WPC=s # % ^ 0 UNK w 4 z +   m B6% [ !   0DsND=E 1u 72m  0 0Q 0E 06 0$ 0 0 0 0 0 1y 0 0 0 0 0v 0L 0 0 0 b! 0! 0o" 0M# 0($ 0% 0% 0& 0v' 0B( 0c ) 00n) 0<) 0) 0>* 0v* 0`L+ 0`+ 0` , 0`l, 0`, 08,- 0d- 026. 0h. 0:d/ 0Y/ 0_/ 0 V0 0j`1 02 B*N4 D/x4 04 D/+6 0Z6 0(7 068 0I8 0:Q9 B9 0^9 0@: D3F: D-y: 0K: 0<: AS-;; 0F< 0D< A.=U6=U5>>U*M>D=w> 0> 0JF? 1? 72@ 1I@ 72@ 0TA 0^VA 0hA 0rB 0|B 0 C 0C 1u D 0dDU*D#EGIlMP 1qS 1qSOS[HY_bdfh}ojv~kvjmHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0j<+s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularj5+a C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x U2 Line 1 d dLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   7Border 1!!!!dd3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) Honeycutt<V :zBottom of !!  d2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  0EhCEKQW]cioAutoList21.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  - -2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;3$2#  0  .3  0  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1   XXX   (&H2 XXX (&H3 XXX (&H4 XXX XXX(&H5 XXX (&H6 XXX 20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKb<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSc\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Kb<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSc\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/Kb<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSc\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7N(X7  ?d%2A`Arial?  XXXSc\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d dM)1dxd<:zTop of For7P(X7  ?d%2A`Arial?  XXXSc\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7M)2dxd0KS.SampleKb<6X9`(Courier NewKSc\  `&Times New RomanS(|G2-$ !.8^dXXd8         0  0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKb<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSc\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable d: 8HTML MarkupB      ("$    VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  2 0CommentB  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3m$ !.8^dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial 7Border 2!!!!dd<V :zTop of For!e!  d2 0Indent123  (UhCEKQW]cioAutoList31.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.j1.(ehCEKQW]cioAutoList41.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.l1.2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  inopqrst ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Times  !#d#cc#d#     R$     c  __Gigante_Ԁdefined aneurismas adilatationofabloodvessel,whereabloodvesselratherthanbeingofnormalwidth,isdilatedinacertainareaandthesecansometimesburst.  !#d#cc#d#     R$     c  _ACATscan,orcomputerizedaxialtomography,involvestheuseofxraystogather anatomicalinformationfromacrosssectionalplaneofthebody,presentedasanimagegeneratedbyacomputersynthesisofxraytransmissiondataobtainedinmaydifferentdirectionsthroughthegivenplane._Steadman_sMedicalDictionary1459(5thed.1984).  !#d#cc#d#     R$     c  _Claimsofineffectiveassistanceofcounselaregenerallymoreappropriatelyraisedinapetitionforpostconvictionreliefratherthanondirectappeal.SeeStatev.Carruthers,35S.W.3d516,551(Tenn.2000);seealsoStatev.Anderson,835S.W.2d600,606(Tenn._Crim_.App.1992)( Raisingissuespertainingtotheineffectiveassistanceofcounselforthefirsttime[ondirectappeal]intheappellatecourtisapracticefraughtwithperil.);cf.Statev.Wilson,31S.W.3d189(Tenn.2000)(holdingthataconstitutionalchallengetothevalidityofaguiltypleashouldberaisedandlitigatedinapetitionforpostconvictionreliefratherthanondirectappeal). b !#d#cc#d#     R$     c  _Honeycuttalsoraisedthefollowingissues:(1)whetherthetrialcourterredwhenitfailedtoinstructthejuryonlesserincludedoffenses,and(2)whetherthetrialcourtimposedanexcessivesentence.Statev.Honeycutt,No.M199800245CCAR3CD,1999WL1063546,at*1(Tenn._Crim_.App.Nov.24,1999).  !#d#cc#d#     R$     c  _Burns,6S.W.3dat461.PursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.4030210(f)(1997),apostconvictionpetitionerseekingreliefforconstitutionalclaimsisrequiredtoproveallegationsoffact byclearandconvincingevidence.Seeid.at461n.5. Although,inthisinstance,theclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounselwasraisedondirectappeal,thesamestandardshouldapply.Id.(citingStatev.Anderson,835S.W.2d600(Tenn.Crim.App.1992)).inopqrst ?AGMSY_ekIndent11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.inopqrst ?AGMSY_ekIndent21.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. E !#d#cc#d#     R$     c  _TheCourtofCriminalAppealscorrectlynotesthatmuchofthisevidencewouldhavebeeninadmissiblehearsay.Evenifthestatementsthemselvescouldnothavebeenadmitted,however,defensecounselcertainlycouldhavequestionedStaceyaboutthesubstanceofthestatements(inotherwords,whetherStaceyhadahistoryofshakingorslappingthechild,whethersheeverfeltangryenoughatthechildto suffocateher,orwhethersheshookorslappedthechildinthetimeperiodbeforethechildlostconsciousness).IfStaceycontradictedheroutofcourtstatements,thestatementscouldhavebeenusedtoimpeachhercredibility.Eventhoughthestatementsthenwouldserveonlyasimpeachment,notsubstantive,evidence,thejurystillwouldbefacedwithanindividualwhohadaccesstothechildatthetimeofherinjuryandwhohadmadesignificant,inconsistentstatementswhethershebehavedabusivelytowardthechild.GiventheentirelycircumstantialnatureofthecaseagainstHoneycutt,thisevidencemayreasonablyhaveswayedthejurytodoubthisguilt. Q !#d#cc#d#     R$     c  _Although,unfortunately,theactualinstructionsgiventothejurywerenotpreservedinthetranscriptoftheproceedings,itappearsfromtheproposedjuryinstructionsincludedintherecordthatthejurywasgiventhefollowinginstruction:8 8 Whentheevidenceismadeupentirelyofcircumstantialevidence,thenbeforeyouwouldbejustifiedinfindingthedefendantguilty,youmustfindthatalltheessentialfactsareconsistentwiththehypothesisofguilty,asthatistobecomparedwithallthefactsproved;thefactsmustexcludeeveryotherreasonabletheoryorhypothesisexceptthatofguilt;andthefactsmustestablishsuchacertaintyofguiltofthedefendantastoconvincethemindbeyondareasonabledoubtthatthedefendantistheonewhocommittedtheoffense.Itisnotnecessarythateachparticularfactshouldbeprovedbeyondareasonabledoubtifenoughfactsareprovedtosatisfythejurybeyondareasonabledoubtofallthefactsnecessarytoconstitutethecrimecharged.Beforeaverdictofguiltyisjustified,thecircumstances,takentogether,mustbeofaconclusivenatureandtendency,leadingonthewholetoasatisfactoryconclusionandproducingineffectamoralcertaintythatthedefendant,andnooneelse,committedtheoffense.(Emphasisadded.)  !#d#cc#d#     R$     c  _Trialcourtshaveadutytoinstructthejuryonalllesserincludedoffensesoftheoffensechargedforwhichtheevidencewouldsupportaconviction.SeeStatev.Burns,6S.W.3d453,463(Tenn.1999);Statev._Langford_,994S.W.2d126,128(Tenn.1999).Atthetimeoftrialinthiscase,thatdutyappliedwhetherornotthedefendantrequestedlesserincludedoffenseinstructions.Burns,6S.W.3dat463. } !#d#cc#d#     R$     c  _Forthepurposesofclarityandcomparison,theelementsoftherelevantoffensessetforthbelowhavebeenparaphrased.  !#d#cc#d#     R$     c  _Tenn.CodeAnn.3514401(a)(2000)defineschildabuseinpertinentpartas knowingly,otherthanbyaccidentalmeans,[treating]achildundereighteen(18)yearsofageinsuchamannerastoinflictinjury.Whiletheelementsofassaultarestatedusingsomewhatdifferentlanguagethanthatofthechildabusestatute,itisclearthat treating...insuchamannerastoinflictinjuryand [causing]bodilyinjuryaresynonymous.  !#d#cc#d#     R$     c  _TheoffenseofassaultisdefinedinTenn.CodeAnn.3913101(a)(1)(1999)as [i]ntentionally,knowingly,orrecklessly[causing]bodilyinjurytoanother.  !#d#cc#d#     R$     c  _ Whenrecklessnesssufficestoestablishanelement,thatelementisalsoestablishedifapersonactsintentionallyorknowingly.Tenn.CodeAnn.3911301(a)(2)(2000). s !#d#cc#d#     R$     c  _Forthepurposesofclarityandcomparison,theelementsoftheoffensesetforthbelowhavebeenparaphrased.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   Serv Geneva  Serv Geneva ! . cc#~~d##~~d#       _  8YXXdd8@ cINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLEc  February7,2001SessioncX cԀSTATEOFTENNESSEEv.MICHAELSHANEHONEYCUTTcX AppealfromtheCourtofCriminalAppealsCriminalCourtforDavidsonCountyNo.96B820CherylBlackburn,Judge@ AV) ` dE<` A@ No.M199800245SCR11CDFiledSeptember28,_2001_AV) ` dE<|` A   MichaelShaneHoneycuttwasconvictedofaggravatedchildabuse;theCourtofCriminalAppealsaffirmedtheconviction.Honeycuttcontendsthathewasdeniedeffectiveassistanceofcounselduetotrialcounselsfailuretoemployatheoryofdefenseseekingtoestablishthechildsmotherastheperpetrator.Weholdthattrialcounselsperformancewasdeficientinthisregardandthatthisdeficiencyprejudicedtheoutcomeofthecase.ThejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsisthereforereversed,andthiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforanewtrial.  Tenn.R.App.P.11AppealbyPermission;JudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsReversed;RemandedtotheCriminalCourtforDavisonCounty   AdolphoA.Birch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichFrankF.Drowota,III,C.J.,E.RileyAnderson,JaniceM.Holder,andWilliamM.Barker,JJ.,joined.RichardMcGee,Nashville,Tennessee,forappellant,MichaelShaneHoneycutt.PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter,MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral,KimR.Helper,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,VictorS.Johnson,III,DistrictAttorneyGeneral,RogerMoore,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,forappellee,StateofTennessee.  @ OPINION I.FactsandProceduralHistory   Thefollowingisasummaryofthetestimony.MistyStaceyandherelevenmontholddaughterwerelivingwithMichaelShaneHoneycutt,thedefendant,inaNashvilleapartment.OnOctober4,1995,HoneycuttwaskeepingthechildwhileStaceywasatwork.WhenStaceycamehomeforlunch,sheateandplayedwiththechild.Shortlyaftershereturnedtowork,shereceivedatelephonecallfromHoneycuttthatthechildhadbeeninjured.Hetoldherthatwhileheandthechildwerewatchingtelevision,shefellover.Hepickedherupandnoticedbloodinhermouth.Sheappearedunconscious.Hethenshookthechildtowakeherup,andwhenshedidnotrespond,hecalled911. ThechildwastakentothehospitalwhereshewastreatedbyJosephGigante,M.D.Baseduponhisexaminationofthechild,Gigantedeterminedthatshehadsufferedtwoheadinjuries,retinalhemorrhaging,andmultiplebruisesonherbody.Inordertodeterminethechildsmedicalhistory,GigantetalkedtoHoneycuttandStacey.WhenGiganteaskedHoneycuttaboutthechildsinjuries,herespondedthatthechildhadbeensittingdownplayingwithtoyswhenshesuddenlyfellover.DuringGigantesinterviewwithStacey,shementionedtohim thatshedidshake[thechild]multipletimesonMonday,inaplayfulway,andwonderedwhethertheshakingcouldhavecausedthechildsinjuries. Giganteopinedthatthebruisesonthechildsforeheadwereconsistentwithaccidentsthatoccurwhenachildislearningtowalk,butthattheotherbruisesweremorecommonlyassociatedwithchildabuse.Hestatedthatitispossible,althoughnotprobable,thatthechildhadsufferedananeurism.    ׀Heopinedthatthechildsinjurieswerecausedafewhoursbeforeshelostconsciousness. ThechildwasalsoexaminedatthehospitalbyJeffCreasy,M.D.,aradiologist.Baseduponhisreviewofthechildsrecords,itwashisopinionthatthechildsinjuriesweresustainedwithinthe48hoursbeforethecallforemergencytreatment.HestatedthattheresultsoftheCATscan    ׀wouldbeconsistentwithananeurism,butthatitwasunlikelyananeurismcausedthechildsinjuries. Attheconclusionofthetrial,thejuryconvictedHoneycuttofaggravatedchildabuse.Afterasentencinghearing,thetrialcourtsentencedHoneycutttoatermof24years.Honeycuttfiledmotionsfornewtrial.ThetrialcourtconductedafullevidentiaryhearingoneachoftheclaimsHoneycuttassertedinthemotions,includingtheclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,and,ultimately,overruledthem.Thetrialcourtdeniedthemotionsforanewtrial.HoneycuttappealedtotheCourtofCriminalAppealsontheissueofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel;    ׀thecourtaffirmedtheconviction.     TheissuewemustdetermineiswhetherHoneycuttwasdeniedhisrighttoeffectiveassistanceofcounsel.  II.StandardofReview   Theissuewhetherapetitionerhasbeendeniedtheeffectiveassistanceofcounselisamixedquestionoflawandfact.Statev.Burns,6S.W.3d453,461(Tenn.1999).Atrialcourtsfindingsoffactareentitledtosubstantialdeferenceonappealunlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstthosefindings.SeeHenleyv.State,960S.W.2d572,579(Tenn.1997).Underthisstandard,appellatecourtsdonotsubstitutetheirowninferencesforthosedrawnbythetrialcourt,andquestionsconcerningthecredibilityofthewitnesses,theweightandvaluetobegiventheirtestimony,andthefactualissuesraisedbytheevidencearetoberesolvedbythetrialjudge.Henley,960S.W.2dat579.However,thisCourtreviewsdenovotheapplicationoflawtothosefactualfindingstodeterminewhethercounselsperformancewasdeficientorwhetherthedefendantwasprejudicedbythatdeficiency.Thus,whenevaluatingaclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,wereviewthetrialcourtsfindingsoffactunderadenovostandard,accompaniedbyapresumptionthatthefindingsarecorrectunlessthepreponderanceoftheevidencesuggestsotherwise,whilethetrialcourtsconclusionsoflawarerevieweddenovowithnopresumptionofcorrectness.Fieldsv.State,40S.W.3d450,45758(Tenn.2001).  III.Analysis   ArticleI,section9oftheTennesseeConstitutionprovides,inpertinentpart, [t]hatinallcriminalprosecutions,theaccusedhaththerighttobeheardbyhimselfandhiscounsel....TheSixthAmendmentoftheUnitedStatesConstitutionprovidesthatinallcriminalprosecutions,theaccusedshall havetheAssistanceofCounselforhisdefense. ThesetwoconstitutionalprovisionsareidenticalinimportwiththeresultthatadenialoftheSixthAmendmentrighttotheeffectiveassistanceofcounselissimultaneouslyadenialoftherighttobeheardbycounsel,asprovidedundertheConstitutionofTennessee.Baxterv.Rose,523S.W.2d930,936(Tenn.1975). Thebenchmarkforjudginganyclaimofineffectivenessmustbewhethercounselsconductsounderminedtheproperfunctioningoftheadversarialprocessthatthetrialcannotbereliedonashavingproducedajustresult.Stricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668,686,104S.Ct.2052,2064,80L.Ed.2d674(1984);seealsoStatev.Burns,6S.W.3d453,461(Tenn.1999). Whenaclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounselhasbeenraised,aconvicteddefendantmustprove,byclearandconvincingevidence,    ׀that:(1)counselsperformancewasdeficient,and(2)thedeficientperformanceprejudicedthedefense.SeeStrickland,466U.S.at687,104S.Ct.at2064;seealsoBurns,6S.W.3dat461. Unlessadefendantmakesbothshowings,itcannotbesaidthattheconviction...resultedfromabreakdownintheadversaryprocessthatrenderstheresultunreliable.Strickland,466U.S.at687,104S.Ct.at2064. Withrespecttodeficientperformance,thepropermeasureofattorneyperformanceis reasonablenessunderprevailingprofessionalnorms.Id.at688,104S.Ct.at2065.ThisCourthasrecognizedthatthestandardfor reasonablenessis whethertheadvicegiven,ortheservicesrenderedbytheattorney,arewithintherangeofcompetencedemandedofattorneysincriminalcases.Baxter,523S.W.2dat936.Theappellatecourtmustbehighlydeferentialand mustindulgeastrongpresumptionthatcounselsconductfallswithinthewiderangeofreasonableprofessionalassistance;thatis,thedefendantmustovercomethepresumptionthat,underthecircumstances,thechallengedactionmightbeconsideredsoundtrialstrategy.Strickland,466U.S.at689,104S.Ct.2052(citationomitted);seealsoBurns,6S.W.3dat462.Additionally,thereviewingcourtshouldavoidthe distortingeffectsofhindsightand judgethereasonablenessofcounselschallengedconductonthefactsoftheparticularcase,viewedasofthetimeofcounselsconduct.Strickland,466U.S.at68990,104S.Ct.at206566. Toestablishprejudice,thesecondprongoftheStricklandtest,thedefendantmustshowthatthereisareasonableprobabilitythat,butforcounselsdeficientperformance,theresultoftheproceedingwouldhavebeendifferent.Id.at694,104S.Ct.at2068. Areasonableprobabilityisaprobabilitysufficienttoundermineconfidenceintheoutcome.Id.Inotherwords, [a]nerrorbycounsel,evenifprofessionallyunreasonable,doesnotwarrantsettingasidethejudgmentofacriminalproceedingiftheerrorhadnoeffectonthejudgment.Id.at691,104S.Ct.at2052. WewillbeginbydiscussingthefirstprongoftheStricklandtest!deficientperformance.Honeycuttcontendsthattrialcounselfailedtoemployanddevelopatheoryofdefense.Specifically,HoneycuttcontendsthattrialcounselsperformancewasdeficientduetohisfailuretopresentevidenceseekingtoestablishStaceyastheperpetrator.Trialcounselstheoriesofdefensewere:hiswasnotacaseof ShakenBabySyndrome,andHoneycuttwasnottheperpetrator.TrialcounseladmittedinthehearingontheMotionforNewTrialthathehadnoevidencetosupportthefirsttheory.Infact,trialcounsel,inhisopeningstatement,statedthathewouldnotdenythatthe q qchildhadbeenshaken.TheStatearguesthattrialcounselsperformancewasnotdeficientinthatoncrossexamination,bothdoctorstestifiedtothepossibility,althoughnotprobable,thatthechildhadsufferedananeurism.Thisconcessionbythedoctors,however,doesnotneutralizetrialcounselsimplicationintheopeningstatementthatthechildhadbeenshaken. Trialcounseldidnothingtodevelophissecondtheory.TrialcounselknewthatonlyHoneycutt,Stacey,thechildsgrandmother,andthechildsstepgrandfatherhadaccesstothechildduringthe48hourperiodinwhichCreasyopinedtheinjuryhadbeeninflicted.Noevidenceimplicatedthechildsgrandmotherorstepgrandfather.Trialcounseladmitted,however,thattherewasevidencetoimplicateStacey,andthefollowingevidencewasavailabletohimpriortotrial:( inopqrst (8 8 23  0 Staceyhadaccesstothechildduringthecriticalperiod(onetotwohoursprecedinglossofconscious).( inopqrst (8 8 23  0 StaceyadmittedtoaDepartmentofHumanServicesworkerthatshehadshakenthechildwhenthechildwastwodaysoldandstated Icouldjustsuffocateregardingthewaythechildsconstantcryinggotonhernerves.8 8 8 8 23  0 StaceyadmittedtoDetectiveBernardthatshehadshakenandslappedthechild.8 8 8 8 23  0 TammyMcCoytoldDetectiveMeekthatStaceysaidthechildgotonhernervessobadthatStaceycouldsmotherher.8 8 8 8 23  0 Staceyadmittedtothedetectivesthatsheshookthechild whenshewasacoupledaysold[because]hercryinggotonmynerves.8 8 TrialcounseldidnotquestionStaceyaboutheraccesstothechildorherincriminatingstatements.Headmittedthatthiswasnotastrategicdecision.IftrialcounselhadquestionedStaceyaboutthesubstanceoftheabovestatements,hecould,perhaps,haveofferedthejuryanalternativetheoryabouthowthechildhadbeeninjured.    ׀Inlightofthisevidence,whichlikelycouldhaveledthejurytosuspectthatStacey,ratherthanHoneycutt,committedthecrime,andthelackofevidencetosupporttrialcounselschosentheory,weconcludethattrialcounselsperformancewasdeficientinhisfailuretodevelopthealternatetheoryofdefense. ThesecondprongoftheStricklandtestrequiresadeterminationofwhethertrialcounselsdeficientperformanceprejudicedtheoutcomeofthecase.TheevidenceagainstHoneycuttwasentirelycircumstantial.    ׀TheonlyevidencewhichdirectlylinkedHoneycutttothecrimewasGigantestestimonythattheinjurywasinflictedonetotwohoursbeforethechildbecameunconsciousandHoneycuttsadmissionthathehadaccesstothechildduringthatperiodoftime.Therecordalsoindicates,however,thatStaceyhadaccesstothechildduringthissametimeframebecauseshecamehomeonherlunchbreak.GiventhecircumstantialnatureoftheevidenceagainstHoneycutt,weconcludethatareasonableprobabilityexiststhattheintroductionofevidenceimplicatingStaceyastheperpetrator,includingherincriminatingstatements,mayhaveraisedareasonabledoubtinthejurorssmindsastoHoneycuttsguilt.Hadthejurybeenpresentedwiththisalternativetheory,thereisareasonableprobabilitythattheresultmayhavebeendifferent.Trialcounselsdeficientperformance,therefore,prejudicedtheoutcomeofthecase.Accordingly,Honeycuttsconvictionisreversed,andthiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforanewtrial.  IV.LesserincludedOffenses   Theresolutionoftheineffectiveassistanceofcounselissueissufficienttoresolvethisappeal.Inordertoprovideguidancetothetrialcourtonremand,however,weproceednexttoaddressHoneycuttsclaimthattheoffensesofaggravatedassaultandrecklessendangermentshouldberegardedaslesserincludedoffensesofaggravatedchildabuseandthatthetrialcourterredinfailingtoinstructthejuryregardingtheseoffenses. ThisCourtestablishedtheanalysisfordeterminingwhetheranoffenseisalesserincludedoffenseofachargedcrimeinStatev.Burns,6S.W.3d453(Tenn.1999).    ׀UndertheBurnstest,anoffensequalifiesasalesserincludedoffenseif:8 8 (a)0 allofitsstatutoryelementsareincludedwithinthestatutoryelementsoftheoffensecharged;or8 8 (b)0 itfailstomeetthedefinitioninpart(a)onlyintherespectthatitcontainsastatutoryelementorelementsestablishing(1)adifferentmentalstateindicatingalesserkindofculpability;and/or(2)alessseriousharmorriskofharmtothesameperson,propertyorpublicinterest;or8 8 (c)0 itconsistsof[facilitation,attempt,orsolicitation]oftheoffensechargedorofanoffensethatotherwisemeetsthedefinitionoflesserincludedoffenseinpart(a)or(b)....Id.at46667(Tenn.1999). Onceitisresolvedthatanoffenseisalesserincludedoffenseofthechargedoffense,theCourtthenmustascertain whethertheevidencejustifiesajuryinstructiononsuchlesseroffense.Id.at467.AsstatedinBurns, [t]hemereexistenceofalesseroffensetoachargedoffenseisnotsufficientalonetowarrantachargeonthatoffense.Id.at468.Indecidingwhethertheevidencesupportsajuryinstructiononalesserincludedoffense,areviewingcourtmustweighthefollowingconsiderations:8 8 First,thetrialcourtmustdeterminewhetheranyevidenceexiststhatreasonablemindscouldacceptastothelesserincludedoffense.Inmakingthisdetermination,thetrialcourtmustviewtheevidenceliberallyinthelightmostfavorabletotheexistenceofthelesserincludedoffensewithoutmakinganyjudgmentsonthecredibilityofsuchevidence.Second,thetrialcourtmustdetermineiftheevidence,viewedinthislight,islegallysufficienttosupportaconvictionforthelesserincludedoffense.Id.at469.Iftheevidencewouldsupportafindingofguiltonthelesseroffense,anerrorinfailingtochargethatlesseroffensewillnotbeheldharmlessmerelybecausetheevidencealsosupportsaconvictiononthegreateroffense.Seeid.at472.  A.AggravatedAssault   First,Honeycuttassertsthatthetrialcourtshouldhaveinstructedthejuryregardingtheoffenseofaggravatedassault.PursuanttotheBurnstest,wefirstcomparethestatutoryelementsofthetwooffenses.Theoffenseofaggravatedchildabuse,codifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.3915402(1999),consistsofthefollowingelementsrelevanttothecaseundersubmission:    8  (1)0 Knowingly,otherbyaccidentalmeans; 8 (2)0 Abusingachild    ׀under18yearsofage;and8  (3)0 Either: 8  (a)0 adeadlyweaponisused;or  8 (b)0 theabusecausesseriousbodilyinjury.Incomparison,thepertinentelementsofaggravatedassault,codifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.3913102(1999),areasfollows:8  (1)0 Intentionally,knowingly,orrecklessly 8 (2)0 Committinganassault;    ׀and 8 (3)0 Either:  8 (a)0 adeadlyweaponisused;or8   (b)0 theassaultcausesseriousbodilyinjury.Thus,knowingorrecklessaggravatedassaultqualifiesasalesserincludedoffenseofaggravatedchildabuseunderpart(a)oftheBurnstestbecausetheelementsofaggravatedassaultareincludedwithintheoffenseofaggravatedchildabuse.Inotherwords,theelementsofaggravatedchildabuseconsistofalltheelementsofknowingorreckless    ׀aggravatedassault,plustheadditionalelementthatthevictimmustbeachildunder18yearsofage.Intentionalaggravatedassault,ontheotherhand,wouldnotbealesserincludedoffenseofaggravatedchildabuseunderpart(a)oftheBurnstest.Underpart(b)(1)ofthetest,theonlyelementwhichdiffersfromthegreateroffense,theintentionalmensreaelement,doesnotestablish adifferentmentalstateindicatingalesserkindofculpability.Thus,onremand,iftheevidencepresentedattrialwouldjustifyaninstructionontheoffenseofknowingorrecklessaggravatedassault,alesserincludedoffenseinstructionregardingaggravatedassaultshouldbepresentedtothejury.Noinstructionwillberequired,however,forintentionalaggravatedassault.  B.RecklessEndangerment   Wenextcomparetheelementsofrecklessendangermenttotheelementsofaggravatedchildabusetodeterminewhetherthetrialcourterredinfailingtosubmittothejuryalesserincludedoffenseinstructiononthisoffense.Theelementsofrecklessendangerment,codifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.3913103(a)(2000),areasfollows:    8  (1)0 Recklesslyengaginginconduct; H8 (2)0 Whichplacesormayplaceanotherpersoninimminentdangerof:  8 (a)0 death;or8   (b)0 seriousbodilyinjury.WhencomparedtotheelementsofaggravatedchildabuseoutlinedinsectionAabove,itisapparentthatpart(a)oftheBurnstestisnotsatisfiedbecausealloftheelementsofrecklessendangermentarenotincludedwithintheoffenseofaggravatedchildabuse.Therecklessmensreaelementofrecklessendangermentisincludedwithintheknowingmensreaelementofaggravatedchildabusebecauseproofofknowingconductalsoservestoproverecklessness.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.3911301(a)(2).Recklessendangerment,however,containsadifferingharmelement(conductwhichplacesormayplaceanotherpersoninimminentdangerratherthanarequirementofseriousbodilyinjury).Therefore,ifrecklessendangermentistobealesserincludedoffenseofaggravatedchildabuse,thedifferingelementmustsatisfypart(b)(2)oftheBurnstest.Becauseconductwhichplacesanotherpersoninimminentdangerwouldcontemplatealessseriousharmthanconductwhichactuallycausesseriousbodilyinjury,part(b)(2)ofthetestissatisfied.Therefore,recklessendangermentisalesserincludedoffenseofaggravatedchildabuse,andiftheevidenceattrialonremandwouldjustifyaninstructionforrecklessendangerment,alesserincludedoffenseinstructionregardingthatoffenseshouldbesubmittedtothejury.  V.Conclusion   WeconcludethattrialcounselsperformancewasdeficientinfailingtopresentevidencetoestablishStaceyastheperpetrator.Giventhecircumstantialnatureoftheevidenceandtheavailableevidencetosupportthealternativetheoryofdefense,weholdthatbutfortrialcounselsdeficientperformancethereexistsareasonableprobabilitythattheoutcomeofthecasemayhavebeendifferent.WethereforeconcludethatHoneycuttwasdeniedeffectiveassistanceofcounsel.ThedecisionoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsisreversed,andthiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforanewtrial. &~~d&       _________________________________       ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.,JUSTICE