# FIL ED

Ma y 9, 1996 Cecil W. Crow son A pp ellat e C ou rtC lerk IN THE CO UR T OF CR IM IN AL AP PEALS OF TENN ESSEE

AT NA SH VILLE NO VEM BER1995 SESSI ON

STATE OF TENN ESSEE , ) ) AP PELLEE , )

) No. 01- C- 01- 9506- CC -0 0206 ) ) Humphrey s C ounty v . ) ) Al le n W . W a lla ce , J u d ge ) ) (A ggr a va t e d Ro b b e ry) DA NN YR . M OR RI S, ) ) AP PE LL AN T. )

_________

_________

_____ _ _ _ _ _ _________

_________

_________

_________

_______ DI SSEN TING OPI NI ON

_________

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________

_________

_________

_________

______ I respectfull y

di ss ent. T he crime comm itted bythe ap pellan t, Dann y R. M orris, w as de spicab le. I am su re that the j ur

y , l ik e my sel f, w as enrag ed as the e v ide nce unfolded. Thi s a troci ous cr ime w as commi tted in the j ur

y ’s home c ounty

by two i n mates w ho es caped from a pr is on i n an adj oin ing co unty

. M or ri s a nd Bar re tt w ere much y oung er than the v icti m. They

feig ned il lne ss and act ed as if one of them needed ass is tanc e. W hen t he el der ly v icti m st opped to len d assista nce, Morri s and B a rr ett to ok ad v ant age of the victim’s act of

kindne ss. Nevertheless, we as citiz ens m ust no t lose si ght of the fact th at ou rs is a Nation of law s. These l aws g ov er n the condu ct of ev er y ci ti z en. As thi s C our

t s aid i n H odg es v . St ate, 491 S.W .2d 624 , 626 (Te nn. Crim. App

. 197 2), cert. denied (Te nn. 197 3): “[O]dio us individuals
are notg ov er ned by

one law and the remai nin g citi z ens by another ; all are protected b y the same g eneral law .” I t h a s l o n g b e e n e s t a b l i s hed that the pros e c u t i o n mu s t p ro v e e v e r y e l e me n to f a
cr imi nal offense bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. In re W ins hip , 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct . 106 8, 25 L .Ed .2d 368 (1970 ). If th e prose cution fails to e s tab lish one elem entof the of fense bey ond a re asona ble doubt , the acc used cann ot be con v icted o f the offense. In thi s c ase, the e v idence cont ain ed i n the record i s i nsuffici ent, as a matt er of law , t o s uppor

t a2

conviction for a gg rav ate d robb ery . T he evidence w ill only suppo rt a conviction for simple
ro bber y . B e fo re a n a c c u s e d ca n b e c o n vic t e d o f ro b b e ry, t h e S t a t e o f

T e n n e s s e e m u s tp ro ve b e yo n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t t h a t (a ) th e re wa s a n in t e n t io n a l o r k n o win g t h e f to f p ro p e rt y, (b ) from the person of the v ictim, and ( c) by v iol ence or

putt ing the v icti m in fear. Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 39 -1 3- 401( a). I n a prose cut ion for a g g ra v ated ro bber y , t he St ate o f Tenness ee mus t prov e beyond a re asona ble doubt( a) the ele ments of robbe ry , ( b) the offense w as committed w it h a deadl y w eapon or the u se of an ar ti cl e "us ed or

fashi oned to l ead t he v icti m to reason abl y bel iev e i t t o be a deadly w eapon," or

(c) the v icti m suffered serious bo dily

injury during the cou rse of

the rob bery. T enn . Code Ann. § 39-13 -402 (a). The st ate fai led to e st a b li sh that Bar re tt used a "deadl y w eapon" d ur ing the commi ss ion of thi s o ffense. M y co ll eag ues ag re e w it h thi s a ss ess ment of the ev iden ce. T hus, the on ly

q uest ion is: di d t h e s t a te est ablish th at th e v ictim incurred “serious bod ily inj ur y ” at t he hand s o f Mor ri s a nd Bar re tt? The major ity

hol ds that there w as su f f ic ien t ev ide nce to es tabl is h the el ement of
ser iou s b odi ly

inju ry bycreati ng “ a s ubst anti al ri sk of death. ” I am of the op ini on th at the
ev ide nce is i nsuffici ent, as a matt er of law , t o s uppor

t t his el ement of the offense. T he victim t estif ied tha t the inciden t in question o ccurred “mid day”, w hich ap pea rs to mean noonti me. It w as est abl is hed that the pol ic e off ic ers i nter v iewed th e v icti m in the hospi tal emerg ency

room between 4: 30 p. m. and 6:30 p.m. The record i s d ev oid of
ev i de nc e as t o w ha t oc c ur red d ur i ng n oo n an d 4: 30 p .m . The tes ti mony

of the v icti m rev eal s t hat h e w as found by a g ood Sa mari tan, “a man
w alk ing hi s d og .” There is abso lut ely no ev ide nce as to w hen t he g ood Sa mari tan found the v icti m. In an y

ev ent, the g ood Sa mari tan t ook the v icti m to h is home an d c all ed an
am bula nce for the victim. Th e am bula nce a rriv ed a nd to ok t h e vi c t im to a ho spital in Di ck son, Tenness ee. T he good Sam aritan w as not called as a w itness. T he am bula nce atte nda nts w ere notcalled as w itnesse s. Th e do ctor w ho a tten ded the victim w as no t called as a w itness. The medic al re cords li brar ian w as not c all ed as a w it n e ss . T hus, there i s a v oid of
ev ide nce conc er nin g ( 1) w hen t he ambul ance ar ri v ed at the home of the g ood Sa mari tan,3

(2 ) how l ong the ambula nce personne l treated the v icti m b e fore pl aci ng hi m in the ambula nce, ( 3) how

l ong it took the ambula nce to tak e the v icti m from H umphrey s C ounty to t he hos pit al in Di ck son Cou nty , ( 4) w hen t he v icti m ar ri v ed atthe hospi tal , ( 5) the cond ition of

the victim w hen he arriv ed a t the hosp ital, (6 ) the natu re and exten t of his inj ur ies , and (7) howlong the v icti m had been at the hospi tal before the pol ic e ar ri v ed to interview him. On th e oth er han d, th e recor d estab lishes tha t the v ictim w as ab le to talk to t he pol ic e off ic ers, he w as able to v iew the photog ra phs present ed to him, and he w as able to select the p hot ograph dep icting Morris. T he record also esta blishes th at th e v ictim
w as re lea sed from the hospi tal and w ent t o hi s h ome the same day the inc ide nt i n q uest ion
occ ur re d. In s ummary , t he record does not est abl is h tha t the lac erati on s ust ain ed by the
v icti m caus ed th e v icti m to i ncur “ a s ubst anti al ri sk

of death. ” T he e v iden ce in this case wi ll not supp ort the rema ining def initions o f “serious bod ily inj u ry .” The record does not est abl is h how l ong the v icti m w as uncon sc iou s. Thus, the
ev ide nce w il l not s uppor t a findi ng that the vi cti m suffered a “p ro tract ed unc onsc iou snes s.” Nor does the ev ide nce suppo rt a f ind ing of “e xtreme physi cal pai n.” The v icti m w as not ask ed nor

di d he tes ti fy that the i nju ry w as pai nful. A l acerati on to a pe rs on’ s h ead doe s not eq ua te to “ extrem e ph y s i c al pa i n. ” The rec ord i s de v oi d of ev i de nc e th at th e v ictim suffered “ a protract ed or obv iou s dis fig urement.” A l acerati on th at req uires eig ht s ti tch es cann ot result in a “protracte d or obvious disf iguremen t.” Moreov er, any residual scar w ill probabl y be c ov ered by

th e vic ti m ’s h a ir

and w il l not b e not ic eabl e to others. Ag ain , t he
re cord i s d ev oid of ev ide nce to establ is h tha t t he v icti m suffered a “p ro tract ed l oss or subst ant ial impa irmen t of a f unct ion of

a bod ily mem ber, organ or m ent al faculty.” A sma ll lac erati on w il l cer

tai nly not caus e s uch a c ondi ti on. It is an e lement ar

y pr inc ipl e of la w that a cr imi nal conv icti on c annot be predi cat ed
u p o n co n je c t u re , gu e s s , s p e c u la t io n , o r a m e re p o s s ib il it y t h a t t h e a c c u s e d m a y b e gu il ty. Rucker v . Stat e, 17 4 T enn . 569 , 572 -7 3 , 1 2 9 S.W .2d 208 , 210 (1939 ); State v . Coop er, 736 S. W .2d 1 25, 1 29 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1987)

. Nor may thi s C our

t “s pecul ate u pon t he g uil t of one charg ed w it h the co mmiss ion of a c ri minal offense. ” C la n cyv . St ate, 521 S.W .2d 780 , 783 (Ten n. 19 75). T he resp onsib ility

for the void in the evidence r e s t s s qu a re ly u pon the state ’s4

s h o u ld e rs . As p re vio u s ly i n d ic a t e d , t h e r e we re se ve ra l i n d ivi d u a ls wh o co u ld h a ve esta b li s h e d t hatthe victim sustaine d a seriou s bod ily injury . Th e stat e op ted not to call thes e i ndi v idu als

. Thus, the j ur y w as re q uired to eng ag e i n co nje ctu re , g uess , and spec ula ti on th at t he v icti m suffered a ser io u s b odi ly i nju ry . Thi s C our

t s houl d not per petuat e thi s s pecul ati on. The record es ta b lis h e s th a t Mo rris i s g uil ty of si mple ro bber

y , not ag g ra v ated
ro bber y . Base d upon the e v ide nce cont ain ed in the re cord, thi s C our t s houl d reduce the
c o n vic t io n f ro m a ggr a va t e d ro b b e ry t o si m p le ro b b e ry.

_________

_________

_________

_________

___ JOE B. JON ES, PR ESID IN G J UD GE