WPC # VU:a % 044w@ 0x@ 0D 0J 0TF 0^ 0h 0r` 0| 0N 0 1ud U, 0dU,iU*B) BDC AMHv~ D3%vX 0@+ AOk 0D D/ BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 ,rAZ"Arial RegularX( U$  Gav t3|x DDDDӀ(((3$ U!       0  (#$  0  2 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)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d####7Border 1dd-%C << G  !  #d#"   "   YYY FILED"XJune10,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d#"    $       Evenifdefensecounselhadnotmarshaledallhisevidenceonthisissueasof thedatethemotionwasfirstargued,hecouldhaveaskedforacontinuanceinorder toprepare.Therewassimplynoreasontoconducttheentiretrialbeforelitigating thetechnicaljuryselectionissues.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@$$$$'dxdStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco ("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &!!Xd&#!!Xd#"      ,  ` 7ǯXXdd7  \RA'\ћ@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLESTATEOFTENNESSEE,   )  FORPUBLICATION      )       Appellee,    )      )    v.      )  WARRENCRIMINAL      )CLARKLYNN,    ) Hon.CharlesD.Haston,Judge      )        ) Appellant.    ) ٜL&'%;+'h|`  `Lߛ      )       )      ) No.01S019503CC00034@ "DISSENTINGOPINION"X     Ӝ          DROWOTA,J. IagreewiththemajoritythattheclerkerredinthiscasebyfailingtochoosethespecialvenireinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.222308(a)(2);IalsoagreethattheclerkerredbyfailingtopublishthenamesofthevenireinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.222306(b).Icannotagree,however,withthemajoritysconclusionthattheseerrorsrequirereversalofthedefendantsconviction.Therefore,Irespectfullydissentfromthemajorityopinion. Asnotedbythemajority,itisundisputedthatdefensecounsel,onNovember16,1992,filedamotionchallengingtheproceduresbywhichthespecialpanelhadbeenselected.Thismotioncontained,moreover,aspecificrequestthatthetrialcourtquashthespecialpanel.Aftertheprocessofjuryselectionwascompleted,butbeforethejurywassworn,thetrialcourtheardargumentsonthemotiontoquash.Insteadofinsistingthatthetrialcourtruleuponhismotionatthattime,however,defensecounselaskedthetrialcourttodeferthedecisionuntilthetrialwascompleted.Thetrialcourtacceptedthissuggestion,overatimelyobjectionbytheState.Itwasonlyafterhisclientwasconvictedthatdefensecounsel,inhismotionfornewtrial,demandedthatthetrialcourtruleupontheissue. Itisclear,therefore,thatdefensecounselcouldhavesecuredarulingonthisissuebeforethetrialevenbegan.Thathedidnotdosocanonlybeexplained,inmyopinion,intermsoftrialstrategy:counselwishedtodelayobtainingarulinginordertopreserveagroundforappealincasehisclientwasconvicted. (   כ  Thissortof trialstrategy,howeverastute,isdirectlycontrarytoTennesseelaw,foritiswellestablishedthatanappellant willnotbepermittedtotakeadvantageoferrorswhichhehimselfcommitted,orinvited,orinducedthetrialcourttocommit,orwhichwerethenaturalconsequenceofhisownneglectormisconduct.Norrisv.Richards,193Tenn.450,246S.W.2d81,85(Tenn.1952)(emphasisinoriginal).SeealsoGentryv.BettyLouBakeries,171Tenn.20,100S.W.2d230(Tenn.1937);HowardSober,Inc.v.Clement,372S.W.2d202(Tenn.App.1960);Pickardv.Ferrell,325S.W.2d288(Tenn.App.1959);C.J.S.AppealandError745(1995). Norris,supra,isanexcellentexampleofthe invitederrorrule.Inthatcase,theplaintiffbroughtanactionagainstseveraldefendantsafterabuildingcollapsedandkilledherhusband;andthejuryreturnedaverdictof$50,000inherfavor.AlthoughTennesseelawatthattimerequiredasingleassessmentagainstalldefendantsjointlysuedforasingletort,thejuryforeman,whenaskedtoreadtheverdict,beganattributingpreciseamountstoeachoftheindividualdefendants.Thetrialcourtinterruptedtheforeman,tellinghimthatthelawforbadesuchadivision;andheaskedtheforemantosimplygivethetotalamountofdamagesattributedtoallthedefendants.Theforemandidso,butcounselforeachofthedefendantsmadeformalexceptions.Thedefendantsthenfiledamotionfornewtrial,assertingthattheapportionmentundertakenbythejurycontravenedTennesseelawandthusrenderedtheverdictillegal.Thetrialcourtdeniedthemotion. Onappeal,thisCourt,aftercitingthe invitederrorrule,rejectedthedefendantsargument.Wereasonedthat:8 Iftheverdictcomplainedofisillegal,itresultsmorefromthecounselsownpositiveneglectormisconductthantheactionofthetrialjudgeinpronouncingjudgmentuponit.Noonecoulddoubtforamomentthathadanyofthecounselaskedleavetopollthejury,orthatthejurybepermittedtoretireandgivefurtherconsiderationtoitscase,butthatrequestwouldhavebeengranted.Thecounselhaditcompletelyintheirpowertohavethejuryretireandreexaminetheirverdictanddecideiftheamountofdamagesshouldbe$50,000,orforalesseramountagainstalldefendants....8 [W]ethinkitiscrystalclearthat[counsel]shouldnotbepermittedtocapitalizeontheirsilencetotheprejudiceofthetrialcourt.Norris,246S.W.2dat85. Similarly,heredefensecounsel haditfullywithinhispowertosecurearulingonthejuryselectionissuesbeforethetrial.Yethechosetopostponetherulinguntilaftertheconclusionofafivedaytrial,therebymakingitmuchmoredifficultforthetrialcourttosimplythrowoutthespecialvenireandbeginanew.Becausesuchactionrepresents,inmyview,amanipulationofthetrialcourtinviolationoftheabovequotedrule,IwouldaffirmthejudgmentsoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsandthetrialcourt.    ____________________________________________̜    FRANKF.DROWOTAIII̜    JUSTICE