### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE

ST A TE OF TE N N ES SE E v
. A N D R EW N EA L D A V IS

Crim inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty

No. 2001-A- 391

No. M2002- 02375-CCA -R3-C D F iled Jul y 9, 2004

J OHN EV ERETT WI LL I AMS, J ., separ ate c oncurring opinion.

I concur in the results reach ed b y the lead opinion but write se parately to amplify

some of my conce rns. The pr osecution has placed the conviction for a g g ravated child abuse of a c hild under the ag e of six in peril through mistakes, inadve rtenc e, or ne g lect. The re e x i s t s n o evidenc e of int e nti on a l misc on du c t on the pa rt of the Di stric t A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l’ s o ff

ic e . I ha ste n to a ddthat th is District Attorney

Gene ral’s of

fice is not an abuser

of the power or proce sses used to prosec ute cr imes in its j urisdiction. Although I have vote d to affir m this conviction, Ifee l I must add a word of
war ning to other s who may wish to rely upon my decision. At first g lance , the pra ctice of amending an indi ctment without the defe ndant’s conse nt at such a la te date is looked upon w ith disfavor. The pr a c tic e su g g e sts that so me on e was in atten tiv e to the pr oc e ss a ndc ome s d a ng e ro us ly c los e to violating pr inciples of funda mental fa irness. I t is akin to chang ing the ru les in the middle of the g a me , a g a me wh ic h is p la y e d b y

pr of e ssi on a ls i n w hic h in c he s d e te rm ine the wi nn e r a ndlos e r. Th is competent de fense counsel did not appe ar sha ken or surprised by

the State’s ame ndment. I ndeed, I have de termined trial c ounsel’s trial strateg y was not c hang ed in the least. That is the main rea son I ha ve c ho se n to a ff

ir m th is c on vic tio n. Ho we ver, I a m mi nd fu l of the tim e tr ia l c ou ns e l ta

ke s in explaining t o a client what has just transpired in court. I mag ine explaining to a c lient that after being p u t to trial once on what was a Class B felony , the client is now fac ing a Class A felony with a po te nti a l f

or g re a te r p un ish me nt. Th is c ou ld h a ve take n a wa y va lua ble tim e whi ch c ou ns e l c ou ld have u s ed to re ady

for the tr ial which wa s about to beg in moments later. The impac t could have been g reat upon a trial counse l that was not as pre pare d or strong as the one in this case.

I mus t c on fe ss I

do no t fe e l stro ng or c on fi de nt with my de c isi on in thi s ca se . I ha ve c are fu lly
we ig he d a ndba la nc e d th e c omp e tin g int e re sts , p ri nc ipl e s, a ndarg ume nts t hat lie a t is su e in this
ma tte r. I c on c lud e d th a t th e la te a me nd me nt wa s in jud ic iou s a nd

the po te nti a l f

or pr e jud ic e to this defe ndant i s g reat. Victims of crime under the ag e of six and defenda nts deser ve g reater a ttention be paid to the p ro ce s s b y which their pe rspec tive rig hts are insure d. After long a nd car eful
c on sid e ratio n, I

ha ve c on c lud e d th a t no pr e jud ic e ha s e nd ur e d to thi s d e fe nd a nt.-2-

I t is not enough f

or me to say

that g reater punishment is alway s prejudice to the defe ndant wh e n th e ind ic tme nt, a s pre se nte d in this ca se , cle arl y c on ta ine d the a g e of the vic tim

. Som e wi ll
se e my de c isi on a s f

un da me nta lly

un fa ir a ndc ry fo ul, wh ic h I thi nk is und e rs ta nd able

. Som e wi ll see no pr oblem in t h e amendment, decla ring it a mere technica lityand proc laiming that a ny other
re su lt w ou ld be a mis c arria g e of jus tic e

. My de c isi on is som e wh e re be tw e e n th e se tw o a rg ume nts

.
For sure, I see a mistake that should not have bee n made a nd could have been c orre cted many da y s b e fo re , th e re by

le sse nin g the po te nti a l of pr e jud ic e to this de fe nd a nt. Pe rh aps ou r s up re me court will provide guidanc e to all conce rned. I f not, the State should heed my conce rn and be ever more vig ilant and attentive to the de tails of the matters e ntrusted t o their care. For justice under our sy ste m is no t on ly

thr ou g h a

jus t ve rd ic t bu t th ro ug h th e pr oc e ss u se d to e ns ur e a jus t ve rd ic t.

____________________________________ J OHN EV ERETT WI LL I AMS, J UDGE