ÿWPCµ, …# VUNa %¯ 0DµU:ùw@3 4s ‡ – 0Þ 0¡a  0J 0TT U:¨ 0^â 0h@ 0r¨ 0| 0†– 0 1u¬ 0d!U:… 0`¿bU*'B)Q BzDC— AOÚ) 0@G‡‡‡*³8ëxU>– 0`Ô…4v~¹ D37 vÓj F=&ƒ& B-‹& 0¸& 0`z' CÚ' AMô'ÆA( 0K) AMR)ÆŸ) 0De* D+©*U4Ô*b+ AO+Æ_+ 0D%, D/i, B˜,˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(r+$¡¡Ò4°ÒÒ„°Ò, øð AZ"Arial Regular D‘D’e“«”Ó€  U¡ U¢î£ DÚƒç"Œúÿÿú, ú3|x£.r(s(2E$¤¤Ý ƒr+!ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÝ  ÝÒ44ÒÒ„„ÒÔ€ô¿éôXXÔà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("WV$Ô€ôèêôXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôb´ôôôèêÔÔ€X'?Xôôb´Ô2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô+•ŸzAZ‹"Arial Regular2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular(83•$©©Ý ƒr+!ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÝ  Ý- ù-< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d$$$$7Border 1dd€)A&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òDecemberÏ29,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò öÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€#ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€jury€was€not€sequestered.Ì }Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€#ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Although€the€defendant€has€briefed€several€additional€issues,€our€review€is€limited€toÏthe€two€issues€raised€by€the€Stateððs€application€for€permission€to€appeal.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€#ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Both€parties€indicate€that€the€juror€missed€twenty€minutes€of€argument.€Ì ©Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€#ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€We€also€observe€that€the€cases€relied€upon€by€the€defendant€in€support€of€his€claimÏwere€all€decided€prior€to€òòTrustyóó.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Reedóó,€689€S.W.2d€190€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1984).Ì ƒÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€#ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€We€observe€that€of€the€remaining€offenses€charged€by€the€trial€court,€attempted€rape,Ïaggravated€sexual€battery,€attempted€aggravated€sexual€battery,€sexual€battery,€and€attemptedÏsexual€battery€are€lesser€grades€or€classes€of€offenses€of€attempted€aggravated€rape.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„501€to€„522.€€For€the€same€reasons€described€hereinabove,€assault€is€neitherÏa€lesser€grade€of€offense€or€a€lesser€included€offense.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òDecemberÏ29,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman(83•$§§Ý ƒr+!ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÝ  Ý {Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€#ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝI€filed€a€dissent€from€the€majority€decision€in€òòBobo›óó,€on€the€basis€that€adoption€of€aÏprocedural€rule,€rather€than€an€automatic€rule€of€reversal,€would€better€address€the€question€ofÏwhether€a€regular€juror€may€be€replaced€with€an€alternate€after€deliberations€have€begun.€€TheÏcircumstances€of€this€case€again€illustrate€the€need€for€a€procedural€rule€in€this€area€to€promoteÏjudicial€efficiency€and€consistency.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`%%%%'ÿÿdxdStyl{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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Òc:\wpwin60\template\memo\memo1.wpt)Hairline dF>> 4_HeadingsHeadingsÔ‡FXzXXXÔÔ‡Fò¤òXXzÔÔ‡FXzXXXÔÔ‡Fò¤òXXzÔ(82•$¢¢Ý ƒr+!ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÝ  Ý÷ÿdÿÿÿd@)A6A<< CÿÿLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó óC)DEAýÿ<< Cÿÿ„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$••ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'ÈÈÈÈdxd0²ž]A ‹Arial Bold- ù-€)‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÑ  ћрÑÑ7€GXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑØ ØÓ&€XÐd&Ӝـ€ÙßR€'(&A1-j|` à. `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌœà@ àAT›€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€ò òòòFOR€PUBLICATIONó óóóÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àœò òòòFiled:€€December€29,€1997ó ó›óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€HAMILTON€CRIMINALÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€DOUGLAS€A.€MEYER,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà à€€€€€JUDGEÌJOHNNY€LEE€CLEVELAND,€III,à àà à)Ìa/k/a€AKEM€ISMIL€FUGUAN,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellee.à àà àà à)à àNo.€03„S„01„9612„CR„00118ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€Appellant:à àà àà àà àà àFor€Appellee:ó óóóÌÌJohn€Knox€Walkupà àà àà àà àà àArdena€J.