ÿWPC¢@ —÷ õ/°FU®®=¼÷çqn€^ê/OãÝÊAú!º{ 8¯Ž@€—Âs102[«d¤Bl$䧨•„EŸ(žÎfÄÜJÓÿë¦$Ásµ×©¢Æ¸Üh@r3¯Íu˨LW9¬ÔDƒg%A„ï Û¿Úå·ú4Žä!ã’BŸeŽq&T[ ç'bÏ6•„Å(Ä"Ÿ« „Ô[qž»¸ÿ8þ³ø™tü{çé¯C›E/¬G®Hð"D™÷5AEÝ q(ñ“L{ЈÞE¢‹ë”ð¬ŽC]«ÆÙ$k¢¥wOÀä´ºÕ¶•j«¦$½< ¯; 3›åcs•”§Wýgp{ÍnÖœr{ÞŽÏ^@DódÙØMM” ÛÀo HWX„JËß–Š^ïþ¹¤gÞlÖÑbpdp…áË… 5£­|åäè_R£üY8*¡j}^LÀßmE$#Í–^¬[±£´nq.f¢—¥£çZŸŠ`ûCÍsU” —cíò|à g£Iáƒ|¢ÍNQåžêm  •8Z5õ@Î+hÓÈ/ð–S) ÉVŽÜÓMöç†yc•a¯Í¦MegrÔ‹`Ç¢šôH%]+t¾ÅµŽ÷òheeð‹,a‘÷%«±¬qZb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ w· U9N» 4 z Ò— i x mz U@‘ ÆÑ Æ— Æ] Æ#géNPPPERR T¾TTUN-`-`-`-`-`-`-¡v0066666666 0DG;G;‹;b“;“;“;“;“;“;“;“;“;“;“;“;“;“;“;“;“;“;“;“;“;“;“;“;“;“;“;“;“;“;“;“;“;“;“;“; 0í›;›;›;›; Bˆ<ˆ< 0¤¥< D5I= D-~= 0K«=«= ASö=ÆI> 0¤? 0D³? A«÷?˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»´p+s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularXq+rtyBarL½¥ ˜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 ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(uHš Z‹(Times New Roman Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ]Ý ƒRèš$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô!uò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔThe€offense€of€child€abuse€and€neglect€proscribed€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„15„401(a)€is€aÐ ° Ðsingle€offense€that€may€be€committed€through€one€of€two€courses€of€conduct:€Ô_ÔchildÔ_Ô€abuse€through€injury€and€child€abuseÐ tÄ Ðthrough€neglect.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€Ô_Ôv.Ô_Ô€Hodgesóó,€7€S.W.3d€609,€622€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).€€Although€the€criminal€code€containsÐ 8ˆ Ðno€specific€offense€labeled€ð ðchild€neglect,ðð€we€will€generally€refer€to€the€child€abuse€through€Ô_Ôneglect€prongÔ_Ô€of€sectionÐ üL Ð39„15„401(a)€as€ð ðchild€neglectðð€for€ease€of€reference. öÝ ƒRèš$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô!uò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔWe€do€not€mean€to€suggest€that€in€those€cases€where€the€attempt€statute€requires€the€defendant€to€act€ð ðwithÐ ° Ðintentðð€to€cause€a€result,€the€State€must€prove€that€the€defendantððs€òòconscious€objective€or€desireóó€was€for€the€result€toÐ tÄ Ðoccur.€€Rather,€as€the€MPC€Comments€make€clear,€the€State€needs€only€to€show€that€the€defendant€òòbelievedóó€that€the€resultÐ 8ˆ Ðwould€follow€from€the€conduct.€€òòSeeóó€òòModel€Penal€Code€and€Commentariesóó€at€304„05.€€As€one€federal€court€citing€theÐ üL ÐMPC€Comments€has€stated€with€regard€to€result„of„conduct€offenses,€ð ðUnder€the€Code,€the€defendant€must€eitherÐ À Ðaffirmatively€desire€to€cause€the€result€that€will€constitute€the€principal€offense€or€òòbelieveóó€that€the€result€will€occurÐ „Ô Ð(whether€or€not€he€affirmatively€òòdesiresóó€the€result€to€occur).ðð€€òòUnited€States€v.€Padillaóó,€771€F.€Supp.€35,€39€n.7€(E.D.N.Y.Ð H ˜ Ð1991)€(emphasis€in€original).€€Ð  \ Ðà  àIn€this€manner,€result„of„conduct€offenses€otherwise€requiring€a€non„intentional€mental€state€may€be€attemptedÐ Ð  Ðeven€if€the€defendant€did€not€consciously€desire€for€the€proscribed€result€to€occur.€€Taking€second€degree€murder€as€oneÐ ” ä  Ðsuch€example,€it€is€clear€that€the€defendant€does€not€have€to€ð ðintendðð€that€death€Ô_ÔoccurÔ_Ô,€at€least€not€in€the€sense€that€theÐ X ¨  Ðvictimððs€death€is€the€defendantððs€conscious€objective€or€desire.€€Instead,€so€long€as€the€State€shows€that€the€defendantÐ  l  Ðòòbelieved€óóthat€death€would€follow€from€his€or€her€conduct,€criminal€attempt€liability€may€be€imposed.€€òòóóAlthough€casesÐ à 0  Ðin€this€state€dealing€with€attempted€second€degree€murder€have€not€relied€upon€this€precise€method€of€analysis,€they€haveÐ ¤ô  Ðnevertheless€reached€a€result€compatible€with€the€analysis€set€forth€under€the€MPC.€€òòCf.óó€òòPalmeróó,€Ô‡ô!uòòô!uÔ10€S.W.3d€at€644.Ô#†ô!uòòô!u£#Ô ´Ý ƒRèš$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô!uò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔAlthough€various€types€of€analysis€under€section€39„12„101€can€be€found€in€the€case€law,€courts€generallyÐ ° Ðfollow€one€of€three€approaches.€€First,€and€most€often,€courts€tend€to€overlook€the€specific€intent€portion€of€(a)(3)€andÐ tÄ Ðfocus€instead€only€upon€the€òòmens€reaóó€accompanying€the€underlying€offense.€€Dicta€from€our€decisions€in€òòState€Ô_Ôv.Ô_Ô€Dentonóó,Ð 8ˆ Ð938€S.W.2d€373,€382€(Tenn.€1996),€Ô_ÔandÔ_Ô€òòWyatt€v.€Stateóó,€24€S.W.3d€319,€323€(Tenn.€2000),€Ô_Ômay€beÔ_Ô€cited€as€examplesÐ üL Ðof€this€type€of€analysis.€€To€be€sure,€however,€the€specific€intent€portion€of€Ô_ÔsubsectionÔ_Ô€(a)(3)€is€an€essential€element€ofÐ À § Ðany€criminal€attempt€according€to€the€plain€language€of€the€statute,€and€this€language€cannot€be€merely€surplusage€as€theÐ ° ÐState€would€have€us€declare.€€Indeed,€virtually€all€of€the€cases€cited€for€our€statement€in€òòWyattóó€recognize€that€someÐ tÄ Ðspecific€intent€to€engage€in€conduct€or€to€accomplish€a€result€is€generally€required€for€attempt€crimes,€and€those€casesÐ 8ˆ Ðcited€in€òòWyattóó€that€do€not€require€Ô_Ôa€specific€intentÔ_Ô€are€interpretations€of€statutes€that€are€materially€different€than€our€ownÐ üL Ðin€this€respect.€€Ð À Ðà  àSecond,€courts€in€some€cases€have€chosen€to€focus€only€upon€the€specific€intent€required€by€subsection€(a)(3)Ð „Ô Ðwithout€analyzing€the€import€of€the€mental€state€otherwise€required€for€the€offense.€€For€example,€in€òòState€v.€Kimbroughóó,Ð H ˜ Ð924€S.W.2d€888€(Tenn.€1996),€we€first€highlighted€the€specific€intent€portions€of€the€criminal€attempt€statute€and€thenÐ  \ Ðstated€that€Ð Ð  Ðà8  àð ð[a]n€attempt,€by€nature,€is€a€failure€to€accomplish€what€one€intended€to€do.€€Attempt€means€to€try;€Ð ” ä  Ðit€means€an€effort€to€bring€about€a€desired€result.ðð€€The€concept€of€Ô_ÔattemptÔ_Ô€seems€necessarily€to€involveÐ X ¨  Ðthe€notion€of€an€intended€consequence,€for€when€one€attempts€to€do€something€one€is€endeavoring€orÐ  l  Ðtrying€to€do€it.€€Hence,€an€attempt€requires€a€desired,€or€at€least€an€intended,€consequence.€€The€natureÐ à 0  Ðof€an€attempt,€then,€is€that€it€requires€Ô_Ôa€specific€intentÔ_Ô.€Ð¤ô Ð Ð  ÐòòId.óó€Ô_ÔatÔ_Ô€890€(citations€omitted).€€Essentially€concluding€that€one€could€not€intend€an€unintended€consequence,€we€held€thatÐ h¸  Ðone€could€not€specifically€intend€to€commit€attempted€reckless€felony€murder.€€òòId.óó€at€891„92.€€We€did€not€address,Ð ,|  Ðhowever,€whether€the€reckless€mental€state€of€that€offense€could€have€any€other€application€in€the€attempted€crime.Ð ð@  Ðà  àFinally,€some€courts€have€attempted€to€equate€knowledge€of€oneððs€actions€with€an€intent€to€engage€in€thoseÐ ´  Ðactions.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€has€recently€used€this€rationale€in€òòState€Ô_Ôv.