WPCh ErZ+>0ӽP3;=lVL5i|c]ʰRh!=R")fS4nɁk ;y@W;MkA4Qv]J[ j>mӏoez[ńYD,n .;8\2AɎh;X!)0f%ކq1\X{Z%篜˹HE 2XdN9d!Z]N,r5/td&'x!wa:M(+U/.'#B}rIÆuU"J +|NIp$m dMZbvWY0/s~P`A ɺB,jXFMQMy40Q6ޟGVG߂Z؄ ubʩ^[<<]tqb_Q{Z3H?qtTl#tN*evi?Ь QskrƯ#H UN  %W 0 :] 0U 0 0 0 0 0~ 0[ 05 0  0C 0# 0 0 0 0m 08 0 0 0@ 0 0 0j 08 0 0 0! 0R" 0# 0# 0Fq$ 0<% 0.% 0& 0' 0C4( 0b( 0L* 0* 0o+ 0, 0, 0L- 0- 0. 0)/ 0/ 0g0 01 01 0D2 02 03 0!4 04 0_5 1k5 7i6w6 0U=7 0(7 D+7 AM7U*28U>\8U_@88 B888 B-8 0 C$9$9Eg9g9i9rj;C GhKcOWW 1U^ 1u4_4_ 0_ 72,`N^```&aab AxcxcxcxcxcU,ddddddddddd^ CdwOd4Sdgdvd mxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdddddddddddddde+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  6? 24heading 1    XXX        6< /4heading 3              6~ 4heading 5    ?C\  `Times?     SD\  `&Times New RomanS   <:Default Para<LL:Body Text 21  X XXX   X :nq8Outline0011    2(4 4` hp x 2XXX  5+ ` hp x 5   :NN8Body Text 2          .,term1 86Block Text      /%` ` hp u /     5+ ` hp x 5  <$$:footnote tex    <+ :Outline001_123  ..<+ :Outline001_223  ..<+ :Outline001_323  ..<+ :Outline001_423  ..<+ :Outline001_523  ..<+ :Outline001_623  ..<+ :Outline001_723  ..<+ :Outline001_823  ..<+ :Outline001_923  ..<+ :Outline002_123  ..<+ :Outline002_223  ..<+ :Outline002_323  ..<+ :Outline002_423  ..<+ :Outline002_523  ..<+ :Outline002_623  ..<+ :Outline002_723  ..<+ :Outline002_823  ..<+ :Outline002_923  ..*+,-./01 35;AGOW_e11.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)<2i) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(-2$ !USUS.,  ($'dxd>?@AA<< c\  `Times\  `&Times New Roman(I Z(Times New Roman  d)Hairline d($      !USUS.,  _ @  @  @ ?+ ` hp x X?fXGv XhX#XHX hfXGv#EXHXhXH  1  TheCourtofCriminalAppealsaffirmedtheconvictionsofShervonJohnson,andhehasnot  appealedtothisCourt.E%XEXHD%E% h !USUS.,  _ @  @  @  @  @  @  @ REXHXXXB  2  Thishistoricaldefinitionquicklyexpanded,andthephysicalpresenceofanaiderandabettoris  notnecessary.InCavertv.State,14S.W.2d735,738(Tenn.1929),werecognizedthat:     iftheabettor,atthetimeofthecommissionofthecrime,were * assentingtoit,andinasituationwherehemightrendersome'   aid'  ݀to  theperpetrator,readytogiveitifnecessary,accordingtoan  appointmentoragreementwithhimforthatpurpose,hewould,inthe   judgmentofthelaw,bepresentandaidinginthecommissionofthe   crime.Itmustthereforebeprovedthattheabettorwasinasituation v  inwhichhemightrenderhisassistance,insomemanner,tothe b  commissionoftheoffense.Itmustbeprovedthathewasinsucha N   situation,byagreementwiththeperpetratorofthecrime,orwithhis :  previousknowledgeconsentingtothecrime,andforthepurposeof &v  renderingaidandencouragementinthecommissionofit.Itmust b  alsobeprovedthathewasactuallyaidingandabettingtheperpetrator N  atthetimeofthecrime...Thequestiontobedeterminedin :  ascertainingwhetherapersonisinapositiontoaidandabetinthe & commissionofanoffense,isnotsomuchwherehemayhappentobe,  aswhetherheisinapositiontorenderaidandencouragementtothe  actualperpetrator.     @ RE%XEXH  !USUS.,  _ @  @  @ %XX) @ %%  R)}  #XHX%^#EXHXhXH  3  Apersoniscriminallyresponsibleasapartytoanoffenseiftheoffenseiscommittedby...  theconductofanotherforwhichheiscriminallyresponsible,[andthata]personiscriminally  responsibleforanoffensecommittedbytheconductofanotherif...actingwithintentto  promoteorassistthecommissionoftheoffense,hesolicits,directs,aids,orattemptstoaidthe t otherpersontocommittheoffense....Tenn.Crim.Code501502(TentativeDraft1972). ` E%XEXH#%E%#D%%  Z$USUS.,  4    _EXHXXXԀInCarson,threemenplannedandexecutedarobberyofastoreinKnoxville,Tennessee.  DefendantCarsonprovidedhiscodefendantswithinvaluableinformationregardingthelayout  ofthestore,butwaitedoutsidewhiletherobberyoccurred.Hiscodefendantssuccessfully  robbedthestore,thenfiredshotsthroughanofficedoorwherestoreemployeeswerebound.The t State,relyinguponthetheoryofcriminalresponsibility,chargedCarsonwithaggravated ` robbery,twocountsofaggravatedassault,andfelonyrecklessendangerment.TheState L  contendedthatCarsonwasguiltyoftheadditionalchargesbecausetheywerethenaturaland 8  probableconsequencesoftherobbery.#XHXXEXHk# $ t  ^ !USUS.,  _?+ ` hp x X? @  @  @ %XX) @ %%  )  #XHX%#EXHXhXH  5  LafaveandScottarguethattherule teststheouterlimitsofthementalstaterequirementfor  accompliceliabilitybyquestioninghowintenttocommitanoffensecouldcorrectlybeimparted  toimputeintenttoanotheroffensewhichwastheconsequenceofthefirst.2WayneR.Lafave&  AustinW.Scott,Jr.,SubstantiveCriminalLaw6.8(b),at158(1986). @ #XHXXEXHF# v !USUS.,  _?