WPC$ *,ܯ7KGŪpZvGA4zڴ9Tc5 l^ ao?#i>%0JyVzV *Թ!=jț*y`Z:Nʤ&Y5!1dGA>Rk ER3|waZŘ/ 9 $^Zm X;1Jd~TbXd4mXBӞ~B"[n2#% ū,?Ii|ufInwRQUGC 63:%=Lm#=,` 얋Lbbptܖծ4ZDƅ ԯJ,׺}02VzHա6܃rss킍<Ȭra#?#ƈa\[Q(7<Gh=$C 1`4b#\ % UN# 0q UJN 0 DG  zV   U!>{e;SN^ E%w'4+?NN mPPPPPPPgggggggggggboooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 0 wb @ B<xY 0 D3u! D-! 0K!! AS "s" 09# 0D# A!$HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#$  0   R?$      2    _ԀTheclavicleismorecommonlyreferredtoasthecollarbone.  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  R?$      3    _ԀThechildneurologistprovidedadditionaldetailconcerningthevictimspresentconditionandfutureprognosis  overtheobjectionofthedefense.Thistestimonyformsthebasisofthedefendantssecondissueandwillbedescribed t withmorespecificitywithinourdiscussionofthatissue.\  `&Times New Roman [ R?$      1    _ԀOneofthedoctorsexplainedthatconjunctivalhemorrhaginginvolvesbleedingonthewhiteoftheeyewhile  retinalhemorrhaginginvolvesbleeding inthebackoftheeyenearthenerves.   R?$      4    _ԀWehavelimitedouranalysisinthisopiniontothoseallegedlesserincludedoffensesassertedbythe  defendant.However,wenotethatourappellatecourtshaveheldthatadditionaloffensesincludingbutnotlimitedto t misdemeanorrecklessendangermentandattemptedaggravatedchildabusealsoqualifyaslesserincludedoffensesto 8 aggravatedchildabuse.SeeStatev.Honeycutt,54S.W.3d762,77172(Tenn.2001);Statev.AndersonToliver,No. L E200100584CCAR3CD,2001Tenn.Crim.App.LEXIS953,at*85(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,Dec.18,2001.)Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  R?$      8    _ԀThistrialwasconductedbeforeTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4018110dealingwiththechargingof  lesserincludedoffenseswentintoeffect;thus,ithasnoimpactonthisappeal.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4018110 t (notationafterstatutereferringtoamendment).-s PH,*93|x U - -(|G2?$ !.8B dd8         0    R?$      7    _ԀWhilethe_Honeycutt_Courtdidnotspecificallyaddresspart(b)(2)ofthetest,itsholdingreflectsthatthis  portionoftheBurnstestwasnotmetwithrespecttointentionalaggravatedassault._Honeycutt_,54S.W.3dat771. t Furthermore,thisoffenseclearlydoesnotmeetpart(c)ofBurnssincetheoffensedoesnotinvolvefacilitation,attempt, 8 orsolicitation.  R?$      6    _ԀWithinitsdiscussionofthismatter,thesupremecourtnotedthatTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3911  301(a)(2)states: Whenrecklessnesssufficestoestablishanelement,thatelementisalsoestablishedifapersonacts t intentionallyorknowingly.See_Honeycutt_,54S.W.3dat771n.12. 6 R?$      5    _Ԁ_Honeycutt_wasdecidedafterthedefendantstrialwascompleted.See_Honeycutt_,54S.W.3dat762. d n R?$      9    _ԀTherecordindicatesthatthetrialcourtdidinstructthejurorsthattheywerenottohave prejudice,or  sympathy,orallowanythingbutthelawandtheevidencetohaveanyinfluenceupontheirverdict. (|3Gr$ !.8B dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Gr$ !.8B dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8B dd8     _   B 8XXdd8@ttWB INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#B W #Ԉ &    @  @` AssignedonBriefsOctober17,2001 L XXB  #B XX!#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.RUSSELLMAZEXXB   J @@ DirectAppealfromtheCriminalCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.99B1308SteveDozier,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200002249CCAR3CDFiledAugust16,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     XXXXADavidsonCountygrandjuryindictedthedefendantononecountofclassAfelonyaggravated x  childabuse. Atrialjurysubsequentlyconvictedhimascharged. Forthisconvictionthetrialcourt d sentencedhimasaviolentoffendertoservetwentyoneyears. Henextunsuccessfullypursueda T motionforajudgmentofacquittalorinthealternativeanewtrial. Throughthisappealthe @ defendantcontinuestoassertthatthetrialcourterredinnotproperlyinstructingthejuryonlesser ,| includedoffensesandbyadmittingcontestedmedicaltestimony.Whilethesecondcontentionmerits h norelief,wemustreversetheconvictionandremandthematterbaseduponerrorininstructing T lesserincludedoffenses.#XXXX##B XX#XXB  @  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtisReversedand  Remanded.     #B X#XX.B JerryL.Smith,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidH.WellesandJoeG.Riley,  JJ.,joined. x TerryJ.Canady,Madison,Tennessee,fortheappellant,RussellMaze. P  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;JenniferL.Bledsoe;VictorS.Johnson,District ("x! AttorneyGeneral;andKatyNovakMiller,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee,State #d" ofTennessee. $P# r @@OO& OPINION #B XX #XXB  %(!% #B XX& #XXB   XXXX@!FactualBackground  '#'   Becausethedefendantdoesnotchallengethesufficiencyoftheevidence,wewillonlybriefly )$) summarizethefactsinvolvingtheoffense.OnMay3,1999,thedefendantswifelefthometorun t*%* anerrandafterthedefendantarrivedhomefromwork.Thisresultedinthedefendantsbeinghome `+&+ alonewithhisfiveweekoldson. Approximatelyanhourafterthedefendantswifeleft,the L,', defendantcalled911reportingthathissonhadstoppedbreathing. Subsequenttestingrevealedthat 8-(- thechildhadheadandabdominalbruising;conjunctivalandretinalhemorrhaging;  #  1      ׀andafractured  clavicle. #  2      Moresignificantly,thevictimhadalsosufferedsevere,irreparablebraindamage. Attrial  adoctorspecializinginevaluatingchildabuseinjuriesstatedthatthedefendantssonwasavictim  ofbatteredchildsyndrome. Thiswitnessfurtherindicatedthatthevictimseyeandheadinjuries x resultedfromshakenbabysyndromeorpossiblyshakenimpactsyndrome. Sheexplainedthat h shakingdoneinanattempttoresuscitatewouldnotcausethevictimsinjuries. TheStatealso X  presentedtestimonyfromthechildneurologistwhohadcontinuedevaluatingthevictim.This H  individualconcurredthatthevictimsufferedfromshakenimpactsyndrome.  #  3      ׀ Bothofthesedoctors 4  testifiedthattheshakingmusthaveoccurredalmostimmediatelybeforethevictimscollapse.  $ t Accordingtothedefendantthiscollapseoccurredjustpriortothedefendantscalling911. As  d  aforementionedandbythedefendantsownadmission,hehadbeentheonlypersonwiththevictim T  duringthattime. Furthermore,thoughinspeakingwiththepolicethedefendantinitiallydenied @  multipletimesthathehadshakenthevictim,thedefendantultimatelyacknowledgedthathehad 0  shakenthevictiminanattempttorevivehim. However,thedefendantdeniedshakingthevictim   hardenoughtocausetheinjuriesinflicted.      Atthecloseoftheproof,thetrialjudgeaskedifeitherpartywished tobeheardonany   lesserincludedoffenses. Whenneitherresponded,thetrialjudgestatedthathedidnot seethat  therewouldbeanylesserincludedoffenseschargedbasedupontheproof,caselaw,andstatute.    Inreachingthisdecision,heacknowledgedthatunderStatev.Burns,6S.W.3d453(Tenn.1999), p theremight bealesserincludedbasedon...alessermentalstate. However,hebelievedthatthis \ Courtconsideredassaultcrimesandchildabusecrimesmutuallyexclusive. Withthisperceived H conflict,thetrialjudgewentontoexplainwhatheconsideredtobethemoreimportantissueto 4 resolvingthismatter. Heassertedthattheproofsetout anallornothingtypecase. Assuch,he  p onlyinstructedthejuryontheoffenseofaggravatedchildabuse. Afteraperiodofdeliberation,the ` juryreturnedtheaforementionedverdictconvictingthedefendantofclassAfelonyaggravatedchild P abuse.  <   FailuretoProperlyChargeLesserIncludedOffenses     Throughhisfirstissuethedefendantassertsthatthetrialcourterredinnotchargingaslesser  includedoffensesaggravatedassault,assault,andchildabuse.Theanalysisofthismatterinvolves    S#XXXX # XXXXamultistepprocessassetoutbytheTennesseeSupremeCourtintheaforementionedStatev.Burns, x! 6S.W.3d453(Tenn.1999). d"   #!   A.StandardofReview  1  Initially,wemustdeterminewhethertheoffensesqualifyaslesserincludedoffenses. ? AccordingtoBurns,anoffensemeetsthisrequirement + 8  if:(a)allofitsstatutoryelementsareincludedwithinthestatutoryelementsofthe j offensecharged;or V   8  (b)itfailstomeetthedefinitioninpart(a)onlyintherespectthatitcontainsa E  statutoryelementorelementsestablishing(1)adifferentmentalstateindicatinga 1  lesserkindofculpability;and/or(2)alessseriousharmorriskofharmtothesame  m person,propertyorpublicinterest;or Y   8  (c)itconsistsof[facilitationof,attempttocommit,orsolicitationtocommit]the H  offensechargedoranoffensethatotherwisemeetsthedefinitionoflesserincluded 4  offenseinpart(a)or(b). p     Id.at46667.#XXX XN# XXXX K    However,evenifanoffensemeetsoneoftheabovequalifications,t#XXX X##XXXXheBurnsCourtmadeit  clearthat [t]hemereexistenceofalesseroffensetoachargedoffenseisnotsufficientaloneto v warrantachargeonthatoffense.Id.at468.#XXXX$# XXXXԀOurnextinquiryis,therefore, whethertheevidence b justifiesajuryinstructiononsuchlesseroffense.Id.at467.Toresolvethismatter,thesupreme N courtprovided: : 8  Firstthe...courtmustdeterminewhetheranyevidenceexiststhatreasonableminds y couldacceptastothelesserincludedoffense.Inmakingthisdetermination,the.. e .courtmustviewtheevidenceliberallyinthelightmostfavorabletotheexistence Q ofthelesserincludedoffensewithoutmakinganyjudgmentsonthecredibilityof = suchevidence.Second,the...courtmustdetermineiftheevidence,viewedinthis )y light,islegallysufficienttosupportaconvictionforthelesserincludedoffense.e   Ѐ#XXX X%# XXXX T Statev.Bowles,52S.W.3d69,75(Tenn.2001)(quotingBurns,6S.W.3dat469).#XXX X)# XXXXThecourtadded  that   #XXX X4*# XXXX8  [i]ftheevidencewouldsupportafindingofguiltonthelesseroffense,anerrorin ! failingtochargethatlesseroffensewillnotbenegatedmerelybecausetheevidence " isalsosufficienttoconvictonthegreateroffense,forthedefendantneednot # demonstrateabasisforacquittalonthegreateroffense.#XXX X*# XXXX$   Bowles,52S.W.3dat75;seealsoBurns,6S.W.3dat472.#XXX Xs,# XXXX 'P"! ,  Finally,ifanoffensequalifiesasalesserincludedoffenseandmeetstheaboveevidentiary +){$# test,#XXX X8-#XXXXerrorofconstitutionaldimensionoccurredinfailingtoprovidetheinstruction.See,e.g.,State *g%$  v.Allen,69S.W.3d181,19091(Tenn.2001).Thissituationwouldmandatereversalunlessthe +S&%  reviewingcourtconcludesbeyondareasonabledoubtthattheerrordidnotaffecttheoutcomeof  thetrial.See,e.g.,id.at189.     B.AssertedOffenses  #  4      ׀MeetingtheBurnstestasLesserIncludedOffenses j ofAggravatedChildAbuse Y  0$  Turningtotheinstantcase,wenotethat  ' '1    8  #XXXX).# XXXX(a)Apersoncommitstheoffenseofaggravatedchildabuseoraggravatedchild R  neglectwhocommitstheoffenseofchildabuseorneglectasdefinedin#XXX X1# XXXX#XXX X2# XXXX3915401 >  and: *  (1)Theactofabuseorneglectresultsinseriousbodilyinjurytothechild;or   (2)Adeadlyweaponisusedtoaccomplishtheactofabuse.   (b)AviolationofthissectionisaClassBfelony;provided,that,iftheabusedor   neglectedchildissix(6)yearsofageorless,thepenaltyisaClassAfelony.   Tenn.CodeAnn.3915402(a),(b).#XXX X3# XXXXԀTheabovementionedTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection39 X 15401providesthatchildabuseinvolvesaperson #XXX XN5# XXXXknowingly,otherthanbyaccidentalmeans, D treat[ing]achildundereighteen(18)yearsofageinsuchamannerastoinflictinjuryorneglect[ing] 0 suchachildsoastoadverselyaffectthechildshealthandwelfare.Tenn.CodeAnn.3915  401(a).Incomparison,TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3913102statesthatS [  [ 1_#XXX X6#XXXX_8  #XXXX*8# XXXX(a)Apersoncommitsaggravatedassaultwho: J (1)Intentionallyorknowinglycommitsanassaultasdefinedin#XXX X8# XXXX#XXX XM9# XXXX3913101and: 6 (A)Causesseriousbodilyinjurytoanother;or "r (B)Usesordisplaysadeadlyweapon;or ^ (2)Recklesslycommitsanassaultasdefinedin#XXX X9# XXXX#XXX X:# XXXX3913101(a)(1),and: J (A)Causesseriousbodilyinjurytoanother;or 6 (B)Usesordisplaysadeadlyweapon. "     Tenn.CodeAnn.3913102(a)(1),(2).#XXX X:# XXXXԀFurthermore,TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3913 P# 101,inpertinentpart,providesthat #XXX X#<# XXXX[a]personcommitsassaultwho...[i]ntentionally,knowingly <$  orrecklesslycausesbodilyinjurytoanother.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913101(a)(1). (%x    WiththisbackgroundweturntoStatev.Honeycutt,54S.W.3d762(Tenn.2001),U #  5      #XXX X<# XXXXԀwhich   speaksspecificallytowhetheraggravatedassaultisalesserincludedoffenseofaggravatedchild  abuse.Id.at771.InHoneycutt,oursupremecourtheldthat S#XXX X>#XXXX knowingorrecklessaggravatedassault  qualifiesasalesserincludedoffenseofaggravatedchildabuseunderpart(a)oftheBurnstest t becausetheelementsof[knowingorrecklessTT #  6      ]aggravatedassaultareincludedwithintheoffense ` ofaggravatedchildabuse.Id.at771.However,thecourtwentontostatethatintentional L  aggravatedassaultisnotalesserincludedoffense.Id.Thecourtobservedthattheelementsdonot 8  satisfypart(a)ofBurns.Id.Thecourtthenexplainedthatpart(b)(1)isalsonotmetsincethe $ t intentionalmensreaindicatesahighermentalstatethanthatofaggravatedchildabuseand,  ` therefore,doesnotinvolve alesserkindofculpability.Sh #  7      ׀Id.  L    Wehavepreviouslyprovidedthedefinitionofassaultasoccurringwhenaperson  8   intentionally,knowingly,orrecklesslycausesbodilyinjurytoanother.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913 $  101(a)(1).ThoughtheHoneycuttCourtdidnotspeaktothisissue,underthecourtsrationale   therein,knowingassaultandrecklessassaultwouldalsobeconsideredlesserincludedoffenses of   aggravatedchildabuseunderpart(a)ofBurnswhileintentionalassaultwouldnotbeunderany   provisionofBurns.SeeStatev.CorneliusMichaelHyde,No.E200102708CCARMCD,2002   Tenn.Crim.App.LEXIS37,at*8(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,Jan.15,2002). p ;    Finally,weagreethatchildabuse,definedinTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3915401, \ isalesserincludedoffenseofaggravatedchildabuse.Thisisalsotrueunderpart(a)ofBurnsasis H evidentbythelanguageofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3915402(a)aboveprovided:To 4 convictanindividualofaggravatedchildabuse,thissubsectionrequirestheStatetoprovethe  p elementsofchildabuseplusseriousbodilyinjuryortheuseofadeadlyweapon.SeeTenn.Code  \ Ann.3915402(a)(1),(2). H   C.LesserIncludedOffensesSupportedbytheRequisiteProof    1J  Sincewehavefoundthatknowingandrecklessaggravatedassault,knowingandreckless  assault,andchildabusearelesserincludedoffensesofthechargedoffense,wemustnowdetermine  whethertheproofsupportedgivingtheseinstructionsintheinstantcase.Weacknowledgethat  defensecounseldidnotrequestanyoftheaforementionedinstructionsattrial;however,well l  establishedprecedentprovidesthat atrialcourtmustinstructthejuryonalllesserincludedoffenses X  iftheevidenceintroducedattrialislegallysufficienttosupportaconvictionforthelesseroffense. #  8         Burns,6S.W.3dat464(quotingStatev.Langford,994S.W.2d126,128(Tenn.1999)).    Therefore,weturntotheabovedescribedanalysisconcerning(1)#XXXX?# XXXX whetheranyevidence  existsthatreasonablemindscouldacceptastothelesserincludedoffense[s]whenviewingthe t proof liberallyinthelightmostfavorabletotheexistenceofthelesserincludedoffense[s]without ` makinganycredibilityjudgmentsand(2)whethertheproof, viewedinthislight,islegally L  sufficienttosupportaconvictionforthelesserincludedoffense[s].Bowles,52S.W.3dat75;Burns 8  6S.W.3dat469.#XXX XN# XXXXԀAspreviouslynoted,eachofthefiveaforementionedcrimesfoundtobe $ t appropriatelesserincludedoffensesofaggravatedchildabusefellunderpart(a)ofBurns.Thatis  ` tosaythat allof[their]statutoryelementsareincludedwithinthestatutoryelementsoftheoffense  L  charged.Burns,6S.W.3dat466.InStatev.Allen,ourSupremeCourtprovided:  8  8  Asageneralrule,evidencesufficienttowarrantaninstructiononthegreateroffense   alsowillsupportaninstructiononalesseroffenseunderpart(a)oftheBurnstest.   InprovingthegreateroffensetheStatenecessarilyhasproventhelesseroffense   becauseallofthestatutoryelementsofthelesseroffenseareincludedinthegreater.   #XXX XMQ#XXXXp   #XXXX,U# XXXXAllen,69S.W.3dat188.#XXX XU#XXXXԀAdditionally,thesupremecourtstated: Thetrialcourtmustprovidean H instructiononalesserincludedoffensesupportedbytheevidenceevenifsuchinstructionisnot 4 consistentwiththetheoryoftheStateorofthedefense.Theevidence,notthetheoriesoftheparties,  p controlswhetheraninstructionisrequired.Id.at18788.Inviewofthisprecedent,weconclude  \ thatthetrialcourterredbynotinstructingthejuryonknowingandrecklessaggravatedassault, H knowingandrecklessassault,andchildabuse. 4   D.HarmlessErrorAnalysis   X  Asnotedpreviously,atrialcourtsfailuretoproperlyinstructlesserincludedoffenseswill  notalwaysresultinareversalofadefendantsconvictionif itappearsbeyondareasonabledoubt  thattheerrordidnotaffecttheoutcomeofthetrial.See,e.g.,id.at191.Todeterminewhetherthe l erroris,infact,harmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt,thesupremecourtinstructsthat areviewing X  courtshouldconductathoroughexaminationoftherecord,includingtheevidencepresentedattrial, D! thedefendantstheoryofdefense,andtheverdictreturnedbythejury.Id. 0"    ThesupremecourthasobservedthatoneofthemeansbywhichtheStatemayprove #l! harmlesserrorinthisregardisbyshowingthatajuryfounda defendantguiltyofthehighest $X" offensetotheexclusionoftheimmediatelylesseroffense,[thereby]necessarilyrejectingallother $D # lesserincludedoffenses.Id.Sincethetrialcourtinthepresentcasedidnotchargeanylesser %0!$  includedoffense,thisrationaleisobviouslyinapplicablehere. &"%   ItshouldbenotedatthispointthatthisCourtiswellawarethatinStatev.Ducker,27   S.W.3d889,89697(Tenn.2000),ourstatesupremecourtheldthatinchildabuseprosecutions  underTennesseeCodeAnnotatedSections3915401!402,themensreaof knowingrefersonly  tothe treatmentofachild,andthattheStateneednotprovethatthedefendantknewhisconduct t wouldresultinbodilyorseriousbodilyinjury.However,section3915401(a)providesthatthe `  treatmentofachildmustbedone insuchamannerastoinflictinjury.AsnotedinDucker, . L  ..thestatuterequiresthattheactoftreatingachildinanabusivemanner...mustbeknowing 8  conduct.Id.WeareoftheopinionthatDuckerdidnotdispensewiththerequirementthatthe $ t defendantmust knowthathistreatmentofthechildisabusive,evenifitneednotbeproventhat  ` he knowthathisconductwillresultinbodilyinjuryorseriousbodilyinjury.  L    Inthiscasethedefendanttestifiedthathisadmittedshakingofthevictimwasnotinamanner $  thatwouldcausetheinjuriesactuallysustainedbythevictim.Thisisessentiallysayingthathis   conductwasnotabusiveor insuchamannerastoinflictinjury.Underthesecircumstanceswe   cannotsaybeyondareasonabledoubtthatifgivenanopportunity,ajurywouldnothavefoundthe   defendantsconducttobemerelyreckless.#XXXXU# XXXXԀInviewofthisfinding,thedefendantsconvictionmust   bereversedandthecaseremanded.We,therefore,neednotconductharmlesserroranalysis p regardinganyoftheremainingerroneouslyomittedcharges. \    AdmissionofContestedMedicalTestimony   p f  Inhisremainingissuethedefendantassertsthatthetrialcourterredinadmittingthechild H neurologiststestimonyconcerningthevictimspresentconditionandfutureprognosis.According 4 tothedefendantthisinformationshouldhavebeenexcludedunderTennesseeRuleofEvidence403   becauseofthedangerofunfairprejudiceand/ortheunnecessarypresentationofcumulative   evidence.    Thisruleprovidesthat [a]#XXX XXe# XXXXlthoughrelevant,evidencemaybeexcludedifitsprobativevalue  issubstantiallyoutweighedbythedangerofunfairprejudice,confusionoftheissues,ormisleading  thejury,orbyconsiderationsofunduedelay,wasteoftime,orneedlesspresentationofcumulative l evidence.Tenn.R.Evid.403.#XXX X