Ô_Ô€Palmeróó,€Ô‡ô!uòòô!uÔ10€S.W.3d€638,€644€(Tenn.Ð xÈ  ÐCrim.€App.€1999)Ô#†ô!uòòô!u‘ #Ô,€Ô_ÔwhenÔ_Ô€it€stated€that€mere€knowledge€would€suffice€for€the€specific€intent€language€of€subsection€(a)(3):€Ð <Œ Ðð ðÔ‡ô!uòòô!uÔÔ_ÔunlikeÔ_Ô€a€mens€rea€of€recklessness,€the€mental€states€of€intentional€or€knowing€both€ððinvolve€a€level€of€consciousÐ P Ðawareness€and€volitional,€affirmative€conduct.ðððð€(Ô_ÔcitationsÔ_Ô€omitted).€€Importantly,€though,€this€approach,€without€more,Ð Ä Ðleaves€one€unsatisfied€because€it€Ô#†ô!uòòô!u´#Ôignores€the€critical€fact€that€the€criminal€code€does€not€equate€mere€knowledge€orÐ ˆØ Ðawareness€of€oneððs€actions€with€oneððs€intent€or€conscious€objective€to€engage€in€those€actions.€€òòCompareóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ Lœ ÐAnn.€ðð€39„11„302(a),€òòwithóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„302(b).(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular Ý ƒRèš$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô!uò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔFootnote€9€of€the€MPC€Commentaries€in€this€section€cite€the€following€examples€of€attendant€circumstanceÐ ° Ðelements:€ð ðThe€elements€of€ððnighttimeðð€in€burglary,€ððproperty€of€anotherðð€in€theft,€ððfemale€not€his€wifeðð€in€rape,€andÐ tÄ Ðððdwellingðð€in€arson.ðð€€By€way€of€contrast,€the€MPC€distinguishes€conduct€elements€in€these€same€examples€as€follows:Ð 8ˆ Ðð ðððConductðð€refers€to€ððbreaking€and€enteringðð€in€burglary,€ððtakingðð€in€theft,€ððsexual€intercourseðð€in€rape[Ô_Ô,]Ô_Ô€and€ððburningððÐ üL Ðin€arson.ðð —Ý ƒRèš$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô!uò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThe€State€also€cites€our€decision€in€òòAdamsóó€in€support€of€its€argument€that€the€statute€only€requires€a€risk€ofÐ ° Ðharm,€and€quoting€language€from€that€opinion,€the€State€maintains€that€a€child€continues€to€be€in€a€state€of€neglect€ð ðððsoÐ tÄ Ðlong€as€the€morals€or€health€of€the€child€is€endangered.ðððð€€Consequently,€the€State€concludes,€the€statute€only€requiresÐ 8ˆ Ðthat€the€childððs€health€and€welfare€be€endangered,€not€that€actual€harm€occurred.€€Ð üL Ðà  àWe€believe€that€the€State€has€misread€our€decision€in€òòAdamsóó.€€That€portion€of€the€opinion€quoted€by€the€StateÐ À Ðwas€narrowly€focused€upon€defining€only€the€neglect€element€of€the€crime,€and€as€we€clearly€stated€later€in€that€opinion,Ð „Ô Ðð ðthe€General€Assembly€intended€for€the€offense€of€aggravated€child€abuse€through€neglect€to€punish€a€continuing€courseÐ H ˜ Ðof€knowing€conduct€beginning€with€the€first€act€or€omission€òòthat€causes€adverse€effects€óóto€a€childððs€health€or€welfare.ðð€Ð  \ ÐòòId.óó€at€296€(emphasis€added).€€In€no€place€did€we€contemplate€that€a€mere€risk€of€harm€would€suffice€to€establish€criminalÐ Ð  Ðliability€under€the€statute.€€ &Ý ƒRèš$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô!uò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔOral€argument€in€this€case€was€heard€on€June€14,€2001€in€Nashville.€€Although€Chief€Justice€Anderson€wasÐ ° Ðunavoidably€absent€from€argument,€the€parties€were€informed€in€open€court€of€his€participation€in€the€discussion€andÐ tÄ Ðdecision€of€this€case€pursuant€to€Rule€1(a)(ii)€of€the€Internal€Operating€Procedures€of€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court:Ð 8ˆ Ðà8  àà ` àAbsent€exceptional€circumstances,€all€members€of€this€Court€shall€participate€in€the€hearingÐ üL Ðand€determination€of€all€cases€unless€disqualified€for€conflicts.€€However,€a€hearing€shall€proceed€asÐ À Ðscheduled€notwithstanding€the€unavoidable€absence€of€one€or€more€justices.€€Any€justice€who€isÐ „Ô Ðunavoidably€absent€from€the€hearing€may€participate€in€the€determination€of€the€case€either€byÐ H ˜ Ðteleconferencing,€videoconferencing,€or€by€reviewing€the€tape€of€oral€argument,€subject€to€theÐ  \ Ðdetermination€of€the€Chief€Justice.€€Counsel€shall€be€advised€in€open€court€that€the€absent€justice€willÐ Ð  Ðfully€participate€in€the€discussion€and€decision€of€the€case.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó - ù-(|I2èš$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€›M»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô!uò»»Ô€€ d(|3Ñm$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€›M»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ñm$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€›M»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€›M»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼›M»»»ÔÑ8€ÅÑXXdì»»d8Ñà@™ ™ ìàԇ›MÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼›M»î #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJune€14,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XÅÑX»¼›MÔÌÔ#†¼›M»XXÅÑï#Ôò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€€v.€€MILES€Ô_ÔMATEYKOÔ_Ôó óÔ‡XÅÑX»¼›MÔÐ úJ ÐÔ#†¼›M»XXÅÑ}#ÔÔ‡XÅÑX»¼›MÔÌò òAppeal€by€Permission€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ ú J ЀÔ#†¼›M»XXÅÑÔ#ÔÔ‡XÅÑX»¼›MÔCircuit€Court€for€Lincoln€CountyÐ æ 6 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€S9700139€€€€€€Hon.€Charles€Lee,€JudgeÐ Ò " ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<•` AßÐ –æ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1998„00275„SC„R11„CDÔ#†¼›M»XXÅÑg#ÔÔ‡XÅÑX»¼›MÔ€„€Filed€August€29,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<h` AßÐ i¹  Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant€was€charged€and€convicted€of€child€abuse€through€neglect€in€violation€of€TennesseeÐ P  ÐCode€Annotated€section€39„15„401(a).€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€reversed€the€conviction,Ð <Œ Ðfinding€that€the€State€did€not€establish€that€the€defendantððs€children€suffered€any€actual,€deleteriousÐ (x Ðeffect€or€harm€from€the€neglect.€€However,€the€intermediate€court€found€that€the€defendant€was€guiltyÐ d Ðof€attempted€child€abuse€through€neglect,€and€it€remanded€the€case€for€Ô_ÔresentencingÔ_Ô.€€The€StateÐ P Ðrequested€permission€to€appeal€to€this€Court,€and€we€hold€that€section€39„15„401(a)€does€requireÐ ì< Ðproof€of€Ô#†¼›M»XXÅÑÄ#ÔÔ‡XÅÑX»¼›MÔan€actual,€deleterious€effect€or€harm€Ô#†¼›M»XXÅѬ#ÔÔ‡XÅÑX»¼›MÔto€the€childððs€health€and€welfare€and€that€the€mere€riskÐ Ø( Ðof€harm€is€insufficient€to€support€a€conviction.€€We€also€hold€that€in€those€cases€in€which€no€suchÐ Ä Ðactual,€deleterious€effect€or€harm€is€shown,€a€defendant€may€be€convicted€of€attempted€child€abuseÐ ° Ðthrough€neglect€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„12„101,€provided€that€the€State€isÐ œì Ðsuccessful€in€making€the€required€showing.