WPC 0# UN %  0(w@74w 0J 0T 0^@ 0h 0r 0|x 0 0z 1u  0d AQ4 0D 0@> 0D~ U> D/ B/ BL D3i U* B) DC AM2  v~ vHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ TPUDVPWDXYEZ[\Ӏh #3|xh2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X !"#%C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ("$    ($$   1  <  9p`(&Times New Roman''' dxd dP Pd&&&&'dxd<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d****7Border 1dd "+C << G !$  !"  ))   YYY FILED)X January12,1998CecilCrowson,Jr.)AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva ! . $  4  X   `   )\RA'\ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE R,-+A1-j|{O`  `@RߛATJACKSONNOVEMBER1997SESSION  ROGERLEEKIMMEL,  * C.C.A.NO.02C019701CR00006  APPELLANT,  * SHELBYCOUNTYVS.     * HON.JOSEPHB.DAILY,JUDGE       STATEOFTENNESSEE,  * (WritofHabeasCorpus)       APPELLEE.   * ̛  $  ) CONCURRINGOPINION       Iagreewiththemajorityopinionthattheindictmentissufficienttosupporttheconvictionforaggravatedsexualbattery.Ireachthisconclusion,however,onadifferentbasis.Ibelievethatthelanguagewithinthecharginginstrumentsuggeststhattheunlawfulactwasdoneintentionally,knowingly,orrecklessly.Tenn.CodeAnn.3911301(c)(1991).  InStatev.RogerDaleHill,Sr.,_____S.W.2d_____,No.01S019701CC00005,slipop.at3(Tenn.,atJackson,Nov.3,1997),oursupremecourtruledasfollows:    [F]oroffenseswhichneitherexpresslyrequirenorplainlydispensewiththerequirementforaculpablementalstate,anindictmentwhichfailstoallegesuchmentalstatewillbesufficienttosupportprosecutionandconvictionforthatoffensesolongas L  p (1)thelanguageoftheindictmentissufficienttomeettheconstitutionalrequirementsofnoticetotheaccusedofthechargeagainstwhichtheaccusedmustdefend,adequatebasisforentryofaproperjudgment,andprotectionfromdoublejeopardy;(2)theformoftheindictmentmeetstherequirementsofTenn.CodeAnn.4013202;and(3)thementalstatecanbelogicallyinferredfromtheconductalleged.̛ 4  X   InHill,ofcourse,thesupremecourtreviewedthesufficiencyofanindictmentchargingrape.Here,theindictmentisforaggravatedsexualbattery.Nonetheless,therulingbyoursupremecourtshouldcontrol;themensreacanbe"logicallyinferred"fromtheallegationswithintheindictment.̀  InStatev.MiltonS.Jones,Jr.,No.02C019503CR00061,slipop.at5(Tenn.Crim.App.,atJackson,Mar.7,1997),perm.toapp.filed󛀜(May6,1997),ourcourtreviewedthesufficiencyofanindictmentidenticaltotheoneinthiscase:8 8 Whilethereisnospecificallegationoftherequisitemensrea,wefindthattheterm'sexualcontact'doesnecessarilyimplyanintentionaltouchingoftheunderagevictim....Becausesexualcontactisdefinedasintentionaltouching,themensreaisnecessarilyimplied.The"logicallyinferred"testforindictmentsislessdemandingthanonerequiringanecessaryimplication.Thus,theallegationsherewouldpassthestandardadoptedinHill.      __________________________________      GaryR.Wade,Judge