# FIL ED Fe b. 24, 1 997 Cec il Crow son , Jr . A ppell ate Court Clerk IN T HE C OU RTOF C RI MI NA L A PPEA LS OF T EN NE SSEE A T JACK SON
DA RR EL D. H A

Y ES, ) ) Pet itione r, ) C . C . A . N O. 02C 01- 9610- CC -0 0335 ) v s . ) LA KE COUNTY ) STA TE OF T EN NE SSEE, ) No. 96- 7521 ) Res pondent . ) O R D E R This matte r is before the C our t upo n the st ate’ s mot ion to aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt und er R ule 20, Rul es of the C our t of C ri minal Appea ls . The cas e before thi s C our

t represent s a n appea l from the tr ial co urt’ s d eni al of the peti ti oner ’s peti ti on for w ri t of habeas co rp us. The record w as filed on O cto ber 3, 1996, and the pe titione r filed his brief on Octo ber 21 , 199 6. T he p etition er w as originally ind icted o n one countof ag g ra v ated sex ual batt er y i n M ay 1987, and w as conv icted o f the s ame i n J anuar

y 1988. I n the presentappeal , t he pet it ion er , rely ing i n par t upo n Sta te v. R oger Dale Hil l, No. 01C01 -950 8-CC-0026 7 (Te nn. Cri m. App. June 20, 19 96), cont ends the j udg ment ent ered ag ain st him isv oid bec ause the i ndi ctmentfail ed to all eg e the mens re a of the offense charg ed.

Havi ng rev iew ed th e stat e’s mo tion in light of the pe titione r’s respo nse and the en tire record on app eal, we conclude thatthe m otion is well-taken and shou ld be g ra nted. The t ri al jud g e di smi ss ed th e pet it ion er ’s peti ti on s tati ng that“ all eg ati ons conc er nin g the suffici ency of the i ndi ctmentare notthe proper su bje ct of habeas cor pus re li ef.” It is w ell es tabl is hed t hat c hal len g es to t he s uff ic ien cy of an i ndi ctmentca nnot be te ste d i n a h abeas co rp us proceed ing . See H ag g ard v . St ate, 475 S. W .2d 1 86, 1 87 (Tenn. C ri m. App. 1971) ; Brow n v . St ate, 445 S. W .2d 6 69, 6 74 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1969) . A pane l of this C our t recent ly

hel d the sa me i n a c api tal ca se. Ba rb er v . St ate, No. 01 C01-94 08-CR-002 81 (T enn . Crim. App ., Feb. 23, 19 95).2 None the less, w e ha v e con sidered the sub stan ce of the pe titione r’s cl aim and dete rmine it to be w ithou t me rit. H ill represe nts a directapp eal f rom a case inv olv ing an i ndi ctmentrendered s ubseq uent to t he 1989 rev is ion s t o the C ri minal Cod e. Con v ersel y , t he appe al in the p re sentca se ste ms from a deni al of a peti ti on for w rit of hab eas co rpus an d involv es an indictm entissued prior to th e 19 89 ch anges in the C ode. The opi nio n i n H il l w as based upon thi s C our t’ s i nter pretati on of T.C. A. § 39- 11- 301( c) , w hic h w as enact ed i n 1989. That sta tute prov ide s, in per ti nent par

t, that “[ a] culpa ble m ent al state is required w ithin th is title unless th e de f inition o f the of fense pla inl y di spens es w it h a ment al ele ment.” Pr ior to 1989, how ev er , t he C ri minal C ode did not cont ain a c omparabl e s tatut e. Acc ordin g ly , t he dec is ion i n H il l does not c ontrol our rev iew of the i ss ue rais ed herein . At t he ti me of the offense i n thi s c ase, ag g ra v ated sex ual batt er y w as def ined as the “un lawf ul sexual conta ct w ith an oth er accom pan ied” by certain enumerated ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ces , i ncl udi ng thatthe v icti m is l ess than thi rt een (1 3) y ears o ld. T.C .A. § 39- 2- 606 ( 1982) . The in dictment at i ss ue before us ch arg ed that the p eti ti oner

“ unl awfully

and feloni ousl y

co mmitt ed th e c ri me of Ag g ra v ated Sex ual Batt er y by eng ag ing i n unl awful s ex ual co ntact w it h . . . a c hil d under thi rt een y ears o f ag e.” Thi s l ang uag e w as suffici ent u nder the law as i t ex is ted a t t he ti me. As n oted abov e, t he C ri minal C ode di d notco ntai n a p ro v is ion si mil ar to § 39- 11- 301( c) ( 1989) . The st atuto ry

req uirements for a n i ndi ctmentw ere found i n § 4 0- 1802 ( now § 40 -1 3- 202 (1 990) ), w hic h prov ide d s impl y that : T he ind ictme nt m ust sta te th e facts con stitutin g the of fense in ordin ar y and conc is e l ang uag e, w it hout proli x ity or repeti ti on, i n s uch a ma nne r as to ena ble a pe rson of comm on u nde rstand ing to know w hatis int ended, and w it h tha t deg re e of cer tai nty w hic h w il l enabl e the co urt, on conv icti on, t o pronounc e the proper j udg ment. Furthe rmore , in Camp bell v . Stat e, 49 1 S.W .2d 359 , 361 (Ten n. 19 73) (em pha sis suppl ied ), w hil e address ing the suffici ency of an i ndi ctmentch arg ing the offense of m u rd e r, ou r Su p re m e Co u rtst a te d th e fo llo wing:

W hil e i t s eems c lea r that the i ndi ctmenti n W itt w as insuf

f icient in that itfail ed to ch arg e an ele ment, that the murder w as commi tted unl awfully , i n ei ther

the lan g uag e of the sta tute or co mmon la w

or words of eq uiv ale nt i mport , t he dec is ion i s c onfusin g bec ause of the l ang uag e,3 ‘fatal ly defecti v e i n omi tti ng the charg e tha t t he offense w as commi tted feloni ousl y , or

w it h mal ic e aforet houg ht; and c ontai nin g no words of equiv alen t impo rt.’ It is clear , howev er , t hat h ad th e i

ndictm ent u sed the words ‘ feloni ousl y’ or ‘ unl awful ly ’ , it would hav

e been suf

fici ent. W e ag re e w it h thi s p ro posi ti on. By co ntai nin g the w ords found in the l ang uag e of the statu te, th e indictm entat issue he re suf f iciently app rised the app ellantof the of fense charged un der the law

at the time, and is therefore valid. Thu s, the petitio ner’s atta ck mu st fail. For the rea sons sta ted abo v e, it is hereby ORDERED, pursuan t to Rule 20, Rules of

the Cou rt of

Cri min al App eals, th at th e judgme nt of the trial court dism issing the petitio n for w rit of hab eas co rpus is af

f irmed . Costs of

this app eal sha ll be a ssessed against the petitio ner.

Enter , t his the ___ day

of Janua ry , 199 7.

_________

_________

_________

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

_________

_________

_________

_______ PAU L G. SU MM ER S, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

_______ DA VID G. H AY ES, JU DG E