ÿWPCg4 …U :V %–nX¦þ 0 à U:É w@ 4C 0 W 0D^ 0J¢ ì 0Tò 0^F 0h¤ 0r  0|~ 0†ú B€ 0 1u-U ,¢ 0dÎU,2U *^U >ˆU.ÆB)ôDC AM`¡­ÀN1ñ?V0»† 0@A# D3#À´#©t'T)v~q+vÓï, AOÂ2Æ3 0D×3 D/4 BJ4<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTX3|x{«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTTTXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP(›žZ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÔ€XðñXXXÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÑTRY3Ø' Letter3Ø' 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ej«kElmnDoDpDqÓ€{Gav ppppp8(·(3$¤¤Ý ƒžZ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€XÀíXXXÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÑTRY$3Ø' Letter3Ø'3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  ÔHÙ2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô"% ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier% Line 7 d33337Border 1dd€<4Cþÿ << Gÿÿ —Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€0ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€0XÔÌÌJune€10,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ¶Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€0ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔThe€record€does€not€disclose€how€defense€counsel€learned€of€the€existence€of€the€newÏà àvenire.Ì 'Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€0ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔIt€is€apparent€from€the€arguments€that€the€judge€and€counsel€had€discussed€theÏà àà àimpaneling€procedures€prior€to€the€actual€hearing,€as€defense€counsel€references€theÌà à"earlier€conference."Ì çÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€0ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔThe€dissent€deems€this€trial€strategy€on€the€part€of€the€defense€to€have€invited,€andÌà àtherefore€excused,€the€resulting€error.€€Because€of€the€fundamental€nature€of€the€errorÌà àand€the€overwhelming€importance€of€jury€selection€procedures,€we€cannot€agree.€€WhileÌà àwe€do€not€sanction€the€strategy,€neither€can€we€ignore€wholesale€deviation€from€the€Ìà àprescribed€procedures.Ì LÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€0ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔThe€procedures€outlined€in€Section€22„2„308(c)€which€allow€the€clerk€to€draw€names€"inÏà àthe€judge's€presence,€in€the€clerk's€office"€apply€only€"before€the€case€is€assigned€forÏà àhearing."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„2„308(c)(1994€Repl.).Ì ±Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€0ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔAlthough€Section€22„2„308€does€not€establish€any€particular€procedures€for€actuallyÏà àdrawing€the€names,€Section€22„2„304,€a€part€of€the€same€chapter,€requires€that€the€boxÌà àbe€"well„shak[en]"€and€that€the€names€be€drawn€either€"by€a€child€under€ten€(10)€years€ofÏà àage€or€by€a€person€who€is€securely€blindfolded."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„2„304(a)(1)€Ìà à(1994€Repl.).€€Statutes€are€read€"in€pari€materia."€€Therefore,€absent€some€indication€thatÏà àthese€provisions€are€not€applicable€to€Section€22„2„308,€the€new€names€should€be€drawnÏà àaccording€to€that€statute.€€Once€a€sufficient€number€of€names€are€drawn,€the€judge€of€theÏà àcourt€"shall€cause€[the€jury€box]€to€be€relocked€by€the€clerk€and€sealed,€and€the€judge€shallÏà àwrite€the€judge's€own€name€across€the€seal€.€.€.€."€€òòIdóó.€at€„308(b).Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxd ¶Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€0ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€22„239,€retained€in€its€entirety€as€Tennessee€CodeÏà àAnnotated€Section€22„2„213,€provided€that€"[i]n€the€absence€of€fraud,€no€irregularity€withÏà àrespect€to€the€provisions€of€this€part€or€the€procedure€thereunder€shall€affect€the€validity€ofÏà àany€selection€of€any€grand€jury,€or€the€validity€of€any€verdict€rendered€by€a€trial€jury€unlessÏà àsuch€irregularity€has€been€specially€pointed€out€and€exceptions€taken€thereto€before€theÏà àjury€is€sworn."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„2„313€(1994€Repl.)(formerly€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ìà àðð€22„239).Ì ŸÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€0ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔThree€of€the€members€and€both€of€the€alternates€were€women.€€620€S.W.2d€at€470.Ì JÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€0ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔExercising€or€failing€to€exercise€peremptory€challenges€does€not€cure€an€illegal€selectionÏà àof€a€special€venire.€€Even€if€all€peremptories€are€exhausted,€the€remaining€jurors€would€stillÌà àbe€members€of€an€improperly€selected€venire.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€<‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€'ÔÓ&€//X„d&ÓÑ#€//Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€0ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ \ ÑÑ ° Ñ›Ñ7€ºXXdÖdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ` p˜XÓÔ€1ÔÔ€1¼ÔØ ØÓ&€22X8d&Óœ›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌ€à@ àAT€€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€€à àà à)à àò òFORÏPUBLICATIONó óà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àAppellee,à àà àà à)à àò òòòFiled:€June€œ10,›€1996óóó óÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌv.€à àà àà àà àà à)à àWarren€CriminalÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌCLARK€LYNN,à àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Charles€D.€Haston,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àAppellant.à àà àà à)à àNo.€01S01„9503„CC„00034ÌÌà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àà àòòFor€Appelleeóó:ÌÌRobert€S.€Petersà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌSwafford,€Peters€&€Priestà àà àà àState€Attorney€General€ÌWinchester,€TN€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àDarian€B.€TaylorÌÙ€€ÙœßL€564;+'h|Æéb` ç `€€Lß›à àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€ÌÌÌà àà àà àÌà àà àà àÌà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌÌÌÌÌCOURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALSÌAND€TRIAL€COURT€REVERSED;à àà àà àà àà àà à€ÌREMANDED€FOR€NEW€TRIALà àà àà àà àWHITE,€J.ÌÌÓÓà àIn€this€case€we€must€determine€what€effect€a€total€failure€toÏfollow€statutory€jury€selection€procedures€has€on€a€criminal€jury€trial.€ÏUnder€the€circumstances€here,€we€conclude€that€the€failure€to€comply€withÏthose€important€procedures€was€prejudicial€to€the€administration€of€justice.€ÏConsequently,€we€reverse€the€conviction€and€remand€this€case€for€a€newÏtrial.€€We€discuss€the€other€issues€raised€on€appeal€in€the€event€they€reoccurÏon€retrial.€€ÌÌà@ àò òFACTSÌó óà àAppellant,€Clark€Lynn,€was€charged€with€the€first„degreeÏmurder€of€Joe€Webb€who€was€killed€when€he€was€struck€from€behindÏduring€an€altercation€at€Lynnððs€Warren€County€tavern€€€When€the€first€trialÏresulted€in€a€mistrial,€the€state€amended€the€indictment€and€charged€LynnÏwith€second„degree€murder.€€A€new€trial€was€scheduled€to€begin€onÏNovember€18,€1992.€€€Before€the€trial,€the€judge€conducted€a€hearingÍregarding€allegations€of€jury€tampering.€€Ultimately,€the€judge€foundÏevidence€that€the€entire€venire€was€tainted.€€Without€notice€to€either€side,Ïthe€judge€directed€the€clerk€to€draw€new€names€for€a€venire€from€whichÏjurors€would€be€selected.ÌÌà àOn€either€November€5€or€6,€the€clerk€of€the€court€took€theÏjury€box€into€his€office,€unsealed€it,€€and€drew€sufficient€names€toÏconstitute€a€special€jury€panel.€€The€sheriff€summoned€the€new€jurors.€€OnÏNovember€15,€defense€counsel€learned€that€an€entirely€new€venire€had€beenÏimpaneled.× ƒ7 ××  ×€€On€November€16,€counsel€filed€a€motion€to€challenge€theÏselection€procedures,€to€quash€the€special€jury€panel,€and€to€request€a€list€ofÏthe€new€jurors.€€On€November€18,€before€the€beginning€of€jury€selection,Ïthe€clerk€provided€counsel€with€a€list€of€the€jurors.€€Selection€commencedÏand€was€completed€on€November€19.ÌÌà àBefore€swearing€the€jury,€the€trial€judge€heard€arguments€onÏdefendantððs€motion€to€quash€the€special€panel.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€Over€the€state's€objection,Ïthe€trial€judge€accepted€defense€counsel's€suggestion€that€he€defer€theÏdecision€until€the€trial€was€completed.œ× ƒ9 ××  ×›€€After€a€five„day€trial,€the€juryÏconvicted€Lynn€of€criminally€negligent€homicide.€€Lynn€was€sentenced€toÏtwo€years€as€a€Range€1€standard€offender.€ÌÌà àIn€the€motion€for€new€trial,€defense€counsel€challenged€theÏimpaneling€procedure€and€other€rulings.€€At€the€hearing€on€the€motion€forÏnew€trial,€defense€counsel€presented€the€clerk's€testimony.€€The€courtÏdenied€the€motion.€€ÌÌà àOn€direct€appeal,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€theÏtrial€court's€judgment.€€The€court€concluded€that€violations€of€the€statutoryÍprocedure€for€selecting,€summoning,€and€impaneling€the€jury€were€of€noÏconsequence.€€Furthermore,€the€court€concluded€that€substantial,€albeit€notÏtechnical,€compliance€with€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€24(g)Ïhad€been€accomplished.ÌÌ€à@ àò òANALYSISó óÌà àWe€granted€appellantððs€application€for€permission€to€appeal€toÏconsider€whether€a€verdict€rendered€by€a€jury€impaneled€in€directÏcontravention€and€violation€of€state€law€must€be€set€aside€despite€theÏabsence€of€proof€of€actual€prejudice.€€Because€strict€adherence€to€statutoryÏjury€selection€procedures€is€essential€to€the€integrity€of€the€judicial€processÏand€the€instilling€of€public€confidence€in€the€administration€of€justice,€weÏhold€that€proof€of€actual€prejudice€is€not€required€in€circumstances€such€asÏthis€when€the€deviation€is€flagrant,€unreasonable,€and€unnecessary.ÌÌà@ àò òA.€€Selection€of€the€Special€Venireó óÌà àThe€clerk,€the€state,€the€defendant,€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals,€and€this€Court€agree€that€the€prescribed€procedures€forÏimpaneling€a€jury€once€an€existing€panel€is€disqualified€or€determined€to€beÍinadequate€were€not€followed€in€this€case.€€The€procedures,€set€out€inÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€22„2„308,€are€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà à(2)€€In€the€event€by€reason€of€theÏdisqualification€of€proposed€jurors,€or€otherÏcause,€the€required€number€of€jurors€cannot€beÏobtained€from€the€venire,€the€clerk€of€the€courtÏshall€produce€in€open€court€the€jury€box,€and€theÏbox€shall€be€opened€by€the€court€and€there€shallÏbe€drawn€therefrom,€as€directed€by€the€court,€theÏnumber€of€names€deemed€by€the€judge€sufficientÏto€complete€the€juries.€€This€process€shall,€ifÏnecessary,€continue€until€the€grand€and€petit€juriesÏare€completed;€but€the€judge€of€the€court€insteadÏof€following€the€last€mentioned€procedure€may,€ifÏthe€judge€shall€deem€proper,€€furnish€a€sufficientÏnumber€of€names€of€persons€to€be€summoned€toÏthe€sheriff,€or€the€judge€may,€if€the€judge€thinksÏproper,€direct€the€sheriff€to€summon€a€sufficientÏnumber€to€complete€the€juries.€€ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„2„308(a)(2)€(1994€Repl.).œ× ƒ: ××  ×›€€ÌÌà àThus,€the€statute€describes€three€procedures€which€may€beÏused€to€replenish€or€impanel€a€jury.€€The€trial€judge€has€discretion€toÏchoose€between€the€three,€but€if€the€judge€does€not€select€the€second€orÏthird€option,€the€first€is€mandatory.€€That€option€requires€the€court€clerk€toÍproduce€the€jury€box€in€open€court€where€the€judge€is€required€to€open€itÏand€direct€the€drawing€of€sufficient€jurors.× ƒ; ××  ×ÌÌà àNone€of€these€procedures€were€followed€in€this€case.€€TheÏclerk,€not€the€judge,€opened€the€box.€€The€box€was€opened€in€the€clerk'sÏoffice,€not€in€open€court€and€not€in€the€presence€of€the€judge.€€The€clerk,Ïnot€the€judge,€drew€the€names€and€resealed€the€box.€€Neither€party€wasÏadvised€that€a€new€panel€was€being€drawn.€€These€circumstances,€unlikeÏthose€present€in€prior€cases,€are€not€an€insignificant€departure€fromÏtechnical€statutory€requirements.€€Rather,€they€represent€a€completeÏdeviation€from€the€directives€established€by€our€legislature.ÌÌà àThe€circumstances€presented€by€previous€cases€involving€theÏjury€impaneling€procedure€have€seldom€impacted€the€integrity€of€theÏselection€of€an€entire€venire.€€None€of€this€Courtððs€prior€decisions€involve€aÍsituation€in€which€the€established€statutory€procedures€for€the€selection€of€aÏvenire€were€totally€disregarded.€€Consequently,€none€are€controlling€in€thisÏcase.€€ÌÌà àThree€of€our€prior€venire€selection€cases€involve€the€proprietyÏof€excluding€certain€classes€from€jury€service.€€In€òòRutherford€v.€Stateóó,€409ÏS.W.2d€535€(Tenn.€1966),€defendant€argued€that€the€jury€commissionersÏhad€exceeded€their€authority€by€excluding€certain€classes€of€persons€fromÏthe€jury€list€without€statutory€authority.€€409€S.W.2d€at€536.€€Although€theÏcommissioners€had,€in€fact,€exceeded€their€authority€by€the€exclusions,€ÏRutherford€was€denied€relief€since€counsel€failed€to€object€before€the€juryÏwas€sworn.× ƒ@ ××  ×€€409€S.W.2d€at€536.€€Ìà àÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Strouthóó,€620€S.W.2d€467€(Tenn.€1981),€defendantÏargued€that€the€selection€procedure€and€its€statutory€basis€systematicallyÏexcluded€women€from€jury€service.€€620€S.W.2d€at€470.€€The€Court€deniedÍrelief€finding€that€women€were€fairly€represented€on€the€jury.× ƒA ××  ×€€òòIdóó.€€MoreÏrecently,€in€òòState€v.€Bellóó,€745€S.W.2d€858€(Tenn.€1988),€this€Court€upheldÏthe€exemption€statutes€in€the€face€of€a€challenge€that€the€statutes€deprivedÏdefendants€of€juries€drawn€from€a€fair€cross„section€of€the€community.€Ï745€S.W.2d€at€860„861€(upholding€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€22„1„102€òòetóó€òòseq.óóÏ(1994€Repl.)).€€As€this€review€aptly€demonstrates,€none€of€these€casesÏinvolved€a€disregard€for€statutory€procedures€that€were€designed€to€protectÏthe€integrity€of€the€jury€selection€process.€€ÌÌà àIn€three€reported€decisions,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€hasÏaddressed€irregularities€of€venire€selection€procedures.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Boydóó,Ï867€S.W.2d€330€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992),€òòperm.óóòòtoóóòòappealóóòòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.Ï1993);€òòState€v.€Elrodóó,€721€S.W.2d€820€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.óóÏòòtoóóòòappealóóòòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1986);€€òòState€v.€Wisemanóó,€643€S.W.2d€354€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòperm.óó€òòtoóó€òòappeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1982).€€The€most€recent,€òòStateÏv.€Boydóó,€resolved€a€challenge€to€a€Hamilton€County€jury€procedureÏestablished€by€local€act.€€It€is€irrelevant€to€the€issues€in€this€case.€€867ÏS.W.2d€at€337.€€òòState€v.€Wisemanóó€involved€a€challenge€to€grand€juryÍselection€procedures.€€643€S.W.2d€at€358.€€Several€deviations€were€alleged,Ïincluding€the€failure€to€swear€a€deputy€sheriff€to€keep€the€writ€of€venireÏfacias€secret€and€the€failure€to€have€the€deputy€sign€the€original€of€theÏfacias€when€it€was€released€to€him.€€òòIdóó.€at€358„359.€€The€court€deemed€theÏdeviations€to€be€minor€and€found€substantial€compliance€with€the€statute.€ÏòòIdóó.€at€359„361.€€ÌÌà àIn€the€case€most€similar€to€this€one,€òòState€v.€Elrodóó,€two€of€theÏthree€jury€commissioners€were€absent€when€the€names€were€drawn€fromÏthe€box.€€721€S.W.2d€at€821.€€One€of€the€commissioners€had€resigned.€€TheÏclerk€was€unable€to€reach€the€second€commissioner€who€was€out€of€town.€ÏòòIdóó.€€As€a€result,€the€presiding€judge€drew€the€names€in€the€presence€of€theÏremaining€commissioner€and€the€clerk€of€the€court.€€The€commissioner€andÏthe€judge€signed€the€report.€€òòIdóó.€€The€court€upheld€this€necessary€method€ofÏselection€of€the€venire.€€òòIdóó.€at€822.€€ÌÌà àThe€circumstances€in€òòElrodóó€differ€significantly€from€those€inÏthis€case.€€òòElrodóó€did€not€involve€the€selection€of€a€special€venire.€€The€clerkÏdid€not€draw€the€names€in€secret.€€721€S.W.2d€at€821.€€Rather,€the€judge€inÍòòElrodóó€exercised€his€statutory€discretion€and€followed€the€statutoryÏprocedures€to€the€extent€possible€under€the€circumstances.€€òòIdóó.€at€822.€ÏEven€given€the€limited€deviation,€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÏemphasized€in€òòElrodóó€that€"a€trial€judge€does€not€have€carte€blanche€toÏdeviate€arbitrarily€from€the€prescribed€statutory€procedure."€€òòIdóó.€ÌÌà àWe€wholeheartedly€agree.€€As€we€recently€stated:€ÌÓÓà8 à[r]ules€prescribing€jury€selection€procedures€areÏintended€to€protect€the€integrity€of€the€jury€systemÏby€providing€a€uniform€and€ordered€method€thatÏensures€the€accused€a€fair€and€impartial€juryÏchosen€from€a€fair€cross„section€of€theÏcommunity.€€.€.€.€€Compliance€with€the€procedureÏset€forth€[regarding€selection€of€a€petit€jury]Ïsafeguards€the€judicial€process€and€protects€theÏadministration€of€justice.ÌÌÓÓòòState€v.€Colemanóó,€865€S.W.2d€455,€458€(Tenn.€1993)(citations€omitted).€€InÏthe€recent€case€of€òòState€v.€Colemanóó,€the€trial€judge€had€instituted€a€juryÏselection€procedure€which€was€inconsistent€with€Rule€24ðð€of€the€TennesseeÏRules€of€Criminal€Procedure€pertaining€to€petit€juror€selection.€€WeÏgranted€no€relief€to€defendant€who€did€not€establish€prejudice,€butÏcautioned€that€"any€further€deviation€.€.€.€could€constitute€prejudice€to€theÏentire€judicial€process€and€require€reversal."€€òòIdóó.€€The€deviation€from€RuleÍ24€petit€jury€selection€procedures€present€in€that€case€was€slight€inÏcomparison€to€the€deviations€in€venire€selection€here.€€Yet,€we€recognizedÏthere,€and€we€must€emphasize€even€more€so€here,€the€seriousness€of€anyÏdeparture€from€mandated€jury€selection€procedures.ÌÌà@ àò òB.€€Publication€of€Listó óÌà àAppellant€also€challenges€the€clerk's€failure€to€publish€theÏnames€of€the€special€panel€as€required€by€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏSection€22„2„306(b).€€The€intermediate€court€concluded€that€providingÏcounsel€with€a€list€on€the€day€of€trial€constituted€substantial€compliance.€ÏWe€respectfully€disagree.ÌÌà àIn€criminal€cases€clerks€are€required€to€prepare€two€differentÏjury€lists.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€22„2„306€provides€that€fiveÏdays€prior€to€the€appropriate€term€of€court,ÌÓÓ€à8 àthe€clerks€of€the€criminal€and€circuit€courts€or€theÏjury€commissioners€shall€publish€a€true€copy€ofÏthe€regular€jury€panel€list,€and€ò òshall€amend€itÏas€new€names€are€addedó ó.