+ ` hp x X? @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @ %XX) @ %%  R)  #XHX%c#CXHXXXH)݌̌ @ C%hCXH  CXHX,C%#XHXhCXH#EXHXhXH  6  SeePeoplev._ Prettyman_ ,926P.2d1013(Cal.1996)(holdingthatadefendantmaybeheld  criminallyresponsibleforanycrimethatisthe'   naturalandprobableconsequence'  ݀ofthetarget | crime);seealsoChancev.State,685A.2d351(Del.1996)(holdingthatanaccomplicefor h assaultcouldbeheldresponsibleforunintendeddeathofvictim);Peoplev.Cole,625N.E.2d T 816(Ill.App.Ct.1993)(holdingthatan_ acomplice_ Ԁcanbeliableforanyactsinfurtheranceofa @  commoncriminaldesignoragreement);Statev.Bowman,588A.2d728(Me.1991)(holding , | thatarecklessorcriminallynegligentkillingbytheprincipalwasareasonablyforeseeable  h consequenceofthedefendant'sownconduct);Statev._ Fillipi_ ,335N.W.2d739(Minn.1983)  T (holdingthatculpabilityrestedonwhetheradefendantkneworreasonablycouldforeseethe  @  consequencesofdefendant'sactions).#E%XEXH#  ,  #%E%#D%%  !USUS.,  _?+ ` hp x X? @  @  @  @  @ RDXHXXXB#XHXXDXH#EXHXhXH  7  InHoward,fourarmedassailantsenteredarestaurantafterithadclosedwiththeintenttorob  theestablishmentanditsemployees.Duringthecommissionoftherobbery,oneofHowards  codefendantsshotandkilledthestoremanager.Attrial,defendantHowardadmittedthathe  accompaniedhisconfederatestotherestaurantknowingthattheyintendedtorobit,buthe t assertedthatheremainedinthebackoftherestaurantanddidnotdirectlyaidinthecriminal ` acts.Mr.Howardwasultimatelychargedwithfirstdegreepremeditatedmurder,twocountsof L  firstdegreefelonymurder,especiallyaggravatedrobbery,andconspiracytocommitaggravated 8  robbery.TheStatearguedthatunderTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3911402(2),Mr. $ t  Howardwascriminallyresponsibleforthecrimescommittedbyhisconfederates,andthejury  convictedMr.Howardonallcharges.Onappeal,Mr.Howardarguedthatbecausethetrialcourt  didnotinstructthejuryonthenaturalandprobableconsequencesrule,theconvictioncouldnot  stand. t  @ RE%XEXH#%E%##D%%$359=AEIMQ2111111113#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(B2$ !USUS.,    0  Xi) Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5>?@A I&mage <=8C HKKKK38 ZTimes {n-s ,-.bkð3|xU  Z$USUS.,  8    _ԀEXHXXXԀInHoward,wecouldnotconclude beyondareasonabledoubtthatthejuryverdictwould  havebeenthesameabsenttheomittedinstructions.Assuch,wecouldnotfindtheerror  harmless.#XHXXEXHl# [ Z$USUS.,  9    _EXHXXXԀOurcoderecognizesthatfacilitationisestablishedbyproofthat knowingthatanotherintends  tocommitaspecificfelony,butwithouttheintentrequiredforcriminalresponsibilityunder  section3911402(2),thepersonknowinglyfurnishessubstantialassistanceinthecommissionof  thefelony.Tenn.CodeAnn.3911403(2001). t #XHXXEXHk# !USUS.,  _   <*+,-./012(03X  XX8HXXdd8=HXdd==HXXdXd=EINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  #EXHXE#E%XEXH& 8 !    E E%    !J  #EXHXE #EXEXHATKNOXVILLE#EXHXE#B  EXEXH#E#C#CXHXCD#CXCXHԍATKNOXVILLEC  EC  #EXHXE#EXEXH!J݌ & Ќ  E%E   #EXHXE%g#E XEXH!    E E     !8  #EXHXE #E}XEXHSeptember5,2002SessionB  #EXHXE}#EXEXH#E#C#CXHXC?#CXCXHԍSeptember5,2002SessionC  EC  '8>#EXHXE#EXEXH!8݌ L Ќ  E E   #EXHXE Ă#E XEXH#EXHXE 4# STATEOFTENNESSEEv._LINNELL_ԀRICHMOND  H  &  AppealByPermissionfromtheCourtofCriminalAppeals,  p CriminalCourtforKnoxCounty'   \   No.58152A&58152BHon.RichardR._Baumgartner_,Judge  H   @@*AGM) ` df;E<` A   @@TTNo.E200001545SCR11CDFiledNovember1,_2002_Ԁ       AGM) ` dE<` A      Followingajurytrial,thedefendant,_Linnell_ԀRichmond,wasfoundguiltybyaKnoxCountyjuryof  aggravatedrobbery,attemptedaggravatedrobberyandtwocountsofattemptedfirstdegree v premeditatedmurder.Thetrialcourtsentencedthedefendanttoaneffectivesentenceoftwentytwo b yearsforhisconvictions,tobeservedconsecutivelytoafederalsentencearisingoutofthesame N criminalepisode.TheCourtofCriminalAppealsreversedthejudgmentofthetrialcourtupon : findingthatthetrialcourterredinfailingtoinstructthejuryon:(1)the naturalandprobable &v consequenceruleinrelationtothechargesofattemptedfirstdegreemurder;and(2)robberyasa b lesserincludedoffenseofaggravatedrobbery,andattemptedrobberyasalesserincludedoffense N ofattemptedaggravatedrobbery.TheStateappealedtothisCourt,andwegrantedtheapplication. : Weholdthat:(1)itwasharmlesserrorbythetrialcourttofailtoinstructthejuryonthenaturaland & probableconsequencesruleinrelationtothechargeofattemptedfirstdegreemurder;and(2)itwas  likewiseharmlesserrorbythetrialcourtinfailingtoinstructthejuryregardingrobberyasalesser  includedoffenseofaggravatedrobbery,andattemptedrobberyasalesserincludedoffenseof  attemptedaggravatedrobbery.Therefore,thejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsis  reversed,andthedefendantsconvictionsarereinstated.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtfor r  enforcementofthejudgment. ^!      Tenn.R.App.P.11ApplicationforPermissiontoAppeal;JudgmentoftheCourtof 6#" CriminalAppealsReversed;Caseremandedforjudgmentconsistentwiththisopinion.  "$r#     WilliamM.Barker,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,thepanelofwhichconsistedofFrank %J!% F._Drowota_,III,C.J.,andE.RileyAnderson,_Adolpho_ԀA.Birch,Jr.,andJaniceM.Holder, &6"& JJ. '"#'   PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelMoore,SolicitorGeneral;ElizabethB. )$) _Marney_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;RandallE._Nichols_,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andRobertL. *%* _Jolley_,Jr.,AssistantDistrictAttorney;fortheappellant,StateofTennessee. +&+ _ ԇWadeV.Davies,Knoxville,Tennessee(onappeal)andKeithE.Haas,Sevierville,Tennessee(at  trial)fortheappellee,LinnellRichmond.    &         EXHXXEXH     OPINIONB  E}XEXH#}E}#C}}#CXHXC}#C}XCXHԍOPINIONC  E}C}EXHXE} q݌ t Ќ  EXHXXEXH         EXHXXEXH   -  FACTSB  #EXHXXEXH7#E}XEXH#}E}#C}}#CXHXC}#C}XCXHԍFACTSC  E}C}EXHXE}'t -݌ L  Ќ  EXHXXEXH    Qu $ t Q      OntheeveningofFebruary18,1995,MoseCuxartwasstandinginfrontoftheMagicCity u  LoungewithCharles StephenEarls,ShannonBrown,andKevinBrown.Suddenly,fourmencame a  aroundthecorneroftheclubbrandishingweaponsanddemandingthatthegrouphandovertheir M   money.Mr.Cuxarthad$200cashinhisbackpocket,whichhegavetothemen,buttheothershad 9  nomoney.Mr.Cuxarttestifiedthattheapparentleaderoftheassailantshelda.9millimeter %u  handguntohisfaceandwaswearinga catmaskduringtherobbery.Mr.Cuxartfurthertestified a  thatallfourmenhadmasksonduringtherobbery.However,inpriortestimony,heclaimedthat M  therehadonlybeenthreeassailantsontheeveningofFebruary18. 9   X &v Afterthisinitialconfrontation,theassailantwhohadplacedaguntothefaceofMr.Cuxart c !lateridentifiedasShervonJohnsonor Goldie!enteredtheMagicCityLoungeinordertorob O thepatronsandemployees.However,beforeenteringtheclub,heorderedhisconfederatesto ;  cancelthevictims.Mr.CuxarttestifiedthatinresponsetothisorderfromdefendantJohnson,the 'w tallestoftheassailantsfiredanUzisubmachineguninthegeneraldirectionofthevictims,forcing c thegrouptohidebehindthefrontdooroftheclub.ItwaslaterlearnedthatShannonBrownwas O grazedbyabulletmostlikelyfiredfromtheUzi.Mr.CuxartlateridentifiedtheshooterasWilliam ; FredUnderwood. '    d CharlesStephenEarls,whoworkedasabartenderattheMagicCityLoungeandwasoutside Q withMr.Cuxartatthetimeoftherobbery,generallycorroboratedtheaforementionedevents.Mr. = Earlsstatedthatfourassailantscamearoundthebuilding,andthattwoofthemenwerewearing cat )y masks,onehadahoodoverhisface,andonedidnothaveonamask.Mr.EarlsidentifiedWilliam  e FredUnderwoodasnotwearingamask.Mr.Earlsfurtherstatedthatoneofthemenwearinga cat !Q maskwhohadalarge afrotookmoneyfromMr.Cuxart.Mr.Earlsalsotestifiedthatafterhetold != theassailantsthathedidnothaveanymoney,theleadassailantranintotheclubwithanUzi. ") However,Mr.EarlsadmittedthathehadpreviouslystatedthatWilliamFredUnderwood,not #  ShervonJohnson,wastheassailantwhowascarryingtheUzi. $ !  %>!" AsMr.JohnsonenteredtheMagicCityLounge,hefirstapproachedLeonardMauriceHill, +'{"# theDJwhowasworkingthenightoftherobbery.Mr.HilltestifiedthathewasbehindtheDJbooth (g#$ whenamanwithamaskandasilvercoloredhandguncameinandtoldhimtoemptyhispockets. )S$% Whentheassailantmomentarilyturnedaroundtofacepatronsatthebar,Mr.Hilltackledhimand )?%& forcedthehandgunfromhispossession.Thetwomenstruggledforashorttimeandfelloutthe *+&' frontdooroftheMagicCityLounge.Mr.HillwassuccessfulinpinningJohnsontothefloor.While +'( onthefloor,JohnsonyelledtohisconfederatestoshootMr.Hill.Atthispoint,Mr.Cuxartgrabbed  Mr.Hillandpulledhimbackinsidetheclub,andtheassailantsranfromtheclub.Mr.Hilldescribed  hisassailantashavingalarge afrobutadmittedthathecouldnotidentifythemanfurther.  However,thestrugglecausedtheassailanttolosehismaskwhereuponMr.Cuxart,Mr.Earlsand t afemalepatronattheclubidentifiedthemanasShervonJohnson,or Goldie. `    Mr.CuxarttestifiedthattheassailantsfledthesceneinamaroontwodoorBuickwitha  * whitetop.Believingtheyhadleft,Mr.CuxartandMr.Earlsexitedthefrontoftheclubtosummon   thepolice.However,theassailantsdrovetothefrontoftheclubandparkedtheirvehicle.Mr.   CuxartandMr.EarlstestifiedthattheythensawMr.Johnsonleanouttheopenpassengerside    windowandfiretheUzisubmachinegunatthem.Mr.Cuxartstatedthatnoneofthebulletscame   closetohimbecausehefelltothegroundandrolled.Mr.Earlswaslikewiseunhurtandtestified v  thatthebulletsfiredfromthecarhitapproximatelythirtyfeetfromwhereheandMr.Cuxartwere b  standing.Mr.Earlsalsotestifiedthatitwasafrequentoccurrenceforbulletstobefiredinthe N  parkinglotoftheclub.Investigatorslaterdiscoverednumerousbulletholesintheexteriorwallof :  theclub. &v  c OfficerBruceConkeyoftheKnoxvillePoliceDepartmentwasparkedinalotdownthestreet  fromtheclubwhenheheardseveralgunshotsinrapidsuccession.HelookedtowardtheMagicCity  Lounge,whichwasapproximatelyahalfblockaway,andsawmuzzleflashescomingfromthe x passengersideofacarparkedinfrontoftheclub.Asthecarspedaway,OfficerConkeygavechase, d withOfficerJerredSmithfollowingbehindhiminanothersquadcar.OfficerConkeyfollowedthe P carforaboutamileataspeedoffiftytosixtymilesperhour,untilthecarwentthewrongwayon < aonewaystreetand spunout.ThecarcametoastopfacingOfficerConkeyspatrolcar.Officer (x Conkeytestifiedthatablackmaleemergedfromthepassengersidefrontseatofthecarwearinga d tobogganandranoff.OfficerJerredSmithchasedafterthisassailantandapprehendedhimafew P yardsfromthevehicle.ThisindividualwaslateridentifiedasWilliamFredUnderwood.Officer < Conkeythensawanotherblackmalewitha DonKingstyleafroexitthecar,throwdownagun, ( andrun.TheweaponwaslateridentifiedasanUzi.Asathirdpassengerattemptedtoexitthe  vehiclefromthedriversside,OfficerConkeyreachedtheBuickandapprehendedtheman.Officer   ConkeylateridentifiedthemanasdefendantLinnellRichmond.Richmonddidnothaveany ! weaponsormoneyonhispersonandwasnotwearingaskimaskortoboggan.Aftersecuring " defendantRichmond,OfficerConkeywentovertowhereOfficerSmithhadapprehendedMr. t#  Underwoodandplacedhiminhandcuffs. `$!  % " OfficerBrianDavistestifiedthathefollowedbehindOfficersConkeyandSmithinhispatrol &*"# carandapproachedtheBuickasdefendantRichmondwasplacedunderarrest.AsOfficerDavis '#$ approachedthestoppedvehicle,henoticedafourthpassenger,lateridentifiedasFrankWilburn, ($% attemptingtoexitthevehiclefromthebackseat.OfficerDavisimmediatelyplacedMr.Wilburn )$& underarrestandassistedtheotherofficersonthescene.AfourthKnoxvillePoliceOfficer,James *%' Claiborne,followedthechaseonaparallelstreet.OfficerClaibornestatedthatafterthevehicle v+&( stopped,hesawablackmandressedinblackclothingjumpafenceandentertheneighboring  housingprojects.OfficerClaibornewitnessedthemantalkwitharesidentofthehousingprojects  andenteranapartment.OfficerClaibornewenttotheapartment,knockedonthedoorandwas  allowedin.Onceinside,hefoundMr.Johnsonlyingonacouch.OfficerClaiborneimmediately t placedMr.Johnsonunderarrest.AprotectivesearchrevealedthatMr.Johnsonhadabout$235on ` hisperson.OfficerClaibornealsostatedthathefounda.9mmcobrahandgunnearatelephonepole L  atthesceneofthestop. 8    J l` $  XXEXHXXEXH  $=?  $=??݌ u  ЌEXHXXEXH   XX  OfficerMarkWaggoner,acrimelabofficerwiththeKnoxvillePoliceDepartment,examined   andtestedthebullets,spentshellcasings,andfragmentsfoundattheclub.Hestatedthatnumerous    bulletsstruckthefrontoftheMagicCityLoungeatapproximatelychestlevel.Agun,catmask,and   loadedmagazinewerefoundonthefloorinsidethelounge,butnofingerprintswererecoverable v  fromthegun.OfficerWaggonerfurtheridentifiedphotosofShannonBrownsclothingwithabullet b  hole,awoundonShannonBrownssideandapictureofShannonBrown.Noneofthebullet N  fragmentsweretestedforguncomparison,andnoneofthegunsweretestedtoseeiftheyhadbeen :  recentlyfired.Notestswereconductedforfingerprintsoneitherthe.9mmUziorthe.25caliber &v silverpistol. b Ѐ   N Basedontheaboveevidence,aKnoxCountyjuryfounddefendantsJohnsonandRichmond ; guiltyofaggravatedrobbery,attemptedaggravatedrobberyandtwocountsofattemptedfirstdegree 'w premeditatedmurder.DefendantJohnsonwasalsoconvictedoftheadditionalattemptedaggravated c robberyofLeonardHill.ThetrialcourtthensentenceddefendantRichmondtotwentytwoyears O forhisconvictions.DefendantJohnsonwasorderedtoserveaneffectivesentenceofseventyyears ; forhisconvictions.ThetrialcourtfurtherorderedthatbothDefendantsservetheirstatesentences ' consecutivelytoafederalsentencearisingoutofthesamecriminalepisodeandconductasthestate  sentences.O K  1        $  XXEXHXXEXH   X$,H    $,HH݌̌EXHXXEXH   X  OnappealtotheCourtofCriminalAppeals,theconvictionsofdefendantRichmondwere )y reversedbasedontwoallegederrorsbythetrialcourt.First,citingStatev.Howard,theCourtof  e CriminalAppealsconcludedthatbecausetheStatewasrelyinguponthetheoryofcriminal !Q responsibility,errorwascommittedbythetrialcourtwhenitfailedtoinstructthejuryonthenatural != andprobableconsequencesruleregardingtheattemptedfirstdegreemurderconvictions.TheCourt ") ofCriminalAppealsfurtherconcludedthatthiserrorwasnotharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt. #  Second,theCourtofCriminalAppealsdeterminedthatitwaserrornottochargethejuryonthe $ ! lesserincludedoffensesofrobberyandattemptedrobberyastheyrelatetoaggravatedrobberyand % " attemptedaggravatedrobbery. &!# $  XXEXHXXEXH    $gM  $gMM݌ '#$ ЌEXHXXEXH   XX  Discussion (O$% Ї$  XXEXHXXEXH   X$N  I.TheNaturalandProbableConsequencesRule$NmO݌  ЌEXHXXEXH   X   = J lR` R|*z RQ     Thenaturalandprobableconsequencesrulearoseasacommonlawcomponentofcriminal | responsibilityandextendscriminalliabilitytothecrimeintendedbyadefendant,andcollateral h crimescommittedbyacodefendant,thatwerethenaturalandprobableconsequencesofthetarget T  crime.SeeStatev.Carson,950S.W.3d951(Tenn.1997).Wehavenotedonseveraloccasionsthat @   criminalresponsibilityisnotaseparate,distinctcrime.ItissolelyatheorybywhichtheStatemay , | provethedefendantsguiltoftheallegedoffense...basedupontheconductofanotherperson.  h Statev.LeMacks,996S.W.2d166,170(Tenn.1999).Thisdoctrinebecameentrenchedin  T Americanjurisprudenceinpartduetotherealizationthatthereareoftentimesmultiplepartiesto  @  acrimewhoplaydistinctrolesbefore,during,andafteracriminaloffensehasbeencommitted.The ,  necessarydistinctionbetweenpartiestoacriminalactresultedinsystematicclassificationsaccording   toculpabilityandparticipationinthechargedoffenses.Aprincipalinthefirstdegreewasthe   criminalactor,theonewhoengagedintheactwiththerequisitementalstate.SeeStatev.Thomas,   619S.W.2d513,514(Tenn.1981)(statingthataprincipalinthefirstdegreeisthepersonwho   actuallycommitsthecrime).Inorderforanindividualtobeaprincipalintheseconddegree(more x commonlyknownasanaiderandabettor),apersonmusthave advised,counseled,procured,or d encouragedtheprincipaltocommittheoffenseandwaspresentatthesceneofthecrime.Carson, P 950S.W.2dat954,(quotingFlippenv.State,365S.W.2d895(1963)).RP K  2       < ЀIntime,thesedistinctionswereabandonedinfavorofallowingprincipalsandaccessories z tobeprosecutedequally.Forinstance,theTennesseeGeneralAssemblyenactedastatuteproviding f that allpersonspresent,aidingandabetting,orreadyandconsentingtoaidandabet,inanycriminal  offense,shallbedeemedprincipaloffenders,andpunishedassuch.Tenn.CodeAnn.39109  (1975).  RhThecurrentcriminalresponsibilitystatuteinTennesseeisaproductoftheworkdonebythe h LawRevisionCommission(Commission)andthegeneralassembly.Inastudyofthestates  T criminalstatutesandprocedures,theCommissionproposedatentativedraftofanewcriminalcode  @ that,amongotherthings,redefinedcomplicity.Q K  3      In1989,theTennesseeGeneralAssemblyadopted  , theCommissionsrecommendationsandcodifiedthecommonlawdoctrineofcriminal   responsibility.Subsequentrevisionsofthestatuteoccurredbutdeviatedlittlefromtheearlier   versionorthecommonlawprinciples.Thecurrentformofthestatuteprovides:    $  XXEXHXXEXH   QR X  9%` ` hp u X9$^  [a]personiscriminallyresponsibleforanoffensecommittedbythe .  conductofanotherif:(1)Actingwiththeculpabilityrequiredforthe   offense,thepersoncausesoraidesaninnocentorirresponsible   persontoengageinconductprohibitedbythedefinitionofthe   offense;(2)Actingwithintenttopromoteorassistthecommission   oftheoffense,ortobenefitintheproceedsorresultsoftheoffense, z thepersonsolicits,directs,aids,orattemptstoaidanotherpersonto f committheoffense;or(3)Havingadutyimposedbylawor R voluntarilyundertakentopreventcommissionoftheoffenseand > actingwithintenttobenefitintheproceedsorresultsoftheoffense, *z ortopromoteorassistitscommission,thepersonfailstomakea f reasonableeffortto#EXHXXEXHi#Ԁpreventcommissionoftheoffense.$^_݌ R ЌEXHXXEXH   X   E+ ` hp x ` ` Xu[E$  XXEXHXXEXH  R? RQ X$d  Tenn.CodeAnn3911402(2)(1997).Acommentbythedraftersofthisprovisionindicatesthat  this isarestatementoftheprinciplesofTennesseecommonlawthatprovideequalcriminalliability } forprincipals,accessoriesbeforethefact,andaidersandabettors.TennesseeSentencing i Commissionsection3911401(1997).Specifically,thestatutemakesadefendantcriminallyliable U fortheactsofconfederatesthatarethenaturalandprobableconsequenceofthecrimeinwhichthe A defendantparticipated.Extendingcriminalliabilitytosecondaryactorsisreasonableaslongasthe -} crimescommittedbyothersweretheforeseeableresultoftheconsummationoftheintendedcrime.  i Thus,thestatutemayapplydespitethefactthatthecriminalconductofothersdiffersfromor !U  exceedsthescopeofthetargetcrime.$de݌ !A ЌEXHXXEXH   X  J lR` $  XXEXHXXEXH  RR$yj  ThisCourtexaminedthescopeandbreadthofthecomplicitystatuteinStatev.Carson,950 R S.W.2d951(Tenn.1997).R K  4      ׀RInCarson,wedeterminedthatthelegislatureclearlyintendedthatthe >  naturalandprobableconsequencesdoctrinesurvivecodification.Werecognizedthatwhile the * commonlawrulehasbeensubjecttocriticismbysomecommentators,S  K  5      theruleis appliedbya  majorityofcourtsunderavarietyofstatutesgoverningcriminalresponsibility.RT  K  6      Id.at955.Thus,  thedoctrineremains aviableprincipleunderlyingcriminalresponsibilityinTennessee.Id.$yjk݌   ЌEXHXXEXH   XX  $  XXEXHXXEXH  R. ~ ,$o  #XHXXEXH#EXHXXXHOurmostrecentstatementtouchinguponthenaturalandprobableconsequencesdoctrinewas . ~ inStatev.Howard,30S.W.3d271(Tenn.2000).U< K  7      Wetookthatopportunitytoreiteratethat#XHXXEXHp#EXHXXXHԀthe  j purposeofthenaturalandprobableconsequencesruleistoholdaidersandabettors responsiblefor  thecriminalharmstheyhavenaturally,probablyandforeseeablyputintomotion.Id.at276;see  alsoKeyv.State,563S.W.2d184,186(Tenn.1978).Moreimportantly,weputforththetestthat  courtsaretoapplywhenliabilityisbaseduponthenaturalandprobableconsequencesrule. t Specifically,weheldthattheStatemustprovebeyondareasonabledoubtandthejurymustfind: `  (1)theelementsofthecrimeorcrimesthataccompaniedthetargetcrime;(2)thedefendantwas L  criminallyresponsiblepursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3911402;and,(3)thatthe 8  othercrimesthatwerecommittedwerethenaturalandprobableconsequencesofthetargetcrime. $ t Howard,30S.W.3dat276.Thisruleunderliesthedoctrineofcriminalresponsibilityandexiststo  ` ensurethatallculpablepartiestocriminalactsareheldaccountablefortheirparticipation.  L  Furthermore,itreinforcestheprinciplethatthejury,notthecourt,isvestedwiththepowertoweigh  8  thesufficiencyofevidenceanddeterminewhethercollateralcrimes,committedbyrelevantparties $  inbothphysicalandspatialproximityofthetargetcrime,arethenaturalandprobableconsequences   oftheintendedcriminalbehavior.$o|p݌   ЌEXHXXEXH   XX  P   :  A.InstructionsOnTheNaturalAndProbableConsequencesRule  $t Rb    WeagreewiththeCourtofCriminalAppealsthatbasedonourpriorholdingsinCarsonand  Howard,thenaturalandprobableconsequencesruleshouldhavebeenchargedtothejury.Clearly,  Howardstandsforthepropositionthatthenaturalandprobableconsequencesruleis anessential  elementthattheStatemustprovebeyondareasonabledoubtwhenseekingaconvictionbasedon x theoryofcriminalresponsibility.Howard,30S.W.3dat277(Tenn.2000).TheStatemaysatisfy d thisburdenonlybystrictcompliancewiththethreeprongedtestasestablishedbyHoward.Inthis P case,thethirdprongrequirestheStatetoprovethatattemptedfirstdegreemurderwasanaturaland < probableconsequenceoftheaggravatedrobbery.Properinstructionstothejuryshouldhave (x includedreferencetothisrule.Therefore,itwaserrorbythetrialcourtnottoinstructthejuryon d thenaturalandprobableconsequencesruleinrelationtothechargesofattemptedfirstdegreemurder P ofMoseCuxartandShannonBrown. < zR|*z X R|  B.HarmlessErrorAnalysis   ]$  XEXHXXEXH   QR  $  Havingconcludeditwaserrornottochargethejuryonthenaturalandprobable  !\ consequencesrule,itremainstobedeterminedwhetherthiserrorwasharmless.Inthatrespect,the !H CourtofCriminalAppealsmadenoapparentdistinctionsbetweenthefactsofHowardandthe "4 presentcaseanddeterminedthatbecausethejurywasnotpermittedtoconsiderwhetherthe #  attemptedfirstdegreemurderswerethenaturalandprobableconsequencesofthearmedrobbery, $  thetrialcourtcommittedreversibleerror.Werespectfullydisagree.$X݌ % ! ЌEXHXXEXH   X  Q XWehavepreviouslyheldthatatrialcourtsfailuretochargethenaturalandprobable  consequencesrulewhenwarrantedbytheevidenceisconstitutionalerror.SeeHoward,30S.W.3d  at277n.6. K  8      Forsucherrortobeharmless,theStatehastheburdenofestablishingbeyonda  reasonabledoubtthattheerrordidnotaffecttheoutcomeofthetrial.Seeid.(citingNederv.U.S., t 527U.S.1(1999)).WereiteratethatitisthejurysroleasfactfindertodecidewhethertheState ` hasprovenallessentialelementsofanoffensebeyondareasonabledoubt.SeeHoward,30S.W.3d L  at277.Yet,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtmadeclearinNederthatwhenajurysverdict 8   necessarilyincludedafindingontheomittedelement,theerrormaybeharmless.27U.S.1,26 $ t (1999)(Stevens,J.,concurring).Nederfurtherclarifiedthatthistypeofharmlesserrorisnot  ` limitedtosituationswhereinthejurysverdictnecessarilyincludedafindingontheomittedelement.  L  Thus,itisproperforareviewingcourttomakeathoroughexaminationoftherecordtodetermine  8  if,beyondareasonabledoubt,thejuryverdictwouldhavebeenthesameabsenttheerror.SeeAllen, $  69S.W.3dat190.Areviewingcourtmustaskwhethertherecordcontainsevidencethatcould   rationallyleadtoacontraryfindingbythejurywithrespecttotheomittedelement.Seeid.If,after   viewingtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletotheState,thereisnorationalbasisforacontrary   conclusionbythetrieroffact,thentheomittedelementconstitutesharmlesserror.    W(40<*+,-./012 p Weholdthat,astothedefendantinthiscase,thetrialcourtcommittedharmlesserrorby \ failingtoinstructthejuryonthenaturalandprobableconsequencesrule.Thefactsofthedefendant H RichmondscasearesimilartothefactsinHoward,yetwerecognizeimportantdifferencesthat 4 distinguishHowardfromthepresentcase.SimilartoHoward,defendantRichmondaccompanied  p hisconfederatestotheMagicCityLoungetorobbothemployeesandpatrons.Inbothcases,  \ individualswereshotduringthecommissionoftherobbery.NeitherdefendantRichmondnorMr. H Howardwereidentifiedastheshooter,butbothwereprosecutedunderthetheoryofcriminal 4 responsibility.Perhapsmostimportantly,thetargetcrimeinthepresentcase,aswellasinHoward,   wasaggravatedrobbery.Theshootingsthatoccurredinbothcasesmaybeclassifiedascollateral   (ornontarget)totherobbery.   Q X    Yet,unlikeHoward,wheretheevidenceofthedefendantsintentwassharplycontested,the ! evidencehereunquestionablyestablishedthatdefendantRichmondsharedtheintentofhisfellow   assailantsandactivelyparticipatedineveryfacetofthearmedrobberyandsubsequentshootings.   Theassailants,includingthedefendant,approachedthevictimswithatleastthreeweapons,one ! beingafullyautomaticUzisubmachinegun.ShervonJohnsontwiceorderedhisfellowrobbers "  tokillthevictims,andfinallyattemptedtodosohimself.DefendantRichmondstood,atmost,a m#! fewfeetfromMr.Johnsonwhenheorderedhisconfederatestoshootthevictims.Hefurthermore Y$" positionedhimselfsoastoofferimmediateassistanceshouldtheneedarise.Testimonyestablished E% # thatdefendantRichmonddrovethegetawaycarinsuchamannerastoallowhiscoassailant, 1&!$ ShervonJohnson,tofireindiscriminatelyinthedirectionoftheclub.DefendantRichmondthenled 'm"% policeofficersonadangeroushighspeedchasethroughKnoxvillehousingprojects.The  (Y#& defendantsrolewassuchthatthetrialcourtproperlycharged,andthejuryfoundhimcriminally  responsiblefortheactionsofhisconfederates.Assuch,weareconvinced,andthejuryso  concluded,thatdefendantRichmondsharedthesamecriminalintentashisconfederatesandclearly  aidedtheminthecompletionofthetargetandcollateralcrimes.Wethereforeconcludethatthe t attemptedfirstdegreemurdersofMr.CuxartandMr.Brownwereundoubtedlynaturalandprobable ` consequencesoftheaggravatedrobbery.Wethereforeholdthatthetrialcourtsfailuretoinstruct L  thejuryonthenaturalandprobableconsequencesruledidnot,beyondareasonabledoubt,affectthe 8  outcomeofthetrial. $ t L X a   <*+,-./012(04W "*"  X   <(4 4` hp x X<*E2  1  .3  @..  LesserIncludedOffensesInstruction*E݌    Ќ  Q  B+ ` hp x 44` XB      Thedefendantarguesthatthetrialcourtcommittedreversibleerrorbynotchargingthejury +  onsimplerobberyandattemptedrobberyaslesserincludedoffensesoftheaggravatedformofthe   offenses.Mr.Richmondarguesthattheerrorwasnotharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubtbecause   theevidencewascontestedastohisinvolvement.TheStateconcedesthatthetrialcourterred,but   contendsthatthiserrorwasharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubtinthatitdidnotaffectthejudgment   ofthejurytotheprejudiceofthedefendant. w  X c Inatwotoonedecisionbytheintermediatecourt,defendantRichmondsconvictionsfor O aggravatedrobberyandattemptedaggravatedrobberywerereversed.Themajorityconcludedthat ; itwaserrornottochargethelesserincludedoffensesandthatthiserrorwasnotconstitutionally 'w harmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.CitingStatev.Bowles,52S.W.3d69(Tenn.2001),the c majorityoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsfoundthatbecausetheStatehadprovenaggravated O robberyandattemptedaggravatedrobbery,thelesserincludedoffensesofrobberyandattempted ; robberywerenecessarilyproven.Accordingly,themajorityturnedtopart(a)ofthetestestablished ' inStatev.Burns,6S.W.3d453(Tenn.1999),forthepropositionthatproofsufficienttomeritan  instructiononthegreateroffenserequiredaninstructiononanyandalllesserincludedoffenses.  