€€Because€the€record€in€this€case€contains€conflictingÐ ˆØ Ðevidence€as€to€the€required€intent€necessary€for€the€attempted€crime,€we€remand€this€case€to€theÐ tÄ ÐLincoln€County€Circuit€Court€for€a€new€trial€on€the€lesser„included€offense€of€attempted€child€abuseÐ `° Ðthrough€neglect.€Ô#†¼›M»XXÅÑ #ÔÔ‡XÅÑX»¼›MÔ€The€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€is€affirmed€in€part€and€reversedÐ L œ Ðin€part.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÓŒÓÌò òÔ#†¼›M»XXÅÑz #ÔÔ‡XÅÑX»¼›MÔTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€Application€for€Permission€to€Appeal;€Judgment€of€the€Ð #`" ÐCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€Affirmed€in€Part,€Reversed€in€Part;€Case€RemandedÔ#†¼›M»XXÅÑQ #ÔÔ‡XÅÑX»¼›MÔó ó€Ð ü#L# ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼›M»àXÅÑ=#ÔÔ‡XÅÑX.¼›MÔWilliam€M.€Barker,€Jóó.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòE.€Riley€Anderson,€C.J.,€óóandÐ Ø%(!% ÐòòFrank€F.€Ô_ÔDrowotaÔ_Ô,€III,€Ô_ÔAdolphoÔ_Ô€A.€Birchóó,€òòJróó.,€and€òòJanice€M.€Holderóó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð Ä&"& ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;Ô#†¼›M»XXÅѨ#ÔÔ‡XÅÑX»¼›MÔ€Kim€R.Ð œ(ì#( ÐHelper,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€State€of€Tennessee.Ô#†¼›M»XXÅÑt#ÔÔ‡XÅÑX»¼›MÔÐ ˆ)Ø$) ÐÌN.€Andy€Ô_ÔMyrickÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€Fayetteville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Miles€Ô_ÔMateykoÔ_Ô.Ô#†¼›M»XXÅÑ2#ÔÔ‡XÅÑX»¼›MÔÐ `+°&+ ÐÔ#†¼›M»XXÅÑ#ÔÔ‡XÅÑX»¼›MÔÓyÓÌÐ 8-ˆ(-ý ÐÔ_Ôà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼›M»XXÅÑo#ÔÔ‡XÅÑX»¼›MÔÐ ° ÐÌò òFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDÐ ˆØ Ðó óÌÔ#†¼›M»XXÅÑ #ÔÔ€XÅÑX»¼›MÔÓ  Óà  àDuring€the€late€evening€of€May€1,€1997,€emergency€medical€personnel€responded€to€a€callÐ `° Ðat€the€home€of€the€defendant,€Miles€Mateyko,€whose€wife€was€suffering€from€chest€pains.€€When€theÐ L œ Ðmedical€personnel€arrived,€Ms.€Mateyko€met€them€in€the€yard,€and€they€treated€her€inside€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðambulance.€€Although€the€paramedics€offered€to€take€her€to€the€hospital,€Ms.€Mateyko€said€that€sheÐ $ t Ðfelt€better€and€would€rather€stay€home.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àOne€of€the€paramedics€then€helped€her€back€to€her€mobile€home,€and€upon€opening€the€frontÐ è 8  Ðdoor,€he€found€the€conditions€inside€to€be€almost€indescribably€filthy.€€Garbage€and€refuse€wereÐ Ô$  Ðscattered€throughout€the€home,€and€pungent€odors€of€urine,€old€fried€food,€and€human€fecesÐ À  Ðpermeated€every€corner.€€The€paramedic€further€observed€a€baby€lying€in€a€pile€of€trash€and€dirtyÐ ¬ü  Ðclothes€with€only€the€top€of€its€head€visible,€and€he€saw€two€children€asleep€on€a€couch€under€aÐ ˜è  Ðroach„infested€blanket.€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àLocal€police€authorities€were€then€summoned€to€the€defendantððs€residence,€where€they€alsoÐ \¬ Ðobserved€a€pool€of€vomit€in€front€of€the€door,€filthy€dishes€in€the€kitchen,€and€moldy€and€rotten€foodÐ H˜ Ðlittered€throughout€the€trailer.€€The€officers€also€found€feces€on€the€floor€next€to€the€commode€in€theÐ 4„ Ðbathroom,€which€was€likewise€exceptionally€filthy.€€Later€describing€the€terrible€conditions€in€theÐ  p Ðmobile€home,€one€officer€testified€that€the€refuse€strewn€about€was€so€considerable€that€he€could€notÐ  \ Ðsee€any€part€of€the€floor,€and€another€officer€stated€that€he€had€to€go€outside€periodically€to€breatheÐ øH Ðfresh€air€and€to€shake€the€roaches€off€his€pants.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€officers€contacted€the€Department€of€Childrenððs€Services,€who€removed€the€defendantððsÐ ¼  Ðthree€children€that€night€and€took€them€to€their€grandmotherððs€house.€€Despite€living€in€theseÐ ¨ø Ðabhorrent€conditions,€however,€the€children€appeared€by€all€accounts€to€be€in€good€health,€and€theyÐ ”ä Ðdid€not€exhibit€any€signs€of€illness€or€other€affliction,€except€that€one€child€was€suffering€from€aÐ €Ð Ðcold.€€Their€grandmother€later€testified€that€when€the€children€first€arrived€at€her€house€during€theÐ l¼ Ðearly€morning€hours€of€May€2,€she€believed€them€to€be€well„fed€and€ð ðin€perfect€health.ððÐ X ¨ ÐÌà  àOn€December€16,€1997,€a€Lincoln€County€grand€jury€indicted€the€defendant€on€three€countsÐ 0"€  Ðof€neglect€of€children€less€than€six€years€of€age€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÐ #l! Ð39„15„401(a).€€At€trial,€the€State€introduced€several€witnesses€who€described€the€appalling€conditionsÐ $X" Ðof€the€mobile€home,€but€it€did€not€introduce€any€evidence€showing€that€these€conditions€producedÐ ô$D # Ðan€adverse€effect€to€the€health€of€the€children.€€In€fact,€while€all€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses€testified€thatÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€childrenððs€health€and€welfare€were€at€risk€of€harm,€they€also€all€agreed€that€the€children€were€inÐ Ì&"% Ðgood€health€at€the€time€of€their€removal.€€One€officer€further€admitted€that,€apart€from€the€deplorableÐ ¸'#& Ðâ âconditions€of€the€mobile€home,€he€had€no€reason€to€believe€that€the€children€were€unhealthy€in€anyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðway.€€Nevertheless,€the€jury€returned€a€guilty€verdict€on€all€three€counts€of€child€neglect,׃×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€theÐ ° Ðâ âcourt€sentenced€the€defendant€to€serve€an€effective€term€of€three€years,€four€months€in€theÐ œì ÐDepartment€of€Correction.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€then€appealed€to€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€arguing€that€because€the€StateÐ `° Ðintroduced€no€proof€that€the€conditions€inside€the€mobile€home€caused€or€produced€an€actual,Ð L œ Ðdeleterious€effect€upon€the€childrenððs€health€and€welfare,€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€supportÐ 8 ˆ Ða€conviction€for€child€neglect€under€section€39„15„401(a).€€The€intermediate€court€agreed,€and€itÐ $ t Ðvacated€the€defendantððs€conviction€upon€finding€that€ð ðthe€record€is€devoid€of€any€proof€of€a€medicalÐ  ` Ðor€scientific€nature€that€these€conditions€in€and€of€themselves€equated€to€harm.ðð€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àHowever,€despite€the€absence€of€actual€harm€to€the€children,€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ Ô$  Ðconcluded€that€the€defendant€was€guilty€of€attempted€child€neglect.€€The€court€stated€that€underÐ À  ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„12„101(a)(3),€a€defendant€could€be€guilty€of€attempted€childÐ ¬ü  Ðneglect€if€he€or€she€intended€to€complete€a€course€of€action€resulting€in€child€neglect€and€had€takenÐ ˜è  Ða€substantial€step€toward€the€commission€of€that€offense.€€Further€finding€that€ð ðthe€juryððs€verdict€isÐ „Ô  Ðnecessarily€a€finding€on€each€count€that€the€defendant€committed€acts€which€constitute€an€attemptÐ pÀ Ðto€commit€child€neglect,ðð€the€court€remanded€the€case€for€resentencing.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àWe€granted€the€Stateððs€request€for€permission€to€appeal€on€the€issue€of€whether€the€offenseÐ 4„ Ðof€child€abuse€through€neglect€contained€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„15„401(a)€requiresÐ  p Ðproof€of€an€actual,€deleterious€effect€upon€the€childððs€health€and€welfare.׃#d×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€defendant€has€alsoÐ  \ Ðraised€the€issue€of€whether€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€correctly€held€that€one€may€be€lawfullyÐ øH Ðconvicted€of€attempted€child€neglect.€€For€the€reasons€given€herein,€we€hold€that€some€proof€of€anÐ ä4 Ðactual,€deleterious€effect€upon€the€childððs€health€and€welfare€must€exist€before€a€conviction€may€beÐ Ð  Ðsustained€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„15„401(a).€€We€also€hold€that€the€defendantÐ ¼  Ðmay€be€guilty€of€attempted€child€neglect€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„12„101(a)(3),Ð ¨ø Ðprovided€that€the€State€proves€that€the€defendantððs€conscious€object€or€desire€was€to€engage€inÐ ”ä Ðconduct€constituting€neglect€and€that€he€took€a€substantial€step€toward€the€commission€of€theÐ ° Ðoffense.€€Because€the€record€contains€conflicting€evidence€as€to€the€defendantððs€intent€in€this€regard,Ð œì Ðwe€remand€this€case€to€the€Lincoln€County€Circuit€Court€for€a€new€trial€on€the€lesser„includedÐ ˆØ Ðoffense€of€attempted€child€neglect.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓNECESSITY€OF€PROVING€AN€ACTUAL,€DELETERIOUS€EFFECT€Ð L œ ÐUPON€A€CHILDððS€HEALTH€AND€WELFAREó óÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌÓÅ/Óà  àBecause€the€first€issue€in€this€case€concerns€the€proper€construction€given€to€Tennessee€CodeÐ  ` ÐAnnotated€section€39„15„401(a),€we€begin€our€analysis€with€a€review€of€its€text.€€This€sectionÐ ü L  Ðprovides€that€Ð è 8  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à[a]ny€person€who€knowingly,€other€than€by€accidental€means,€treats€a€child€underÐ À  Ðeighteen€(18)€years€of€age€in€such€a€manner€as€to€inflict€injury€or€òòneglects€such€aÐ ¬ü  Ðchild€so€as€to€adversely€affect€the€childððs€health€and€welfare€óócommits€a€Class€AÐ ˜è  Ðmisdemeanor;€provided,€that€if€the€abused€or€neglected€child€is€six€(6)€years€of€ageÐ „Ô  Ðor€less,€the€penalty€is€a€Class€D€felony.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌ(emphasis€added).€€As€we€have€recognized€before,€the€offense€of€child€neglect€requires€proof€of€threeÐ H˜ Ðmaterial€elements:€(1)€that€a€person€knowingly€neglected€a€child,€(2)€that€the€childððs€age€is€withinÐ 4„ Ðthe€applicable€range€set€forth€in€the€statute,€and€(3)€that€the€neglect€adversely€affected€the€childððsÐ  p Ðhealth€and€welfare.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Duckeróó,€27€S.W.3d€889,€896€(Tenn.€2000).€€However,€the€statuteÐ  \ Ðitself€does€not€define€the€phrase€ð ðso€as€to€adversely€affect€the€childððs€health€and€welfare,ðð€nor€doesÐ øH Ðit€specifically€address€whether€this€phrase€requires€proof€of€some€actual€detriment€or€harm€beforeÐ ä4 Ðcriminal€liability€may€be€imposed.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àA€cardinal€rule€of€statutory€construction€is€that€statutes€are€construed€according€to€the€plainÐ ¨ø Ðand€ordinary€meaning€of€their€terms.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Mallardóó,€40€S.W.3d€473,€480€(Tenn.€2001).€Ð ”ä ÐAccordingly,€the€State€argues€that,€based€on€the€common,€ordinary€meaning€of€the€terms,€the€phraseÐ €Ð Ðð ðadversely€affectðð€essentially€requires€only€that€the€defendant€place€the€childððs€health€and€welfareÐ l¼ Ðòòat€riskóó€of€suffering€some€harm€and€that€no€harm€needs€actually€to€occur.€€Relying€upon€the€sameÐ X ¨ Ðcanon€of€construction,€but€supplying€different€definitions€of€the€terms,€the€defendant€argues€that€theÐ D!” Ðstatute€requires€proof€of€some€actual€harm€and€that€a€conviction€cannot€be€sustained€when€nothingÐ 0"€  Ðmore€than€a€mere€risk€of€harm€is€present.€€As€can€be€seen€by€these€arguments,€the€parties€legitimatelyÐ #l! Ðdispute€the€ordinary€meaning€of€the€language€used€in€this€statute,€and€we€should€therefore€lookÐ $X" Ðbeyond€the€language€to€examine€ð ðthe€entire€statutory€scheme€for€interpretive€guidance.ðð€€òòMcCoy€v.Ð ô$D # ÐT.T.C.,€Ill.€Inc.óó,€14€S.W.3d€734,€738€(Tenn.€2000);€òòMandela€v.€Campbellóó,€978€S.W.2d€531,€534Ð à%0!$ Ð(Tenn.€1998).Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àAlthough€this€issue€is€one€of€first€impression€for€this€Court,€some€of€our€recent€decisionsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhave€thoroughly€examined€the€statutory€scheme€underlying€section€39„15„401(a),€and€these€decisionsÐ )à$( Ðâ âindicate€that€some€actual€detriment€or€harm€is€in€fact€required€to€impose€criminal€liability€for€childÐ |*Ì%) Ðneglect.€€For€example,€in€òòState€v.€Duckeróó,€we€discussed€the€elements€of€this€offense€and€concludedÐ ° Ðthat€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà8  à[o]nce€the€knowing€mens€rea€[for€the€neglect€element]€is€established,€the€next€inquiryÐ tÄ Ðunder€the€plain€language€of€the€statute€is€simply€whether€the€child€sustained€an€injuryÐ `° Ðor,€òòin€the€case€of€child€neglect,€whether€the€child€suffered€an€adverse€effect€to€theÐ L œ Ðchildððs€health€[and]€welfareóó.€€The€legislature€has€employed€the€phrases€ð ðso€as€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðinjureðð€and€ð ðso€as€to€adversely€affectðð€when€defining€the€injury€aspect€of€the€childÐ $ t Ðabuse€statute.€€These€phrases€clearly€indicate€that€òòif€an€injury€results€from€knowingÐ  ` Ðabuse€or€neglectóó,€the€actor€has€committed€child€abuse.Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌ27€S.W.3d€at€897€(emphasis€added).€€As€is€evident€from€this€discussion,€the€State€must€prove,€as€anÐ Ô$  Ðessential€element€of€the€offense,€that€the€child€ð ðsufferedðð€some€adverse€effect€to€his€or€her€health€andÐ À  Ðwelfare.€€Our€use€of€the€terms€ð ðsufferðð€and€ð ðinjuryðð€in€the€neglect€context€was€not€unintentional,€andÐ ¬ü  Ðthese€terms€serve€to€indicate€that€the€showing€of€harm€in€the€neglect€context€is€not€materiallyÐ ˜è  Ðdifferent€in€kind€than€the€showing€required€in€the€abuse€context.