WPC *# \UNg % 0(B 0c%U:w@4 0%U:U:%_ 0Jg 0T 0^ 0hc 0r 0|= 0 0? 1u 0dD U> U* B - ^ l_v~vIHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nL"(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($C:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT("$X+XXX  0  ,cAZ"Arial Regular EPE:eEEE #3|x(v(2F$ !  X XXXX X X `   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<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Arial d  !  #d#"   $   X ##       ݀Thepetitioneralsoclaimsthatthetrialjudgeerredbydismissingthepetitionbeforehecouldrespondtothestatesmotiontodismiss.Becausewefindthattheindictmentinthiscaseisvalid,weneednotaddressthatclaim. T !#d#"   $   X ##       ݀AlthoughthepetitionerwasindictedinMarch1991,thepetitionerwaschargedwithcommittingtheoffensesinFebruary1988. 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'\ћ7XXdXXd7 @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE @ ATJACKSON @ CHARLESR.SMITH ,   )       )   Petitioner,    ) C.C.A.NO.02C019708CC00311       )  ̀vs.      )LAUDERDALECOUNTY        )  ALTONHESSON,WARDEN,  ) No. 4972       )   Respondent.    )        @ ORDER   ThismatterisbeforetheCourtuponthestatesmotiontoaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourtinaccordancewithRule20,RulesoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals.InMarch1991,thepetitionerwasindictedononecountofrapeandonecountofsexualbattery.Thoughthejudgmentisnotcontainedintherecord,itappearsthepetitionerwassubsequentlyconvictedofrapeandsexualbattery,andreceivedaneffectivesentenceofthirteenyears.OnJune18,1997,thepetitionerfiledapetitionforawritofhabeascorpuschallengingthesufficiencyoftheindictmententeredagainsthim.Thetrialcourtdeniedrelief.  Onappeal,thepetitionerarguesthattheindictmentisinvalidbecauseitfailedtoassertanessentialelementoftheoffenses,i.e.,themensrea,andthathisconvictions,therefore,cannotstand. %   ׀  Atthetimeoftheoffensesinthiscase, &   ׀rapewastheunlawfulsexualpenetrationofanotheraccompaniedbyseveralenumeratedcircumstances,includingthatforceorcoercionwasusedtoaccomplishtheact.T.C.A.392604(1982).Sexualbatterywastheunlawfulsexualcontactwithanotherpersonaccompaniedbyseveralenumeratedcircumstances,includingthatforceorcoercionwasusedtoaccomplishtheact.T.C.A.392607(1982).Theindictmentatissuebeforeuschargedthatthepetitionerdid unlawfullyandfeloniouslysexuallypenetrate[thevictim]...bytheuseofforceorcoercionanddid unlawfullyandfeloniouslyhavesexualcontactwith[thevictim]...byforceorcoercion.  Thislanguagewassufficientunderthelawasitexistedatthetime.Thestatutoryrequirementsforanindictmentwerefoundin𛀜4013202,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, '   ׀theSupremeCourtsrecentopinioninStatev.Hill,No.01S019701CC00005(Tenn.,Nov.3,1997)supportsourconclusion.TheCourtstatedthat anindictmentneednotconformtotraditionallystrictpleadingrequirementsandthat inmodernpractice,itisunnecessarytochargeguiltyknowledgeunlessitisincludedinthestatutorydefinitionoftheoffense.Moreover,havingreviewedthelanguageoftheindictmentinthiscase,wefindthatitwouldsufficeundertheSupremeCourtsanalysisofthecurrentstatutoryrequirementsofnoticeandform.  Accordingly,wefindthattheindictmentatissuemeetsconstitutionalandthethenexistingstatutoryrequirements,andisthereforevalid.ItisthereforeORDEREDthatthejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmedinaccordancewithRule20,RulesoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals.  Enter,thisthe___dayofDecember,1997.      ___________________________      PAULG.SUMMERS,JUDGE      ___________________________      JOEB.JONES,PRESIDINGJUDGE      ___________________________      DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE