WPC) 08 b])(}IX(q4NκbA%Ky?JuQ`5O983sA49.9M,w^5/ٰDUmE>PsG@4 YB5aUS QB  MI =xE|wf'`-ÍY*!,Wl-"$#aܦViE z''L# T[KICim/`^!Ek2ԉBT 12R|?TkAm o[%(`[^i0e ݓϗLʯ v*B}E|`b 6 YqoW,Ց7rSE$CX .N y:jxBEr\T `-Z!N5Qb!!h?woږfY8"]d3:uyՖ߳WX2`b %\ 0b 0\UN 02 0) 0 z  0` 0T 0E 06$v 0<N*U >,^ jEv 1ux 72w4#7F mHU@_ 0n 0B  1gO# 0CU&NC(S{b6 0$$$$ B%% 0& D3& D-& 0K'' ASS'' 0l( 0D) AT)%2P+M 0_level1  , 8.4 <DL!823  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular2M+M 0_level2  X 5+4 44 <DL!523  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2M+M 0_level3   5+` ` ` <DL!523  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2J+M 0_level4   2( <DL!223  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5   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.wpt2J+M 0_level5   2( <DL!223  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2G+M 0_level6   /% <DL!/23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2G+M 0_level7  4 /% <DL!/23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2D+M 0_level8  ` ,"< <<DL!,23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  ӁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52D+M 0_level9   ,"h hhDL!,23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  \  `&Times New Roman,E) 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)l;) P_3|x U(uH Z(Times New Roman < :Footnote TexXXX<:Footnote Ref 35=CIOU[a1(1)a.i.1.a.i.1.a. HP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0($    (I Z6Times New Roman Regular 9 RR$  X     1  %X@X%  _Ԁ%e X%X@ItisthisCourtspolicynottoidentifychildvictimsbyname.#%X@X %e#  RR$  X     4  %X@X%  _Ԁ%e X%X@Wenotethatthedefendantssolechallengeistotheelementof seriousbodilyinjury.Therefore,aswe  agreewiththedefendantsapparentconcessionthatalltheotherelementswereproven,ourreviewhereislimitedtothis  oneargument.#%X@X %e#   - - , RR$  X     2  %X@X%  _%e X%X@ԀBothdefendantswereindictedforAggravatedChildAbusethroughinjuryandthroughneglect.The  indictmentsstatethattheseoffensesoccurred duringtheperiodoftimebetweenFebruary26,1997andMarch1,1997  andresultedin seriousbodilyinjury.#%X@X %e#  RR$  X     3  %X@X%  _Ԁ%h%X@Ԁ#%X@X%ݷ#%e X%X@Inarelatedmatter,DefendantLekinallegesthatcertaintrialsidebars,initiatedbyeithertheprosecution  orcounselforDefendantOConnor,wereoverheardbythejury.Thesesidebars,sheclaims,concernedinformation  improperforthejurysconsideration.Therefore,sheclaimsprejudice.WhilethisCourtwhenreviewingthetrial  transcriptswasconcernedbytheissue,wenownotethatthejurywasinstructedproperlyastowhichevidenceitcould t andcouldnotconsider.Further,wenotethatwhileDefendantLekinalleges prejudice,shepointstonoonesidebar R8 noranyoneparticulartheoryofprejudicialimpact.Therefore,whilewefindnoerrororprejudicehere,wedonotethat  itisatrialcourtsresponsibilitytoinsurethatthesesituationsdonotoccur.#%X@X %e#(82R$ !.8d d 8     X     0  XqX d(|3p$ !.8d d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3p$ !.8d d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8 d d8     _%%8vLXXdd 8)ǂ*OYр @INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON  2   December1999Session F,   %X@X% #%X%X@#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.NICHOLASOCONNORAND_NIKOL_Ԁ_LEKIN_%X@X%  D* @@0 0  DirectAppealfromtheCriminalCourtforShelbyCounty D * @@ No.9706205CarolynWade_Blackett_,TrialJudge 0  @@*AV) ` dE< ` A    @  @`  @  @  @h  @  @  @p  @  @  @@ No.W199800015CCAR3CDDecidedOctober2,2000   AV) ` dE<` A      Thisisacaseinvolvingtwodefendants:OConnor,themothersfriend,wasconvictedof   AggravatedChildAbusethroughinjuryandAggravatedChildAbusethroughneglect._Lekin_,the  mother,wasconvictedofAggravatedChildAbusethroughneglect.Weaffirmtheconvictionof  AggravatedChildAbusethroughinjury,asweholdthatafouryearoldwhoreceivedaskull l fracture,_epidural_Ԁbleeding,swellingandbruisingaroundtheeyesandface,andthepainassociated rX withsaidinjurieshassustained seriousbodilyinjury.Further,wefindsufficientevidenceto ^D supportbothconvictionsforAggravatedChildAbusethroughneglect.Finally, werejectthe J0 argumentsthatthestatewasrequiredtoelectaspecific seriousbodilyinjuryandthatAggravated 6 ChildAbusethroughneglectisnotanoffenseinTennessee.#%X%X@#%X@X% "    Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentsoftheCriminalCourtAffirmed    JohnEverettWilliams,J.,delivered#%X%X@ #%X@X%theopinionofthecourt,inwhichGaryR.Wade,_P.J._,and  NormaMcGeeOgle,J.,joined.  MarvinE._Ballin_ԀandMarkA._Mesler_,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellant,NicholasO'Connor. | MichaelE._Scholl_,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellant,_Nikol_Ԁ_Lekin_.  h  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;PeterM._Coughlan_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral; Z"@" WilliamL.Gibbons,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andJenniferSmith_Nichols_,AssistantDistrict F#,# Attorney,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. 2$ $ @66' OPINION #%X%X@ #%X@X%Ԉ &"' #%X%X@#%X@X XThedefendants,NicholasOConnorand_Nikol_Ԁ_Lekin_,appealfromconvictionsbyaShelby ($) Countyjury.DefendantOConnorwasconvictedofonecountofAggravatedChildAbusethrough )%* injuryandonecountofAggravatedChildAbusethroughneglect.Fortheseoffenses,hewas *&+ sentenced,asaRangeIoffender,totwoconcurrenttwentyyearterms.Defendant_Lekin_Ԁwas +x', convictedofonecountofAggravatedChildAbusethroughneglect.Forthisoffense,shewas ~,d(- sentenced,asaRangeIoffender,toonefifteenyearterm.Bothdefendantsnowappealbutraise j-P). differentarguments.DefendantOConnorassertsthat:  _ ! (03 X X ,X""  ,XB.4 <DL!,B  ' ,4X!' X,  X0 4  2(  1  )3   4   Insufficientevidencesupportedthejurysfindingof seriousbodilyinjury  necessaryforeitherofhisconvictions.݌4 4  Ќ XX ,,   XW Xe X_" X,s" XDefendantLekinassertsthat:   ,X X X XH X0 4  (1)ThetrialcourterredinitsfailuretoseverhercasefromdefendantOConnors  case;4 4  ""  ,XB.4 <DL!,B  ' ,4X!' X, 0 4  2(  2  )3   4   insufficientevidencesupportedthejurysverdict;s݌ 4 4  Ќ XX ,,   ""  ,XB.4 <DL!,B  ' ,4X!' X, 2(  3  )3   4   thetrialcourtinvariousregardsdeprivedherofaunanimousverdict;andO݌  t Ќ XX ,,   ""  ,XB.4 <DL!,B  ' ,4X!' X, h2(  4  )3   4   shewasconvictedofanoffensethatdoesnotexistatstatuteinTennessee.h6݌ z ` Ќ XX ,,   X X" X," X XAftercarefulreview,thisCourtaffirmsthejudgmentsinallrespects. f L   X R 8   X   FACTS  >$   X;L *  Atthetimeoftheoffense,February27,1997,thetwodefendants,OConnorandLekin,   werelivingtogetherwithLekinschildreninMoscow,Tennessee.Onthatdate,Lekinleftherfour   yearolddaughter,A& $  1      ,withOConnor.OConnorabusedthechild.Hestruckthechildonher   bottom,propellingherintoabathroomdoorfacing.TheimpactcausedAtosustainbruisesonher  bottom,significantbruisestothefaceandeyes,andaskullfracture.Infact,fordaysfollowing,she  wasbarelyrecognizablewithlargeblackandyelloweyesswollennearlyshut.    Despitethisappearance,neitherDefendantOConnornorDefendantLekintookthechildto p thehospital.Twodaysaftertheoffense,DefendantLekinssister,whohadseenthechild,called v\ ChildrensServices.Undertheirdirection,AwasfinallytransportedtothehospitalwithDefendant bH Lekin. N4  :  Onceadmittedtothehospital,Awasplacedinintensivecareforobservation.Herinjuries, &  includingaskullfractureandepiduralbleeding,wereidentifiedasintentionallyinflictedbluntforce  trauma,andChildServicesremovedherfromthedefendantscare.However,Adidnotrequireany  treatmentatthehospital;instead,herstaywassimplyfordiagnosticandobservationpurposes.    OnaccountofthisabuseandtheirfailuretomorepromptlyseekmedicalcareforA,  DefendantsOConnorandLekinwereindicted0| $  2      ׀andtried.Convictedafterajurytrial,theirappeal   isnowbeforethisCourt. !   "l!  X  ANALYSIS  r#X" & X& ^$D #  #%X@XXX@#X@XX%X@  XMotionforSeverance  J%0!$  X'' 6&"% DefendantLekinarguesthatthetrialcourterredwhenitdeniedhermotiontoseverhercase  fromthatofOConnor.Afterreview,wefindthatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionin  denyingthedefendantsseverancemotion.    DefendantLekinsprincipalcontentionisthatasshewastriedwithDefendantOConnor,  evidenceofintentionalabuse,otherwiseirrelevanttohercase,reachedthejuryandunfairly  prejudicedthem.Specifically,shenotesthatthetestimonyofAdescribingtheactualabuseand   certainmedicaltestimonydescribingtheinjuriesas intentionallyinflictedservedunfairlytoharden  t thejuryagainsther. z `  f L  Conversely,thestatepointsoutthat,infact,verylittleevidenceconcerningtheactual R 8  intentionalabusegotbeforethejury.Theonlytestimony,thestateclaims,thatconcernedtheactual >$  abusewasthetestimonyofA.Allsixoftheotherwitnessestestifiedtoeithertheeventsafterthe *  abuseorthemedicalconditionofA,topicswhichwerenecessarilyrelevanttoDefendantLekins   neglectcharge.      Tenn.R.Crim.P.14(c)governsthegrantingordenialofaseveranceofdefendants.The  decisionastowhetherornottograntaseveranceislefttothesounddiscretionofthetrialjudge,and  thisdecisionwillnotbedisturbedunlessthedefendantisunfairlyorundulyprejudiced.SeeState  v.Coleman,619S.W.2d112,116(Tenn.1981);Statev.Woods,806S.W.2d205,211(Tenn.Crim.  App.1990);Statev.Kyger,787S.W.2d13,20(Tenn.Crim.App.1989).Statedinanothermanner, p atrialcourtwillnotbefoundtohaveabuseditsdiscretionindenyingaseveranceunless the v\ defendantwasclearlyprejudicedtothepointthatthetrialcourt'sdiscretionendedandthegranting bH of[a]severancebecameajudicialduty.Statev.Burton,751S.W.2d440,447(Tenn.Crim.App. N4 1988)(quotingHunterv.State,227Tenn.672,682,440S.W.2d1,6(1969)). :   &  V l<` Inthiscase,weconcludethatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionindenyingDefendant  Lekinsmotionforseverance.Thevastmajorityoftheevidenceadducedattrialconcernedthe  eventsfollowingtheabuse,andwhilethisCourtdoesunderstandDefendantsLekinsconcernthat  theevidenceofintentionalabuse,howeverlimited,hadthepotentialforprejudicingthejuryagainst  her,weconcludethat,inreality,nosuchprejudiceoccurred.Insupportofthisconclusion,wenote  thatthisevidencedescribingtheabusewasveryclearinatleasttworegards:Lekinwasnotthere,   andLekinhadnothingtodowithit.Further,thejurywasinstructednottoconsidertheintentional !  abuseagainstLekin,butinstead,toconsidertheneglectchargeseparatelyandcarefully.We "l! presumethatthejuryfolloweditsinstruction.SeeStatev.Cribbs,967S.W.2d773,784(Tenn. r#X" 1998).Therefore,thisCourtdoesnotdetectanyrealprejudiceinthetrialcourtsdecisiontotrythe ^$D # twodefendantstogetherandconcludesthatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretion.7 $  3       J%0!