€€Just€as€the€statute€does€notÐ „Ô  Ðcontemplate€that€a€mere€risk€of€injury€is€sufficient€in€the€abuse€context,€òòDuckeróó€makes€clear€that€aÐ pÀ Ðmere€risk€of€harm€in€the€neglect€context€is€also€insufficient.Ð \¬ ЀÌà  àIn€addition,€our€decision€in€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€24€S.W.3d€289€(Tenn.€2000),€a€case€decided€lessÐ 4„ Ðthan€two€weeks€before€òòDuckeróó,€further€indicates€that€an€actual,€deleterious€effect€or€harm€to€the€childÐ  p Ðmust€be€shown€under€section€39„15„401(a).€€In€òòAdamsóó,€we€held€that€child€neglect€is€a€continuingÐ  \ Ðoffense€and€that,€therefore,€the€State€does€not€need€to€make€an€election€of€offenses€when€it€showsÐ øH Ðthat€several€adverse€effects€have€resulted€from€one€period€of€neglect.€€In€addressing€the€nature€ofÐ ä4 Ðchild€neglect€itself,€we€concluded€that€the€offense€of€child€abuse€through€neglect€continues€ð ðuntil€theÐ Ð  Ðperson€responsible€for€the€neglect€takes€reasonable€steps€òòto€remedy€the€adverse€effects€óóto€the€childððsÐ ¼  Ðhealth€and€welfare€caused€by€the€neglect.ðð€€òòId.óó€(emphasis€added€and€citation€omitted).€€Again,€ourÐ ¨ø Ðuse€of€the€phrase€ð ðto€remedy€the€adverse€effectsðð€strongly€suggests€that€something€more€than€a€mereÐ ”ä Ðrisk€of€harm€needs€to€be€present.€€After€all,€if€no€actual€harm€or€detriment€to€a€childððs€health€andÐ €Ð Ðwelfare€is€present€to€be€remedied,€then€simple€logic€dictates€that€the€offense€itself€cannot€exist.׃"×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àMost€importantly,€though,€the€Stateððs€argument€that€a€mere€risk€of€harm€is€sufficient€forÐ D!” Ðcriminal€liability€improperly€renders€the€ð ðadverse€effectsðð€element€of€the€offense€without€meaning.€Ð 0"€  ÐAs€we€acknowledged€in€òòAdamsóó€with€our€discussion€of€the€statuteððs€ð ðneglectðð€element,€a€child€isÐ ° Ðneglected€whenever€the€breach€of€a€legal€duty€endangers€the€health€or€welfare€of€that€child€orÐ œì Ðotherwise€places€the€childððs€health€or€welfare€at€some€risk€of€harm.€€òòSeeóó€òòóó24€S.W.3d€at€295„96€(citingÐ ˆØ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€37„1„102(b)(12)(F),€71„6„102(1)).€€It€is€clear,€therefore,€that€the€risk€of€harmÐ tÄ Ðto€a€childððs€health€and€welfare€contemplated€by€the€State€is€already€present€in€the€statute€asÐ `° Ðevidenced€by€its€ð ðneglectðð€element.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àHowever,€were€we€to€adopt€the€Stateððs€position€that€the€ð ðadverse€effectsðð€element€of€theÐ $ t Ðstatute€also€contemplates€a€risk€of€harm,€the€showing€required€for€each€element€of€the€offense€wouldÐ  ` Ðbe€virtually€identical,€and€we€simply€find€no€indication€that€the€legislature€intended€a€tautologicalÐ ü L  Ðinterpretation€of€this€statute€such€that€satisfaction€of€one€element€effectively€satisfies€the€other€asÐ è 8  Ðwell.€€Therefore,€by€further€including€the€ð ðadverse€effectsðð€element€in€the€statute,€the€GeneralÐ Ô$  ÐAssembly€must€have€intended€that€the€State€show€something€more€than€a€risk€of€harm€to€a€childððsÐ À  Ðhealth€and€welfare€before€it€could€subject€a€defendant€to€criminal€liability€under€section€39„15„Ð ¬ü  Ð401(a).€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Turneróó,€913€S.W.2d€158,€160€(Tenn.€1995)€(stating€that€statutes€shouldÐ ˜è  Ðbe€construed€to€avoid€rendering€some€parts€inoperative,€void,€or€without€effect).€€Accordingly,€weÐ „Ô  Ðhold€that€before€a€conviction€for€child€neglect€may€be€sustained,€the€State€must€show€that€theÐ pÀ Ðdefendantððs€neglect€produced€an€actual,€deleterious€effect€or€harm€upon€the€childððs€health€andÐ \¬ Ðwelfare.€Ð H˜ ЀÌà  àReviewing€the€record€in€this€case,€we€find€no€evidence€that€the€children€suffered€any€actual,Ð  p Ðdeleterious€effect€or€harm€to€their€physical€or€mental€health€in€any€way.€€The€Stateððs€witnesses€allÐ  \ Ðadmitted€that€the€children€appeared€physically€healthy€at€the€time€of€their€removalð"ðexcept€that€oneÐ øH Ðchild€was€suffering€from€a€coldð"ðand€that€none€of€the€children€possessed€any€other€signs€of€injuryÐ ä4 Ðor€harm.€€Admittedly,€these€vile€conditions€did€produce€a€risk€of€harm€to€the€childrenððs€health,€butÐ Ð  Ðfortunately€for€these€children,€they€were€removed€from€that€filthy€environment€before€any€harmÐ ¼  Ðactually€occurred.€€Therefore,€because€the€statute€contemplates€something€more€than€the€risk€of€harmÐ ¨ø Ðalready€inherent€in€its€neglect€element,€we€must€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€CriminalÐ ”ä ÐAppeals€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€defendantððs€conviction€under€Tennessee€CodeÐ €Ð ÐAnnotated€section€39„15„401(a).Ð l¼ Ðò òÌÓ  ÓTHE€OFFENSE€OF€ATTEMPTED€CHILD€ABUSE€THROUGH€NEGLECTó óÐ D!” ÐÌÓ  Óà  àAlthough€the€proof€in€this€case€is€insufficient€to€sustain€the€defendantððs€conviction€for€childÐ #l! Ðneglect,€we€must€address€whether€he€may€be€guilty€of€attempted€child€neglect.€€The€Court€ofÐ $X" ÐCriminal€Appeals€in€this€case€held€that€the€defendant€could€be€guilty€of€attempted€child€neglect€underÐ ô$D # ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„12„101€and€that€the€juryððs€verdict€was€ð ðnecessarily€a€findingÐ à%0!$ Ðon€each€count€that€the€defendant€committed€acts€which€constitute€an€attempt€to€commit€childÐ Ì&"% Ðneglect.ðð€€Raising€the€issue€before€this€Court,€the€defendant€argues€that€attempted€child€neglect€isÐ ¸'#& Ða€logical€and€legal€impossibility.€€He€asserts€that€because€child€neglect€is€essentially€a€failure€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðperform€oneððs€duty€to€care€for€his€or€her€children,€a€court€cannot€logically€hold€that€a€defendant€mayÐ )à$( Ðâ âattempt€to€fail€to€perform€that€duty.€€We€believe€that€the€defendant€has€misconstrued€the€nature€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðattempt€offenses€in€this€state€and€that€he€may€indeed€be€convicted€of€the€offense€of€attempted€childÐ ° Ðabuse€through€neglect€under€the€conditions€set€forth€herein.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àAs€part€of€the€1989€Criminal€Code€Revision,€the€General€Assembly€enacted€Tennessee€CodeÐ tÄ ÐAnnotated€section€39„12„101€setting€forth€the€elements€of€criminal€attempt.€€This€new€attempt€statuteÐ `° Ðabandoned€the€prior€practice€of€listing€attempt€offenses€individually,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„1„Ð L œ Ð501€to€„507€(1982€&€Supp.€1988),€and€in€relevant€part,€it€reads€as€follows:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àà ` à(a)€à ¸ àA€person€commits€criminal€attempt€who,€acting€with€the€kind€ofÐ  ` Ðculpability€otherwise€required€for€the€offense:Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àà ¸ à(1)€à  àIntentionally€engages€in€action€or€causes€a€result€that€wouldÐ Ô$  Ðconstitute€an€offense€if€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€conduct€were€as€the€personÐ À  Ðbelieves€them€to€be;Ьü Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àà ¸ à(2)€à  àActs€with€intent€to€cause€a€result€that€is€an€element€of€theÐ „Ô  Ðoffense,€and€believes€the€conduct€will€cause€the€result€without€further€conduct€on€theÐ pÀ Ðpersonððs€part;€€orÐ\¬Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àà ¸ à(3)€à  àActs€with€intent€to€complete€a€course€of€action€or€cause€aÐ 4„ Ðresult€that€would€constitute€the€offense,€under€the€circumstances€surrounding€theÐ  p Ðconduct€as€the€person€believes€them€to€be,€and€the€conduct€constitutes€a€substantialÐ  \ Ðstep€toward€the€commission€of€the€offense.ÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à(b)€à ¸ àConduct€does€not€constitute€a€substantial€step€under€subdivision€(a)(3)Ð Ð  Ðunless€the€personððs€entire€course€of€action€is€corroborative€of€the€intent€to€commit€theÐ ¼  Ðoffense.ШøÐ Ð  ÐÌòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39-12-101€(1997).€€As€the€Sentencing€Commission€comments€to€this€statuteÐ €Ð Ðexpress€the€general€philosophy€supporting€attempt€offenses,€ð ðCriminal€attempt€is€an€offense€directedÐ l¼ Ðat€the€individual€whose€intent€is€to€commit€an€offense,€but€whose€actions,€while€stronglyÐ X ¨ Ðcorroborative€of€criminal€intent,€fail€to€achieve€the€criminal€objective€intended.ðð€€AcknowledgingÐ D!” Ðthese€principles,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€in€this€case€found€that€the€defendant€was€guilty€ofÐ 0"€  Ðcriminal€attempt€under€subsection€(a)(3),€which€requires€that€a€defendant€possess€the€intent€toÐ #l! Ðcomplete€a€course€of€action€or€cause€a€result,€but€whose€conduct€ð ðis€incomplete€in€the€sense€that€itÐ $X" Ðis€cut€short€at€some€point€in€time€before€accomplishment€of€the€intended€criminal€objective.ðð€€Tenn.Ð ô$D # ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„12„101€Sentencing€Commission€comments.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àWe€have€previously€held€that€the€offense€of€child€abuse€through€neglect€is€a€nature„of„Ð ¸'#& Ðconduct€offense,€meaning€that€the€offense€seeks€principally€to€proscribe€the€nature€of€the€defendantððsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðconduct,€as€opposed€to€the€result€that€the€defendantððs€conduct€achieves.€€òòSeeóó€òòDuckeróó,€27€S.W.3d€atÐ )à$( Ð896„97.€€Consequently,€reading€section€39„12„101(a)(3)€in€terms€of€its€nature„of„conduct€element,Ð |*Ì%) Ðthe€statute€requires€that€the€State€prove€(1)€that€the€defendant€intended€to€complete€a€course€of€actionÐ h+¸&* Ðthat€would€constitute€the€offense,€under€the€circumstances€as€the€defendant€believed€them€to€be€atÐ ° Ðthe€time;€(2)€that€the€defendantððs€actions€constituted€a€substantial€step€toward€the€commission€ofÐ œì Ðoffense;€and€(3)€that€the€defendant€acted€ð ðwith€the€kind€of€culpability€otherwise€required€for€theÐ ˆØ Ðoffenseðð€with€respect€to€the€other€elements€of€the€attempted€crime.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòTenn.€PatternÐ tÄ ÐInstructions€„€Criminalóó€ðð€4.01€(5th€ed.€2000).€€Stated€more€specifically€in€terms€of€this€case,€theÐ `° Ðattempt€statute€would€hold€the€defendant€criminally€liable€for€attempted€child€neglect€if€the€StateÐ L œ Ðwere€to€prove€the€following€essential€elements:€€(1)€that€the€defendantððs€conscious€object€or€desireÐ 8 ˆ Ðwas€to€engage€in€conduct€constituting€child€neglect,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„302(a);€(2)€thatÐ $ t Ðthe€defendant€took€a€substantial€step€toward€the€commission€of€that€offense;€and€(3)€that€the€ages€ofÐ  ` Ðhis€children€were€six€years€or€less.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àWhen€viewed€in€terms€of€the€statute,€therefore,€we€cannot€accept€the€defendantððs€argumentÐ Ô$  Ðthat€the€offense€of€attempted€child€neglect€is€a€logical€or€legal€impossibility.€€Although€the€defendantÐ À  Ðis€correct€that€one€cannot€attempt€to€fail€to€perform€a€duty,€this€is€simply€not€the€focus€of€the€inquiry.€Ð ¬ü  ÐRather€than€imposing€liability€for€trying€to€fail€in€a€duty,€attempt€liability€presumes€that€theÐ ˜è  Ðdefendant€òòactually€failed€óóin€performing€a€legal€duty€and€that€this€failure€was€intentional.€€In€otherÐ „Ô  Ðwords,€the€issue€is€not€whether€the€defendant€attempted€to€fail€in€performing€a€duty€imposed€by€law;Ð pÀ Ðit€is€whether€his€actual€failure€to€perform€that€duty€was€intentional.€€Subsection€(a)(3)€of€the€statuteÐ \¬ Ðis€quite€clear€that€a€defendant€whose€conscious€objective€or€desire€is€to€engage€in€conductÐ H˜ Ðconstituting€child€neglect€may€be€criminally€liable€for€attempted€child€neglect€if€the€child€suffers€noÐ 4„ Ðactual,€deleterious€effect€to€its€health€and€welfare.Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€State€disagrees€that€the€defendant€must€have€had€an€ð ðintentðð€to€engage€in€conduct€to€beÐ øH Ðcriminally€liable€for€attempted€child€neglect,€and€it€argues€instead€that€the€defendant€needs€only€toÐ ä4 Ðð ðknowinglyðð€engage€in€a€course€of€neglect€to€be€liable€under€the€statute.€€It€cites€the€first€sentenceÐ Ð  Ðof€subsection€(a)ð"ðð ðA€person€commits€criminal€attempt€who,€acting€with€the€kind€of€culpabilityÐ ¼  Ðotherwise€required€for€the€offenseððð"ðand€maintains€that€because€child€neglect€only€requires€aÐ ¨ø Ðð ðknowingðð€mental€state,€it€follows€that€the€attempt€statute€can€only€require€a€ð ðknowingðð€course€ofÐ ”ä Ðconduct€as€well.€€Essentially,€therefore,€the€State€argues€that€the€only€òòmens€reaóó€required€under€sectionÐ €Ð Ð39„12„101€is€that€otherwise€required€by€the€completed€offense.€€We€disagree.€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àAn€examination€of€the€cases€discussing€section€39„12„101€reveals€some€confusion€as€to€howÐ D!” Ðone€may€simultaneously€apply€the€mental€state€ð ðotherwise€required€for€the€offenseðð€and€the€mentalÐ 0"€  Ðstate€specifically€required€by€subsection€(a)(3),€which€is€that€the€defendant€act€ð ðwith€intentðð€toÐ #l! Ðcomplete€a€course€of€action€that€would€constitute€the€offense.€€Because€of€the€statuteððs€inartfulÐ $X" Ðlanguage€regarding€the€precise€mental€state€required€for€any€particular€attempted€offense,€most€casesÐ ô$D # Ðhave€focused€their€analysis€upon€only€one€of€these€mental€states€to€the€exclusion€of€the€other.׃×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Рà%0!$ ÐFollowing€the€approach€of€most€of€these€decisions,€the€Stateððs€argument€in€this€case€disregards€theÐ ° Ðspecific€intent€language€of€subsection€(a)(3),€and€its€interpretation€renders€that€additionalÐ œì Ðrequirement€without€any€consequential€meaning€or€effect.€€On€the€other€hand,€if€some€specific€intentÐ ˆØ Ðto€engage€in€conduct€or€to€cause€a€result€is€in€fact€required€for€attempted€crimes,€then€our€currentÐ tÄ Ðcase€law€seems€to€give€little€effect€to€the€ð ðculpability€otherwise€required€for€the€offenseðð€when€theÐ `° Ðcompleted€offense€does€not€require€proof€of€an€intentional€mental€state.€€Therefore,€while€the€issueÐ L œ Ðof€the€proper€mental€state€to€be€applied€in€attempted€crimes€appears€somewhat€abstract€upon€firstÐ 8 ˆ Ðconsideration,€as€a€practical€matter,€its€proper€resolution€is€critical€in€this€case€to€determine€the€scopeÐ $ t Ðof€the€defendantððs€liability€for€attempted€child€neglect.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àAs€we€stated€earlier,€this€Court€seeks€to€give€effect€to€statutes€as€a€whole,€and€we€will€avoidÐ è 8  Ðconstructions€that€render€some€parts€of€a€statute€void,€inoperative,€or€without€effect.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,Ð Ô$  ÐòòTurneróó,€913€S.W.2d€at€160.€€Although€section€39„12„101€seems€to€possess€contradictoryÐ À  Ðrequirements€as€to€the€precise€mental€state€needed€for€the€offense€of€criminal€attempt,€a€briefÐ ¬ü  Ðexamination€of€similar€criminal€attempt€statutes€reveals€that€both€mental€states€can€be€appliedÐ ˜è  Ðwithout€conflict.€€As€we€noted€in€òòState€v.€Reevesóó,€916€S.W.2d€909,€913€(Tenn.€1996),€section€39„12„Ð „Ô  Ð101€was€substantially€derived€from€section€5.01€of€the€Model€Penal€Code€(MPC),€which€alsoÐ pÀ Ðcontains€the€requirement€that€the€State€prove€two€separate€mental€states:€(1)€that€the€defendant€actedÐ \¬ Ðwith€the€ð ðkind€of€culpability€otherwise€required€for€the€offense,ðð€and€(2)€that€the€defendant€also€actedÐ H˜ Ðð ðpurposefullyðð€in€attempting€to€commit€the€crime.€€As€is€the€case€with€our€statute,€in€those€instancesÐ 4„ Ðwhere€the€mental€state€ð ðotherwise€required€for€the€offenseðð€is€less€than€intentional€or€purposeful,€itÐ ° Ðinitially€appears€that€the€MPC€requires€proof€of€two€differing,€and€two€very€conflicting,€mentalÐ œì Ðstates.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àHowever,€once€it€is€understood€that€no€single€mental€state€applies€to€all€of€the€elements€ofÐ `° Ðthe€attempted€crime,€it€is€immediately€apparent€that€no€actual€conflict€exists.€€As€the€comments€toÐ L œ ÐMPC€section€5.01€demonstrate,€the€Stateððs€burden€of€proving€a€specific€intent€is€limited€only€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðshowing€that€the€defendant€intended€to€engage€in€certain€conduct€or€to€cause€a€particular€result.€Ð $ t ÐHowever,€with€respect€to€those€elements€not€involving€the€nature€or€the€result€of€the€defendantððsÐ  ` Ðconduct,€the€State€need€only€prove€that€the€defendant€acted€with€the€mental€state€ð ðotherwise€requiredÐ ü L  Ðfor€the€offense.ðð€€In€the€language€of€the€MPC€Comments,Ð è 8  ЀÌà8  à[t]he€requirement€of€purpose€[or€intent]€extends€to€the€conduct€of€the€actor€and€to€theÐ À  Ðresults€that€his€conduct€causes,€but€his€purpose€need€not€encompass€all€of€theÐ ¬ü  Ðcircumstances€included€in€the€formal€definition€of€the€substantive€offense.€€òòAs€toÐ ˜è  Ðthem,€it€is€sufficient€that€he€acts€with€the€culpability€that€is€required€for€commissionÐ „Ô  Ðof€the€completed€crime.óóÐpÀÐ Ð  Ðà  àà ` à.€.€.€.Ð \¬ ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€judgment€is€thus€that€if€the€defendant€manifests€a€purpose€to€engage€inÐ 4„ Ðthe€type€of€conduct€or€to€cause€the€type€of€result€that€is€forbidden€by€the€criminal€law,Ð  p Ðhe€has€sufficiently€exhibited€his€dangerousness€to€justify€the€imposition€of€criminalÐ  \ Ðsanction,€òòso€long€as€he€otherwise€acts€with€the€kind€of€culpability€that€is€sufficient€forÐ øH Ðthe€completed€offense.óó€€The€objective€is€to€select€out€those€elements€of€the€completedÐ ä4 Ðcrime€that,€if€the€defendant€desires€to€bring€them€about,€indicate€with€clarity€that€heÐ Ð  Ðposes€the€type€of€danger€to€society€that€the€substantive€offense€is€designed€to€prevent.м Ð Ð  ÐÌAmerican€Law€Institute,€òòModel€Penal€Code€and€Commentariesóó,€Comment€to€ðð€5.01(1),€at€301„03Ð ”ä Ð(1985)€(emphasis€added).׃×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Indeed,€this€conclusionð"ðthat€the€language€ð ðkind€of€culpability€otherwiseÐ €Ð Ðrequired€for€the€offenseðð€pertains€only€to€those€elements€not€involving€the€nature€or€the€result€of€theÐ l¼ Ðdefendantððs€conductð"ðhas€also€been€followed€by€at€least€two€other€states€with€statutes€similar€toÐ X ¨ Ðours.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Nunezóó,€769€P.2d€1040,€1042€(Ariz.€Ct.€App.€1989);€òòState€v.€Vigilóó,€842€P.2d€843,Ð D!” Ð845„47€(Utah€1992).€€Therefore,€in€view€of€these€authorities,€we€cannot€accept€the€Stateððs€positionÐ 0"€  Ðthat€a€ð ðknowingðð€mental€state€is€the€only€òòmens€rea€óórequired€in€this€case€for€attempt€liability€underÐ #l! Ðsection€39„12„101.€€In€fact,€as€we€demonstrate€below,€the€ð ðknowingðð€òòmens€reaóó€otherwise€requiredÐ $X" Ðfor€the€offense€of€child€neglect€effectively€has€no€application€in€the€attempted€crime€at€all.€€Ð ô$D # Ðâ âÐ à%0!$ ÐÔ‡ XÅÑXXXÅÑÔà  àFor€ease€and€clarity€of€analysis,€we€address€the€Stateððs€burden€as€to€the€defendantððs€mentalÐ ° Ðâ âstate€in€terms€of€each€element€of€the€attempted€crime.€€First,€with€respect€to€the€ð ðneglectðð€elementÐ œì Ðof€section€39„15„401(a),€the€attempt€statute€clearly€requires€the€State€to€show€that€the€defendant€actedÐ ˆØ Ðð ðwith€intentðð€to€complete€a€course€of€conduct€constituting€the€offense.€€Therefore,€as€required€by€theÐ tÄ Ðplain€language€of€the€statute,€the€State€must€prove€that€the€defendant€intentionally€engaged€inÐ `° Ðconduct€constituting€child€neglect€or€that€his€conscious€objective€or€desire€was€to€neglect€hisÐ L œ Ðchildren.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„302(a).€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àSecond,€with€respect€to€the€ð ðadverse€effectsðð€element€of€section€39„15„401(a),€we€concludeÐ  ` Ðthat€the€attempt€statue€does€not€require€the€State€to€show€any€particular€mental€state.€€Importantly,Ð ü L  Ðsubsection€(a)(3)€does€not€require€that€the€State€prove€a€specific€intent€with€respect€to€òòbothóó€theÐ è 8  Ðdefendantððs€conduct€and€its€result.€€Ô#†XÅÑXX XÅÑÌ’#ÔÔ‡ XÅÑXXXÅÑÔBecause€the€specific€intent€requirement€of€subsection€(a)(3)€isÐ Ô$  Ðaddressed€in€the€disjunctive,€the€specific€intent€ð ðto€cause€a€resultðð€apparently€has€no€particularÐ À  Ðapplication€in€cases€where€the€attempted€crime€is€principally€a€nature„of„conduct€offense.