ÿWPC b b#Ál %-^ 3 0ˆ?UNÇw4 z-Ò§y ˆ mŠ Æ¡ Æg Æ- Æó N¹ 0D» Eÿ 1 72Ž 1uÀ 725 0cg 0JÊ 0T 0^h 0hÆb. 0r6 0|¨ 0†$ 0ª 1u: 0d¯UB>U*Q${èŸt‡ãû Þç"ï"4ð')$)XM/Ê¥0¡o3t6Z„7ÔÞ=²A‚¹Fn;Iž ©JÕGTv~V 0ëšWvÓ…X BX^ 0@u^ D3µ^ D-è^ 0K_ AS`_Ƴ_ 0¤y` 0Da A«aa˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»¦€‹+s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular8n_+.bk1€Õ  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(¦ÙCEMU]emu}AutoList1(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô- ù-2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô"%,-/012 ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Times Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€;ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€case€was€heard€as€part€of€the€October€5,€2001,€Ô_ÔS.C.A.L.E.S.Ô_Ô€(ò òSó óupreme€ò òCó óourt€ò òAó ódvancing€ò òLó óegalÏò òEó óducation€for€ò òSó ótudents)€project€in€Ô_ÔGallatinÔ_Ô,€Sumner€County,€Tennessee.Ì ÞÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€;ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAbout€3€a.m.,€following€the€accident,€the€defendant€paged€Harris.€€Although€Harris€did€not€recognize€theÏtelephone€number,€€she€realized€it€was€the€defendant€calling€because€the€number€ð ð03"€appeared€at€the€end€of€the€page.€ÏThe€defendant€previously€had€told€Harris€he€would€use€ð ð03"€to€identify€himself€if€he€paged€her,€explaining€that€he€isÏa€Dale€Ô_ÔEarnhardtÔ_Ô€fan.€€When€Harris€returned€the€defendantððs€call,€she€asked€if€he€and€Baker€had€been€racing.€€TheÏdefendant€replied,€ð ðNo,€not€really.€€He€took€off€and€left€me€before€I€got€to€the€Texaco.ðð€€The€defendant€denied€seeingÏthe€collision,€explaining€that€he€had€seen€only€objects€in€the€road€and€did€not€stop€because€he€was€scared.Ì jÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€;ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€record€indicates€that€police€efforts€to€locate€the€driver€of€this€Toyota€truck€were€unsuccessful.Ì ÙÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€;ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOfficer€Farmer€calculated€this€speed€by€locating€the€point€at€which€the€rear€tires€began€tracking€to€theÏoutside€of€the€front€tires,€determined€the€radius€of€the€yaw,€subtracted€half€of€the€track€width€of€the€car€from€theÏradius€to€determine€the€speed€of€the€center€mass€of€the€car,€and€entered€these€calculations,€along€with€a€drag€factor€orÏcoefficient€of€friction€which€he€had€computed€by€using€a€drag€sled,€into€a€speed€formula€that€he€obtained€from€theÏInstitute€of€Police€Technology€in€Florida€as€part€of€his€training€in€accident€reconstruction.€€Officer€Farmer€testifiedÏthat€the€formula€had€been€applied€to€accident€investigations€for€several€years,€appeared€in€many€instructional€manualsÏthat€are€used€in€police€training€in€accident€reconstruction,€and€had€been€commonly€used€throughout€the€United€StatesÏto€determine€speed.€€€Officer€Farmer€used€this€same€procedure€to€calculate€the€speed€at€which€the€Mitsubishi€wasÏtraveling€when€it€collided€with€the€Chrysler€minivan.Ì ÿÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€;ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOfficer€Farmer€calculated€this€speed€by€first€measuring€the€chord,€which€is€a€straight€line€between€the€twoÏends€of€the€yaw€mark,€then€calculating€the€middle€ordinate,€which€is€the€distance€from€the€center€of€the€chord€to€theÏend€of€the€yaw€mark.€€He€used€the€middle€ordinate€to€calculate€the€circumference,€and€he€calculated€the€coefficient€ofÏfriction€or€drag€factor€of€the€road€with€an€instrument€called€a€drag€sled.€€From€all€this€information,€Officer€FarmerÏcalculated€the€critical€speed€of€the€curve.Ì  ÷Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€;ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWith€respect€to€counts€one€and€two€of€the€indictment,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€as€to€vehicularÏhomicide€and€the€lesser€offenses€of€reckless€homicide€and€criminally€negligent€homicide.€€The€jury€convicted€theÏdefendant€of€the€least€serious€offense,€criminally€negligent€homicide.€€With€respect€to€counts€three€and€four€of€theÏindictment,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€as€to€intentional€and€reckless€aggravated€assault,€reckless€endangermentÏwith€a€deadly€weapon,€and€reckless€endangerment.€€The€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€reckless€endangerment€with€aÏdeadly€weapon.€€With€respect€to€count€five,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€as€to€drag€racing€only,€and€the€juryÏconvicted€the€defendant€of€this€offense.€€With€respect€to€count€six,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€with€respect€toÏleaving€the€scene€of€an€accident€knowing€death€resulted€from€the€accident€and€leaving€the€scene€of€an€accidentÏinvolving€injury€or€death.€€The€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€the€less€serious€offense.Ì *Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€;ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòId.óó€at€581,€n.2€(citing€cases).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€;ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSee€alsoóó€òòÔ_ÔCoffeltÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€307€N.E.2d€497,€500€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1974)€(stating€that€the€contributoryÏnegligence€of€a€victim€is€not€a€defense€to€involuntary€manslaughter€but€will€exonerate€the€defendant€if€the€victimððsÏnegligence€was€the€sole€cause€of€his€or€her€own€death);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔChastainÔ_Ôóó,€960€P.2d€756,€761€(Ô_ÔKanÔ_Ô.€1998)€(statingÏthat€contributory€negligence€of€a€victim€is€no€defense€in€a€criminal€case€but€is€a€circumstance€which€the€jury€mayÏconsider€in€determining€whether€the€defendantððs€conduct€was€or€was€not€a€proximate€cause€of€the€victimððs€death);ÏòòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔTimsÔ_Ô€óó,€534€N.W.2d€675,€681€n.€6€€(Mich.€1995)€(citing€cases€which€hold€that€a€victimððs€contributoryÏnegligence€is€not€a€defense€but€is€a€factor€to€consider€in€determining€whether€the€defendantððs€conduct€caused€theÏvictimððs€death€and€describing€this€rule€as€ð ðuniversalðð€among€the€states);€òòPeople€v.€€Mooreóó,€631€N.W.2d€779,€781„82Ï(Mich.€Ct.€App.€2001)€(stating€that€the€negligence€of€a€victim€in€failing€to€wear€seatbelts€and€using€marijuana€wasÏnot€a€complete€defense€but€could€be€considered€in€determining€whether€the€defendantððs€conduct€caused€death).Ì NÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€;ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSeeóó€òòAdamsóó,€916€S.W.2d€at€474;€òòOwensóó,€820€S.W.2d€at€760.Ì ÀÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€;ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSeeóó€€òòÔ_ÔDelawderÔ_Ô€v.€Commonwealthóó,€196€S.E.2d€913,€915€(Va.€1973)€(stating€that€an€intervening€actÏwhich€is€reasonably€foreseeable€does€not€break€the€causal€connection€and€holding€that€the€conduct€of€the€defendantÏand€his€co„competitor€in€a€drag€race€concurrently€caused€the€victimððs€death,€even€though€the€co„competitor€struck€theÏdefendantððs€car,€causing€him€to€lose€control€and€hit€the€victim).Ì —Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€;ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔContrary€to€the€defendantððs€argument,€there€is€no€ð ðwoundingðð€requirement€in€Tennessee€law,€as€thisÏquotation€well€illustrates.€€While€most€homicides€are€caused€when€a€defendant€mortally€wounds,€or€in€the€words€ofÏòòFineóó,€corporally€injures,€the€victim,€not€all€homicides€are€caused€in€this€fashion€and€there€is€no€legal€requirement€ofÏa€wounding.€The€legally€required€element€is€causation.Ì jÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€;ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSeeóó€òòRogersóó,€992€S.W.2d€393;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„212(a)€(ð ðwhich€results€inðð).Ì PÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€;ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔFor€example,€the€State€urged:€ð ðLook€at€the€law€the€Judge€gives€you.€€Look€at€that.€€Proximate€cause,Ïproximate€result€of€conduct.€€What€else€are€those€two€deaths€and€those€injuries€but€the€proximate€result€of€JohnÏÔ_ÔFarnerÔ_Ôððs€conduct€starting€this€race.ðð€€In€final€closing€argument,€the€district€attorney€again€asserted:€ð ðWhat€was€theÏproximate€result€or€a€proximate€cause€of€this€accident.€€The€proximate€cause€was€this€gentleman€right€here,€theÏdefendant,€agreeing€to,€consenting€to€and€taking€part€in€that€drag€race.€€Had€he€not€done€it,€we€wouldnððt€be€hereÏtoday.ðð€ÌÌà àThe€defendantððs€closing€argument€urged:€ð ðLadies€and€gentlemen,€John€Ô_ÔFarnerÔ_Ô€does€not€deny€to€you€that€heÏwas€speeding€that€night.€€He€does€not€deny€to€you€that€if€you€choose€to€call€it€a€drag€race,€thatððs€what€it€was,€okay?ðð€Ïð ðNow€ladies€and€gentlemen,€she€talks€about€proximate€cause€of€things,€proximate€cause.€€In€a€sense,€that€is€the€cruxÏof€this€case.€€Proximate€cause.€.€.€.€€And€thatððs€the€whole€issue€in€this€case€is€causation€and€proximate€cause,€ladiesÏand€gentlemen.€€Thatððs€what€youððre€going€to€have€to,€youððre€going€to€have€to€consider.€.€.€.€€Proximate€cause,Ïcausation,€who€caused€the€accident,€thatððs€the€thing€youððre€going€to€have€to€look€at.ððÌ ÊÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€;ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAs€to€vehicular€homicide,€the€jury€was€instructed€that€to€find€the€defendant€guilty,€they€had€to€find€ð ðthatÏthe€killing€was€the€proximate€result€of€conduct€creating€a€substantial€risk€of€death€or€serious€bodily€injury€to€aÏperson.ðð€€The€jury€was€further€instructed€that€proximate€result€is€ð ða€result,€which€is€the€natural€and€continuousÏsequence,.€.€.€a€product€of€an€act€occurring€or€concurring€with€another,€which,€had€it€not€happened,€the€result€wouldÏnot€have€occurred.ðð€€The€jury€did€not€convict€the€defendant€of€vehicular€homicide,€and€no€similar€instructions€wereÏgiven€as€to€criminally€negligent€homicide,€nor€was€the€jury€referred€to€the€instructions€on€proximate€resultÏpreviously€given.Ì ýÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€;ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€its€brief€the€State€concedes€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€given€a€criminal€responsibilityÏinstruction€with€respect€to€the€charges€of€criminally€negligent€homicide,€stating,€ð ðObviously€neither€Baker€norÏÔ_ÔBostrumÔ_Ô€committed€the€offense€of€homicide€with€respect€to€his€own€death.ðð€€The€State€asserts€that€the€criminalÏresponsibility€instruction€was€appropriate€and€logically€related€to€the€reckless€endangerment€charges€against€Ô_ÔFarnerÔ_ÔÏwhich€arose€from€the€injuries€sustained€by€Ô_ÔRedwineÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔGilliamÔ_Ô.€€The€State€asserts€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€toÏsupport€the€juryððs€verdict€as€to€these€offenses€on€either€a€theory€of€direct€responsibility€or€on€a€theory€of€criminalÏresponsibility€for€Bakerððs€actions.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€agreed€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€in€thisÏregard,€and€we€affirm€that€portion€of€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.Ì xÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€;ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSignificantly,€the€pre„1989€pattern€jury€instruction€for€involuntary€manslaughter€correctly€instructed€theÏjury€that€to€establish€guilt,€the€state€had€to€prove€as€one€of€the€three€elements€of€the€offense€ð ðthat€death€was€theÏnatural€and€probable€result€of€the€defendantððs€act.ðð€€Tenn.€Pattern€Instructions:€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€ðð€20.06€(1988).Ì dÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€;ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Pattern€Instructions:€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€ðð€42.14€(2001).€Ì ” Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€;ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€current€pattern€instruction€on€causation€appears€to€have€been€drawn€from€the€leading€cases€on€theÏsubject,€but€many€of€those€cases€date€back€to€the€early€1900's,€so€the€language€certainly€could€be€clarified.€€WeÏrecommend€that€the€Commission€consider€supplementing€the€current€causation€instruction€with€the€following€orÏsimilar€language:ÌÌà8 àBefore€the€defendant€can€be€convicted€of€any€degree€of€homicide,€the€State€must€have€provenÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€death€of€the€deceased€was€proximately€caused€by€the€criminalÏconduct€of€the€defendant.ÌÌà8 àThe€proximate€cause€of€a€death€is€that€cause€which,€in€natural€and€continuous€sequence,€unbrokenÏby€any€independent€intervening€cause,€produces€the€death€and€without€which€the€death€would€notÏhave€occurred.ÌÌà8 àThe€defendantððs€conduct€need€not€be€the€sole€or€immediate€cause€of€death.€€The€acts€[or€omissions]Ïof€two€or€more€persons€may€work€concurrently€to€proximately€cause€the€death,€and€in€such€a€case,Ïeach€of€the€participating€acts€[or€omissions]€is€regarded€as€a€proximate€cause.€€It€is€not€a€defenseÏthat€the€negligent€conduct€of€the€deceased€may€also€have€been€a€proximate€cause€of€the€death.Ìà8 àÌà8 àHowever,€it€is€a€defense€to€homicide€if€the€proof€shows€that€the€death€was€caused€by€anÏindependent€intervening€act€[or€omission]€of€the€deceased€or€another€which€the€defendant,€in€theÏexercise€of€ordinary€care,€could€not€reasonably€have€anticipated€as€likely€to€happen.€€However,€if,Ïin€the€exercise€of€ordinary€care,€the€defendant€should€reasonably€have€anticipated€the€interveningÏcause,€that€cause€does€not€supersede€the€defendantððs€original€conduct,€and€the€defendantððs€conduct€isÏconsidered€the€proximate€cause€of€death.€€It€is€not€necessary€that€the€sequence€of€events€or€theÏparticular€injury€be€foreseeable.€€It€is€only€necessary€that€the€death€fall€within€the€general€field€ofÏdanger€which€the€defendant€should€have€reasonably€anticipated.à àÌÌòòSeeóó€11€Wash.€Pattern€Jury€Instructions:€Criminal€ðððð€25.02€&€25.03€(2d€ed.€1994);€òòState€v.€Perez„Cervantesóó,€6€P.3dÏ1160,€1163€(Wash.€2000);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€230€N.W.2d€203,€207€(Neb.€1975).Ì ËÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€;ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€do€not€now€decide€the€admissibility€standards€applicable€to€computer€simulations€offered€asÏsubstantive€evidence.€€As€a€result,€we€have€not€included€in€our€discussion€cases€involving€simulations.ÌPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`(|G2Eø$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Fe»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôù­ò»»ÔStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  Serv Geneva ÒÒ  Serv Geneva Ò d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G~$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Fe»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€;ÔÔ€;¼ÔÑ#€<<¼d#ÑÑ#€<<¼d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ8€éXXdì»»d8ÑØ ØÓ&€<<¼Ðd&Óà@ àÔ€;îÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÔ€;¼ÔÌÓ  ÓOctober€5,€2001€SessionÌHeard€at€Ô_ÔGallatinÔ_ÔÔ_Ô× ƒ= ××  ×Ô_ÔÌÔ€;XÔÌò òÔ€;¼ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€JOHN€R.€Ô_ÔFARNERÔ_Ô,€JR.ó óÌÌÔ€;XÔà@ àò òAppeal€by€permission€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÌCriminal€Court€for€Sullivan€CountyÌNo.€40,003€€€€€R.€Jerry€Beck,€JudgeÌà@ àßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Í` AßÌÌNo.€E1999„00491„SC„R11„CD€„€Filed€December€11,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÌó óßA€V) °°` dE< ` AßÓ  ÓÓÓÔ€;¼ÔÌÓÓÔ€;XÔThe€primary€issue€presented€in€this€appeal€is€whether€Tennessee€law€recognizes€a€co„perpetratorÏrule€which€bars€the€defendantððs€convictions€for€criminally€negligent€homicide€on€the€basis€that€theÏvictims€were€co„participants€in€the€drag€race.€€€After€fully€and€carefully€considering€the€record€inÏthis€case€in€light€of€the€relevant€authorities,€we€conclude€that€no€rule€of€Tennessee€law€bars€theÏdefendantððs€convictions€for€criminally€negligent€homicide€as€a€matter€of€law.€€We€hold€thatÏcausation€in€criminal€cases€generally€is€a€question€of€fact€for€a€properly€instructed€€jury,€that€aÏvictimððs€contributory€negligence€is€not€a€complete€defense€but€may€be€considered€in€determiningÏwhether€or€not€the€defendantððs€conduct€was€a€proximate€cause€of€death,€and€that€a€juryððsÏdetermination€of€the€causation€issue€will€be€reviewed€on€appeal€under€the€familiar€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence€standard€and€not€disturbed€so€long€as€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€juryððsÏdetermination.€€Because€the€trial€court€in€this€case€failed€to€provide€the€jury€with€an€instruction€onÏproximate€causation,€an€essential€element€of€the€offense,€and€because€the€jury€was€erroneouslyÏprovided€an€instruction€as€to€criminal€responsibility,€a€theory€that€the€State€now€concedes€isÏinapplicable,€the€defendantððs€convictions€for€criminally€negligent€homicide€must€be€reversed.ÌÌà àTo€prevent€needless€litigation€and€to€promote€judicial€economy,€we€exercise€our€discretionÏand€address€two€other€issues€which€will€likely€arise€at€any€retrial€ð!ð€the€propriety€of€Officer€FarmerÏtestifying€as€an€expert€and€the€admissibility€of€the€computer€animated€visualization€of€the€accident.€ÏWe€conclude€that€Officer€Farmer€may€properly€testify€as€an€expert€so€long€as€the€trial€court€isÏassured€that€Officer€Farmerððs€opinions€are€based€on€relevant€scientific€methods,€processes,€andÏdata,€and€not€upon€mere€speculation.€€However,€we€further€conclude€that€the€computer€animatedÏvisualization€should€not€be€admitted€unless€the€State€can€establish€that€the€visualization€is€based€onÏaccurate€and€complete€information€and€that€it€fairly€illustrates€the€expert€opinion€of€Officer€FarmerÏas€to€how€the€accident€occurred.€€The€convictions€for€criminally€negligent€homicide€are€thereforeÏreversed;€the€convictions€for€reckless€endangerment€with€a€deadly€weapon,€drag€racing,€and€leavingÏthe€scene€of€an€accident€involving€injury€or€death€are€affirmed.€€The€judgment€of€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals€is€affirmed€in€part,€reversed€in€part,€and€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€forÏfurther€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Ó  ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11;€Judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€Affirmed€in€Part;ÏReversed€in€Part;€Case€Remanded€to€the€Trial€Court€ó óÌÌÓ  ÓòòFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€C.Jóó.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòE.€Riley€Anderson,ÏÔ_ÔAdolphoÔ_Ô€A.€Birch,€Jr.,€Janice€M.€Holderóó€and€òòWilliam€M.€Barkeróó,€JJ.,€joined.ÌÌR.€Wayne€Ô_ÔCulbertsonÔ_Ô,€€Richard€A.€Ô_ÔSpiveyÔ_Ô,€and€Timothy€Reid€Ô_ÔWildersonÔ_Ô,€Kingsport,€Tennessee,€forÏthe€appellant,€John€R.€Farner,€Jr..ÌÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Patricia€C.ÏKussmann,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€H.€Greeley€Wells,€District€Attorney€General;€and€TeresaÏMurray„Smith,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.€ÌÓ  ÓÌÌà@ àò òOPINIONÌó óÌÓ  Óà@ àòòò òBackgroundóóó óÌà àThis€case€arose€from€a€drag€race€between€the€defendant,€John€R.€Ô_ÔFarnerÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€who€wasÏdriving€his€red€Chevrolet€Ô_ÔCamaroÔ_Ô,€and€the€victim,€Landon€Baker,€who€was€driving€his€whiteÏMitsubishi€3000€Ô_ÔGTÔ_Ô.€€The€race,€which€occurred€between€9:30€and€10:00€p.m.€on€March€20,€1997,Ïbegan€at€a€Coastal€Mart€in€the€Colonial€Heights€neighborhood€just€south€of€Kingsport,€Tennessee.€ÏFrom€the€Coastal€Mart,€the€defendant€and€Baker€raced€northbound€toward€Kingsport€on€FortÏHenry€Drive,€a€four€lane€highway,€for€a€distance€of€3,432€feet,€approximately€six€and€one„halfÏtenths€of€a€mile.€€The€race€ended€when€Baker€lost€control€of€his€Mitsubishi€in€a€curve€and€collidedÏwith€two€other€vehicles€traveling€toward€Johnson€City,€in€the€southbound,€oncoming€lanes€of€FortÏHenry€Drive,€a€Chrysler€minivan€and€a€green€Volvo.€€€Baker,€and€his€passenger,€ChristopherÏÔ_ÔBostrumÔ_Ô,€died€as€a€result€of€the€collision.€€The€persons€driving€the€other€vehicles,€Teresa€Ô_ÔGilliamÔ_ÔÏand€Priscilla€Ô_ÔRedwineÔ_Ô,€sustained€serious€injuries.€€The€defendantððs€car€was€not€physically€involvedÏin€the€collision.€€However,€the€defendant,€and€his€alleged€passenger,€Steven€Moore,€were€eachÏcharged€with€two€counts€of€vehicular€homicide,€two€counts€of€aggravated€assault,€one€count€of€dragÏracing,€and€one€count€of€leaving€the€scene€of€an€accident€knowing€that€it€involved€death.€ÌÌà àThe€case€proceeded€to€trial€on€these€charges.€€At€the€close€of€the€Stateððs€proof,€the€trial€courtÏentered€a€directed€verdict€in€favor€of€Moore.€€With€respect€to€Ô_ÔFarnerÔ_Ô,€the€proof€offered€by€the€StateÏestablished€that€he€instigated€the€drag€race.€€Prior€to€Bakerððs€arrival€at€the€Coastal€Mart,€theÏdefendant€had€asked€Holly€Harris,€who€was€driving€a€Ô_ÔCamaroÔ_Ô,€when€they€were€going€to€race.€€ÏHarris€responded,€ð ðYeah,€right.ðð€As€soon€as€Baker€arrived,€Harris€overheard€the€defendant€askÏBaker€when€he€wanted€to€ð ðrun€them.ðð× ƒ> ××  ×€€Baker€merely€shook€his€head€from€side€to€side.€€When€theÏdefendant€left€the€Coastal€Mart€a€short€time€later,€he€drove€from€the€parking€lot€onto€ColonialÏHeights€Road,€stopped€in€the€road,€and€revved€his€engine.€€Intending€to€leave€by€the€same€exit,ÏBaker€waited€for€the€defendant€to€pull€up€to€the€traffic€light€at€the€intersection€of€Colonial€HeightsÏRoad€and€Fort€Henry€Drive.€€However,€the€defendant€remained€in€the€middle€of€the€road€someÏdistance€from€the€intersection,€revving€his€engine.€€Eventually,€Baker€pulled€onto€Colonial€HeightsÏRoad€ahead€of€the€defendant€and€stopped€at€the€red€light,€before€turning€right€onto€Fort€HenryÏDrive.€€The€defendant€immediately€followed€Baker,€not€yielding€for€oncoming€traffic.ÌÌà àTracy€Ô_ÔShipleyÔ_Ô,€who€was€driving€north€toward€Kingsport€on€Fort€Henry€Drive,€approachedÏthe€intersection€and€saw€a€red€Camaro€with€tinted€side€windows€turn€onto€Fort€Henry€DriveÍimmediately€behind€a€white€car.€€Ô_ÔShipleyÔ_Ô€said€a€Toyota€pickup€truck,€approximately€two€car€lengthsÏahead€of€him€in€the€right€lane,× ƒ? ××  ×€had€to€swerve€into€the€left€lane€to€avoid€hitting€the€red€Ô_ÔCamaroÔ_Ô.€€TheÏcars€then€accelerated€out€of€sight,€but€Ô_ÔShipleyÔ_Ô€saw€them€again€when€he€rounded€a€curve,€going€sideÏby€side€across€the€railroad€trestle,€with€the€red€Ô_ÔCamaroÔ_Ô€in€the€left,€inside€lane,€and€the€white€car€inÏthe€right,€outside€lane.€€Ô_ÔShipleyÔ_Ô€estimated€the€cars€were€traveling€in€excess€of€seventy€miles€perÏhour,€and€he€did€not€see€brake€lights€on€either€car.€€As€Ô_ÔShipleyÔ_Ô€stopped€at€the€Roadrunner€MarketÏnear€the€railroad€trestle,€he€heard€a€noise,€which€he€believed€was€made€by€the€shifting€of€a€ladder€onÏthe€back€of€his€truck,€but€a€worker€in€the€market€commented€that€the€two€cars€had€wrecked.€€ÏÔ_ÔShipleyÔ_Ô€arrived€at€the€scene€of€the€accident€two€to€three€minutes€after€leaving€the€market.€€He€saw€aÏred€Camaro€sitting€astride€the€white,€dotted€line,€facing€south,€in€the€direction€of€Johnson€City.€ÏSomeone€jumped€into€the€passenger€side€of€the€red€Camaro,€and€it€then€made€a€U„turn€and€droveÏnorth€toward€Kingsport€at€a€high€rate€of€speed.€€The€car€had€tinted€side€windows,€but€Ô_ÔShipleyÔ_Ô€couldÏnot€identify€the€person€who€jumped€into€the€car€nor€could€he€say€for€sure€that€the€red€Camaro€wasÏthe€same€car€he€had€seen€earlier.ÌÌà àÔ_ÔKreggÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔKlingmanÔ_Ô,€driving€southbound€on€Fort€Henry€Drive€toward€Johnson€City,€was€southÏof€the€Texaco€when€he€heard€loud€revving€engines€and€saw€two€cars,€side€by€side,€goingÏnorthbound€on€Fort€Henry€Drive,€toward€Kingsport.€€Ô_ÔKlingmanÔ_Ô€estimated€the€vehicles€wereÏtraveling€approximately€eighty€miles€per€hour,€but€he€was€unable€to€see€the€make,€model,€or€color€ofÏthe€cars.€€Although€Ô_ÔKlingmanÔ_Ô€saw€the€cars€disappear€around€the€curve€in€his€rearview€mirror,€he€didÏnot€recall€seeing€brake€lights€on€either€car.€ÌÌà àElizabeth€Reynolds,€who€worked€at€the€Texaco€service€station€on€the€corner€of€Fort€HenryÏDrive€and€Ô_ÔMorelandÔ_Ô€Drive,€was€outside€€shortly€before€10€p.m.€on€March€20,€1997€when€she€heardÏthe€roar€of€car€engines€and€two€cars€traveling€north€toward€Kingsport€at€a€speed€in€excess€of€100Ïmiles€per€hour.€€Although€she€could€not€determine€the€make€or€model€of€the€cars,€Reynolds€said€theÏred€car€was€in€the€left,€inside€lane,€and€the€white€car€was€in€the€right,€outside€lane.€Neither€carÏapplied€its€brakes€as€the€cars€disappeared€around€the€curve.€€Reynolds€almost€immediately€heard€aÏloud€boom,€and€believing€the€vehicles€had€wrecked,€she€called€for€emergency€assistance.ÌÌà àAnthony€Bowman€was€stopped€at€a€traffic€light€at€the€intersection€of€Ô_ÔMorelandÔ_Ô€Drive€andÏFort€Henry€Drive,€headed€south,€when€he€heard€loud€revving€engines.€€He€saw€two€vehiclesÏapproaching€from€the€opposite€direction,€ð ðneck€and€neck,ðð€at€a€very€high€rate€of€speed,€at€leastÏseventy€to€seventy„five€miles€per€hour.€€Bowman€said€the€car€in€the€left,€inside€lane€near€him€wasÏred.ÌÌà àBrian€Bishop€and€Stanley€Hodges,€detectives€with€the€Second€Judicial€Drug€Task€Force,Ïwere€parked€near€the€intersection€of€Ô_ÔMorelandÔ_Ô€Drive€and€Fort€Henry€Drive€shortly€before€10€p.m.Ïwhen€they€heard€the€sound€of€vehicles€approaching€at€a€high€rate€of€speed€from€the€ColonialÏHeights€area,€heading€toward€Kingsport.€€Officer€Bishop€did€not€see€the€cars,€but€Officer€HodgesÏsaw€a€red€car€in€the€left,€inside€lane,€pass€through€the€intersection,€at€approximately€eighty„five€milesÏper€hour.€€ð ðAlmost€immediatelyððafter€the€red€car€passed€the€officers€heard€the€sound€of€skiddingÏand€a€collision.€€Both€officers€called€for€emergency€assistance,€reported€the€accident,€and€proceededÏto€the€scene.€€They€searched€the€area€for€the€red€car,€using€a€flashlight€to€look€over€the€side€of€theÏguardrail.€€Officer€Hodges€directed€traffic€at€the€scene€for€two€hours€but€did€not€see€the€red€carÏreturn.€€However,€he€said€the€red€car€could€have€returned€without€his€notice€within€the€first€fiveÏminutes€after€the€accident€occurred€because€he€was€then€attending€the€injured€and€traffic€had€not€yetÏbecome€congested.ÌÌà àMichael€Taylor€was€driving€south,€intending€to€turn€left€at€the€intersection€of€Ô_ÔMorelandÔ_ÔÏDrive€and€Fort€Henry€Drive,€when€he€saw€a€white€car€and€a€red€Ô_ÔCamaroÔ_Ô€traveling€toward€him€at€aÏhigh€rate€of€speed.€€Taylor€veered€to€the€right,€and€he€said€the€wind€from€the€cars€shook€his€van€asÏthey€drove€past.€€Looking€in€his€rearview€mirror,€Taylor€saw€sparks€and€brake€lights€from€bothÏvehicles€and€almost€immediately€heard€a€loud€pop.€€Taylor€turned€around,€drove€to€the€scene€of€theÏaccident,€called€for€emergency€assistance,€and€advised€police€to€be€looking€for€a€red€car.€€Taylor€wasÏthe€only€witness€to€place€the€white€car€in€the€left,€inside€lane€and€the€red€car€in€the€right,€outsideÏlane.ÌÌà àNeither€Teresa€Ô_ÔGilliamÔ_Ô,€driver€of€the€Chrysler€Minivan,€nor€Ô_ÔPriscilliaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔRedwineÔ_Ô,€driver€of€theÏgreen€Volvo,€remembered€any€details€about€the€collision.€€Ô_ÔGilliamÔ_Ô€remembered€driving€south€onÏFort€Henry€Drive€toward€Hammond€Bridge,€but€her€next€memory€was€being€inside€an€ambulance.€ÏÔ_ÔRedwineÔ_Ô€said€she€had€just€crossed€€Hammond€Bridge€when€something€to€the€left€attracted€herÏattention.€€She€remembered€then€seeing€what€appeared€to€be€a€white€bullet€heading€toward€her.€€HerÏair€bag€deployed,€and€she€was€covered€with€glass€and€blood.€€Noticing€an€unusual€smell€and€fearingÏa€fire,€Ô_ÔRedwineÔ_Ô€got€out€of€the€car.€€ÌÌà àÔ_ÔGilliamÔ_Ô,€who€sustained€multiple€injuries€in€the€collision€including,€multiple€broken€bones€inÏher€left€leg€and€foot,€a€splintered€right€femur€and€crushed€right€foot,€heel,€and€ankle,€a€broken€leftÏelbow,€and€a€€laceration€on€her€head,€spent€three€weeks€in€the€hospital,€and€received€physical€therapyÏin€her€home€for€two€months€thereafter.€€At€trial,€Ô_ÔGilliamÔ_Ô€was€still€using€a€crutch€to€walk€andÏundergoing€physical€therapy.€€Ô_ÔGilliamÔ_Ôððs€prognosis€as€to€further€treatment€or€improvement€wasÏuncertain.€€Ô_ÔRedwineÔ_Ô€suffered€lacerations€on€her€head€and€left€arm,€bruises€on€her€arm€and€leg,Ïembedded€glass€in€her€hand,€and€burns€on€her€face€from€the€air€bag€deployment.€€Her€hands€areÏpermanently€scarred€from€the€injuries€she€sustained.ÌÌà àOfficer€Robert€Dale€Farmer€of€the€Kingsport€Police€Department€testified€as€an€expert€inÏaccident€reconstruction.€€He€was€dispatched€to€the€accident€on€Fort€Henry€Drive€around€9:50€p.m.Ïand€arrived€at€the€scene€at€10:16€p.m.€€The€vehicles€involved€in€the€collision€had€not€been€moved.€ÏÔ_ÔRedwineÔ_Ôððs€green€Volvo€with€extensive€front„end€damage€was€resting€against€the€guardrail€on€theÏsouthbound€shoulder€of€the€road.€€Ô_ÔGilliamÔ_Ôððs€Chrysler€minivan€was€sitting€crosswise€in€theÏsouthbound€lanes€facing€the€guardrail€on€the€southbound€shoulder.€€Part€of€the€white€MitsubishiÏwas€located€against€the€guardrail€on€the€southbound€shoulder€of€the€roadway.€€€Another€part€of€theÏMitsubishi€was€upside€down€in€the€left€southbound€lane.ÌÌà àOfficer€Farmer€testified€that€the€collision€occurred€near€the€intersection€of€€Fort€HenryÏDrive€and€Ô_ÔMorelandÔ_Ô€Drive,€north€of€the€railroad€bridge€that€travels€underneath€Forth€Henry€Drive.€ÏThis€location€is€3,432€feet,€or€approximately€six€and€one„half€tenths€of€a€mile,€from€where€the€dragÏrace€began.€€Officer€Farmer€located€the€point€of€impact€by€following€yaw€marks€from€theirÏbeginning€to€where€they€ended€with€a€gouge€mark€in€the€asphalt,€€Officer€Farmer€explained€that€yawÏmarks€are€caused€by€a€car€sliding€sideways€while€the€wheels€continue€to€rotate€forward.€€In€thisÏcase,€the€yaw€marks€began€just€before€the€railroad€bridge€and€continued€for€544€feet,€ten€inches.€ÏOfficer€Farmer€opined€that€these€marks€establish€that€the€Mitsubishi€traveled€from€the€rightÏnorthbound€lane€of€Fort€Henry€Drive,€across€the€left€northbound€lane,€striking€Ô_ÔGilliamÔ_Ôððs€ChryslerÏminivan€in€the€left€southbound€lane€and€Ô_ÔRedwineÔ_Ôððs€green€Volvo€in€the€right€southbound€lane.€€TheÏimpact€of€the€Mitsubishiððs€collision€with€the€Chrysler€minivan€caused€a€gouge€mark€in€theÏpavement.€€At€that€point,€the€front€wheels€and€engine€compartment€of€the€Mitsubishi€split€from€theÏpassenger€and€rear€portion€of€the€car.€€The€rear€portion€became€airborne,€rotated,€and€struck€theÏVolvo.€€From€the€white€paint€on€the€Volvo€and€the€parts€of€the€Mitsubishi€found€lying€across€theÏVolvoððs€front€bumper,€Officer€Farmer€determined€that€the€Mitsubishi€initially€struck€the€Volvo€withÍits€left€rear€undercarriage.€€The€passenger€compartment€and€rear€of€the€Mitsubishi€landed€on€theÏsouthbound€guardrail€behind€the€Volvo.€€The€front€wheels€and€engine€compartment€of€theÏMitsubishi€came€to€rest€upside€down€in€the€left€southbound€lane.€ÌÌà àOfficer€Farmer€said€that€Fort€Henry€Drive€curves€to€the€left€at€the€railroad€bridge€and€thatÏthe€speed€limit€where€the€accident€occurred€is€45€miles€per€hour.€€Officer€Farmer€calculated€theÏspeed€of€the€Mitsubishi€at€95.45€miles€per€hour€when€it€began€to€yaw,× ƒ@ ××  ×€and€he€determined€that€theÏMitsubishi€was€traveling€64.11€mile€per€hour€when€it€struck€the€Chrysler€minivan.€€He€explainedÏthat€a€carððs€speed€decreases€during€a€yaw€and€that€the€Mitsubishiððs€speed€decreased€by€31€milesÏper€hour€during€the€544€foot€yaw,€even€though€the€evidence€indicated€that€none€of€the€cars€involvedÏin€the€collision€applied€their€brakes.ÌÌà àOfficer€Farmer€testified€that€the€critical€speed€of€a€curve€is€the€maximum€speed€any€vehicle,Ïregardless€of€make,€model,€or€year,€can€successfully€traverse€a€curve€in€a€particular€lane.€€OfficerÏFarmer€calculated€the€critical€speed€of€the€right€lane€of€the€curve€in€which€the€Mitsubishi€wasÏtraveling€when€it€began€to€yaw€is€73.88€miles€per€hour.× ƒA ××  ×€€Officer€Farmer€did€not€calculate€theÏcritical€speed€of€the€left€lane€of€the€curve€in€which€the€defendantððs€car€was€allegedly€traveling,€andÏhe€conceded€that€the€critical€speed€would€be€different€but€said€it€ð ðwould€not€vary€a€tremendousÏamount.ðð€€Because€of€the€absence€of€roadway€evidence,€Officer€Farmer€did€not€calculate€the€speedÏof€the€defendantððs€car€or€of€the€vehicles€with€which€the€Mitsubishi€collided.ÌÌà àShortly€after€beginning€the€investigation,€Officer€Farmer€directed€Kingsport€police€officersÏto€locate€the€defendant.€€Although€Detective€Ralph€Cline€spent€the€rest€of€the€night€and€the€earlyÏmorning€hours€of€March€21,€1997,€searching,€he€was€not€able€to€locate€the€defendant€or€the€redÏÔ_ÔCamaroÔ_Ô.€€The€defendant€surrendered€himself€to€the€police€at€his€lawyerððs€office€the€followingÏafternoon€at€5:30€p.m.€€There,€Officer€Farmer€inspected€the€defendantððs€car€but€found€no€evidenceÏindicating€the€defendantððs€car€had€been€physically€involved€in€the€collision.ÌÌà àOfficer€Farmer€gave€a€copy€of€his€completed€accident€report€and€photographs€of€the€areaÏand€the€accident€scene€to€Professor€Robert€Neal€Owen,€director€of€the€Advanced€VisualizationÏLaboratory€at€East€Tennessee€State€University.€€Professor€Owen€testified€by€stipulation€as€an€expertÏin€computer€visualization.€€He€described€computer€animated€visualization€as€a€way€of€telling€a€storyÏby€creating€a€ð ðcopy€of€realityðð€with€a€computer.€€Professor€Owen€explained€that€a€computerÍanimated€visualization€differs€from€a€computer€simulation€in€that€an€animated€visualization€utilizesÏthe€testimony€of€an€expert€to€recreate€the€event,€and€as€such,€is€an€illustration€of€the€expertððsÏtestimony€and€opinion,€while€a€simulation€utilizes€a€computer€to€apply€the€laws€of€physics,€and€asÏsuch,€purports€to€be€an€exact€duplication€of€the€event.€€Professor€Owenððs€laboratory€had€notÏpreviously€created€a€computer€animated€visualization€of€an€automobile€accident,€but€he€said€theÏcreation€process€is€similar,€regardless€of€the€event€depicted.€€Professor€Owen€used€informationÏprovided€by€Officer€Farmer€to€create€this€animated€visualization,€including€the€make€and€model€ofÏthe€vehicles,€the€speeds€at€which€they€were€traveling,€the€physical€characteristics€of€the€roadway,Ïsuch€as€size,€shape€and€slope,€and€the€locations€of€the€vehicles€after€the€collision.ÌÌà àBecause€Officer€Farmerððs€accident€report€stated€that€the€cars€were€side€by€side€at€theÏbeginning€of€the€railroad€bridge,€the€animation€shows€the€Ô_ÔCamaroÔ_Ô€slightly€in€front€of€the€MitsubishiÏat€the€beginning€of€the€visualization.€€Professor€Owen€explained€that,€because€the€Ô_ÔCamaroÔ_Ô€had€to€beÏtraveling€slower€than€the€Mitsubishi€when€it€entered€the€curve€to€avoid€a€collision,€the€Ô_ÔCamaroÔ_Ô€hadÏto€be€slightly€ahead€of€the€Mitsubishi€at€the€beginning€of€the€visualization€to€be€located€beside€theÏMitsubishi€at€the€railroad€bridge.€€The€animation€shows€the€Ô_ÔCamaroÔ_Ô€traveling€the€curve€at€or€belowÏ73.88€miles€per€hour,€which€Professor€Owen€described€as€the€critical€speed€of€the€curve.€€ProfessorÏOwen€was€not€aware€that€Officer€Farmer€had€not€calculated€the€critical€speed€of€the€curve€for€theÏlane€in€which€the€Ô_ÔCamaroÔ_Ô€was€traveling,€but€he€opined,€that,€if€the€critical€speed€of€the€two€lanesÏdiffered€only€by€one€or€two€miles€per€hour,€the€accuracy€of€€the€animated€visualization€would€not€beÏsignificantly€affected.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€admitted€the€computer€animated€visualization€and€the€State€played€the€tape€forÏthe€jury.€€The€animated€visualization€portrayed€the€collision€at€three€different€speeds€ð!ð€full€speed,Ïone„half€speed,€and€one„quarter€speed€ð!ð€and€from€five€different€viewpoints€ð!ð€that€of€an€overviewÏand€those€of€the€Ô_ÔCamaroÔ_Ô,€the€Mitsubishi,€the€Chrysler€minivan,€and€the€Volvo.€€In€all,€the€videoÏcontained€fifteen€visualizations€of€the€collision.€€Briefly€summarized,€the€visualization€shows€theÏÔ_ÔCamaroÔ_Ô€in€the€left€northbound€lane€traveling€slightly€ahead€of€the€Mitsubishi€which€is€traveling€inÏthe€right€northbound€lane.€€The€Mitsubishi€accelerates€slightly,€continues€through€the€curve,€pullsÏeven€with€the€Ô_ÔCamaroÔ_Ô,€which€appears€to€slow€down€slightly€at€the€beginning€of€the€railroad€bridge.€ÏThe€Mitsubishi€then€begins€to€yaw€near€the€end€of€the€bridge,€causing€it€to€turn€sideways€toward€theÏsouthbound€lanes.€€The€Ô_ÔCamaroÔ_Ô€continues€through€the€curve€in€the€left€northbound€lane,Ïaccelerating€out€of€the€curve€ahead€of€and€just€before€the€Mitsubishi€yaws€across€the€leftÏnorthbound€lane€and€into€the€left€southbound€lane.€€The€passenger€side€of€the€Mitsubishi€strikes€theÏfront€of€the€Chrysler€minivan,€and€the€front€portion€of€the€Mitsubishi€splits€from€the€rest€of€the€car.€ÏThe€passenger€compartment€and€rear€portion€of€the€Mitsubishi€becomes€airborne€and€rotates,Ïstriking€the€front€of€the€Volvo€in€the€southbound€right€lane.€€The€visualization€ends€with€theÏMitsubishi€striking€the€Volvo€and€the€Ô_ÔCamaroÔ_Ô€continuing€in€the€northbound€left€lane€as€the€accidentÏoccurs€behind€it.ÌÌà àBased€upon€this€proof,€the€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€two€counts€of€criminallyÏnegligent€homicide,€two€counts€of€reckless€endangerment€with€a€deadly€weapon,€one€count€of€dragÏracing,€and€one€count€of€leaving€the€scene€of€an€accident€involving€death€or€injury.× ƒC ××  ×€€The€trial€courtÍsentenced€the€defendant€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender€to€two€years€on€each€count€of€criminallyÏnegligent€homicide€and€to€two€years€on€each€count€of€reckless€endangerment.€€The€trial€courtÏordered€the€sentences€on€the€felonies€served€consecutively,€with€concurrent€sentences€for€theÏmisdemeanor€offenses€of€drag€racing€and€leaving€the€scene€of€an€accident€involving€injury€or€death,Ïfor€an€effective€sentence€of€eight€years.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€challenged€his€convictions€and€sentences€on€appeal,€raising€numerous€issues.€ÏFinding€that€double€jeopardy€considerations€preclude€dual€convictions€for€reckless€endangermentÏunder€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€vacated€one€of€the€defendantððsÏconvictions€for€reckless€endangerment€and€thereby€reduced€his€effective€sentence€to€six€years.€ÏWhile€finding€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€the€computer„generated€visualization,€the€CourtÏof€Criminal€Appeals€nonetheless€concluded€that€the€error€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÏand€did€not€require€reversal.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÏin€all€other€respects€and€specifically€rejected€the€defendantððs€assertion€that€Tennessee€lawÏrecognizes€a€co„perpetrator€rule€which€precludes€his€convictions€for€criminally€negligent€homicide.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€sought€permission€to€appeal€to€this€Court,€asserting,€among€other€things,€thatÏhis€convictions€were€barred€by€the€co„perpetrator€rule,€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€OfficerÏFarmer€to€testify€as€an€expert,€and€that€the€trial€courtððs€error€in€admitting€the€computer€animatedÏvisualization€requires€reversal.€€We€granted€the€application€for€permission€to€appeal,€and€withoutÏpreventing€the€parties€from€raising€additional€issues€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(a),€specificallyÏrequested€that€the€parties€focus€at€oral€argument€upon€the€following€issue:€Can€the€defendant€beÏheld€criminally€responsible€for€the€death€of€co„perpetrators?ÌÌà à€For€the€following€reasons,€we€reverse€the€defendantððs€convictions€for€criminally€negligentÏhomicide€and€remand€this€case€for€a€new€trial€on€those€charges.€€At€the€new€trial,€Officer€FarmerÏmay€testify€as€an€expert€so€long€as€the€trial€court€is€satisfied€that€Officer€Farmerððs€opinions€areÏbased€on€relevant€scientific€methods,€processes,€and€data,€and€not€upon€mere€speculation.€€The€trialÏcourt€should€not€admit€the€computer€animated€visualization€at€the€new€trial€unless€the€State€canÏestablish€that€the€visualization€is€based€on€accurate€and€complete€information€and€that€it€fairlyÏillustrates€Officer€Farmerððs€expert€opinion€of€how€the€accident€occurred.€€€In€all€other€respects,€theÏdecision€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€is€affirmed.ÌÌà@ àòòò òCriminally€Negligent€Homicide:€Co„Perpetrator€Ruleó óóóÌà àHistorically,€involuntary€manslaughter€was€proscribed€by€the€laws€of€this€State€and€definedÏas€the€unlawful€killing€of€another,€without€express€or€implied€malice,€that€occurs€in€the€commissionÏof€some€unlawful€act.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€798€S.W.2d€268,€270„71€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1990).€ÏGenerally,€any€violation€of€a€statute€resulting€in€death€constituted€involuntary€manslaughter€ð ðif€theÏviolation€of€the€statute€[was]€the€proximate€cause€of€death.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Haleóó,€840€S.W.2d€307,Ï314€(Tenn.€1992)€(stating€the€rule);€òòBrown€v.€Stateóó,€201€Tenn.€50,€53,€296€S.W.2d€848,€849€(1956)Ï(applying€the€rule€to€uphold€a€conviction€for€involuntary€manslaughter€where€a€passenger€in€theÏdefendantððs€car€was€killed€in€a€collision€which€occurred€when€the€defendant€violated€a€statute€byÏimproperly€passing€a€car€at€the€crest€of€a€hill);€òòOsborne€v.€Stateóó,€512€S.W.2d€612,€618€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.ÏApp.€1974)(stating€the€rule).ÌÌà àWhen€the€General€Assembly€enacted€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,Ïinvoluntary€manslaughter€was€replaced€by€the€offense€of€criminally€negligent€homicide.€€òòSeeóóÏSentencing€Commission€Comments€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„212;€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€916€S.W.2dÏ471,473„74€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€General€Assembly€supplied€a€simple€definition€for€this€offense.Ïð ðCriminally€negligent€conduct€which€results€in€death€constitutes€criminally€negligent€homicide.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„212(a).€€To€establish€this€offense,€the€plain€language€of€the€statuteÏrequires€the€State€to€prove€three€essential€elements€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt:€(1)€ð ðcriminallyÏnegligent€conductðð€on€the€part€of€the€accused;€(2)€that€proximately€causes€(ð ðwhich€results€inðð);€(3)Ïa€personððs€ð ðdeath.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„212(a);€òòSee€alsoóó€òòAdamsóó,€916€S.W.2d€at€474;€òòStateÏv.€Owensóó,€820€S.W.2d€757,€760€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1991).€€Criminal€negligence€is€further€definedÏby€statute€as€follows:Ì€Ìà8 àa€person€€.€.€.€acts€with€criminal€negligence€with€respect€to€the€circumstancesÏsurrounding€that€personððs€conduct€or€the€result€of€that€conduct€when€the€personÏought€to€be€aware€of€a€substantial€and€unjustifiable€risk€that€the€circumstances€existÏor€the€result€will€occur.€€The€risk€must€be€of€such€a€nature€and€degree€that€the€failureÏto€perceive€it€constitutes€a€gross€deviation€from€the€standard€of€care€that€an€ordinaryÏperson€would€exercise€under€all€the€circumstances€as€viewed€from€the€accusedÏpersonððs€standpointÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(a)(4);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Cliftonóó,€880€S.W.2d€737,€742„43€(Tenn.ÏÔ_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€880€S.W.2d€395,€397€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1994)€(discussing€thisÏdefinition).ÌÌà àHaving€set€out€the€elements€of€the€offense€of€which€the€defendant€stands€convicted,€we€turnÏto€the€defendantððs€first€argument€on€appeal€€ð!ð€€that€Tennessee€law€precludes€his€conviction€of€thisÏoffense€because€the€victims€were€co„perpetrators€in€the€underlying€crime€of€drag€racing.€€AsÏsupport€for€his€assertion,€the€defendant€primarily€relies€upon€òòState€v.€Seversóó,€759€S.W.2d€935Ï(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1988).€€ÌÌà àIn€òòSeversóó,€the€issue€was€whether€the€trial€court€should€have€dismissed€the€charge€of€felonyÏmurder€because€the€victim€of€the€attempted€larceny,€rather€than€the€defendant,€killed€the€defendantððsÏco„perpetrator.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€found€that€the€trial€court€had€erred€in€refusing€toÏdismiss€the€charge€of€felony€murder.€€The€intermediate€court€recognized€that,€to€support€aÏconviction€for€felony€murder€at€common€law,€ð ðthe€killing€must€have€been€in€pursuance€of,€ratherÏthan€collateral€to,ðð€the€underlying€felony.€€òòSeversóó,€759€S.W.2d€at€938.€€The€court€in€òòSeversóóÏemphasized€that€the€felony€murder€statute€in€Tennessee€adopted€this€common€law€formulation€ofÏthe€rule€by€requiring€that€the€murder€be€ð ðin€the€ððperpetrationðð€or€ððattempted€perpetrationðððð€of€theÏunderlying€felony.€€òòId.óó€€The€intermediate€court€concluded€that€the€circumstances€in€òòSeversóó€failed€toÏsatisfy€the€ð ðin€perpetrationðð€requirement€because€ð ðthe€death€resulted€from€an€effort€to€thwartÏrather€than€to€perpetrate€the€felony.ðð€€òòId.óó€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€commented€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôa]nyÔ_ÔÏextension€of€the€meaning€of€the€statute€to€the€current€facts€would€be€in€derogation€of€the€commonÏlaw€definition€of€felony„murder.ðð€€òòId.óó€€The€òòSeversóó€court€observed€ð ðthat€an€extension€of€the€felonyÏmurder€rule€beyond€its€common€law€limitation€to€acts€by€the€felon€and€his€accomplice,€to€includeÏthe€lethal€actions€of€those€not€acting€in€pursuance€of€the€felonious€scheme,€is€an€appropriate€actionÏfor€the€legislature€.€.€.€not€the€courts.ðð€€òòId.óó€ÌÌà àClearly,€the€òòSeversóó€decision€is€an€interpretation€and€application€of€the€felony€murder€rule€inÏTennessee.€€It€does€not€announce€a€generally€applicable€co„perpetrator€rule€as€the€defendantÏsuggests.€€Recently,€in€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔBuggsÔ_Ôóó,€995€S.W.2d€102,€106€(Tenn.€1999),€this€Court€discussed€theÏfelony€murder€rule€and€reaffirmed€that,€to€constitute€felony€murder,€the€killing€must€be€ð ðinÍpursuance€ofðð€the€underlying€felony€offense.€€As€support€for€the€decision€in€òòÔ_ÔBuggsÔ_Ôóó,€this€CourtÏrelied€upon€òòSeversóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔBuggsÔ_Ôóó,€995€S.W.2d€at€106.€€Decisions€narrowly€interpreting€the€felonyÏmurder€rule,€like€òòÔ_ÔBuggsÔ_Ôóó€and€òòSeversóó,€acknowledge€that€the€felony€murder€rule€ð ðis€a€legal€fiction€inÏwhich€the€intent€and€the€malice€to€commit€the€underlying€felony€is€ððtransferredðð€to€elevate€anÏunintentional€killing€to€first„degree€murder.ðð€€òòÔ_ÔBuggsÔ_Ôóó,€995€S.W.2d€at€107;€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Pierceóó,Ï23€S.W.3d€289,€296€(Tenn.€2000).€€The€rationale€which€underlies€these€decisions€does€not€applyÏeither€directly€or€by€analogy€in€this€case.€€Criminally€negligent€homicide€is€not€first€degree€murder.€ÏIt€is€instead€the€least€serious€homicide€offense€recognized€by€the€laws€of€this€State,€and€there€is€noÏjustification€for€applying€to€this€offense€a€principle€that€was€developed€to€limit€the€extension€of€aÏdoctrine€that€elevates€unintentional€killings€to€first€degree€murder.€€The€òòSeversóó€decision€applies€onlyÏin€the€context€of€felony€murder,€and,€as€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€recognized,€is€completelyÏunrelated€to€the€crime€of€criminally€negligent€homicide.€€ÌÌà àMoreover,€our€research€has€revealed€no€other€statutory€support€for€the€defendantððs€assertionÏthat€Tennessee€law€includes€a€co„perpetrator€rule€which€bars€his€convictions€for€criminally€negligentÏhomicide.€€Neither€the€language€of€the€statute€defining€the€offense,€nor€the€language€of€any€otherÏstatute€mandates€recognition€of€such€a€rule.€€ð ðThe€power€to€define€what€shall€constitute€a€criminalÏoffense€and€to€assess€punishment€for€a€particular€crime€is€vested€in€the€legislature.ðð€€òòState€v.ÏÔ_ÔBurdinÔ_Ôóó,€924€S.W.2d€82,€87€(Tenn.€1996);€òòHaleóó,€840€S.W.2d€at€314;€òòHunter€v.€Stateóó,€496€S.W.2dÏ900,€902„03€(Tenn.1972);€òòJones€v.€Haynesóó,€221€Tenn.€50,€53„54,€424€S.W.2d€197,€198,€(Tenn.Ï1968);€òòWoods€v.€Stateóó,€130€Tenn.€100,€106„07,€169€S.€W.€558,€559„60€(1914).€€Indeed,€the€court€inÏòòSeversóó€refused€to€extend€the€felony€murder€rule€beyond€its€common€law€reach€because€of€itsÏrecognition€that€such€an€extension€is€solely€within€the€authority€of€the€legislature,€not€the€courts.€ÏLikewise,€in€the€absence€of€statutory€authority,€we€decline€to€adopt€a€co„perpetrator€rule€as€theÏdefendant€suggests.Ìà àÌà àBy€relying€upon€the€co„perpetrator€rule,€the€defendant€is€essentially€urging€that€theÏnegligence€of€a€victim€co„participant€in€a€drag€race€is€a€complete€defense€if€the€victimððs€negligentÏconduct€is€a€proximate€cause€of€the€victimððs€death.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€recognized€thatÏsome€state€courts€have€accepted€this€argument€and€have€refused€to€imposed€criminal€liability€upon€aÏdefendant€for€the€death€of€a€co„participant€in€a€drag€race.€€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔVelazquezÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€561€So.€2d€347Ï(Fla.€Dist.€Ct.€App.€1990)€(refusing€to€uphold€the€defendantððs€conviction€for€vehicular€homicide€forÏthe€death€of€his€co„competitor€in€a€drag€race€and€stating€that€the€victimððs€death€was€caused€by€hisÏown€conduct€rather€than€the€defendantððs€participation€in€the€drag€race);€òòÔ_ÔThackerÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€117€S.E.2dÏ913€(Ga.€Ct.€App.€1961)€(dismissing€an€indictment€for€involuntary€manslaughter€on€the€basis€thatÏthe€indictment€failed€to€allege€that€the€defendant€caused€the€death€of€his€co„competitor€in€a€drag€raceÏand€stating€that€the€victimððs€conduct€in€losing€control€of€his€car€was€the€independent€cause€of€hisÏdeath);€òòState€v.€Petersonóó,€526€P.2d€1008€(Or.€1974)€(adopting€the€dissenting€opinion€of€anÏintermediate€appellate€court€judge€which€reversed€the€defendantððs€conviction€for€manslaughter€uponÏfinding€that€the€defendantððs€conduct€did€not€cause€the€death€of€the€victim,€a€passenger€in€the€vehicleÏof€the€defendantððs€co„competitor€in€a€drag€race,€because€the€victim€was€a€ð ðknowing€and€voluntaryÏparticipantðð€in€the€reckless€conduct);€òòCommonwealth€v.€Rootóó,€170€A.2d€310,€314€(Pa.€1961)Ï(reversing€the€defendantððs€conviction€of€involuntary€manslaughter€on€the€basis€that€the€defendantððsÏconduct€ð ðwas€not€a€sufficiently€direct€cause€of€the€competing€driverððs€death€to€make€him€criminallyÏliable€thereforeðð).ÌÌà àHowever,€as€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€recognized,€the€better„reasoned€cases€reject€thisÏapproach€and€uphold€homicide€convictions€when€the€victim€is€a€co„participant€in€a€drag€race.€€TheseÏcourts€have€emphasized€that€the€central€causation€issue€is€a€matter€for€a€juryððs€determination,€thatÏthe€victimððs€negligence€is€not€a€complete€defense€but€may€be€considered€in€determining€whether€theÏdefendantððs€conduct€is€a€proximate€cause€of€the€victimððs€death,€and€that€a€juryððs€determination€ofÍcausation€should€not€be€disturbed€on€review€by€an€appellate€court€unless€the€evidence€is€notÏsufficient€to€support€the€finding.ÌÌà àFor€example,€in€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔMelcherÔ_Ôóó,€487€P.2d€3€(Ariz.€Ct.€App.€1971),€a€jury€convicted€theÏdefendant€of€six€counts€of€vehicular€manslaughter.€€The€deaths€occurred€when€the€automobile€withÏwhich€the€defendant€was€racing€collided€with€a€third€vehicle,€killing€the€co„competitor€in€the€dragÏrace€and€five€persons€in€the€third€vehicle.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€defendant€a€new€trial,€but€theÏArizona€Court€of€Appeals€reversed€and€reinstated€the€juryððs€verdict.€€In€so€doing,€the€Arizona€CourtÏrejected€the€defendantððs€argument€that€he€could€not€be€found€guilty€because€his€car€did€not€collideÏwith€the€other€vehicle,€stating€ð ð[Ô_Ôi]tÔ_Ô€is€obvious€that€the€defendant€can€be€criminally€responsible€forÏthe€death€of€the€other€racing€party€.€.€.€if€the€racing€was€the€proximate€cause€of€that€other€partyððsÏdeath.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€162.ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€McFaddenóó,€320€N.W.2d€608€(Iowa€1982),€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€twoÏcounts€of€involuntary€manslaughter.€€His€convictions€arose€from€a€drag€race€in€which€the€motoristÏracing€the€defendant€lost€control€of€his€car€and€struck€a€third€vehicle.€€A€passenger€in€the€thirdÏvehicle€and€the€defendantððs€co„competitor€died€as€a€result€of€the€collision.€€The€defendant€arguedÏthat€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€establish€causation€since€his€car€was€not€physically€involved€inÏthe€collision.€€The€Iowa€Supreme€Court€rejected€this€argument,€stating:ÌÌà8 àViewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€we€hold€that€the€recordÏcontains€substantial€evidence€that€defendantððs€participation€in€a€drag€race€with€[theÏvictim]€was€a€concurring€proximate€cause€of€the€accident€.€.€.€.ÌÌòòMcFaddenóó,€320€N.W.2d€at€617.ÌÌà àLikewise,€in€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔPlaspohlÔ_Ôóó,€157€N.E.2d€579€(Ind.€1959),€the€trial€court€directed€a€verdictÏin€favor€of€the€defendant€on€the€basis€that€the€victim,€a€passenger€in€the€defendantððs€car€during€theÏrace,€was€an€active€participant€in€the€unlawful€act€which€resulted€in€his€death,€and€under€the€law,€heÏhad€assumed€the€risk€of€the€result.€€The€Indiana€Supreme€Court€reversed,€relying€upon€theÏfollowing€general€rule:ÌÌà8 àContributory€negligence€is€not€available€as€a€defense€or€an€excuse€in€a€criminalÏprosecution;€this€doctrine€has€no€place€in€criminal€law,€and€it€cannot€in€any€degreeÏpurge€an€act€which€otherwise€constitutes€a€public€offense€of€its€criminal€character.€ÏAccordingly,€the€contributory€negligence€of€a€person€injured€or€killed€by€theÏcriminal€negligence€of€another€does€not€relieve€the€latter€from€criminalÏresponsibility.ÌÌòòId.óó€at€580.€€The€Court€explained€that€this€rule€is€supported€by€the€ð ðgreat€weight€of€authority€inÏother€jurisdictionsðð× ƒD ××  ×€and€is€founded€upon€the€following€premise:ÌÌà8 àIt€is€a€basic€concept€of€our€society€that€the€life€of€every€man€is€both€divinely€andÏhumanly€significant.€€Every€death€upon€the€highway€is€more€than€a€statistic.€€It€is€aÏtragedy€which€affects€not€only€the€individual€and€his€family,€but€all€of€society.€€€AndÏif€death€results€from€the€reckless€use€of€the€highway,€the€fact€that€the€deceasedÏjoined€in€the€reckless€activity€does€not€negate€the€fact€of€the€death,€nor€does€itÏassuage€the€loss€to€the€family€of€the€deceased€or€the€community.€€ÌÌà8 àà àReckless€homicide€is€a€crime€committed€against€the€state.€€Therefore,Ïcontrary€to€the€rule€in€civil€cases,€the€fact€that€the€deceased€victim€was€ððan€activeÏparticipant€in€the€unlawful€act€which€resulted€in€his€death,ðð€.€.€.€does€not€bar€anÏaction€against€another€for€the€wrong€which€he€has€committed€against€the€peace€andÏdignity€of€the€state.ÌÌòòId.óó€at€580„81.ÌÌà àIn€òòÔ_ÔGoldringÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€654€A.2d€939€(Md.€Ct.€Spec.€App.€1995),€the€defendant€was€convictedÏof€three€counts€of€involuntary€manslaughter.€€The€deaths€resulted€when€the€defendantððs€competitorÏin€a€drag€race€lost€control€of€his€car,€struck€and€killed€two€bystanders,€and€then€died€himself€fromÏthe€collision.€€The€defendantððs€car€was€not€physically€involved€in€the€collision.€€In€rejecting€theÏdefendantððs€claim€that€a€participant€in€a€drag€race€may€not€be€held€criminally€liable€for€the€death€ofÏa€co„participant,€the€Maryland€court€stated:€€ÌÌà8 àwe€hold€that€[the€defendantððs]€conduct€in€competing€in€the€drag€race€bore€aÏsufficiently€direct€causal€connection€to€[the€co„participantððs]€death€to€support€[theÏdefendantððs]€conviction€for€involuntary€manslaughter€.€.€.€.ÌÌòòId.óó€at€944.€€In€so€holding,€the€Maryland€court€also€pointed€out€that€the€victimððs€reckless€conductÏdoes€not€relieve€the€defendant€of€criminal€liability€for€his€own€reckless€conduct.€€òòId.óó€€òòSee€alsoóóÏòòPeople€v.€Hansenóó€68€Cal.€Ô_ÔRptrÔ_Ô.€2d€897€(Cal.€Ct.€App.€1997)€(upholding€the€defendantððs€convictionÏfor€involuntary€manslaughter€upon€finding€that€the€defendant€participated€in€a€game€of€RussianÏRoulette€with€the€victim€who€was€killed€during€the€game);€òòÔ_ÔCommonweathÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔAtencioÔ_Ôóó,€189€N.E.2dÏ223€(Mass.€1963)€(upholding€the€defendantððs€conviction€for€manslaughter€arising€out€of€hisÏparticipation€in€a€game€of€Russian€Roulette).Ô_Ô× ƒE ××  ×Ô_ÔÌÌà àThe€general€principles€upon€which€these€courts€relied€in€permitting€a€jury€to€decide€whetherÏcriminal€liability€should€be€imposed€upon€a€defendant€for€the€death€of€his€co„participant€in€a€dragÏrace€are€reflected€in€and€consistent€with€Tennessee€law.€€€For€example,€in€òòCole€v.€Stateóó,€512€S.W.2dÏ598€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1974),€the€defendants,€brothers€Raymond€Cole€and€Paul€Cole,€Jr.,€wereÏracing,€when€Raymondððs€automobile€collided€with€a€third€vehicle€during€the€race,€killing€the€driver.€ÏBoth€Raymond€and€Paul€were€convicted€as€principal€offenders€of€involuntary€manslaughter,€evenÏthough€the€car€driven€by€Paul€was€not€physically€involved€in€the€collision.€€The€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals€upheld€the€convictions,€stating€that€the€jury€was€justified€in€believing€that€the€victimððs€deathÏwas€the€ð ðnatural€or€probable€consequenceðð€of€the€defendantsðð€conduct€in€operating€their€motorÏvehicles€in€such€a€reckless€and€unlawful€manner€on€the€public€highways.€€òòId.óó€at€601.ÌÌà àThe€decision€in€òòColeóó€illustrates€that€proximate€cause,€an€essential€element€of€criminallyÏnegligent€homicide,× ƒF ××  ×€is€generally€established€in€Tennessee€by€showing€that€the€victimððs€death€wasÏthe€natural€and€probable€result€of€the€defendantððs€unlawful€conduct.€€òòSee€e.g.óó€òòState€v.€Barnesóó,€703ÏS.W.2d€611,€614„15€(Tenn.€1985);€òòState€v.€Randolphóó,€679€S.W.2d€943,€947„48€(Tenn.€1984);€òòFineÏv.€Stateóó,€193€Tenn.€422,€429,€246€S.W.2d€70,€73€(Tenn.€1952);€€òòÔ_ÔLetnerÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€156€Tenn.€68,€75„76,€299€S.€W.€1049,€1051€(1927);€òòCopeland€v.€Stateóó,€154€Tenn.€7,€12,€285€S.€W.€565,€566€(1926);ÏòòÔ_ÔOdenealÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€128€Tenn.€60,€69,€157€S.€W.€419,€420€(1913);€òòState€v.€Richardsonóó,€995€S.W.2dÏ119,€125€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1998);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔGroseÔ_Ôóó,€982€S.W.2d€349,€352€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1997).€ÏThe€defendantððs€unlawful€act€or€omission€need€not€be€the€sole€or€immediate€cause€of€the€victimððsÏdeath.€€òòÔ_ÔLetnerÔ_Ôóó,€156€Tenn.€at€76,€299€S.€W.€at€1051.€€ð ð[Ô_ÔH]eÔ_Ô€is€responsible€if€the€direct€cause€resultsÏnaturally€from€his€conduct.€€òòThe€same€is€true€if€the€direct€cause€is€an€act€of€the€deceased€himselfÏreasonably€due€to€defendantððs€unlawful€conduct.óóðð€òòId.óó€(emphasis€added).× ƒG ××  ×€€This€concept€wasÏreaffirmed€in€òòFineóó:ÌÌà8 àthe€act€of€the€deceased,€resulting€in€his€death€(not€being€corporally€injured€by€theÏdefendant),€must€have€been€the€natural€and€probable€consequence€of€the€unlawfulÏconduct€of€[the€defendant].ÌÌ193€Tenn.€at€429,€246€S.€W.€at€73.× ƒH ××  ×€€Finally,€a€victimððs€contributory€negligence€does€not€relieve€aÏdefendant€of€criminal€liability€for€his€or€her€own€criminally€negligent€conduct.€€òòSee,€e.g.,óó€òòGentry€v.ÏStateóó,€184€Tenn.€299,€305,€198€S.W.2d€643,€646€(Tenn.€1947)(holding€that€the€trial€court€did€notÏerr€in€charging€the€jury€that€the€victimððs€contributory€negligence€in€driving€while€intoxicated€did€notÏrelieve€the€defendant€of€his€guilt€of€involuntary€manslaughter€where€the€defendantððs€automobileÏcaused€the€collision€that€killed€the€victim).€€However,€a€victimððs€contributory€negligence€may€beÏconsidered€in€determining€whether,€under€the€circumstances,€the€defendantððs€criminally€negligentÏconduct€was€a€proximate€cause€of€death,€or€whether€the€victimððs€conduct€was€an€independent,Ïintervening€cause€of€death.€€òòSeeóó€òòCopelandóó,€154€Tenn.€at€11,€285€S.€W.€at€566.ÌÌà àIn€accordance€with€these€well„settled€principles€of€Tennessee€law,€we€decline€to€adopt€aÏbroad€co„perpetrator€rule€which€precludes€imposition€of€criminal€liability€upon€a€defendant€for€theÏdeath€of€a€co„participant€in€a€drag€race.€€Consistent€with€the€well„reasoned€decisions€from€Arizona,ÏIowa,€Indiana,€and€Maryland,€we€conclude€that€causation€in€criminal€cases€generally€is€a€question€ofÏfact€for€a€properly€instructed€jury,€that€a€victimððs€contributory€negligence€is€not€a€complete€defenseÏbut€may€be€considered€in€determining€whether€or€not€the€defendantððs€conduct€was€a€proximateÏcause€of€death,€and€that€a€juryððs€determination€of€the€causation€issue€will€be€reviewed€under€theÍfamiliar€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€standard€and€will€not€be€disturbed€by€an€appellate€court€so€longÏas€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€determination.ÌÌà àWe€recognize€that,€while€causation€is€an€essential€element€of€every€homicide€offense,Ïincluding€criminally€negligent€homicide,× ƒI ××  ×€it€is€not€seriously€disputed€in€most€cases.€òòSeeóó€Wayne€R.ÏÔ_ÔLaFaveÔ_Ô€and€Austin€W.€Scott,€Jr.,€òòSubstantive€Criminal€Lawóó,€ðð€3.12€(a)€(1986)€(ð ðIn€the€ususal€caseÏthere€is€no€difficulty€in€showing€the€necessary€causal€connection€between€conduct€and€result.ðð).€ÏHowever,€this€is€one€of€those€rare€cases€in€which€causation€was€seriously€and€forcefully€disputed€atÏtrial€and€on€appeal€by€the€defendantððs€reliance€upon€the€co„perpetrator€rule.€€(ð ðIt€is€the€unusualÏcaseð!ðnumerically€in€the€minority,€yet€arising€often€enough€to€warrant€considerable€attention€by€theÏcourtsð!ðwhich€gives€difficulty€in€the€area€of€causation.€€òòId.óó).€€ÌÌà àWhile€the€evidence€is€legally€sufficient€to€support€a€juryððs€finding€that€the€defendantððsÏconduct€proximately€caused€Baker€and€Ô_ÔBostrumÔ_Ôððs€deaths,€the€jury€in€this€case€was€not€given€anÏinstruction€on€proximate€cause.€€It€is€well„settled€in€Tennessee€that€a€defendant€has€a€right€to€aÏcorrect€and€complete€charge€of€the€law€so€that€each€issue€of€fact€raised€by€the€evidence€will€beÏsubmitted€to€the€jury€on€proper€instructions.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Garrisonóó,€40€S.W.3d€426,€432€(Tenn.Ï2000);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔTeelÔ_Ôóó,€793€S.W.2d€236,€249€(Tenn.€1990).€€While€harmless€error€analysis€appliesÏwhen€a€trial€court€fails€to€include€an€instruction€on€an€essential€element€of€the€offense,€òòid.óó,€we€areÏunable€to€conclude€that€the€error€is€harmless€in€this€case.€€As€stated,€this€issue€was€forcefullyÏdisputed€at€trial.€€Closing€argument€focused€upon€this€element.Ô_Ô× ƒJ ××  ×Ô_Ô€€€Both€the€State€and€the€defendantÏexhorted€the€jury€to€listen€to€the€law€given€by€the€trial€judge.€€However,€the€jury€instruction€onÏcriminally€negligent€homicide€did€not€mention€proximate€cause.× ƒK ××  ×€€Given€the€particularÏcircumstances€of€this€case,€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€instruct€on€proximate€cause,€standing€alone,Íwould€most€likely€have€been€viewed€as€plain€error€requiring€reversal.€€òòCf.óó€òòState€v.€Howardóó,€30ÏS.W.3d€271€(Tenn.€2000)€(reversing€the€defendantððs€conviction€because€the€trial€court€failed€toÏinstruct€on€the€natural€and€probable€consequences€rule).€€Reversal€clearly€is€appropriate,€however,Ïsince€the€record€also€reveals€another€instructional€error.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€as€to€criminal€responsibility€with€respect€to€the€criminallyÏnegligent€homicide€charges.€€As€the€defendant€asserts,€and€the€State€concedes€on€appeal,Ô_Ô× ƒL ××  ×Ô_Ô€theÏdefendant€cannot€be€found€guilty€pursuant€to€the€criminal€responsibility€statute€because€the€victimsÏdid€not€commit€homicide€upon€themselves.€€We€agree.€€Certainly,€one€cannot€be€convicted€pursuantÏto€a€theory€of€criminal€responsibility€if€there€is€no€other€person€who€is€guilty€of€the€crime€as€aÏprincipal.€€òòSeeóó€òòPierce€v.€Stateóó,€130€Tenn.€24,€46,€168€S.W.851,€856€(1914).€€Accordingly,€the€trialÏcourt€erred€by€instructing€the€jury€as€to€criminal€responsibility€with€respect€to€the€criminallyÏnegligent€homicide€offenses.ÌÌà àHad€the€only€error€in€this€case€been€this€improper€instruction€on€criminal€responsibility,€weÏmay€well€have€been€able€to€conclude,€as€the€State€argues,€that€the€error€was€harmless€because€theÏevidence€sufficiently€establishes€that€Ô_ÔFarnerÔ_Ôððs€criminally€negligent€conduct€in€drag€racing€on€aÏpublic€highway€directly€and€proximately€caused€the€victimsðð€deaths.€€However,€as€previously€stated,Ïthe€jury€was€not€properly€instructed€on€proximate€cause,€the€only€element€of€the€homicide€offenseÏseriously€disputed€at€trial.€€Accordingly,€given€the€particular€circumstances€of€this€case,€we€areÏunable€to€conclude€that€the€instructional€errors€are€harmless.€ÌÌà àIn€all€fairness,€we€recognize€that€the€instruction€given€by€the€trial€court€on€criminallyÏnegligent€homicide€wØ Øas€taken€verbatim€from€Tennessee€Pattern€Jury€Instruction:€Criminal€ðð€7.07,Ïwhich€does€not€mention€proximate€cause.× ƒM ××  ×€€While€the€pattern€instructioØØns€contain€a€generalÏinstruction€on€cause€of€death,× ƒN ××  ×€there€is€no€cross„reference€in€the€criminally€negligent€homicideÏinstruction€indicating€that€the€general€causation€instruction€should€be€given.€€Unless€the€patternÏinstruction€for€each€homicide€offense€includes€a€causation€instruction,€the€general€causationÏinstruction€should€be€given.€€In€the€vast€majority€of€cases,€causation€is€not€disputed,€so€omitting€thisÏinstruction€would€be€considered€harmless€error.€€However,€the€fact€remains€that€causation€is€anÍelement€of€every€homicide€offense,€and€the€jury€should€be€so€instructed.× ƒO ××  ×€€In€this€case,€the€trialÏcourt€failed€to€instruct€the€jury€as€to€causation,€and€the€error€was€not€harmless.€€Therefore,€theÏdefendantððs€convictions€for€criminally€negligent€homicide€are€reversed,€and€the€case€is€remandedÏfor€a€new€trial€on€these€charges.€ÌÌà àIn€order€to€prevent€needless€litigation€and€to€promote€judicial€economy,€we€exercise€ourÏdiscretion€and€address€two€other€issues€which€will€likely€arise€at€any€retrial€ð!ð€€the€propriety€ofÏOfficer€Farmer€testifying€as€an€expert€and€the€admissibility€of€the€computer€animated€visualizationÏof€the€accident.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(b)€(ð ð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€appellate€court€.€.€.€may€in€its€discretionÏconsider€other€issues€in€order,€among€other€reasons:€(1)€to€prevent€needless€litigation,€(2)€to€preventÏinjury€to€the€interests€of€the€public,€and€(3)€to€prevent€prejudice€to€the€judicial€process.ðð);€òòseeóó€òòStateÏv.€Ô_ÔMixonÔ_Ôóó,€983€S.W.2d€661,€673€(Tenn.€1999).ÌÌÌà@ àòòò òExpert€Testimonyóóó óÌà àThe€defendantððs€primary€argument€is€that€Officer€Farmer€did€not€have€sufficient€knowledgeÏof€science,€engineering,€and€math€to€qualify€to€testify€as€an€expert€witness.€€The€defendant€pointsÏout€that€Officer€Farmer€has€no€college€degree€in€any€of€these€fields.€€While€it€is€not€necessary€toÏrecount€specifics,€we€note€that€Officer€Farmer€testified€extensively€about€his€prior€experience€as€aÏpolice€officer€investigating€automobile€accidents€and€about€his€training€as€an€accidentÍÔ_ÔreconstructionistÔ_Ô.€€Officer€Farmer€admitted€that€he€did€not€have€a€college€degree€and€that€he€had€notÏtaken€geometry€or€physics€in€high€school,€but€he€emphasized€that€he€had€taken€three€separate€eightyÏhour€courses€in€accident€reconstruction€and€had€learned€the€needed€mathematics€and€physics€inÏthese€courses.€€He€explained€in€detail€the€many€factors€he€considers€in€investigating€an€accident,Ïincluding,€the€debris€field,€the€point€of€impact,€skid€marks€or€yaw€marks€on€the€roadway,€eyewitnessÏaccounts€of€the€accident,€the€angle€of€impact€of€the€collision,€the€position€of€the€vehicles€at€the€scene,Ïthe€direction€the€vehicles€were€traveling,€and€the€vehicle€having€the€right€of€way.€€Using€a€criticalÏspeed€yaw,€he€calculates€an€adjusted€radius€and€using€a€drag€sled,€he€calculates€the€coefficient€ofÏfriction€of€the€roadway.€€Officer€Farmer€testified€that€he€uses€these€calculations€in€conjunction€withÏa€speed€formula€to€determine€a€vehicleððs€speed.€€Officer€Farmer€testified€that€he€obtained€this€speedÏformula€from€the€Institute€of€Police€Technology€in€Florida,€that€it€also€appears€in€many€otherÏaccident€reconstruction€training€manuals,€and€that€it€is€commonly€used€throughout€the€UnitedÏStates.€€òòSeeóó€note€4,€òòsupraóó.€ÌÌà àAt€trial,€the€defendant€did€not€object€to€the€reliability€of€the€speed€formula€or€to€OfficerÏFarmerððs€understanding€and€explanation€of€the€scientific€basis€of€the€formula.€€The€defendantÏattempted€to€raise€this€issue€on€appeal,€but€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€held€that,€in€the€absenceÏof€a€specific€objection,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€allowing€Officer€Farmer€to€testify€based€uponÏthe€formula.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€recognized€that,€had€an€objection€been€interposed,€theÏtrial€court€would€have€required€Officer€Farmer€to€testify€more€specifically€about€his€understandingÏof€the€scientific€basis€of€the€formula.€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€noted€that€Officer€FarmerÏtestified€about€the€reliability€of€the€formula€when€he€said€that€it€is€derived€from€the€Institute€ofÏPolice€Technology€in€Florida,€that€it€appears€in€many€accident€reconstruction€training€manuals,€thatÏit€is€commonly€used€throughout€the€United€States,€and€that€he€had€checked€calculations€made€withÏthe€speed€formula€against€€radar€measurements€of€actual€speed,€finding€the€formula€calculations€toÏbe€accurate.€€ÌÌà àIn€general,€questions€regarding€the€admissibility,€qualifications,€relevancy€and€competencyÏof€expert€testimony€are€entrusted€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòÔ_ÔMcDanielÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔCSXÔ_Ô€Trans.,€Inc.óó,Ï955€S.W.2d€257,€263€(Tenn.€1997).€€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€702€and€703€govern€the€trialÏcourtððs€exercise€of€discretion€in€this€area€and€provide,€respectively:Ìà8 àIf€scientific,€technical,€or€other€specialized€knowledge€will€substantially€assist€theÏtrier€of€fact€to€understand€the€evidence€or€to€determine€a€fact€in€issue,€a€witnessÏqualified€as€an€expert€by€knowledge,€skill,€experience,€training,€or€education€mayÏtestify€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€otherwise.ÌÌà8 àThe€facts€or€data€in€the€particular€case€upon€which€an€expert€bases€an€opinion€orÏinference€may€be€those€perceived€by€or€made€known€to€the€expert€at€or€before€theÏhearing.€€If€of€a€type€reasonably€relied€upon€by€experts€in€the€particular€field€inÏforming€opinions€or€inferences€upon€the€subject,€the€facts€or€data€need€not€beÏadmissible€in€evidence.€€The€court€shall€disallow€testimony€in€the€form€of€an€opinionÏor€inference€if€the€underlying€facts€or€data€indicate€lack€of€trustworthiness.ÌÌWhile€these€rules€require€trial€courts€to€ð ðanalyze€the€science€and€not€merely€the€qualifications,Ïdemeanor€or€conclusions€of€experts,€the€court€need€not€weigh€or€choose€between€two€legitimate€butÏconflicting€scientific€views.€€The€court€instead€must€assure€itself€that€the€opinions€are€based€onÏrelevant€scientific€methods,€processes,€and€data,€and€not€upon€an€expertððs€mere€speculation.ðð€ÏòòÔ_ÔMcDanielÔ_Ôóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€265.€€The€trial€courtððs€determination€is€one€of€admissibility€only.€€òòId.óó€ÏOnce€the€evidence€has€been€admitted,€the€defense€is€given€broad€latitude€to€test€the€validity€of€theÏexpertððs€opinion€on€cross€examination.€€òòId.óó€òòSee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€705.€€The€weight€to€be€givenÍthe€scientific€expert€evidence€and€the€resolution€of€legitimate€competing€scientific€views€are€mattersÏentrusted€to€the€jury€as€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòÔ_ÔMcDanielÔ_Ôóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€265.ÌÌà àApplying€these€rules€to€the€facts€of€this€case,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuseÏits€discretion€in€allowing€Officer€Farmer€to€testify€as€an€expert€in€accident€reconstruction.€€OfficerÏFarmer€testified€about€his€knowledge,€skill,€experience,€and€training€in€the€field.€€Contrary€to€theÏdefendantððs€assertions€at€trial,€the€rules€do€not€mandate€that€a€person€have€a€college€degree€in€orderÏto€testify€as€an€expert.€€Education€is€only€one€of€the€qualifying€criteria€listed€in€Rule€702.€€OfficerÏFarmer€testified€about€the€reliability€and€general€usage€of€the€speed€formula€that€he€employed€inÏthis€case.€€In€the€absence€of€a€specific€objection,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€failing€to€requireÏOfficer€Farmer€to€testify€in€more€detail€about€the€scientific€basis€and€validity€of€the€formula.€€At€theÏnew€trial,€the€defendant€will€have€an€opportunity€to€test€the€validity€of€the€formula€before€the€trialÏcourt€determines€admissibility.€€So€long€as€the€trial€court€is€assured€that€Officer€Farmerððs€opinionsÏare€based€on€relevant€scientific€methods,€processes,€and€data,€and€not€upon€mere€speculation,€theÏtrial€court€should€admit€the€evidence.€€òòÔ_ÔMcDanielÔ_Ôóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€265.€€Of€course,€if€the€evidence€isÏadmitted,€the€defendant€will€have€the€opportunity€to€test€Officer€Farmerððs€methods€and€conclusionsÏon€cross„examination.ÌÌà@ àò òòòComputer€Animated€Visualizationóóó óÌà àBecause€it€will€also€no€doubt€be€an€issue€at€any€new€trial,€we€consider€the€admissibility€ofÏthe€computer€animated€visualization.€€Computer€generated€evidence€is€an€increasingly€commonÏform€of€demonstrative€evidence.€€Barbara€E.€Bergman€and€Nancy€Hollander,€3€òòWhartonððs€CriminalÏEvidenceóó,€ðð€16:30€at€972€(15òòthóó€ed.€1999)€(ð ðòòWhartonððsóóðð).€€If€the€purpose€of€the€computer€evidenceÏis€to€illustrate€and€explain€a€witnessððs€testimony,€courts€usually€refer€to€the€evidence€as€anÏanimation.€€òòSeeóó€Ô_ÔKristinÔ_Ô€L.€Ô_ÔFulcherÔ_Ô,€Comment,€òòThe€Jury€as€Witness:€Forensic€Computer€AnimationÏTransports€Jurors€to€the€Scene€of€a€Crime€or€Automobile€Accidentóó,€22€U.€Dayton€L.€Rev.€55,€58Ï(1996);€òòSee,€e.€g.óó,€òòPierce€v.€Stateóó,€718€So.€2d€806,€808€(Fla.€Ct.€App.€1997).€€In€contrast,€aÏsimulation€is€based€on€scientific€or€physical€principles€and€data€entered€into€a€computer,€which€isÏprogrammed€to€analyze€the€data€and€draw€a€conclusion€from€it,€and€courts€generally€require€proofÏto€show€the€validity€of€the€science€before€the€simulation€evidence€is€admitted.€€òòId.óó;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòClark€v.ÏÔ_ÔCantrellÔ_Ôóó,€529€S.E.2d€528,€535€n.2€(S.C.€2000).€€ÌÌà àThe€record€clearly€reveals€that€the€computer€evidence€admitted€in€this€case€is€properlyÏclassified€as€an€animation,€rather€than€a€simulation.€€The€evidence€was€admitted€to€explain€andÏillustrate€Officer€Farmerððs€testimony€about€how€the€accident€occurred.× ƒP ××  ×€€At€the€risk€of€stating€theÏobvious,€we€note€that€a€computer€animation€offered€to€illustrate€an€expertððs€opinion€will€not€beÏadmissible€unless€the€expert€testimony€is€itself€admissible€pursuant€to€òòÔ_ÔMcDanielÔ_Ôóó€and€the€applicableÏTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòPierceóó,€718€So.2d€at€809.ÌÌà àThe€proponent€must€further€establish€that€the€computer€animation€is€a€fair€and€accurateÏdepiction€of€the€event€it€ØØpurports€to€portray.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€901;€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€913€S.W.2dÏ462,€466€(Tenn.€1996);€òòPhillips€v.€Ô_ÔF.W.Ô_Ô€Woolworth,€Co.óó,€867€S.W.2d€316,€318€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1992);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòWhartonððsóó€at€973;€òòPierceóó,€718€So.2d€at€809;€òòCleveland€v.€Bryantóó,€512€S.E.2d€360,Ï362€(Ga.€Ct.€App.€1999);€òòÔ_ÔHutchisonÔ_Ô€v.€American€Family€Mut.€Ins.€Co.óó,€514€N.W.2d€882,€890Ï(Iowa€1994);€òòÔ_ÔGosserÔ_Ô€v.€Commonwealthóó,€31€S.W.3d€897,€903€(Ky.€2000);€òòState€v.€Harveyóó,€649€So.Ï2d€783,€789€(La.€Ct.€App.€1995);€òòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔMcHughÔ_Ôóó,€476€N.Y.S.2d€721,€722€(N.Y.€Sup.€Ct.€1984);ÍòòClarkóó,€529€S.E.2d€at€536;€òòÔ_ÔSommervoldÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔGrevlosÔ_Ôóó,€518€N.W.2d€733,€737„38€(S.D.€1994);€òòÔ_ÔMintunÔ_ÔÏv.€Stateóó,€966€P.2d€954,€959€(Wyo.€1998).ÌÌà àBecause€the€jury€may€be€so€persuaded€by€its€life„like€nature€that€it€becomes€unable€toÏvisualize€an€opposing€or€differing€version€of€the€event,€the€requirement€that€the€animation€fairly€andÏaccurately€portray€the€event€is€particularly€important€when€the€evidence€at€issue€is€a€computerÏanimated€recreation€of€an€event.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔTrahanÔ_Ôóó,€576€So.€2d€1,€8€(La.€1990)(discussing€aÏmotion€picture€and€stating€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€vivid€impressions€on€the€trier€of€fact€created€by€the€viewing€of€theÏmotion€pictures€will€be€particularly€difficult€to€limit.€.€.€.ðð);€òòClarkóó,€529€S.E.2d€at€536€(recognizingÏthat€if€the€portrayal€is€inaccurate,€computer€animations€pose€a€high€potential€to€mislead€the€jury€andÏto€create€lasting€impressions€that€unduly€override€other€evidence);€òòÔ_ÔSommervoldÔ_Ôóó,€518€N.W.2d€at€737Ï(stating€that€because€a€video€reconstruction€has€a€substantial€impact€on€the€jury€which€will€tend€toÏview€it€as€true,€to€be€admissible,€such€reconstructions€must€be€ð ðnearly€identicalðð€to€the€actualÏevent);€òòHinkle€v.€City€of€Clarksburgóó,€81€F.3d€416,€424„25€(4th€Cir.€1996)€(stating€that€because€ofÏits€unusual€persuasive€value,€to€be€admissible,€a€computer€animated€visualization€must€beÏsubstantially€similar€to€the€actual€event).ÌÌà àLike€all€evidence€in€Tennessee,€a€computer€animation€is€subject€to€exclusion€if€ð ðitsÏprobative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€theÏissues,€misleading€the€jury,€or€by€considerations€of€undue€delay,€waste€of€time,€or€needlessÏpresentation€of€cumulative€evidence.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€403;€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòPierceóó,€718€So.€2d€at€809Ï(Fla.€Ct.€App.€1997);€òòÔ_ÔGosserÔ_Ôóó,€31€S.W.3d€at€903;€òòClarkóó,€529€S.E.2d€at€536;€òòÔ_ÔSommervoldÔ_Ôóó,€518ÏN.W.2d€at€737.€€If€a€computer€animated€portrayal€is€inaccurate,€its€probative€value€decreases€and€theÏlikelihood€that€it€will€be€subject€to€exclusion€under€Rule€403€increases.€€Like€other€evidence,€theÏadmissibility€of€computer€animations€generally€rests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,Ïwith€the€rules€of€evidence€governing€the€exercise€of€the€trial€courtððs€discretion.ÌÌà àApplying€these€rules€to€the€facts€in€this€record,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€abused€itsÏdiscretion€in€admitting€the€computer€animated€visualization€in€this€case€because€it€is€not€a€fair€andÏaccurate€portrayal€of€the€event€depicted,€and€as€a€result,€its€probative€value€was€substantiallyÏoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.ÌÌà àAlthough€Officer€Farmer€was€unable€to€make€a€determination€as€to€the€speed€of€theÏdefendantððs€Ô_ÔCamaroÔ_Ô,€the€computer€animation€includes€the€Ô_ÔCamaroÔ_Ô€and€depicts€it€at€various€speedsÏthroughout€the€animation.€€For€example,€at€the€beginning€of€the€animation,€the€Ô_ÔCamaroÔ_Ô€is€depictedÏtraveling€ahead€of€the€Mitsubishi.€€Later,€the€Mitsubishi€overtakes€the€Ô_ÔCamaroÔ_Ô,€and€just€before€theÏcollision€occurs,€the€animation€shows€the€Ô_ÔCamaroÔ_Ô€accelerating€through€the€curve€and€passing€theÏMitsubishi.€€Professor€Owen€testified€that€the€Ô_ÔCamaroÔ_Ô€was€depicted€at€the€critical€speed€of€73.88Ïmiles€per€hour.ÌÌà àThe€depiction€of€the€Ô_ÔCamaroÔ_Ô€ahead€of€the€Mitsubishi€at€the€beginning€of€the€animation€isÏinconsistent€with€the€proof.€€The€eyewitness€testimony€consistently€described€the€cars€as€side„by„side.€€Officer€Farmer€did€not€dispute€or€elaborate€on€these€descriptions.€€Professor€Owen€indicatedÏthat€he€did€not€base€this€portion€of€the€depiction€upon€specific€evidence,€but€he€said€the€cars€mustÏhave€been€in€this€position€to€have€later€been€side„by„side€as€described€by€the€eyewitnesses.€ÏHowever,€Professor€Owen€was€not€qualified€as€an€accident€Ô_ÔreconstructionistÔ_Ô€and€should€not€haveÏbased€the€animation€upon€his€own€assumptions,€opinions,€or€conclusions.€€The€depiction€is€alsoÏinconsistent€with€Officer€Farmerððs€testimony€conceding€that€he€had€not€determined€the€criticalÏspeed€for€the€lane€in€which€the€defendant€was€traveling.€€While€Officer€Farmer€opined€that€itÏprobably€would€not€vary€a€tremendous€amount,€he€testified€that€the€critical€speed€for€theÏdefendantððs€lane€of€travel€definitely€would€not€have€been€73.88€miles€per€hour.€€Therefore,€theÍanimation€is€inaccurate€in€its€depiction€of€the€Ô_ÔCamaroÔ_Ô€traveling€at€73.88€miles€per€hour.€€In€addition,Ïthe€animationððs€depiction€of€the€Ô_ÔCamaroÔ_Ô€accelerating€out€of€the€curve€is€not€supported€by€theÏevidence,€and€in€fact,€seems€to€be€inconsistent€with€Officer€Farmerððs€testimony€about€the€criticalÏspeed€at€which€a€vehicle€could€safely€negotiate€the€curve.€€Finally,€it€is€not€clear€what€speed€theÏanimation€uses€to€depict€the€Chrysler€minivan€and€the€Volvo€since€there€is€no€evidence€in€the€recordÏindicating€the€speed€of€these€vehicles€prior€to€impact.ÌÌà àGiven€that€the€computer€animated€visualization€is€based€upon€inaccurate€and€incompleteÏinformation,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€it€at€trial.€€We€also€note€that€theÏanimation€depicted€the€accident€a€total€of€fifteen€times€at€various€speeds.€While€we€set€no€limit€onÏhow€many€times€a€visualization€may€depict€an€event,€we€emphasize€that€trial€judges€must€carefullyÏmonitor€such€evidence€and€prevent€cumulative€presentation€if€it€poses€a€substantial€risk€of€unfairlyÏprejudicing€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€403€and€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€611.€€As€previously€stated,Ïanimations€generally€have€a€substantial€impact€upon€jurors,€and€that€impact€is€no€doubt€increasedÏwhere€jurors€are€allowed€to€view€the€animated€visualization€not€once€or€twice,€but€fifteen€separateÏtimes.ÌÌà àFor€all€these€reasons,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€the€computerÏanimated€visualization.€€We€emphasize,€however,€that€the€State€may€again€seek€admission€of€theÏcomputer€animated€visualization€at€the€new€trial.€€Of€course,€as€a€prerequisite€to€admissibility,€theÏState€must€establish€that€the€animation€has€been€corrected€to€fairly€and€accurately€illustrate€andÏexplain€the€testimony€of€Officer€Farmer.€€The€trial€court€should€be€guided€by€the€principlesÏdiscussed€in€this€opinion€when€deciding€whether€to€permit€the€introduction€of€the€computerÏanimated€visualization.€€We€commend€the€trial€court€for€clearly€instructing€the€jury€that€theÏanimation€is€not€itself€evidence€and€was€offered€only€to€illustrate€the€testimony€of€the€expertÏwitness.€€Such€an€instruction€is€appropriate€whenever€computer€animation€evidence€is€admitted.ÌÌÌÌà@ àòòò òConclusionóóó ó€Ìà àFor€the€reasons€stated€herein,€the€defendantððs€convictions€for€criminally€negligent€homicideÏare€vacated€and€the€case€remanded€for€a€new€trial€on€these€charges.€€€At€the€new€trial,€Officer€FarmerÏmay€testify€as€an€expert€so€long€as€the€trial€court€is€satisfied€that€Officer€Farmerððs€opinions€areÏbased€on€relevant€scientific€methods,€processes,€and€data,€and€not€upon€mere€speculation.€€However,Ïthe€computer€animated€visualization€of€the€accident€is€not€admissible€unless€the€State€firstÏestablishes€that€it€has€been€corrected€to€accurately€and€fairly€illustrate€€Officer€Farmerððs€testimony.€ÏThe€trial€courtððs€decision€on€admissibility€shall€be€guided€by€the€principles€discussed€herein.€€TheÏdefendantððs€convictions€for€reckless€endangerment€with€a€deadly€weapon,€drag€racing,€and€leavingÏthe€scene€of€an€accident€involving€injury€or€death€are€affirmed.€€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€theÏState€of€Tennessee,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÌÌÌà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________________€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àFRANK€F.€Ô_ÔDROWOTAÔ_Ô,€III,€CHIEF€JUSTICE€€€