WPC6 <U:X % 0 w@t4 0  0D 0JC 0T 0^ 0h? 0r 0| 0 0 1u 0d B AQ  D3 0D 0@/ 0Do D/ BU*B))DCR AM(d"$(1,v~0/v0,cAZ"Arial RegularX(`$TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7GXXdXXd7  nEopEqrEsEtuPvӀ #3|x((3$ `!TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7yXXdXXd7    `   0  (#$  0  2 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 d"%&'(C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5'dxd(3$ !  ("$    ($$   1  ))' dxdP Pd<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d....7Border 1dd"&/C << G  !  #d#-    ! \RA'\#d#   %"  -   YYY FILED-X January12,1998CecilCrowson,Jr.-AppellateCourtClerk   !#d#-     \RA'\#d#   -\RA'\7yXXdXXd7     Initially,wenotethatthepetitionerdidnottimelyfilehisnoticeofappeal.Thetrialcourt'sorderwasenteredonOctober12,1996,butthenoticeofappealwasnotfileduntilDecember12,1996.Intheinterestofjustice,however,wehavedecidedtowaivethetimelyfilingofthenoticeofappeal.SeeTenn.R.App.P.4(a).  !#d#-     \RA'\#d#   -\RA'\7XXdd7     "Thetruetestofthesufficiencyoftheindictmentisnotwhetheritcouldhavebeenmademoredefiniteandcertain,butwhetheritcontainstheelementsoftheoffenseintendedtobecharged,andsufficientlyapprisesthedefendantofwhathemustbepreparedtomeet,and,incaseanyotherproceedingsaretakenagainsthimforasimilaroffense,whethertherecordshowswithaccuracytowhatextenthemaypleadaformeracquittalorconviction.Hagnerv.UnitedStates,285U.S.427,431,52S.Ct.417,419(1931)(citationsomitted).  !#d#-     \RA'\#d#   -\RA'\7XXdd7     Wealsoacknowledgethepreviousrulingsofthiscourtholdingthat thetermunlawfuldoesnotsufficientlyallegethemensreaofintent.Statev.Jones,No.02C019503CR00061(Tenn.Crim.App.atJackson,Mar.7,1997);Statev.Hill,No.01C019508CC00267(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,June20,1996);Statev.White,No.03C019408CR00277(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,June7,1995).Theterm unlawfullydoesnotintheordinaryuseofthewordconnotementalculpability.Id.  !#d#-     \RA'\#d#   -\RA'\7XXdd7     Welikewiserejectimportationofthedefinitionoftheterm sexualcontacttosupplythemensreatothestatutorydefinitionoftheoffense.Amajorityofjurisdictionshaveheldthattheomissionofanessentialelementfromthecharginginstrumentcannotbecuredbyacitationorreferencetotherelevantstatute.Statev.Marshall,870S.W.2d532,537(Tenn.Crim.App.1993)(citingUnitedStatesv.Pupo,841F.2d1235(4thCir.1988)).SeealsoU.S.v.Hooker,841F.2d1225,12271228(4thCir.1988)(citingatleasteightfederalcircuitsinaccordwiththisruleand thevastmajorityofthestatecourts). [I]tisthestatementoffactsinthepleading,ratherthanthestatutorycitationthatiscontrolling.Hooker,841S.W.2dat12271228(citingUnitedStatesv.Wuco,535F.2d1200,1202n.1(9thCir.1976);UnitedStatesv.Hutcheson,312U.S.219,229,61S.Ct.463,464(1941)). Z !#d#-     \RA'\#d#   \RA'\7XXdd7     -Incodifyingthemodelcodeculpabilityrequirements,ourlegislaturechosetosubstitute intentionallyfor purposely.  !#d#-     \RA'\#d#   -\RA'\7XXdd7     ThedraftersoftheIllinoisCriminalCoderemarked, Referencetogeneralintentcrimesseemsunnecessary,ifthedefinitionofaparticularoffensedescribesaccuratelythementalstateinvolvedaspecificintentifthatisappropriate,or[ageneralintent,i.e.,]theknowledgeofspecifiedfactsorofthenaturalconsequencesofdescribedacts.SeeCommitteeComments,720Ill.Comp.Stat.Ann.5/43(West1993).  !#d#-     \RA'\#d#   -\RA'\7XXdd7     "Sexualcontactisdefinedto includetheintentionaltouchingofthevictims,thedefendantsoranyotherpersonsintimateparts,ortheintentionaltouchingoftheclothingcoveringtheimmediateareaofthevictims,thedefendants,oranyotherpersonsintimateparts,ifthatintentionaltouchingcanbereasonablyconstruedasbeingforthepurposeofsexualarousalorgratification.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913501(6)(1991).  !#d#-     \RA'\#d#   -\RA'\7XXdd7     Agreaterburden,therefore,isthenplaceduponthetrialcourtswhobeartheresponsibilityofdetermining therequiredmentalstate,seeHilll,No.01S019701CC00005,inhopesthat therequiredmentalstateselectedwillwithstandappellatescrutiny.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva ! . -     \RA'\#Xd##Xd#      @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE"ٜR01/A1-j| ` e `@Rߛ@ ATJACKSON@ NOVEMBERSESSION,1997ROGERLEEKIMMEL,  )     ) No.02C019701CR00006 Appellant   )     ) SHELBYCOUNTYvs.     )     ) Hon.JOSEPHB.DAILEY,JudgeSTATEOFTENNESSEE,  )     ) (WritofHabeasCorpus) Appellee   ) FortheAppellant:    FortheAppellee: RogerLeeKimmel ,ProSe  CharlesW.Burson P.O.Box1000    AttorneyGeneralandReporterHenning,TN380411000       KennethW.Rucker       AssistantAttorneyGeneral        CriminalJusticeDivision      450JamesRobertsonParkway      Nashville,TN372430493          WilliamDavidBridgers       AssistantAttorneyGeneral      450JamesRobertsonParkway      Nashville,TN37243OPINIONFILED:򀀀AFFIRMED DavidG.Hayes Judge@  OPINION  Theappellant,RogerLeeKimmel,appealstheShelbyCountyCriminalCourtsdismissalofhisproseapplicationforwritofhabeascorpus.In1996,aLakeCountyGrandJuryreturnedatwocountindictmentchargingtheappellantwiththeoffensesofrapeofachildandaggravatedsexualbattery.OnMarch25,1996,theappellantpledguiltytotheoffenseofaggravatedsexualbatteryandwassentencedtoeightyearsintheDepartmentofCorrection.TheappellantiscurrentlyincarceratedattheMarkH.LuttrellReceptionCenterinMemphis. OnSeptember13,1996,theappellantfiledanapplicationforawritofhabeascorpusallegingthatthejudgmententeredagainsthimonthechargeofaggravatedsexualbatteryisvoidbecausetheindictmentfailedtoallegethemensreaoftheoffensecharged.Findingthattheappellantspetition failedtostateaclaimuponwhichreliefmaybegranted,thetrialcourtdismissedtheappellantsapplication.Theappellantnowappealsthisdecisionallegingthatthetrialcourterredindismissinghispetitionand,inthealternative,thattheindictmentisfatallydefective. 2    Afterareviewoftherecord,weaffirmthedecisionofthetrialcourt.@ I.DismissalofApplicationforWritofHabeasCorpus  Theappellantfirstcontests,regardlessofthemeritsofhisclaimsandwithdisregardofthecourtsfindingthatthepetitionfailedtostateacognizablegroundforrelief,thecourtsdismissalofhisapplicationforwritofhabeascorpusforfailuretocitetoanyauthority.Theappellantarguesthattheindictmentisfatallydefectiveforfailuretoallegethementalstateoftheoffensecharged.Inotherwords,theappellantcontendsthattheindictmentfailedtochargeanoffenseand,therefore,nooffenseisbeforethecourt.SeeTenn.R.Crim.P.12(b)(adefectallegingthesubjectmatterjurisdictionorfailuretoallegeanoffensemayberaisedatanytime).SeealsoStatev.Perkinson,867S.W.2d1,56(Tenn.Crim.App.1992). Theindictmentagainsttheappellantreads:8 ...[T]hedefendant,ROGERLEEKIMMEL,onoraboutOctober30,1995,...unlawfullyhadsexualcontactwith[thevictim],achildlessthanthirteen(13)yearsofageatthetimeofthecommissionoftheoffense.... Habeascorpusreliefisavailableonlywhenitappearsuponthefaceofjudgmentorrecordofproceedingsuponwhichjudgmentisrenderedthattheconvictingcourtwaswithoutjurisdictionorauthoritytosentenceadefendant,orthatadefendant'ssentenceofimprisonmentorotherrestrainthasexpired.Archerv.State,851S.W.2d157,164(Tenn.1993).If,fromthefaceofthepetition,thereviewingcourtfindsnothingtoindicatethattheappellantschallengedconvictionmightbevoid,thecourtmayrefusetheapplicationwithoutahearing.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.2921101,109(1980).̀ Inordertosatisfybothconstitutionalandstatutoryguidelines,anindictmentmustcontainthematerialelementsoftheoffenseandmustsufficientlyapprisetheaccusedoftheoffenseheiscalledupontodefend. 3   ׀Statev.Tate,912S.W.2d785,789(Tenn.Crim.App.1995);seealsoTenn.CodeAnn.4013202(1990);Statev.Perkinson,867S.W.2d1,5(Tenn.Crim.App.1992).Whenanoffense neitherexpresslyrequiresnorplainlydispenseswiththerequirementforaculpablementalstate,anindictmentwhichfailstoallegesuchmentalstatewillbesufficienttosupportprosecutionandconvictionforthatoffensesolongas:8 (1)thelanguageoftheindictmentissufficienttomeettheconstitutionalrequirementsofnoticetotheaccusedofthechargeagainstwhichtheaccusedmustdefend,adequatebasisforentryofproperjudgment;andprotectionfromdoublejeopardy;8 (2)theformoftheindictmentmeetstherequirementsofTenn.CodeAnn.4013202;and8 (3)thementalstatecanbelogicallyinferredfromtheconductalleged.Statev.Hill,No.01S019701CC00005(Tenn.Nov.3,1997)(forpublication). Theconductintheindictmentbeforeusallegesthatthedefendanthad sexualcontactwiththevictim.Thus,therelevantquestioniswhetherfromthisallegedconductit canbelogicallyinferredthattheappellantwasactingintentionally,knowinglyorrecklessly.Tenn.CodeAnn.3911301(c)(1991).Wefindnosuchinference.InHill,oursupremecourtfoundthelanguage unlawfulsexualpenetrationsufficientlyencompassingtosupportaninferencethatthepenetrationwascommittedintentionally,knowinglyorrecklessly.Thisistosaythat,logically,forpenetrationtooccur,itcannotbecommittedaccidentlyorinanymannerotherthanintentionally,knowinglyorrecklessly.However,theallegedconductintheinstantcaseisfactuallydistinguishable.  Thephrase sexualcontactinfersnomentalstate. 4   ׀Moreover,wenotethatsexualbatteryisnotacrimeofstrictliability.Weare,therefore,unabletoconcludethatthelanguage sexualcontactexcludesallinferencesotherthanthattheoffenseofaggravatedsexualbatterywascommittedintentionally,knowinglyorrecklessly.Clearly, sexualcontactcouldincludeanaccidentalorinadvertentactofcontactbetweentheaccusedandthevictim. 5   כ ThesupremecourtsrulinginHillholdsthat,foroffenseswhichneitherexpresslyrequirenorplainlydispensewiththerequirementforaculpablementalstate, therequiredmentalstatemaybeinferredfromthenatureofthecriminalconductalleged.Id.at9.IncontrasttoHill,thequestionbeforeusisdistinguished:Isanindictmentfaciallyvalidwhichchargesanoffensewherethestatutedefiningtheoffensedoesnotcontainamentalstateandnomentalstatecanbeinferredfromtheconductalleged?Weholdthatthechallengedindictmentisvalid. Theculpabilityrequirementsofourcriminalcodearevirtuallyaverbatimrecitationoftheculpabilityrequirementsofthemodelpenalcode.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.3911301et.seq.(1991).Thecorrespondingsectionofthemodelpenalcode,Section2.02(3),toourprovisionTenn.CodeAnn.3911301(c),provides:8 (3)CulpabilityRequiredUnlessOtherwiseProvided.Whentheculpabilitysufficienttoestablishamaterialelementofanoffenseisnotprescribedbylaw,suchelementisestablishedifapersonactspurposely, 6   ׀knowinglyorrecklesslywithrespectthereto.̛̜ Wefindithelpfultoreviewthemodelpenalcodecommissioncommentarywhichfollowstheabovesubsectionforanexplanationofitspurposeandobjective.ӛ8 Subsection(3)isincludedasanaidtodraftingthedefinitionsofspecificcrimes.Whenitisintendedthatpurpose,knowledgeorrecklessnesssufficefortheestablishmentofculpabilityforaparticularoffense,thedraftsmenneedmakenoprovisionforculpability;itwillbesuppliedbythissubsection.Thereisaroughcorrespondencebetweenthisprovisionandthecommonlawrequirementof generalintent. 7   כInStatev.Dison,No.03C019602CC00051(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,Jan.31,1997),weheldthat,becausenomentalstatewasincludedinthedefinitionoftheoffense,noneneedbeallegedintheindictmentbecausetheoffensechargedisageneralintentcrime.Otherjurisdictionswhichhavecodifiedtheculpabilityrequirementsofthemodelpenalcode,ashasTennessee,havefollowedthisapproach.SeePeoplev.Norris,88Cal.App.2dSupp.32,37,152Cal.Rptr.134137(1978);Statev.Bitting,291A.2d240,242(Conn.1971);Peoplev.Thompson,466N.E.2d380,384387(Ill.App.2ndDist.1984);Statev.Ayer,612A.2d923,925(N.H.1992).SeealsoUnitedStatesv.Garrett,984F.2d1402,1415(5thCir.1993);Tallmanv.UnitedStates,465F.2d282(7thCir.1972).Moreover,legaltreatisesareinagreementwiththisapproach.Inmodernpractice,itisunnecessarytochargeguiltyknowledgeunlessitisincludedinthestatutorydefinitionoftheoffense.Hill,No.01S019701CC00005(citing41Am.Jur.2d,IndictmentsandInformation,126(1995)).Insum,themensrearequirement,omittedfromastatutorydefinition,neednotbeallegedinthecharginginstrumentbecauseitisimputedbythestatute.TennCodeAnn.3911301(c).Thedistinguishingfactoristhelegislaturesprerogativeofamentalstatefromarangeofculpability.Dison,No.03C019602CC0005.Thus,weconcludethatwhenthelegislaturehasexplicitlyomittedthementalstateinthedefinitionofacrime,thecrimeisoneof generalintent.Accordingly,wefindtheoffenseofaggravatedsexualbatteryageneralintentcrimeandnomentalstateneedbeallegedintheindictment.̛̜ Thedilemmaisfurthercompoundedinthepresentcasewiththequestion:Ifthe requiredmentalstatemaybeinferred,whichmentalstateisrequired?Aggravatedsexualbatteryrequiresanintentionaltouchingwhichmustbereasonablyconstruedasbeingforthepurposeofsexualarousalorgratification.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913504(1991).Theelementsoftheoffenseofaggravatedsexualbatteryaschargedbytheindictmentinthiscaserequiresproof(1)ofsexualcontact,whichincludestheintentionaltouchingofthevictim 8   כand(2)thatthevictimwaslessthanthirteenyearsofage.Thus,thementalstateofthefirstelementisthatof intentionalwhilethementalstateforthelatterelementiseitherintentional,knowingorrecklessbecausenomentalstateforthatelementortheoffenseisdefined.Tenn.CodeAnn.3911301(a)(1)and(c).Thus,torequireafindingofonlyonementalstate,forexample,recklessness,fortheinstantoffensewouldbeinconsistentandirreconcilablewiththeremainingelementwhichrequiresintentionalculpability.Theendresultisarecklessintentionalcrime.Indeed,manyofourstatutoryoffensesaresostructuredtocontaindifferingmentalstatesfortherespectiveelements.Thisisfurthercomplicatedbythefactthat,asoriginallyenacted,Title39oftheCriminalCodeof1989containedeightysevencrimeswhichspecifynomentalelement.Additionally,numerousstatutoryoffensesexistwhichcontaintwomentalstates,permittingtheselectionofone. 9   כThemodelcodeandourcriminalcodeclearlycontemplatethatculpabilitymustbeaddressedseparatelywithrespecttoeachmaterialelement.Section2.02modelpenalcode. Apersoncommitsanoffensewhoactsintentionally,knowingly,recklesslyorwithcriminalnegligenceasthedefinitionoftheoffenserequireswithrespecttoeachelementoftheoffense.Tenn.CodeAnn.3911301(a)(1).Inreviewingmodelcodecrimes,itmustberecognizedthatthemensrearequirementsofaparticularcrimemaydifferwithregardtothedifferentelementsofthecrime.WayneR.LaFave&AustinW.Scott,Jr.,CriminalLaw194(1977).SeealsoStatev.Parker,887S.W.2d825(Tenn.Crim.App.1994)(recognizingthementalstatesofintentionalandrecklessnessinaggravatedsexualbattery).Weholdthisrationaletobeconsistentwithourconclusionthattheculpabilityrequirementsofourcriminalcodedonotrequire,asinthiscase,theinclusionofadesignatedmentalstateinthecharginginstrumentwherenoneiscontainedinthestatutoryoffense. Forthesereasonsandtheplethoraofauthoritysupportingthisposition,weconcludethattheindictmentinthepresentcasewasconstitutionallysufficient.                            ____________________________________     DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGECONCUR:̜(SEECONCURRINGOPINIONGARYR.WADE,JUDGE̜___________________________________PAULG.SUMMERS,JUDGE