Ô#†XÅÑXX XÅÑï—#ÔÔ‡ XÅÑXXXÅÑÔ€€We€haveÐ ¬ü  Ðpreviously€held€that€the€offense€of€child€abuse€through€neglect€is€principally€a€nature„of„conductÐ ˜è  Ðoffense,€òòDuckeróó,€27€S.W.3d€at€896„97,€and€as€such,€the€focus€of€the€specific€intent€requirement€ofÐ „Ô  Ðsubsection€(a)(3)€is€more€properly€placed€upon€the€intent€to€engage€in€conduct,€rather€than€upon€thatÐ pÀ Ðto€cause€a€result.׃×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Ô#†XÅÑXX XÅÑ\™#Ô€Consequently,€we€conclude€that€the€State€has€no€burden€under€section€39„12„Ð \¬ Ð101(a)(3)€to€show€that€the€defendant€intended€that€his€children€suffer€adverse€effects€to€their€healthÐ H˜ Ðand€welfare.Ð 4„ Ðà  àÌà  àTherefore,€because€no€specific€intent€is€required€by€the€attempt€statute€for€the€ð ðadverseÐ  \ Ðeffectsðð€element€of€section€39„15„401(a),€the€mental€state€required€for€this€element€is€that€ð ðotherwiseÐ øH Ðrequiredðð€by€the€offense.€€We€held€in€òòDuckeróó€that€child€neglect€requires€no€specific€òòmens€reaóó€for€itsÐ ä4 Ðresult€element,€and€as€such,€a€defendant€may€be€held€criminally€liable€despite€his€or€her€ignoranceÐ Ð  Ðthat€the€neglect€produced€any€adverse€effects€to€the€childððs€health€and€welfare.€€òòSeeóó€27€S.W.3d€atÐ ¼  Ð897.€€Accordingly,€because€no€mental€state€is€ð ðotherwise€requiredðð€by€the€completed€offense€for€thisÐ ¨ø Ðâ âelement,€the€State€is€not€required€to€establish,€for€the€attempted€crime,€that€the€defendant€acted€withÐ ”ä Ðany€intent€to€cause€an€actual,€deleterious€effect€or€harm.€€òòCf.óó€òòModel€Penal€Code€and€CommentariesóóÐ ° Ðat€302€(noting€same).Ô‡ XÅÑXXXÅÑÔÐ œì Ðâ âÔ#†XÅÑXX XÅѶ #ÔÌà  àFinally,€the€age€element€in€section€39„15„401(a)€is€properly€classified€as€an€attendantÐ tÄ Ðcircumstance€element,€and€as€such,€the€criminal€attempt€statute€likewise€only€requires€that€theÐ `° Ðdefendant€act€with€the€ð ðkind€of€culpability€otherwise€required€for€the€offense.ðð€€Because€section€39„Ð L œ Ð15„401(a)€requires€no€specific€mental€state€regarding€the€age€of€the€children€in€child€abuse€or€childÐ 8 ˆ Ðneglect€cases,€òòseeóó€òòDuckeróó,€27€S.W.3d€at€899€(discussing€a€proper€jury€instruction€on€this€elementÐ $ t Ðwithout€reference€to€mental€state),€no€culpability€is€ð ðotherwise€requiredðð€by€the€attempt€statute€either.€Ð  ` ÐTherefore,€the€attempt€statute€places€no€requirement€upon€the€State€to€show€that€the€defendant€wasÐ ü L  Ðaware€of€the€ages€of€his€children€before€criminal€attempt€liability€may€be€imposed.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àIn€summary,€therefore,€we€hold€that€the€defendant€may€be€criminally€liable€for€attemptedÐ À  Ðchild€neglect€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„12„101(a)(3),€so€long€as€the€State€provesÐ ¬ü  Ð(1)€that€the€defendantððs€conscious€object€or€desire€was€to€engage€in€conduct€constituting€childÐ ˜è  Ðneglect;€(2)€that€he€took€a€substantial€step€toward€the€commission€of€that€offense;€and€(3)€that€hisÐ „Ô  Ðchildren€were€of€six€years€of€age€or€less.€€We€note€that€even€were€we€to€agree€that€the€Stateððs€positionÐ pÀ Ðrepresents€the€more€appropriate€view€regarding€the€scope€and€extent€of€criminal€attempt€liability,€thisÐ \¬ ÐCourt€ð ðdoes€not€typically€function€as€a€forum€for€resolution€of€public€policy€issues€when€interpretingÐ H˜ Ðstatutes.ðð€€òòLavin€v.€Jordonóó,€16€S.W.3d€362,€369€(Tenn.€2000).€€Consequently,€we€are€bound€by€theÐ 4„ Ðlaw€as€it€is,€not€as€we€would€have€it€be,€and€to€that€end,€we€are€not€free€to€adopt€constructions€thatÐ  p Ðare€plainly€contrary€to€the€language€of€the€statute.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€the€proof€establishing€the€attempted€offense€in€this€case,€we€agree€with€theÐ ä4 ÐCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€some€evidence€exists€in€the€record€that,€especially€if€viewed€in€a€lightÐ Ð  Ðmost€favorable€to€the€State,€tends€to€establish€the€crime€of€attempted€child€neglect€under€section€39„Ð ¼  Ð12„101(a)(3).€€Specifically,€we€agree€with€the€intermediate€court€that€the€juryððs€finding€of€knowingÐ ¨ø Ðneglect€indicates€that€it€found€the€presence€of€the€second€and€third€elements€needed€to€establishÐ ”ä Ðcriminal€attempt€liability€in€this€case.€€However,€we€disagree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€thatÐ €Ð Ðthe€juryððs€finding€of€knowing€neglect€necessarily€establishes€that€the€defendantððs€òòconscious€objectÐ l¼ Ðor€desire€óówas€to€engage€in€conduct€constituting€child€neglect.€€òòóóAlthough€the€record€contains€someÐ X ¨ Ðevidence€from€which€a€reasonable€jury€could€conclude€that€the€defendantððs€conscious€desire€or€objectÐ D!” Ðwas€to€neglect€his€children,€other€evidence€admittedly€weighs€against€this€finding.€€Because€the€juryÐ 0"€  Ðin€this€case€did€not€reach€a€verdict€as€to€the€attempted€offense,€and€because€it€is€not€the€function€ofÐ #l! Ðan€appellate€court€to€resolve€conflicts€in€the€evidence€with€regard€to€the€defendantððs€intent€to€commitÐ $X" Ðan€offense,€we€conclude€that€the€most€appropriate€course€of€action€is€to€remand€this€case€to€theÐ ô$D # ÐLincoln€County€Circuit€Court€for€a€new€trial€on€the€lesser„included€offense€of€attempted€child€abuseÐ à%0!$ Ðthrough€neglect.€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌÓ  Óò òCONCLUSIONó ó€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÓg°ÓÌà  àWe€hold€that€because€the€State€introduced€no€proof€that€the€defendantððs€neglect€produced€anÐ €*Ð%) Ðactual,€deleterious€effect€upon€the€health€and€welfare€of€his€children,€the€evidence€is€insufficient€toÐ l+¼&* Ðsustain€the€defendantððs€conviction€for€child€neglect€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„15„Ð ° Ð401(a).€€We€also€hold€that€the€defendant€may€be€guilty€of€attempted€child€neglect€under€TennesseeÐ œì ÐCode€Annotated€section€39„12„101(a)(3),€provided€that€the€State€proves€that€the€defendantððsÐ ˆØ Ðconscious€object€or€desire€was€to€engage€in€conduct€constituting€neglect;€that€he€took€a€substantialÐ tÄ Ðstep€toward€the€commission€of€that€offense;€and€that€the€ages€of€his€children€were€six€years€or€less.€Ð `° ÐBecause€the€record€contains€conflicting€evidence€as€to€the€defendantððs€intent€in€this€regard,€weÐ L œ Ðremand€this€case€to€the€Lincoln€County€Circuit€Court€for€a€new€trial€on€the€lesser„included€offenseÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€attempted€child€abuse€through€neglect.€€The€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€isÐ $ t Ðaffirmed€in€part€and€reversed€in€part.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àCosts€of€this€appeal€are€assessed€to€the€State€of€Tennessee.Ð è 8  ÐÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð pÀ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUSTICE