ÿWPC~( …# VUNa %¯ 0 (µw@Ý4 1 @ 0†H 0DÎ 0J 0T\ 0^° 0h 0rv 0|è 0†d 0ê 1uz 0dï BSU >pB)® D3×DC U*M 0@w AM·ãçïwòqiÆÚk } v~ˆvÓ! AOÙ&Æ(' 0Dî' D/2( Ba(˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ —˜V™DšD›œÕDÓ€Ô¡¨ 3|x(6(2Ä$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d""""'ÿÿdxd))))7Border 1dd< Œ 9p`(Arial("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÙÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€,XÔÌÌNovember€20,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó þÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€At€this€time,€Fox€was€defendantððs€probation€officer€on€prior€convictions€forÏvandalism€and€statutory€rape.€€However,€the€fact€that€Fox€was€defendantððs€probationÏofficer€was€€not€disclosed€to€the€jury.€€Their€conversation€will€be€discussed€more€fullyÏunder€òòMotion€to€Suppressóó€and€òòMotion€to€Excludeóó,€òòinfraóó.Ì ùÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Bonds€pled€guilty€to€facilitation€to€commit€aggravated€child€abuse.Ì mÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Although€the€trial€court€refused€the€defendantððs€requested€instruction,€the€jury€was€Ïgiven€the€abbreviated€pattern€charge€on€identity.€€òòSeeóó€T.P.I.€Crim.€37.17€(2d€ed.€1988).Ì gÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Defendant€does€not€allege€that€the€state€failed€to€divulge€exculpatory€evidence.€€ItÏappears€from€the€record€that€the€state€obtained€these€reports€after€the€trial€had€concluded.Ì ¼Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€In€addition€to€evaluations€at€Crockett€Academy,€the€defendant€wasÏpsychologically€evaluated€at€Parthenon€Pavillion€and€Vanderbilt€University,€all€of€whichÏare€Nashville€institutions.€€All€of€the€mental€evaluations€were€administered€when€defendantÏwas€a€juvenile.Ì aÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€We€certainly€empathize€with€the€following€comments€of€the€trial€judge€who,€whenÏdeciding€to€take€this€issue€under€advisement€for€several€days,€remarked:ÌÌà8 àI€want€to€go€ahead€and€resolve€this€case€today,€but€I€do€not€want€to€do€it€ifÏIððm€going€to€have€somebody€who€has€months€and€months€to€look€over€allÏthese€things€and€study€them€and€analyze€them€and€have€clerks€run€aroundÏdoing€things,€come€along€and€tell€me€to€conduct€this€hearing€again.€.€.€IððmÏgoing€to€reset€this€case€to€complete€the€Sentencing€Hearing.ÌÌWe€agree€that€the€trial€court€has€a€much€more€difficult€task€in€resolving€these€issues€in€theÏð ðheat€of€battleðð€than€we€do€upon€deliberate€reflection.Ì sÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Our€Court€has€previously€held€that€the€culpable€mental€state€of€ð ðintentionalðð€isÏimplied€by€the€use€of€the€term€ð ðsexual€contactðð€in€the€indictment.€€Because€the€definition€ofÏð ðsexual€contactðð€requires€that€a€touching€be€ð ðintentional,ðð€the€mental€state€is€therebyÏcontained€in€the€indictment.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€John€Claude€Wells,€IIIóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9505„CR„00146,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€June€6,€1997,€at€Nashville);ÏòòState€v.€Milton€S.€Jones,€Jr.óó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9503„CR„00061,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€filed€March€7,€1997,€at€Jackson).€€We€find€this€reasoning€to€be€closelyÏanalogous€to€an€indictment€containing€the€term€ð ðabuse.ððÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€,ÔßR€./+A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àAUGUST€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òNO.€01C01„9607„CR„00285ó óÌà àAppellee,à@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òDAVIDSON€COUNTYó óÌò òVS.ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òHON.€J.€RANDALL€WYATT,ÏJR.,ÌDAVID€PALMER,ó óà@ à)à àò òJUDGEó óÌà@ à)Ìà àAppellant.à@ à)à à(Aggravated€Child€Abuse)ÌÌÌÌò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌKARL€DEANà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPó óÌPublic€Defenderà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌò òJEFFREY€A.€DeVASHER€(appeal€only)à àKAREN€M.€YACUZZOó óÌSenior€Assistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ1202€Stahlman€Buildingà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€TN€37201à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌò òWENDY€S.€TUCKERó óà àà àà àà àò òVICTOR€S.€JOHNSON,€IIIÌSHEILA€JONESà àà àó óà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌAssistant€Public€DefendersÌ1202€Stahlman€Buildingà àà àà àà àò òWILLIAM€R.€REEDó óÌNashville,€TN€37201à àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÏGeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWashington€Square,€Suite€500Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à222€Second€Avenue,€N.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201„1649ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òÌÌœÌÌOPINION›€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌÌÌÌJOE€G.€RILEY,ÌJUDGEÇÓÓÑ7€UDXXdìXXdì7Ñà@ àòòOPINIONóóó óÌÌà àThe€defendant,€David€Palmer,€was€convicted€by€a€Davidson€County€juryÏof€aggravated€child€abuse.€€He€was€sentenced€as€a€Class€A€felon€to€seventeenÏ(17)€years€as€a€Standard€Offender€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.€ÏOn€appeal,€he€presents€ten€(10)€issues€for€our€review:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€motion€to€suppressÏa€statement€made€to€his€probation€officer€without€òòMirandaóóÏwarnings;ÌÌà8 à(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€motion€to€excludeÏthe€testimony€of€his€probation€officer€in€its€entirety;ÌÌà8 à(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€certain€photographs;ÌÌà8 à(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€opinion€of€a€plasticÏsurgeon€regarding€the€non„accidental€nature€of€the€childððs€injury;ÌÌà8 à(5)€whether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€finding€of€guilt;ÌÌà8 à(6)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€instruct€the€jury€onÏidentification€of€the€defendant€pursuant€to€òòState€v.€Dyleóó;ÌÌà8 à(7)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€instructing€the€jury€on€theÏminimum€number€of€years€defendant€would€serve€beforeÏbecoming€eligible€for€parole;ÌÌà8 à(8)€whether€defendant€was€entitled€to€a€new€trial€on€the€basis€ofÏnewly€discovered€evidence;ÌÌà8 à(9)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€the€defendant€for€aÏClass€A€felony€when€the€indictment€did€not€allege€that€the€childÏwas€under€six€(6)€years€of€age;€andÌÌà8 à(10)€whether€the€indictment€was€fatally€deficient€for€failing€to€allegeÏthe€requisite€òòmens€reaóó.ÌÌÓÓAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€œjudgment€of€the€trial€court.›ÌÌà@ àò òòòFACTSó óóóÌÌà à€œOn›€the€evening€of€December€4,€1994,€defendant€and€his€girlfriend,ÏShiwanda€Bonds,€brought€Bondsðð€fifteen„month€old€daughter€to€CentennialÏMedical€Center€in€Nashville.€€The€child€had€a€severe€ð ðsubmersionðð€burn€on€herÏright€hand.€€Because€of€the€severity€of€the€burn,€the€child€was€subsequentlyÏtaken€to€the€burn€center€at€Vanderbilt€University€Hospital.Ìà àUpon€arriving€at€Centennial,€Detective€Duane€Phillips€spoke€withÏdefendant.€€Defendant€stated€he€and€Bonds€had€been€dating€for€over€two€(2)Ïyears€but€did€not€live€together.€€Defendant€claimed€that€he€was€not€presentÏwhen€the€child€was€hurt€but€helped€bring€the€child€to€the€hospital€at€BondsððÏrequest.Ìà àDefendant€also€spoke€that€evening€with€Ron€Reed,€a€case€worker€withÏthe€Emergency€Child€Protective€Services€Division€of€the€Department€of€HumanÏServices.€€Reed€was€contacted€because€of€suspicions€that€the€childððs€injury€wasÏthe€result€of€abuse.€€Likewise,€defendant€told€Reed€that€he€was€not€with€the€childÏwhen€she€was€burned.Ìà àBonds,€the€childððs€mother,€explained€to€the€doctors€at€Vanderbilt€that€theÏchild€was€burned€on€a€hot€curling€iron.Ìà àApproximately€two€to€three€days€later,€defendant€telephoned€Reed€toÏdiscuss€the€incident.€€Reed€testified€at€trial€that€ð ð[defendant]€told€me€that€he€did€it,Ïbut€that€he€didnððt€mean€to.ððÌà àSubsequently,€defendant€spoke€with€Tina€Fox× ƒ0 ××  ×€concerning€the€incident.€ÏDefendant€told€her€that€he€accidentally€burned€his€girlfriendððs€daughterððs€handÏin€some€hot€water.Ìà àDr.€Ronald€Barton,€a€plastic€surgeon€at€Vanderbilt,€testified€that€œthe€child›Ïhad€a€ð ðsignificant€burn€to€her€right€hand,€in€essentially€the€distribution€of€aÏglove.ðð€€Dr.€Barton€stated€that€the€burn€was€consistent€with€the€childððs€handÏbeing€dipped€in€a€pot€of€hot€water.€€He€opined€that€the€injury€was€compatibleÏwith€physical€abuse€rather€than€being€accidental.Ìà àDefendant€did€not€present€any€proof.Ìà àThe€jury€returned€a€verdict€of€guilty€of€aggravated€child€abuse.€ÏDefendant€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€I,€Standard€Offender,€to€seventeen€(17)Ïyears€for€this€Class€A€felony.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€From€this€conviction€and€sentence,€he€brings€thisÏappeal.ÌÌà@ àò òòòMOTION€TO€SUPPRESSóóó óÌÌà àDefendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€motion€toÏsuppress€a€statement€made€to€his€probation€officer€prior€to€his€arrest.€€He€claimsÏthat€before€the€statement€was€given,€he€was€not€advised€of€his€constitutionalÍrights€pursuant€to€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436,€86€S.Ct.€1602,€16€L.Ed.2dÏ694€(1966).€€Therefore,€he€argues€that€the€statement€was€improperly€admitted€atÏtrial.Ìà@ àò òA.ó óÌà àDefendant€telephoned€his€probation€officer,€Tina€Fox,€prior€to€his€arrest.€ÏHe€told€Fox€that€he€was€afraid€that€there€was€an€outstanding€warrant€for€hisÏarrest€in€connection€with€this€incident.€€Fox€asked€him€to€come€to€her€office,€andÏdefendant€agreed.Ìà àBefore€defendant€arrived€at€her€office,€Fox€called€the€Metro€PoliceÏDepartment€to€determine€if€there€was€an€outstanding€warrant€for€defendantððsÏarrest.€€A€detective€confirmed€that€defendant€had€an€outstanding€warrant€andÏasked€Fox€to€call€when€defendant€arrived.Ìà àAt€Foxððs€office,€defendant€told€her€that€he€had€accidentally€burned€hisÏgirlfriendððs€daughterððs€hand€in€some€hot€water.€€After€a€short€conversation€withÏFox,€defendant€was€arrested€by€Metro€Police€officers€at€Foxððs€office.Ìà àThe€defendant€sought€to€suppress€the€statement€made€to€Fox€that€heÏaccidentally€burned€his€girlfriendððs€childððs€hand€in€hot€water.€€The€trial€courtÏfound€that€the€interview€with€Fox€did€not€ð ðbecome€custodial.ðð€€Therefore,€the€trialÏcourt€denied€defendantððs€motion€to€suppress€the€statement.Ìò òà@ àB.ó óÌà àIn€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€theÏprosecution€cannot€admit€a€statement€by€the€defendant€stemming€fromÏð ðcustodial€interrogationðð€unless€it€demonstrates€the€use€of€proceduralÍsafeguards€effective€to€secure€the€privilege€against€self„incrimination.€€384€U.S.Ïat€444,€86€S.Ct.€at€1612.€€The€Court€defined€ð ðcustodial€interrogationðð€asÏð ðquestioning€initiated€by€law€enforcement€officers€after€a€person€has€been€takenÏinto€custody€or€otherwise€deprived€of€his€freedom€of€action€in€any€significantÏway.