ÿWPCæ ;# JUNU %£ 0D©w@í4-AUFP– 0ˆž 0D& 0Jj 0T´ 0^ 0hf 0rÎ 0|@ 0†¼ 0B 1uÒ BG AQd Ƶ 0D{ 0@¿ 0Dÿ 0dC D/§ BÖ D3ó U>& U6d B)š DCà AMU*S}«“—>ÀÕv~•vÓ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(ñL$¡¡Ò°ÒÒX°Ò óôõö÷(eøeùUúDûÓ€Ýu:#½¾¿ÀÁÂÃÄÅÆÇÈ3|x<ûÎ 9Z ‹.Courier New Regular(8(3=æ$¤¤Ý ƒñL!ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d11117Border 1dd!#2Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€/ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€4ÔÔ€4ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€4XÔÌÌSeptemberÏ29,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó ¡Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€/ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÔ€0Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóRule€404€provides:ÌÌà à(b)€Other€Crimes€Wrongs,€or€Acts.€€Evidence€of€other€crimes,Ïwrongs,€or€acts€is€not€admissible€to€prove€the€character€of€aÏperson€in€order€to€show€action€in€conformity€with€the€characterÏtrait.€€It€may,€however,€be€admissible€for€other€purposes.€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€/ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÔ€0Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóRule€401€provides:€€ÌÌà àð ðRelevant€evidenceðð€means€evidence€having€any€tendency€toÏmake€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€theÏdetermination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€than€itÏwould€be€without€the€evidence.€€Ì ¶Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€/ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóRule€402€provides:ÌÌà àAll€relevant€evidence€is€admissible€except€as€provided€by€theÏConstitution€of€the€United€States,€the€Constitution€of€Tennessee,Ïthese€rules,€or€other€rules€or€laws€of€general€application€in€theÏcourts€of€Tennessee.€€Evidence€which€is€not€relevant€is€notÏadmissible.€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{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  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€/ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÝ  Ý›Ñ P ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑœÓ  ÓÔ€0ÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àFor€PublicationÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff„Appellee,à àà à)à àFiled:Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àWilliamson€CountyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌJAMES€DUBOSE,à àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Henry€Denmark€Bell,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€Ìà àDefendant„Appellant.à à)à àNo.€01„S„01„9602„CC„00029ÌÓӜـ!ÙßR€352A1-j|°þi` ‚- `€€@ÿRß›ÌÌà@ àòòDISSENTING€OPINIONóóÌà àÌà àà àThe€majority€concludes€that€before€the€narrower€test€ofÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b)× ƒ6 ××  ×€may€be€applied€to€other€crime€evidence,Ïthere€must€be€proof€that€the€other€crime€was€committed€by€theÏdefendant.€€With€this€conclusion€I€agree.€€Our€point€of€differenceÏis:€in€the€absence€of€such€proof€the€majority€would€apply€theÍbroader€test€of€relevancy€of€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401× ƒ7 ××  ×€and€402.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€BecauseÏI€do€not€agree€with€the€latter€application,€I€respectfullyÏdissent.ÌÑ7€¦(XXdÖXXdð7Ñà àà àUnder€the€majorityððs€reasoning,€Rule€404(b)€does€notÏapply€to€the€evidence€of€prior€stomach€injuries€because€theÏstomach€injuries€are€not€explicitly€attributable€to€the€defendant.€ÏRather,€the€majority€finds€this€evidence€relevant€to€cause€ofÏdeath.€€The€child€died€from€a€blow€to€the€stomach,€which€causedÏinternal€bleeding,€which€led€to€death.€€The€fact€that€scarring€inÏthe€stomach€cavity€magnified€the€effect€of€the€blow€is,€at€best,Ïslightly€probative€of€the€cause€of€death.€€Nevertheless,€the€trialÏcourt€admitted€extremely€prejudicial€evidence€of€the€prior€stomachÏinjuries.€€The€medical€examiner€testified€that€the€child€hadÍð ðrepeatedðð€injury€to€the€stomach,€and€she€testified€that€the€priorÏstomach€injuries€had€been€caused€by€a€ð ðvery€significant€force.ðð€ÏOne€purpose€of€this€testimony€was€to€imply€that€the€defendantÏoperated€the€ð ðvery€significant€force.ðð€€Even€if€that€was€not€theÏpurpose€for€admission€of€the€evidence,€it€was€most€certainly€theÏresult.€€Because€this€testimony€implicates€the€defendant,€it€isÏevidence€of€prior€acts€under€Rule€404(b)€and€should€be€measuredÏagainst€the€standard€provided€therein.ÌÌà àà àTo€hold€Rule€404(b)€inapplicable€in€this€case€permits€anÏð ðend€runðð€around€the€general€prohibition€against€prior€crimeÏevidence.€€In€many€instances,€the€connection€between€the€priorÏcrime€and€the€defendant€is€the€very€reason€the€prosecution€seeksÏto€introduce€the€evidence.€€If€Rule€404(b)€were€to€apply€only€whenÏthe€evidence€in€question€specifically€identifies€the€defendant€asÏthe€person€responsible,€all€the€prosecution€would€need€to€do€is€beÏambiguous€and€less€forthright.€€If€evidence€that€the€defendantÏpreviously€struck€the€victim€is€inadmissible€because€it€isÏpropensity€evidence,€the€prosecution€need€only€adduce€proof€of€theÏresulting€injury,€without€naming€the€defendant,€and€invite€theÍjury€to€draw€its€own€conclusions.€€This€result€is€not€the€intentÏof€Rule€401,€402,€or€404.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€majority€also€found€the€prior€stomach€injuriesÏrelevant€because€they€demonstrate€that€the€injuries€were€causedÏintentionally€and€not€accidentally.€€However,€this€findingÏcontradicts€the€previous€finding€that€the€evidence€does€notÏidentify€the€defendant,€rendering€Rule€404€inapplicable.€€If€theÏevidence€neither€identifies€nor€implicates€the€defendant,€it€canÏnot€possibly€be€probative€of€the€defendantððs€intent€or€lack€ofÏaccident.ÌÌà àà àThe€medical€examiner€also€testified€about€prior€injuriesÏinflicted€about€the€victimððs€body€other€than€the€stomach€injuries.€ÏBecause€these€injuries€did€not€contribute€to€the€victimððs€death,€IÏam€at€odds€with€the€majorityððs€conclusion€that€such€evidence€wasÏprobative€of€the€cause€of€death.€€Rather,€the€injuries€indicateÏthat€someone€had€regularly€abused€the€child.€€The€obviousÏinference€is€the€defendant€was€that€someone.€€This€evidence€isÏclearly€other€crime€evidence€that€should€be€governed€by€RuleÏ404(b).€€ÌÌà àà àIn€my€view,€the€admissibility€of€òòallóó€testimony€regardingÏprior€injuries€is€governed€by€Rule€404(b).€€The€evidence€of€priorÏinjuries€tends€to€show€that€the€fatal€injury€was€inflicted€by€theÏdefendant€only€by€showing€that€he€had€a€propensity€to€abuse€theÏchild.€€Because€evidence€of€these€injuries€amounted€to€proof€thatÏthe€defendant€acted€in€conformity€with€previous€conduct,€in€myÏopinion€it€is€irrelevant€and€inadmissible.€€€ÌÌà àà àAccording€to€Rule€404(b),€ð ðEvidence€of€other€crimes,Ïwrongs,€or€acts€is€not€admissible€to€prove€the€character€of€aÏperson€in€order€to€show€action€in€conformity€with€the€characterÏtrait.€€It€may,€however,€be€admissible€for€other€purposes.ðð€€OnlyÏin€an€exceptional€case€is€another€crime€arguably€relevant€to€anÏissue€other€than€the€accusedððs€character.€€Rule€404€advisoryÏcommission€comment;€òòState€v.€Luellenóó,€867€S.W.2d€736,€740€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1992).€€Such€exceptional€cases€occur€when€the€prior€actÏis€relevant€to€identity€(including€motive€and€common€scheme€orÏplan),€intent,€and€rebuttal€of€mistake€or€accident€if€asserted€asÏa€defense.€€Rule€404€advisory€commission€comment;€òòState€v.€McCaryóó,Í922€S.W.2d€511,€514€(Tenn.€1996).€€None€of€the€exceptions€areÏpresent€in€this€case.€ÌÌà àà àFirst,€the€accident€exception€to€Rule€404(b)ððsÏexclusionary€rule€is€not€relevant.€€Prior€bad€acts€may€beÏadmissible€to€disprove€accident€only€if€the€defendant€has€assertedÏaccident€as€a€defense.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404€advisory€commissionÏcomments;€òòMcCaryóó,€922€S.W.2d€at€514.€€The€defendant€has€notÏasserted€accident€as€a€defense€because€he€has€not€claimed€that€heÏinflicted€the€fatal€injury€by€accident.€€The€defendant€chose€notÏto€testify,€but€the€substance€of€state€and€defense€witnessÏtestimony€reveals€his€defense:€€that€he€did€not€inflict€the€injuryÏat€all.€€Apparently,€the€defendantððs€theory€is€that€the€fatalÏinjury€must€have€occurred€in€a€manner€totally€unrelated€to€theÏdefendant„„by€someone€elseððs€actions,€whether€accidental€orÏintentional.€€When€prior€acts€are€admitted€to€disprove€theÏdefendantððs€assertion€that€he€is€wholly€innocent,€the€only€purposeÏthose€prior€acts€can€serve€is€to€show€that€since€he€did€it€before,Ïhe€must€have€done€again.€€This€result€is€precisely€what€RuleÏ404(b)€seeks€to€avoid.€ÌÌà àà àSecond,€identity€is€not€relevant€here.€€Like€theÏdefendant€in€òòMcCaryóó,€the€defendant€had€a€close€relationship€withÏthe€victim.€€Because€the€defendant€has€denied€committing€all€ofÏthe€acts€charged,€the€question€is€not€one€of€the€defendantððsÏidentity.€€Instead,€it€is€a€question€of€his€guilt€or€innocence.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòMcCaryóó,€922€S.W.2d€at€514.€€Furthermore,€evidence€of€priorÏacts€should€be€admitted€to€prove€identity€only€when€the€acts€areÏso€similar€in€detail€as€to€amount€to€a€signature.€€Here,€none€ofÏthe€injuries€are€similar€enough€to€be€the€unique€signature€of€oneÏperson.ÌÌà àà àThird,€the€defendantððs€intent€is€not€an€issue.€€Rather,Ïthe€question€is€whether€the€defendant€actually€inflicted€theÏinjuries,€not€whether€he€intended€to€do€so.€€Even€if€intent€wereÏat€issue,€the€evidence€of€the€prior€head€and€stomach€injuriesÏcannot€be€probative€of€intent,€since€there€is€no€showing€that€theÏdefendant€caused€those€injuries.€€Evidence€of€injuries€from€anÏunknown€source€cannot€be€indicative€of€the€defendantððs€mentalÏstate.€€ÌÌà àà àFurthermore,€even€if€the€evidence€of€the€prior€injuriesÏwere€relevant€to€a€material€issue€other€than€the€defendantððsÏpropensity€to€abuse€the€child,€the€evidence€would€still€beÏinadmissible.€€Before€admitting€any€evidence€of€prior€acts€underÏRule€404(b),€a€trial€court€must€find€by€clear€and€convincingÏevidence€that€the€defendant€committed€the€other€acts.€€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€404€advisory€commission€comment;€òòState€v.€Partonóó,€694€S.W.2dÏ299,€303€(Tenn.€1985);€òòWrather€v.€Stateóó,€179€Tenn.€666,€169€S.W.2dÏ854,€858€(1943).€€In€òòWratheróó,€the€Court€held:€ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àà8 àObviously,€an€absolute€essential€isÏthat€(1)€a€former€crime€has€beenÏcommitted,€and€(2)€committed€by€theÏidentical€person€on€trial.€€OnlyÏthus€can€identification,€or€otherÏproof€of€guilt,€of€the€accused€inÏthe€pending€case€be€aided€byÏevidence€of€the€independent€crime.€ÏòòAnd€this€limitation€uponÏadmissibility€applies€equally€to€allÏthe€exceptions€to€the€general€ruleÏexcluding€evidence€of€other€crimes,Ïwhether€introduced€to€proveÏidentity,€or€for€any€other€purposeóó.€€€ÏÓÓòòÌÌId.óó€(emphasis€added).€€In€other€words,€the€connection€between€theÏdefendant€and€the€prior€bad€acts€must€be€clear€and€convincing€inÏaddition€to€the€other€requirements€of€Rule€404(b).€ÌÌà àà àHere,€the€evidence€that€the€defendant€actually€inflictedÏthe€prior€injuries€is€neither€clear€nor€convincing.€€The€childððsÏmother€and€an€emergency€room€physician€testified€to€a€òòsuspicionóóÏthat€the€defendant€caused€the€hand€injury.€€However,€the€physicianÏtestified€that€the€smashed€fingers€could€have€occurredÏaccidentally.€€The€childððs€mother€testified€that€the€defendantÏconsistently€denied€the€accusation€of€abuse€and€that€she€laterÏbelieved€him.€€The€only€undisputed€fact€is€that€the€child€was€inÏthe€care€of€the€defendant€when€the€hand€injury€occurred.€€ThisÏfact€alone€is€not€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€the€defendantÏinflicted€the€injury.€€With€respect€to€the€medical€examinerððsÏtestimony€about€prior€injuries€to€the€stomach,€head,€and€otherÏparts€of€the€childððs€body,€absolutely€no€proof€was€admitted€thatÏattributed€those€injuries€to€the€defendant.ÌÌà àà àAs€a€final€note,€I€find€it€confusing€that€the€trialÏcourt€excluded€evidence€that€the€defendant€hit€the€child€in€theÏhead,€stuck€his€finger€down€the€childððs€throat,€and€stuck€theÏchild€with€a€pin,€while€admitting€evidence€of€the€smashed€fingers.€ÏIt€would€seem€that€if€the€other€acts€were€irrelevant€andÍprejudicial,€the€finger„smashing€incident€was€also.€€Thus,€I€amÏunable€to€understand€how€the€finger„smashing€incident€is€moreÏprobative€of€intent€and€accident€than€those€other€acts.€ÌÌà àà àIn€conclusion,€the€testimony€of€the€medical€examiner,Ïthe€emergency€room€physician€and€the€childððs€mother€regardingÏprior€injuries€was€unfairly€prejudicial€to€the€defendant.€€AnyÏminimal€probative€value€was€clearly€outweighed€by€the€prejudicialÏinference€such€evidence€invites.€€The€Stateððs€case€was€largelyÏcircumstantial,€with€no€direct€evidence€linking€the€defendant€toÏthe€fatal€injury.€€By€admitting€evidence€of€the€prior€injuries,Ïthe€trial€court€allowed€the€jury€to€link€the€defendant€to€theÏvictimððs€death€by€an€impermissible€inference:€€that€because€theÏdefendant€may€have€caused€injuries€before,€he€must€have€caused€theÏfatal€injury.€€€ÌÓỚ̜à àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àADOLPHO€A.€BIRCH,€JR.,€Justice