WPC0 ;C1LwBN`]&l" N$g,Xm Aʫ)i|%R`zfb;,X"YдQmBn}@uώpҠlǗzu3XUvܢ`2N ^ dMkeNS# ͛nȽ-soћOwro?DGjf2V(%!]mk$@İBF`c,9݂s9!S8 K6Ԅ@d r TW8I+oaJO 3Ҫ&d1DžD̕xn©RH j|+`vnst=ৃJ+`y B4R™>DWH$EW5׹)%𷛥yrWK8솆н;pFk=rXY¹OVh#,?purTP$+YC!# F %Q W 0_ 4- A U(FP !  0  0 D w@ U< FU UF n 1mO 0c 0DEKd.##U:Q$Q$Q$$'''''))))))) D3))-) B*********************************************************************** 0w,* 0* 0-+ 0+ 0, 0H- 0#.#.#.#.#. AO/a/a/ 0D'0 D/k0 B0HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLd X(v$     7XXdXXd7Xb%XXX6S/%x3|xG< 9Z .Courier New Regular  `   ((38$ v!     7iXXdd7XiXX X   `   0  (#$  0   3P45678U9P:a;U<Ӏ<4 9Z .Courier New Regular<4 9Z .Courier New Regular d  =$  X^yXX X `   1     X^yXXX^yDuetotheageofthevictimandthenatureoftheoffense,we `  identifythevictimbyinitialonly.#X^yXX X^y# X^yXXX^ytuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;s$2,  0  .3  0     =$  X^yXX X `   2    BecausethestatuteinHillneitherexpresslyrequirednor `  plainlydispensedwiththerequirementofaculpablementalstate,Tenn.CodeAnn.3911301(c)(1991)suppliedtherequisitementalstate: intent,knowledgeorrecklessness.(3$ !   ;  =$  X^yXX X `   3    TennesseeCodeAnnotated4013202(1990)providesthatan `  indictmentmust:8 ` statethefactsconstitutingtheoffenseinordinaryandconciselanguage,withoutprolixityorrepetition,insuchamannerastoenableapersonofcommonunderstandingtoknowwhatisintended,andwiththatdegreeofcertaintywhichwillenablethecourt,onconviction,topronouncetheproperjudgment;....   =$  X^yXX X `   4    Smithwasalsochargedandconvictedofaggravatedrobbery, `  buthehasnotchallengedthatcountinthisappeal.   =$  X^yXX X `   6    InStatev.Hughes,212Tenn.644,371S.W.2d445(1963),this `  Courtupheldthedismissalofanindictmentthatchargedthatthedefendant diddriveamotorvehicleuponapublichighwayofDavidsonCounty...inwilfulorwantondisregardforthesafetyofpersonsorpropertyuponsaidhighway,bydrivingsaidvehicletohisleftacrossayellowstripeinsaidhighway.Id.at646,371  . S.W.2dat446.TheCourtheldthatthelanguageoftheindictmentfailedtochargeanoffensebecauseitwasnotalwaysunlawfultodrivetotheleftoftheyellowstripe.Id.at648,S.W.2dat447.  Theholdingwasthuseventhoughthestatuteinquestion,Tenn.CodeAnn.59858(1955)(therecklessdrivingstatute),prohibiteddrivingamotorvehicleinwilfulorwantondisregardforthesafetyofpersonsorproperty.TotheextentHughescanbereadto h  conflictwiththeprinciplesofHill,itisoverruled. XmDXX X2)XXmD   Ad FILEDXmDX2)   September28,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.XXmDAppellateCourtClerk    =$  X^yXX X `   9     X^yXXX^yWenotethat#X^yXX X^y# X^yXXX^y#X^yXX X^y# X^yXXX^y,intheCourtofCriminalAppeals,Smith `  challengedthedenialofhismotionforanindependentpsychiatricevaluation.BeforethisCourt,however,hechallengesthelackofanexpartehearingregardingtheneedforanevaluation,citing   Barnettassupport.B#X^yXX X^y# X^yXXX^y#X^yXX X^y# X^yXXX^yecause#X^yXX X^y# X^yXXX^y#X^yXX X^y"# X^yXXX^ySmithstrialwasheldinJanuary1995,#X^yXX X^yd# X^yXXX^y#X^yXX X^y# X^yXXX^y  ^ andBarnettwasnotpublisheduntilNovember1995,neitherSmithnor  4 thetrialcourthadthebenefitofitsguidance.#X^yXX X^y# X^yXXX^y#X^yXX X^y# X^yXXX^yԀ#X^yXX X^y:# X^yXXX^y#X^yXX X^y~# X^yXXX^yItisnot j  surprising,then,thatSmithdidnotrequestanexpartehearing,as @ requiredbyBarnett,untilhemadehisapplicationtoappealtothis  Court.WefindthattheultimateissueiswhetherSmithshowedaparticularizedneedforapsychiatricexpert.Hefailedtodoso.Thisquestionhavingbeendecidedtohisdetriment,thepreliminaryissueofdenialofanexpartehearingisofnoconsequence.#X^yXX X^y# X^yXXX^y $  =$  X^yXX X `   5    Wenotethatthisnameisspelled Sneedintheindictment `  foraggravatedkidnaping.Wecannotascertainthecorrectspelling.,cAZ"Arial Regular z  =$  X^yXX X `   8    Tenn.CodeAnn.4014207(b)(Supp.1994)providesinpart: `  8 ` 8 ` #` #(b)Incapitalcaseswherethedefendanthasbeenfoundtobeindigentbythecourtofrecordhavingjurisdictionofthecase,suchcourtinanexpartehearingmayinits d discretiondeterminethatinvestigativeorexpertservicesorothersimilarservicesarenecessarytoensurethattheconstitutionalrightsofthedefendantareproperlyprotected. y  =$  X^yXX X `   7    OnSeptember9,1994,Smithapparentlyfiledamotionseeking `  anindependentpsychiatricevaluation.NeitherthemotionnortheresultoftheproceedingsonSeptember9isintherecord,althoughthetrialcourtreferredtotheminalaterproceeding.Duringthatlaterproceeding,Smithscounseltoldthecourthewasgoingtofileamotionforfurtherevaluation.SuchmotionwasactuallyfiledonJanuary3,1995,twodaysbeforethetrialwasscheduledtobegin.   ----'dxd ## uXd# d(O{$0  2,  a  .3  0` (#(#(bD$0  0` (#(#2,   .3  0 ` (#` (#(x$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2,(  0  )3  0 (# (#(Ƃ$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2,(  a  )3  0h(#(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2,(   )3  0h(#h(#(4$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2,  0  )3  0(#(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2,  a  )3  0p(#(#C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd v!     7iXXdd7XiXX X  ::` $XX XX$TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXiXXXi XiXXXi  :)P:=iXXdd= X Xi:͢:<<<r*<,(j 8` `@Ea ` ttx$` rߛ<@XX INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE `  @*ATNASHVILLEGEORGEA.RUFF     p )FORPUBLICATION  T     h      p )̜ Appellant h      p )FILED:SEPTEMBER28,1998  p     h      p )    h      p )BLOUNTCOUNTYv.    h      p ) z      h      p )HON.D.KELLYTHOMAS,JR.,    h      p )  JUDGE 6  STATEOFTENNESSEE   h      p ) $ Ѐ h      p )NO.03S019711CC00140 R Ѐ Appellee h    p ) @ @+ATJACKSONBILLYJOESMITH     p ) P      h      p ) Appellant h      p ) l     h      p )    h      p )UNICOICOUNTYv.    h      p ) v     h      p )HON.ARDENL.HILL,    h      p )  JUDGE 2 STATEOFTENNESSEE   h      p )    Ѐ h      p )NO.03S019711CC00135 N! Ѐ Appellee h    p ) <" # # ForAppellantRuff:   h      p ForAppellee:  )  CHRISRALLS   h      p JOHNKNOXWALKUP :!+ Maryville,TN   h      p AttorneyGeneralandReporter !h,     h      p MICHAELE.MOORE    h      p SolicitorGeneral    h      p TIMOTHYF.BEHAN    h      p AssistantAttorneyGeneral    h      p Nashville,Tennessee    h      p MICHAELL.FLYNN    h      p DistrictAttorneyGeneral    h      p Maryville,Tennessee̛ForAppellantSmith:   h      p ForAppellee: (9  JOSEPHLIDDELLKIRK   h      p JOHNKNOXWALKUP * ; Knoxville,Tennessee   h   333  3 p AttorneyGeneralandReporter *H!<     h      p MICHAELE.MOORE    h      p SolicitorGeneral    h      p KATHYMORANTE    h      p DeputyAttorneyGeneral    h      p MARVINE.CLEMENTS,JR.    h      p AssistantAttorneyGeneral    h      p Nashville,Tennessee    h      p DAVIDE.CROCKETT    h      p DistrictAttorneyGeneral    h      p JohnsonCity,Tennessee    h      p LISAD.NIDIFFER    h      p AssistantDistrictAttorney4General4̜5    h      p General   x   4D+N 5    h      p Erwin,Tennessee    h      p STEVENR.FINNEY    h      p AssistantDistrictAttorney667    h      p 7General    h      p Elizabethton,Tennessee#  # @hh-OPINION 9/V 88 AFFIRMED   p   9   x 9BIRCH,J.# XiX '# L;1Z ͢` `     <͢` `     ͢` `     ͢` `     ͢` `     ͢` `     ͢` `     ͢` `     ͢` `     <:)P    :9)P    )P    )P    )P    )P    )P    )P    )P    98)P    )P    )P    )P    )P    )P    )P    )P    87)P    75)P    )P    53)P    )P    3#XiXX Xim#Ӝ:P ` :X XiXXXi,$ XXXX X$=iXXdXXd= `  Wegrantedtheappellants,#XiXX Xi!# XiXXXiGeorgeRuffandBillyJoe `   Smith,#XiXX Xi:"# XiXXXipermissiontoappealandconsolidatedtheircasestoaddress   thevalidityofindictmentsthatfailedtochargeaspecificculpablementalstate.Forthereasonssetforthherein,underthecontrollingcaseofStatev.Hill,954S.W.2d725(Tenn.1997),we  holdthattheindictmentsaresufficient.Accordingly,theconvictionsresultingfromtheseindictmentsarevalid. `  Inadditiontotheaboveissue,eachappellantraisesaseparatesecondissue.RuffcontendsthatthetestimonyofaDepartmentofHumanServices(DHS)investigatorconcerningcertainstatementsmadetoherbythevictimwasinadmissible.Wefindthatadmissionofthesehearsaystatementswaserror.However,inlightofthestrengthoftheState'sproof,thiserrordoesnotappeartohaveaffirmativelyaffectedtheresultofthetrial. `  Smithchallengesthetrialcourt'sdenialofamotionrequestinganexpartehearingtoestablishhisparticularizedneed %l" foraccesstoapsychiatricexpert.Wefindnoerror.Inconsiderationofourholdingsontheserespectiveissues,thejudgmentsenteredbythetrialcourtsandsustainedbytheCourtofCriminalAppealsareaffirmed.@/DI `  Becausetheissuesbeforeusarequestionsoflaw,ourreviewisdenovo.Statev.Davis,940S.W.2d558,561(Tenn. 4+4 1997).First,Ruffcontendsthattheconvictionforaggravatedsexualbatteryisvoidbecausetheindictmentfailedtochargeaculpablementalstate.ThisissuewasfirstraisedbyRuffinhis:,7 ^y XXdXXd7  :9,7 ^y XXdXXd7  ,7 ^y XXdXXd7  98,7 ^y XXdXXd7  ,7 ^y XXdXXd7  87,7 ^y XXdXXd7  7applicationforpermissiontoappealtotheCourtunderTenn.R. ;@2< ,7 i XXdXXd7  <,7 i XXdXXd7  ,7 i XXdXXd7  ,7 i XXdXXd7  ,7 ^y XXdXXd7  <App.P.11.#XiXX Xi"# XiXXXiԀDefensesbasedondefectsintheindictmentare `  usuallyforeclosedifnotraisedpriortotrial;however,acourtmaynoticeatanytimeduringthependencyoftheproceedingsthedefensethattheindictmentfailstoshowjurisdictionorfailstochargeanoffense.Tenn.R.Crim.P.12(b)and(f).#X^yXX X^y+# X^yXXX^yRuffasserts  thattheomissionfromtheindictmentoftheculpablementalstatedeprivedthetrialcourtof anessentialjurisdictionalelementwithoutwhichtherecanbenovalidprosecution. `  TheindictmentagainstRuffstates:-8 ` 8 ` (#` (#GEORGEANTHONYRUFF,onthe27thdayofMarch,1991,inBlountCounty,Tennessee,andbeforethefindingofthisindictment,didunlawfullyengageinsexualcontactwith[A.K.],  #  1      ׀aperson p lessthanthirteen(13)yearsofage,inviolationofTennesseeCodeAnnotated,Section3913504,allofwhichisagainstthepeaceanddignityoftheStateofTennessee.