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€Thus,€because€òòMirandaóó€is€only€implicated€when€the€defendant€isÏquestioned€while€in€the€coercive€environment€associated€with€being€in€policeÏcustody,€our€initial€inquiry€is€whether€defendant€was€subjected€to€ð ðcustodialÏinterrogation.ðð€€In€a€subsequent€case,€the€U.S.€Supreme€Court€found€that€aÏdefendant€was€not€ð ðin€custodyðð€within€the€meaning€of€òòMirandaóó€when€he€madeÏincriminating€statements€during€a€meeting€with€his€probation€officer.€€òòMinnesotaÏv.€Murphyóó,€465€U.S.€420,€104€S.Ct.€1136,€79€L.Ed.2d€406€(1984).Ìà àRecently,€our€Supreme€Court€developed€the€test€in€Tennessee€forÏdetermining€whether€an€individual€is€ð ðin€custodyðð€as€contemplated€by€òòMirandaóó.€ÏòòState€v.€Andersonóó,€937€S.W.2d€851€(Tenn.€1996).€€We€must€determine€whether,Ïð ðunder€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€a€reasonable€person€in€the€suspectððsÏposition€would€consider€himself€or€herself€deprived€of€freedom€of€movement€toÏa€degree€associated€with€formal€arrest.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€855.€€Some€factors€relevant€inÏthat€determination€include:ÌÓÓà8 àthe€time€and€location€of€the€interrogation;€the€duration€andÏcharacter€of€the€questioning;€the€officer's€tone€of€voice€and€generalÏdemeanor;€the€suspect's€method€of€transportation€to€the€place€ofÏquestioning;€the€number€of€police€officers€present;€any€limitationÏon€movement€or€other€form€of€restraint€imposed€on€the€suspectÏduring€the€interrogation;€any€interactions€between€the€officer€andÏthe€suspect,€including€the€words€spoken€by€the€officer€to€theÏsuspect,€and€the€suspect's€verbal€or€nonverbal€responses;€theÏextent€to€which€the€suspect€is€confronted€with€the€law€enforcementÍofficer's€suspicions€of€guilt€or€evidence€of€guilt;€and€finally,€theÏextent€to€which€the€suspect€is€made€aware€that€he€or€she€is€free€toÏrefrain€from€answering€questions€or€to€end€the€interview€at€will.ÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.Ìà@ àò òC.ó óÌà àIn€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€defendant€initiated€contact€with€Fox€by€telephone.€ÏFox€asked€him€to€come€to€her€office,€and€he€agreed.€€At€the€suppressionÏhearing,€Fox€testified€that€defendant€was€free€to€leave€at€any€time€during€theirÏdiscussion.€€She€admitted€that€she€would€have€attempted€to€talk€him€out€ofÏleaving€but€could€not€have€stopped€him€if€he€wanted€to€leave€her€office.€ÏMoreover,€the€nature€of€their€conversation€was€not€coercive€and€lasted€only€fiveÏminutes.€€No€law€enforcement€officials€were€present€during€their€discussion.€ÏFurthermore,€there€is€no€indication€in€the€record€that€Foxððs€demeanor€wasÏintimidating€or€threatening€during€the€meeting.Ìà àWe€find€that€the€defendant€was€not€in€custody€when€he€told€Fox€that€heÏaccidentally€burned€his€girlfriendððs€childððs€hand€in€hot€water.€€Because€òòMirandaóóÏonly€applies€in€instances€of€custodial€interrogation,€Fox€was€not€required€toÏadvise€defendant€of€his€constitutional€rights.€€As€a€result,€the€statement€wasÏproperly€admitted.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòMOTION€TO€EXCLUDEó óóóÌÌà àIn€a€pre„trial€motion€defendant€sought€to€prohibit€testimony€by€Tina€FoxÏsince€defendantððs€probationary€status€would€be€revealed€to€the€jury.€€In€a€writtenÍorder,€the€trial€court€denied€defendantððs€motion€to€exclude€the€testimony€of€Fox;Ïhowever,€the€court€agreed€to€limit€her€testimony€out€of€concern€for€theÏprejudicial€effect€of€defendantððs€probation€status€coming€before€the€jury.€€SheÏwas€not€allowed€to€bring€in€any€files€or€to€tell€the€jury€what€her€occupation€was.€ÏShe€was€merely€allowed€to€testify€that€defendant€had€admitted€to€her€that€heÏaccidentally€burned€his€girlfriendððs€daughterððs€hand.€€Her€trial€testimony€wasÏextremely€brief.Ìà àDefendant€now€claims€that€he€was€unable€to€fully€cross„examine€Fox€asÏto€possible€prejudice€or€bias€for€fear€of€ð ðopening€the€doorðð€to€testimonyÏconcerning€his€probationary€status.€€Consequently,€he€maintains€that€he€wasÏð ðforcedðð€to€œrelinquish›€his€constitutional€right€to€fully€confront€an€adverse€witness.Ìà àThe€propriety,€scope,€manner€and€control€of€the€examination€of€witnessesÏis€a€matter€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge€and€will€not€be€disturbed€in€theÏabsence€of€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Dishmanóó,€915€S.W.2d€458,€463Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Meeksóó,€876€S.W.2d€121,€128€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1993).€€In€this€instance,€the€trial€court€recognized€that€the€mention€of€FoxððsÏofficial€status€as€a€probation€officer€could€have€been€prejudicial€to€theÏdefendant.€€In€balancing€the€stateððs€need€to€introduce€defendantððs€admissionÏagainst€the€possible€prejudice€to€the€defendant,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€itsÏdiscretion€in€limiting€the€testimony€of€Fox.€€òòSee,€e.g.,óó€òòState€v.€Hutchisonóó,€898ÏS.W.2d€161,€172€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€929€S.W.2d€385,€389€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1996).Ìà àDefendantððs€contention€that€he€was€denied€the€right€to€fully€cross„examine€the€witness€is€not€supported€by€the€record.€€Contrary€to€defendantððsÏposition,€the€trial€court€did€nothing€to€limit€defendantððs€cross„examination€of€Fox.€ÏRather,€her€testimony€on€direct€was€restricted€to€prevent€the€jury€from€hearingÏthat€defendant€was€on€probation€at€the€time€he€made€his€statement.€€DefendantÏwas€not€restrained€by€the€trial€court€from€inquiring€into€possible€prejudice€orÏbias€of€the€witness.Ìà àFurthermore,€defendant€failed€to€make€an€offer€of€proof€as€to€what€theÏprobative€cross„examination€would€have€been.€€Without€such€an€offer€of€proof,Ïthis€Court€is€left€to€speculate€how€defendant€was€prejudiced.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï103(a)(2).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòPHOTOGRAPHSóóó óÌÌà àIn€his€third€issue,€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowingÏthe€state€to€present€photographs€of€the€victimððs€hand€taken€seven€months€afterÏthe€injury.€€First€of€all,€he€claims€that€the€photographs€were€irrelevant€to€anyÏissue€at€trial.€€Secondly,€he€argues€that€even€if€the€pictures€were€relevant,€theirÏprobative€value€was€outweighed€by€the€prejudicial€effect.€€Therefore,€heÏcontends€that€the€photographs€were€improperly€admitted.Ìà àThe€trial€court€found€that€some€of€the€photographs€taken€by€Dr.€BartonÏwere€ð ðhighly€inflammatoryðð€and€excluded€those€photographs€on€the€basis€thatÏtheir€prejudicial€effect€outweighed€any€probative€value.€€However,€the€courtÏfound€that€three€photographs€were€relevant€to€the€issue€of€serious€bodily€injury.€ÍFurthermore,€the€court€found€that€their€probative€value€was€not€outweighed€byÏany€prejudicial€effect.Ìà àThe€admissibility€of€photographs€lies€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€courtÏwhose€ruling€in€this€respect€will€not€be€overturned€on€appeal€except€upon€aÏclear€showing€of€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947,€949Ï(Tenn.€1978);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€€542€(Tenn.Ï1994);€òòState€v.€Bordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€214,€226€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€However,Ïbefore€a€photograph€may€be€admitted€into€evidence,€it€must€be€relevant€to€anÏissue€at€trial€and€its€probative€value€must€outweigh€any€prejudicial€effect€that€itÏmay€have€upon€the€trier€of€fact.€òòState€v.€Bradenóó,€867€S.W.2d€750,€758€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1993).Ìà àRelevant€evidence€is€evidence€ð ðhaving€any€tendency€to€make€theÏexistence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€actionÏmore€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€be€without€the€evidence.ðð€€Tenn.ÏR.€Evid.€401.€€For€the€offense€of€aggravated€child€abuse,€the€state€was€requiredÏto€show€that€the€victim€suffered€ð ðserious€bodily€injury.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏœ39„15„402(a)(1).›€€Photographs€are€relevant€to€prove€the€extent€of€injuries.€€òòStateÏv.€Norrisóó,€874€S.W.2d€590,€597€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Although€theÏphotographs€were€taken€some€time€after€the€injury€was€sustained,€the€trial€courtÏdid€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€finding€that€they€were€relevant€to€prove€theÏelement€of€ð ðserious€bodily€injury.ððÌà àFurthermore,€the€photographs€were€not€inflammatory.€€The€probativeÏvalue€of€the€photographs€outweighed€any€prejudicial€effect€they€might€have.€ÍThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòDOCTORððS€TESTIMONYó óóóÌÌà àIn€his€next€issue,€the€defendant€maintains€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏallowing€Dr.€Barton€to€testify€that,€in€his€opinion,€the€nature€of€the€childððs€injuryÏwas€non„accidental.€€He€claims€that€the€doctor€was€not€properly€qualified€as€anÏexpert€witness€on€this€issue.€€Additionally,€he€argues€that€the€doctorððs€testimonyÏconstituted€an€improper€comment€on€defendantððs€credibility.Ìà@ àò òA.ó óÌà àDuring€the€direct€examination€of€the€doctor,€the€Assistant€District€AttorneyÏGeneral€asked€if€ð ðthe€injury€that€[he]€observed€[was]€compatible€with€a€„€„€aÏhistory€of€physical€abuse?ðð€€The€doctor€replied,€ð ð[y]es.ðð€€The€defendant€did€notÏobject.€€Subsequently,€the€following€exchange€took€place:ÌÓÓà àQà8 àà àDoctor,€do€you€have€an€opinion€within€aÏreasonable€degree€of€medical€certainty€as€to€whetherÏor€not€with€the€type€of€injury,€the€type€of€burn€that€youÏsaw€and€examined€in€this€case€was€consistent€withÏan€accident€or€with€someone€deliberately€burningÏthis€childððs€hand?ÌÌà àà8 àMS.€TUCKER:€€Your€Honor,€at€this€point,€I€think€IððmÏgoing€to€have€to€object.€€I€donððt€believe€thereððs€beenÏany€foundation€for€this€doctor€to€rule€out€any€possibleÏaccident€that€could€have€happened.€€I€donððt€think€heððsÏan€expert€in€accidents.€€I€think€that€he€can€testify€thatÏitððs€consistent€with€child€abuse.€€And€„€„€and€I€thinkÏthatððs€where€his€expertise€ends,€as€far€as€whether€itÏwas€an€accident€or€not.ÌÌà8 àà8 àTHE€COURT:à8 à.€.€.ÌÌà àà8 àà àI€think€you€might€need€to€rephrase€thatÏquestion.€€I€„€„€I€think€the€Doctor€can€testify€about€whatÏwould€cause€this€or€what€„€„€what€degree€of€hot€waterÏwould€„€„€what€it€„€„€what€it€would€take€to€do€this,€but€IÏdonððt€know€if€he€can€absolutely€rule€out€an€accident.€ÏI€donððt€„€„€I€donððt€know€that€either.€€So€maybeÏrephrase€the€question€and€let€him€testify€as€to€how€heÏwould€expect€something€like€this€to€have€occurred.ÌÌà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà àQà8 àà àIs€it€compatible€with€„€„€with€a€burn€from€aÏcurling€iron?ÌÌà àAà8 àà àNo.ÌÌà àQà8 àà àAnd€is€it€compatible€with€being€dipped€in€a€potÏof€hot€water?ÌÌà àAà8 àà àYes.ÌÌà àQà8 àà àIs€there€anything€that€you€observed€in€yourÏdiagnosis€and€treatment€and€observation€of€the€childÏthat€is€consistent€with€a€child€accidentally€sticking€herÏhand€in€a€pot€of€hot€water?ÌÌà àà8 àMS.€TUCKER:€€Your€Honor,€I€think€that€„€„€thatððs€theÏsame€question,€just€rephrasing.€€That€„€„ÌÌà àà8 àTHE€COURT:€€He€„€„€he€can€„€„€he€can€answer€thatÏand€then€give€his€reasons.€€This€is€an€opinion.€€AndÏIððll€give€you€instructions€at€the€end€of€the€trial€as€toÏhow€you€are€to€look€at€that,€but€I€do€think€heððsÏqualified,€having€treated€burns,€having€a€specialtyÏwith€burns€to€„€„€to€give€an€opinion€on€that.€€So€thatÏwill€be€overruled.ÌÌà àà àà àGo€ahead,€please.ÌÌà àà8 àTHE€WITNESS:€€I€think€this€being€an€accident€is€very,Ïvery€unlikely€.€.€.€ÌÌÓÓà@ àò òB.ó óÌà àð ðIf€scientific,€technical,€or€other€specialized€knowledge€will€substantiallyÏassist€the€trier€of€fact€to€understand€the€evidence€or€to€determine€a€fact€in€issue,Ïa€witness€qualified€as€an€expert€by€knowledge,€skill,€experience,€training,€orÏeducation€may€testify€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€otherwise.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï702.€€The€qualification,€admissibility,€relevancy€and€competency€of€expertÏtestimony€are€matters€that€rest€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€ÏòòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€562€(Tenn.€1993).€€A€trial€courtððs€decision€withÏregard€to€expert€testimony€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal€unless€there€was€anÏabuse€of€discretion€which€was€prejudicial.€€òòState€v.€Tizardóó,€897€S.W.2d€732,€748Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).Ìà àDr.€Barton€testified€that€he€was€board€certified€in€general€surgery€andÏplastic€surgery.€€In€his€duties€at€Vanderbilt€Hospital€he€is€involved€in€researchÏwith€burns€and€hand€injuries.€€He€belongs€to€the€American€Burn€AssociationÏand€the€American€Society€for€Surgery€of€the€Hand,€among€others.€€The€trialÏcourt€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€allowing€the€doctor€to€testify€as€to€the€natureÏof€the€childððs€injury.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Caughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€526,€537€(Tenn.€1993).Ìà àMoreover,€the€doctor€testified€without€objection€that€the€childððs€burn€wasÏconsistent€with€physical€abuse€and€compatible€with€her€hand€being€dipped€in€aÏpot€of€hot€water.€€Any€error€is€harmless,€at€best.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.ÌÌœÌÌ›à@ àò òòòSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óóóÌÌà àIn€his€fifth€assignment€of€error,€the€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€ofÏthe€convicting€evidence.€€Specifically,€he€claims€that€the€record€ð ðcontains€noÏevidence,€direct€or€circumstantial,€that€he€caused€or€inflicted€these€injuries,Ïother€than€his€own€uncorroborated€statements.ðð€€He€further€asserts€that€there€isÏno€evidence€in€the€record€that€he€acted€ð ðknowingly.ðð€€As€a€result,€he€contendsÏthat€there€is€insufficient€evidence€to€sustain€the€finding€of€guilt€of€aggravatedÏchild€œabuse.Ìà@ àò òA.ó ó›Ìà àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€does€not€reweighÏor€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835Ï(Tenn.1978).€€Nor€may€this€court€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€theÏtrier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,Ï286€S.W.2d€856,€859€(1956).€€To€the€contrary,€this€court€is€required€to€afford€theÏstate€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€asÏwell€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€theÏevidence.€€òòState€v.€Tuttleóó,€914€S.W.2d€926,€932€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1995).Ìà àThis€court€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€due€to€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence€unless€the€defendant€demonstrates€that€the€facts€contained€in€theÏrecord€and€the€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom€are€insufficient,€as€aÏmatter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€accused€guilty€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€932€S.W.2d€1,€19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€ÍAccordingly,€it€is€the€appellate€court's€duty€to€affirm€the€conviction€if€theÏevidence,€viewed€under€these€standards,€was€sufficient€for€any€rational€trier€ofÏfact€to€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€317,€99€S.Ct.Ï2781,€2789,€61€L.€Ed.2d€560€(1979);€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259Ï(Tenn.€œ1994).ÌÌà@ àò òB.ó ó›Ìà àDefendant€maintains€that€the€state€did€not€sufficiently€corroborate€hisÏstatements€to€Reed€and€Fox€that€he€ð ðaccidentallyðð€burned€the€childððs€hand.€€TheÏòòcorpus€delictióó€of€a€crime€may€not€be€established€by€a€confession€alone.€€òòAshbyÏv.€Stateóó,€124€Tenn.€684,€139€S.W.€872€(1911).€€The€òòcorpus€delictióó€of€a€crimeÏrequires€that€the€state€prove€two€elements:€(1)€that€a€certain€result€has€beenÏproduced,€and€(2)€that€the€result€was€created€through€criminal€agency.€€òòState€v.ÏErvinóó,€731€S.W.2d€70,€71„72€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€The€elements€of€òòcorpusÏdelictióó€may€be€established€by€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòIdóó.€at€72.€€Furthermore,Ïthe€question€of€whether€the€state€has€sufficiently€proven€the€òòcorpus€delictióó€is€aÏquestion€for€the€jury.€€òòIdóó.€at€71.Ìà àIn€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€the€defendant€admitted€to€two€people€that€heÏð ðaccidentallyðð€burned€the€victimððs€hand.