WPC-  _12>X< ²N{Yx}fY$Shurˏu d"JxZSՔMc.K4K7d_4Y'{4#$!P*žw&c)3 3wlK8 Uh-: eB ЃU WV8$:%iW^zG橷0ۚ4Emַ S3?d:oύS*Gq#yؼ0-uqj2(aV #vz%݄p,\iD18GlcDnx1{ܿ"glEbm6l)8NmޜnrBTxV& OAEn?d#@ŌV&FO6}`!1R;hP,UxtR&[j,ۘyy A^"OH@c袊y>@&4)?<("`b#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz UN   k 1 0DN;=ERjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjb"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 0**** B 02 D3 D-  0K66 AS 0 0D> AHP LaserJet 40500/}2+ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularyG*:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    R $      1  u   _ԀHillexplainsthat thepurposeforthetraditionallystrictpleadingrequirementwastheexistenceofcommon  lawoffenseswhoseelementswerenoteasilyascertainedbyreferencetoastatute.Suchcommonlawoffensesnolonger t exist.Hillat728.  R $      2  u   _ԀWealsoobservethatthedefendantmadenoclaimofsurprise,andhepresentedadefensedenyingany  involvementwiththecrimes. H R $      3  u   _ԀInaddition,thetrialcourtsrulingrevealsthatitrecognizedtheappropriateoffensessinceitwasableto  providewhatwouldhavebeenanimprovedwordingoftheindictment.  R $      4  u   _AlthoughwehaveupheldtheindictmentsintheinstantcaseandalthoughHilljettisonedmanyofthetechnical  pleadingrequirementsforindictmentsitwouldbehooveprosecutorstotakegreatercarethanthatexhibitedinthiscase t whendraftingindictments.- -(|G2 $ !.8Gdd8         0  M d(|3$ !.8Gdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Gdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8^Mdd8     _   ^M8XXdd8@ttJ^MINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#^MJ #Ԉ &    @  @` AssignedonBriefsMarch20,2001Session L XX^M #^MXX'#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.GERALD_STOVALL_XX^M  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheCriminalCourtforMonroeCounty  J @@No.99089CarrollL.Ross,Judge  6 August3,_2001_  " @@*AV) ` dE< ` A    @@TTNo.E200000926CCAR3CD   AV) ` dE<` A       XXXXTheMonroeCountygrandjuryindictedthedefendantontwocountsofsellingordeliveringover   .5gramsofcocaine. Attheconclusionofabenchtrial,thetrialcourtfoundbeyondareasonable x  doubtthatthedefendanthadsoldcocaineintheallegedamountsonthedatesinquestion. However, d immediatelyaftermakingthisdetermination,thetrialcourtsuasponteannouncedthatitwas P dismissingtheindictmentbecauseofafatalwordingerror. ThroughthisappealtheStatecontends < thatthedismissalwaserroneousandasksthatthecaseberemandedforsentencing.Followingour (x reviewoftherecordandapplicablecaselaw,wefindtheStatesissuetohavemeritand,therefore, d reversethetrialcourtsdismissalandgranttherequestedremandforsentencing#XXX X##^MXXѽ#XX^M P  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtisReversedand ( RemandedforSentencing     #^MX #XX.^MJerryL.Smith,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJoeG.RileyandAlanE.Glenn,  JJ.,joined.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;R.StephenJobe,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;Jerry d N.Estes,DistrictAttorneyGeneralandShariLynnTayloe,AssistantDistrictAttorneyforappellant, P  StateofTennessee.   Inconsideringtheproprietyofthedismissalbasedonanallegedfataldefectinthe %4!$ indictment,wefirstlooktothelanguagewithinthecharginginstrument.Countoneoftheindictment & "% statesthatthedefendant: ' #& 8  onoraboutthe16thdayofDecember,1998,inMonroeCounty,Tennessee,and (#' beforethefindingofthisindictment,didunlawfully,intentionally,orknowinglysell )$( acontrolledsubstance,towit:Cocaine,.5gramsormore,aScheduleIIcontrolled *%) substanceasclassifiedinSection3917408oftheTennesseeCodeAnnotated,in l+&* violationofT.C.A.3917417,allofwhichisagainstthepeaceanddignityofthe  StateofTennessee.   Thealternatecountusesthesamelanguageexceptforsubstitutingtheword deliverfor sell. t Counttwofollowsthesamepattern,butthecrimeinvolvedallegedlyoccurredonDecember18th. ` Thus,bothcountsandtheiralternatesusethephrase unlawfully,intentionally,orknowingly. L   Accordingtothetrialcourtsorder theindictmentwasfatalinthat1)itallegedaculpablemental 8  state(towit:intentionally)notinthestatuteand,2)moreimportantly,thatthetworequisiteculpable $ t mentalstatesneededtosustainaconviction(towit:unlawfullyandknowingly)wereallegedinthe  ` disjunctive,notintheconjunctiveasrequiredbylaw.   L    TheTennesseeSupremeCourthasstatedthat"anindictmentisvalidifitprovidessufficient  8  information(1)toenabletheaccusedtoknowtheaccusationtowhichanswerisrequired,(2)to $  furnishthecourtadequatebasisfortheentryofaproperjudgment,and(3)toprotecttheaccused   fromdoublejeopardy."Statev.Hill,954S.W.2d725,727(Tenn.1997);seealsoStatev.   Hammonds,30S.W.3d294,299(Tenn.2000).Further,"anindictmentneednotconformto   traditionallystrictpleadingrequirements." #  1      ׀Hillat727."Thus,wenowapproach'attacksupon   indictments,especiallyofthiskind,fromthebroadandenlightenedstandpointofcommonsenseand p rightreasonratherthanfromthenarrowstandpointofpettypreciosity,pettifogging,technicalityor \ hairsplittingfaultfinding.'"Idat728.(quotingUnitedStatesv.Purvis,580F.2d853,857(5thCir. H 1978)). 4   Applyingthisstandardtothecasebeforeus,a"commonsense"readingoftheinstant  p indictmentindicatesthatitsufficientlycomplieswiththeconstitutionalnoticerequirementsrecited  \ inHill.Withregardtothefirstprongoftheaboveoutlinedtestgoverningthevalidityofan H indictment,thisdefendantwasawareoftheoffenseswithwhichhewascharged.Thestatute 4 allegedlyviolatedisnotedwithinthecharginginstrumentalongwithotherdetails. #  2      ׀Turningtothe   secondprong,thetrialcourtwasfurnishedsufficientinformationtoenteraproperjudgment.Again,   theindictmentdelineatesthestatuteallegedtohavebeenviolated;thecountyinwhichthe  transactionshadoccurred;thebasicactivityengagedin;andthesubstanceandgeneralamounts  involved., #  3      ׀Andfinallyastothelastprong,thisdefendantreceivedprotectionagainstdouble  jeopardy.Theindictmentnotonlyprovidestheinformationpreviouslynotedbutalsostatesthedates l onwhichtheseincidentsallegedlytookplace.Thereisnopossibilitythatthedefendantcouldbe X  prosecutedagainfortheseoffenses. D!   Additionally,whilethedefendantcitesvariouscasesandtheoriesinsupportofouraffirming 0"  thisdismissal,weremainunpersuaded.Forexample,thedefense aversthattheholdinginHillis #l! limitedtothoseoffenseswhichneitherexpresslyrequirenorplainlydispensewiththerequirement  foraculpablementalstate....Thedefendantthenpointsoutthatthestatuteinvolvedinhiscase  hasthe specificculpablementalstateofknowingandconcludesthatHillis,thus,inapplicable.  However,oursupremecourthasalreadyfoundtothecontraryinRuffv.State.SeeRuffat99.Ruff t inpartdealswithanaggravatedkidnapingallegation,whichbystatuterequiresfalseimprisonment. ` Id.;seealsoTenn.CodeAnn.3913304.Thelattertermisdefinedas knowinglyremovingor L  confininganother....Tenn.CodeAnn.3913302;seealsoRuffat99.Afternotingthis,our 8  supremecourtdeclared: WethinkthatthereasoninginHillapplieswithevengreaterforcehere $ t becausethementalstatewasprovidedbythestatutecitedintheindictment,therebyplacing[the  ` defendant]onnoticethatknowledgeisanelementoftheoffense.Id(emphasisadded).As  L  aforementioned,theindictmentchallengedintheinstantcaseprovidedthestatuteviolatedasbeing  8  TennesseeCodeAnnotated3917417.Thefirstsentenceofthislawclearlysetsout knowing $  asthementalcomponentneededtosustainaconviction.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.3917417(a).   Accordingly,theHillanalysisofthepresentindictmentisappropriate.     Finally,wespecificallyexaminetheprosecutionsuseofthephrase unlawfully,   intentionally,orknowingly.Byincluding knowingly,theindictmentpresentlybeforethisCourt   chargesthedefendantwiththeabovereferencedmentalelementrequiredbystatute.SeeTenn.Code p Ann.3917417.Thoughtheindictmentalsoincludestheword intentionally,thismensrea \ encompassesthedefinitionof knowingly.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.3911301(a)(2). Intentionally H thereforebecomessurplusage,whichcertainlywouldbebetteromitted,buttofindthisindictment 4 invalidbecauseofsurpluslanguageinvolvedwouldrequireustoengageinthehypertechnical  p analysisthatoursupremecourtjettisonedinHill.Finally,theprosecutionsinappropriateuseofthe  \ term unlawfullyinthedisjunctivewith intentionallyandwith knowinglydoesnotrenderthe H indictmentinvalideither.Inananalogouscaseadefendantassertedthattheindictmentscharging 4 himwiththedeliveryofcocainewereinsufficientbecausetheyfailedtoallegeamentalelement.See   Statev.Wilson,31S.W.3d189,192(Tenn.2000).Theindictmentsaverredthatthedefendanthad    unlawfullydeliver[ed]...Cocaine,asclassifiedinSection3917408,inviolationofTennessee  CodeAnnotated,Section3917417(c)(1)....Id.Withthesefactsoursupremecourtconcludedthat   becausetheindictmentscharging[thedefendant]withthedeliveryofcocainereferencedthe  appropriatestatute,hewasprovidedsufficientnoticeoftherequiredmentalstatetocommitthe l offense.Theindictments,therefore,arelegallysufficient.Id.Wereachthesameconclusionwith X  respecttotheinstantindictments. #  4       D!    Conclusion  '#&     FortheforegoingreasonswefindthattheStatesallegationhasmerit.Accordingly,thetrial  courtsdismissaloftheindictmentisREVERSEDANDthematterisREMANDEDfortheentry  ofjudgmentandtheinstitutionofsentencingprocedures.  #XXX Xь ##^MXX[ #XX^M   `     h     ___________________________________ L     `     h     JERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE