ÿWPCÏ2 …U :V %–nX¦þ 0 à U:É w@ 4C 0 W 0D^ 0J¢ 0Tì 0^@ 0hž 0r 0|x 0†ô 0z 1u U , 0d« B 0@, D3lU,ŸU*ËU >õU.3B)aDCŠ AMͪfÄe*LæÛ¤Áe³ô $§"ÜË%2§'v~Ù)vÓW+ AO*1Æy1 0D?2 D/ƒ2 B²2<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTX3|x8 «<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTTTXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP(›žZ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÔ€XðñXXXÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÑTRY3Ø' Letter3Ø' 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular   {! " D# ) * + E, Ó€8 íb¸ ppppp8(·(3Þ&$¤¤Ý ƒžZ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€XP¡XXXÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÑTRY3Ø' Letter3Ø'3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" 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  Ô2^ 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 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier% Line 7 d99997Border 1dd€%:Cþÿ << Gÿÿ  Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€5ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÔ€5ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€5XÔÌÌò òJune€3,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€5ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ [Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€5ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€7ÔThe€state€does€not€challenge,€on€double€jeopardy€grounds,€the€dismissal€of€WilsonððsÏà àconviction€for€possession€of€a€deadly€weapon.€€Neither€the€state€nor€defendant€briefed€orÌà àargued€any€of€the€issues€raised€in€defendantððs€Rule€11€application.Ì BÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€5ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€7ÔA€person€commits€assault€who:Ìà àà à(1)à8 àIntentionally,€knowingly€or€recklessly€causes€bodilyÏinjury€to€another;Ìà àà à(2)à8 àIntentionally€or€knowingly€causes€another€toÏreasonably€fear€imminent€bodily€injury;€orÌà àà à(3)à8 àIntentionally€or€knowingly€causes€physical€contactÏwith€another€and€a€reasonable€person€would€regardÏthe€contact€as€extremely€offensive€or€provocative.ÌÌà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„101(a)(1991€Repl.).Ì ÜÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€5ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€7ÔAris€Jones,€a€friend€of€Lamont€Johnson,€testified€that€he€was€also€in€the€house.€€He€wasÏà ànot€named€as€a€victim€in€the€indictment.€Ì šÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€5ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€7ÔWitnesses€testified€that€at€least€eight€shots€were€fired€into€the€house.€€Ì …Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€5ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€7ÔNeither€David€Fenner€or€Turell€Robinson€were€charged.Ì ©Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€5ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€7ÔThe€evidence€establishes€that€Ken€Hodgesðð€automobile€was€not€present€at€his€residence.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€5ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€7ÔA€further€example€is€present€within€the€facts€of€this€case.€€When€Lamont€Johnson€shot€at€Ìà àdefendant€as€he€drove€down€Whitehall€Street,€evidence€of€each€of€the€elements€ofÏà àà àaggravated€assault€was€present.€€If€Johnson€had€fired€into€defendantððs€house€notÏknowing€à àwhether€he€was€inside,€and€had€not€actually€injured€anyone,€sufficient€evidenceÏwould€not€à àbe€present€to€sustain€an€aggravated€assault€conviction.Ì ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€5ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€7ÔThe€photographs€show€that€the€window€in€the€interior€door€and€the€glass€in€the€stormÏà àdoor€are€both€completely€shattered.Ì (Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€5ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€7ÔWilson€was€sentenced€to€two€years€for€felony€reckless€endangerment.€€The€trial€courtÏà àordered€him€to€serve€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€with€the€remainder€to€be€servedÏà àon€intensive€probation.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&€33X„d&ÓÑ#€33Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€5ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÑ ° ÑÑ ° Ñ›Ñ7€–éXXdÖdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€7ÔÔ€7¼ÔØ ØÓ&€88X8d&Óœ›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌ€à@ àAT€€à@ àJACKSONÌÙ€€ÙœßL€;<:;+'h|›ö` Å `€€Lß›ÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àò òòòFORÏPUBLICATIONóóó óÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àÌà àAppellant,à àà àà à)à àœò òòòFiled:€June€3,Ï1996óóó ó›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà à)à àMadison€CountyÌà àà àà àà àà à)ÌMARIO€LAMONT€WILSON,à à)à àHon.€J.€Franklin€Murchison,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee.à àà àà à)à àNo.€02S01„9505„CC„00045Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appellantóó:ÌÌHughie€Raganà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌJackson,€TN€€à àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMichael€E.€MooreÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSolicitor€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMichael€W.€CatalanoÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssociate€Solicitor€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJames€G.€WoodallÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDonald€H.€AllenÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJackson,€TN€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òà@ àO€P€I€N€I€ONó óÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌCOURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€AFFIRMEDà àà àà àWhite,€J.Ñ€=ÑÇÓ  ÓÓÓà àA€jury€convicted€defendant,€Mario€Lamont€Wilson,€of€three€countsÏof€aggravated€assault€and€of€felony€reckless€endangerment€and€possessionÏof€a€deadly€weapon€with€the€intent€to€commit€a€felony.€€The€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals€affirmed€Wilsonððs€felony€reckless€endangermentÏconviction€and€sentence,€but€reversed€and€dismissed€the€convictions€forÏaggravated€assault€and€possession€of€a€deadly€weapon.€€We€grantedÏpermission€to€appeal€to€consider€whether€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÏerred€when€it€dismissed€Wilsonððs€convictions€for€aggravated€assault.œ× ƒ> ××  ×›€ÏAlthough€we€conclude€that€Wilsonððs€convictions€for€aggravated€assault€mayÏnot€stand,€we€do€not€adopt€entirely€the€reasoning€of€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals.€€Rather,€we€affirm€the€dismissal€of€the€aggravated€assault€chargesÏbecause€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€prove€that€Wilson€intentionally€andÏknowingly€caused€another€to€reasonably€fear€imminent€bodily€injury.€€ÌÌà àAn€aggravated€assault€conviction€requires€proof€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt€that€an€accused€committed€an€assault€as€defined€in€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€Section€39„13„101× ƒ? ××  ×€and€either€(a)€intentionally,€knowingly,€orÍrecklessly€caused€serious€bodily€injury€to€another€or€(b)€used€or€displayedÏa€deadly€weapon.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„102(a)(1)(A),€(B)(1995ÏSupp.).€€The€aggravated€assault€charges€against€Wilson€were€based€onÏaccusations€that€Wilson€unlawfully,€intentionally,€or€knowingly€assaultedÏthe€victims€by€displaying€or€using€a€deadly€weapon€ð ðcausing€[the€victim]€toÏreasonably€fear€imminent€bodily€injury."€€To€establish€these€charges,€theÏstate€was€required€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€WilsonÏintentionally€or€knowingly€caused€the€victims€to€fear€imminent€bodilyÏinjury€by€his€use€or€display€of€a€weapon.ÌÌà àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€on€appeal,€we€areÏguided€by€well„established€principles.€€As€an€appellate€court,€we€mustÏconsider€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution€inÏdetermining€whether€a€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443ÏU.S.€307€(1979);€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€63,€67€(Tenn.€1985);€Tenn.ÏR.€App.€P.€€Rule€13(e).€€The€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€to€beÍgiven€their€testimony,€and€the€reconciliation€of€conflicts€in€the€proof€areÏmatters€entrusted€to€the€jury€as€triers€of€fact.€€We€cannot€substitute€ourÏfindings€for€theirs€on€appeal.ÌÌà àThese€principles€apply€to€findings€of€guilt€based€on€direct,Ïcircumstantial,€or€both€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,Ï551€S.W.2d€€329,€331€(Tenn.€1977);€òòFarmer€v.€Stateóó,€343€S.W.2d€895,€897Ï(Tenn.€1961).€€However,€before€an€accused€may€be€convicted€of€a€criminalÏoffense€based€upon€circumstantial€evidence€alone,€the€facts€andÏcircumstances€"must€be€so€strong€and€cogent€as€to€exclude€every€otherÏreasonable€hypothesis€save€the€guilt€of€the€defendant."€€òòState€v.€Crawfordóó,Ï470€S.W.2d€610€(Tenn.€1971).€€"[A]€web€of€guilt€must€be€woven€aroundÏthe€defendant€from€which€[the€defendant]€cannot€escape€and€from€whichÏfacts€and€circumstances€the€jury€could€draw€no€other€reasonable€inferenceÏsave€the€guilt€of€the€defendant€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòIdóó.€at€613.€€WeÏnow€apply€those€long„established€principles€to€the€facts€before€us.€€ÌÌà àTwo€days€before€defendant€fired€shots€at€the€residence€of€KennethÏHodges,€Hodges€and€defendant€had€an€angry,€verbal€confrontation.€ÏAlthough€the€police€were€called€to€the€scene,€no€charges€were€filed.€€TwoÏdays€later,€on€the€day€of€the€shooting€at€issue€here,€defendant€was€involvedÍin€an€argument€with€Lamont€Johnson,€Hodgesðð€close€friend€and€next€doorÏneighbor.€€Following€this€argument,€Lamont€Johnson€shot€at€defendant€asÏdefendant€drove€down€Whitehall€Street€in€Jackson,€the€street€on€whichÏHodgesðð€residence€was€located.ÌÌà à€Shortly€after€3:00€p.m.€on€that€day,€Kenneth€Hodges€left€his€homeÏleaving€his€brother,€James€Hodges,€his€cousin,€Gregory€Hodges,€and€threeÏothers,€Linda€Sain,€Chandara€Haley,€and€Chequita€Sampson€at€theÏresidence.× ƒ@ ××  ×€€At€approximately€3:30€p.m.,€Chandara€Haley€and€ChequitaÏSampson€left€with€their€two€children€to€walk€to€a€nearby€store.€€As€theyÏwere€walking€back€towards€the€Hodgesðð€home,€€an€older€yellow€CutlassÏSupreme€stopped€directly€in€front€of€the€Hodgesðð€residence€on€the€oppositeÏside€of€the€street.€€One€passenger€leaned€across€in€front€of€the€driver€andÏbegan€firing€shots€at€the€house.× ƒA ××  ×€€The€passenger€in€the€rear€seat€also€firedÏat€the€house.€€Haley€identified€defendant€as€the€passenger€in€the€front€seat,€ÏDavid€Fenner€as€the€driver,€and€Turell€Robinson€as€the€passenger€in€theÏback€seat.× ƒB ××  ×€ÌÌà àWhen€the€first€shots€were€fired,€James€Hodges€was€in€the€rear€of€theÏhouse.€€Linda€Sain€was€in€the€bedroom.€Greg€Hodges€was€in€the€livingÏroom.€€Just€before€the€first€shots€were€fired,€Greg€Hodges€looked€out€theÏfront€door.€€The€state€relies€on€these€facts€to€establish€that€defendantÏcommitted€aggravated€assault.ÌÌà àThe€state€has€proved€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€defendant€firedÏthe€shots€and€that€the€victims€reasonably€feared€imminent€bodily€injury.€ÏThat,€however,€does€not€end€the€inquiry.€€In€addition€to€those€two€elementsÏof€the€offense,€known€in€common„law€parlance€as€the€actus€reus,€orÏcriminal€act,€the€aggravated€assault€statute€requires€proof€of€criminalÏintent,€or€mens€rea.€€That€criminal€intent€requires€that€defendant€act€eitherÏintentionally€or€knowingly.€€By€requiring€that€the€act€be€eitherÏintentionally€or€knowingly€committed,€the€legislature€has€required€the€stateÏto€prove€an€element€in€addition€to€the€mere€voluntary€commission€of€theÏcriminal€act.€€ÌÌà àOne€acts€intentionally€ð ðwith€respect€to€the€nature€of€the€conduct€or€toÏa€result€of€the€conduct€when€it€is€the€personððs€conscious€objective€or€desireÏto€engage€in€the€conduct€or€cause€the€result.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„302(a)(1991€Repl.).€€A€person€acts€knowingly€when,€with€respect€to€aÏresult€of€the€personððs€conduct,€ð ðthe€person€is€aware€that€the€conduct€isÏreasonably€certain€to€cause€the€result.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€(b).€€The€issue€for€ourÏdetermination€is€whether€the€facts€support€a€conclusion€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€that€defendant€intentionally€or€knowingly€caused€theÏvictims€to€fear€imminent€bodily€injury.ÌÌà àThe€stateððs€argument€in€this€case€demonstrates€some€confusion.€€TheyÏvehemently€argue€that€aggravated€assault€is€not€a€ð ðspecific€intentðð€crime.€ÏCommentators€have€noted€the€confusion€engendered€by€the€use€of€theÏphrase€ð ðspecific€intentðð€since€ð ð[a]ny€specifically€required€actual€intent€otherÏthan€to€do€the€deed€which€constitutes€the€òòactus€reusóó€of€the€particular€crime,Ïis€unquestionably€a€special€mental€element;€but€not€every€special€mentalÏelement€is€a€specific€intent€in€the€true€sense€of€the€word€ððintentðð.ðð€€R.ÏPerkins,€Criminal€Law€751€(1969)(hereafter€Perkins,€òòsupraóó,€at€_____).€ÏNonetheless,€we€have€generally€used€the€general€intent€„€specific€intentÏnomenclature€in€Tennessee.€€The€aggravated€assault€statute,€however,€isÏmore€correctly€characterized€as€a€statute€requiring€proof€of€a€special€mensÏrea,€since€it€requires€proof€of€a€mental€element€beyond€the€mere€doing€ofÏthe€criminal€act.ÌÌà àThe€stateððs€argument€seems€to€merge€the€separate€concept€of€mensÏrea€(or€special€mental€element)€with€the€issue€of€specifically€intendedÏvictims.€€For€example,€the€state,€in€suggesting€that€the€aggravated€assaultÏstatute€does€not€require€a€finding€of€specific€intent,€observes:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àthat€is€to€say€it€is€not€necessary€for€the€state€toÏprove€that€the€defendant€intended€to€assault€aÏspecific€person€who€was€assaulted.ÌÌÓÓWhile€the€stateððs€contention€that€they€are€not€required€to€prove€thatÏdefendant€intended€to€assault€ð ða€specific€person€who€was€assaultedðð€isÏcorrect,€its€contention€that€aggravated€assault€does€not€require€proof€of€aÏspecial€mental€element€is€not.€€ÌÌà àThe€subsection€of€the€aggravated€assault€statute€at€issue€in€this€caseÏrequires€proof€of€either€of€two€specified€mental€elements.€€StatedÏdifferently,€in€addition€to€establishing€that€defendant€voluntarily€did€theÏcriminal€act,€the€statute€requires€proof€of€one€of€two€mental€elements,Ïeither€intentionally€or€knowingly.€€In€offenses€requiring€proof€of€a€specialÏmental€element,€the€intent€is€an€essential€element€of€the€offense€which€mustÏbe€alleged€and€proved€by€the€prosecution.€€Perkins,€òòsupraóó,€at€762„64.€ÏWhen€the€definition€of€a€crime€requires€that€a€defendant€act€knowingly€orÏintentionally,€the€burden€of€proof€is€on€the€prosecution€to€prove€the€mentalÍelement€of€knowledge€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€J.€Miller,€CriminalÏLaw€ðð€17,€at€57€(1934).ÌÌà àThe€aggravated€assault€statute€under€which€the€state€seeks€convictionÏof€defendant€requires€that€the€state€prove€either€that€defendant€shot€into€theÏHodgesðð€home€(a)€for€the€purpose€of€causing€the€victims€to€fear€imminentÏbodily€injury€(intentionally)€or€that€defendant€was€(b)€aware€that€theÏshooting€would€cause€the€victims€to€fear€imminent€bodily€injuryÏ(knowingly).€€Proving€one€or€the€other€of€these€alternative€mental€elementsÏis€not€the€same€as€proving€that€defendant€intended€to€assault€a€specificÏperson€that€was€assaulted.ÌÌà àTurning€to€the€facts€of€€this€case,€we€find€that€the€state€failed€toÏestablish€the€requisite€mental€element€of€this€crime€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€In€order€to€establish€that€defendant€acted€knowingly€orÏintentionally,€the€proof€would€have€to€establish€that€defendant€was€awareÏthat€persons€were€inside€the€Hodgesðð€residence€at€the€time€of€the€shooting.€ÏObviously,€defendant€could€not€shoot€for€the€purpose€of€causing€fear€orÏshoot€with€the€reasonable€certainty€that€fear€would€be€caused€absent€anÏawareness€that€someone€was€inside.ÌÌà àThe€state€poses€two€arguments€for€the€purpose€of€satisfying€theirÏproof€requirement€of€mens€rea.€€First,€the€state€argues€that€the€previousÏaltercations€with€Kenneth€Hodges€and€Lamont€Johnson€establish€an€intent€toÏharm€these€two€individuals.€€Defendantððs€intent€to€harm€these€individuals,Ïhowever,€does€not€establish€the€mens€rea€for€aggravated€assault€since€thereÏis€no€proof€that€defendant€thought€either€of€the€two€were€in€the€HodgesððÏresidence× ƒC ××  ×€at€the€time€of€the€shooting.× ƒD ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€stateððs€second€argument€focuses€on€the€presence€of€GregoryÏHodges€at€the€time€of€the€shooting.€€The€state€contends€that€since€he€wasÏð ðright€in€the€front€door,ðð€defendant€must€have€seen€him,€thereby€makingÏdefendant€aware€that€a€potential€victim€was€inside.€€If€the€evidenceÏestablished€that€defendant€saw€Gregory€Hodges€(or€anyone,€for€that€matter)Ïinside€or€around€the€house,€the€state€would€be€correct.€€The€evidence,Ïhowever,€does€not€establish€that€fact.ÌÌà àGregory€Hodges€testified€that€he€was€standing€ð ðright€in€the€frontÏdoorðð€of€the€house€between€the€closed€glass€storm€door€and€the€half„openÏwooden€door.€€As€he€turned€to€leave,€Hodges€testified€that€he€heard€shotsÏand€breaking€glass.€€Gregory€Hodges€saw€Chandara€Haley€approaching€theÏhouse,€but€he€did€not€see€the€yellow€Cutlass.€€He€was€a€ð ðcouple€of€feetððÏfrom€the€door€when€he€heard€the€first€shots.€€Fortunately,€he€was€notÏinjured€in€any€way€and€was€not€struck€by€flying€glass.€€The€demonstrativeÏevidence€in€the€record€„€photographs€„€support€a€conclusion€that€theÏinterior€and€storm€doors€were€closed€when€the€shots€were€fired.× ƒE ××  ×€€HadÏHodges€been€standing€between€or€at€the€two€doors€at€the€moment€of€theÏshots,€he€could€not€have€escaped€injury.ÌÔ€5ÔÌÔ€7Ôà àThe€shots€were€fired€on€a€Tuesday€afternoon.€€Neither€LamontÏJohnson€nor€Ken€Hodges,€defendantððs€assumed€targets,€were€present€in€theÏarea.€€Ken€Hodgesðð€automobile€was€gone€as€well.€€No€testimony€pointed€toÏany€facts€„€lights,€noises,€or€other€signs€„€which€would€indicate€to€aÏpasserby€that€the€house€was€occupied.€€€ÌÌà àWithout€question,€defendant€acted€recklessly€and€criminally.€€Had€theÏdestructive€shots€struck€anyone,€defendant€could€have€been€convicted€ofÏaggravated€assault€under€Tennessee€€Code€Annotated€Section€39„13„101(a)Ï(1)(1991€Repl.)€which€includes€the€mens€rea€of€recklessness.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðððð€39„13„101(a)(1)€&€39„13„102(a)(1)(A)(1991€Repl.€&€1995€Supp.).€ÏAdditionally,€as€this€opinion€and€that€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÏrecognizes,€defendantððs€conduct€constitutes€the€offense€of€felony€recklessÏendangerment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„103(b)(1991€Repl.).€€ÌÌà àThe€statute€under€which€the€state€opted€to€prosecute€defendantÏrequired€the€state€to€establish€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€defendantððsÏconduct€was€intentional€or€knowing,€as€defined€by€the€criminal€code.€€TheÏproof€that€the€occupants€were€justifiably€fearful€for€their€lives,€whileÏessential€to€establishing€the€actus€reus€of€the€offense,€does€not€establish€inÏany€way€the€requisite€mens€rea.€€For€these€reasons,€we€affirm€the€reversalÏof€defendantððs€three€convictions€for€aggravated€assault€and€dismiss€thoseÏcharges.€€The€remainder€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€decision,Ïincluding€the€affirmance€of€the€reckless€endangerment€conviction€andÏsentence× ƒF ××  ×€and€the€dismissal€of€the€weapons€charge,€is€not€altered.€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àPenny€J.€White,€JusticeÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌœBirch,›€C.J.ÌœDrowota,›€œAnderson,€Reid,€J.J.ÌÌ€