ÿWPC4  vE¤/hÞÕ¨ZÒ¾±g?$õû¦ñdÉ›:å;f$“£–67V#&¸‘V›º>°j޶^mÏÝY08räÓ5ýòÙŸrpé*ha•V¬ê2íI86G»÷-ëͥΧ¼o掖k*º;&Y ·Ú¦°ÏÔNÌ¿­øœ¸c‘žž)¤Èdú´)ê#ä¶Á:YT4vóåR›;(¹vÔ˜& '^yaH.%tÖ–ð¾s!á(™ôÉs“«?®ïShq«6¤¼õ2lÄ0Óh6dÞzz »½­;–Ób›=<‡ÊÀìÂõwˆ¦é!Ä«ãÑ, “8Æ~+ÁK96=Á»2åH¶§ãÚ*’6G«=*{ÿMÿ Ç,zgå¸LnÃ@KSùï¤üÖ ¾®­1*dgbábi;D»>úø!T[ dñbF©^`dùÜÄ#(|í±NZVkÂ9bZ;_\¼vÅ˵Ó>È{jn*s_•$£Y¢ŒQm"án$dšÌê;È„u¡ˆ·é[’kNè™d·MÅZf‘Oht†¤oˆA‚«Š]!àFÝÚ‚åɧÚÜ\(&#Î(­‰Ðp>×ʆ]ª Ú¹+Îsõr#9¯à¶)UB> %€U.†´nXÄ 0P4l€ 0Òˆ 0DZw@žU:ÞU:)RU:{ { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { AQµ Æ 0DÌ 0D 0DT B˜ D/µ µ Bä D3 <þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|X· «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  Ón~<$(‚(2Îg$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€ô½–ôXXÔÔ€ ô÷Òôôô½–Ôà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó £ D¤ ¥ D¦ § D¨ © Dª « Ó€· ¿"Arial Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular Ý ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€Xˆ\XXXÔÔ€WXXˆ\ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€Xˆ\XWÔÐ  ÐÌò òNovember€24,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ô˜™ôXXˆ\ÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular !"#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó d'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd$$$$'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýñ« ññ¢ ñ›ñ¢ ññ« ñÑ` °ÑѰÑÒPDÒÒŽ¦ÒÑ  ÑÑTR[  AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  ÓÔ€XyáXXXÔÑ7€ yá XXdðXXdð7Ññ· ññ« ñßr€(<,(j 8` `€€@Eêf ` ttx$"` ð Úrßñ« ññ· ññ· ññ· ññ« ñ›ñ« ñà ¨ àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌñ· ñœßt€(>.*jx‹þÐ` `€€@Eu ` ttx$­X ð œ tß›ñ· ñÌà@ÃÃ;MàAT€JACKSONˆÌÌÓ  Óà@™™8MàMAY€1998€SESSIONˆÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à ° àà  àà ` à)ó óÐ Ðp  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àò ò)ó óà ¸ àÐ À`  Ðà ¨ àà àAppellee,à ° àò ò€€€€€à  àà ` à)Ð °P  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9710„CC„00379ó óÐ  @  ÐVS.à ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àò ò)Ð 0  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àHARDEMAN€COUNTYÐ €  ÐTYRONE€SAIN,à X àà ° àà  àà ` à)Ð p Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)Ìó óà ¨ àà àAppellant.à ° àà  àà ` àò ò)Ð Pð ÐÌó óÌÌà@óó:Màò òòòD€I€œS€S›€E€N€Tó óóóˆÐ ° ÐÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà ¨ àà àI€respectfully€dissent.€€The€majority€holds€that€an€indictment€that€referencesÏa€lesser€culpable€mental€state€than€is€required€by€statute€must€be€attacked€pretrial€or€anyÏcomplaint€concerning€the€defect€is€waived.€€The€majority€bases€its€holding€on€theÏconclusion€that€ð ð[¢s]ince£€proof€of€ððknowing'€conduct€does€not€òònecessarilyóó€òòdisproveóóÐ p& Ðððintentional'€conduct,€the€defect€in€the€indictment€is€not€of€the€character€which€would€beÐ P(ð! Ðclassified€as€a€defect€that€fails€to€charge€an€offense€[e.s.].ðð€€The€majority€misapprehendsÏthe€significance€of€the€defects€contained€in€the€instant€indictment.ÌÌà ¨ àà àGenerally,€challenges€regarding€a€defective€indictment€are€waived€if€notÏraised€prior€to€trial.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(b)(2).€€However,€jurisdictional€defects€or€theÏfailure€to€charge€an€offense€ð ðshall€be€noticed€by€the€court€at€any€time€during€theÏpendency€of€the€proceedings.ðð€€òòId.óó€€The€statute€proscribing€the€offense€of€evading€arrestÐ p5,/ Ðexpressly€provides€the€òòmens€reaóó€element€of€ð ðintentional.ðð€€¢T.C.A.£€ðð€39„16„603(a)Ð P7ð-1 Ð(1991)(stating,€ð ðIt€is€unlawful€for€any€person€to€òòintentionallyóó€flee€.€.€.€.ðð)(emphasis€added).€Ð 09Ð/39 ÐThe€indictment€in€this€case€charged€the€culpable€mental€state€of€ð ðknowing,ðð€notÏð ðintentional.ðð€€Because€ð ðknowingðð€is€not€the€equivalent€of€ð ðintentional,ðð€òòsee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.Ð @ à ÐCroweóó,€914€S.W.2d€933,€937€(Tenn.€1995),€the€indictment€in€this€case€omits€an€essentialÐ  À Ðelement€of€the€offense€of€evading€arrest.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Brandon€Wilsonóó,€No.€03C01„9609„Ð   ÐCC„00352,€Blount€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€September€1,€1998,€atÏKnoxville)(finding€that€the€culpable€mental€state€of€ð ðknowingðð€expressly€provided€for€inÏT.C.A.€ðð€39„17„417(a)€is€an€essential€element€of€the€crimes€proscribed€by€that€statute).ÌÌà ¨ àà àWhere€an€indictment€fails€to€charge€an€essential€element€of€an€offense,€theÏerror€cannot€be€waived.€€òòId.óó€€ð ðIn€that€circumstance,€no€offense€has€been€charged.€€InÐ @à Ðconsequence,€subsequent€proceedings€are€a€nullity.ðð€€òòState€v.€Perkinsonóó,€867€S.W.2d€1,Ð  À Ð6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992);€òòseeóó€Tenn.€R.€¢Crim£.€Proc.€12(b)€(the€error€of€failing€to€chargeÐ   Ðan€offense€cannot€be€waived);€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919€¢S.W.2d£€305,€310€(Tenn.€1996)(aÐ à€ Ðconviction€based€upon€an€indictment€that€fails€to€charge€an€offense€is€a€nullity).€ÏAccordingly,€the€defendantððs€failure€to€challenge€the€indictment€in€a€pretrial€motion€doesÏnot€preclude€us€from€reviewing€this€issue€on€appeal.€€Tenn.€R.€¢Crim£.€Proc.€12(b);€òòStateÐ €%  Ðv.€Brandon€Wilsonóó,€No.€03C01„9609„CC„00352.Ð `'  ÐÌà ¨ àà àOn€the€merits,€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€relief€because€the€indictment€isÏfatally€defective.€€In€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€954€S.W.2d€725€(Tenn.€1997),€the€Tennessee€SupremeÐ - #& ÐCourt€addressed€the€validity€of€indictments€that€failed€to€allege€the€requisite€mental€state.€ÏThe€œñ£ ñsñ£ ññ¤ ñSñ¤ ñupreme›€œñ¥ ñcñ¥ ññ¦ ñCñ¦ ñourt›€concluded€that€for€offenses€ð ðwhich€neither€expressly€require€norÏplainly€dispense€with€the€requirement€for€a€culpable€mental€state,ðð€an€indictment€that€failsÏto€allege€a€mental€state€might€nonetheless€be€sufficient,€provided€certain€criteria€are€met.€ÏòòId.óó€at€726„27.€€But€the€œñ§ ñsñ§ ññ¨ ñSñ¨ ñupreme›€œñ© ñcñ© ññª ñCñª ñourt›€also€noted,€ð ðIn€modern€practice,€it€is€unnecessaryÐ `6-0 Ðto€charge€guilty€knowledge€òòunless€it€is€included€in€the€statutory€definition€of€the€offenseóó.ðð€Ð €4 +0 ÐòòId.óó€at€729€(emphasis€added).€€In€other€words,€if€a€criminal€statute€specifically€requires€aÐ L6ì,2 Ðcertain€culpable€mental€state,€that€culpable€mental€state€must€be€included€in€the€languageÏof€the€indictment.€€Applying€this€principle€to€the€instant€case,€because€the€offense€ofÏevading€arrest€specifically€requires€proof€of€the€culpable€mental€state€of€ð ðintentionally,ððÐ ø ˜ Ðòòseeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„16„603(a)€(1991),€the€indictment€in€this€case€should€have€included€theÐ Äd Ðword€ð ðintentionally,ðð€or€at€least,€words€of€similar€import.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Brandon€Wilsonóó,€No.Ð 0 Ð03C01„9609„CC„00352;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòFinn€v.€United€Statesóó,€256€F.2d€304,€306€(4th€Cir.Ð \ü  Ð1958)(stating,€ð ðWhere€willfulness€or€knowledge€is€made€an€element€of€the€crime,€theÏstatutory€requirement€is€not€to€be€ignored.€€The€charge€must€either€include€these€terms,Ïor€words€of€similar€import.ðð).ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€indictment€in€this€case€alleged€the€culpable€mental€state€of€ð ðknowing,ððÏbut€this€is€not€sufficient.€€ð ðIntentionalðð€conduct€signifies€a€greater€degree€of€culpability€thanÏð ðknowingðð€conduct.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòCroweóó,€914€S.W.2d€at€937.€€As€the€majority€recognizes,Ð ð Ðproof€of€ð ðknowingðð€culpability€does€not€necessarily€include€proof€of€ð ðintentionalðð€culpability,Ïeven€though€ð ðintentionalðð€necessarily€includes€ð ðknowing.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€937€n.2.€€But€the€majorityÐ ˆ"( Ðseems€to€make€an€exception€to€this€rule,€noting€that€because€the€proof€at€trial€òòmay€haveóóÐ T$ô Ðproven€ð ðintentionalðð€culpability,€it€matters€not€that€the€indictment€alleged€only€ð ðknowingððÏculpability.€€In€other€words,€the€majority€seems€to€say€that€it€is€òòunnecessaryóó€for€the€wordÐ ì'Œ" Ðð ðknowingðð€to€include€ð ðintentionalðð€culpability€so€long€as€there€is€the€òòpossibilityóó€thatÐ ¸)X $ Ðintentional€conduct€may€have€ultimately€been€proven€at€trial.€€This€reasoning€is€fatallyÏflawed,€however,€because€the€proof€at€trial€has€no€bearing€on€whether€the€indictment€isÏsufficient.€€If€the€indictment€is€insufficient„„„and€here,€the€indictment€is€because€it€fails€toÏallege€the€essential€element€of€ð ðintentionalðð€culpability„„„any€proceedings€that€follow€areÏa€nullity.€€òòTrustyóó,€919€¢S.W.2d£€at€310;€òòPerkinsonóó,€867€S.W.2d€at€6.€€This€means€thatÐ ´2T). Ðwhatever€happened€at€trial€in€this€case€is€irrelevant€because€the€trial€itself€becomes€aÏnullity€if€the€indictment€is€found€to€be€fatally€insufficient.€€Thus,€in€this€case,€because€itÐ L6ì,2 Ðcannot€logically€be€inferred€from€the€language€of€the€indictment€(which€alleges€theÏdefendant€acted€ð ðknowinglyðð)€that€the€defendant€òònecessarilyóó€acted€ð ðintentionallyðð€(whichÐ , Ì ÐT.C.A.€ðð€39„16„603(a)€required€the€State€to€prove€in€this€case),€the€indictment€is€fatallyÏinsufficient.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Nathaniel€Whiteóó,€No.€03C01„9408„CR„00277,€Sullivan€CountyÐ Äd Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€June€7,€1995,€at€Knoxville)(holding€invalid€an€indictment€allegingÏð ðunlawfulðð€behavior€instead€of€the€requisite€mental€element€of€ð ðknowingðð€because€ð ð[o]neÏcannot€logically€infer€that€an€accused€acting€ððunlawfullyðð€òònecessarilyóó€actsÐ (È  Ðððknowinglyðððð)(emphasis€added);€òòState€v.€Brandon€Wilsonóó,€No.€03C01„9609„CC„00352Ð ô”  Ð(following€òòWhiteóó).Ð À` ÐÌà ¨ àà àI€also€disagree€with€the€majorityððs€suggestion€that€the€indictmentððs€specificÏreference€to€the€charged€statute€can€constitute€a€sufficient€allegation€of€the€requiredÏculpable€mental€state.€€The€majority€relies€upon€òòDykes€v.€Comptonóó,€____€S.W.2d€____,Ð ð ÐNo.€02S01„9711„CC„00105€(Tenn.€September€21,€1998),€but€òòDykesóó,€like€òòHillóó,€involved€anÐ ¼ \ Ðoffense€for€which€the€culpable€mental€state€was€not€specified€in€the€violated€statute,Ïwhich€distinguishes€it€from€the€instant€case.€€Where,€as€here,€the€charged€statuteÏspecifies€a€particular€mental€state,€merely€referencing€the€statute€in€the€indictment€will€notÏsuffice€in€terms€of€alleging€all€essential€elements,€including€scienter.€€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,Ð ì'Œ" Ð870€S.W.2d€532,€537€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Brandon€Wilsonóó,€No.€03C01„9609„CC„Ð ¸)X $ Ð00352.€€Thus,€unlike€the€majority,€I€would€not€find€support€in€òòDykesóó€under€the€facts€of€theÐ „+$"& Ðinstant€case.ÌÌà ¨ àà àEven€if,€however,€the€majority€is€correct€in€holding€that€the€defendant€hasÏwaived€his€right€to€challenge€the€defective€indictment€in€this€case€and€thus,€in€implyingÏthat€mental€states€may€be€freely€substituted€for€one€another,€I€would€find€the€indictmentÏin€this€case€fatally€defective€on€other€grounds.€€The€relevant€count€of€the€indictmentÐ L6ì,2 Ðprovides€in€pertinent€part€that€ð ðon€or€about€the€14th€day€of€December€1993€.€.€.€[theÏdefendant]€did€unlawfully€and€knowingly€flee€from€Sheriff€¢Delphus£€Hicks€and€Deputy€DougÏBrown€.€.€.€known€to€[the€defendant]€to€be€.€.€.€law€enforcement€officers€from€[sic]€effectingÏ[his]€arrest.ðð€€The€statute€which€the€defendant€was€thereby€accused€of€violating€providesÏas€follows:€€ð ðIt€is€unlawful€for€any€person€to€intentionally€flee€from€anyone€the€personÏknows€to€be€a€law€enforcement€officer€and€the€person:€€(1)€€Knows€the€officer€isÏattempting€to€arrest€the€person;€or€(2)€€Has€been€arrested.ðð€€¢T.C.A.£€ðð€39„16„603(a)€(1991).€ÏThus,€the€crime€of€evading€arrest€consists€of€the€following€essential€elements:€€(1)€theÏdefendant€intentionally€flees€from€persons€he€knows€to€be€law€enforcement€officers;€òòandóóÐ À` Ð(2)€the€defendant€knows€the€officers€are€attempting€to€arrest€him€or€they€already€haveÏarrested€him.€€òòId.óó€€It€is€not€a€crime€under€this€statute€for€defendants€to€intentionally€fleeÐ Xø Ðpolice€officers€because,€for€instance,€they€do€not€want€to€be€questioned,€they€simplyÏdislike€or€fear€officers,€or€they€enjoy€taunting€them.€€The€crime€is€committed€whenÏdefendants€flee€in€a€deliberate€attempt€to€escape€arrest.€€Of€course,€such€deliberateÏconduct€requires€that€the€defendants€òòknowóó€an€arrest€is€being€attempted.Ð ˆ"( ÐÌà ¨ àà àThe€indictment€in€the€instant€case€makes€absolutely€no€reference€to€theÏdefendant's€awareness€that€the€officers€were€attempting€to€arrest€him.€€Nor€is€it€possibleÏto€logically€infer€the€missing€element€from€the€words€ð ðfrom€effecting€[the€defendant's]Ïarrest.ðð€€òòCf.óó€òòHillóó,€954€¢S.W.2d£€at€727€(holding€an€indictment€containing€no€reference€to€theÐ „+$"& Ðòòmensóó€òò¢rea£óó€element€valid€if€it€otherwise€meets€constitutional€and€statutory€requirements€andÐ P-ð#( Ðð ðthe€mental€state€can€be€logically€inferred€from€the€conduct€allegedðð).€€Nor€is€this€elementÏnecessarily€implied€by€the€remaining€allegations.€€òòCf.óó€òòMarshallóó,€870€¢S.W.2d£€at€538Ð è0ˆ', Ð(holding€an€indictment€valid€where€a€missing€element€of€the€offense€is€ð ðnecessarilyÏimpliedðð€from€the€allegations€made).€€Thus,€while€we€do€not€doubt€that€the€police€officersÏwere€in€fact€attempting€to€arrest€the€defendant,€there€is€no€language€in€the€indictmentÐ L6ì,2 Ðwhich€establishes€that€the€òòdefendantóó€knew€or€was€aware€of€the€officers'€intent.€€As€setÐ `  Ðforth€above,€the€defendant€may€have€been€knowingly€running€from€persons€he€knew€toÏbe€police€officers€òòwithoutóó€knowing€that€they€were€trying€to€arrest€him.€€Given€the€plainÐ ø ˜ Ðlanguage€of€the€statute,€this€omission€is€fatal.ÌÌà ¨ àà àIn€sum,€because€the€indictment€charging€evading€arrest€fails€to€allege€theÏessential€element€that€the€defendant€knew€the€officers€were€trying€to€arrest€him,€it€cannotÏsupport€his€conviction.€€Moreover,€contrary€to€the€majorityððs€position,€I€would€concludeÏthat€the€indictmentððs€failure€to€allege€the€statutorily€required€òòmens€reaóó€of€ð ðintentionallyðð€isÐ À` Ða€fatal€defect€that€has€not€been€waived.€€Accordingly,€I€would€reverse€the€defendant'sÏconviction€for€evading€arrest€and€dismiss€the€charge.€€à h àà À àÐ Xø ÐÌÌÓÓà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ à_______________________________Ìà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÓî7Óà ¨ àà à