WPC6  =P͑!A( G QƋBAb"E㥴.ܗW>%'d\Cg$%RPx$Li+?蛠X1MRYK[4eD̳C:A{7qm b >}v$!-IIn%DelqOKȐŅ7ɹN#ߨ>uCnBt;E Uy>%Ly]AfB7va))0r0cwqSIBreK],~R\W3}IPa 3' =G6bЎ{/>̛0eɒD/6 g(G| t0< 3B=$R{ |<l;tj6BElr!P l#Qst- =`(#;+/~筪^KM)UB> %U.nX 0P4l 0 0D;w@U: m)U:; ; u u u u U:} } } } } } } } } AQ  0D 0D 0DV B D/ B D3 <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%2A`ArialTT3|X<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@%2A`ArialTTt10cpiXXX2PQXP(($D  n~<$ (c(2$ !D   X~XXX   0  (#$  0   D[EEӀg"Arial RegularU  !"  XWvXXXH^XXWv   Ad FILEDXWvXH^   November24,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.ǵ XXWvAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular,cAZ"Arial Regular !"#%C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1   d''' dxdP Pd$$$$'dxd !D   ` DX  TR[A'Legal3'A' Legal3'T  XyXXX7 y XXdXXd7zoXXy  r(<,(j 8` `@E f ` ttx$X` r `  INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEt(>.*jx` `@Ej ` ttx$d tߛ@;DATJACKSON  @HH8DMAY1998SESSION STATEOFTENNESSEE,    )  p C.C.A.NO.02C019710CC00379  $   `     h     )  p  (   `  Appellee, h 򀀀    ) p HARDEMANCOUNTY ,   `     h     ) p  0  Т V.  `     h     ) 4   `     h     ) p HON.JONKERRYBLACKWOOD, 8 TYRONESAIN,   h     ) p JUDGE <  `     h     ) `  Appellant.  h     ) p (EVADINGARREST)  D FORTHEAPPELLANT: h      p FORTHEAPPELLEE: T  STEVENE.FARESE h      p JOHNKNOXWALKUP  \  P.O.Box98   h      p AttorneyGeneral&Reporter !` Ashland,MS38603 `     h      p PETERM.COUGHLAN  #h ~zo `     h      p AssistantAttorneyGeneral $l  `     h      p 2ndFloor,CordellHullBuilding `     h      p 425FifthAvenueNorth `     h      p Nashville,TN37243#zo~ # `     h  `     h      p ELIZABETHT.RICE  )P   `     h      p DistrictAttorneyGeneral `     h      p JERRYW.NORWOOD  ,\##  `     h      p AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral `     h      p 25thJudicialDistrict `     h      p HardemanCountyCourthouse `     h      p Bolivar,TN380082359 `     h      p    `     h      p OPINIONFILED________________________AFFIRMEDTHOMAST.WOODALL,JUDGE  :119   zo OPINION #zo# `     `  TheDefendant,TyroneSain,wasconvictedintheCircuitCourtofHardemanCountyoftheoffenseofevadingarrest,inviolationofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3916603.Heappealedasofrightandpresentstwo(2)issuesforreview:(1)Thecountoftheindictmentchargingtheoffenseofevadingarrestisvoidbecauseitallegedamensreaof knowinglywhenthestatuterequiresamens h  reaof intentionally;and(2)Iftheindictmentisvoidandthereforemustbe p  dismissed,futureprosecutionofDefendantforthisparticularoffenseisbarredbytheapplicablestatuteoflimitations.Aftercarefulreviewofthisrecord,andtheargumentsoftheStateandDefendant,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. `  Defendantwaschargedinafour(4)countindictmentasfollows:Count1,possessionofcocainewithintenttomanufacture,deliver,orsell,aClassBfelony;count2,evadingarrestinviolationofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3916603;count3,speedinginviolationofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection558152;andcount4,failuretostophisvehicleatastopsigninviolationofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection558149.Inthefirsttwo(2)counts,DedrickK.McGuirewasalsochargedasacodefendant.McGuireisnotapartytothisappeal.Followingajurytrial,Defendantwasfoundguiltyofcounts2and4andwasacquittedofcounts1and3.Thisappealpertainsonlytotheconvictionforevadingarrest. `  Therecordonappealisverysparse.Itcontainsonlythedocumentsfiledwiththetrialcourtclerkandatranscriptofahearinginthetrialcourt.The 90/ transcriptcontainsonlytheposttrialhearingonthemotiontodismiss.Noproofwastakenatthishearing.Thereisnotranscriptintherecordofthetrialoranypretrialhearings,ifanywereheld. `  Accordingtotheindictment,theoffensewasallegedtohaveoccurredonDecember14,1993.Thiswaspriortothe1995amendmentofthestatutesettingforththeoffenseofevadingarrest,TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3916603.Therefore,atthetimeoftheoffense,theapplicablestatutereadasfollows:E8 ` 3916603.Evadingarrest. (a)Itisunlawfulforanypersonto  intentionallyfleefromanyonethepersonknowstobealaw  enforcementofficerandtheperson: ` (#` (# 8 `  (1)Knowstheofficerisattemptingtoarresttheperson;or ` (#` (#  `  (2)Hasbeenarrested.8 `  (b)Itisadefensetoprosecutionunderthissectionthattheattemptedarrestwasunlawful. ` (#` (# 8 `  (c)AviolationofthissectionisaClassAmisdemeanor. ` (#` (# Л̜Tenn.CodeAnn.3916603(1991)(emphasisadded).n `  Count2oftheindictmentallegesasfollows:8 ` AndtheGrandJurorsontheiroathaforesaidfurtherpresentthatinHardemanCountyonoraboutthe14thdayofDecember,1993,beforethefindingofthisindictment,thesaid DEDRICKK.MCGUIREAND @-#% TYRONESAIN didunlawfullyandknowinglyfleefromSheriffDelphus @.$& HicksandDeputyDougBrownoftheHardemanCountySheriffsDepartment,knownto DEDRICKK.MCGUIREANDTYRONESAIN  80&( tobealawenforcementofficers[sic]fromeffectingthearrestofthesaid DEDRICKK.MCGUIREANDTYRONESAIN ,inviolationof 02(* T.C.A.3916603,againstthepeaceanddignityoftheStateofTennessee. ` (#` (#  `  Fromthejudgment,itappearsthatthejurytrialwasheldJanuary22,1997.ThereisnothingintherecordtoindicatethatDefendantbroughttothe 902 attentionofthetrialcourtpriortotrialbymotionorotherwisehisargumentthattheincorrectmensreawasallegedincount2oftheindictment.However,onFebruary P  3,1997,lessthantwo(2)weeksafterthejurytrial,Defendantscounselfiled(1)amotiontodismisscount2oftheindictment,and(2)abriefinsupportofthemotiontodismiss.Thebasisforthemotiontodismisswasthatcount2oftheindictmentfailedtoallegeanessentialelementoftheoffense,i.e.themensreaof    intentionally. `  ThepreciseissuepresentedbyDefendantinthisappealcanbesetforthasfollows: Ifacriminalstatuterequiresamentalculpabilityofintentionallyandtheindictmentallegesknowingmentalculpability,doesthisrendertheindictmentvoidbecauseitfailstostateanoffense?OurresearchindicatesthatthisisanissueoffirstimpressioninTennessee.InStatev.Hill,954S.W.2d725(Tenn.  @ 1997),oursupremecourtdidnotaddressthespecificissueraisedinthisappeal,butdiddeterminethattherequiredmentalculpabilitymaybeinferredfromthenatureofcriminalconductallegedintheindictmentwhenthecriminaloffenseatissueneitherexpresslyrequiresnorplainlydispenseswitharequirementforaculpablementalstate.Id.at729. P* " ̜ `  IndiscussingTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3911302,whichdefinestheculpablementalstates,thiscourtinStatev.Crowenotedthefollowing:  0&( 8 ` Thestatutoryschemecreatesahierarchy,and,whileeachofthefourmentalelementsareunique,[intentional,knowing,reckless,andcriminalnegligence]thelesserlevelsofculpabilityareincludedwithinthegreater. ` (#` (# 914S.W.2d933,937(Tenn.1995). 8x/1  9p02 '̛ `  Whileproofofintentionalculpabilitynecessarilyincludesproofofknowingculpability,theconverseisnotnecessarilytrue.SeeId.at937,n.2.There @  is,therefore,adefectinanindictmentwhereinalesserlevelofmentalculpabilitythanthatrequiredbystatuteisallegedintheindictment.Reviewofthisissuerequiresustofirstdeterminewhethertheobjectiontothedefectiveindictmentmustberaisedpretrial.Rule12(b)oftheTennesseeRulesofCriminalProcedureprovidesinpartasfollows:8 `  (b) PretrialMotions .Anydefense,objection,orrequestwhich x iscapableofdeterminationwithoutthetrialofthegeneralissuemayberaisedbeforetrialbymotion.Motionsmaybewrittenororalatthediscretionofthejudge. Thefollowingmustberaisedpriortotrial:h` (#` (#  8 `  (2)Defensesandobjectionsbasedondefectsintheindictment, h Мpresentmentorinformation(otherthanthatitfailstoshowjurisdictioninthecourtortochargeanoffensewhichobjectionsshallbenoticedbythecourtduringthependencyoftheproceedings). ` (#` (# ̜Tenn.R.Crim.P.12(b)and(2)(emphasisadded).* `  Theindictmentalleged knowingconductbytheDefendant.WhileproofofthisconductbytheDefendantwouldnotnecessarilyprovethatDefendant h*!" alsoactedintentionally,itisnotforeclosedthatthe knowingactbyDefendantinthisparticularcasecouldnothavealsobeendone intentionally.Thetranscriptofthetrialisnotincludedintherecordandwethereforeareunabletoreviewtheproofpresentedattrial.Defendantdidnotfileamotionfornewtrial,butonlyfiledthemotiontodismissposttrialasdiscussedearlierinthisopinion.Inthisappeal,Defendantdoesnotchallengethesufficiencyoftheevidencetosustainaconviction.Thetrialcourtenteredasentencingorder,anorderoverrulingthemotiontodismiss,andsignedthejudgmentfortheconvictionofevadingarrest.Wepresumethatthe 902 trialcourtapprovedtheverdictreturnedbythejury.SeeStatev.Braden,867 `  S.W.2d750(Tenn.Crim.App.1993).Wethereforepresumethattherewassufficientevidencetosupporttheconvictionforevadingarrest,includingevidencethatDefendantactedwith intentionalmentalculpability. `  Sinceproofof knowingconductdoesnotnecessarilydisprove    intentionalconduct,thedefectintheindictmentisnotofthecharacterwhichwouldbeclassifiedasadefectthatfailstochargeanoffense,andtherefore,amotiontodismissbasedupontheallegeddefectinthisindictmentmustbebroughtpretrial,oritiswaived.Tenn.R.Crim.P.12(f). `  Wealsonotethatarecentopinionofoursupremecourtlendssupporttotheconclusionreachedinthiscase.InDykesv.Compton,_____S.W.2d_____,  @ МNo.02S019711CC00105,LakeCounty(Tenn.,Nashville,Sept.21,1998)theϜcourtaddressedtheissueofwhetherachallengetoanindictmentmaybeaddressedthroughapetitionforwritofhabeascorpus,andifitcouldbe,whethertheappellantinthatcasewasentitledtothereliefhesought.Thesupremecourtconcludedthatachallengetoanindictmentmaybeaddressedinahabeascorpuspetition.However,thecourtfurtherheldthattheappellantwasnotentitledtothereliefhesoughtinthatcase.Specifically,theappellantarguedthattheindictmentwhichledtohisconvictionforaggravatedrapewasvoidbecauseitfailedtomakeanyreferencetoaculpablementalstate.InholdingthattheindictmentinthatcasesatisfiedtherequirementsofHill,954S.W.2d725,thesupremecourtstatedinpart, 4*, М [a]pplyingHill,wefindthatthelanguageoftheaboveindictment, aswellasthe 5,.  specificreferencetothestatuteallegedlyviolated ,providedtheappellantwith 7.0 amplenoticeoftheoffensecharged.Dykes,_____S.W.2d_____,No.02S01 `  9711CC00105,slipop.at6.Thecourtwentontosaythefollowing: 8 ` Inconclusion, wewishtoemphasizeonceagainthefactthatthe @  Courthasmovedawayfromthestrictpleadingrequirementsofcommonlaw. AswenotedinHill,thepurposeforthetraditionally @ strictpleadingrequirementwastheexistenceofcommonlawoffenseswhoseelementswerenoteasilyascertainedbyreferencetoastatute.Suchcommonlawoffensesnolongerexist. ` (#` (#  ` Id.at67(emphasisadded)(citationomitted).    : `  Inthecasesubjudice,therewasaspecificreferenceintheindictment   tothestatuteallegedlyviolated.Theelementof intentionalculpablementalstatewaseasilyascertainedbyreferencetothisstatute.WeconcludethatthereasoningcontainedinDykes,supportsourholdingconclusionthattheamotiontodismissbaseduponthe x allegeddefectinthisindictmentiswaivedsinceitwasnotbroughtpretrial.6? `  Basedupontheforegoing,weconcludethatDefendantsfirstissueisnotwelltaken.Accordingly,thesecondissuepresentedbyDefendantismoot.Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisthereforeaffirmed.O[O[ `     h   ____________________________________ '   `     h   THOMAST.WOODALL,JudgeCONCUR:___________________________________(SeeSeparateseparateconcurringopinion񀀀) X,"$ JOHNH.PEAY,Judge  :00 ___________________________________PAULG.SUMMERS,Judge#O[O[V@#