$ Ї     X  SufficiencyoftheEvidence:AggravatedChildAbusethroughInjury   7 X7  DefendantOConnorarguesthattheevidenceadducedattrialwasinsufficienttosupporthis  convictionforAggravatedChildAbusethroughinjury.Specifically,hedoesnotchallengethatthe  offenseoccurred,butratherhearguesthattheprosecutionfailedtoprove seriousbodilyinjuryas   requiredbystatute.WedisagreewiththedefendantandfindthathisconvictionofAggravated  t ChildAbusethroughinjuryissupportedbysufficientevidence. z `  f L  Inthiscase,the seriousbodilyinjuryinflicteduponAbythedefendantsabusewas R 8  establishedthroughAstestimonyandmedicaltestimony.Asinjuriesincluded: >$   X?+4 44 <DL!X? X(1)skullfracture; *  (2)epiduralbleeding;   (3)swellingaroundtheeyesandface;   (4)nonpermanentbruisinganddiscolorationaroundtheeyesandface;and   (5)nonpermanentbruisinganddiscolorationonthechildsbottom.   X; XE+ 4 <DL!444X!E XOnaccountoftheseinjuries,Awasadmittedtothehospitalandspentfourteenhoursinthe  intensivecareunitwheretheconcernwastheepiduralbleedingandskullfracture.Intheend,A  healedwithoutreceivinganymedicaltreatmentotherthananaspirinforpain.   X= p Reviewingthejurysverdict,itisforthisCourttodeterminewhethertheseinjuries,as v\ establishedattrial,aresufficienttosustainDefendantOConnorsconvictionforAggravatedChild bH Abusethroughinjury.Therelevantstatutes,Tenn.CodeAnn.3915401and402,read: N4  X X XChildabuseandneglect.! (a)Anypersonwhoknowingly,otherthanbyaccidental :  means,treatsachildundereighteen(18)yearsofageinsuchamannerastoinflict * injuryorneglectssuchachildsoastoadverselyaffectthechildshealthandwelfare  commitsaClassAmisdemeanor;provided,thatiftheabusedchildissix(6)years  ofageorless,thepenaltyisaClassDfelony.   X@ X@ X@ X X X Aggravatedchildabuseandneglect. (a)Apersoncommitstheoffenseof  aggravatedchildabuseandneglectwhocommitstheoffenseofchildabuseand  neglectasdefinedin3915401and:    XB XB XB(1)Theactofabuseresultsinseriousbodilyinjurytothechild.... !   XFurther, seriousbodilyinjuryisdefinedbyTenn.CodeAnn.3911106(34)asbodilyinjury "t! whichinvolves: z#`"  X X(a)Asubstantialriskofdeath; f$L # (b)Protractedunconsciousness; R%8!$ (c)Extremephysicalpain; >&$"% (d)Protractedorobviousdisfigurement;or *'#& ! ,X!!0 4  (e)Protractedlossorsubstantialimpairmentofafunctionofabodilymember,organ (#' ormentalfaculty.)$(4 4   XmE X_E XD% X!,SF% )%)  NowthisCourtmustdeterminewhethersufficientevidencewasadducedattrialtosupport *&* thejurysfindingthattherequisitestatutoryelements,asrecitedabove,weresatisfied.( $  4      ׀Wereview   thisclaimunderawellestablishedstandardofreview#%X@XXX@o'#X@XX%X@.Whenanaccusedchallengesthesufficiency  oftheevidence,thisCourtmustreviewtherecordtodetermineiftheevidenceadducedduringthe  trialwassufficient tosupportthefindingsbythetrieroffactofguiltbeyondareasonabledoubt.  SeeTenn.R.App.P.13(e).Indeterminingthesufficiencyoftheevidence,thisCourtneither  reweighsnorreevaluatestheevidence.SeeStatev.Cabbage,571S.W.2d832,835(Tenn.1978).  NormaythisCourtsubstituteitsinferencesforthosedrawnbythetrieroffactfromcircumstantial   evidence.SeeLiakasv.State,286S.W.2d856,859(Tenn.1956).Tothecontrary,thisCourtis  t requiredtoaffordthepartyprevailingattrialthestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidencecontained z ` intherecordaswellasallreasonableandlegitimateinferencesthatmaybedrawnfromtheevidence. f L  SeeStatev.Tuttle,914S.W.2d926,932(Tenn.Crim.App.1995). R 8   >$      Questionsconcerningthecredibilityofthewitnesses,theweightandvaluetobegiventhe *  evidence,andallfactualissuesraisedbytheevidenceareresolvedbythetrieroffacts,notthis   Court.Seeid.InStatev.Grace,493S.W.2d474,476(Tenn.1973),theTennesseeSupremeCourt   stated, Aguiltyverdictbythejury,approvedbythetrialjudge,accreditsthetestimonyofthe   witnessesfortheStateandresolvesallconflictsinfavorofthetheoryoftheState.    Becauseaverdictofguiltyremovesthepresumptionofinnocenceandreplacesitwitha  presumptionofguilt,theaccusedhastheburdenofillustratingtothisCourtwhytheevidenceis  insufficienttosupporttheverdictreturnedbythetrieroffact.SeeStatev.Tuggle,639S.W.2d913, p 914(Tenn.1982);Grace,493S.W.2dat476.#%X@XXX@DI#X@XX%X@ v\  bH DecidingOConnorssufficiencyclaim,thisCourtisguidedbysimilarcasesdealingwith N4 childabuse.InStatev.Jones,953S.W.2d695(Tenn.Crim.App.1996),thisCourtheldthat abad :  headache,ringingintheears,andbruisingtogetherwithtestimonythattheinjuries hurtreallybad &  weresufficienttoconstitute seriousbodilyinjuryandthussupportanAggravatedChildAbuse  convictioninvolvinganelevenyearoldvictim.Further,inStatev.BettyLevandowski,No.03C01  9503CR00076(Tenn.Crim.App.,filedJune5,1996,atKnoxville#%X@XXX@OR#X@XX%X@),thisCourtfoundthatatwo  yearoldvictimcoveredwith bruises,abrasions,andscabswhichwouldhavecaused considerable  painhadsuffered seriousbodilyinjury.Finally,inStatev.RobbieJames,No.01C019609CR  00388(Tenn.Crim.App.,filedNov.14,1997,atNashville#%X@XXX@rU#X@XX%X@),anAggravatedChildAbuseconviction   wasaffirmedonthebasisofcutsandbruisingaccompaniedwithpainfulscreams. !   "l! Consideringthesecases,thisCourtconcludesthatajurycouldfindthattheinjuriesandpain r#X" inflicteduponAconstituted seriousbodilyinjury.Theevidenceissufficienttosupportafinding ^$D # thatAsuffered seriousbodilyinjuryasaresultofdefendantOConnorsabuse.WhenAwas J%0!$ broughtintotheemergencyroom,shewasdiagnosedwithaskullfractureandepiduralbleedingand 6&"% immediatelyplacedintheintensivecareunit.Thoseinjuries,alongwiththeirattendantriskofbrain "'#& swelling,clearlycreated asubstantialriskofdeath.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.3911106(34)(A). (#' Likewise,thoseinjuries,inadditiontotheinjuriestoAseyes,resultedin extremephysicalpain ($( toA.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.3911106(34)(C).A,whowassixyearsoldatthetimeofthetrial,  testifiedthatherinjuries hurtherandcausedhertocry.Dr.MarkBugnitz,whotreatedAinthe  emergencyroom,testifiedthatAexhibitedpainuponexamination,threedaysaftershewasinjured.  Additionally,theinjuriestoAseyesconstituted obviousdisfigurement.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.  3911106(34)(D).PhotographsofAtakenintheemergencyroomandintroducedbythestate  showedthatAseyesandthesurroundingtissuewerepurpleandblackduetobruisingandthatthere  wassubstantialswelling.Indeed,Aseyeswereswollenshutand,asaresult,hervisionwas    substantiallyimpaired.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.3911106(34)(E).JoJones,anemergencyroom  t nurse,testifiedthatoneofAseyeswascompletelyswollensuchthattheeyelidswerealmostfused; z ` Ahadonlyminimalvisionthroughherothereye.Therefore,wefindsufficientevidencetoaffirm f L  DefendantOConnorsconvictionofAggravatedChildAbusethroughinjury. R 8  #%X@XXX@(W#X@XX%X@ >$   X  SufficiencyoftheEvidence:AggravatedChildAbusethroughNeglect  *  a Xa   Bothdefendantsarguethatinsufficientevidencewasadducedattrialtosupporttheir   convictionsofAggravatedChildAbusethroughneglect.Specifically,theyarguethatthestatefailed   toproveanyinjuryoccurringonaccountoftheneglect.Therefore,theyaskthattheirconvictions  forAggravatedChildAbusethroughneglectbesetaside.Wedisagreewiththedefendantsandfind  sufficientevidencesupportingthejurysconclusionthattheneglectcaused seriousbodilyinjury.    Butfirst,wemustnotethatwereviewthissufficiencyclaimunderthestandardofreviewset p forthaboveinourpreviousanalysisofDefendantOConnorssufficiencyclaim.See,e.g.,Cabbage, v\ 571S.W.2dat835. bH  N4 ThecruxofthisclaimisthatAggravatedChildAbusethroughneglectrequiresashowing :  thatsomediscernibleinjuryoccurredonaccountoftheneglect.ThisCourthashadoccasionto &  reviewthislegalassertionbefore,seeStatev.MikeMateyko,No.01C0019806CC0026(Tenn.  Crim.App.,filedSept.22,1999,atNashville),andhasagreedunderdifferentfactsthatsome  discernibleinjurymustbeproven.SeealsoStatev.KevinR.Mosley,No.01C019108CC00235  (Tenn.Crim.App.,filedApril29,1992,#%X@XXX@`#X@XX%X@ԀatNashville).Inthiscase,wedistinguishtheholdingsof  bothMateykoandMosleyinthattheinstantcaseinvolvesactualandobviousphysicalinjuriesto  thevictim.    !  Now,wemustreviewtheevidenceandargumentstodeterminewhetheranydiscernible "l! injurywas,infact,proveninthiscase.Again,thedefendantsarguethatnosuchinjurywas r#X" demonstrated;theState,however,disagrees.Itarguesthat seriousbodilyinjuryoccurringon ^$D # accountoftheneglectwasprovedattrialthroughmedicaltestimonyandotherevidence.After J%0!$ reviewingthesearguments,thisCourtconcludesthattheevidencedidestablishthatinthedaysA 6&"% wasnottakentothehospital,shelingeredunderasubstantialriskofdeathduetothepossibilityof "'#& attendantbrainswelling.Fromthisevidence,thejurycouldhaveconcludedthattheneglect,the (#' failuretotakeAtothehospital,createdasubstantialriskofdeathinandofitself,apartfromthe ($( actualinflictionoftheinjury.Therefore,wefindtheevidencesufficient. )%)  *&* Thatis,ajurycouldproperlyconcludethatDefendantOConnorwasguiltyofcriminalchild +'+ neglectmomentsaftertheintentionalinflictionofinjuryuponthechildandcouldhavefoundthat  theneglectcontinueduntilthechildwastakentothehospitalandplacedinintensivecarefor  observation.    Itisgrantedthatthiscasepresentsamoredifficultquestion,however,asrelatestothe  mother,DefendantLekin.Shehadnoreferencepointbywhichtogaugetheseriousnessofthe  childsinjuryuntilthechildsphysicalanguishbecameobvious.However,weholdthatherdecision   toknowinglyforegomedicaltreatmentafterthechilddisplayedobviousphysicalanguishisthecrux  t ofcriminalchildneglect.Therefore,wefindthatsufficientevidenceexistedtoconvictDefendant z ` Lekinaswell.#%X@XXX@g#X@XX%X@ f L   R 8   X  DeprivationofaUnanimousVerdict  >$  q Xq *  DefendantLekincontendsthatthetrialcourtsrefusaltogranthermotionforabillof   particulars,torequirethestatetoelectspecificinjuriesastheoffensesforwhichitsought   convictions,andtoinstructthejurythatitmustunanimouslyfindandindicateaspecificserious   bodilyinjuryviolatedherrighttoaunanimousjuryverdict.Conversely,thestatecontendsthatno  suchviolationoccurred.Afterreview,wefindnoreversibleerror.      X @`  @  @  @h BillofParticulars   XtӀtDefendantLekinsfirstcontentionisthatthetrialcourtfailedinerrortogranthermotionfor v\ abillofparticulars.Abillofparticularsmaybeorderedtoadequatelyidentifytheoffensecharged. bH SeeTenn.R.Crim.P.7(c).Thefunctionofabillofparticularsistoprovideadefendantwith N4 informationaboutthedetailsofthechargethatarenecessaryinthepreparationofhisorherdefense :  andtoavoidprejudicialsurpriseattrial.SeeStatev.Hicks,666S.W.2d54,56(Tenn. &  1984)(quoting1CharlesAlanWright,FederalPracticeandProcedure,Criminal,129,at434  (1982));seealsoStatev.Stephenson,878S.W.2d530,539(Tenn.1994).Thedefendantshouldbe  givenenoughinformationabouttheeventschargedsothatheorshemaydiligentlypreparefortrial.  ЀSeeid.Wheretheindictmentisnotsufficientlydetailed,abillofparticularswillservethispurpose.  Anabuseofdiscretionmustbeshowntodemonstrateerrorindenyingabillofparticulars.See  Stephenson,878S.W.2dat539.    !  DefendantLekinfiledamotionforabillofparticularsaftertheindictmentwasreturned. "l! Defendanthadsoughtbythismotiontoknowexactlywhat neglectandwhat injuriesthe r#X" indictmentcharged.Whenthetrialcourtdeniedthismotionbywrittenorder,thedefendantwasleft ^$D # withthelanguageoftheindictmentwhichstatedtheoffense, AggravatedChildAbusethrough J%0!$ neglect,andtherelevantdates.Inthiscase,givencourtprecedentasregardsneglectoffenses,this 6&"% languagesufficientlyapprisedDefendantLekinofthecircumstancesoractsallegedas neglectand "'#& theinjuriestothechildallegedas seriousbodilyinjury.Whileitistruethat,atthatpoint,atleast (#' twodifferenttheoriesoractsofneglectexisted:(1)DefendantLekinneglectedAbyleavingher ($( withDefendantOConnorand(2)DefendantLekinneglectedAbyfailingtotakeAtothehospital )%) aftertheabuse,wecannotfindanyabuseofdiscretioninthetrialcourtsdenialinlightofStatev. *&* JohnAdamsandRitaAdams,____S.W.3d_____(Tenn.2000),No.W199700190SCR11CD +'+ (filedJune30,2000,atJackson),whichholdsthatasacontinuingoffense,theStateisnotrequired  toelectaparticularinjuryandthusaparticularactofneglect.SeealsoStatev.Lemacks,996  S.W.2d166(Tenn.1999).      X @`  @  @ ElectionofInjury    XNext,DefendantLekinarguesthatasthereexistseveraldifferentpossibletheoriesofabuse   andaccordinglyseveraldifferentpossibleinjuries,asoutlinedabove,thetrialcourtshouldhave  t requiredtheStatetoelecteitherwhichtheoryortheoriesofneglectandwhichinjuryorinjuriesupon z ` whichitwasrelyingforconviction.TheStatearguesthatnosuchelectionwasnecessary;infact, f L  itarguesinitsbriefthatsuchelectionisnevernecessaryinaprosecutionforneglect.Weconclude R 8  thattheTennesseeSupremeCourtsrecentdecisioninStatev.JohnAdamsandRitaAdams,_____ >$  S.W.3d_____(Tenn.2000),No.W199700190SCR11CD(filedJune30,2000,atJackson), *  controlsthisissueandthat,asaconsequence,theStatewasnotrequiredtoelectanyparticular   seriousbodilyinjury.      Electionofoffensesisnecessarytoprotectseveralimportantinterestsofadefendant:(1)  itenablesadefendanttoprepareanddefendagainstthespecificcharges;(2)itprotectsthedefendant  fromdoublejeopardy;and(3)itensuresunanimityofthejuryverdict.Burlisonv.State,#%X@XXX@lq#X@XX%X@501S.W.   X2d801,803(Tenn.1973).Whilealloftheseinterestsarecrucial,thetrueimportofthisdoctrine  isitsprotectionofadefendantsconstitutionalrighttojuryunanimity.SeeTidwellv.State,922 p S.W.2d497,501(Tenn.1996).Entitlementtojuryunanimityencompassesnotonlyarightthatthe v\ jurybeunanimousastowhichoffenseconstitutesthecrimeforwhichthedefendantisconvicted, bH butalsoarighttounanimityregardingthespecificactoractswhichconstitutetheoffense.See N4 Brown,823S.W.2dat582.Toprotectthisrightofthedefendant,atrialcourthasadutytorequire :  theStatetoelecttheparticularoffensesuponwhichitreliesforconvictionandtoinstructthejury &  sothattheverdictofeveryjurorwillbeunitedononeoffense.SeeBurlison,501S.W.2dat804;  seealsoShelton,851S.W.2dat136.   X:  DefendantLekincitesthisrightto unanimityinherbriefandarguesthatastheStatewas  notrequiredtoelecteitheratheoryofneglectoraparticular seriousbodilyinjury,thejuryverdict  convictingherisquitepossiblya patchworkverdictbasedondifferentoffensesarguablyin   evidence.Seeid.Conversely,theStaterespondsthatthisisaspecialcasenotrequiringelection. !  ItarguesthatelectionisonlyrequiredwheretheStateispursuingconvictionsfordiscretecrimesand "l! proofofadditionaldiscretecrimeshasbeenintroducedattrial.SeeShelton,851S.W.2dat137. r#X" Electionisnotrequired,theStatecontinues,where thecrimechargedrequirestheStatetoprove ^$D # acontinuouscourseofunlawfulconduct.SeeStatev.Hoxie,963S.W.2d737,742(Tenn.1998). J%0!$ Accordingly,theStateclassifiestheinstantcharge,neglectoverthetwodaysbetweentheabuseand 6&"% hospitaladmittance,asa continuingoffensenotrequiringelection,likethatdefinedinTennessees "'#& antistalkingprovision,Tenn.CodeAnn.3917315(a)(1)(A).See,e.g.,Hoxie,963S.W.2d737. (#'  ($( ThisCourthascarefullyconsidereddefendantLekinsargumentthatshewasimpermissibly )%) deniedaunanimousverdictonaccountofthetrialcourtsfailuretoprovideforabillofparticulars *&* andtheprosecutionsfailuretoelectaparticular seriousbodilyinjury.Afterathorough +'+ examinationofthetrialrecord,weacknowledgethatthejurywaspresentedwithseveraldifferent  theoriesofneglect.Specifically,theprosecutionarguedthreesuchtheories:(1)DefendantLekin  neglectedthechildbyplacingherinthecareofdefendantOConnor;(2)DefendantLekinneglected  thechildbyfailingtotakethechildtothehospitalforseveraldaysaftertheabuse;and(3)thechild  wasmalnourished.Discerningthesethreetheories,thequestionsbecamewhetherDefendantLekin  wasadequatelyinformedaboutthedetailsofthechargesothatshecouldprepareherdefenseand  avoidprejudicialsurpriseattrialandwhetherDefendantLekinwasdeniedherconstitutionalright   tojuryunanimity.Answeringthesetwoquestionsonthebasisoftheappellatebriefsandappellate  t argumentprovedatoughandclosetaskforthisCourt;however,beforethisdecision,wewere z ` providedessentiallycontrollingguidancefromthisstatesSupremeCourtinitsrecentdecision,State f L  v.JohnAdamsandRitaAdams,____S.W.3d_____(Tenn.2000),No.W199700190SCR11CD R 8  (filedJune30,2000,atJackson). >$   *  B+4 44 <DL!X!BInthatdecision,theSupremeCourtheldthatinaggravatedchildabusethroughneglectcases,   theStateisnotrequiredtomakeanelectionofanyparticular seriousbodilyinjuryastheoffense   isa continuingoffense.JohnAdamsandRitaAdams,No.W199700190SCR11CD,at*9.So   whenadefendantordefendantshavecommittedseveralactsofpossibleneglectwithinadiscernible  timeframe,andanyoneoranycombinationoftheseoffensescouldconstituteneglect,thenajury  mayconvictthedefendantsofneglectwithoutspecifyingorbeingforcedtospecifyaparticular  injuryoract.Seeid.Thisdecision,whenreadinconjunctionwithStatev.Lemacks,996S.W.2d  166(Tenn.1999),controlstheinstantcase.Statev.Lemacksheldthattherighttoaunanimous p verdictwasnotdeprivedwhenageneralverdictconvictedthedefendantofsimply DUIwhile,in v\ fact,twodifferenttheoriesofguiltwerebeforethejury.Differenttheoriesofguiltwerepresented; bH however,eachwasbasedonasinglecriminaloccurrence,albeita continuingone.Therefore,we N4 findnoerror.Putdifferently,oncethearguablyseparateactsofneglectarecombinedintoone :   continuingoffense,asallowedbyJohnAdamsandRitaAdams,Lemacksinstructsthatageneral &  verdictpredicatedonthatonecriminaloccurrenceisvalid.Underthisanalysisandlogic,wehold  thatDefendantLekinwasnotdeprivedaunanimousjury.  #%X@XXX@#X@XX%X@   X  AggravatedChildAbuseThroughNeglect   ۟ X͟   Finally,DefendantLekinsargumentthatAggravatedChildAbusebyneglectisnotacrime !  definedbystatuteinTennesseeispretermitted.Asregardsthisissue,thisCourtnotesourSupreme "l! CourtsdecisioninStatev.JohnAdamsandRitaAdams,____S.W.3d____(Tenn.2000),No. r#X" W199700190SCR11CD(filedJune30,2000,atJackson),#%X@XXX@#X@XX%X@ԀandconcludesthatAggravatedChild ^$D # AbusethroughneglectisanoffenseinTennessee. J%0!$  X  CONCLUSION  "'#& ʢ XӀ (#' Accordingly,weaffirmtheconvictionsofbothdefendants. ($( #%X@XXX@# )%)  *&*  +'+ Ї   `     h     ___________________________________  Ѐ    h     JOHNEVERETTWILLIAMS,JUDGE