€€€The€doctorððs€testimony,€combined€withÏother€trial€testimony,€establishes€the€òòcorpus€delictióó;€that€the€child€was€burnedÏother€than€by€accidental€means.€€ð ðOnly€òòslightóó€evidence€of€the€òòcorpus€delictióó€isÏnecessary€to€corroborate€a€confession€and€thus€sustain€a€conviction.ðð€€òòErvinóó,Í731€S.W.2d€at€72€(emphasis€added).€€Defendantððs€corroboration€argument€isÏwithout€œmerit.Ìà@ àò òC.ó ó›Ìà àAdditionally,€a€reasonable€trier€of€fact€could€conclude€that€defendantÏacted€ð ðknowinglyðð€when€he€burned€the€childððs€hand.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððððÏ39„15„401(a),€39„15„402.€€Although€defendantððs€statements€claim€that€theÏchildððs€injury€was€accidental,€the€jury€was€free€to€disregard€that€version.€€TheÏmedical€testimony€justified€them€doing€so.€€A€jury€verdict€approved€by€the€trialÏjudge€accredits€the€state's€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€theÏstate.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€803€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839ÏS.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€a€finding€ofÏguilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€œof›€aggravated€child€abuse.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.Ì̛̜à@ àò òòòIDENTIFICATION€JURY€INSTRUCTIONó óóóÌÌà àThe€defendant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€charge€theÏjury€on€identification€pursuant€to€òòState€v.€Dyleóó,€899€S.W.2d€607€(Tenn.€1995).€ÏHe€claims€that€he€put€his€identity€at€issue€during€trial,€and€the€trial€courtððs€refusalÏto€give€this€instruction€amounted€to€error.× ƒ2 ××  ×Ìà àIn€òòState€v.€Dyleóó,€our€Supreme€Court€devised€a€jury€instruction€onÏeyewitness€identification€of€the€defendant.€€899€S.W.2d€at€612.€€The€court€notedÏthe€inherent€ð ðfallibilitiesðð€of€eyewitness€identification€and€the€need€for€aÏparticularized€instruction€to€help€protect€defendants€against€such€problems.€€òòIdóó.Ìà àWhile€defendant€is€correct€in€his€assertion€that€failure€to€give€theÏinstruction€when€eyewitness€identification€is€a€material€issue€would€be€error,€theÏstate€presented€no€eyewitness€œtestimony.›€€Indeed,€by€defendantððs€ownÏstatement€he€admitted€that€he€burned€the€child.Ìà àThe€òòDyleóó€instruction€was€developed€to€protect€against€the€problemsÏincurred€with€òòeyewitness€identificationóó.€€The€òòDyleóó€instruction€lists€certain€factorsÏfor€the€jury€to€consider.€€All€of€these€factors€concern€the€circumstancesÏsurrounding€an€eyewitness€identification.€€The€òòDyleóó€instruction€is€inapplicableÏhere€and€would€have€been€confusing€to€the€jury.€€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòRANGE€OF€PUNISHMENT€JURY€INSTRUCTIONó óóóÌÌà àIn€defendantððs€seventh€issue,€he€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏinstructing€the€jury€on€the€minimum€number€of€years€the€defendant€would€serveÏbefore€becoming€eligible€for€parole.€€He€claims€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„201(b),€which€requires€that€parole€eligibility€be€charged€in€conjunction€with€aÏrange€of€penalties€charge,€is€unconstitutionally€vague,€violates€due€process,Ïdeprives€a€defendant€of€a€fair€and€impartial€jury€and€constitutes€anÏunconstitutional€attempt€by€the€legislature€to€exercise€judicial€powers.Ìà àThis€Court€has€previously€rejected€similar€challenges€to€theÏconstitutionality€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„201(b).€€òòState€v.€Curtis€Lee€Majorsóó,ÏC.C.A.€No.€01C01„9602„CR„00076€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€July€30,€1997,€atÏNashville);€òòState€v.€Howard€E.€Kingóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9601„CR„00032€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€filed€October€22,€1996,€at€œJackson),›€òòperm.€to€appeal€grantedóó€(Tenn.ÏMarch€10,€1997).€€In€òòState€v.€Kingóó,€this€Court€found€that€òòFarris€v.€Stateóó,€535ÏS.W.2d€608€(Tenn.€1976),€cited€by€the€defendant€in€the€present€case,€isÏinapplicable.€€In€òòFarrisóó,€our€Supreme€Court€struck€as€unconstitutional€a€statuteÏwhich€required€that€juries€be€charged€on€parole€eligibility,€good€behaviorÏallowances€and€honor€time€allowances.€€òòIdóó.€at€614.€€However,€because€òòFarrisóóÏwas€decided€at€a€time€when€sentencing€was€primarily€a€jury€function,€this€CourtÏheld€that€it€had€no€applicability€under€the€current€sentencing€laws.€€òòState€v.ÏKingóó,€òòsupraóó.Ìà àFurthermore,€this€Court€held€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„201(b)€is€notÏimpermissibly€vague€since€the€jury€is€provided€with€an€estimated€figure€ð ðwith€theÏcaveat€that€the€actual€time€served€may€vary.ðð€€òòState€v.€Majorsóó,€No.€01C01„9602„CR„00076,€slip€op.€at€14.€€Due€to€the€necessary€overlapping€of€the€branches€ofÏstate€government,€the€Court€also€found€that€the€statute€did€not€violate€separationÏof€powers.€€Moreover,€the€Court€determined€that€the€statute€did€not€deprive€anÏaccused€of€due€process€or€a€fair€and€impartial€jury.Ìà àWe€see€no€reason€to€deviate€from€the€holdings€in€these€previous€œcases.›€ÏThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òà@ àòòNEWLY€DISCOVERED€EVIDENCEóóó óÌÌà àIn€his€next€assignment€of€error,€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€denying€his€motion€for€new€trial€on€the€basis€of€newly€discoveredÏevidence.€€In€preparation€for€sentencing,€the€state€obtained€a€copy€of€theÏdefendantððs€juvenile€record.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€Attached€to€his€record€were€reports€from€mentalÏevaluations€administered€while€defendant€was€a€patient€at€Crockett€Academy.€ÏDefense€counsel€then€sought€to€obtain€further€records€on€defendantððs€mentalÏhealth.Ìà àDefense€counsel€claimed€that€she€originally€had€suspicions€concerningÏdefendantððs€mental€health.€€However,€defendant€denied€that€he€had€undergoneÏany€psychological€testing.€€He€also€denied€having€a€juvenile€record.€€Therefore,Ïdefense€counsel€did€not€pursue€this€any€further.Ìà àThe€reports× ƒ4 ××  ×€revealed€that€defendant€had€a€ð ðborderlineðð€intelligenceÏquotient.€€His€I.Q.€was€in€the€fifth€national€percentile€for€his€age€group.€€AÏcognitive€assessment€indicated€that€he€was€functioning€at€a€low€level.€€HisÏlinguistic€level€was€determined€to€be€in€the€ð ðvery€poorðð€range€for€his€age€group.€ÏHe€was€described€as€a€ð ðsomewhat€intellectually€and€socially€limited€youngster.ðð€ÍHe€was€also€characterized€as€having€a€need€to€please€others,€feelings€ofÏinadequacy€and€low€self„esteem.€€Defendant€contends€that€these€reports€areÏmaterial€in€that€they€might€negate€the€prosecutionððs€theory€at€trial,€i.e.,€that€theÏinjury€was€not€accidental.€Ìà àIn€seeking€a€new€trial€based€on€newly€discovered€evidence,€there€mustÏbe€a€showing€that€defendant€and€his€counsel€exercised€reasonable€diligence€inÏattempting€to€discover€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€737Ï(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Singletonóó,€853€S.W.2d€490,€496€(Tenn.€1993).€€InÏaddition,€there€must€also€be€a€showing€of€the€materiality€of€the€testimony,€andÏthe€trial€court€must€determine€whether€the€result€of€the€trial€would€likely€beÏchanged€if€the€evidence€were€produced.€€òòNicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€at€737;ÏòòSingletonóó,€853€S.W.2d€at€496.€€The€granting€or€refusal€of€a€new€trial€on€theÏbasis€of€newly€discovered€evidence€rests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trialÏcourt.€€òòState€v.€Walkeróó,€910€S.W.2d€381,€395€(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.€Goswickóó,Ï656€S.W.2d€355,€358€(Tenn.€1983).Ìà àThe€trial€court€denied€defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial€on€the€basis€thatÏthe€records€did€not€constitute€newly€discovered€evidence€in€that€the€defendantÏhad€knowledge€of€the€records€prior€to€trial.€€òòJones€v.€Stateóó,€452€S.W.2d€365Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1970).Ìà àWe€find€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€denying€theÏmotion€for€new€trial€based€upon€newly€discovered€evidence.€€As€the€trial€courtÏcorrectly€points€out,€defendant€had€knowledge€that€the€records€existed€prior€toÏtrial.€€Defendant€was€untruthful€with€his€counsel€regarding€prior€evaluations.€€HeÍis€entitled€to€no€relief€on€this€issue.Ìà àAdditionally,€we€find€that€the€evidence€was€not€material€and€would€notÏhave€changed€the€result€of€the€trial.€€Although€the€records€reveal€that€defendantÏœhad€various€problems,€we€find€none€that›€would€œabsolve›€him€of€the€offense.€€InÏfact,€the€reports€also€indicate€that€defendant€exhibits€bad€judgment,€a€tendencyÏto€act€without€thinking€and€ð ðsome€lack€of€control€from€time€to€time€over€hisÏtemper.ððÌà àWe€are€not€convinced€that€the€evidence€was€material€or€would€haveÏchanged€the€result€of€the€trial.€€Furthermore,€the€reports€are€not€ð ðnewlyÏdiscoveredðð€as€the€defendant€had€knowledge€that€they€existed€prior€to€trial.€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€INDICTMENTó óóóÌÌà àIn€his€final€two€issues,€the€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€theÏindictment€in€two€respects.€€Firstly,€he€maintains€that€he€was€improperlyÏsentenced€to€a€Class€A€felony€because€the€indictment€did€not€specifically€allegeÏthat€the€victim€was€under€six€(6)€years€of€age.€€Secondly,€he€asserts€that€theÏindictment€was€fatally€deficient€for€failing€to€allege€the€requisite€òòmens€reaóó€for€theÏcharged€offense.€€Because€these€issues€overlap€in€some€ways,€we€willÏconsolidate€them€for€review.Ìà àThe€indictment€alleged€that:ÌÓÓà8 à[Defendant]€on€the€4th€day€of€December,€1994,€.€.€.€did€treat€[victim]Í(D.O.B.€September€6,€1993),€a€child€under€eighteen€(18)€years€ofÏage€in€such€a€manner€as€to€inflict€injury,€and€the€act€of€abuseÏresulted€in€serious€bodily€injury€to€the€child,€in€violation€ofÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„15„402,€and€against€the€peaceÏand€dignity€of€the€State€of€Tennessee.ÌÌÓÓœNo€pre„trial€objection€was€made€as€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€indictment.Ì›à àAn€indictment€must€ð ðstate€the€facts€constituting€the€offense€in€ordinaryÏand€concise€language,€without€prolixity€or€repetition,€in€such€a€manner€as€toÏenable€a€person€of€common€understanding€to€know€what€is€intended.ðð€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„13„202.€€ð ðTo€satisfy€our€constitutional€notice€requirements,€anÏindictment€.€.€.€must€provide€notice€of€the€offense€charged,€an€adequate€basis€forÏthe€entry€of€a€proper€judgment,€and€suitable€protection€against€doubleÏjeopardy.ðð€€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€305,€309€(Tenn.€1996);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.ÏTateóó,€912€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€ð ðAs€a€general€rule,€it€isÏsufficient€to€state€the€offense€charged€in€the€words€of€the€statute,€or€words€whichÏare€equivalent€to€the€words€contained€in€the€statute.ðð€€òòState€v.€Tateóó,€912€S.W.2dÏat€789€(citations€omitted).€€An€indictment€which€fails€to€allege€the€elements€of€theÏoffense€in€the€terms€of€the€statute€will€still€be€sufficient€ð ðif€the€elements€areÏnecessarily€implied€from€the€[factual]€allegations€made.ðð€€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€870ÏS.W.2d€532,€538€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)(citing€òòHagner€v.€United€Statesóó,€285ÏU.S.€427,€430,€52€S.Ct.€417,€419,€76€L.Ed.€861€(1932)).Ìà@ àò òA.€€Failure€to€Allege€Victimððs€Ageó óÌà àDefendant€first€contends€that€the€indictment€did€not€sufficiently€state€theÏchildððs€age,€and€as€a€result,€he€was€improperly€sentenced€for€a€Class€A€felony.€ÏAggravated€child€abuse€is€a€Class€B€felony;€however,€ð ðif€the€abused€child€is€sixÍ(6)€years€of€age€or€less,€the€penalty€is€a€Class€A€felony.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„15„402(b).Ìà àThe€indictment€specifically€alleged€that€the€offense€was€committed€onÏDecember€4,€1994,€and€the€victim€was€born€on€September€6,€1993.€€The€childððsÏage€of€approximately€fifteen€months€is€ð ðnecessarily€impliedðð€since€the€indictmentÏalleges€both€the€date€of€the€offense€and€the€date€of€the€childððs€birth.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÏv.€Marshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€at€538.Ìà àDefendantððs€reliance€on€òòState€v.€Hilliardóó,€906€S.W.2d€466€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1995),€is€misplaced.€€In€òòHilliardóó€the€indictment€alleged€the€defendantÏunlawfully€possessed€cocaine€with€the€intent€to€sell€or€deliver.€€It€did€not€makeÏany€reference€whatever€to€the€amount€being€over€0.5€grams€or€more€whichÏelevates€the€offense€from€a€Class€C€felony€to€a€Class€B€felony.€€This€Court€heldÏthat€the€indictment€only€charged€a€Class€C€felony€in€the€absence€of€anÏallegation€as€to€the€amount€of€cocaine.€€906€S.W.2d€at€470.Ìà àIn€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€the€indictment€itself€put€the€defendant€on€notice€ofÏthe€age€of€the€child.€€Accordingly,€òòHilliardóó€is€distinguishable.Ìà àMoreover,€the€fact€that€defendant€was€to€be€sentenced€for€a€Class€AÏfelony€was€not€unanticipated.€€All€parties€understood€that€the€offense€was€aÏClass€A€felony€before€the€court€charged€the€jury.€€Additionally,€the€jury€wasÏinstructed€with€the€range€of€punishment€for€a€Class€A€felony.€€No€objectionsÏwere€made.€€The€issue€was€first€raised€after€the€conclusion€of€the€trial€and€priorÍto€sentencing.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.× ƒ5 ××  ×›Ìà@ àò òB.€€Failure€to€Allege€òòMens€Reaóóó óÌà àDefendant€œfinally›€contends€that€the€indictment€is€insufficient€in€that€it€failsÏto€state€that€he€acted€ð ðknowingly.ðð€€He€argues€that€the€òòmens€reaóó€is€an€essentialÏelement€of€the€charged€offense.€€Therefore,€because€the€indictment€failed€toÏallege€an€essential€element€of€the€offense,€no€offense€has€been€charged,€andÏany€further€proceedings€are€a€nullity.€œ€As€previously€stated,€no€pre„trial€objectionÏwas€made€relating€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€indictment.Ìà àFirstly,€we€conclude€the€element€of€ð ðknowinglyðð€was€necessarily€impliedÏfrom€the€language€in€the€indictment.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532,Ï538€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Although€the€indictment€omitted€the€termÏð ðknowingly,ðð€it€did€allege€that€ð ðthe€act€of€abuse€resulted€in€serious€bodily€injuryÏto€the€child.ðð€€A€person€of€common€understanding€would€certainly€conclude€thatÏð ðabuseðð€to€a€child€implies€ð ðknowingðð€misconduct.× ƒ6 ××  ×Ìà àSecondly,€we€believe€this€interpretation€is€consistent€with€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€òò€€€€€€óóÏS.W.2d€òò€€€€€€óó€(Tenn.€1997).€€Although€òòHillóó€concerned€a€statute€which€neitherÏexpressly€required€nor€plainly€dispensed€with€the€requirement€for€a€culpableÏmental€state,€we€believe€its€rationale€is€equally€applicable€to€the€case€at€bar.€ÏThis€defendant€certainly€had€adequate€notice€of€the€charge€of€aggravated€childÏabuse;€there€was€an€adequate€basis€for€entry€of€a€proper€judgment;€defendantÏhas€full€double€jeopardy€protection;€the€indictment€complied€with€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„13„202€in€that€it€stated€facts€in€ordinary€and€concise€language€so€thatÏa€person€of€common€understanding€would€know€the€intended€charge;€and€theÏmental€state€of€ð ðknowinglyðð€could€be€logically€inferred€from€the€use€of€the€wordÏð ðabuse.ððÌà àFinally,€we€note€this€issue€was€raised€for€the€first€time€on€appeal.€€WeÏadopt€the€concurring€opinion€of€Judge€Hayes€in€òòState€v.€Larry€Steve€Wilsonóó,ÏC.C.A.€No.€03C01„9511„CC„00355,€Blount€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filedÏMarch€25,€1997,€at€Knoxville),€and€agree€that€a€more€liberal€rule€of€constructionÏof€indictments€is€appropriate€in€the€case€of€late„filed€objections.€€Otherwise,Ïthere€would€be€an€incentive€for€a€defendant€to€ð ðsandbag.ðð€€òòSeeóó€LaFave€andÏIsrael,€òòCriminal€Procedureóó€ðð€19.3.€€In€this€case€the€indictment€fairly€gives€noticeÏthat€ð ðabuseðð€is€charged€and€necessarily€implies€it€to€be€ð ðknowinglyðð€inflicted.€ÏFurthermore,€there€has€been€absolutely€no€showing€of€prejudice€by€theÏabsence€of€the€word€ð ðknowingly.ðð€€The€indictment€is€sufficient.Çà@ àò òòòCONCLUSIONóóó ó›ÌÌà àœBased€upon€the€foregoing,€we€AFFIRM€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.›ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÏóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOE€G.€RILEY,€œJUDGE›ÌœÌÌÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóó óÌò òJOE€H.€WALKER,€III,€SPECIAL€JUDGEó ó