-   #X^yXX X^y,# X^yXXX^yTheaggravatedsexualbatterystatute,Tenn.CodeAnn.3913504  $  (1991),doesnotdescribeaculpablementalstate.Itsimplydefinesaggravatedsexualbatteryas unlawfulsexualcontactaccompaniedbycertainaggravatingcircumstances.However,thedefinitionof sexualcontactinTenn.CodeAnn.3913501(6)(1991)doesdescribetheculpablementalstate: |,#* 28 ` 8 ` (#` (#(6) Sexualcontactincludestheintentionaltouchingofthevictims,thedefendants,oranyotherpersonsintimateparts,ortheintentionaltouchingoftheclothingcoveringtheimmediateareaofthevictims,thedefendants,oranyotherpersonsintimateparts,ifthatintentionaltouchingcanbereasonablyconstruedasbeingforthepurposeofsexualarousalorgratification;....6$-6  ЇThus,toestablishtheoffenseofaggravatedsexualbattery,theperpetratormusthaveactedwithintent. `  InHill,adefendantconvictedofaggravatedrape d insistedthattheomissionofaculpablementalstatefromtheindictmentrenderedhisconvictioninvalid.WerejectedHillsargumentandestablishedthefollowingrule:58 ` 8 ` (#` (#foroffenseswhichneitherexpresslyrequirenorplainlydispensewiththerequirementforaculpablementalstate,anindictmentwhichfailstoallegesuchmentalstatewillbesufficienttosupportprosecutionandconvictionforthatoffensesolongas   8 ` 8 ` (#` (#8 (1)thelanguageoftheindictmentissufficienttomeettheconstitutionalrequirementsofnoticetotheaccusedofthechargeagainstwhichtheaccusedmustdefend,adequatebasisforentryofaproperjudgment,andprotectionfromdoublejeopardy; xx 8 ` 8 ` (#` (#8 (2)theformoftheindictmentmeetstherequirementsofTenn.CodeAnn.40-13-202;and xx 8 ` 8 ` (#` (#8 (3)thementalstatecanbelogicallyinferredfromtheconductalleged. xx #X^yXX X^yG0# X^yXXX^y954S.W.2dat72627. `  LiketheaggravatedrapestatuteinHill,theaggravated .%- sexualbatterystatuteinRuffscasedoesnotexpresslyrequireaculpablementalstate.Rather,onemustascertaintherequisitementalstatebyreferringtothedefinitionsinTenn.CodeAnn. 3913501,foundinthesamechapter.ThesoledistinctioninHill 5N,5 isthefactthatadifferentprovisionsuppliedthementalstate.  #  2      ׀ `   Thisdistinctionisnotpertinenthere.Therefore,wefindHill   completelyanalogousandapplicabletothecaseundersubmission. `  ApplyingthethreeprongsofHill,wefirstfindthatthe  specificreferencetothestatuteprohibitingaggravatedsexualbatteryplacedRuffonsufficientnoticeoftheoffensewithwhichhewascharged.Likewise,thelanguageoftheindictmentprovidedthetrialcourtwithampleinformationuponwhichtobaseaproperjudgmentandtoprotectRufffromreprosecutionforthesameoffense.Second,thelanguagewasclearandconcise.ItmettherequirementsofformoutlinedinTenn.CodeAnn.4013202(1990).  #  3      #X^yXX X^y9# X^yXXX^yԀThird,inHillwedeterminedthatrecklessness, p knowledge,orintentmaybeinferredfromtheconductallegedinthatcaseunlawfulsexualpenetration.Id.at729.Similarly,we  h determineherethattheintentionalnatureofaggravatedsexualbatterymaybeinferredfromtheconductallegedintheϜindictment-unlawfulsexualcontact.#X^yXX X^y?# X^yXXX^yԀTherefore,theindictment %l" againstRuffclearlysatisfiestherequirementssetforthinHill, x'$ andtheconvictionbasedonitisvalid.