WPC Mɍ01eo1"׋Jh]ad>?l9#I94!-^V;dj-XXzti|0} Rvkr,c*k+ {8F D_aV 3A ](@3{%- ׭OtAyT@q^|?@Gҳ3!rcmX%4Y'AIv#ꞕ֬Ϸyx](yXxd]8(Ϣ.ܺO1/#1=a%*%8@3w[B \X|kc`b 1Ԥ'Xıwj2(  1  )3  0 `   therecordmustestablishwhatoccurredinthetrialcourt;3>w݌p` (#` (# Ќ  "3"    3P2(  2  )3  0 `   aclearandunequivocalruleoflawmusthavebeenbreached;3P݌H` (#` (# Ќ  "3"    3c2(  3  )3  0 `   asubstantialrightoftheaccusedmusthavebeenadverselyaffected;3c݌ p` (#` (# Ќ  "3"    32(  4  )3  0 `   theaccusedmustnothavewaivedtheissuefortacticalreasons;and,3݌H` (#` (# Ќ  "3"    32(  5  )3  0 `   considerationoftheerrormustbenecessarytodosubstantialjustice.3݌ ` (#` (# Ќ    Turningtotheinstantcasetherecordrevealsthatnoinstructionsonthelesserincluded  offensesofsimplerobberyandattemptedrobberyweregiventothejuryforconsiderationinthe  panelsdeliberationsontheaggravatedrobberyandattemptedaggravatedrobberycountsinthe  indictment.Inmyview,forthereasonsstatedinfra.theTennesseeSupremeCourthasnow l establishedclearandunequivocalrulesoflawinthisarea.Clearlyasubstantialrightoftheaccused, X  i.e.thestateconstitutionalrighttoajurytrialwasadverselyaffected.See,Statev.Ely&Bowers, D! 48S.W.2dat727,(Tenn.2001).NothingintherecordsuggestsJohnsonwaivedthisissuefor 0"  tacticalreasons.Finally,sinceJohnsonandRichmondweretriedtogetherinthiscaseand #l! presumablywillbeinthefuturetrialnecessitatedbythisCourtsopinion,substantialjusticerequires $X" thatconsistentjuryinstructionsbegivenforbothdefendants.Thus,Iwouldfindthefailureto $D # instructastodefendantJohnsononlesserincludedoffensestotheaggravatedrobberyandattempted %0!$ aggravatedrobberychargesconstitutesplainerror. &"%   Turningtothemeritsofthelesserincludedoffenseissueinthiscase,Iamagaincompelled (#' byrecentTennesseeSupremeCourtprecedenttoconcludethatanerrorinfailingtoinstructthejury )$( astolesserincludedoffenseswillbefoundharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubtonlyinthesituation |*%) presentedinthecaseofStatev.Williams,977S.W.2d101(Tenn.1998).InWilliams,thedefendant h+&* wasindictedforfirstdegreemurder.Thejurywasalsoinstructedonseconddegreemurder,butthe  trialjudgedeclinedtogiveinstructionsonvoluntarymanslaughter.Thedefendantwasconvicted  offirstdegreemurderaschargedintheindictment.Thesupremecourtheldthattheerrorwas  harmlessbecause: [B]yfindingthedefendantguiltyofthehighestoffensetotheexclusionofthe t immediatelylesseroffense,seconddegreemurder,thejurynecessarilyrejectedallotherlesser ` offenses,includingvoluntarymanslaughter.(Emphasissupplied),Id.at106. L    InthecaseofStatev.Ely&Bowers,supra.;thesupremecourtreferredtoWilliamsasan 8  exampleofwhenanerrorinfailingtoinstructonlesserincludedoffensesisharmlessbeyonda $ t reasonabledoubt.48S.W.3dat727.InStatev.Bowles,supra.;Williamswasagaintoutedasthe  ` paradigmforharmlesserroranalysisinthisarea.___S.W.3dat___.InbothStatev.Swindle,30  L  S.W.3d289,293(Tenn.2000);andStatev.Bolden,979s.W.2d587,593(Tenn.1998);the  8  Williamscaseisheldoutasanexampleofwhenanerrorinfailingtoinstructonlesserincluded $  offenseswillbefoundtobeharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.     Insummary,eachtimeoursupremecourthasperformedaharmlesserroranalysisonthe   failuretoinstructonalesserincludedoffense,thecourthasfoundtheerrortobeharmlessbeyond   areasonabledoubtwhentheWilliamssituationispresented.Seee.g.Bowles,___S.W.3dat___;   Statev.Swindle,30S.W.3dat293.#VXXQ#XQXVEachtimetheWilliamssituationisnotpresentthecourthas p found,irrespectiveofthequantumofproofastothedefendantsguiltofthegreateroffense,thatthe \ failuretoinstructonlesserincludedoffenseswasreversibleerror.Statev.Ely&Bowers,48 H S.W.3dat727;Statev.Rush,50S.W.3dat424,433(Tenn.2001).Iamthereforeforcedtoconclude 4 thattheonlytimeafailuretoinstructonlesserincludedoffensescanbeconsideredharmlessbeyond  p areasonabledoubtisinthesituationpresentedbytheWilliamscase,i.e.,wherethejurybyrejecting  \ averdictofguiltonanintermediatelesserincludedoffenseforwhichtheywereinstructed,infavor H ofaverdictonthemoreseriousoffense, necessarilyrejectsallotherlesserincludedoffenses. 4 Williams,977S.W.2dat106.AlthoughJudgeWadecharacterizesthisapproachtothisseemingly   intractableareaofthelawas mechanicallyapplied,suchananalysisdoesestablishabrightline   rulethatwillfosterconsistenceandpredictabilityinthisareaofthelawandprovideguidancetothe  benchandbar.Giventhetroubledpastoflesserincludedjurisprudence,thisseemstometobea  desirableresult.    SincethesituationinWilliamsisnotthatpresentedinthecasesubjudiceIcannotsaythe l jury necessarilyrejectedthelesserincludedoffensesofrobberyandattemptedrobbery.Thus,I X  cannotfindtheerrortobeharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt. D!   I,thereforefeelcompelledbyoursupremecourtsprecedentstoreversethiscaseastoboth 0"  defendantsandremandforanewtrialwhereinthejuryisinstructedastoalllesserincludedoffenses #l! ofaggravatedrobberyandattemptedaggravatedrobbery. $X" #VXXQ )#   `     h     XQXV___________________________________ (T#&    `     h     JERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE