WPCh sc7V=iof3>MW^36 ]|g}p\c r}Q?@WfnlsN 8N>LاLEU_McqnXeĽt [xSK+XuH NC(/a q-5 P0!bX:Pu[ȯbZұo'Z =?R?qk, q\{Vy[n#Ϫt 9Ivy<?A4 TxZJGޕ\DHV:h"ql峼qa5|-x۠y!2/{C*s?;?Ȥ0wզ*̰{ #V6c lTĒYcʙrٔvоhO 6Y[@O嶫&j9Ha#H UN  %W 0 :] 0U 0 0 0 0 0~ 0[ 05 0  0C 0# 0 0 0 0m 08 0 0 0@ 0 0 0j 08 0 0 0! 0R" 0# 0# 0Fq$ 0<% 0.% 0& 0' 0C4( 0b( 0L* 0* 0o+ 0, 0, 0L- 0- 0. 0)/ 0/ 0g0 01 01 0D2 02 03 0!4 04 0_5 1k5 7i6w6 0U=7 0(7 D+7 AM7U*28U>\8Ud@88 B888 B-8 0 C$9$9Eg9g9i9vj;C GhKgOWW 1U^ 1u8_8_ 0_ 720`Nb`d`*aab A|c|c|c|c|cU,ddddddddddd^ GdwSd4Wdkdzd m|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|d|dddddddddddddde@fHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  6? 24heading 1    XXX        6< /4heading 3              6~ 4heading 5    ?C\  `Times?     SD\  `&Times New RomanS   <:Default Para<LL:Body Text 21  X XXX   X :nq8Outline0011    2(4 4` hp x 2XXX  5+ ` hp x 5   :NN8Body Text 2          .,term1 86Block Text      /%` ` hp u /     5+ ` hp x 5  <$$:footnote tex    <+ :Outline001_123  ..<+ :Outline001_223  ..<+ :Outline001_323  ..<+ :Outline001_423  ..<+ :Outline001_523  ..<+ :Outline001_623  ..<+ :Outline001_723  ..<+ :Outline001_823  ..<+ :Outline001_923  ..<+ :Outline002_123  ..<+ :Outline002_223  ..<+ :Outline002_323  ..<+ :Outline002_423  ..<+ :Outline002_523  ..<+ :Outline002_623  ..<+ :Outline002_723  ..<+ :Outline002_823  ..<+ :Outline002_923  ..*+,-./01 35;AGOW_e11.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)<2i) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(-2$ !USUS.,  ($'dxd>?@AA<< c\  `Times\  `&Times New Roman(I Z(Times New Roman  d)Hairline d($      !USUS.,  _ @  @  @ ?+ ` hp x X?fXM. XhX#X(X hfXM.#EX(XhX(  1  TheCourtofCriminalAppealsaffirmedtheconvictionsofShervonJohnson,andhehasnot  appealedtothisCourt.EXEX(DE l !USUS.,  _ @  @  @  @  @  @  @ REX(XXXB  2  Thishistoricaldefinitionquicklyexpanded,andthephysicalpresenceofanaiderandabettoris  notnecessary.InCavertv.State,14S.W.2d735,738(Tenn.1929),werecognizedthat:     iftheabettor,atthetimeofthecommissionofthecrime,were * assentingtoit,andinasituationwherehemightrendersome'   aid'  ݀to  theperpetrator,readytogiveitifnecessary,accordingtoan  appointmentoragreementwithhimforthatpurpose,hewould,inthe   judgmentofthelaw,bepresentandaidinginthecommissionofthe   crime.Itmustthereforebeprovedthattheabettorwasinasituation v  inwhichhemightrenderhisassistance,insomemanner,tothe b  commissionoftheoffense.Itmustbeprovedthathewasinsucha N   situation,byagreementwiththeperpetratorofthecrime,orwithhis :  previousknowledgeconsentingtothecrime,andforthepurposeof &v  renderingaidandencouragementinthecommissionofit.Itmust b  alsobeprovedthathewasactuallyaidingandabettingtheperpetrator N  atthetimeofthecrime...Thequestiontobedeterminedin :   ascertainingwhetherapersonisinapositiontoaidandabetinthe  commissionofanoffense,isnotsomuchwherehemayhappentobe,  aswhetherheisinapositiontorenderaidandencouragementtothe  actualperpetrator. t    @ REXEX(  !USUS.,  _ @  @  @ XX) @   R)}  #X(X^#EX(XhX(  3  Apersoniscriminallyresponsibleasapartytoanoffenseiftheoffenseiscommittedby...  theconductofanotherforwhichheiscriminallyresponsible,[andthata]personiscriminally  responsibleforanoffensecommittedbytheconductofanotherif...actingwithintentto  promoteorassistthecommissionoftheoffense,hesolicits,directs,aids,orattemptstoaidthe t otherpersontocommittheoffense....Tenn.Crim.Code501502(TentativeDraft1972). ` EXEX(#E#D  Z$USUS.,  4    _EX(XXXԀInCarson,threemenplannedandexecutedarobberyofastoreinKnoxville,Tennessee.  DefendantCarsonprovidedhiscodefendantswithinvaluableinformationregardingthelayout  ofthestore,butwaitedoutsidewhiletherobberyoccurred.Hiscodefendantssuccessfully  robbedthestore,thenfiredshotsthroughanofficedoorwherestoreemployeeswerebound.The t State,relyinguponthetheoryofcriminalresponsibility,chargedCarsonwithaggravated ` robbery,twocountsofaggravatedassault,andfelonyrecklessendangerment.TheState L  contendedthatCarsonwasguiltyoftheadditionalchargesbecausetheywerethenaturaland 8  probableconsequencesoftherobbery.#X(XXEX(k# $ t  ^ !USUS.,  _?+ ` hp x X? @  @  @ XX) @   )  #X(X#EX(XhX(  5  LafaveandScottarguethattherule teststheouterlimitsofthementalstaterequirementfor  accompliceliabilitybyquestioninghowintenttocommitanoffensecouldcorrectlybeimparted  toimputeintenttoanotheroffensewhichwastheconsequenceofthefirst.2WayneR.Lafave&  AustinW.Scott,Jr.,SubstantiveCriminalLaw6.8(b),at158(1986). @ #X(XXEX(F# v !USUS.,  _?+ ` hp x X? @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @ XX) @   R)  #X(Xc#CX(XXX()݌̌ @ ChCX(  CX(X,C#X(XhCX(#EX(XhX(  6  SeePeoplev._ Prettyman_ ,926P.2d1013(Cal.1996)(holdingthatadefendantmaybeheld  criminallyresponsibleforanycrimethatisthe'   naturalandprobableconsequence'  ݀ofthetarget | crime);seealsoChancev.State,685A.2d351(Del.1996)(holdingthatanaccomplicefor h assaultcouldbeheldresponsibleforunintendeddeathofvictim);Peoplev.Cole,625N.E.2d T 816(Ill.App.Ct.1993)(holdingthatan_ acomplice_ Ԁcanbeliableforanyactsinfurtheranceofa @  commoncriminaldesignoragreement);Statev.Bowman,588A.2d728(Me.1991)(holding , | thatarecklessorcriminallynegligentkillingbytheprincipalwasareasonablyforeseeable  h consequenceofthedefendant'sownconduct);Statev._ Fillipi_ ,335N.W.2d739(Minn.1983)  T (holdingthatculpabilityrestedonwhetheradefendantkneworreasonablycouldforeseethe  @  consequencesofdefendant'sactions).#EXEX(#  ,  #E#D  !USUS.,  _?+ ` hp x X? @  @  @  @  @ RDX(XXXB#X(XXDX(#EX(XhX(  7  InHoward,fourarmedassailantsenteredarestaurantafterithadclosedwiththeintenttorob  theestablishmentanditsemployees.Duringthecommissionoftherobbery,oneofHowards  codefendantsshotandkilledthestoremanager.Attrial,defendantHowardadmittedthathe   accompaniedhisconfederatestotherestaurantknowingthattheyintendedtorobit,buthe  assertedthatheremainedinthebackoftherestaurantanddidnotdirectlyaidinthecriminal  acts.Mr.Howardwasultimatelychargedwithfirstdegreepremeditatedmurder,twocountsof  firstdegreefelonymurder,especiallyaggravatedrobbery,andconspiracytocommitaggravated t robbery.TheStatearguedthatunderTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3911402(2),Mr. ` Howardwascriminallyresponsibleforthecrimescommittedbyhisconfederates,andthejury L  convictedMr.Howardonallcharges.Onappeal,Mr.Howardarguedthatbecausethetrialcourt 8  didnotinstructthejuryonthenaturalandprobableconsequencesrule,theconvictioncouldnot $ t stand.  `  @ REXEX(#E##D$359=AEIMQ2111111113#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(B2$ !USUS.,    0  Xi) Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5>?@A I&mage <=8C HKKKK38 ZTimes ua-s ,-.bkð3|xU  Z$USUS.,  8    _ԀEX(XXXԀInHoward,wecouldnotconclude beyondareasonabledoubtthatthejuryverdictwould  havebeenthesameabsenttheomittedinstructions.Assuch,wecouldnotfindtheerror  harmless.#X(XXEX(l# [ Z$USUS.,  9    _EX(XXXԀOurcoderecognizesthatfacilitationisestablishedbyproofthat knowingthatanotherintends  tocommitaspecificfelony,butwithouttheintentrequiredforcriminalresponsibilityunder  section3911402(2),thepersonknowinglyfurnishessubstantialassistanceinthecommissionof  thefelony.Tenn.CodeAnn.3911403(2001). t #X(XXEX(k# !USUS.,  _   <*+,-./012(03X  XX8(XXdd8=(Xdd==(XXdXd=EINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  #EX(XE#EXEX(& 8 !    E E    !J  #EX(XE #EXEX(ATKNOXVILLE#EX(XE#B  EXEX(#E#C#CX(XCD#CXCX(ԍATKNOXVILLEC  EC  #EX(XE#EXEX(!J݌ & Ќ  EE   #EX(XEg#E XEX(!    E E     !8  #EX(XE #EXEX(September5,2002SessionB  #EX(XE#EXEX(#E#C#CX(XC?#CXCX(ԍSeptember5,2002SessionC  EC  '8>#EX(XE#EXEX(!8݌ L Ќ  E E   #EX(XE Ԃ#E XEX(#EX(XE 4# STATEOFTENNESSEEv._LINNELL_ԀRICHMOND  H  &  "    EXEX(CE    ECEX(XE"  AppealfromtheKnoxCriminal"   Q Ԍ  p Ќ  EX(XXEX(EX(XXEX(    CourtforKnoxCounty'   \   No.58152A&58152BHon.RichardR._Baumgartner_,Judge  H   @@*AGM) ` df;E<` A   e@@TTNo.E200001545SCR11CDFiledNovember1,_2002_Ԁ       AGM) ` dEa` A    Followingajurytrial,thedefendant,_Linnell_ԀRichmond,wasfoundguiltybyaKnoxCountyjury  ofaggravatedrobbery,attemptedaggravatedrobberyandtwocountsofattemptedfirstdegree v premeditatedmurder.Thetrialcourtsentencedthedefendanttoaneffectivesentenceoftwenty b twoyearsforhisconvictions,tobeservedconsecutivelytoafederalsentencearisingoutofthe N samecriminalepisode.TheCourtofCriminalAppealsreversedthejudgmentofthetrialcourt : uponfindingthatthetrialcourterredinfailingtoinstructthejuryon:(1)the naturaland &v probableconsequenceruleinrelationtothechargesofattemptedfirstdegreemurder;and(2) b robberyasalesserincludedoffenseofaggravatedrobbery,andattemptedrobberyasalesser N includedoffenseofattemptedaggravatedrobbery.TheStateappealedtothisCourt,andwe : grantedtheapplication.Weholdthat:(1)itwasharmlesserrorbythetrialcourttofailtoinstruct & thejuryonthenaturalandprobableconsequencesruleinrelationtothechargeofattemptedfirst  degreemurder;and(2)itwaslikewiseharmlesserrorbythetrialcourtinfailingtoinstructthe  juryregardingrobberyasalesserincludedoffenseofaggravatedrobbery,andattemptedrobbery  asalesserincludedoffenseofattemptedaggravatedrobbery.Therefore,thejudgmentofthe  CourtofCriminalAppealsisreversed,andthedefendantsconvictionsarereinstated.Thiscase r  isremandedtothetrialcourtforenforcementofthejudgment. ^!     Tenn.R.App.P.11ApplicationforPermissiontoAppeal;JudgmentoftheCourtof 6#" CriminalAppealsReversed;Caseremandedforjudgmentconsistentwiththisopinion. "$r# CostsinthisCourtaretaxedtotheStateofTennessee.  %^ $ P    WilliamM.Barker,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,thepanelofwhichconsistedofFrank &6"& F._Drowota_,III,C.J.,andE.RileyAnderson,A.,J.,_Adolpho_ԀA.Birch,Jr.,andJaniceM. '"#' Holder,JJ. ($(   PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;ElizabethB._Marney_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral; *%* RandallE._Nichols_,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andRobertL._Jolley_,Jr.,AssistantDistrictAttorney; +&+ _ fortheappellant,StateofTennessee.  WadeV.Davies,Knoxville,Tennessee(onappeal)andKeithE.Haas,Sevierville,Tennessee(at  trial)fortheappellee,LinnellRichmond. t   &         EX(XXEX(     OPINIONB  EXEX(#E#C#CX(XC#CXCX(ԍOPINIONC  ECEX(XE ݌ L  Ќ  EX(XXEX(         EX(XXEX(     FACTSB  #EX(XXEX(#EXEX(#EU#C#CX(XCE#CXCX(ԍFACTSC  ECEX(XE'L v ݌ $ t Ќ  EX(XXEX(    QM  L Q    OntheeveningofFebruary18,1995,MoseCuxartwasstandinginfrontoftheMagicCity M   LoungewithCharles StephenEarls,ShannonBrown,andKevinBrown.Suddenly,fourmen 9  camearoundthecorneroftheclubbrandishingweaponsanddemandingthatthegrouphandover %u  theirmoney.Mr.Cuxarthad$200cashinhisbackpocket,whichhegavetothemen,butthe a  othershadnomoney.Mr.Cuxarttestifiedthattheapparentleaderoftheassailantshelda.9 M  millimeterhandguntohisfaceandwaswearinga catmaskduringtherobbery.Mr.Cuxart 9  furthertestifiedthatallfourmenhadmasksonduringtherobbery.However,inpriortestimony, % heclaimedthattherehadonlybeenthreeassailantsontheeveningofFebruary18.   X N Afterthisinitialconfrontation,theassailantwhohadplacedaguntothefaceofMr. ; Cuxart!lateridentifiedasShervonJohnsonor Goldie!enteredtheMagicCityLoungein 'w ordertorobthepatronsandemployees.However,beforeenteringtheclub,heorderedhis c confederatesto cancelthevictims.Mr.Cuxarttestifiedthatinresponsetothisorderfrom O defendantJohnson,thetallestoftheassailantsfiredanUzisubmachineguninthegeneral ; directionofthevictims,forcingthegrouptohidebehindthefrontdooroftheclub.Itwaslater ' learnedthatShannonBrownwasgrazedbyabulletmostlikelyfiredfromtheUzi.Mr.Cuxart  lateridentifiedtheshooterasWilliamFredUnderwood.     < CharlesStephenEarls,whoworkedasabartenderattheMagicCityLoungeandwas )y outsidewithMr.Cuxartatthetimeoftherobbery,generallycorroboratedtheaforementioned  e events.Mr.Earlsstatedthatfourassailantscamearoundthebuilding,andthattwoofthemen !Q werewearing catmasks,onehadahoodoverhisface,andonedidnothaveonamask.Mr. != EarlsidentifiedWilliamFredUnderwoodasnotwearingamask.Mr.Earlsfurtherstatedthatone ") ofthemenwearinga catmaskwhohadalarge afrotookmoneyfromMr.Cuxart.Mr.Earls #  alsotestifiedthatafterhetoldtheassailantsthathedidnothaveanymoney,theleadassailantran $ ! intotheclubwithanUzi.However,Mr.EarlsadmittedthathehadpreviouslystatedthatWilliam % " FredUnderwood,notShervonJohnson,wastheassailantwhowascarryingtheUzi. &!#  '#$ AsMr.JohnsonenteredtheMagicCityLounge,hefirstapproachedLeonardMauriceHill, )S$% theDJwhowasworkingthenightoftherobbery.Mr.HilltestifiedthathewasbehindtheDJ )?%& boothwhenamanwithamaskandasilvercoloredhandguncameinandtoldhimtoemptyhis *+&' pockets.Whentheassailantmomentarilyturnedaroundtofacepatronsatthebar,Mr.Hill +'( tackledhimandforcedthehandgunfromhispossession.Thetwomenstruggledforashorttime  andfelloutthefrontdooroftheMagicCityLounge.Mr.HillwassuccessfulinpinningJohnson  tothefloor.Whileonthefloor,JohnsonyelledtohisconfederatestoshootMr.Hill.Atthis  point,Mr.CuxartgrabbedMr.Hillandpulledhimbackinsidetheclub,andtheassailantsran t fromtheclub.Mr.Hilldescribedhisassailantashavingalarge afrobutadmittedthathecould ` notidentifythemanfurther.However,thestrugglecausedtheassailanttolosehismask L  whereuponMr.Cuxart,Mr.EarlsandafemalepatronattheclubidentifiedthemanasShervon 8  Johnson,or Goldie. $ t  a  Mr.CuxarttestifiedthattheassailantsfledthesceneinamaroontwodoorBuickwitha    whitetop.Believingtheyhadleft,Mr.CuxartandMr.Earlsexitedthefrontoftheclubto   summonthepolice.However,theassailantsdrovetothefrontoftheclubandparkedtheir v  vehicle.Mr.CuxartandMr.EarlstestifiedthattheythensawMr.Johnsonleanouttheopen b  passengersidewindowandfiretheUzisubmachinegunatthem.Mr.Cuxartstatedthatnoneof N  thebulletscameclosetohimbecausehefelltothegroundandrolled.Mr.Earlswaslikewise :  unhurtandtestifiedthatthebulletsfiredfromthecarhitapproximatelythirtyfeetfromwherehe &v andMr.Cuxartwerestanding.Mr.Earlsalsotestifiedthatitwasafrequentoccurrenceforbullets b tobefiredintheparkinglotoftheclub.Investigatorslaterdiscoverednumerousbulletholesin N theexteriorwalloftheclub. :  'w OfficerBruceConkeyoftheKnoxvillePoliceDepartmentwasparkedinalotdownthe d streetfromtheclubwhenheheardseveralgunshotsinrapidsuccession.Helookedtowardthe P MagicCityLounge,whichwasapproximatelyahalfblockaway,andsawmuzzleflashescoming < fromthepassengersideofacarparkedinfrontoftheclub.Asthecarspedaway,OfficerConkey (x gavechase,withOfficerJerredSmithfollowingbehindhiminanothersquadcar.OfficerConkey d followedthecarforaboutamileataspeedoffiftytosixtymilesperhour,untilthecarwentthe P wrongwayonaonewaystreetand spunout.ThecarcametoastopfacingOfficerConkeys < patrolcar.OfficerConkeytestifiedthatablackmaleemergedfromthepassengersidefrontseat ( ofthecarwearingatobogganandranoff.OfficerJerredSmithchasedafterthisassailantand  apprehendedhimafewyardsfromthevehicle.ThisindividualwaslateridentifiedasWilliam   FredUnderwood.OfficerConkeythensawanotherblackmalewitha DonKingstyleafroexit ! thecar,throwdownagun,andrun.TheweaponwaslateridentifiedasanUzi.Asathird " passengerattemptedtoexitthevehiclefromthedriversside,OfficerConkeyreachedtheBuick t#  andapprehendedtheman.OfficerConkeylateridentifiedthemanasdefendantLinnell `$! Richmond.Richmonddidnothaveanyweaponsormoneyonhispersonandwasnotwearinga L% " skimaskortoboggan.AftersecuringdefendantRichmond,OfficerConkeywentovertowhere 8&!# OfficerSmithhadapprehendedMr.Underwoodandplacedhiminhandcuffs. $'t"$  a(#% OfficerBrianDavistestifiedthathefollowedbehindOfficersConkeyandSmithinhis )$& patrolcarandapproachedtheBuickasdefendantRichmondwasplacedunderarrest.AsOfficer *%' Davisapproachedthestoppedvehicle,henoticedafourthpassenger,lateridentifiedasFrank v+&( Wilburn,attemptingtoexitthevehiclefromthebackseat.OfficerDavisimmediatelyplacedMr.  Wilburnunderarrestandassistedtheotherofficersonthescene.AfourthKnoxvillePolice  Officer,JamesClaiborne,followedthechaseonaparallelstreet.OfficerClaibornestatedthat  afterthevehiclestopped,hesawablackmandressedinblackclothingjumpafenceandenterthe t neighboringhousingprojects.OfficerClaibornewitnessedthemantalkwitharesidentofthe ` housingprojectsandenteranapartment.OfficerClaibornewenttotheapartment,knockedonthe L  doorandwasallowedin.Onceinside,hefoundMr.Johnsonlyingonacouch.OfficerClaiborne 8  immediatelyplacedMr.Johnsonunderarrest.AprotectivesearchrevealedthatMr.Johnsonhad $ t about$235onhisperson.OfficerClaibornealsostatedthathefounda.9mmcobrahandgunnear  ` atelephonepoleatthesceneofthestop.  L    J l` $  XXEX(XXEX(  $@  $@AA݌ 9  ЌEX(XXEX(   XX  OfficerMarkWaggoner,acrimelabofficerwiththeKnoxvillePoliceDepartment, v  examinedandtestedthebullets,spentshellcasings,andfragmentsfoundattheclub.Hestated b  thatnumerousbulletsstruckthefrontoftheMagicCityLoungeatapproximatelychestlevel.A N  gun,catmask,andloadedmagazinewerefoundonthefloorinsidethelounge,butnofingerprints :  wererecoverablefromthegun.OfficerWaggonerfurtheridentifiedphotosofShannonBrowns &v clothingwithabullethole,awoundonShannonBrownssideandapictureofShannonBrown. b Noneofthebulletfragmentsweretestedforguncomparison,andnoneofthegunsweretestedto N seeiftheyhadbeenrecentlyfired.Notestswereconductedforfingerprintsoneitherthe.9mm : Uziorthe.25calibersilverpistol. & Ѐ    Basedontheaboveevidence,aKnoxCountyjuryfounddefendantsJohnsonand O Richmondguiltyofaggravatedrobbery,attemptedaggravatedrobberyandtwocountsof ; attemptedfirstdegreepremeditatedmurder.DefendantJohnsonwasalsoconvictedofthe ' additionalattemptedaggravatedrobberyofLeonardHill.Thetrialcourtthensentenceddefendant  Richmondtotwentytwoyearsforhisconvictions.DefendantJohnsonwasorderedtoservean  effectivesentenceofseventyyearsforhisconvictions.Thetrialcourtfurtherorderedthatboth  Defendantsservetheirstatesentencesconsecutivelytoafederalsentencearisingoutofthesame  criminalepisodeandconductasthestatesentences.O K  1       s $  XXEX(XXEX(   X$I    $I>J݌̌EX(XXEX(   X  OnappealtotheCourtofCriminalAppeals,theconvictionsofdefendantRichmondwere != reversedbasedontwoallegederrorsbythetrialcourt.First,citingStatev.Howard,theCourtof ") CriminalAppealsconcludedthatbecausetheStatewasrelyinguponthetheoryofcriminal #  responsibility,errorwascommittedbythetrialcourtwhenitfailedtoinstructthejuryonthe $ ! naturalandprobableconsequencesruleregardingtheattemptedfirstdegreemurderconvictions. % " TheCourtofCriminalAppealsfurtherconcludedthatthiserrorwasnotharmlessbeyonda &!#  reasonabledoubt.Second,theCourtofCriminalAppealsdeterminedthatitwaserrornotto u'"$ chargethejuryonthelesserincludedoffensesofrobberyandattemptedrobberyastheyrelateto  aggravatedrobberyandattemptedaggravatedrobbery.   $  XXEX(XXEX(    $N  $N{O݌ ) ЌEX(XXEX(   XX  Discussion b  O  $  XXEX(XXEX(   X$gP  I.TheNaturalandProbableConsequencesRule$gPP݌   ЌEX(XXEX(   X     J lR` RX  V RQ   Thenaturalandprobableconsequencesrulearoseasacommonlawcomponentof X  criminalresponsibilityandextendscriminalliabilitytothecrimeintendedbyadefendant,and D  collateralcrimescommittedbyacodefendant,thatwerethenaturalandprobableconsequences 0  ofthetargetcrime.SeeStatev.Carson,950S.W.3d951(Tenn.1997).Wehavenotedon l  severaloccasionsthat criminalresponsibilityisnotaseparate,distinctcrime.Itissolelyatheory X  bywhichtheStatemayprovethedefendantsguiltoftheallegedoffense...baseduponthe D  conductofanotherperson.Statev.LeMacks,996S.W.2d166,170(Tenn.1999).Thisdoctrine 0  becameentrenchedinAmericanjurisprudenceinpartduetotherealizationthatthereareoften  timesmultiplepartiestoacrimewhoplaydistinctrolesbefore,during,andafteracriminal  offensehasbeencommitted.Thenecessarydistinctionbetweenpartiestoacriminalactresulted  insystematicclassificationsaccordingtoculpabilityandparticipationinthechargedoffenses.A  principalinthefirstdegreewasthecriminalactor,theonewhoengagedintheactwiththe | requisitementalstate.SeeStatev.Thomas,619S.W.2d513,514(Tenn.1981)(statingthata h principalinthefirstdegreeisthepersonwhoactuallycommitsthecrime).Inorderforan T individualtobeaprincipalintheseconddegree(morecommonlyknownasanaiderandabettor), @ apersonmusthave advised,counseled,procured,orencouragedtheprincipaltocommitthe ,| offenseandwaspresentatthesceneofthecrime.Carson,950S.W.2dat954,(quotingFlippen h v.State,365S.W.2d895(1963)).RP K  2       T ЀIntime,thesedistinctionswereabandonedinfavorofallowingprincipalsandaccessories  tobeprosecutedequally.Forinstance,theTennesseeGeneralAssemblyenactedastatute  providingthat allpersonspresent,aidingandabetting,orreadyandconsentingtoaidandabet,in  anycriminaloffense,shallbedeemedprincipaloffenders,andpunishedassuch.Tenn.Code t Ann.39109(1975). ` R @ ThecurrentcriminalresponsibilitystatuteinTennesseeisaproductoftheworkdoneby  @ theLawRevisionCommission(Commission)andthegeneralassembly.Inastudyofthestates  , criminalstatutesandprocedures,theCommissionproposedatentativedraftofanewcriminal   codethat,amongotherthings,redefinedcomplicity.Q K  3      In1989,theTennesseeGeneralAssembly   adoptedtheCommissionsrecommendationsandcodifiedthecommonlawdoctrineofcriminal    responsibility.Subsequentrevisionsofthestatuteoccurredbutdeviatedlittlefromtheearlier   versionorthecommonlawprinciples.Thecurrentformofthestatuteprovides: x  $  XXEX(XXEX(   QR X    9%` ` hp u X9$S`  [a]personiscriminallyresponsibleforanoffensecommittedbythe   conductofanotherif:(1)Actingwiththeculpabilityrequiredforthe   offense,thepersoncausesoraidesaninnocentorirresponsibleperson   toengageinconductprohibitedbythedefinitionoftheoffense;(2) z Actingwithintenttopromoteorassistthecommissionoftheoffense, f ortobenefitintheproceedsorresultsoftheoffense,theperson R solicits,directs,aids,orattemptstoaidanotherpersontocommitthe > offense;or(3)Havingadutyimposedbylaworvoluntarily *z undertakentopreventcommissionoftheoffenseandactingwith f intenttobenefitintheproceedsorresultsoftheoffense,ortopromote R orassistitscommission,thepersonfailstomakeareasonableeffort > to#EX(XXEX(#Ԁpreventcommissionoftheoffense.$S`ba݌ * ЌEX(XXEX(   X     E+ ` hp x ` ` Xu[E$  XXEX(XXEX(  Rig RQ X$f  Tenn.CodeAnn3911402(2)(1997).Acommentbythedraftersofthisprovisionindicates i thatthis isarestatementoftheprinciplesofTennesseecommonlawthatprovideequalcriminal U liabilityforprincipals,accessoriesbeforethefact,andaidersandabettors.TennesseeSentencing A Commissionsection3911401(1997).Specifically,thestatutemakesadefendantcriminally -} liablefortheactsofconfederatesthatarethenaturalandprobableconsequenceofthecrimein  i whichthedefendantparticipated.Extendingcriminalliabilitytosecondaryactorsisreasonableas !U longasthecrimescommittedbyothersweretheforeseeableresultoftheconsummationofthe  intendedcrime.Thus,thestatutemayapplydespitethefactthatthecriminalconductofothers  differsfromorexceedsthescopeofthetargetcrime.$fig݌  ЌEX(XXEX(   X  J lR` $  XXEX(XXEX(  Rh$!l  ThisCourtexaminedthescopeandbreadthofthecomplicitystatuteinStatev.Carson, h 950S.W.2d951(Tenn.1997).R K  4      ׀RInCarson,wedeterminedthatthelegislatureclearlyintendedthat  T thenaturalandprobableconsequencesdoctrinesurvivecodification.Werecognizedthatwhile  @  thecommonlawrulehasbeensubjecttocriticismbysomecommentators,S  K  5      theruleis applied  , byamajorityofcourtsunderavarietyofstatutesgoverningcriminalresponsibility.RT  K  6      Id.at955.   Thus,thedoctrineremains aviableprincipleunderlyingcriminalresponsibilityinTennessee.   Id.$!ll݌    ЌEX(XXEX(   XX  $  XXEX(XXEX(  R0 . $q  #X(XXEX(#EX(XXX(Ourmostrecentstatementtouchinguponthenaturalandprobableconsequencesdoctrine 0  wasinStatev.Howard,30S.W.3d271(Tenn.2000).U< K  7      Wetookthatopportunitytoreiteratethat#X(XXEX(pr#EX(XXX( l  thepurposeofthenaturalandprobableconsequencesruleistoholdaidersandabettors   responsibleforthecriminalharmstheyhavenaturally,probablyandforeseeablyputinto  motion.Id.at276;seealsoKeyv.State,563S.W.2d184,186(Tenn.1978).Moreimportantly,  weputforththetestthatcourtsaretoapplywhenliabilityisbaseduponthenaturalandprobable t consequencesrule.Specifically,weheldthattheStatemustprovebeyondareasonabledoubtand ` thejurymustfind: (1)theelementsofthecrimeorcrimesthataccompaniedthetargetcrime;(2) L  thedefendantwascriminallyresponsiblepursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3911 8  402;and,(3)thattheothercrimesthatwerecommittedwerethenaturalandprobable $ t consequencesofthetargetcrime.Howard,30S.W.3dat276.Thisruleunderliesthedoctrineof  ` criminalresponsibilityandexiststoensurethatallculpablepartiestocriminalactsareheld  L  accountablefortheirparticipation.Furthermore,itreinforcestheprinciplethatthejury,notthe  8  court,isvestedwiththepowertoweighthesufficiencyofevidenceanddeterminewhether $  collateralcrimes,committedbyrelevantpartiesinbothphysicalandspatialproximityofthe   targetcrime,arethenaturalandprobableconsequencesoftheintendedcriminalbehavior.$q.r݌   ЌEX(XXEX(   XX     :  A.InstructionsOnTheNaturalAndProbableConsequencesRule  $t Rb  WeagreewiththeCourtofCriminalAppealsthatbasedonourpriorholdingsinCarson  andHoward,thenaturalandprobableconsequencesruleshouldhavebeenchargedtothejury.  Clearly,Howardstandsforthepropositionthatthenaturalandprobableconsequencesruleis an  essentialelementthattheStatemustprovebeyondareasonabledoubtwhenseekingaconviction x basedontheoryofcriminalresponsibility.Howard,30S.W.3dat277(Tenn.2000).TheState d maysatisfythisburdenonlybystrictcompliancewiththethreeprongedtestasestablishedby P Howard.Inthiscase,thethirdprongrequirestheStatetoprovethatattemptedfirstdegree < murderwasanaturalandprobableconsequenceoftheaggravatedrobbery.Properinstructionsto (x thejuryshouldhaveincludedreferencetothisrule.Therefore,itwaserrorbythetrialcourtnot d toinstructthejuryonthenaturalandprobableconsequencesruleinrelationtothechargesof P attemptedfirstdegreemurderofMoseCuxartandShannonBrown. < R|*z X R|  B.HarmlessErrorAnalysis   $  XEX(XXEX(   QR$3  Havingconcludeditwaserrornottochargethejuryonthenaturalandprobable  !\ consequencesrule,itremainstobedeterminedwhetherthiserrorwasharmless.Inthatrespect, !H theCourtofCriminalAppealsmadenoapparentdistinctionsbetweenthefactsofHowardandthe  presentcaseanddeterminedthatbecausethejurywasnotpermittedtoconsiderwhetherthe  attemptedfirstdegreemurderswerethenaturalandprobableconsequencesofthearmedrobbery,  thetrialcourtcommittedreversibleerror.Werespectfullydisagree.$3Ӂ݌ t ЌEX(XXEX(   X  Q XWehavepreviouslyheldthatatrialcourtsfailuretochargethenaturalandprobable  consequencesrulewhenwarrantedbytheevidenceisconstitutionalerror.SeeHoward,30   S.W.3dat277n.6. K  8      Forsucherrortobeharmless,theStatehastheburdenofestablishingbeyond   areasonabledoubtthattheerrordidnotaffecttheoutcomeofthetrial.Seeid.(citingNederv. u  U.S.,527U.S.1(1999)).Wereiteratethatitisthejurysroleasfactfindertodecidewhetherthe a  Statehasprovenallessentialelementsofanoffensebeyondareasonabledoubt.SeeHoward,30 M   S.W.3dat277.Yet,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtmadeclearinNederthatwhenajurys 9  verdict necessarilyincludedafindingontheomittedelement,theerrormaybeharmless.27 %u  U.S.1,26(1999)(Stevens,J.,concurring).Nederfurtherclarifiedthatthistypeofharmlesserror a  isnotlimitedtosituationswhereinthejurysverdictnecessarilyincludedafindingontheomitted M  element.Thus,itisproperforareviewingcourttomakeathoroughexaminationoftherecordto 9  determineif,beyondareasonabledoubt,thejuryverdictwouldhavebeenthesameabsentthe % error.SeeAllen,69S.W.3dat190.Areviewingcourtmustaskwhethertherecordcontains  evidencethatcouldrationallyleadtoacontraryfindingbythejurywithrespecttotheomitted  element.Seeid.If,afterviewingtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletotheState,thereisno  rationalbasisforacontraryconclusionbythetrieroffact,thentheomittedelementconstitutes  harmlesserror. q  W(40<*+,-./012 ] Weholdthat,astothedefendantinthiscase,thetrialcourtcommittedharmlesserrorby I failingtoinstructthejuryonthenaturalandprobableconsequencesrule.Thefactsofthe 5 defendantRichmondscasearesimilartothefactsinHoward,yetwerecognizeimportant !q differencesthatdistinguishHowardfromthepresentcase.SimilartoHoward,defendant  ] RichmondaccompaniedhisconfederatestotheMagicCityLoungetorobbothemployeesand I patrons.Inbothcases,individualswereshotduringthecommissionoftherobbery.Neither 5 defendantRichmondnorMr.Howardwereidentifiedastheshooter,butbothwereprosecuted ! underthetheoryofcriminalresponsibility.Perhapsmostimportantly,thetargetcrimeinthe   presentcase,aswellasinHoward,wasaggravatedrobbery.Theshootingsthatoccurredinboth   casesmaybeclassifiedascollateral(ornontarget)totherobbery. !  Q X    Yet,unlikeHoward,wheretheevidenceofthedefendantsintentwassharplycontested, #! theevidencehereunquestionablyestablishedthatdefendantRichmondsharedtheintentofhis $" fellowassailantsandactivelyparticipatedineveryfacetofthearmedrobberyandsubsequent % # shootings.Theassailants,includingthedefendant,approachedthevictimswithatleastthree &!