WPC4 o{F(1X7ٗ9mMp>#mfm਼aiUZ]ĊȐkG)Oyܰx{[Φfܻ8>޵.?sF8~Tun3}ɮ~RDҲv @w :߫ U 5Hh&p Ho>H_c=rRX/sUD➨3raUj$A{/. o!o]#A܄JMm2DzDD!D#KZgH}ϵf}6e b3}U~Lh|"!\L 6;paLSdl,C,XXY-ҫݝ} hfo/VՑR<L{xt@pE L"4A#1;4y Yk!{ ,ǖ BC5&M!@=vu;kq?nOc:lRITXsņ/k1d#!xU N % 0(w 4 - < 0  0 D  U: NB U :D U:~  U:@^ zU:U: m"#U:$b3% B;% 1X% 72% 1u& 72& 0c& !'t0U,2U*K2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2u2 0D}2 D522222 AQ2G3 0D 4 0DQ4HP LaserJet 8000 DN PS0(uH Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($tpO'3|x   .$ XX  3    _/K Althoughahusbandcouldnotbeguiltyofrapinghiswife,hecouldbeprosecutedifhe ,  assistedanotherintherape.SeeDavid_Raybin_,TennesseeCriminalPracticeandProcedure,   28.114(1985).(8G2$ !   AXX  0  (#$  0    b"  _ XXXX X X   Ad FILED XX   November8,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAx +zAZ"Arial Regular+zAZ"Arial Regular,yAZ"Arial Regular ~  .$ XX  4    _/K /K  /KAlthoughnotpertinenttothisappealbecausetheoffensesoccurredin1993and1994,a ,  1998amendmentcreatedtheoffenseofaggravated_spousal_Ԁrapeforconduct especiallycruel,vile   andinhumanetothevictimduringthecommissionoftheoffense.See1998Tenn.Pub.Actsch.  | 1068,1.#/K  /K#,yAZ"Arial Regularve'L ,`AZ"Arial Regular   .$ XX  8    _/K Priortotheadoptionofthe1989Act,theCodecontainedastatutewhichaddressedthe ,  issueoflesserincludedoffensesinthecontextofsexualoffenses.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.39   3710(c)(Supp.1982)( Achargeofanyoffenseproscribedhereinshallincludeachargeofall  | lesseroffensesaslesserincludedoffenses.)Thisstatutoryprovisioneliminatedtheconfusion f : whichnowoftenoccurswhentrialcourtsareattemptingtodeterminewhichoffensesarelesser $  included.,yAZ"Arial Regular   .$ XX  5    _/K Tenn.CodeAnn.3913502provides: ,  8 80 ! !(a)Aggravatedrapeisunlawfulsexualpenetrationofavictimby  | thedefendantorthedefendantbyavictimaccompaniedbyanyof f : thefollowingcircumstances:$ 0 h0 h 8 80 ! !(1)Forceorcoercionisusedtoaccomplishtheactandthe   defendantisarmedwithaweaponoranyarticleusedorfashioned t inamannertoleadthevictimreasonablytobelieveittobea ^2 weapon;0 h0 h 8 80 ! !(2)Thedefendantcausesbodilyinjurytothevictim; 0 h0 h 8 80 ! !(3)Thedefendantisaidedorabettedbyone(1)ormoreother l  persons;andV* 0 h0 h 8 80 ! !(A)Forceorcoercionisusedtoaccomplishtheact;or 0 h0 h 8 80 ! !(B)Thedefendantknowsorhasreasontoknowthatthevictim   ismentallydefective,mentallyincapacitatedorphysicallyhelpless.d 0 h0 h 8 80 ! !(b)AggravatedrapeisaClassAfelony.    .$ XX  9    _/K Trustyfailedtorecognizethatthe passionlanguageinthedefinitionofvoluntary ,  manslaughtersimplyreflectsalessculpablementalstatethanrequiredforfirstorseconddegree   murder.SeeSentencingCommissionCommentstoTenn.CodeAnn.3913211.Therefore,  | voluntarymanslaughterisalesserincludedoffenseoffirstandseconddegreemurder.SeeState f : v.Burns,___S.W.2d__(Tenn.1999)(filedsimultaneouslywiththisopinion)(holdingthatoffenseis $  lesserincludedif(a)allitsstatutoryelementsareincludedwithinthestatutoryelementsofthe   offensecharged;or(b)ifitfailstomeetthedefinitioninpart(a)onlyintherespectthatitcontainsa t statutoryelementorelementsestablishingadifferentmentalstateindicatingalesserkindof `4 culpability);seealsoTenn.CodeAnn.3913201(1997)(providingthat [_c]riminal_Ԁhomicideisthe   unlawfulkillingofanotherpersonwhichmaybefirstdegreemurder,seconddegreemurder,    voluntarymanslaughter,criminallynegligenthomicide,orvehicularhomicide). ,     .$ XX  6    _/K Tenn.CodeAnn.4013202(1997)providesinpertinentpart: Theindictmentmust ,  statethefactsconstitutingtheoffenseinordinaryandconciselanguage,withoutprolixityor   repetition,insuchamannerastoenableapersonofcommonunderstandingtoknowwhatis  | intended,andwiththatdegreeofcertaintywhichwillenablethecourt,onconviction,topronounce f : theproperjudgment....# /K#/K U   .$ XX  7    _/K TennesseeRuleCriminalProcedure31(c)provides: Thedefendantmaybefoundguiltyof ,  anoffensenecessarilyincludedintheoffensechargedorofanattempttocommiteithertheoffense   chargedoranoffensenecessarilyincludedthereiniftheattemptisanoffense.,  AZ"Arial Regular- - d(CEMU]emu}AutoList1(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A) (A)##37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)"i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0    .$ XX  1    _'/K Thedefendantraisedtwootherissuesinthisappeal:(1)whetherthetrialcourterredin ,  refusingtograntthedefendantsmotionforrecusal;and(2)whetherthetrialcourterredin   admittingintoevidenceataperecordedinterviewbetweenthevictimandthefieldsupervisorofthe  | DepartmentofHumanServices.Becausewehavereversedandremandedonothergrounds,(/K  '/Kwe f : neednotaddresstheseissuesindetail.However,wenotethattheproofinthisrecordindicates $  thatthetrialjudgewasresidinginahomeownedbytheassistantdistrictattorneywhoprosecuted   thiscaseandwaspayingonlytheutilitiesandcablebillsandnotmonthlyrental.Undersuch t circumstances,recusalisappropriate.SeeSup.Ct.R.10,CodeofJudicialConduct,Canons2(A) ^2 4(D)(5),and3(E).WealsoagreewiththedefendantthatthetrialcourterredinallowingtheState  toofferintoevidencetheentiretaperecordedinterviewofthevictimbytheDepartmentofHuman   Servicesfieldsupervisor.WhiletheStatehastherightto conveythetruepictureoftheprior l  statementallegedtobeinconsistent,Statev.Boyd,797S.W.2d589,59394(Tenn.1990),this V*  ruledoesnotformabasisforreferencetoportionsofthestatementwhichwerenotmadeanissue   oncrossexaminationandwhicharenotnecessarytoconveyanaccuratepictureofthematters   discussedoncrossexamination.ThetrialjudgecouldhaveeitherallowedtheStatetoquestionthe d  witnessconcerningherpriorstatementtoplacehertestimonyoncrossexaminationintocontextor N"  permittedtheStatetousethetranscriptofthe_DHS_Ԁtapetorefreshthevictimsrecollection.Neither     thetapenorthetranscript,however,shouldhavebeenintroducedassubstantiveevidenceinthis ,  case.#'/K  (/Kb# j  .$ XX  2    _(/K Thedefendantwassentencedtotwentyfiveyearsoneachcount.Thesentenceswere ,  orderedtorunconsecutively.# (/K#   .SAZArial .SAZArial (3$ !  )!dxdxabZc[C<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  !  _, ` TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T8^Xdd8XXXX XXXX  =^XXdd=x` [B2.jzY`  `@E` 8ttxP( x_  0     @ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE ,  @(ATNASHVILLE    STATEOFTENNESSEE,   8   (   FORPUBLICATION H!  p   0      8   (̀PlaintiffAppellee,   8   (  Filed: November8,1999  nB   0      8   (   Z.    0      8   (v.  0      8 0  (  LawrenceCounty& $$   0      8   (  0      8   (  Hon.JimT.Hamilton,   TERRYALLENDOMINY,   8   (  Judge       0      8   (̀DefendantAppellant.   8   (  No.M199500001SCR11CD x &v%XX#XX%&vm#ForPlaintiffAppellee:   8     ForDefendantAppellant:  JohnKnoxWalkup     8     PeterG.Heil  AttorneyGeneral&Reporter 8     Nashville,Tennessee r   0      8     (AppealOnly)MichaelE.Moore0  0$$08$$08$8$0$$j!>$$ SolicitorGeneral0  0$$08$$08$8$0$$SharaFlacyP"$$$   0      8     WilliamBrightGordonW.Smith0  0$$08$$08$8$0$$DistrictPublicDefenders$$$ AssociateSolicitorGeneral0 8 08$8$0$$Pulaski,Tennessee%$$ Nashville,Tennessee0  08$$08$8$0$$%$$ JamesG.White,IIDistrictAttorneyGeneralLawrenceburg,Tennessee@}}( OPINION  -#(   0 TRIALCOURTANDCOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSREVERSED;CONVICTIONSVACATED;INDICTMENTSDISMISSED.0 8 08$8$0$$0@$$0@$@$DROWOTA,J.#7,2$$G ##X|XXXu#B Thedispositiveissuesinthisappealareasfollows:(1)whetherthe   indictmentinthiscasechargingthedefendantwithaggravatedrapeissufficientto   supportaconvictionfor_spousal_Ԁrape,a lessergradeoffenseunderX|XXX|ԀthisCourts x decisioninStatev.Trusty,919S.W.2d305(Tenn.1996)#X|XXX|#;and(2)ifso,shouldthis pD CourtreconsideritdecisioninTrusty. <   WeagreewiththeCourtofCriminalAppealsthat,underTrusty,the   indictmentinthiscasewouldbesufficienttosupportaconvictionforthe lesser t gradeoffenseof_spousal_Ԁrape.However,uponcarefulreconsideration,we l@ overruleTrustytotheextentthatitrecognizes lessergradeoffensesasdistinct 8  fromlesserincludedoffensesandpermitsconvictionsof lessergradeoffenses  thatarenotlesserincludedoffensesembracedbytheindictment.Inlightofour  overrulingofTrusty,theindictmentinthiscaseisnotsufficienttosupporta !p convictionfor_spousal_Ԁrape.Therefore,wevacatethedefendantsconvictions, h#< dismisstheindictments,andremandthiscasetothetrialcourtforfurther 4% proceedingsconsistentwiththisdecision.%  #  1      ׀ '  Ї@% FACTUALBACKGROUND  ,   Thedefendant,TerryAllen_Dominy_Ԁvaginallyrapedhiswifeonthree   separateoccasionswithhisdog.Asaresult,hewaschargedwiththreecountsof   aggravatedrape.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913502(1991).Defensecounselargued p thatthedefendantcouldnotbeprosecutedforaggravatedrapebecausehewas h< marriedtothevictimatthetimetheseoffensesallegedlyoccurredandTennessee 4  lawcontainsastatutoryexclusionwhichprecludesaprosecutionforrapeifthe   perpetratoristhespouseofthevictim.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913507(1991   Repl.).Thetrialcourtdisagreed.Attrial,acertifiedcopyofthepartiesmarriage l certificatewasintroducedintoevidence,andthejurywasinstructedon_spousal_ d8 rapeasalesserincludedoffenseofaggravatedrape.Thejuryfoundthe 0 defendantguiltyofthechargedoffensesofaggravatedrape.&   #  2         IntheCourtofCriminalAppeals,thedefendantrenewedhisassertionthat !h theaggravatedrapeconvictionswereinvalidduetothestatutory_spousal_ `#4 exclusion.TheStateconcededthatthedefendantwasmarriedtothevictimand ,% thathisconvictionsforaggravatedrapecouldnotstand.TheCourtofCriminal &  Appealsagreed,statingthat Tennessees_spousal_Ԁexclusionstatuteprovides... (" immunityfrombothrapeandaggravatedrapeprosecution.Theintermediate *d $ court,however,modifiedthedefendantsconvictionsto_spousal_Ԁrape.Inso \,0"& holding,theintermediatecourtacknowledgedthat_spousal_Ԁrapeisnotalesser (.#( includedoffenseoftheindictedoffenseaggravatedrapebutfoundthe ,  modificationappropriatebecause_spousal_Ԁrapeconstituteda lessergrade   offenseofaggravatedrapeunderthisCourtsdecisioninTrusty.Therefore,the   CourtofCriminalAppealsheldthattheindictmentchargingaggravatedrapewas d sufficienttosupportaconvictionfor_spousal_Ԁrape. \0  X|XXX|InthisCourt,theStateandthedefendantagreethattheindictmentis   sufficientunderTrustytosupportaconvictionof_spousal_Ԁrapeasa lessergrade   offense,buttheStateand_Dominy_ԀurgethisCourttooverruleTrustytotheextent ` thatitrecognized lessergradeoffenses.ThepartiesassertthatTrustyis X, unsupportedbyTennesseeprecedentandunworkableinapplication.#X|XXX|$##X|XXX|ԀWeagree $ and,asstatedbelow,overrulethatportionofTrustywhichrecognized lesser  gradeoffenses.#X|XXX|%#  @* ANALYSIS   %  Webeginouranalysisoftheissuesinthisappealwithabriefhistorical &  overview.Thethreeelementsofcommonlawrapearecarnalknowledgeofa (" woman,forciblyandagainstherwill.Statev.Wilkins,655S.W.2d914,916 *d $ (Tenn.1983).Areviewofstatutesandcaselawindicatesthatthecommonlaw \,0"& definitionofrapewasadoptedinTennessee.Id.AlthoughthisCourthasnever (.#( hadoccasiontoruleonthematter,commentatorsgenerallyaccepttheproposition /%*  that,atcommonlaw,amancouldnot,asamatteroflaw,beconvictedofraping 1', hiswife._  #  3      _ԀSeeLanev.State,703A.2d180,185186(Md.1997).This_spousal_ ,   exclusionwasfirstincorporatedintoTennesseesstatutorylawin1978.See   Tenn.CodeAnn.393707(repealed1979)( Apersondoesnotcommitcriminal   sexualconductunder393701393706ifthevictimisthatpersonslegal d spouse.).Thefollowingyear,theGeneralAssemblylimitedtheexclusionby \0 allowingprosecutionofaspouseincaseswherethemaritalrelationshiphad (  deteriorated.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.393709(renumbered392610in1982   Repl;repealed1989)( Apersondoesnotcommitrapeorsexualbatteryorassault   withintenttocommitrapeorsexualbatteryunder393701393710ifthe ` victimishisorherlegalspouse,unlessthecoupleislivingapartandoneofthem X, hasfiledforseparatemaintenanceordivorce.).X|XXX|If#X|XXX|.#X|XXX|thecouplewaslivingapartand $ oneofthemhadfiledforseparatemaintenanceordivorce,thespousewas  prosecutedunderthegenerallaw.#X|XXX|.#X|XXX|Ԁ#X|XXX|/#   WiththeenactmentoftheCriminalSentencingReformActin1989,the T#( GeneralAssemblyabolishedcommonlawoffensesandstatutorilyspecifiedthe  % conductnecessarytosupportacriminalprosecutioninTennessee.Statev.Hill, &  954S.W.2d725,728(Tenn.1997).Whileretainingthe_spousal_Ԁexclusionofprior (" law,the1989Actcreatedtheseparateoffensesof_spousal_Ԁrapeand_spousal_ *X $ sexualbatteryasexceptionstotheexclusion.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.3913507 P,$"& (Supp.1989).Whenthepresentoffenseswerecommittedin1993and1994,the .#( statuteprovidedinpertinentpartasfollows: /%* 8 Limited_spousal_Ԁexclusion. 󄄀(a)Apersondoesnotcommitan 1', offenseunderthispart[aggravatedrape,rape,aggravatedsexual ,  battery,sexualbattery,orstatutoryrape]ifthevictimisthelegal   spouseoftheperpetratorexceptasprovidedinsubsections(b)and   (c)[defining _spousal_Ԁsexualbattery].  ! ! 8 (b)(1) _Spousal_Ԁrapemeanstheunlawfulsexualpenetrationofone   spousebytheotherwhere:~ ! !  (83"8 80 ! !(A)Thedefendantisarmedwithaweaponorany d articleusedorfashionedinamannertoleadthevictim vJ toreasonablybelieveittobeaweapon;\00 h0 h 8 80 ! !(B)Thedefendantcausesseriousbodilyinjurytothe B  victim;or( 0 h0 h 8 80 ! !(C)Thespousesarelivingapartandone(1)ofthem   hasfiledforseparatemaintenanceordivorce. 0 h0 h 8 00 ! !(2)(A) _Spousal_Ԁrape,asdefinedinsubdivision(b)(1)(A)or   (B),isaClassCfelony. 0 !0 ! 8 80 ! !(B) _Spousal_Ԁrape,asdefinedinsubdivision(b)(1)(C), z  shallbepunishedpursuantto3913502[aggravated ` rape]or3913503[rape].rF0 h0 h 3Tenn.CodeAnn.3913507(a)&(b)(1991).Thisstatutewasamendedone $ yearafteritsenactmenttoaddtheabovequotedsubdivision(b)(1)(C)andits  correspondingpunishmentprovision.See1990Tenn.Pub.Actsch.980,5._  #  4      _   Section3913507isbestdescribedasahybridstatute.Itbothmaintains T#( thegeneral_spousal_Ԁexclusionfromprosecutionandcreatesspecificsexual  % offensesforwhichonlyspousesaresubjecttoprosecution. &   X|XXX|Thedefendantinthiscasewasindictedandconvictedforaggravatedrape. *\ $ Allthreecountschargedinpertinentpartthatthedefendant didunlawfully, T,("& forcibly,orcoercively,whilearmedwithaweaponoranarticleusedorfashioned  .#( inamannertoleadSherryMichelle_Dominy_Ԁreasonablytobelieveittobea /%* weapon,sexuallypenetrateSherryMichelle_Dominy_Ԁinviolationof_T.C.A._Ԁ3913 ,  502.  #  5      ׀#X|XXX|>#X|XXX|Therefore,theissueinthisappealiswhetheranindictmentforaggravated   rape,anoffensetowhichthe_spousal_Ԁexclusionapplies,cansupportaconviction   for_spousal_Ԁrape. d #X|XXX| A# X|XXX|Adefendanthasaconstitutionalrighttobegivennoticeoftheoffenses (  withwhichheischarged.Hill,954S.W.2dat727.Themeansbywhichthis   noticewillbeprovidedisgovernedbystatute,p   #  6      ׀andbyrule.  #  7      ׀InStatev.Howard,   578S.W.2d83,85(Tenn.1979),thisCourtadoptedthefollowingtestfor ` determiningwhetheranoffenseisnecessarilyincludedin,i.e.,alesserincluded X, offenseof,thechargedoffense: anoffenseisnecessarilyincludedinanotherif $ theelementsofthegreateroffense,asthoseelementsaresetforthinthe  indictment,include,butarenotcongruentwith,alltheelementsofthelesser.  