€€A€copy€of€such€juryÏpanel€list€shall€be€posted€in€the€clerkððs€office€forÏò òpublic€inspectionó ó.€€In€addition€thereto,€theÏclerks€of€the€criminal€and€circuit€courts€or€theÏjury€commissioners€shall€cause€to€be€made€aÍsufficient€number€of€copies€of€such€jury€panel€list,Ïwhich€copies€shall€be€placed€in€the€clerkððs€officeÏand€available€for€general€distribution€to€ò òtheÏmembers€of€the€bar€and€to€all€otherÏinterested€parties.ó óÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð22„2„306(b)(1994€Repl.)(emphasis€added).€€In€additionÏto€the€statutory€list,€€Rule€24(g)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CriminalÏProcedure€requires€that€a€second€list€be€provided€to€counsel€after€theÏsummoned€jurors€have€responded€to€a€questionnaire.ÌÌà àThe€clerk€fully€complied€with€Rule€24(g)€in€this€case.€€ThatÏrule,€which€applies€to€criminal€cases€only,€requires€the€clerk€to€furnish€toÏdefense€counsel,€upon€request,€a€list€containing€the€names€of€the€summonedÏjurors€and€other€detailed€information.€€The€list€must€be€provided€on€theÏday€of€trial.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€24(g).€€Here,€defense€counsel€requested€aÏcopy€of€the€list€two€days€before€the€trial.€€The€clerk€provided€the€list€asÏrequired€on€the€day€of€trial.€€ÌÌà àIt€is€important€to€note,€however,€that€the€Rule€24(g)€list€is€notÏthe€same€as€the€jury€panel€list€which€must€be€published€and€posted€underÏthe€statute.€€One€does€not€substitute€for€the€other.€€The€list€required€by€theÍstatute€and€that€required€by€the€rule€have€different€contents€and€serveÏdifferent€purposes.€€The€list€required€by€the€statute€is€provided€for€in€theÏcode€sections€detailing€the€jury€selection€process.€€Its€purpose€is€to€provideÏnotice€to€the€public€that€a€venire€has€been€selected.€€It€promotes€confidenceÏin€the€judicial€process€by€subjecting€the€process€to€public€scrutiny.€€PublicÏdisclosure€provides€scrutiny€which€further€secures€that€proper€jurorÏselection€methods€will€be€used.ÌÌà àThe€rule€24€list,€on€the€other€hand,€is€designed€to€make€voirÏdire€more€efficient€by€providing€basic€information€before€counselÏquestions€individual€jurors.€€The€comment€accompanying€the€rule€statesÏthat€ðð[t]he€identity€of€and€minimal€information€about€each€member€of€theÏjury€panel€available€upon€request€should€save€time€by€shortening€the€voirÏdire."€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€24(g),€Advisory€Comm'n€Comments.€€ÌÌà àWe€recognize€that€our€courts€consistently€analyze€Rule€24(g)Ïerrors€under€the€harmless€error€rule.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,Ï66€(Tenn.€1992);€òòState€v.€Poeóó,€755€S.W.2d€41,€46€(Tenn.€1988);€òòState€v.ÏStrouthóó,€620€S.W.2d€467,€470„471€(Tenn.€1981);€òòState€v.€Simonóó,€635ÍS.W.2d€498,€506€(Tenn.€1982);€òòState€v.€Stapletonóó,€638€S.W.2d€850,€858Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.óó€òòtoóó€òòappeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1982).€€On€the€otherÏhand,€we€are€less€inclined€to€employ€such€an€analysis€when€mandatoryÏstatutory€requirements€with€important€purposes€essential€to€the€integrity€ofÏthe€system€are€bypassed€by€elected€officials.€€The€harmless€error€doctrineÏin€the€Rule€24€context€is€often€used€when€defense€counsel€claims€that€RuleÏ24(g)€was€violated€but€then€fails€to€exhaust€the€available€peremptoryÏchallenges.€€That€analysis€does€not€square€with€a€Section€22„2„306(b)Ïviolation.× ƒB ××  ×€€While€a€violation€of€Section€22„2„306(b)€might€be€harmless€inÏsome€contexts,€it€is€not€here.ÌÌà àThe€selection€of€a€special€venire€does€not€eliminate€theÏstatutory€publication€requirements.€€In€fact,€Section€306€specificallyÏrequires€that€the€published€and€posted€list€be€amended€as€new€names€areÏdrawn.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð22„2„306€(1994€Repl.).€€Here,€the€list€of€theÏspecial€venire€was€not€published€or€posted.€€This€omission€casts€a€furtherÏpall€upon€the€integrity€of€the€jury€selection€process€in€light€of€the€trialÍjudge's€determination€that€the€first€venire€was€tainted.€€In€future€casesÏrequiring€the€selection€of€a€special€venire,€clerks€should€strictly€adhere€toÏthe€posting€and€publishing€requirements€of€Section€22„2„306.€€€€ÌÌà àThe€integrity€of€the€judicial€process€is€prejudiced€by€theÏdeviation€from€mandatory€statutory€procedures€affecting€the€selection€andÏpublication€of€members€of€a€special€venire.€€Unlike€òòWisemanóó€and€òòElrodóó,Ïwhere€the€deviations€from€statutory€procedure€were€relatively€minor€andÏwere€either€inadvertent€or€necessitated€by€circumstances€beyond€the€courtððsÏcontrol,€the€selection€method€here€totally€disregarded€the€law.€€No€attemptÏwas€made€to€publish€or€post€the€names€of€the€special€venire.€€Furthermore,Ïno€circumstances€required€the€modification€of€statutory€procedure.€€ÌÌà àWe€do€not€question€the€integrity€of€the€court€officials€in€thisÏcase.€€Undoubtedly,€their€motives€and€intentions€were€honorable.€€WeÏacknowledge€that€they€were€called€upon€to€perform€an€infrequently€usedÏprocedure,€that€of€impaneling€a€special€venire.€€Nonetheless,€the€statutesÏare€explicit.€€The€procedures€required€are€detailed.€€This€judicialÏproceeding€had€already€been€discolored€by€the€trial€judge's€earlier€findingsÍof€jury€tampering.€€The€fundamental€principles€of€impartiality,Ïdisinterestedness,€and€fairness€are€even€more€essential€in€a€case,€such€asÏthis,€in€which€a€previous€attempt€to€circumvent€fairness€has€occurred.ÌÌà àOften,€the€public€sees€in€our€justice€system€somethingÏsubstantially€different€from€what€actually€exists.€€It€is€the€appearance€thatÏoften€undermines€or€resurrects€faith€in€the€system.€€To€promote€publicÏconfidence€in€the€fairness€of€the€system€and€to€preserve€the€system'sÏintegrity€in€the€eyes€of€the€litigants€and€the€public,€"justice€must€satisfy€theÏappearance€of€justice."€€òòOffutt€v.€United€Statesóó,€348€U.S.€11,€13€(1954).€€ÌÌà àWith€these€principles€firmly€in€mind,€we€hold€that€theÏimproper€€€and€unnecessary€deviations€from€statutory€jury€selectionÏprocedures€in€this€case€mandated€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€SectionsÏ22„2„306€and€„308€constitute€prejudice€to€the€administration€of€justice.€ÏUnder€such€circumstances,€defendantððs€conviction€cannot€stand.€ÏAccordingly,€we€reverse€and€remand€for€a€new€trial.€€ÌÌà@ àò òC.€€Other€Issuesó óÌà àDefendant€has€raised€two€other€issues€which€will€be€discussedÏbriefly,€as€they€may€well€arise€upon€retrial.ÌÌà àThe€first€is€an€evidentiary€issue.€€Defendant€challenges€theÏintroduction€of€hearsay€references€to€a€baseball€bat€contained€inÏparamedical€and€medical€records.€€Since€it€is€unlikely€that€the€same€eventsÏwill€occur€during€retrial,€we€need€not€detail€the€complicated€and€unusualÏcontext€in€which€the€issue€arose.€€However,€for€guidance,€we€note€thatÏTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€803(4)€permits€the€introduction€of€statementsÏmade€for€the€purposes€of€medical€diagnosis€and€treatment.€€The€rationaleÏfor€that€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule€is€that€persons€who€are€seekingÏmedical€diagnosis€and€treatment€will€make€reliable€statements€to€assureÏproper€medical€care.€€òòState€v.€Ô% € ÔLivingstonóó,€907€S.W.2d€392,€396€(Tenn.Ï1995).€€The€statements€are€admissible,€however,€only€if€they€are€reasonablyÏpertinent€to€òòbothóó€diagnosis€and€treatment.€€‚òòIdóó.€€In€this€instance,€the€state'sÏexpert€witness,€a€neurosurgeon,€testified€that,€for€purposes€of€treatment,€itÏmade€no€difference€whether€the€victim€was€hit€with€a€baseball€bat€or€a€poolÏcue.€€This€opinion€contradicted€that€contained€in€the€paramedic€reportÏwhich€was€admitted€over€objection.€€Upon€retrial,€the€trial€judge€shouldÍcarefully€consider€whether€the€statement€in€the€paramedic's€report€satisfiesÏthe€803(4)€requirements.€€ÌÌà àIn€his€last€issue,€defendant€challenges€the€inclusion€of€a€juryÏinstruction€on€criminally€negligent€homicide€which€he€contends€is€not€aÏlesser€included€offense€of€second„degree€murder.€€The€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals€did€not€address€this€issue€since€counsel€had€not€objected€to€theÏproposed€charge.€€However,€Rule€30(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CriminalÏProcedure€provides€that€failure€to€make€objection€to€the€content€of€anÏinstruction€"shall€not€prejudice€the€right€of€a€party€to€assign€the€basis€of€theÏobjection€as€error€in€support€of€a€motion€for€a€new€trial."€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.ÏP.€30(b).€€This€rule€is€identical€to€Rule€51.02€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏCivil€Procedure€which€has€long€been€interpreted€as€allowing€a€challenge€inÏthe€motion€for€new€trial€for€positive€errors€in€the€instructions€despite€theÏfailure€to€object€at€trial.€€òòRule€v.€Empire€Gas€Corp.óó,€563€S.W.2d€551,€553„554€(Tenn.€1978);€òòHenry€County€Bd.€of€Educ.€v.€Burtonóó,€538€S.W.2d€394,Ï397„398€(Tenn.€1976).€€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€has€adopted€aÏsimilar€interpretation€of€Rule€30(g).€€€òòState€v.€Haynesóó,€720€S.W.2d€76,€84„85€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.óó€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1986).€€In€thisÍinstance,€defendant€challenged€a€positive€error€in€the€jury€instructions,€notÏan€error€of€omission.€€As€such,€Rule€30€allows€the€issue€to€be€raised€in€theÏmotion€for€new€trial.€€ÌÌà àThe€issue,€however,€is€without€merit.€€Criminally€negligentÏhomicide€is€a€lesser€charge€of€second„degree€murder.€€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€òò€€€€€€€óóÏS.W.2d€òò€€€€€€€óó€(Tenn.€1996).€€Criminally€negligent€homicide€is€also€a€lesserÏincluded€offense€of€second„degree€murder€pursuant€to€the€definition€in€ÏòòHoward€v.€Stateóó,€578€S.W.2d€€83,€85€(Tenn.€1979).€€òòIdóó.€at€_____.€ÏCriminally€negligent€homicide€requires€that€an€accused€engage€inÏcriminally€negligent€conduct€which€results€in€death.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„13„212€(1991€Repl.).€€€Second„degree€murder€is€a€knowing€killing€ofÏanother.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„210€(1995€Supp.).€€Our€criminal€codeÏdefines€the€mens€rea€of€criminal€negligence€as€occurring€if€a€person€actsÏintentionally,€knowingly,€or€recklessly.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„301(a)(2)(1991€Repl.).€€Therefore,€an€offense€that€€requires€that€theÏaccused€act€knowingly€necessarily€includes€offenses€in€which€the€accused'sÏmental€state€was€one€of€criminal€negligence.€€The€trial€judge€properlyÏcharged€the€jury€in€this€case.€€ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òCONCLUSIONó óÌà àFor€the€reasons€set€forth€above,€we€reverse€the€conviction€andÏremand€for€a€new€trial.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àPenny€J.€White,€JusticeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌœBirch,›€C.J.ÌœAnderson,›€Reid,€J.J.ÌÌDISSENT:ÌÌDrowota,€J.€„€See€Separate€Dissenting€OpinionÌÌœ›