#X^yXX X^yA# X^yXXX^y@.DII |,#* Ї `  Next,weaddressRuff'scontentionthattheadmissionofthevictimshearsaystatementstotheDHSinvestigatorwasplainerrorrequiringanewtrial.JuanitaFlynn,aninvestigatorfortheDHS,testifiedastothedetailsofherinterviewwiththevictimonApril2,1991.Referringtohernotes,Flynntestifiedthatthevictimtoldherthatthedefendanthadtouchedheronherprivatepartssometwentytimes.Flynngaveexplicitdetailsofsomeoftheallegedincidents.Ruffscounselobjectedtwicetothistestimony,firstbecauseFlynnwas testifyingfromhernotes,andsecondbecauseFlynnwasdescribingallegedincidentsofsexualabusewhichhadnotbeencharged.Thetrialcourtoverruledbothobjections. `  IntheCourtofCriminalAppeals,RuffchallengedonlythefactthatFlynnusedhernotestotestify.AmajorityofthecourtruledthatFlynnproperlyreferredtothenotes,pursuanttoTenn.R.Evid.803(5),inordertorefreshhermemory.JudgeWadedissented,findingthatFlynnstestimonywasinadmissiblehearsayandthatitsadmissionwasplainlyerroneousunderTenn.R.Crim.P.52(b).RuffhasnowadoptedJudgeWadesposition. `  InStatev.Livingston,weheldthat incaseswherethe |,#* victimisachild,neitherthefactofthecomplaintnorthedetailsofthecomplainttoathirdpartyisadmissibleunderthefresh-complaintdoctrine.907S.W.2d392,395(Tenn.1995).Moreover,becauseapriorcomplaintconstituteshearsay,itisnotadmissibleassubstantiveevidenceunlessitsatisfiessomehearsayexception,anditisnotadmissibleascorroborativeevidenceunlessitsatisfiesthepriorconsistentstatementrule.Id.at 08.8 395,398.Inthiscase,theDHSinvestigatorrelatedthevictim's 9|0: statementsconcerningsexualactscommitteduponherbythedefendant.Thiswashearsaynotadmissibleunderanyhearsayexception.Therefore,theadmissionofFlynnstestimonywaserror. `  Theremainingquestioniswhetheradmissionofthistestimonyconstitutesreversibleerror.Inthiscase,thejuryheardsubstantialtestimonyfromboththevictimandthevictimssister,whowitnessedthespecificincidentforwhichRuffwascharged.ThevictimtestifiedthatinlateMarch1991,Ruffcameintothebedroomwhereshewasinbedwithhertwelveyearoldsister.Hereachedunderthecoversandtouchedheronherlowerprivatepartsandherbreasts.Whenthevictimssistergotoutofbedandwentintoanotherroom,hethengotintobedwiththevictimandbegantouchingheragain.ThevictimssistertestifiedthatshesawRuffshandmovingunderthecoversonhersister.Sheknewhishandwasunderneaththevictimsclothesbecauseshecouldhearthepantyelasticpop. `  Consideringthisevidenceandtheentirerecord,wecannotfindthattheadmissionofthehearsaymoreprobablythannotaffectedthejudgmentorwouldresultinprejudicetothejudicialprocess.Tenn.R.App.P.36(b)#X^yXX X^yB# X^yXXX^y.#X^yXX X^yO# X^yXXX^yԀNorcanwefindthat (.$, theerroraffirmativelyaffectedtheresultofthetrialonthemerits.Tenn.R.Crim.P.52(a)#X^yXX X^yO# X^yXXX^y;#X^yXX X^yP# X^yXXX^yLivingston,907S.W.2dat399#X^yXX X^yP# X^yXXX^y. 1 (0 Accordingly,inlightofthestrengthoftheState'scaseagainstRuff,weaffirmthejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsupholdingtheconviction.̜#X^yXX X^yGQ# X^yXXX^y;; 9|0: @.DIII `  WemovenowtoananalysisoftheindictmentsagainstBillyJoeSmithchargingaggravatedkidnaping,twocountsofaggravatedrape,andtheaidingandabettingofaggravatedrape.#X^yXX X^y=R# X^yXXX^y  #  4      #X^yXX X^yS# X^yXXX^yԀ  #X^yXX X^yT# X^yXXX^ySmithchallengedtheindictmentsforthefirsttime#X^yXX X^ypT# X^yXXX^yintheCourtof \  CriminalAppeals#X^yXX X^yT# X^yXXX^y,wherehearguedthattheindictmentswere h  defectivebecausetheyomittedtheculpablementalstate.TheCourtofCriminalAppealsfounditappropriatetoconsidertheissueunderTenn.R.App.P.13(b),whichrequiressuasponte l  considerationofthesubjectmatterjurisdictionofatrialorappellatecourt.ThecourtthenrejectedSmithsargument,findingtheconvictionsvalidunderHill,954S.W.2d725. | #X^yXX X^y\U# X^yXXX^y `  TheindictmentchargingSmithwithaggravatedkidnapingprovided:X8 ` 8 ` (#` (#thatBILLYJOESMITHandTERRYDEANSNEED,onoraboutthe29thdayofNovember,1992,intheCounty[Carter]andStateaforesaid,andbeforethefindingofthisIndictment,didunlawfullyremoveKarenRiosfromherplaceofemployment,soastosubstantialy[sic]interferewithKarenRiosliberty,whilethesaidBILLYJOESMITHandTERRYDEANSNEEDwerearmedwithadeadlyweapon,towit:aKnife,inviolationofSection3913304oftheTennesseeCodeAnnotated,allofwhichisagainstthepeaceanddignityoftheStateofTennessee.   UnliketheaggravatedrapestatuteinHill,theaggravated b2)1 kidnapingstatute,Tenn.CodeAnn.3913304(1991),referstoaculpablementalstatebydefiningkidnapingas falseimprisonment, 5Z,5 asdefinedin3913302,accompaniedbycertainaggravatingcircumstances.Section3913302(1991),inturn,definesfalseimprisonmentastheknowingremovalorconfinementofanother,  X unlawfully,soastointerferewiththepersonsliberty.WethinkthatthereasoninginHillapplieswithevengreaterforcehere  becausethementalstatewasprovidedbythestatutecitedintheindictment,therebyplacingSmithonnoticethatknowledgeisanelementoftheoffense. `  Applyingthefirst#X^yXX X^yW# X^yXXX^yHill#X^yXX X^y ^# X^yXXX^yԀprong,wefindthatbothSmith l  andthetrialcourtwereplacedonsufficientnoticeoftheoffenseuponwhichajudgmentwouldbeentered.Inaddition,thelanguagewasampletoprovideprotectionfromreprosecutionforthissameoffense.UnderthesecondHillprong,wefindthattheformofthe  indictmentmetthestatutoryrequirementsofTenn.CodeAnn.4013202.UnderthefinalHillprong,weconcludethattherequisite t" mentalstate,knowledge,iseasilyinferablefromtheconductallegedintheindictmenttheunlawfulremovalofapersonwhilearmedwithadeadlyweapon.Inshort,thelanguageofthiscountoftheindictmentchargingaggravatedkidnapingwaslegallysufficientundertheHillcriteria ; thejudgmentofconvictionis *p!( valid.#X^yXX X^yT^# X^yXXX^y `  ThefinalHillissueconcernsthevalidityofthe /&. convictionsenteredagainstSmithpursuanttoindictmentschargingtwocountsofaggravatedrapeandonecountofaidingandabettingaggravatedrape.Thetwocountsofaggravatedrapebothprovided:Hc8 ` 8 ` (#` (#thatBILLYJOESMITHheretofore,towit,onoraboutthe29thdayofNovember,1992,intheCountyaforesaid,andbeforethefindingofthisindictment,didunlawfullysexually 90: penetrateKarenRios,byforcinghertohavesexualintercoursewithhimwhilethesaidBILLYJOESMITHwasarmedwithadeadlyweapon,towit:aknife,anddidtherebycausebodilyinjurytothesaidKarenRios,andfurther,thesaidBILLYJOESMITH,wasaidedorabettedincommittingthisaggravatedrapeofKarenRiosbyanotherperson,TerryDeanSnead,  #  5      ׀contrarytoTennesseeCodeAnnotated,  3913502,andagainstthepeaceanddignityoftheStateofTennessee.qc   Theindictmentforaidingandabettingaggravatedrapeprovided:g8 ` 8 ` (#` (#thatTERRYDEANSNEAD,onoraboutthe29thdayofNovember,1992,intheCountyaforesaidandbeforethefindingofthisindictment,didunlawfullysexuallypenetrateKarenRios,byforcinghertohavesexualintercoursewithhimwhilethesaidTERRYDEANSNEADwasarmedwithadeadlyweapon,towit:aknifeanddidtherebycausebodilyinjurytothesaidKarenRios,andfurther,thesaidTERRYDEANSNEAD,wasaidedandabettedincommittingthisaggravatedrapeofKarenRiosbyanotherperson,BillyJoeSmith,contrarytoTennessee  h CodeAnnotated,3913502,andagainstthepeaceanddignityoftheStateofTennessee.;g   (Emphasisadded).BecausethesecountsinvolvechargesofaggravatedrapeundertheCriminalSentencingReformActof1989,ouranalysisisdirectlycontrolledbyHill.#X^yXX X^ya# X^yXXX^yԀ $)&  `  TheindictmentinHillstatedthatthedefendant did |,#* unlawfullysexuallypenetrate[thevictim]apersonlessthanthirteen(13)yearsofage,inviolationofTennesseeCodeAnnotated3913502,....Wefoundthislanguagesufficienttosupporttheindictmentandsubsequentconviction.Id.at729. ,3)2 Here,thesethreecountsexpresslyrefertoTenn.CodeAnn.3913502.Inaddition,theculpablementalstateisevenmoreeasily 6$-6 inferablefromthepresentindictmentsbecauseofthereferencestoforceanduseofadeadlyweapon.Consequently,theindictmentschargingaggravatedrapeandtheaidingandabettingofaggravatedrapeareclearlysufficient#X^yXX X^yk# X^yXXX^y,andthejudgmentsofconvictionbased d uponthoseindictmentsarevalid.#X^yXX X^y_n# X^yXXX^y   `  BythisrulingwewishtomakeclearthattheCourthasrelaxedthestrictpleadingrequirementsofcommonlaw.  #  6      ׀Aswe   notedinHill, thepurposeforthetraditionallystrictpleading `  requirementwastheexistenceofcommonlawoffenseswhoseelementswerenoteasilyascertainedbyreferencetoastatute.Suchcommonlawoffensesnolongerexist.Id.at728.Thus,wherethe d constitutionalandstatutoryrequirementsoutlinedinHillaremet, p anindictmentwhichcitesthepertinentstatuteandusesitslanguagewillbesufficienttosupportaconviction.@.DIV `  Finally,weaddressSmith'scontentionthatthetrialcourterredbydenyinghimanexpartehearingontheissueofhis $)& needforapsychiatricexpert.OnDecember31,1992,priortotrialandpursuanttoSmithsmotion,thetrialcourtorderedSmith ,(#* toundergoamentalevaluationattheWataugaMentalHealthCenterforthepurposeofdetermining(1)hissanityatthetimeoftheoffense,and(2)hiscompetencytostandtrial.JerryMatthews,Ph.D.,evaluatedthedefendantfortheWataugaMentalHealthCenter.HerecommendedfurtherevaluationatMiddleTennesseeMentalHealthInstitute(MTMHI).ThestaffatMTMHIobservedandexaminedSmithbetweenMarch31,1993,andApril29,1993.TheyconcludedthatSmithwascompetenttostandtrialandsaneatthetimeoftheoffenses.TheirreportnotedtheirconclusionsthatSmithmalingeredandattemptedtogiveanimpressionthathewasmentallyill. `  InAugust1994anotherstaffmemberfromtheWataugaMentalHealthCenter,RichardKirk,examinedSmithattheUnicoiCountyJail.KirkhadaccesstothereportfromMTMHIatthetimeheexaminedthedefendant.HeconcurredinMTMHI'sfindingsandconcludedthatSmithwasmalingering. `  Twodaysbeforetrialwastobegin,Smithscounselfiledamotionrequestinganindependentpsychiatricevaluation.  #  7      ׀Inthe $)& motion,counselallegedthattheinitialreportfromMatthewswasevidencethatsanitywasasignificantfactorinSmithsdefense.Hesoughtfundstoemployanindependentpsychiatristtoconductanexaminationandtoassistintheevaluation,preparation,andpresentationofthedefenseofinsanity.Themotionwasheardand 1 (0 deniedonthefirstdayoftrial.ThetrialcourtdeniedthemotiononthegroundsthatTenn.CodeAnn.4014207(Supp.1994),  #  8      ׀governingexpertservicesincapitalcases,appliedto  X capitalcasesonly.Further,thecourtnotedthatSmithhadalreadybeenevaluatedandwasfoundcompetenttostandtrialandsanewhentheoffenseswerecommitted. `  In#X^yXX X^yn# X^yXXX^yStatev.Barnett,909S.W.2d423(Tenn.1995)#X^yXX X^y{# X^yXXX^y,this   Courtheldthatdueprocessmayrequiretheprovisionofexpertassistancetoanindigentdefendantinanoncapitalcase.InBarnett,weestablishedthestandardforascertainingwhensuch  assistanceisnecessary.