Thisdefinitionappliedastatutoryelementsapproach,wherebyadeterminationof ,  whetheranoffensewaslesserincludedinvolvedacomparisonofthestatutory   elementsoftheoffensechargedintheindictmentwiththestatutoryelementsof   theoffenseallegedtolesserincluded.Underthistest,anoffenseislesser_Ԅ d included_Ԁifallitselementsarecontainedwithintheelementsoftheoffense \0 chargedintheindictment. (  Ѐ    Theideathat lessergradeoffensesaredistinctfromlesserincluded   offenseswasfirstenunciatedinTrusty.#X|XXX|B#X|XXX|UnderTrusty, lessergradeoffenses ` werelocatedwithinthesamestatutorypartastheindictedoffense#X|XXX|I#X|XXX|butcontained X, differentoradditionalelementsthantheindictedoffense#X|XXX|qJ#.TheholdinginTrusty $ waspartiallypromptedbythefactthatsomeoffenseswhichhadtraditionallybeen  consideredlesserincludedatcommonlawwerenolongerlesserincludedwhen  thestatutoryelementstestadoptedinHowardwasappliedtocriminaloffensesas !\ redefinedbythe1989CriminalSentencingReformAct.X|XXX|  #  8      ׀#X|XXX|L#X|XXX|Ԁ#X|XXX|AM#ԀOfparticularconcern T#( waswhethervoluntarymanslaughterisalesserincludedoffenseoffirstdegree  % murderundertheTennesseecriminalstatutesasamendedin1989._  #  9      _ԀAnother &  basisfortheadoptionofthe lessergradeanalysisinTrustywasthelanguageof ,  Tenn.CodeAnn.4018110(a)whichprovides: [_i]t_Ԁisthedutyofalljudges   chargingjuriesincasesofcriminalprosecutionsforanyfelonywhereintwo(2)or   moregradesorclassesmaybeincludedintheindictment,tochargethejuryasto d allofthelawofeachoffenseincludedintheindictment....(Emphasisadded.) `4 Trustyfailedtorecognize,however,thatwhen4018110wasenactedin1877, ,  lessergradeorclasswasusedtomeanonlylesserincludedoffense.SeeGood   v.State,69Tenn.293(Tenn.1878).Thus,contrarytotheconclusionreachedin   Trusty,X|XXX| lessergradeorclassand lesserincludedoffensearesimply d synonymoustermsdescribingasingletype#X|XXX|R#Ԁofoffensewhichisincludedinthe \0 offensechargedinanindictmentandwhichmay,therefore,formthebasisofa ( conviction.   Moreover,asexplainedindetailinStatev.Burns,__S.W.2d__(Tenn. !` 1999),alsoreleasedtoday,the lessergradeanalysisadoptedinTrustyproved X#, unworkableinapplication.UnderTrusty,trialcourtswererequiredtoinstructon $%  lessergradeoffenses.Therefore,thedefendantinthiscase,indictedfor &  aggravatedrape,undertheruleannouncedinTrustywouldbeconclusively (" presumedtobeonconstitutionalnoticethathewasbeingtriedfor,andcouldbe *\ $ convictedof,anyofthesexualoffensescontainedinTitle39,Part5oftheCode, T,("& includingpublicindecencyorindecentexposure,Tenn.CodeAnn.3913511,  .#( prostitution,Tenn.CodeAnn.3913513,rapeofachild,Tenn.CodeAnn.39 /%* 13522,sexualbatterybyanauthorityfigure,TennCodeAnn.3913527,or 1', solicitationofaminor,Tenn.CodeAnn.3913528.Thereissimplynothingin ,  thestatutoryschemethatindicatestheGeneralAssemblyintendedsuchabroad   rule.    X|XXX|Therefore,becauseTrustys lessergradeholdingisnotsupportedby \0 Tennesseelawandisunworkableinapplication,weconcludethatTrustymust (  nowbeoverruledtotheextentthatitrecognizes lessergradeoffenses.#X|XXX|Y#X|XXX|Ԁ#X|XXX|Z#Ԁ    HavingoverruledTrustywemustalsoreversetheCourtofCriminal ` Appealsjudgmentwhichmodifiedtheconvictionsofaggravatedrapeto_spousal_ X, rape.TheStateandthedefendantagreethat_spousal_Ԁrapeisnotalesser $ includedoffenseofaggravatedrapeunderthetestadoptedbythisCourtin  Howard,because_spousal_Ԁrapecontainsastatutoryelementnotcontainedin  aggravatedrape,namely,thatthevictimisthelegalspouseofthedefendant. !\ Moreover,_spousal_Ԁrapeisnotalesserincludedoffenseofaggravatedrapeunder T#( thetestannouncedtodayinBurns.Underthattest,alesserincludedoffense  % maycontainanadditionalelementorelementsestablishing:(1)adifferentmental &  stateindicatingalesserkindofculpability;and/or(2)alessseriousharmorriskof (" harmtothesameperson,property,orpublicinterest.Id.at___.Theadditional *X $ elementin_spousal_Ԁrape,thatthevictimisthelegalspouseofthedefendant,does P,$"& notestablisheitheradifferentmentalstateindicatingalesserkindofculpability, .#( oralessseriousharmorriskofharmtothesameperson.Havingdetermined /%* that_spousal_Ԁrapeisnotalesserincludedoffenseofaggravatedrape,itfollows 1', thattheindictmentchargingaggravatedrapeisnotsufficienttosupporta 3T). convictionfor_spousal_Ԁrape. L5 +0 X|XXX|#X|XXX|Lb# Ourconclusionthatanaggravatedrapeindictmentcannotbethebasisfor   a_spousal_ԀrapeconvictionisalsosupportedbythisCourtsdecisioninMcLeanv.   State,527S.W.2d76(Tenn.1975).InMcLean,thepetitionerwasindictedunder d thegenerallawandconvictedofthesaleofacontrolledsubstance.Although \0 raisedforthefirsttimeonappeal,itwas_uncontroverted_Ԁattrialthatthepetitioner (  wasalicensed,registeredpharmacist.ThisCourtconcludedthatthegenerallaw   prohibitingthesale,orpossessionwithintenttosell,acontrolledsubstancewas   notapplicabletoMcLeanbecausetherewasastatutoryexceptionfor ` pharmacists.Id.at79.Insoholding,thisCourtemphasizedthattherewere X, specificcodeprovisionsrelatingtothesaleofacontrolledsubstancebya $ pharmacistwithoutaprescription,stating:  8  0 Itseemscleartousthatthepetitionershouldproperlyhave  beenindictedandtriedforviolationof_T.C.A._Ԁ521431[now5311  v 308],andsentencedaccordingto_T.C.A._Ԁ521435[now5311 !\ 401].Thestatuteunderwhichhewasindictedandconvicted n"B pertainstothepublicgenerally,butthecodesectionslastciteddeal T#( specificallywithpharmacistsandotherregistrants,andprescribe :$ entirelydifferentpenaltiesandsanctionsfromthosepertainingtothe  % generalpublic.& ! ! Id.at80.TheMcLeanCourtalsorejectedtheStatesargumentthatthe '! indictmentunderthegenerallawcouldsupportaconvictionforthesaleofa )r# controlledsubstancebyapharmacistwithoutaprescription,stating: j+>!% 8  0 OnbehalfoftheStateitisurgedthattheevidenceofferedat 6- #' thetrialwassufficienttoconvictthepetitionerofaviolationof_T.C.A._ .#( 521431[now5311308],thatissellingacontrolledsubstance /$) fallingwithinScheduleIIIwithoutaprescription.Itistherefore /%* arguedthattherehasbeenanerrormadesimplyastothedegreeof 0&+ punishment,andweareurgedtoreversethecaseandremanditfor 1', anewtrialonpunishmentonly.Whilethismightbepermissible 2n(- undersomecircumstances,wedonotbelieveitappropriatewhere 3T). thepetitionerhasbeenindictedandtriedunderaninapplicable f4:*/ statute.Itseemstousthattherehasbeensuchamaterialvariance L5 +0 betweentheoffensechargedandthatattemptedtobeshownin ,  evidenceastovoidtheconviction.  ! ! Id.at81(emphasisadded).Recognizingthat [_n]othing_Ԁismorefirmlyestablished   inthelawthanthatadefendantcannotbechargedwithonecrimeandconvicted ~ ofanother,thisCourtreversedMcLeansconviction.Id.(citationomitted). vJ  X|XXX|AsinMcLean,thedefendantinthiscasewasindicted,tried,andconvicted   underaninapplicablestatute.#X|XXX|!q#X|XXX|PursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.3911   109(a)(1997), [_w]hen_Ԁthesameconductmaybedefinedunderbothaspecific z  statuteandageneralstatute,thepersonmaybeprosecutedundereitherstatute rF unlessthespecificstatuteprecludesprosecutionunderthegeneralstatute. > (Emphasisadded.)#X|XXX|q#X|XXX|ԀThespecificstatuteinthiscase,thelimited_spousal_   exclusion,Tenn.CodeAnn.3913507,precludesprosecutionunderthe  generalcriminalsexualoffensestatuteswhenthevictimisthelegalspouseofthe  v perpetrator.Whilethe_spousal_Ԁexclusionmustbeprovenbyapreponderanceof n"B theevidence,seeTenn.CodeAnn.3911202(b)(2)(1997)#X|XXX|s#X|XXX|,therewasabundant :$ proofintroducedattrial,#X|XXX|v#X|XXX|includingacertifiedcopyoftheirmarriagecertificate#X|XXX|v#X|XXX|,to & establishthatthedefendantandthevictimwerelegallymarriedatthetimethese '! offenseswerecommitted.Inaddition,theStateconcededintheCourtofCriminal )r# Appealsthatthe_spousal_Ԁexclusionapplied.Therefore,giventheapplicationof j+>!% the_spousal_Ԁexclusion,u#X|XXX|w#nderMcLean,X|XXX|althoughtheevidencewassufficientto 6- #' convictthedefendantof_spousal_Ԁrape,theconvictioncannotbeaffirmedbecause /$) theStatefailedtospecificallyindictthedefendantforthatoffense.Furthermore,#X|XXX|y# 0&+ thesimilarityoftheallegationsintheindictment"thatthedefendantdid 2n(- unlawfullysexuallypenetratethevictimwhile armedwithaweapon"tothe f4:*/ definitionof_spousal_ԀrapeunderX|XXX|Tenn.CodeAnn.3913507(b)(1)(A)cannot ,  servetochargethedefendantwith_spousal_Ԁrapeinadditiontoaggravatedrape.   SeeStatev.Jefferson,529S.W.2d674,678(Tenn.1975)(holdingthattwo   distinctoffensescannotgenerallybechargedinthesamecountofthe d indictment).#X|XXX|~{#ԀHavingsoconcluded,wemustreversetheconvictionsandremand \0 thiscasetothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedings. (  @$$) CONCLUSION    X|XXX| Forthereasonshereinstated,weoverruleTrustytotheextentthatit l requiresjuryinstructionson lessergradeoffensesandpermitsconvictionsof d8  lessergradeoffenses.Becausetheindictmentinthiscaseisnotsufficientto 0 supportaconvictionfor_spousal_Ԁrape,wereversethejudgmentoftheCourtof  CriminalAppeals,vacatethedefendantsconvictions,dismisstheindictments,  andremandthiscasetothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththis !h decision.#X|XXX|9~# `#4   0      8 ______________________________________ \,0"&   0      8 FRANKF._DROWOTA_,III, B-#'   0      8 JUSTICE (.#(  Concur: 0&+  Anderson,C.J., 1', Birch,Holder,Barker,JJ.