Ýݲ^CvÉ 4`R¾^‘†Q"³¿Ã`†ª<¼—>¹ÜÈnQ¦d‚-66ÊåPÏîæ¬]Û™l!ÞüèÍ^Ï<°Jƒ붯£èT¡ünö<cèÜØ[Ž=*ô<”‹C* GÖÚÀO¦Œ}BÙFßàˆÜ\[1°o·« @öv¬Á…4N)E+ m-YD#Á 0D^^UN¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢bðððððððððððððððððððððððððððððððððððð 0ëøøøø Bãã 0¤ D3¤ D-× 0K ASOÆ¢ 0¤h 0D  A«P»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpti)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à-ƒC)â Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5q\;'£  \¯£3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ OÝ ƒRÿë$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô<ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔBecause€we€find€merit€in€the€appellantððs€claim€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€the€appellant€a€new€trial,€Ð ° Ðwe€decline€to€examine€the€appellantððs€claims€of€insufficient€evidence.˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular- ù-(|G2ÿë$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€èô»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô<ò»»Ô d(|3¹2$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€èô»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3¹2$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€èô»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€èô»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼èô»»»ÔÑ8€õÓXXdð»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î·ÇèôÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼èô»îî·Ç #ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJune€2000€SessionÐ X ÐÔ‡XõÓX»¼èôÔÌò òÔ#†¼èô»XXõÓ#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€GORDON€SCOTT€KATZÔ‡XõÓX»¼èôÔó óÐ  ` ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€as€of€Right€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Anderson€CountyÐ  h Ðà@@øøìàNo.€95CR0053€€€€€€James€B.€Scott,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ  X ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<×` AßÐ Ø(  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E1999„01220„CCA„R3„CDÐ ×'  ÐOctober€2,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ Ç  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<¶` AßÐ ·  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€appellant,€Gordon€Scott€Katz,€was€found€guilty€by€a€jury€in€the€Criminal€Court€of€AndersonÐ ¶ ÐCounty€of€one€count€of€auto€burglary,€a€class€E€felony,€and€one€count€of€theft€under€$500,€a€classÐ ¦ö ÐA€misdemeanor.€€Subsequently,€the€trial€judge€granted€the€appellantððs€motion€for€judgment€ofÐ –æ Ðacquittal.€€The€State€appealed.€€This€court€reversed€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€of€acquittal€andÐ †Ö Ðremanded€for€further€proceedings.€€The€appellant€then€moved€for€a€new€trial.€€The€trial€court€deniedÐ vÆ Ðthe€appellantððs€motion€for€new€trial,€stating€that€the€opinion€of€this€court€mandated€a€reinstatementÐ f¶ Ðof€the€juryððs€verdict.€€The€appellant€appeals€and€presents€the€following€issues€for€our€review:€(1)Ð V¦ Ðwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€that€the€previous€order€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ F– Ðrequired€denial€of€the€motion€for€new€trial;€(2)€whether€the€indictment€in€this€case€is€fatally€defectiveÐ 6† Ðsuch€as€to€require€dismissal€of€this€charge;€(3)€whether€the€evidence€of€intent€to€commit€a€felony€isÐ &v Ðinsufficient€to€support€the€conviction;€and,€(4)€whether€the€evidence€of€intent€to€deprive€the€ownerÐ f Ðis€insufficient€to€support€the€conviction.€€Upon€review€of€the€record€and€the€partiesðð€briefs,€weÐ V Ðreverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€remand€for€a€new€trial.Ð öF ÐÓ¿ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Reversed€andÐ Ö& ÐRemanded€for€New€Trial.ó óÐ Æ  ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼èô»àXõÓ‚#ÔÔ‡XõÓX.¼èôÔNorma€McGee€Ogle,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayes,óó€and€òòJamesÐ ¦"ö! ÐÔ_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.óó,€J.J.€joined.Ð –#æ" ÐÌNancy€Meyer,€Clinton,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Gordon€Scott€Katz.Ð v%Æ $ ÐÌJohn€Knox€Ô_ÔWalkupÔ_Ô,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€Michael€J.€Ô_ÔFaheyÔ_Ô,€II,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ V'¦"& ÐGeneral,€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General,€Elizabeth€B.€Ô_ÔMarneyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€andÐ F(–#' ÐJan€Hicks,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð 6)†$( ÐÓz ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼èô»XXõÓ© #ÔÔ‡XõÓX»¼èôÔÐ +f&* ÐòòóóÔ#†¼èô»XXõÓ#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XõÓX»¼èôÔà@'' ìàòòò òI.€Factual€Backgroundó óóóˆÐ ,V'+ Ðà  àà ` àOn€September€2,€1994,€the€appellant,€Gordon€Scott€Katz,€argued€with€his€girlfriend,Ð ö,F(, ÐAlicia€Miller,€while€she€was€working€at€the€County€Seat€apparel€store€in€Oak€Ridge€Mall.€€MillerÐ æ-6)-ý Ðasked€the€appellant€to€leave€so€that€she€would€not€get€in€trouble€with€her€supervisor.€€The€appellantÐ ° Ðbecame€agitated,€but€complied.€€Because€Miller€remembered€how€annoyed€the€appellant€had€beenÐ  ð Ðearlier€that€evening,€she€requested€that€mall€security€officers€accompany€her€to€her€car€after€she€leftÐ à Ðwork.€€Miller€unlocked€her€car€and€noticed€the€smell€of€alcohol.€€She€asked€the€security€guards€toÐ €Ð Ðcome€closer€to€the€car€and€they€subsequently€discovered€the€appellant€hiding€in€the€hatchback€trunkÐ pÀ Ðof€Millerððs€car.€€When€the€appellant€got€out€of€the€vehicle,€he€had€some€jewelry€in€his€hand€that€heÐ ` ° Ðand€Miller€had€frequently€fought€about.€€Miller€requested€that€the€security€guards€let€him€go,€saying,Ð P   Ðð ðItððs€all€right.ðð€€The€security€guards€allowed€the€appellant€to€walk€away€from€the€parking€lot.€Ð @  ÐSubsequently,€Miller€drove€to€her€grandparentððs€house.Ð 0 € ÐÌà  àà ` àLater€that€evening,€the€appellant€went€to€Millerððs€grandparentððs€house.€€There€wasÐ `  Ðan€altercation€and€the€police€were€called.€€Alicia€Miller€and€her€mother,€Susan€Miller,€requested€thatÐ P  Ðthe€appellant€be€prosecuted€for€stealing€Aliciaððs€jewelry€and€for€breaking€into€Alicia€Millerððs€car.€Ð ð@  ÐThey€further€stated€that€they€had€found€a€straightened€coat€hanger€in€the€car€that€the€appellant€hadÐ à0  Ðused€to€gain€entry€into€the€locked€vehicle.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€appellant€was€indicted€on€charges€of€auto€burglary€and€misdemeanor€theft.€€TheÐ ° Ðappellant€and€the€State€attempted€to€enter€a€plea€agreement,€but€the€trial€court€rejected€the€pleaÐ  ð Ðbecause€it€was€made€past€the€courtððs€plea€deadline.€€The€appellant€was€brought€to€trial€on€DecemberÐ à Ð5,€1995.€€The€jury€found€the€appellant€guilty€of€one€count€of€auto€burglary,€a€class€E€felony,€and€oneÐ €Ð Ðcount€of€theft€under€$500,€a€class€A€misdemeanor.€€Subsequently,€the€trial€judge€granted€theÐ pÀ Ðappellantððs€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal.€€The€State€appealed.€€This€court€reversed€the€judgmentÐ `° Ðof€acquittal,€finding€that€there€was€sufficient€evidence€to€convict€the€appellant,€and€remanded€forÐ P  Ðfurther€proceedings.€€Ð @ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€appellant€moved€for€a€new€trial.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€appellantððs€motionÐ  p Ðfor€new€trial,€stating€that€the€opinion€of€this€court€mandated€a€judgment€reinstating€the€juryððs€verdict.€Ð ` ÐThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€grant€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€TheÐ P Ðappellant€presents€the€following€issues€for€our€review:€(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€thatÐ ð@ Ðthe€previous€order€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€required€denial€of€the€motion€for€new€trial;€(2)Ð à0 Ðwhether€the€indictment€in€this€case€is€fatally€defective€such€as€to€require€dismissal€of€this€charge;€(3)Ð Ð  Ðwhether€the€evidence€of€intent€to€commit€a€felony€is€insufficient€to€support€the€conviction;€and,€(4)Ð À! Ðwhether€the€evidence€of€intent€to€deprive€the€owner€is€insufficient€to€support€the€conviction.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð °"  ÐÌà@$ìàòòò òII.€Analysisó óóóˆÐ $à" Ðà@õõìàA.€€Motion€for€New€TrialˆÐ €%Ð # Ðà  àà ` àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€that€the€previous€order€ofÐ p&À!$ Ðâ âthe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€required€denial€of€the€motion€for€new€trial.€€Specifically,€the€appellantÐ `'°"% Ðmaintains€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€exercise€his€role€as€the€thirteenth€juror€before€denying€theÐ ° Ðappellantððs€motion€for€new€trial.Ð  ð Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àA€trial€court€determines,€and€this€court€reviews,€a€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittalÐ €Ð Ðby€the€same€standard€used€to€determine€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence;€i.e.,€whether€ð ðany€rationalÐ pÀ Ðtrier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòStateÐ ` ° Ðv.€Ô_ÔGillonÔ_Ôóó,€15€S.W.3d€492,€496€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€Moreover,€the€State€is€entitled€to€theÐ P   Ðstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€any€reasonable€inferences€which€might€be€drawnÐ @  Ðtherefrom.€€òòId.óó€€Furthermore,€in€a€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal,€the€trial€court€is€only€concernedÐ 0 € Ðwith€the€legal€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€916€S.W.2d€471,€473€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð  p  Ð1995).€€Ð `  ÐÌà  àà ` àHowever,€in€performing€the€duties€of€a€thirteenth€juror,€the€trial€court€is€concernedÐ ð@  Ðabout€whether€the€verdict€is€supported€by€the€weight€of€the€evidence€presented€at€trial.€€€òòState€v.Ð à0  ÐMoatsóó,€906€S.W.2d€431,€433„435€(Tenn.€1995).òòóó€Furthermore,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€33(f)€states,€in€part,Ð Ð  Ðthat€ð ðthe€trial€court€may€grant€a€new€trial€following€a€verdict€of€guilty€if€it€disagrees€with€the€juryÐ À Ðabout€the€weight€of€the€evidence.ðð€€Moreover,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€found€thatÐ ° Ðà8  àRule€33(f)€imposes€upon€a€trial€court€judge€the€mandatory€duty€to€serve€as€theÐ  ð Ðthirteenth€juror€in€every€criminal€case,€and€that€approval€by€the€trial€judge€of€theÐ à Ðjuryððs€verdict€as€the€thirteenth€juror€is€a€necessary€prerequisite€to€imposition€of€aÐ €Ð Ðvalid€judgment.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐòòState€v.€Carteróó,€896€S.W.2d€19,€122€(Tenn.€1995).€€When€a€trial€court€simply€overrules€a€motion€forÐ `° Ðnew€trial,€this€court€may€infer€that€the€trial€judge€has,€as€thirteenth€juror,€approved€the€juryððs€verdict.Ð P  ÐòòId.óó;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòÔ_ÔGillonÔ_Ôóó,€15€S.W.3d€at€500.€€However,€if€the€record€reflects€that€the€trial€court€wasÐ @ Ðdissatisfied€with€or€disagreed€with€the€juryððs€verdict€or€the€weight€of€the€evidence,€made€statementsÐ 0€ Ðindicating€that€the€trial€court€misunderstood€its€responsibility€or€authority€to€act€as€thirteenth€juror,Ð  p Ðor€absolved€itself€of€the€responsibility€of€acting€as€thirteenth€juror,€the€appropriate€remedy€is€for€theÐ ` Ðappellate€court€to€grant€a€new€trial.€€òòMoatsóó,€906€S.W.2d€at€434„436.òòóóÐ P ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€court,€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial,€madeÐ à0 Ðcomments€suggesting€dissatisfaction€with€the€weight€of€the€evidence.€€Specifically,€the€trial€courtÐ Ð  Ðstated,€ð ðI€had€really€found€that€there€was€a€question€about€depriving€the€owner€of€the€property€as€anÐ À! Ðelement€of€the€crime.ðð€€Furthermore,€the€record€suggests€that,€when€the€court€explained€thatÐ °"  Ðà8  àthe€[trial]€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€what€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€has€statedÐ  #ð! Ðto€me€is€that€judgment€should€go€down.€.€.€.€[A]€judgment€on€the€jury€verdict€will€beÐ $à" Ðsigned€by€this€Court€and€you€can€take€the€appropriate€action,€whatever€you€feel€thatÐ €%Ð # Ðyou€deem€necessary€as€a€result€of€that.€€That€is€what€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ p&À!$ Ðis€telling€me[,]Ð`'°"%Ð Ð  Ðthe€trial€court€avoided€acting€as€a€thirteenth€juror,€or€misunderstood€the€trial€courtððs€authority€to€actÐ P( #& Ðsubsequent€to€the€appellate€courtððs€earlier€opinion.€€Ð @)$' ÐÌà  àà ` àHowever,€the€opinion€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€concerned€the€òòlegalÐ  +p&) Ðsufficiency€óóof€the€evidence.€€This€ruling€did€not€relieve€the€trial€court€of€the€responsibility€ofÐ ,`'* Ðexamining€the€òòweightóó€of€the€evidence€in€his€role€as€thirteenth€juror.€€òòId.óó€at€435.€€A€trial€judge€shouldÐ ° Ðnot€infer€that€a€ruling€by€this€court€on€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€absolves€him€or€her€of€the€dutyÐ  ð Ðto€use€their€own€judgment€in€reviewing€the€weight€of€the€evidence€as€thirteenth€juror.€€Since€the€trialÐ à Ðjudge€is€in€the€best€position€to€see€the€evidence€and€observe€the€witnesses€at€trial,€the€trial€judge€isÐ €Ð Ðfree€to€decide,€in€his€role€as€thirteenth€juror,€that€the€weight€of€the€evidence€does€not€support€theÐ pÀ Ðverdict.€€Because€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€act€as€thirteenth€juror,€a€new€trial€is€theÐ ` ° Ðonly€practical€and€effective€remedy€to€insure€that€the€protection€of€the€thirteenth€juror€rule€isÐ P   Ðpreserved.€€òòId.óó€Ð @  ÐÌà@­­#ìàB.€€IndictmentˆÐ  p  Ðà  àà ` àThe€appellant€further€claims€that€the€indictment€against€him€for€auto€burglary€wasÐ `  Ðfatally€defective€because€it€charged€him€with€breaking€into€the€car€of€Alicia€Miller,€when€in€fact€herÐ P  Ðmother,€Susan€Miller,€was€the€title€owner€of€the€car.€€The€appellant€maintains€that€he€couldÐ ð@  Ðsubsequently€be€subjected€to€charges€for€the€auto€burglary€of€Susan€Millerððs€car,€in€violation€of€hisÐ à0  Ðright€against€double€jeopardy.€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àÔ‡ô<òXXõÓÔ€Ô#†XõÓXòô<Ë7#ÔBecause€there€is€evidence€that€the€appellant€did€not€raise€the€problem€with€theÐ ° Ðindictment€prior€to€trial,€we€could€conclude€that€the€appellant€waived€his€right€to€complain€about€theÐ  ð Ðdefect.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(b)(1)€&€(f)(stating€that€Ô‡Xu XXXõÓÔdefenses€and€objections€based€on€defectsÐ à Ðin€the€indictmentÔ#†XõÓX XXu.9#Ô€must€be€raised€prior€to€trial€or€they€are€considered€waived);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòJackson€v.Ð à ÐStateóó,€475€S.W.2d€563,€565€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1971)(finding€that€objections€to€the€form€of€theÐ à Ðindictment€are€generally€waived€by€the€defendant€going€to€trial€without€calling€the€defect€to€the€trialÐ €Ð Ðcourtððs€attention);€òòPope€v.€Stateóó,€258€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€775,€776€(Tenn.€1924)(maintaining€that€a€defect€in€anÐ pÀ Ðindictment€can€be€cured€by€the€juryððs€verdict€after€the€defendant€pleads€to€the€indictment€and€goesÐ `° Ðto€trial);€òòbut€seeóó€òòMcLean€v.€Stateóó,€527€S.W.2d€76,€82€(Tenn.€1975)(asserting€that€a€material€varianceÐ P  Ðin€the€indictment,€between€the€offense€charged€and€the€evidence€offered,€is€not€normally€waived).€Ð @ ÐNevertheless,€we€will€address€the€merits€of€the€appellantððs€claim.Ð 0€ ÐÌà  àà ` àA€variance€in€an€indictment€is€not€fatal€if€(1)€the€appellant€is€sufficiently€informedÐ ` Ðof€the€charges€levied€against€him€so€that€he€can€adequately€prepare€for€trial€and,€(2)€the€appellant€isÐ  P Ðprotected€against€a€subsequent€prosecution€for€the€same€offense€on€double€jeopardy€grounds.€€òòBergerÐ ð @ Ðv.€United€Statesóó,€295€U.S.€78,€79„82,€55€S.€Ct.€629,€630€(1935);€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€662€S.W.2d€590,€592Ð à!0 Ð(Tenn.€1984).€Moreover,€the€variance€is€immaterial€when€the€indictment€and€proof€substantiallyÐ Ð"   Ðcorrespond.€€òòId.óó€€The€appellant€does€not€claim€that€the€variance€in€the€indictment€damaged€his€abilityÐ À#! Ðto€adequately€prepare€for€trial.€€However,€the€appellant€does€argue€that€he€is€potentially€subject€toÐ °$ " Ðfurther€prosecution.€€€Ð  %ð # ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€indictment€against€the€appellant€for€auto€burglary€alleges€that€the€appellantÐ €'Ð"% Ðunlawfully€entered€ð ðthe€automobile€of€Alicia€Miller,€without€her€effective€consent,€with€intent€toÐ p(À#& Ðcommit€a€felony€to€wit:€theft,€all€in€violation€of€[Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð]€39„14„402,€against€the€peaceÐ `)°$' Ðand€dignity€of€the€State€of€Tennessee.ðð€The€indictment€and€the€proof€in€this€case€do€substantiallyÐ P* %( Ðcorrespond€on€the€issue€of€ownership€of€the€car.€€As€this€court€previously€found,€Alicia€Miller€doesÐ @+&) Ðmeet€the€definition€of€an€ð ðownerðð€for€the€purposes€of€the€burglary€statute.€€òòState€v.€Katzóó,€No.€03C01„Ð 0,€'* Ð9704„CC„00150,€1998€WL€334378,€at€*3,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€June€25,€1998),€òòperm.Ð ° Ðapp.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1999)òòóó;€€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„401(3)(1994).€€The€proof€introducedÐ  ð Ðat€trial€demonstrates€that,€while€Susan€Miller€was€the€title€owner€of€the€car,€Alicia€Miller€was€theÐ à Ðbeneficial€owner.€€òòSeeóó€òòDaugherty€v.€Stateóó,€424€S.W.2d€414,€415€(Tenn.€1968).€€Moreover,€it€isÐ €Ð Ðapparent€from€the€record€that€the€appellant€was€able€to€plan€and€present€a€defense€based€upon€theÐ pÀ Ðinformation€alleged€in€the€indictment.€€òòWright€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9303„CR„00084,€1994€WLÐ ` ° Ð377228,€at€*2,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€July€14,€1994).€€Furthermore,€the€appellant€can€relyÐ P   Ðupon€this€record€in€the€event€that€future€proceedings€are€brought€against€him€for€the€same€offense.€Ð @  ÐòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔMayesÔ_Ôóó,€854€S.W.2d€638,€642€(Tenn.€1993).€The€appellant€is€in€no€danger€of€beingÐ 0 € Ðsubsequently€charged€with€burglary€of€Susan€Millerððs€car.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð  p  ÐÌà@ff#ìàòòò òIII.€Conclusionó óóóˆÐ P  Ðà  àà ` àBecause€the€record€indicates€that€the€trial€court€misconstrued€its€authority€to€grant€aÐ ð@  Ðnew€trial€under€the€thirteenth€juror€rule,€we€reverse€and€remand€for€a€new€trial.Ð à0  ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð €Ð Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNORMA€Ô_ÔMcGEEÔ_Ô€OGLE,€JUDGE