€GarthÌAttorney€General€&€Reporter€€€€€à àà àà àDistrict€Public€DefenderÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌMichael€E.€Mooreà àà àà àà àà àDonna€Robinson€MillerÌSolicitor€Generalà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Public€DefenderÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TennesseeÌDarian€B.€TaylorÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌNashville,€TennesseeÌÌòòœAt€Trial:óóÌWilliam›€H.€CoxÌDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌH.€C.€BrightÌAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌChattanooga,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÔ€#„Ôò òà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÔ€#XÔÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àANDERSON,€C.J.ÇÓÓà àThe€primary€issue€presented€in€this€appeal€of€a€conviction€for€attemptedÏaggravated€rape€is€whether€the€absence€of€a€juror€during€a€portion€of€theÏclosing€argument€was€harmless€error,€or€whether€it€was€prejudicial€to€theÏjudicial€process€and€required€a€new€trial.€€€A€secondary€issue€is€whether€the€trialÏcourt€should€have€instructed€the€jury€that€aggravated€assault€is€a€lesserÏincluded€offense€of€attempted€aggravated€rape.ÌÌà àAt€the€beginning€of€the€second€day€of€trial,€the€trial€judge€replaced€aÏmissing€juror€with€an€alternate€juror.€€When€the€missing€juror€appeared€duringÏclosing€argument,€the€judge€removed€the€alternate€juror€and€replaced€him€withÏthe€original€missing€juror.€€No€objection€was€made.€€Thereafter,€the€jury,€as€thenÏconstituted,€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€attempted€aggravated€rape.€€ÌÌà àThe€absent€juror€issue€was€first€raised€on€appeal,€after€which€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals€found€that€the€jurorððs€absence€was€plain€error€and€not€subjectÏto€harmless€error€analysis.€€The€court€also€found€that€the€trial€court€should€haveÏinstructed€the€jury€that€aggravated€assault€was€a€lesser€included€offense€ofÏattempted€aggravated€rape.€€As€a€result,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€reversedÏand€remanded€the€case€for€a€new€trial.€€The€State€appealed.ÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record€and€relevant€authorities,€we€conclude€that€theÏjurorððs€absence€during€closing€argument€was€a€fundamental€defect€in€theÍstructure€of€the€trial€mechanism€under€article€I,€ðð€6€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution,€and€was€prejudicial€to€the€judicial€process.€€We€therefore€agreeÏwith€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€harmless€error€analysis€is€not€available,Ïand€that€a€new€trial€is€required.€€€We€also€conclude€that€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals€was€incorrect€in€finding€that€the€trial€court€should€have€instructed€thatÏthe€offense€of€aggravated€assault€was€a€lesser€included€offense€of€attemptedÏaggravated€rape.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsððÏjudgment€as€modified.ÌÌà@ àò òòòBACKGROUNDó óóóÌà àThe€defendant,€Johnny€Cleveland,€age€23,€and€the€female€victim,€age€66,Ïlived€in€the€same€neighborhood€and€were€acquainted.€€One€day€they€met€on€theÏstreet€and€the€victim€agreed€to€show€Cleveland€where€she€lived.€€After€theyÏentered€the€victimððs€apartment,€Cleveland€attacked€the€victim,€threw€her€to€theÏfloor,€and€forcibly€removed€her€clothes.€€Cleveland€threatened€to€kill€the€victimÏwith€a€large€fork,€but€during€the€struggle€she€was€able€to€trigger€an€alarm.€€WhenÏresponding€maintenance€workers€heard€the€victim€cry€out,€they€entered€andÏescorted€the€naked€Cleveland€out€of€the€apartment.ÌÌà àAs€a€result€of€the€foregoing€events,€the€defendant€was€indicted€on€oneÏcount€of€attempted€aggravated€rape€for€ð ðunlawfully,€forcibly€or€coercivelyÏattempt[ing]€to€engage€in€sexual€penetration€with€[the€victim],€while€.€.€.€armedÍwith€a€weapon€or€an€article€used€or€fashioned€in€a€manner€to€lead€the€victim€toÏbelieve€it€to€be€a€weapon.ðð€ÌÌà àAt€trial,€the€prosecution€presented€all€its€proof€on€the€first€day€of€trial€andÏrested.€€€At€the€beginning€of€the€second€day€of€trial,€one€of€the€jurors€wasÏmissing,€and€the€trial€court€picked€an€alternate.× ƒ* ××  ×€€The€defense€then€restedÏwithout€presenting€any€evidence,€and€the€prosecution€began€its€initial€closingÏargument.€€€The€missing€juror€entered€the€courtroom€during€the€argument.€€TheÏfollowing€exchange€occurred€between€the€prosecutor€and€the€trial€judge:ÌÌà8 àMr.€Bright:à àYour€Honor,€do€I€need€to€start€over?ÌÓÓà8 àThe€Court:à àYeah,€I€guess€you€really€need€to€start€over€since€he€is€à8 àà8 ànow€present.ÌÌÓÓà8 àMr.€Bright:à àI€tell€you€what,€Iððll€let€the€other€jurors€tell€him€about€it.Ìà8 àThe€Court:à àOkay.ÌÌWhen€closing€arguments€were€finished,€the€trial€court€replaced€the€alternateÏjuror€with€the€original€juror.€€No€objection€was€made€to€this€procedure€by€theÏdefendant.€€The€trial€court€then€instructed€the€jury€on€attempted€aggravatedÏrape,€for€which€he€had€been€indicted,€and€on€a€number€of€other€offenses€„„€i.e.,Ïattempted€rape,€sexual€battery,€attempted€sexual€battery,€aggravated€sexualÍbattery,€attempted€aggravated€sexual€battery,€and€assault€„„€but€did€not€instruct,Ïas€requested,€that€the€offense€of€aggravated€assault€was€a€lesser€includedÏoffense€of€attempted€aggravated€rape.€€The€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€ofÏattempted€aggravated€rape.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€contended€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€thatÏthe€trial€court€was€in€error€for€not€granting€the€requested€instruction,€but€did€notÏraise€the€absent€juror€issue.€€The€trial€court€overruled€the€motion.ÌÌà àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€however,€reversed€the€conviction€andÏremanded€for€a€new€trial,€finding€that€the€absence€of€a€juror€was€plain€error€thatÏcould€not€be€subjected€to€harmless€error€analysis.€€The€court€also€found€that€theÏtrial€court€should€have€instructed€the€jury€that€the€offense€of€aggravated€assaultÏwas€a€lesser€included€offense€of€attempted€aggravated€rape.ÌÌà àWe€granted€the€Stateððs€application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€reviewÏthese€two€important€issues.× ƒ+ ××  ×€Çà@ àò òòòABSENT€JURORó óóóÌà àThe€trial€courtððs€action€in€first€discharging€an€original€absent€juror€andÏreplacing€him€with€an€alternate€juror,€and€then€reversing€course€when€theÏoriginal€juror€appeared,€followed€no€recognized€procedural€course€and€resultedÏin€the€original€juror€missing€a€part€of€the€trial.€€The€State€agrees€this€is€error,€butÏcontends€it€is€harmless€because€no€prejudice€to€the€defendant€has€been€shown.€ÏIn€order€to€determine€whether€the€error€is€subject€to€harmless€error€analysis,€weÏfirst€review€the€scope€of€the€right€to€trial€by€jury.ÌÌà àThe€right€to€trial€by€jury€is€a€fundamental€right€preserved€by€article€I,€ðð€6€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Constitution€and€has€ð ðspecial€resonance€in€criminal€matters.ðð€ÏòòRicketts€v.€Carteróó,€918€S.W.2d€419,€424€(Tenn.€1996).€€It€includes€the€right€toÏhave€a€unanimous€jury€verdict.€€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€851€S.W.2d€134,€137€(Tenn.Ï1993).€€It€also€includes€the€right€to€have€every€fact€tried€and€determined€byÏtwelve€jurors€and€to€have€all€issues€of€fact€submitted€to€the€same€jury€at€theÏsame€time.€€òòState€v.€Boboóó,€814€S.W.2d€353,€356€(Tenn.€1991);€òòWillard€v.€Stateóó,Ï174€Tenn.€642,€130€S.W.€99€(1939).€ÌÌà àClosing€argument€assists€the€jury€in€determining€the€facts.€€The€purposeÏof€summation€is€to€allow€each€side€ð ðto€assist€the€jury€in€analyzing,€evaluating,Ïand€applying€the€evidenceðð€and€it€ð ðincludes€counselððs€right€to€state€hisÏcontention€as€to€the€conclusion€that€the€jury€should€draw€from€the€evidence.ðð€€ÍòòUnited€States€v.€Garzaóó,€608€F.2d€659€(5th€Cir.€1979);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€29.1;€òòseeóóÏòòalsoóó€Sonsteng€and€Haydock,€òòTrialbookóó,€ðð3.02€(purposes€include€summarizingÏfactual€theories,€significance€of€evidence,€reasonable€inferences,€and€legalÏtheories).€€Courts€have€recognized€that€closing€argument€is€a€valuable€privilegeÏafforded€to€the€State€and€the€defense€and€have€afforded€wide€latitude€toÏcounsel€in€arguing€their€cases€to€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€809Ï(Tenn.€1994).€€ÌÌà àOnce€a€jury€is€impaneled,€jurors€may€be€discharged€from€further€serviceÏprior€to€deliberations€only€if€found€by€the€trial€court€to€be€ð ðunable€or€disqualifiedÏto€perform€their€duties.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€24(e);€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„2„312€(1994).€€Although€the€decision€to€discharge€a€juror€and€to€select€anÏalternate€juror€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge,€òòState€v.€Millbrooksóó,€819ÏS.W.2d€441,€445€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991),€€there€is€no€recognized€procedure,Ïstatutory€or€otherwise,€for€discharging€a€juror,€selecting€an€alternate,€and€thenÏreinstating€the€original€discharged€juror€who€has€missed€a€portion€of€the€trial,€asÏoccurred€in€this€case.€€Accordingly,€the€judgeððs€action€was€error.ÌÌà àThe€primary€question€we€must€answer€is€whether€the€error€is€subject€toÏharmless€error€analysis.€€€In€òòState€v.€Boboóó,€we€said€that€the€trial€courtððs€error€inÏreplacing€a€member€of€the€jury€with€an€alternate€juror€after€the€jury€had€begunÏdeliberating€in€violation€of€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€24(e),€ð ðreache[d]€past€the€statutoryÍand€procedural€framework€of€our€criminal€justice€system€and€encroache[d]€uponÏcertain€basic€constitutional€guarantees€under€article€I,€ðð€6€of€our€Constitution.ðð€€ÏWe€compared€a€violation€of€the€right€to€a€trial€by€jury€to€a€violation€of€the€right€toÏcounsel€or€the€right€to€an€impartial€judge,€that€is,€a€ð ðdefect[€]€in€the€structure€ofÏthe€trial€mechanismðð€which€prejudices€the€judicial€process.€€We€held,€therefore,Ïthat€such€an€error€ð ðdef[ies]€harmless€error€analysisðð€and€requires€ð ðautomaticÏreversal.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€357„58.€€€€ÌÌà àThe€State€argues€that,€unlike€òòBoboóó,€the€error€here€occurred€before€theÏjury€deliberated,€and€that€the€defendant,€who€did€not€object€to€the€jurorððsÏabsence€at€trial,€failed€to€show€actual€prejudice€because€the€juror€heard€all€ofÏthe€evidence€and€missed€only€a€portion€of€closing€argument.× ƒ, ××  ×€€The€StateÏcontends€this€case€is€controlled€by€òòState€v.€Chestnutóó,€643€S.W.2d€343€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1982),€in€which€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€held€that€there€was€noÏindication€that€the€defendant€had€been€prejudiced€when€a€sleeping€jurorÏmissed€five€minutes€of€testimony.Ìà àÌà àIn€our€view€the€error€so€fundamentally€prejudices€the€judicial€process€thatÏwe€do€not€reach€the€question€of€whether€the€error€was€harmless€and€whetherÏthere€was€actual€prejudice.€€By€first€discharging€and€then€reinstating€the€originalÍjuror,€the€jury€included€a€member€who€missed€a€portion€of€the€proceedings.€€TheÏright€to€trial€by€a€jury€of€twelve€members€must€be€ð ðpreserved€inviolate.ðð€€òòBoboóó,Ï814€S.W.2d€at€357.€€The€right,€therefore,€requires€that€every€effort€must€be€madeÏto€maintain€the€integrity€of€the€juryððs€deliberations.€€For€example,€the€trial€judgeÏcould€easily€have€prevented€the€error€in€this€case€by€waiting€for€the€absent€jurorÏto€show€up€or€by€discharging€the€absent€juror€and€proceeding€with€an€alternate.€€ÌÌà àIn€dissent,€Justice€Drowota,€while€acknowledging€the€presence€of€error,Ïcontends€that€the€error€was€harmless€because€the€defendant€failed€to€showÏprejudice€from€the€jurorððs€absence€during€a€short€portion€of€the€prosecutionððsÏclosing€argument.€€Requiring€such€a€showing,€however,€would€amount€to€an€allÏbut€impossible€burden€for€a€defendant€to€meet€in€most€cases€and€require€sheerÏspeculation€as€to€the€effect€of€a€jurorððs€absence.€€Moreover,€the€dissent€missesÏthe€fundamental€point€that€each€juror€in€a€jury€of€twelve€must€be€present€forÏevery€stage€of€the€proceedings€to€ð ðpreserve€inviolateðð€the€constitutional€right€toÏa€jury€trial.€€Instead,€the€dissentððs€view€merely€endorses€the€presence€of€aÏfundamental€error€without€a€principled€harmless€error€analysis€or€a€practicalÏremedy.€€€ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€error€in€this€case€implicated€the€fundamental€rightÏto€trial€by€jury€under€article€I,€ðð€6€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€and€constitutedÏa€defect€in€the€trial€mechanism€that€defies€harmless€error€analysis.€€Moreover,Íthe€error€is€one€that€not€only€affects€the€substantial€rights€of€the€accused€but€alsoÏresults€in€prejudice€to€the€judicial€process€as€a€whole.€€òòState€v.€Onidasóó,€635ÏS.W.2d€516€(Tenn.€1982);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ï52(b).€€We€therefore€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€conclusion€thatÏthe€trial€judgeððs€action€was€plain€error€which€violated€the€defendantððsÏconstitutional€right€to€trial€by€jury€and€was,€therefore,€not€subject€to€harmlessÏerror€analysis.€€The€only€remedy€was€a€new€trial.ÌÌà@ àò òòòLESSER€OFFENSESó óóóÌà àThe€trial€judge€refused€to€instruct€the€jury€that€aggravated€assault€was€aÏlesser€included€offense€of€attempted€aggravated€rape.€€The€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals€concluded€that€was€error,€and€the€defendant€urges€us€to€agree.€€InÏorder€to€answer€the€question,€we€must€examine€the€statutes€and€case€law€toÏdetermine€the€appropriate€test€for€deciding€whether€one€offense€is€necessarilyÏincluded€in€another.€€ÌÌà àTo€satisfy€constitutional€standards,€an€indictment€or€presentment€mustÏprovide€notice€of€the€offense€charged,€an€adequate€basis€for€entry€of€a€properÏjudgment,€and€suitable€protection€against€double€jeopardy.€€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,€820ÏS.W.2d€739,€741€(Tenn.€1991).€€As€a€result,€a€defendant€cannot€legally€beÏconvicted€of€an€offense€which€is€not€charged€in€the€indictment€or€which€is€not€aÍlesser€offense€embraced€in€the€indictment.€€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€305,Ï310€(Tenn.€1996).ÌÌà àOur€legislature€has€said€that€ð ðin€cases€of€criminal€prosecution€for€anyÏfelony€wherein€two€(2)€or€more€grades€or€classes€of€offenses€may€be€included€inÏthe€indictment,ðð€a€trial€judge€has€the€duty€to€ð ðcharge€the€jury€as€to€all€of€the€lawÏof€each€offense€included€in€the€indictment,€without€any€request€on€the€part€of€theÏdefendant€to€do€so.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„110€(1990).€€This€duty,€therefore,Ïextends€to€two€types€of€lesser€offenses€that€may€be€included€in€an€indictment:€aÏlesser€ð ðgrade€or€classðð€of€offense,€and€a€ð ðlesser€includedðð€offense.€€òòTrustyóó,€919ÏS.W.2d€at€311.€€€ÌÌà àA€lesser€ð ðgrade€or€classðð€of€offense€is€established€by€the€legislature€andÏis€determined€simply€by€looking€at€the€offenses€set€forth€in€a€statutory€chapterÏand€part.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„101€through€„107Ï(1991)(ð ðassaultive€offensesðð).€€In€contrast,€an€offense€is€ð ðlesser€includedðð€inÏanother€ð ðonly€if€the€elements€of€the€greater€offense,€as€those€elements€are€setÏforth€in€the€indictment,€include€but€are€not€congruent€with,€all€the€elements€of€theÏlesser.ðð€€òòTrustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€310„311€(quoting€òòHoward€v.€Stateóó,€578€S.W.2dÏ83,€85€(Tenn.€1979));€òòseeóó€òòalsoóóTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€31.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€trial€court€must€instruct€the€jury€on€all€lesser€grades€orÏclasses€of€offenses€and€all€lesser€included€offenses€if€the€evidence€will€supportÏa€conviction€for€the€offenses.€€The€instructions€preserve€a€defendantððs€right€toÏfair€and€reasonable€notice€of€the€charges€and€allow€the€jury€to€consider€allÏrelevant€offenses€in€determining€the€appropriate€offense€for€conviction.€€Finally,Ïð ðallowing€consideration€of€the€lesser€included€offenses€and€the€offenses€ofÏlesser€grades€and€classes,€if€the€evidence€supports€guilt€on€those€offenses,Ïmore€evenly€balances€the€rights€of€the€defense€and€the€prosecution€and€servesÏthe€interests€of€justice.ðð€€òòTrustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€311.ÌÌà àHere,€aggravated€assault€is€not€a€lesser€grade€or€class€of€attemptedÏaggravated€rape.€€The€legislature€has€included€aggravated€assault€among€theÏð ðassaultive€offensesðð€set€forth€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„101€through€„107,Ïwhile€aggravated€rape€is€among€the€ð ðsexual€offensesðð€listed€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðððð€30„13„501€through€„522.€€Moreover,€an€attempted€crime,€as€charged€here,€isÏan€inchoate€offense,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„101€(1990),€while€aggravatedÏassault€is€an€offense€carried€to€completion.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó,€òòTrustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€312Ï(aggravated€assault€not€a€lesser€grade€of€attempted€first„degree€murder).ÌÌà àWhether€aggravated€assault€is€a€lesser€included€offense€in€attemptedÏaggravated€rape€is€a€more€complex€question.€€The€indictment€charged€theÏdefendant€with€ð ðunlawfully,€forcibly,€or€coercively€attempt[ing]€to€engage€inÍsexual€penetration€with€[the€victim],€while€[he€was]€armed€with€a€weapon€or€anÏarticle€used€or€fashioned€in€a€manner€to€lead€the€victim€to€believe€it€to€be€aÏweapon.ðð€€The€offense€of€attempted€aggravated€rape€therefore€required€theÏfollowing€elements:€1)€the€defendant€acted€with€a€culpable€mental€state,€i.e.,Ïintentionally,€knowingly,€or€recklessly;€2)€the€defendant€engaged€in€conductÏconstituting€a€substantial€step€toward€commission€of€the€crime,€i.e.,€attempted€toÏforcibly€or€coercively€engage€in€sexual€penetration;€and€3)€the€defendant€used€aÏweapon€or€any€article€used€or€fashioned€in€a€manner€to€lead€the€victim€toÏbelieve€it€to€be€a€weapon.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„301€(culpable€mentalÏstate);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„101€(attempt);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„502Ï(aggravated€rape).€ÌÌà àAggravated€assault,€on€the€other€hand,€requires€proof€of€an€assaultÏcombined€with€either€serious€bodily€injury€or€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon.€€Thus,Ïit€requires€one€of€the€following€combinations€of€elements:€1)€a€defendant€who,Ïacting€intentionally,€knowingly,€or€recklessly,€causes€bodily€injury€to€anotherÏand€either€uses€a€deadly€weapon€or€causes€serious€bodily€injury;€2)€aÏdefendant€who,€acting€intentionally€or€knowingly,€causes€another€to€reasonablyÏfear€imminent€bodily€injury€and€either€uses€a€deadly€weapon€or€causes€seriousÏbodily€injury;€or€3)€a€defendant€who,€acting€intentionally€or€knowingly,€causesÏphysical€contact€with€another€that€a€reasonable€person€would€regard€asÍextremely€offensive€or€provocative,€and€either€uses€a€deadly€weapon€or€causesÏserious€bodily€injury.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„101(a)€and€„102(a)(1).ÌÌà àA€close€analysis€of€these€elements€reveals€that€aggravated€assault€is€notÏa€lesser€included€offense€of€attempted€aggravated€rape,€as€charged€in€theÏindictment.€€Each€form€of€aggravated€assault€contains€at€least€one€element€thatÏis€not€òònecessarilyóóincluded€in€the€offense€of€attempted€aggravated€rape,€and,Ïtherefore,€not€charged€in€the€indictment€in€this€case:€bodily€injury,€reasonableÏfear€of€imminent€bodily€injury,€or€physical€contact€a€reasonable€person€wouldÏregard€as€extremely€offensive€or€provocative.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„101(a)(1)„(3).€€Although€we€recognize€that€any€or€all€of€these€elements€may€andÏoften€do€accompany€an€attempted€aggravated€rape,€that€does€not€satisfy€the€testÏfor€a€lesser€included€offense€under€the€òòTrustyóó/òòHowardóóanalysis.€€€ÌÌà àThe€defendantððs€argument,€as€well€as€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsððÏanalysis,€emphasizes€that€the€evidence€presented€in€this€case€by€the€State€wasÏsufficient€to€support€a€conviction€for€aggravated€assault.× ƒ- ××  ×€€We€do€not€disagree;€inÏfact,€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€a€separate€count€in€the€indictment€forÏaggravated€assault€had€the€prosecutor€chosen€to€pursue€such€a€charge.€€YetÏthe€sufficiency€or€weight€of€the€evidence€is€not€the€test€for€determining€if€oneÍoffense€is€necessarily€included€in€another€offense.€€Instead,€to€preserve€aÏdefendantððs€right€to€receive€fair€and€reasonable€notice€of€the€charges,€and€alsoÏto€ensure€the€prosecutionððs€right€to€seek€charges€on€the€offenses€it€deemsÏappropriate,€the€focus€must€be€placed€on€the€elements€of€each€offense€and€theÏallegations€in€the€indictment.€€€òòHowardóó,€578€S.W.2d€at€84.€€ÌÌà àWe€conclude,€therefore,€that€aggravated€assault€is€not€a€lesser€grade€or€a€Ïlesser€included€offense€of€attempted€aggravated€rape.€€The€trial€court€properlyÏrefused€to€instruct€on€the€offense.× ƒ. ××  ×ÌÌà@ àò òòòCONCLUSIONó óóóÌà àWe€have€determined€that€the€absence€of€a€juror€for€a€portion€of€the€trialÏviolates€the€fundamental€right€to€a€trial€by€jury€as€provided€in€article€I,€ðð€6€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution€and€is€a€defect€in€the€structure€of€the€trial€mechanismÏwhich€prejudices€the€judicial€process.€€€Such€an€error€is€not€subject€to€harmlessÏerror€analysis€and€requires€automatic€reversal€and€a€new€trial.€€We€have€alsoÏdetermined€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€theÏoffense€of€aggravated€assault.€€We€therefore€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Court€ofÍCriminal€Appeals€as€modified.€€The€costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€State€ofÏTennessee.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRILEY€ANDERSON,€CHIEF€JUSTICEÌÌÌò òCONCUR:ó ó€€ÌÌReid,€Birch€and€Holder,€JJ.ÌÌDrowota,€J.,€dissenting€„€see€separate€œdissentÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÑ  ÑÑ , ÑÑ ` ÑÑ€GÑÑ7€n«XXdæXXdð7ÑØ ØÓ&€XÐd&ÓßJ€'/;+'b|` (# `€@ÿJß›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àà àà àà àAppellant,à àà àà àà à)à à€œò òFiled:ó ó›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHAMILTON€CRIMINALà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌJOHNNY€LEE€CLEVELAND,€III,à àà à)à à€Hon.€Douglas€A.ÏMeyerà àà àa/k/a€œAKEM›€œISMIL›€œFUGUAN›,à àà à)à à€€€€€€€€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee.à àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€œ03S01›„9612„CR„00118à àœ›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€€€ÌÔ€0ÔœÌÌÌÌÓÓÔ€#Ô›à@ àòòò òCONCURRING/DISSENTING€OPINIONó óóóÌà àI€fully€concur€in€the€majorityððs€decision€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€inÏrefusing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€elements€of€aggravated€assault€since€it€isÏneither€a€lesser€grade€nor€lesser€included€offense€of€attempted€aggravated€rape.€ÏHowever,€I€dissent€from€the€majorityððs€conclusion€that€the€jurorððs€absence€œduringÏa€portion€of€the€Stateððs€initial›€closing€argument€was€a€fundamental€defect€in€theÏtrial€mechanism€under€Article€I,€ðð€6€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€which€is€notÏsubject€œto€a›€harmless€error€analysis€and€which€was€prejudicial€to€the€judicialÏprocess.€€For€the€reasons€that€follow,€I€am€of€the€opinion€that€harmless€errorÍanalysis€applies€and€that€neither€the€defendant,€nor€the€judicial€process€wereÏprejudiced€by€the€error€in€this€case.ÌÌà@ àòòò òAPPLICABILITY€OF€HARMLESS€ERROR€ANALYSISóóó óÌà àœSince›€there€is€no€recognized€procedure€for€discharging€or€replacing€aÏjuror,€selecting€an€alternate,€and€then€reinstating€the€original€discharged€orÏabsent€juror,€the€State€concedes€that€the€action€of€the€trial€court€was€error.€ÏHowever,€the€State€argues€that€the€error€was€harmless.€€Relying€upon€òòState€v.ÏœBobo›óó,€814€œS.W.2d›€353€(Tenn.€1991),€the€majority€holds€that€the€error€implicatesÏthe€fundamental€right€to€trial€by€jury€under€Article€I,€ðð€6€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution€and€constitutes€a€defect€in€the€structure€of€the€trial€mechanism€whichÏis€not€subject€to€harmless€error€analysis.€€I€disagree.ÌÌà àArticle€I,€ðð€6€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€provides€that€the€right€of€trial€byÏjury€must€be€preserved€inviolate,€which€means€that€the€right€must€be€preservedÏas€it€existed€at€common€law€at€the€time€of€the€adoption€of€the€constitution.€€òòœBobo›óó,Ï814€œS.W.2d›€at€356.€€Encompassed€within€the€right€to€trial€by€jury€are€the€followingÍprinciples:€(1)€every€fact€must€be€tried€and€determined€by€twelve€jurors;€(2)€allÏissues€of€fact€must€be€submitted€to€the€same€jury€at€the€same€œtime;€and›€(3)€theÏjury€verdict€must€be€unanimous.€òòIdóó.;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòWillard€v.€Stateóó,€174€Tenn.€642,€130ÏœS.W.›€99€(1939);€òòState€v.€œShelton›óó,€851€œS.W.2d›€134,€137€(Tenn.€1993).€€€ÌÌà àIn€òòœBobo›óó,€two€of€these€principles€were€compromised€when€the€trial€judgeÏreplaced€one€of€the€regular€jurors€with€a€previously€discharged€alternate€jurorÏafter€deliberations€had€begun.€€The€error€was€compounded€because€the€trialÏjudge€failed€to€instruct€the€jury€to€begin€deliberations€anew.€€Recognizing€thatÏthere€was€no€procedural€rule€in€place€to€govern€the€replacement€of€a€regularÏjuror€after€deliberations€had€begun,€this€Court€held€that€the€defendantððs€stateÏconstitutional€right€to€a€trial€by€jury€had€been€violated€by€the€trial€courtððs€action.€ÏDetermining€that€the€error€amounted€to€a€defect€in€the€structure€of€the€trialÏmechanism€which€is€not€subject€to€harmless€error€analysis,€this€Court€reversedÍthe€conviction€and€adopted€œa›€rule€œof€automatic›€reversal€when€a€regular€juror€isÏreplaced€with€an€alternate€after€deliberations€have€begun.œ× ƒ2 ××  ×›ÌÌà àContrary€to€the€majorityððs€conclusion,€òòœBobo›óó€clearly€does€not€control€theÏoutcome€of€this€case.€€Here,€the€substitution€and€reinstatement€occurred€beforeÏdeliberations€œbegan.›€€The€regular€juror€was€absent€only€œduring€a€portion€of›€theÏStateððs€initial€closing€statement.€€The€juror€did€not€miss€any€portion€of€the€proof.€ÏThe€defendantððs€right€to€a€trial€by€jury€was€not€violated€in€this€case.€€Every€factÏwas€tried€and€determined€by€the€same€twelve€jurors€at€the€same€time,€and€theÏverdict€was€unanimous.€€Although€closing€argument€is€a€valuable€privilege€forÏboth€the€State€and€the€defense,€it€is€just€that,€a€òòprivilegeóó.€€òòœCf›óó.€òòCone€v.€Stateóó,€747ÏœS.W.2d›€353,€357€(Tenn.€œCrim›.€œApp›.€1987)€(defense€counsel€waived€closingÏargument).€€Closing€argument€is€not€part€of€the€constitutional€right€to€a€trial€byÏjury.€€Moreover,€statements€of€counsel€during€closing€argument€are€not€evidence.€€ÍòòState€v.€Woodsóó,€806€œS.W.2d›€205,€211€(Tenn.€œCrim›.€œApp›.€1990).€€Indeed,€jurors€inÏthis€State€are€routinely€instructed€that€statements€of€counsel€are€not€evidenceÏand€should€be€disregarded€if€not€supported€by€the€proof.€œT.P.I.›„œCrim›.€ðð€1.07€(œ3rd›Ïed.€1992).€€In€fact,€the€jurors€in€this€case€were€so€instructed.€€Accordingly,€in€myÏview,€the€error€in€this€case€does€not€implicate€the€defendantððs€right€to€a€jury€trialÏand€therefore€is€not€controlled€by€the€rule€of€automatic€reversal€announced€inÏòòœBobo›óó.ÌÌà àMore€closely€resembling€the€circumstances€of€this€case€in€my€view€are€theÏfacts€of€òòState€v.€Chestnutóó,€643€œS.W.2d›€343€(Tenn.€œCrim›.€œApp›.€1982),€òòpermóó.€òòappóó.Ïòòdeniedóó.€10/4/82.€€There,€three€of€the€jurors€had€difficulty€staying€awake€during€theÏtestimony€of€one€of€the€witnesses.€€The€trial€judge€declared€a€recess€and€sent€theÏjurors€from€the€courtroom€when€he€noticed€one€of€the€jurors€sleeping.€€CounselÏfor€both€sides€were€informed€of€the€trial€courtððs€observation.€€The€record€revealedÏthat€the€juror€had€slept€through€five€minutes€of€proof.€€Despite€the€fact€that€theÏjuror€had€actually€missed€five€minutes€of€proof,€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÏapplied€a€harmless€error€analysis€and€affirmed€the€verdict€of€the€jury.€€In€soÍholding,€the€intermediate€court€noted€that€counsel€for€the€defendant€did€not€seekÏto€have€the€sleeping€juror€replaced€with€the€alternate€juror€who€had€been€awake.€ÌÌà àApplication€of€the€harmless€error€analysis€to€the€facts€of€this€case€likewiseÏcompel€the€conclusion€that€the€defendant€was€not€prejudiced€by€the€trial€courtððsÏerror€in€this€case.€€€Indeed,€the€error€in€this€case€actually€may€have€inured€to€theÏbenefit€of€the€defendant€since€the€juror€missed€œonly€a€portion€of€the›€Stateððs€initialÏclosing€argument.€€Though€the€parties€in€this€case€apparently€agree€that€the€jurorÏmissed€twenty€minutes€of€argument,€it€is€difficult€to€conceive€how€the€argument,Ïwhich€is€contained€in€two€pages€of€transcript,€could€have€taken€twenty€minutes.€InÏany€event,€the€State€was€given€the€opportunity€to€repeat€its€closing€argumentÏwhen€the€juror€arrived,€but€declined€to€do€so.€€€As€previously€stated,€theÏstatements€of€counsel€during€closing€argument€are€not€evidence.€€Though€it€is€aÏprivilege,€closing€argument€may€be€waived.€€Although€a€finding€of€prejudiceÏmight€be€justified€if€the€juror€had€missed€the€defendantððs€closing€argument,€theÏdefendant€certainly€has€suffered€no€prejudice€from€the€fact€that€the€juror€wasÏabsent€during€œa€portion€of€the›€Stateððs€initial€closing€argument.€ÌÌà àMoreover,€contrary€to€the€majorityððs€holding,€the€error€did€not€result€inÏprejudice€to€the€judicial€process.€€Though€the€actions€of€the€trial€court€in€this€caseÏwere€error,€this€was€an€isolated€incident.€€There€is€nothing€in€the€record€toÏsuggest€that€the€trial€court€routinely€substitutes€alternate€jurors€and€thenÏsubsequently€reinstates€the€absent€regular€juror.€€This€is€not€a€case€which€isÏillustrative€of€an€ongoing€erroneous€practice€which€might€constitute€prejudice€toÏthe€judicial€process.€€òòCompareóó€òòState€v.€Colemanóó,€865€œS.W.2d›€455€(Tenn.€1993)Ï(trial€court€consistently€did€not€strictly€follow€procedural€rules€regarding€juryÏselection,€yet€this€Court€only€cautioned€that€further€deviation€could€result€inÏprejudice€to€the€judicial€process).€€In€fact,€the€trial€judge€in€this€case€was€careful€toÏpoint€out€that€the€absent€juror€missed€only€œa€portion€of€the›€Stateððs€initial€closingÏargument€and€òònoóó€proof.€€Therefore,€in€my€view,€the€error€did€not€result€inÏprejudice€to€the€judicial€process.€€ÌÌà àAlso€œsignificant›€is€that€the€defendant€in€this€case,€as€in€òòChestnutóó,€œdid›€notÏcontemporaneously€object€to€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€reinstate€the€juror€whoÍarrived€œlate,›€which€œhe›€now€œchallenges›€as€error€on€appeal.€€Indeed,€the€issue€wasÏnot€raised€in€the€defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial,€and€in€fact,€was€raised€for€theÏfirst€time€on€appeal€to€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.€€Generally,€a€defendantððsÏfailure€to€timely€object€to€an€error€constitutes€a€waiver€of€appellate€review€of€theÏissue.€€œTenn.R.App.P.›€3(e);€13(b)€&€36(a).€€Rule€36(a),€œTenn.R.App.P.›,€specificallyÏdirects€that€relief€on€appeal€need€not€be€granted€ð ðto€a€party€responsible€for€anÏerror€or€[to€a€party]€who€failed€to€take€whatever€action€was€reasonably€availableÏto€prevent€or€nullify€the€harmful€effect€of€an€error.ðð€€Although€appellate€courtsÏhave€the€discretion€under€Rule€52(b),€Tenn.€R.€œCrim›.€P.,€and€€Rule€13(b),ÏœTenn.R.App.P.›,€€to€grant€relief€for€plain€error,€even€if€the€error€has€not€beenÏpreserved€for€appellate€review,€this€is€an€extraordinary€remedy€which€should€beÏapplied€sparingly€as€is€clearly€stated€in€the€Advisory€Commission€Comments€toÏRule€13,€Tenn.€R.€œApp›.€P.€€Because€the€error€in€this€case€neither€affected€theÏsubstantial€rights€of€the€accused,€nor€resulted€in€prejudice€to€the€judicial€process,Ïthis€is€not€an€appropriate€case€for€application€of€the€plain€error€doctrine.€ÏTherefore,€in€my€view,€the€error€was€actually€waived,€and€appellate€review€of€theÍissue€is€not€available.€€However,€even€considering€the€merits€of€the€œclaim,›€as€theÏmajority€does,€I€am€of€the€opinion€the€error€was€harmless.ÌÌà@ àòòò òCONCLUSIONóóó óÌà àFor€the€reasons€previously€stated,€I€dissent€from€the€majorityððs€conclusionÏthat€the€jurorððs€absence€during€closing€argument€was€a€fundamental€defect€in€theÏtrial€mechanism€under€Article€I,€ðð€6€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€which€is€notÏsubject€to€harmless€error€analysis€and€which€was€prejudicial€to€the€judicialÏprocess.€€I€am€of€the€opinion€that€harmless€error€analysis€applies€and€that€neitherÏthe€defendant,€nor€the€judicial€process€were€prejudiced€by€the€error€in€thisÏcase.à àAccordingly,€I€would€reverse€the€decision€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÏand€reinstate€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€upholding€the€defendantððs€convictionÏœfor€attempted€aggravated€rape.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA›€III,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJUSTICEÌÌÔ€ÔÔ€Ôœ›