WPC 8#  UN+ %y 0(B 0cU:Lw@4 0U:U:# 0J+ 0Tu 0^ 0h' 0r 0| 0} 0 1u 0d AQl  0D 0@ 0D BK D/h B D3 U> U *%B)ODCx AM5=lv~vHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($C:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT("$X+XXX  0  ,cAZ"Arial Regular ED   Ӏ #3|x(v(2S$ !  X XeXXX X Xe `   0  ,cAZ"Arial Regular,  AZ"Arial Regular2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X !"#%C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ("$    ($$   1   d''' dxdP Pd$$$$'dxd<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d00007Border 1dd "1C << G + !  #d#.  !"  //   YYY FILED/X December15,1997CecilCrowson,Jr./AppellateCourtClerk   !  #d#.   $   X //       ݀Thepetitioneralsoclaimsthatthetrialjudgeerredinfindingthatthesufficiencyofanindictmentcannotbechallengedinahabeascorpusproceeding.Becauseweresolvethismatteronothergrounds,weneednotaddressthatclaim. b !#d#.   $   X //       ݀ThedecisioninHillisbasedupontheCourtsinterpretationofT.C.A.3911301,whichwasenactedin1989.Thatstatuteprovides,inpertinentpart,that [a]culpablementalstateisrequiredwithinthistitleunlessthedefinitionoftheoffenseplainlydispenseswithamentalelement.Priorto1989,however,theCriminalCodedidnotcontainacomparableprovision.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva ! . .    X   /\RA'\7XXdXXd7ћ @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE @ ATJACKSON @ CARLE.SAINE ,    ) ̜      )   Petitioner,    ) C.C.A.NO.02C019710CC00399       )  ̀vs.      )LAUDERDALECOUNTY   ٜR231A1-j|P`  `@Rߛ      )  ALTONHESSON,WARDEN,  ) No. 4983       )   Respondent.    )        @ ORDER   ThismatterisbeforetheCourtuponthestatesmotiontoaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourtinaccordancewithRule20,RulesoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals.ItappearsthepetitionerwasoriginallyconvictedofrapeinSeptember1977,andsentencedtoninetyfiveyearsimprisonment.OnJuly21,1997,thepetitionerfiledapetitionforawritofhabeascorpuschallengingthesufficiencyoftheindictmententeredagainsthim.Thetrialcourtdeniedrelief.  Althoughtherecordonappealdoesnotcontainacopyoftheindictment,therebypreventingthisCourtfromconductinganadequatereviewoftheissuepresented,thepetitionerarguesinhisappellatebriefthattheindictmentisinvalidbecauseitfailedtoassertanessentialelementoftheoffense,i.e.,themensrea,andthathisconviction,therefore,cannotstand. 4   ׀  Atthetimeoftheoffenseinthiscase,rapewasdefinedasthe theunlawfulcarnalknowledgeofawoman,forciblyandagainstherwill.T.C.A.393701(1975).Theindictmentatissuebeforeusallegedlychargedthatthepetitionerdid unlawfully,andfeloniouslyhavecarnalknowledgeofPatriciaMcEntee,afemaleovertheageoftwelve(12)yearsforciblyandagainstherwill.Thislanguagewassufficientunderthelawasitexistedatthetime.Thestatutoryrequirementsforanindictmentwerefoundin401802(now4013202(1997)),whichprovidedsimplythat:8  Theindictmentmuststatethefactsconstitutingtheoffenseinordinaryandconciselanguage,withoutprolixityorrepetition,insuchamannerastoenableapersonofcommonunderstandingtoknowwhatisintended,andwiththatdegreeofcertaintywhichwillenablethecourt,onconviction,topronouncetheproperjudgment.    Furthermore,inCampbellv.State,491S.W.2d359,361(Tenn.1973)(emphasissupplied),whileaddressingthesufficiencyofanindictmentchargingtheoffenseofmurder,ourSupremeCourtstatedthefollowing:8  WhileitseemsclearthattheindictmentinWittwasinsufficientinthatitfailedtochargeanelement,thatthemurderwascommittedunlawfully,ineitherthelanguageofthestatuteorcommonlaworwordsofequivalentimport,thedecisionisconfusingbecauseofthelanguage,fatallydefectiveinomittingthechargethattheoffensewascommittedfeloniously,orwithmaliceaforethought;andcontainingnowordsofequivalentimport.Itisclear,however,thathadtheindictmentusedthewordsfeloniouslyorunlawfully,itwouldhavebeensufficient.Weagreewiththisproposition.Bycontainingthewordsfoundinthelanguageofthestatute,theindictmentatissueheresufficientlyapprisedtheappellantoftheoffensechargedunderthelawatthetime,andisthereforevalid.  Althoughnotcontrollinginthepresentcase, 5   ׀theSupremeCourtsrecentopinioninStatev.Hill,No.01S019701CC00005(Tenn.,Nov.3,1997)supportsourconclusion.TheCourtstatedthat anindictmentneednotconformtotraditionallystrictpleadingrequirementsandthat inmodernpractice,itisunnecessarytochargeguiltyknowledgeunlessitisincludedinthestatutorydefinitionoftheoffense.Moreover,havingreviewedtheallegedlanguageoftheindictmentinthiscase,wefindthatitwouldsufficeundertheSupremeCourtsanalysisofthecurrentstatutoryrequirementsofnoticeandform.̛̜  Accordingly,wefindthattheindictmentatissuemeetsconstitutionalandthethenexistingstatutoryrequirements,andisthereforevalid.ItisthereforeORDEREDthatthejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmedinaccordancewithRule20,RulesoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals.  Enter,thisthe___dayofDecember,1997.      ______________________________      PAULG.SUMMERS,JUDGE      ______________________________      JOEB.JONES,PRESIDINGJUDGE      ______________________________      DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE