### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ja nua ry 9, 200 7

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. RIC K BR AD EN

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty No. 05-02051 Jam es C. Beasley, Jr ., Judge

No. W2006-00377-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled May 18, 2007

The de fenda

nt, Rick Bra den, wa s convicted by a Shelby County jury of two counts of a g g ravated robber y , and he r ece ived conc urre nt nine-y ear sentenc es. On appeal, he argues that (1) the trial cour t

err ed in not allowing him to introduce the g uilty pleas of two named co-def endants, (2) the evide nce is insufficient to sustain his convictions, and (3) the tr ial court err ed in f ailing to instruc t the jury

on the le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e of fa c ili ta tio n. F oll ow ing our re vie w of the re c or d a nd the pa rt ie s’ br ie fs
, we c onclude that the trial court err ed in fa iling to cha rg e the lesse r-include d offe nse of f acilitation, and ther efor e, re verse the judg ments of the trial c ourt and re mand for a new tria l.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt s o f the Cr im ina l C our t R e ve r se d and Rem anded

J.C. M C L IN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J
., joined and D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., filed a se parate conc urringopinion.

L aure n Pasley -Ward, Memphis, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Rick Br aden.

Mic ha e l E . M oo re , Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Re ne e W. Turn e r, As sis tant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam L . Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ra l ; an d P aul Hage rman a nd Valar ie Smith, Assi stant District Attorney s Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION I. P ROCEDURAL AND F ACTUAL BACK GR OUND

I n Marc h 2005, the def

endant a nd three co-de fendants were indicted on two counts of
ag g ravated robbe ry . The de fendan t’s case was seve red f rom his co-de fenda

nts and a jury

trial

commence d on November 30, 2005. At trial, Amie Bur g ess testified that on September 27, 2004, she we nt to the Mid-South Fair and the n to a re staurant, Mé lang e, in the Cooper- You n g ar ea of Midtow n M e mph is. Ms. B ur g e ss a nd a fr ie nd , Samanth a

B ir ds on g , le ft

the re sta ur ant a nd g ot i n M s. Bur g ess’ c ar w here they

wer e approa ched on the driver’ s side by a tall black ma le who aske d how they wer e doing. As the man was speaking to the m, a car pulled up behind her car and blocke d her-2-

from leaving. Ms. B urg ess then noticed some one run up to the passeng er side of the car and g rab Ms. Bi rd s o n g’s purse. Ms. B irdsong y elled, jumped out of the c ar, a nd chase d afte r the purse

snatche r. As Ms. B urg ess was watching Ms. B irdsong
, another black male rea ched into the dr iver’s side window and trie d to g rab her purse. Ms. Bur g ess strug g led with the man, but he e ventually g ot the purse a

way from her . The man then rea ched into the car and g rabbe d the key s out of the ig nition. Ms. B ur g e ss r e a c he d f

or he r sp are ke y s that we re un de r the se a t and the man a lso tr ie d to g ra

b th os e key s, but Ms. Burg ess strug g led and he let g o of the ke y s. Ms. Burg ess re ca l l ed h ear ing two
g unshots at some point during the a ltercation. She s ai d t h at t h e g unshots came f rom somewher e behind her

.

On c ro ss- e xami natio n, Ms. B ur g e ss state d that sh e and Ms. B ir ds on gle ft

Mé lang e so me tim e around 11:30 p.m. She explained that the y went to he r car to wait on another

friend, Mic helle, and had sat in the c ar for t hree or four minutes befor e they wer e appr oache d. Ms. Burg ess said that she could not identify

any of t he indi viduals involved in the robberies. Ms. Burg ess explained that she hear d the first g unshot a fter Ms. B irdsong had g otten out of the car and cha sed the purse -snatche r. Ms. Burg ess clar ified that she he ard a noise that sounded like a firec rac ker while she wa s strug g ling fo r h e r p ur se , and the n he ard the no ise a se c on d tim e a t wh ic h tim e sh e fi g ur e d o ut i t w a s a g un sh ot. When she hea

rd the sec ond shot, Ms. Bur g ess noticed that Ms. B irdsong fell to the g round outside the passeng er’ s door, but she did not see a ny one shooting

.