$ weapons,onebeingafullyautomaticUzisubmachinegun.ShervonJohnsontwiceorderedhis n'"% fellowrobberstokillthevictims,andfinallyattemptedtodosohimself.DefendantRichmond Z(#& stood,atmost,afewfeetfromMr.Johnsonwhenheorderedhisconfederatestoshootthe  victims.Hefurthermorepositionedhimselfsoastoofferimmediateassistanceshouldtheneed  arise.TestimonyestablishedthatdefendantRichmonddrovethegetawaycarinsuchamanneras  toallowhiscoassailant,ShervonJohnson,tofireindiscriminatelyinthedirectionoftheclub. t DefendantRichmondthenledpoliceofficersonadangeroushighspeedchasethroughKnoxville ` housingprojects.Thedefendantsrolewassuchthatthetrialcourtproperlycharged,andthejury L  foundhimcriminallyresponsiblefortheactionsofhisconfederates.Assuch,weareconvinced, 8  andthejurysoconcluded,thatdefendantRichmondsharedthesamecriminalintentashis $ t confederatesandclearlyaidedtheminthecompletionofthetargetandcollateralcrimes.We  ` thereforeconcludethattheattemptedfirstdegreemurdersofMr.CuxartandMr.Brownwere  L  undoubtedlynaturalandprobableconsequencesoftheaggravatedrobbery.Wethereforehold  8  thatthetrialcourtsfailuretoinstructthejuryonthenaturalandprobableconsequencesruledid $  not,beyondareasonabledoubt,affecttheoutcomeofthetrial.    X M   <*+,-./012(04W "*"  X   <(4 4` hp x X<*ě2  1  .3  @..  LesserIncludedOffensesInstruction*ěy݌ :  Ќ  Q    B+ ` hp x 44` XB  Thedefendantarguesthatthetrialcourtcommittedreversibleerrorbynotchargingthe w juryonsimplerobberyandattemptedrobberyaslesserincludedoffensesoftheaggravatedform c oftheoffenses.Mr.Richmondarguesthattheerrorwasnotharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt O becausetheevidencewascontestedastohisinvolvement.TheStateconcedesthatthetrialcourt ; erred,butcontendsthatthiserrorwasharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubtinthatitdidnotaffect 'w thejudgmentofthejurytotheprejudiceofthedefendant. c  X O Inatwotoonedecisionbytheintermediatecourt,defendantRichmondsconvictionsfor ; aggravatedrobberyandattemptedaggravatedrobberywerereversed.Themajorityconcludedthat ' itwaserrornottochargethelesserincludedoffensesandthatthiserrorwasnotconstitutionally  harmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.CitingStatev.Bowles,52S.W.3d69(Tenn.2001),the  majorityoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsfoundthatbecausetheStatehadprovenaggravated  robberyandattemptedaggravatedrobbery,thelesserincludedoffensesofrobberyandattempted  robberywerenecessarilyproven.Accordingly,themajorityturnedtopart(a)ofthetest s establishedinStatev.Burns,6S.W.3d453(Tenn.1999),forthepropositionthatproofsufficient _  tomeritaninstructiononthegreateroffenserequiredaninstructiononanyandalllesserincluded K! offenses.Thus,themajoritydeterminedthatfailuretoinstructonthelesserincludedoffenses 7" waserror.Themajorityagreedthatthiserrorwasnotharmless,butnoconsensuswasreachedas ##s  totheproperanalysissupportingthisconclusion.Aspartofthemajority,JudgeSmith,relyingon $_! Williamsv.State,997S.W.2d101(Tenn.1998),reasonedthatbecausethejurydidnotrejectan $K " intermediateoffensetheerrorcouldnotbedeemedharmless.Incontrast,JudgeWadedetermined %7!# thatconstitutionalharmlesserroranalysisshouldapplybecausetherewasnodirecttestimony &#"$ establishingthatdefendantRichmondwasarmedorworeamaskontheeveninginquestion.As '#% such,JudgeWadeconcludedthatthereexistedareasonablepossibilitythatthefailuretoinstruct (#& onthelesserincludedoffensesofrobberyandattemptedrobberysubstantiallycontributedtothe )$' aggravatedrobberyandattemptedaggravatedrobberyconvictions.Theauthoroftheleadopinion *%( fortheCourtofCriminalAppeals,JudgeWoodall,disagreedwiththemajoritysconclusionand o+&) arguedthatthetrialcourtdidnotcommiterrorinfailingtochargethelesserincludedoffenses.  JudgeWoodallconcludedthatbecausethereexistedundisputeddirectevidencethatatleastone  deadlyweaponwasusedinthecommissionoftherobbery,noreasonablemindcouldacceptthe  lesserincludedoffensesofsimplerobberyandattemptedrobbery. t  X   `   &     EXEX(  EX(XE&˫  A.FailureToInstructOnTheLesserIncludedOffensesofRobberyAndAttempted L  Robbery&˫u݌ 8  Ќ  EX(XXEX(     X  Inanattempttomaketheapplicationofthelesserincludedoffensedoctrinemore $ t understandable,wewishtounderscoreouranalysisandholdingsinStatev.Ely,48S.W.3d710  ` (Tenn.2001),Allen,69S.W.3d181(Tenn.2002),Burns,6S.W.3d453,andBowles,52S.W.3d  L  69(Tenn.2001),andprovidefurtherinsightonwhenlesserincludedoffenseinstructionsare  8  merited. $     WestatedinAllenthatinapplyingthe'   lesserincludedoffense'oubt  doctrine,threequestions   mustbeaddressed: (1)whetheranoffenseisa'   lesserincludedoffense;'oubt  (2)whethertheevidence   supportsa'   lesserincludedoffense'aoubt  ݀instruction;and(3)whetheraninstructionalerrorisharmless.   69S.W.3dat187.Accordingly,inthiscase,wemustfirstdeterminewhether'   robbery'roubt  ݀isa'   lesser x includedoffense'òoubt  ݀ofthechargedoffenseof'   aggravatedrobbery,andwhetherattemptedrobberyisa d lesserincludedoffenseofattemptedaggravatedrobbery.'[oubt  InBurns,6S.W.3d453,weadoptedthe P followingtestfordeterminingwhetheraparticularoffensemayproperlybecategorizedasa < '   lesserincludedoffenseofthegreater.'oubt  Anoffenseisa'   lesserincludedoffense'soubt  if: (x  X    9%` ` hp u X9(a)allofitsstatutoryelementsareincludedwithinthestatutory h elementsoftheoffensecharged;or(b)itfailstomeetthedefinitionin T part(a)onlyintherespectthatitcontainsastatutoryelementor @ elementsestablishing(1)adifferentmentalstateindicatingalesser , kindofculpability;and/or(2)alessseriousharmorriskofharmtothe  sameperson,propertyorpublicinterest;or(c)itconsistsof(1)  facilitationoftheoffensechargedorofanoffensethatotherwisemeets  thedefinitionof'   lesserincludedoffenses'oubt  inpart(a)or(b);or(2)an  attempttocommittheoffensechargedorofanoffensethatotherwise | meetsthedefinitionof'   lesserincludedoffenses'oubt  ݀inpart(a)or(b);or(3) h  solicitationtocommittheoffensechargedorofanoffensethat T! otherwisemeetsthedefinitionof'   lesserincludedoffenses' oubt  ݀inpart(a) @"  or(b). ,#|!    E+ ` hp x ` ` Xu[EId.at46667.Robberyisclearlyalesserincludedoffenseofaggravatedrobberyunderpart(a)of %T # theBurnstestbecauseallofitsstatutoryelementsareincludedwithinthestatutoryelementsof %@!$ thechargedoffense.Thesameistrueofattemptedrobberyandattemptedaggravatedrobbery. &,"%  X '#& Wearenextrequiredtodeterminewhetheraninstructiononthelesserincludedoffensesis ($' warrantedundertheevidence.Thisisaccomplishedintwosteps.First,thecourtmustdetermine )$( whetheranyevidenceexiststhatreasonablemindscouldacceptastothelesserincludedoffense. *%) Second,thetrialcourtmustdetermineiftheevidence,whenviewedliberallyinthelightmost x+&* favorabletotheexistenceofa'   lesserincludedoffense,'oubt  islegallysufficienttosupportaconviction  forthe'   lesserincludedoffense.'boubt  '   See'oubt  '   ''oubt  '   Burns'youbt  '   ,6S.W.3dat469.Westatedin'oubt  '   Bowles'Goubt  '   ,andreiterated  in'oubt  '   Allen'oubt  '   ,thatregardlessof thetheoryoftheStateorofthedefense,thetrialcourtmustprovide  instructiontothejuryon'youbt  '   alllesserincludedoffenses'^oubt  '   ifwarrantedbytheevidence.'oubt  '   Allen'Foubt  '   ,69 t S.W.3dat188(emphasisadded). [A]defendantneednotdemonstrateabasisforacquittalonthe ` greateroffensetobeentitledtoaninstructiononthelesseroffense;itistheevidencethat L   controlswhetheraninstructionisrequired.'oubt  '   Id'3oubt  '   .Thus,thegeneralrulemaybestatedas:'oubt   8      9%` ` hp u X9(     ?%` ` hp u ` ` Xu[?EXEX(  EX(XE X (  [e]videncesufficienttowarrantaninstructiononthegreateroffense $ t alsowillsupportaninstructiononalesseroffenseunderpart(a)ofthe  ` Burnstest.InprovingthegreateroffensetheStatenecessarilyhas  L  proventhelesseroffensebecauseallofthestatutoryelementsofthe  8  lesseroffenseareincludedinthegreater.(݌ $  Ќ  EX(XXEX(  *` ` Xu[` ` Xu[*    E+ ` hp x ` ` Xu[E    69S.W.3dat188(citingStatev.Bowles,52S.W.3d69,80(Tenn.2000)).Wecannot   overemphasizethat thejury,notthejudge,performsthefunctionoffactfinder.Burns,6   S.W.3dat472.Becauseourconstitutioninveststhejurywiththepowertodetermineboththe    lawandthefacts,thejuryisfreetorejectanyevidenceofferedbytheState,nomatterhow   uncontrovertedoruncontestedaparticularfactorelementmayappear.SeeTenn.Const.art.I, p 19.Accordingly,ourreviewoftherecordinthiscaseleadsustoconcludethattherewas \ sufficientevidencefromwhichreasonablejurorscouldhaveconvictedthedefendantofthelesser H includedoffensesofrobberyandattemptedrobbery.Simplystated,defendantRichmondcould 4 nothavebeenconvictedofaggravatedrobberyandattemptedaggravatedrobberywithoutthe  p occurrenceorperpetrationoftheunderlyingcrimesofrobberyandattemptedrobbery.Thejuryas  \ factfindermayexerciseitspowerandignoretheStatesevidenceestablishingtheuseofadeadly H weapon(theonlyelementdistinguishingthegreateroffensesfromthelesserincludedoffenses), 4 butwithouttheinstructionbeinggivenpriortodeliberation,thejuryisstrippedofits   constitutionallymandatedpowertofunctionasfactfinder.Accordingly,itwaserrorforthetrial   courttofailtoinstructthejuryonthelesserincludedoffensesofsimplerobberyandattempted  robbery.    B.HarmlessErrorAnalysis  l  X   X  Havingconcludedthatthetrialcourterredbynotinstructingonthelesserincluded D! offensesofsimplerobberyandattemptedrobbery,wemustdeterminewhetherthaterrorwas 0"  harmless.InStatev.Williams,977S.W.2d101,105(Tenn.1998),weheldthattheerroneous #l! failuretoinstructonlesserincludedoffensesmaybeharmlessundercertaincircumstances.More $X" recently,inStatev.Ely,48S.W.3d710(Tenn.2001),thisCourtreexaminedthestandardtobe $D # appliedwhenassessingwhetheratrialcourtsfailuretogive'   lesserincludedoffense'   ݀instructions %0!$ constitutedharmlesserror.Afteranexhaustivereview,weconcludedthatthedefendantsrightto &"% thelesserincludedoffenseinstructionisstatutorilymandatedandprotectedunderArticleI, '#& section6oftheTennesseeConstitution.Assuch,afailuretoinstructthejuryonlesserincluded (#' offenseswillmeritreversalunlesstheStateprovesbeyondareasonabledoubtthattheoutcomeof )$( thetrialwasnotaffected.InAllen,wereemphasizedtheprinciplethatthefailuretoinstructona |*%) lesserincludedoffenseisharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubtwhenthe omittedelementis h+&* uncontestedandsupportedbyoverwhelminganduncontrovertedevidence.Allen,69S.W.3dat  189;seealsoNederv.UnitedStates,527U.S.1(1999),Statev.Ducker,27S.W.3d889,899900  (Tenn.2000),Statev.Garrison,40S.W.3d426,435(Tenn.2000).Perhapsofmostrelevance,we  heldinAllenthat: t     9%` ` hp u X9(     ?%` ` hp u ` ` Xu[?EXEX(  EX(XE X (  whereanomittedelementissupportedbyuncontrovertedevidence, ` thisapproachreachesanappropriatebalancebetweensocietys L  interestinpunishingtheguilty[and]themethodbywhichdecisions 8  ofguiltaremade....Inacasesuchasthisone,whereadefendant $ t didnot,andapparentlycouldnot,bringforthfactscontestingthe  ` omittedelement,answeringthequestionwhether[the]juryverdict  L  wouldhavebeenthesameabsenttheerrordoesnotfundamentally  8  underminethepurposesofthejurytrialguarantee.((݌ $  Ќ  EX(XXEX(  *` ` Xu[` ` Xu[*    E+ ` hp x ` ` Xu[E    69S.W.3dat19091.    X   Inaccordwiththeaforementionedprinciples,wehaveconductedathoroughreviewofthe   recordandconcludethatthetrialcourtsfailuretoissueinstructionsonthelesserincluded   offensesofsimplerobberyandattemptedrobberyconstitutedharmlesserror.Defendant p Richmondwaspresentatallphasesoftherobberyandattemptedmurders.Hisactionsin \ assistinghisconfederates(namelyShervonJohnson)establishedhiscriminalresponsibilityforthe H offensescommitted.TheStateclearlyreliedupontheuseofadeadlyweapontoprovethe 4 aggravatedformofthoseoffenses,andthedefendantinnowaycontestedthatevidence.Infact,  p atonepointduringthetrial,defensecounselproposedtothejurythatitwaspossiblethatthe  \ assailantsweremerelyattemptingtoscaretheirvictimsbyfiringtheirweapons.Wehavealready H mentionedthatthetrialcourtisrequiredtoinstructonalllesserincludedoffenseswithouta 4 specificrequestbythedefendant.However,evidentiaryadmissionsbythedefensethat   distinguishalesserincludedoffensefromthegreatercannotbeignoredandmustbeconsidered   alongwiththeuncontestedevidencewhenconductingharmlesserroranalysis.Acontrary  conclusionisbothillogicalandunfounded.Basedupontherecordinthiscase,thejurywouldnot  havereasonablyconcludedthattheassailantswereunarmed.Additionally,thevictimswho  testifiedattrialcollectivelyindicatedthattherobbersbrandishedfirearmsduringtherobberyand l sprayedtheMagicCityLoungewithautomaticmachinegunfirewhilefleeing.Photographic X  evidenceintroducedattrialestablishedthatShannonBrownandKevinBrown,whowereboth D! presentwithMoseCuxartwhentherobbersappeared,weregrazedbybulletsfiredbyoneofthe 0"  assailants.Consistentwithtestimonyfromthevictims,policeofficersandinvestigatorsrecovered #l! morethanonefirearmincludinganUzimachinegun,spentshellcasings,aloadedmagazine,and $X" bulletfragmentsinvariouslocations.Investigatorsalsofoundnumerousbulletholesinthe $D # exteriorwalloftheclub.Insum,theproofisabsolutelyoverwhelmingthatdeadlyweaponswere %0!$ usedbytheassailantsinthecommissionoftheseoffenses. &"% J l<`  '#& Thedefendantcorrectlyarguesthatbecausetheproofof'   aggravatedrobbery'   ݀inthiscase (#' proved'   robbery,'   evidenceexistedthatreasonablemindscouldacceptthelesserincludedoffense )$( offacilitation.AswasdeterminedinAllen,thegeneralruleforlesserincludedoffensesunder |*%) part(a)oftheBurnstestdoesnotextendtolesseroffensesunderpart(c)ofthetest.Establishing h+&* proofsufficienttoconvictunderthegreateroffensewillnotnecessarilyprovethelesseroffenses,  includingfacilitation,enumeratedinpart(c)ofthetest. K  9      RThedefendantfurtherreliesuponAllen  andFleming,19S.W.3d195(Tenn.2000),forthepropositionthattheerrorwasnotharmless  becausehisinvolvementintherobberyandattempted robberywascontestedattrial.InAllen,'   we t determinedthatbecausethejurywasnotchargedwithfacilitationasalesserincludedoffense, ` thiserrorwasnotharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.Wealsoheldthatthedecisionto'   convict L  onalesserincludedoffensecannotbetakenawayfromthejurydespiteuncontrovertedproof 8  supportingtheelementdistinguishingthegreateroffensefromthelesseroffense.However, $ t defendantRichmondreceivedthebenefitofaninstructiononfacilitation,butthejuryrejectedit.  ` Assuch,defendantRichmondsrelianceuponAllenandFlemingforthepropositionthattheerror  L  wasnotharmlessismisplaced. h   8   $  Insum,whenareviewingcourtdetermineswhetheralesserincludedoffenseoughttobe   charged,theevidenceclearlycontrols.Ifthereisevidencesufficienttosupportaconvictionfora   lesserincludedoffense,weholdthatatrialcourtmustchargethatoffense.Thedeterminativetest   beingwhetherthereisevidencesufficientsuchthatajurycouldconvictonthatlesserincluded   offense.Ifajurycouldconvict,nomatterhowimprobable,itiserrornottochargethatlesser p includedoffense.However,indecidingwhetheritwasharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubtnotto \ chargealesserincludedoffense,thereviewingcourtmustdeterminewhetherareasonablejury H wouldhaveconvictedthedefendantofthelesserincludedoffenseinsteadofthechargedoffense. 4 Inotherwords,thereviewingcourtmustdeterminewhetheritappearsbeyondareasonabledoubt  p thatthetrialcourtsfailuretoinstructonthelesserincludedoffensedidnotaffecttheoutcomeof  \ thetrial.Allen,69S.W.3dat191. H  4 Here,unlikeAllen,overwhelmingevidenceestablisheddefendantRichmonds   participationintherobberyofMoseCuxartandattempted robberyofCharlesStephenEarls.   Likewise,evidencewasoverwhelminganduncontrovertedthatdeadlyweaponswereinvolved.In  provingthegreateroffensestheStatenecessarilyprovedthelesserincludedoffenses.Therefore,  ajurycouldhaveconvictedthedefendantofthelesserincludedoffenseofrobberyandattempted   robbery.Assuch,itwaserrorforthetrialcourtnottochargethelesserincludedoffensesof l robberyandattempted robbery.However,ourdeterminationwhetherthiserrorwasharmless X  beyondareasonabledoubthingesuponwhatareasonablejurywouldhavedoneinlightofthe D! evidenceproducedattrial.Weholdthatnoreasonablejurywouldhaveconvictedthedefendant 0"  onthelesserincludedoffensesofrobberyandattempted robberyinsteadofthechargedoffenses #l! duetotheuncontrovertedandoverwhelmingevidenceestablishingtheuseofdeadlyweaponsand $X" hisdirectparticipationintheoffenses.Anyerrorwasharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt. $D #    %0!$   $  XXEX(XXEX(   Q X  $S  Conclusion$S݌ &"% ЌEX(XXEX(   X    $  XXEX(XXEX(  $  Weconcludethatwhileitwaserrornottochargethenaturalandprobableconsequences  rule,theerrorwasharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.Thejurywasinstructedoncriminal  responsibilityandtherewassubstantial,andindeedoverwhelming,evidenceofthedefendants  intenttoactivelyparticipateinthetargetcrimeofrobberyandinthecollateralcrimesof t attemptedfirstdegreemurder.Wealsoholdthattheerrorofthetrialcourtinnotchargingthe ` lesserincludedoffensesofrobberyandattemptedrobberywasharmlessbeyondareasonable L  doubt.Accordingly,thejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsisreversed,andthejudgment 8  oftheofthetrialcourtisreinstated.CostsofthisappealaretaxedtotheStateofTennessee. $ t   $e݌̌EX(XXEX(   XX   M       `     h      p ______________________________    `     h      p WILLIAMM.BARKER,JUSTICEEXEX( T  $  XXEX(XE   X $  $݌̌EXEX(   X    $  XXEX(XE   X$K  $K݌̌EXEX(   X  $  XXEX(XE   X$   $  ݌̌EXEX(   X  $  XXEX(XE   X$   $ U ݌̌EXEX(   X    Q X A(XdXXdjA  #EX(XE##X(XXEX(s#