#X^yXX X^yF|# X^yXXX^yԀFirst,wedeterminedwhenanexparte d hearingisrequired#X^yXX X^y}# X^yXXX^yԀontheissueofexpertassistance: whenan | indigentdefendant,inawrittensealedmotiontothetrialcourtallegesparticularfactsandcircumstancesthatraisethequestionofthedefendantssanity.Id.at42930.Next,wedetermined "  whenastatefundedpsychiatricexpertisrequired:8 ` 8 ` (#` (#[B]eforeanindigentdefendantisentitledtotheassistanceofastate-fundedpsychiatricexpert,thedefendantmustmakeathresholdshowingofparticularizedneed.Toestablishparticularizedneed,thedefendantmustshowthatapsychiatricexpertisnecessarytoprotecthisrighttoafairtrial.UnsupportedassertionsthatapsychiatricexpertisnecessarytocountertheState'sproofarenotsufficient.Thedefendantmust  /%- demonstratebyreferencetothefactsandcircumstancesofhisparticularcasethatappointmentofapsychiatricexpertisnecessarytoinsureafairtrial.Whetherornotadefendanthasmadethethresholdshowingistobedeterminedonacase-by-casebasis,andindeterminingwhetheraparticularizedneedhasbeenestablished,atrialcourtshouldconsiderallfactsandcircumstancesknowntoitatthetimethemotionforexpertassistanceismade.   #X^yXX X^y+~# X^yXXX^yId.at431.Absentanabuseofdiscretion,thetrialcourts   rulingonthenecessityforanexpertwillbeupheld.Id.󀀀 `   `  #X^yXX X^y# X^yXXX^yApplyingtheforegoingtothiscase,weagreewiththe  CourtofCriminalAppealsthatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionindenyingSmithsrequestforappointmentofapsychiatricexpert.Li#X^yXX X^y΄# X^yXXX^ykethedefendantinBarnett,#X^yXX X^y# X^yXXX^ySmithhad  alreadyreceivedafullpsychiatricevaluationatStateexpense.Apparently,hisdissatisfactionwiththeresultsofthatevaluationpromptedhimtorequestanotherevaluation.However,hehasfailedtomaketherequiredthresholdshowingofparticularizedneedfortheadditionalpsychiatricassistancehesought.SmithscounseldidnotadvisethetrialcourtofanyevidenceheplannedtoadducefromSmithsfamily,nordidhearticulateanyotherparticularizedneedforanotherevaluation.AstheCourtofCriminalAppealsexplained,hesimplyarguedthattheMTMHIsreportswereinconsistentandinvalid,andthatheneededanotherevaluationinordertodetermineifthetestsgivenbyMTMHIwerevalid. `  Courtsarenotrequiredtofindthedefendantanexpertwhowillsupporthistheoryofthecase.SeeAkev.Oklahoma,470 6$-6 U.S.68,83,105S.Ct.1087,1096,84L.Ed.2d53,66(1985);Barnett,909S.W.2dat431.ThisisapparentlywhatSmithis 9|0: attemptingtoaccomplish.Accordingly,basedonthefactsandcircumstancesbeforeit,thetrialcourtdidnoterrindenyingSmithsmotionforexpertassistance.  #  9        X  `  Inconclusion,theindictmentsinthesecasesaresufficient,andtheconvictionsbasedthereonarevalid.Moreover,thereisnomerittothesecondaryevidentiaryandproceduralissuesraisedbytheappellants.Thejudgmentsofconvictionenteredagainstbothappellantsareaccordinglyaffirmed.#X^yXX X^yV# `   `     h     _________________________________ `     h     ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.,Justice̜CONCUR:Anderson,C.J.Drowota,Holder,JJ.Reid,J.,notparticipating