Samantha B irdso n g

te s ti f ied that on the eve ning of

September 27, 2004, she met some frie nds

a t Mé lang e , a

nd wh e n it wa s ti me to l e a ve , wal ked with M s. B ur g e ss t o h e r c ar. She and Ms. B ur g e ss w e re sittin g in t he c ar w iththe wi nd ow s d ow n “ g os sip ing” w hen a ta ll b la c k ma le
ap p ro ac h edM s

. Bu rge s s ’ w i n d o w a n d “a s k edwh at [ t h ey ] w e r e d o i n g an d i f [ t h ey ] we re h av i n g a g ood time.” Ms. B irdsong rec alled that a black fema le then approa ched the passeng er side window,

rea ched in, and gra

bbed her purse. Ms. B irdsong g ot out of the ca r and c hased a fter the woman. The

woman r an an d g o t in to a c ar th a t w a s p ar k e d b e h in d M s

. B u r g e s s ’ c ar , b lo c k in g th e c ar in a “T” fashion. Ms. B irdsong saw that ther e we re two othe r people in th e ca r i n addit ion to the pursesnatche r. Ther e wa s a hea vy , black man in the backse at and anothe r man in the drive r’s seat, neither of whom we re the same man w ho initially approa ched Ms. B urg ess’ c ar.
Ms. Birdsongtestified that she re ache d throug h the open ba ck wi n d o w of the c ar a fter the
purs e -s natc he r, and

the tw o g ot i nto an a lte rc a tio n o ve r t he purs e . Wh ile the y

we re sc uf

fl ing , M s. Birdsonghear d a g unshot be hind he r and to the rig ht. After the first g unshot, the woman stuck a g un in Ms. Birdsong ’s face, and Ms. Birdsong walked backwa rd t owar d Ms. Bur g ess’ c ar at which point she wa s shot at two times. She g ot into Ms. Bur g ess’ car and when the other ca r took off, she g ot out and tried to g et its license plate numbe r.

On cr oss-examination, Ms. Birdsong testified t hat s he wa s able to identify the woman who
sto le he r p ur se , b ut s he c ou ld n ot i de nti fy any of the oth e r ind ivi du a ls inv olv e d in the ro bb e ry . M s. B ir ds on g re c a ll e d

t h a tt h e c ar

t h e r o b b e r s w e r e i nl o o k e d l i k e ano l d e r , f

o u r

- d o o r B u i c k

. M s. Birdsongsaid that she w as sure the f irst noise she hea

rd wa s a g unshot beca

use she wa s raised-3-

around guns. Ms. Birdsong said she noticed that the man who initially approa ched Ms. Burg ess’ c ar was standingbehind her

and to the rig ht as she ra n afte r the purse -snatche r.

On re -direc t examination, M s. Birdsongstated t hat when the first g unshot was fire d, the man who had or igina lly

approa ched the car

was the only

person in the parking lot. Ms. Birdsongadmitted that she was only able to identify the woman from the photogr aphic arra y s she was shown, but in the courtroom she was a

ble to point out t he def

endant a s the person w ho initially approa ched the m.

Randall J ackson te stified that he has known the defe ndant since c hildhood. On the night of September 27, 2004, he rec eived a call from a number he did not rec og nize so he did not answe r the phone. Mr. Jackson ca lled the number ba ck, and A drian I sabell, “B lack,” answe red the phone and then hande d it to the defenda nt. The def

endant told Mr. Jackson that “he ha d just came off a mission.” Mr. J ackson sa id that he did not know what the defe ndant meant exactly
, but he fig ured that be c a us e the de fe nd ant w a s w ith“ B la c k” th ey had prob a bly ro bb e d s ome on e . F ro m hi s

conver sation with the defe ndant, Mr. Jackson believed that the cell phone w as stolen during the “mission.” On cr oss-examinat i o n , M r. J ac kson said that he did not know for sur e whe ther the defe ndant had r obbed someone ; he just knew that “B lack” was known for robbingpeople a nd the defe ndant was w ith “Bla ck.”

Ste ve n Wil liams t e sti fi e d th a t he wa s c ha rg e d w iththe a g g ra

vate d r ob be ri e s o f A

mie B ur g e ss and Samantha Birdsong and was curr ently incar cer ated. On Septe mber 27, 2004, Mr. Williams was riding around in a

g ray Buic k Century with Adrian I sabell. The de fenda nt and Shaneka

Br ownlee, “Mimi,” wer e also in the c ar. O n that evening , Mr. I s ab el l , the def endant, a nd Mimi pi cked Mr

. Wil liams up and they went joy -riding in the area of the M idSouth Fa ir. Mr. Will iams testified that they wer e drinking alcohol and lookingfor mar ijuana.

Mr. Wi ll ia

ms te s ti f ie d th a t late r th a t n ig h t, M r

. I s a b e ll p u ll e d h is c ar u

p b e h in d tw o ladies sitti ng in a ca

r in the Cooper- Young are a. The ladies had their car windows down, and the defe ndant and Mi mi g ot out and went to talk to them. A fe w minutes later, Mr. Williams saw the def endant and Mimi running ba ck to the ca r with purses. A l ady was chasing Mimi, Mimi g ot in the car , and the lady and Mimi foug ht ove r the purse. Mimi then pulled a gun and put it in the lady ’s fa ce, a nd Mr. Will iams hear d shots.

Mr. Will iams said that he thought Mimi had shot the lady
, but the n he noticed that no “fire ” had ca me from Mimi’s gun. When Mr

. Wil liams looke d toward the ladies’ c ar, he saw the de fenda nt sta nd ingbe hin d th e la dy

wi th f ir e c omi ngou t of

his g un

. Mr . Williams s a id t hat he wa s si tti ngin the ba c ks e a t of the c ar the e nti re tim e

. Mr . Williams not e d tha t Mr. I sa be ll g ot out of the c ar at so me point and went towar d the ladies’ c ar. A fter shooting at the lady , the def endant walked toward Mr. I sabell’s c ar, r aised his g un in the air, and shot

. Mr. W illiams said he did not know the defe ndant ha d a g un un til he saw h im s ho ot i t. A ft e r the de fe nd ant fi re d the sh ots , he jum pe d in the c ar, Mim i cl o s edt h e d o o r, an d

t h ey l ef tt h e s ce n e. As t h ey we re dri v i n g, t h e v i ct i m ’s ce l l p h o n e b ega nt o ri n g,

and Mim i and

the de fe ndant wo uld

bo th a ns we r i t and

say thi ng s li ke , “ Ho w you

g oin g to g e t us

. Yo u d on ’t

e ve n kno w me .” Mr . Wil liams c ou ld t e ll the c a lle r w a s th e vic tim . M r. I sa be ll e ve ntu a lly-4-

g ot the cell phone a

n d “b u s t ed ” it in the street. Mr. Williams said that he thought the de fenda nt

rec eived $80 or

$100 from the robber

y proce eds. On cross-examination, Mr. W illiams t estified that he thoug ht the defe ndant and Mimi might have approa ched the ladies to se e if they had mar ijuana. Mr . Wil liams s ta te d th a t he saw M r. I sa be ll w a lk a

bo ut h a lf wa y to the la die s’ c ar, bu t ne ve r s aw h im
g o all the way

to it.

Serg eant Matt W hittington of t he Memphis Police Depa rtment testified t hat upon findi ng out

a c e ll p ho ne ha d b e e n s tol e n d ur ingthe ro bb e ry

he put a tr ace on the ph on e and re c ov e re d s ome ph on e c a lls that we re ma de sh or tly a ft e r the ro bb e ry

. Se rg e ant Whitt ing ton sa id that ove r t he c ours e of his investigation he develope d the def endant a s a suspec t. The def endant wa s broug ht in for questioning on Septe mber 30, 2004, duringwhich he g ave a statement admitting to beingpart of the robber ies of Ms. B urg ess and Ms. B irdsong . I n his statement, the def endant sa id,

I wa s a t my ho us e a t 17 24 No rf olk and Ad ri an [I sa be ll] and Mim i pi c ke d me

u p i nA dr i an ’ s B u i c k

C e n tu r y. W e w e n tt o p i c k u p S t e v e a th i s h o u s e o nM a l l o r y,

and Ad ri an s a id t

hat w e we re g oin g to t

he fa ir to se e if

we c an r un a c ro ss s ome money down there

.

We started to ride a

round the fa irg rounds looking f or some money

. Adrian and I saw some white g irls and Adria n p arke d behind the ca

r behind their c ar blo c kin g the m in . A dr ian to ld m e g e t out of the c ar, and Iwe nt t o th e g ir l’ s c ar t o ta lk t o th e m.

Whil e I was talking t o them, Mimi ran up on the passeng er side of the ca r and

rea ched thr oug h the window to g et the purse. The g irls g ot out of their car foug ht and chase d Mimi back to Adrian’ s car

. Adrian g ot out[ ,] went to th e gi rl ’s car and re ache d throug h the driver ’s window and g ot the purse. Adrian went to the g irl’s car and took the key s out of the

car . Adrian r an bac k to his car a nd the g irls foug ht with Adrian.

Steve fire d a shot in the air a nd the g irls went bac k to their ca r. Adria n g ot into his car

an d w e a ll le f t. We w e n t t o w ar d s my

h o u s e o nN o r f

o lk an d M im i a nd Ad ri an w e re g oin g thr ou g h th e g ir l’ s p ur se s.

Mimi counte d the money and we a ll got $25 ea ch. B y now I used the g irl’s red c ell phone and c alled Randy J ackson on his c ell phone at No. 628-5399. Randy did n’ t ans we r t

he ph on e . Ra

nd y c a lle d me ba c k a

bo ut on e min

ute la te r. I tol d h im that Iwas he ading to the house.

Mim i ans we re d th e g ir l’ s r e d c e ll p ho ne and sp ok e for a seco nd wi th someone. Adr ian threwthe phone out at Gaither and Marg ery in the middle of the-5-

street. Adr ian droppe d me off at Randy ’s house a nd I talked with him for a minute. Adrian the n dropped me off at my house.

The de fenda

nt told S erg eant Whittington that he par ticipated in t h e ro b b eries beca use he

ne e de d mo ne y . Se rg e ant Wh itt ing ton state d tha t the de fe nd ant wa s the ta lle st o f t he fo ur ind ivi du a ls inv olv e d in

the ro bb e ri e s.

The de fenda

nt did not testi fy

at trial or of

fer any evidenc e. F ollowing the c onclusion of the proof, the jur

y returne d a ver d i ct of g uilty to both counts of ag g ravated robbe ry . A sentenc ing hear ing w as held, a

nd the def

endant wa s sentence d to nine y ear s on eac h convic tion to be served

concur rently

.

II. AN AL YSI S

The de fenda

nt raises thre e issues on appe al. He a rg ues that (1) t h e trial c ourt err ed in not

a llo wi ng hi m to int

ro du c e the g uil ty

ple a s o f t

wo name d c o- de fe nd ants , ( 2) the e vid e nc e is insufficient to sustain his c onvictions, a nd (3)the trial court err ed in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser- included off

ense of fac ilitation.

Co-defendan ts’ G uilty Pleas

Th e de fe nd ant f

ir st a rgue s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d in no t a llo wi nghim

to i ntr od uc e the g uil ty pleas of A drian I sabell and Shane ka B rownlee
, two of hi s co-de fenda nts, at t rial. Prior to trial, the state made a motion in lim ine to prec lude the defenda nt from calling the clerk of the cour t to testify that both M r. I sabell and Ms. B rownlee pled g uilty to ag g ravated robbe ry . The trial c ourt ag ree d, ruling that such evide nce w as not rele vant to any issue at the def

endant’ s trial. On appe al, the de fe nd ant a sse rt s th a t su c h e vid e nc e wa s r e le va nt b e c a us e it “ le nd s cr e de nc e to the no tio n th a t th is oth e r m a le wa s the pe rs on wh o exite d the ve hic le and lik e ly fi re d the g un int o the a ir ,” wh ic h w ou ld have a llowed him to arg ue that he w as only g uilty of fa cilitation.

When v ie w in g a c la im r e g ar d in g th e tr ia l c o u rt’ s e xc lu s io n o f e v id e n c e o n th e g r o u nds of irrele vance, this court will not dist urb the de cision of the trial c ourt absent a n abuse of

discretion. Se e Sta te v . D ub os e , 953 S.W .2d 649, 652 (Tenn. 1997). Evidence is releva nt if it has “any

tendenc y to ma k e t h e ex i stence of any fac t that is of conseque nce to the de termination of the a ction more probable or less proba

ble than it would be without the evidenc e.” Tenn. R

. Evid. 401. Even re levant evidenc e, howe ver, ma

y be excluded “if its probative value is substantially outweig hed by

the dang er of unf a ir p r e ju d ic e , c o n f

u s io no f th e is s u e s , o r

mi s le a d in g th e ju

r y , o r b y c o n s id e r a ti o n s o f

u n d ue delay , waste of

time, or nee dless prese ntation of cumulative e vidence .” Id. 403.

Upon re view, we conclude that the trial cour t did not abuse its disc re t i o n in excluding testimony reg ardingthe co- defe ndants’ pleas on the basis of i rre levanc e. All the evidence pr esente d“ A per s on i s cri mi nal l y res po ns i bl e as a part y t o an of f ens e i f t he of f ens e i s comm i t t ed by t he pers on’ s own 1

c o n d u c t, b y the c o n d u c t o f a n o th e r fo r w h ic h the p e rs o n is cr im ina lly re sp o n sib le , o r b y b o th.” T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 3 9 -1 1 -4 0 1 (a ). O n e is cr im ina lly re sp o n sib le fo r a n o ff e n se c o m m itt e d b y a n o the r w h e n , “[a ]c ting w ith inte n t t o p ro m o te

o r assis t t he co m m i ssi o n o f t he o f f en se, o r t o b en efi t i n t he p ro ce ed s o r resu l t s o f t he o f f en se, t he p erso n so l i cit s, d i rec t s, ai ds, or at t emp t s t o ai d anot her per s on t o com mi t t he of f ens e. ” I d. § 3 9 -1 1 -4 0 2 (2 ).

-6- at t rial i ndicated that four indivi duals wer e cr iminally responsible for

the robbe ries. The de fenda nt 1 initiated the robber ies by

approa ching the women and eng ag ing the m in conversation, both women’s
purses we re snatched, a

nd at some point g unfire e nsued. Wh i l e t h er e we re some disc repa ncies
reg ardingthe spec ific ac tions of the various perpe trators, that two of t he co-defe ndants chose to pled
g uil ty rathe r t ha n g o to tr ia l do e s no t have any be ari ng on any fa c t pe rt a ini ngto t he de fe nd ant’ s g uil t or innoce nce. I n addition, the t rial court could have prec luded evidenc e of the co-de fenda nts’ pleas b a s e d o nt h e l i k e l i h o o d

t h a ts u c h e v i d e n c e w o u l d c o n f u s e t h e i s s u e s a

n d p o t e n t i a l l y m i s l e a d

t h e j u r y. See id. The trial c ourt did not abuse its discretion.

Suf fi ciency

The de fenda

nt challeng es the sufficiency of the c onvicting e vidence . We beg in our revie w by reiter ating the well-e stablished rule that onc e a jur y finds a def

endant gui l t y , his or her presumption of innoce nce is re moved and r eplac ed with a pr esumption of g uilt. State v. Ev ans , 838 S.W .2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992) . Th er ef o re , o n appea l, the convicted de fenda nt has the burde n of demonstrating to this court why the evidence will not support the jury ’s ver dict. Sta te v . Ca rru the rs , 35 S.W. 3d 51 6, 55 7- 58 (T e nn . 2 00 0) ; Sta te v . Tu gg le , 639 S.W .2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982) . To meet this burden, the def

endant must establish that no “rational trier of f ac t” could have found the essential ele ments of the cr ime bey ond a re asonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1 97 9) ; State v. Ev ans , 108 S.W. 3d 23 1, 23 6 (T e nn . 2 00 3) ; see Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 3( e ). I n c on tr a st, the jur y ’s ve rd ic t a

pp ro ve d b y

the tr ia l ju dg e a c c re dit s th e state ’s wi tne sse s and re so lve s a ll c on fl ic ts in favor of t he state. Sta te v . H arris , 839 S.W .2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 1992) . The state is e ntitled to the strong est leg itimate view of the e vidence and all rea sonable infere nces which may be dra wn from that evidenc e. Car

ru the rs , 35 S.W. 3d

a t 55 8. Qu e sti on s c on c e rn ingthe c re dib ili ty of the wi tne sse s, conflicts in trial testimony , the weig ht and value to be g iven the ev i dence , and all fa ctual issues raised by the evidence are r esolved by the trier of

fac t and not this court. State v. Bland , 958 S.W .2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997) . We do not attempt to re-we igh or re- evaluate the evide nce. Rice , 184 S.W .3d at 662. Li k ewise, we do not repla ce the jury ’s infer ence s drawn f rom the circ umstantial evidenc e with our own infe renc es. Sta te v . R e id
, 91 S.W .3d 247, 277 (Tenn. 2002). These r ules are applicable to fin d i n gs o f g uilt predicate d upon direc t evidence , circ umstantial evidence , or a combination of both direc t and circ umstantial evidence

. Sta te v . P e nd e rg ra ss , 13 S.W .3d 389, 392- 93 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999)

. “Robbery is the intentional or knowing theft of pr operty from the pe rson of a

nother by violence or

putting the pe rson in fea r.” Ten n

. C ode Ann. § 39- 13-401(a ). The of fense become s ag g ravated robbe ry

when it is acc omplished with a deadly wea pon or by display ing an article which is u s e d to c a

u s e th e v ic ti m to r e a s o n a b ly b e li e v e it is a d e a d ly w e a p o n. Id. § 39-13-402( a)( 1). Ag a in, a pe rs on is c ri min a lly

re sp on si bl e fo r t

he c on du c t of

ano the r i f, “ [a]c tin g wi th i nte nt t o-7-

promote or a ssist t he commission of the off ense, or to bene fit in the proce eds or r esults of the

o f f e n s e , th e p e r s o ns o li c it s , d ir e c ts , a id s , o r a tt e mp ts to a id

an o th e r p e r s o nto c o mm it

th e o f f e n s e [. ]” Id. § 39-11-402( 2).

The e vidence at trial showed that the de fenda nt approa ched Ms. B urg ess’ c ar a nd started a

conver sation with Ms. Burg ess and Ms. B irdsong . Whil e the defe ndant was talking to the women, Ms. Brow nlee r an up to the women’s car and g rabbe d Ms. Birdsong ’s purse w hich held money and

a ce ll phone. Ms. Birdsongchase d Ms. Brow nlee, dur i ng which, either the def endant or another
perpe trator g rabbe d Ms. Burg ess’ purse and ca r key s. At some point during the altercation, two or three g unshots were fired. The four perpe trators left the s cene and divided up the pr ocee ds from the robber ies. Randall J ackso n testified that the def endant c alled him from the stolen c ell phone and

sa id t hat he ha d be e n “o n a missi on ,” wh ic h M r. Jac ks on int e rp re te d a s a

ro bb e ry . St e ve n Wil liams,

a c o- de fe nd ant, te sti fi e d th a t th e de fe nd ant w a s in vo lve d in the ro bb e ry , a

nd the de fe nd ant a

nd Ms. Br ownlee w ere the ones who gra bbed the purses from the t wo women. Mr. Will iams also testified that when he hear d g unshots he looked toward the victims’ c ar and saw the defe ndant firing a g un. Fur ther proof

showed that the de fenda nt ga ve a statement to Se rg eant Whittington wher ein he admitted that he and three other pe ople par ticipated in the robbe ries. The defe ndant admitted that they stole two purses, ca

r key s, a cell phone, and cash. He told Ser g eant Whittington that he re ceive d
tw e nty -f ive do lla rs fr om t he pr oc e e ds , a

nd that he pa

rt ic ipate d be c a

us e he ne e de d mone y . We no te t h a tt h e j u r

y a s s e s s e d

t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f

t h e w i t n e s s e s an d

r e s o l v e d a l l c o n f

l i c t s i nt h e i r

t e s t i m o n y. I n the light most fa

vorable to the state, the evidenc e was sufficie nt to find the def endant guilty

of two counts of ag g ravated robbe ry

.

F acilitation Instruction

The de fenda

nt lastly argues that the trial c ourt err ed in fa il i n g t o i n s truct the jury on fa c ili ta tio n a s a

less e r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e of a g g ra vate d r ob be ry . Sp e c if

ic a lly , th e de fe nd ant a sse rt s that the state’s pr oof wa s riddled wit h i n co nsistencies, par ticularly in reg ard to whe ther he fired a

wea pon and whe ther he was the one who snatche d Ms. B urg ess’ purse. The rec ord re flec ts that the defe ndant re quested that the tria l court instruct the jury on fac ilitation. The t ri al co urt denied the d ef en d an t ’s re qu es t , s t at i n g:

Ihave a question about fac ilitation. The la w on cr iminal responsibilit y has been that if the cha

rg e of c riminal responsibility is charg ed and f

rankl y if there are co-de fenda

nts, that facilitation of a f elony s hould be cha

rg ed but also par

t of the Bur ns test is that could a rea sonable jury in review ing the fac ts of the c ase f ind based
up on tho se fa c ts the of

fe ns e of fa c ili ta tio n a

nd is the re a va lid ba sis fo r t hat and c ou ld that c on vic tio n s tand

ba se d o n th e pr oo f i f a

jur y we re to r e tur

n a ve rd ic t of

that.

Ihave a qu e sti on in my min d f ra nk ly a bo ut t he cr ime of

fa c ili ta tio n in

thi s particula r ca se. Even though I

think criminal responsibility should be cha

rg ed base d

on the pr oo f t

hat I ’v e he ard , I do no t se e ho w a jur y c ou ld r e a so na

bly fi nd the c ri me of fac ilitation. Fa cilitation spe cifica lly require s, “That the defe ndant knew that-8-

an o t her person intended to c ommit the specific felony of

. . .”, in this case “.

. . ag g ravated robbe ry , but did not have the intent to promote or a ssist t he commission of the offe nse or to be nefit in the proce eds or results of the offen s e, an d t h at the defe ndant furnishe d substantial assistance to that pe rson in th e commission of the felony .”

Well, the proof that we have befor e us is that [the def endant] not only

knew that it was g oing to ha

ppen but par

ticipated in the happe ning, r ece ived proc eeds f rom it happening , g ave a

rea son why

he par ticip ated that he neede d money , and then there ’s bee n testimony , notwithstanding his statement, but there ’s b ee n testimony [from] other witnesse s that he possessed a g un, that he fire d the g un. Ijust do not see ho w a re a so na ble jur y un de r t ho se c ir c ums tanc e s and

tho se fa c ts c ou ld f

ind the c ri me of fa cilitation, namely , that [t he d e fenda nt] knew something was g oing to ha ppen, but he didn’t re ally

-- had no intent to assist or promote the c ommissi on of the off ense.

Ba sed on t he proof that’s been prese nted, I don’t think a jury could find that ba se d o n th e law a s I

un de rs tand

it t o b e , an d to I

-- Ia t th is p oin t do n’ t in te nd to char g e fa cilitation unless y ou can te ll me some g ood rea son why Ishould.

Acc ording to Stat e v

. B u r ns , 6 S.W .3d 453 (Tenn. 1999) , an off ense is conside red le sserincluded of a

g reater off

ense if:

(a) all of its statutory

elements a

re inc luded within the statutory elemen t s of the offe nse cha

rg ed; or

(b ) i t f a ils to m e e t th e de fi nit io n in part (a ) o nly in t he re sp e c t th a t it

c on ta ins a statutory element or

elements e stablishing

( 1 ) a d i f f e r e n tm e n t a l s t a t e i n d i c a t i n g a l e s s e r k i n d

o f c u l p a b i l i t y; and/or

(2) a less serious har

m or risk of har

m to the same pe rson, prope rty or public interest; or

(c) it consists of

(1 ) f a c ili ta tio n o f t

he of fe ns e c ha rg e d or of an off

e ns e that ot

he rw ise meets the de finition of lesser-inc luded offe nse in part ( a) or (b); or

(2) a n attempt to commit the offense ch ar ged or an offe nse that otherwise me ets the def

inition of lesser-include d offe nse in part (a ) or (b) ; or-9- (3 ) s o li c it a ti o n to c o mm it th e o f f e n s e c h ar g e d o r an o f

f e n s e that otherwise meets the def

inition of lesser-include d offe nse in part ( a) or (b)

.

Id. at 466-67. Whether i nstruction on a lesser-included offense should be g iven hing es upon whe ther the trial cour

t, viewing the evidenc e most favor ably to the exis tence of the lesser- included off ense, conclude s that (1) e vidence exis ts that reasona ble minds could acc ept the lesser -included of fense
, and (2) t h at t h e ev i dence “is leg ally sufficie nt to support a conviction for the lesser- included offe nse.” Id. at 469. The f ailure to inst ruct the jury

on lesser- included off

enses r equire s a re versa l unless the re viewing court de termines that the e rror was ha rmless bey ond a re asonable doubt. See Sta te v . E ly , 48 S.W .3d 710, 727 (Tenn. 2001)

. Upon revie w, this c ourt must de termine “ (1) whe ther

an o ff e ns e is a le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e ; (2 ) wh e the r t

he e vid e nc e su

pp or ts a le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e instruction; and (3) whether an ins tructional error is harmless.” State v. Allen , 69 S.W .3d 181, 187 (Tenn. 2002) . The standa rd for an appe llate cour

t’s revie w o f t h e trial court’s cha rg e to the jury
reg arding lesser- included offenses is de novo with no presumption of corr ectne ss. Sta te v . M oo re , 77 S.W .3d 132, 134 (Tenn. 2002)

. Part (c) (1) o f the B urns test clea rly desig nates fa cilitation a lesser- included off ense of the char g ed off

ense. Burns , 6 S.W .3d at 467. Thus, fa cilitation is a less er -i n cl u d ed offe nse of

a g g r a v a te d r o b b e r

y

. H a v in g d e te r

mi n e d th a t f

a c il it a ti o n is a

le s s e r

- in c lu d e d

o f f e n s e , w e mu s t n e xt deter mine whether

the evidenc e in this case w arr anted a n instruction on fac ilitation.

Te nn e sse e Cod e Anno ta te d s e c tio n 3 9- 11 -4 03 (a ) p ro vid e s th a t “ [a] pers on is cr imi na lly

re sp on sib le fo r t

he fa c ili ta tio n o f a

fe lony , if

, kn owi ng tha

t ano the r i nte nd s to c omm it a sp e c if ic felony , but without the intent required for criminal responsibility under § 39-11-402( 2), the pe rson kn o w i n g ly

fu rn ish e s su bs tanti a l a ssi sta

nc e in t he c omm iss ion

of the fe lony .” Cr imi na l r e sp on sib ili ty require s “ the intent to promote or assist the commission of the offe nse, or to bene fit in the proce eds

or re sults of the offe nse.” Id. § 39 -1 1 -4 0 2 (2). Nota bly , fac ilitation requires the lac k of cr iminal responsibility

intent.

I n th e lig ht mos t fa vo ra

ble to t he de fe nd ant, we c on c lud e that e vid e nc e e xists that r e a so na ble min ds c ou ld a c c e pt a s to the le sse r- inc lud e d o ff e ns e of faci litat ion , a

nd the e vid e nc e wa s le g a lly sufficie nt to support a conviction for fac ilitation of ag g ravated robbe ry . I n his statement to the police, the de fenda

nt admitted to talking to the women but said that his cohorts we re r esponsible for
g ra bb ingthe purs e s and

fi ri ng a g un

. At tr ia l, the wi tne sse s p ro vid e d in c on sis te nt t e sti mony a s to the def endant’ s actua l involvement. I ndeed there was some e vidence prese nted that the def endant’ s intent in init ially

approa ching the women mig ht have b ee n t o look for mar ijuana. Serg eant Whit tington testified that the de fenda nt sa id that he participated in the robbe ries bec ause he neede d

mon e y ; ho we ve r, the jur

y c ou ld have c ho se n no t to be lie ve a ll or pa rt of the de fe nd ant’ s st a te me nt. Viewingthe evidenc e liberally in f avor of the exis tence of the lesser- included offe nse, we c onclude that a jury

could have found that the de fenda nt’s actions we re those of a fa cilitator. Thus, it was

err or for the trial cour

t to not provide an instruction on fac ilitation.-10-

Our ne x t inquiry

is to determine whe ther the e rror in failing t o ch arge fac ilitation was harmless be y ond a rea sonable doubt: that is, whether it appear s bey ond a re asonable doubt that the

err or did not aff

ect the outc ome of the tria l. Allen
, 69 S.W .3d at 191. I n making this determination, this court must “conduct a thoroug h examination of the rec ord, including the evidenc e prese nted at trial, the def

endant’ s theory

of def ense, a nd the ver dict returne d by the jury .” Id. at 191. The jury was instructe d on sever al lesser -included o ff enses and criminal re sponsibili ty for the c onduct of another ; however , we ha

ve no wa y of knowing whether

the jury conclude d that the def

endant wa s a princ ipal actor

or cr iminally

responsibility

for the a ctions of his cohorts. I f the jury was c onvinced by the pr o o f t hat an a g g ravated robbe ry indeed oc curr ed, then it would either have to c onvict the defe ndant of ag g ravated robbery or acquit him entirely

. The jury was g iven no option to convict the de fe nd ant a s a

pa rt ic ipa nt wh o a c te d o n b e ha lf

of his c oh or

ts, bu t w ho did

no t in te nd

to a ssi st i n

a c tua lly ro bb ingthe vic tim s. Whil e we have previ ou sly de te rm ine d th a t th e pr oo f i s su ff ic ie nt t o support the def

endant’ s ag g ravated robbe ry convictions, the proof

in this case could also support the defe ndant’ s t h eo ry

that he wa s a fa cilitator in the robber ies. We simply cannot hold beyond a

re a so na ble do ub t th a t the jur

y wo uld no t have c on vic te d the de fe nd ant of fa c ili ta tio n o n o ne or bo th of the a g g ravated robbe ry char g es had it bee n g iven that option. The ref ore, w e ca nnot conclude that the er ror wa s harmless, and a ccor dingly , we r ever se the judg ments of the trial c ourt.

III . C ON CL USI ON

Ba sed on the fore g oing, we reve rse the judgme nts of the Shelby County Criminal Court and

rema nd for a new tria l.

_______________________________ J .C. McL I

N, J UDGE