Thus,themajoritydeterminedthatfailuretoinstructonthelesserincludedoffenseswaserror.The  majorityagreedthatthiserrorwasnotharmless,butnoconsensuswasreachedastotheproper  analysissupportingthisconclusion.Aspartofthemajority,JudgeSmith,relyingonWilliamsv. s State,997S.W.2d101(Tenn.1998),reasonedthatbecausethejurydidnotrejectanintermediate _  offensetheerrorcouldnotbedeemedharmless.Incontrast,JudgeWadedeterminedthat K! constitutionalharmlesserroranalysisshouldapplybecausetherewasnodirecttestimony 7" establishingthatdefendantRichmondwasarmedorworeamaskontheeveninginquestion.As ##s  such,JudgeWadeconcludedthatthereexistedareasonablepossibilitythatthefailuretoinstructon $_! thelesserincludedoffensesofrobberyandattemptedrobberysubstantiallycontributedtothe $K " aggravatedrobberyandattemptedaggravatedrobberyconvictions.Theauthoroftheleadopinion %7!# fortheCourtofCriminalAppeals,JudgeWoodall,disagreedwiththemajoritysconclusionand &#"$ arguedthatthetrialcourtdidnotcommiterrorinfailingtochargethelesserincludedoffenses. '#% JudgeWoodallconcludedthatbecausethereexistedundisputeddirectevidencethatatleastone (#& deadlyweaponwasusedinthecommissionoftherobbery,noreasonablemindcouldacceptthe )$' lesserincludedoffensesofsimplerobberyandattemptedrobbery. *%( g X   `  o+&)   &     E}XEXH  EXHXE}&|  A.FailureToInstructOnTheLesserIncludedOffensesofRobberyAndAttempted  Robbery&|&݌  Ќ  EXHXXEXH     X      Inanattempttomaketheapplicationofthelesserincludedoffensedoctrinemore p understandable,wewishtounderscoreouranalysisandholdingsinStatev.Ely,48S.W.3d710 \ (Tenn.2001),Allen,69S.W.3d181(Tenn.2002),Burns,6S.W.3d453,andBowles,52S.W.3d69 H  (Tenn.2001),andprovidefurtherinsightonwhenlesserincludedoffenseinstructionsaremerited. 4  ЀWestatedinAllenthatinapplyingthe'   lesserincludedoffense'XH  doctrine,threequestionsmust  \ beaddressed: (1)whetheranoffenseisa'   lesserincludedoffense;'btha  (2)whethertheevidencesupports  L  a'   lesserincludedoffense' tha  ݀instruction;and(3)whetheraninstructionalerrorisharmless.69S.W.3d  <  at187.Accordingly,inthiscase,wemustfirstdeterminewhether'   robbery'tha  ݀isa'   lesserincluded (  offense'ltha  ݀ofthechargedoffenseof'   aggravatedrobbery,andwhetherattemptedrobberyisalesser   includedoffenseofattemptedaggravatedrobbery.'tha  InBurns,6S.W.3d453,weadoptedthe   followingtestfordeterminingwhetheraparticularoffensemayproperlybecategorizedasa'   lesser   includedoffenseofthegreater.'ktha  Anoffenseisa'   lesserincludedoffense'tha  if:    X  9%` ` hp u X9(a)allofitsstatutoryelementsareincludedwithinthestatutory x elementsoftheoffensecharged;or(b)itfailstomeetthedefinition d inpart(a)onlyintherespectthatitcontainsastatutoryelementor P elementsestablishing(1)adifferentmentalstateindicatingalesser < kindofculpability;and/or(2)alessseriousharmorriskofharmto (x thesameperson,propertyorpublicinterest;or(c)itconsistsof(1) d facilitationoftheoffensechargedorofanoffensethatotherwise P meetsthedefinitionof'   lesserincludedoffenses'tha  inpart(a)or(b);or < (2)anattempttocommittheoffensechargedorofanoffensethat , otherwisemeetsthedefinitionof'   lesserincludedoffenses'tha  ݀inpart(a)  or(b);or(3)solicitationtocommittheoffensechargedorofan  offensethatotherwisemeetsthedefinitionof'   lesserincludedoffenses'tha    inpart(a)or(b).    E+ ` hp x ` ` Xu[EId.at46667.Robberyisclearlyalesserincludedoffenseofaggravatedrobberyunderpart(a)of d  theBurnstestbecauseallofitsstatutoryelementsareincludedwithinthestatutoryelementsofthe P! chargedoffense.Thesameistrueofattemptedrobberyandattemptedaggravatedrobbery. <"   X (#x! Wearenextrequiredtodeterminewhetheraninstructiononthelesserincludedoffensesis $d" warrantedundertheevidence.Thisisaccomplishedintwosteps.First,thecourtmustdetermine %P # whetheranyevidenceexiststhatreasonablemindscouldacceptastothelesserincludedoffense. %