FILED

December 11, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

AUGUST SESSION, 1998

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9710-CR-00451

)

Appellee, )

)

) DAVIDSON COUNTY

VS. )

) HON. J. RANDALL WYATT, JR.

ANTHONY HODGES, ) JUDGE

)

Appellant. ) (First Degree Murder, 

) Aggravated Child Abuse)

ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE

CRIMINAL COURT OF DAVIDSON COUNTY

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

JEFFREY A. DeVASHER JOHN KNOX WALKUP

Assistant Public Defender Attorney General & Reporter

(On Appeal)

KENNETH W. RUCKER

KARL F. DEAN Assistant Attorney General

Metro Public Defender 425 Fifth Avenue North

(At Trial) Nashville, TN 37243

RICHARD TENNENT VICTOR S. JOHNSON

Assistant Public Defender District Attorney General

(At Trial)

BILL REED & LILA STATOM

1202 Stahlman Building Assistant District Attorneys 

Nashville, TN 37201 General

Washington Square, Suite 500

222 Second Avenue North

Nashville, TN 37201

OPINION FILED ________________________

AFFIRMED
-2-

DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
1

 We address these issues in different order.

-3-

OPINION

The Defendant, Anthony Hodges, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate

Procedure 3(b), appeals his convictions and sentences for first degree felony

murder and aggravated child abuse. We affirm both the convictions and

sentences.

Defendant assigns seven points of error from the proceedings below: (1)

the trial court improperly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress his statement

to police, (2) the trial court erred by not requiring the State or the jury to elect a

factual theory, (3) the trial court improperly refused to allow Defendant to present

evidence that his severed co-defendant had abused the victim in the past, (4) the

evidence was insufficient to convict Defendant of felony murder and aggravated

child abuse, (5) the trial court improperly instructed the jury regarding criminal

responsibility, (6) the trial court improperly denied Defendant’s motion to strike

the State’s proposed aggravating factors for sentencing, and (7) the trial court

improperly applied the maximum sentence available for aggravated child abuse.1

In February 1996, Defendant Anthony Hodges, and his wife Kena Hodges,

were indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury on one count of murder

committed during the perpetration of aggravated child abuse in violation of

Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-13-202(a)(2) and one count of aggravated child
-4-

abuse and neglect in violation of § 39-15-402. The Defendant successfully

moved to sever his trial from that of his wife and co-defendant; and following his

trial in January of 1997, a jury returned guilty verdicts on both charges. The jury

sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for

felony murder, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty-five years for

aggravated child abuse, to be served concurrent with his life sentence. The trial

court denied Defendant’s motions for a new trial, for judgment of acquittal, for a

new sentencing hearing, and for imposition of life with the possibility of parole;

and Defendant timely appealed. 

I. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

 We first address the sufficiency of the evidence in order to review the facts

presented by the State at trial. Defendant contends that the evidence was not

sufficient to convict him of felony murder or aggravated child abuse—on either

a theory that he was the principal perpetrator or a theory that Kena Hodges

inflicted the abuse and Defendant is criminally responsible for her actions. We

disagree. 

Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 13(e) prescribes that “[f]indings

of guilt in criminal actions whether by the trial court or jury shall be set aside if the

evidence is insufficient to support the finding by the trier of fact beyond a

reasonable doubt.” Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e). In addition, because conviction by

a trier of fact destroys the presumption of innocence and imposes a presumption

of guilt, a convicted criminal defendant bears the burden of showing that the
-5-

evidence was insufficient. McBee v. State, 372 S.W.2d 173, 176 (Tenn. 1963);

see also State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992) (citing State v.

Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1976), and State v. Brown, 551 S.W.2d 329,

331 (Tenn. 1977)); State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982); Holt v.

State, 357 S.W.2d 57, 61 (Tenn. 1962).

In its review of the evidence, an appellate court must afford the State “the

strongest legitimate view of the evidence as well as all reasonable and legitimate

inferences that may be drawn therefrom.” Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d at 914 (citing

State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). The court may not “reweigh or re-evaluate the evidence” in the record below. Evans, 838 S.W.2d at

191 (citing Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d at 836). Likewise, should the reviewing court

find particular conflicts in the trial testimony, the court must resolve them in favor

of the jury verdict or trial court judgment. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d at 914.

A. Facts

In this case, the evidence clearly establishes that the young victim, Miyoshi

Richardson, died of blunt force trauma as a result of intentional blows to her head

and torso. In addition, it is decisively apparent that either the mother, Kena

Hodges, or the step-father, Defendant, inflicted the fatal injuries and that the

victim was in the sole custody of Defendant throughout the day of her death. The

State could not show, however, which person—if only one—actually administered

the blows; but it argues that it nevertheless met its burden of proof. 
2

 Only one item contained enough blood to determine identity. The blood on that

item— the shirt—belonged to the victim.

-6-

1. Proof of Injury

Metropolitan Nashville and Davidson County police officers testified that

they were dispatched to Defendant’s home at approximately 5:00 p.m. on

December 28, 1995. A paramedic unit was present at the scene when the

officers arrived, but medical personnel were preparing to leave. The officers

observed the victim, a twenty-eight month old child, on a couch as they entered

the home. At that time, officers observed that the child was already stiff with rigor

mortis, had the appearance of having been deceased for some time, had a large

bruise with swelling on the left side of her face, and had dried blood in one nostril.

The officers moved the victim to a back bedroom while awaiting the medical

examiner.

Officers confiscated several items of physical evidence from the residence,

including a bed sheet, a pair of pants, a towel, a diaper, a cotton pad, a sponge,

and a child’s sweat shirt. Testing by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI)

revealed the presence of blood on these items.2

 Officers also seized a coat

hanger that had been bent and secured with tape, which was hanging on a hook

in the victim’s room. While the State characterized this hanger as evidence of

punishment, the defense argued that it may have been simply a tool for turning

on lights above the child’s reach. In addition, the State presented evidence of

other items taken from the house, including a mop, that it characterized as having
-7-

been used to clean the home. The mop was wet when seized, but the TBI found

no traces of blood on it. 

The medical examiner, a forensic pathologist, examined the victim’s body

at the scene of the crime, after another representative from the examiner’s office

had pronounced the child dead. Photographs introduced at trial depicted bruising

of her skin along the left side of her face, with abrasions on the side of the face

and around the eye, and bruising apparent on her arms and legs. The doctor

testified that the victim also had a laceration inside her left nostril and on the

inside of her upper lip, and additional abrasions on her hands and legs. 

 The next day, the medical examiner performed an autopsy on the victim

and determined that she died as a result of blunt force injury of the head and

torso. Several more contusions, lacerations, and abrasions were found over

various parts of the victim’s body, including her chin, lower lip, ear, abdomen,

buttocks, knee, heel, tongue, and hands. The doctor testified that all external

manifestations of injury were consistent with blunt force-type trauma, and that

injuries to the child’s hands were characteristic of defensive wounds. Finally,

areas of the victim’s scalp were visible through her hair, indicating that her hair

may have been pulled from her head. 

Upon internal examination, the medical examiner ascertained that the

victim suffered hemorrhaging underneath the scalp; between the brain and skull,

underneath the protective membrane of the brain; and on the surface of the brain
-8-

itself. Hemorrhaging also appeared around the optic nerves and within the eyes

themselves. The victim’s liver was lacerated and contained areas of

hemorrhage. All internal injuries remained consistent with blunt force trauma,

and hemorrhages of the victim’s eye region were compatible with injuries

received from violent, forceful shaking. The doctor concluded that the victim’s

death resulted from multiple blows to the child’s head and torso, and that the

blows were intentional—they were inconsistent with any type of accidental injury.

The doctor then testified regarding the victim’s probable status during the

day of her death. He opined that, while conscious, the victim would likely have

been irritable from likely headache and nausea, with increasing lethargy and

decreasing activity. Next, the child would have slipped into unconsciousness,

followed by coma and then death. Although the doctor could not determine the

exact time that death occurred, he estimated that, based upon the extent of rigor

mortis present at his 5:30 p.m. examination, the victim had been dead for at least

several hours up to twelve hours or longer. According to the medical examiner,

if the child’s injuries had been inflicted at or before approximately 6:00 a.m . on

the day of her death, the bruises would have been visible and apparent by noon,

and probably much earlier.

2. Statements by Anthony and Kena Hodges

The primary proof presented by the State to show how, when, and by

whom the injuries to Miyoshi were inflicted was gleaned from the sometimes

consistent, sometimes conflicting statements by Anthony and Kena Hodges to
-9-

police. Detective Kent McAlister of the Metropolitan Police Department testified

concerning many of the statements made by the Hodges.

Defendant related that he and the victim had been alone together

throughout the day of her death. Kena Hodges left the home for work at

approximately 6:30 a.m. and did not return until shortly before 5:00 p.m.

McAlister stated that, at the scene, Defendant explained the child’s facial bruises

by telling officers she had fallen off of the commode earlier in the day.

Separately, Kena stated at the scene that the child had fallen in her presence that

morning, hitting her head on the bathroom heater. 

McAlister requested the Hodges to appear at the Criminal Justice Center

later the same evening for extended interview, which they did. In that interview,

Defendant told McAlister that early in the morning, while Kena prepared for work,

he heard a “boom” from the bathroom. According to Defendant, Kena told him

that the child had fallen and hit her head on the bathroom heater, burning her

hair. During this statement, Defendant denied seeing this first fall and stated that

the victim acted normally after it occurred, although she did not cry or complain,

as she usually would. 

In addition, Defendant informed McAlister that around 10:00 a.m., he saw

the victim stumble once, and he placed the victim on the commode because she

had partially soiled her clothes. While the victim was in the bathroom, Defendant

walked to the kitchen to feed their dog. When he heard a loud noise from the
-10-

bathroom, he returned to find the child lying on the floor. He stated that though

she appeared to be all right, she fell again while trying to walk out of the room.

Following these falls, Defendant noted that the victim appeared sleepy and less

responsive, and she seemed “in a daze.” He then put the child to bed.

Defendant spoke with his wife by telephone between 10:00 and 11:00 a.m., and

he informed her that the child had fallen and seemed extremely sleepy.

According to Defendant, Kena reassured him that the child was merely tired

because she hadn’t had much sleep the night before. 

Kena telephoned Defendant at approximately 12:30 p.m., and Defendant

informed her that the child was still sleeping. In his statement, Defendant told

police that he was then worried about Miyoshi because he thought she should be

awake. Kena reportedly again told Defendant to let the child sleep—that she was

tired. Kena called back at approximately 2:00 p.m., at which time Defendant told

her the victim was still sleeping and that he wanted to wake her. He took a wet

towel and squeezed it over her face and told his wife that “it looked like she

moved her eyes.” Kena again told Defendant the child was just sleepy, but he

told Detective McAlister that he knew something was wrong: 

And I said . . . something just don’t seem right because she normally

be up because I at this point I had my stereo on in the living room I

said music is up and I said the dog been barking you know I said

there’s comm otion going on and my wife said well go get her. So I

went to the bed, got her, brought her out and my wife was on the

other line and my wife I said well baby you talk to her maybe you

can call her and maybe she’ll respond and my wife started you know

Miyoshi, Miyoshi, Miyoshi, Miyoshi and I said it look like she moving

and my wife said well check her temperature and she told me the

thermometer which we have a home thermometer is in the . . .
-11-

bathroom cabinet so I went back to the cabinet and got the

thermometer cleaned off, put it in her mouth, flushed it.

. . . . . . . It seemed like she was [responding] and my wife just

kept because my wife was, you know, coaching me more or less

along because I told my wife she shouldn’t be asleep this long. My

wife kept telling me she’s tired, she’s sleepy. I said she shouldn’t be

asleep this long.

When asked how she seemed to be responding, Defendant told Detective

McAlister that “[s]he would open her eyes just like vaguely, like a sleepy . . . look,

partially like you know vaguely just open them with a sleepy look.” During the

same conversation with his wife, Defendant remarked that he thought Miyoshi

might have had a seizure because it looked as though she had been biting her

tongue. According to Defendant, Kena told him the child had not had a seizure

and to put her to bed. Defendant therefore put the victim back to bed. He denied

noticing anything unusual about her appearance other than her lack of

responsiveness. When asked about the discoloration of her face, he stated that

he assumed she bruised herself in the falls, but that he did not notice when the

bruises appeared on her face. 

Kena Hodges arrived home shortly before 5:00 p.m. and attempted to

wake the victim. In his statement, Defendant told McAlister that “she started

playing with the baby’s like legs she said the baby is some kind of, you know,

medical term word she used I don’t know, she said the baby is well tight.” They

called the child’s grandmother to tell her the child was dead. They then called

911. Defendant stated that after the paramedics informed the Hodges that the

child was conclusively dead, 
-12-

. . . it hit home and, you know, I was breaking down at that point and

she was strong. She was telling me, baby, you know, it was my

fault. I was saying, baby, it’s my fault cause I should have had, you

know, when the baby fell out a couple of times called the, you know,

ambulance then and what not.

Defendant gave another statement to police the next night, December 29,

1995. During that statement, Detective McAlister inform ed Defendant that the

victim died from being beaten, not from falling, and implored him to tell police

what had happened the previous day. Defendant immediately denied beating the

child, and he admitted that Kena sometimes acted abusively toward Miyoshi.

When asked the last time he remembered Kena “over discipline” the victim,

Defendant responded, “Thursday morning,” the day of her death. He stated, “I

honestly don’t believe she just fell I mean it was a throw . . . ,” and he indicated

that he heard Kena say to the child in the bathroom, “Get the f__k out of here you

mother f__kin’ bitch. I’ll kick your f__king ass.” 

Defendant continued to repeatedly maintain that he did nothing to harm the

victim, and he explained his scraped knuckle and bruised toe by insisting that he

helped his neighbor move several large appliances the day before Miyoshi died.

When pressed again, the following exchange occurred:

ANTHONY: Earlier in the morning my wife well my wife was

abusive with her. . . .

MCALISTER: What’d she do?

ANTHONY: First she hit her in the sink. I was in the bed

sleep and I know she hit her head on the side of the coming out of

our bathroom there is a fire well fireplace, no heater and you know

boom, I heard the noise. . . .
-13-

MCALISTER: . . . [T]ell us what happened, tell us what you

saw?

PINKERTON: What kind of conversation and what did you see?

ANTHONY: I seen her with her hair going to the door. I mean

it’s like, get your ass up, you know and boom

MCALISTER: Boom what?

ANTHONY: Kicking her[.]

MCALISTER: Kicking her where?

ANTHONY: From the bathroom[.]

MCALISTER: Kicking her where did she kick her on her body?

ANTHONY: In her in her ass or between her legs or whatever

because it tipped up out into the bedroom.

PINKERTON: So where did she, where did she land when she

fell when she got kicked out of the bathroom?

. . . .

ANTHONY: I have a, what is it, a milk crate. I have an old

milk crate. It was closer down. I use it as a night stand. She hit

that and moved it back.

PINKERTON: What part of her body hit the milk crate?

ANTHONY: Well she was upside down. She had flipped and

so the milk crate was like moved and I moved the milk crate back in

the corner.

PINKERTON: And what time of morning was this?

ANTHONY: Is [sic] was about six-fifteen right before she had

to go to work. Six something. 

MCALISTER: So she kicked her one time.

. . .

ANTHONY: No she was pretty abusive.
-14-

MCALISTER: Well explain to me what pretty abusive is. Would

you please explain that to me. I guess I’m just dumber than a rock.

ANTHONY: She made the baby stand up in the corner all

night.

. . .

PINKERTON: Which night are we talking about?

ANTHONY: We’re talking about Wednesday, Thursday,

Thursday morning.

PINKERTON: Talking about the night before the baby’s death.

ANTHONY: Right. She made the baby stand up in the corner

and hold her hands up on the wall.

PINKERTON: Why? Why did she say she done that? Why?

ANTHONY: The baby girl said she had to pee and then so

she slept in the corner all night.

PINKERTON: Standing up? What did you say about that?

ANTHONY: Baby put the baby to bed.

. . .

ANTHONY: Okay. F__k you you don’t have nothing to say

about, you know. I said, baby, put the baby to bed. . . .

PINKERTON: So y’all slept in the bed and the baby standing in

the corner

ANTHONY: With her hands up.

PINKERTON: When did you notice that she got up and the

baby was out of the corner?

ANTHONY: I noticed possibly all night one o’clock, two

o’clock, three o’clock, she’d holler at the baby, are you ready to say

something, you ready to say something. She would get up and get

her norm al[.]

PINKERTON: Get up and get what? We don’t know what

normal is.
3

 The transcript of Kena’s interview begins abruptly, and the record does not reflect the

conversation prior to the beginning of what has been recorded; but Kena has clearly been

informed somehow of allegations that she kicked the child.

-15-

ANTHONY: Smack the baby, hit the baby. You can’t say you

gotta go to bed, you can’t say you gotta go to the bathroom.

PINKERTON: When she hit her after she was standing and you

woke up one of those few times you woke up and she was hitting

her, when she slapped the baby where did the baby hit? Did she hit

her head on anything else? Or did she just slap her and the baby

just stood still or did she fall down or what?

ANTHONY: She was constantly falling. Constantly giving up.

. . .

PINKERTON: How often did this happen?

ANTHONY: Too much. 

Upon cross-examination, Detective McAlister testified to several

statements made by Kena Hodges over the same time period—the evening of

her daughter’s death, December 28, 1995, and the next night, technically the

early morning hours of December 30, 1995. During her first interview, Kena told

McAlister that Miyoshi had fallen and hit her head on the bathroom heater. Later,

when apparently confronted with Defendant’s statements inculpating her,3 Kena

denied ever kicking the victim, yet she admitted inflicting some harm. Kena told

detectives that she had struck the child lightly with a plastic coat hanger, causing

her to fall and hit her head against the bathroom sink. 

In her statement, Kena expressed disbelief that her actions caused the

child’s death, but she accepted responsibility if that were indeed the case.

McAlister testified to her words:
-16-

“I’m hurt. Don’t think I’m not hurt. And I feel bad, because, like I

said, I don’t believe that that’s what did it to her, but I guess it did, so

I’m wrong. . . . I was thinking of anybody and anything but m e. I

couldn’t believe this was me, but I’m being honest. It’s not enough

to say, I’m sorry. It’s not enough to say, I didn’t think that would

happen. 

. . . .

I didn’t think that would result from that. It’s not enough. It’s

not enough and you’re right. And it’s not enough for me to say that

I should have, would have, could have. It’s not enough. Her life is

gone, and I’m being honest. True enough, I don’t -- I don’t think I

was a negligent Mam a. I guess I was negligent then. Abusive, I

don’t think I was abusive, but I guess I was abusive then. I don’t

think I was a bad parent. I made a mistake and I’m wrong. I guess

I’ve got to pay for it. I hate to be honest, you know, I guess this is

going to be said in court, played in court, whatever. I’m being

honest in my heart. Don’t think I don’t feel bad. I have felt bad

since it happened. I’m truly a Christian, but I make mistakes. I do

wrong. This was one, true enough. Hey, you-all are saying it’s a

biggie. It is a biggie. I do feel bad. Now, I’m not going to say I want

you-all to just believe me. I’m not going to sit here and just lie and

say, hey. But, now, I guess if I did -- did it, I’d be, I guess I’ll keep

saying it, if because I still don’t want to believe that, it was me. But

if I did it, I did it, and I’m wrong. I’m not trying to pass the buck. I’m

not trying to point fingers, and I’m not going to steer you wrong.” 

 

Officers asked Kena why she failed to admit the prior night that she hit the

victim with a coat hanger, and she responded that she blocked the incident out

of her mind because she did not believe she caused harm to the child: 

“I guess I want to block that out. I did not even remember that, but

after I sat there, I thought about it and say, you know, what now, that

I think about it. Three blows to the head. It might have been just

me, now that I think about it, after I thought about what really

happened.” 

McAlister testified that, to his knowledge, Kena had not mentioned before that

she hit her daughter three times. Finally, the detective testified to Kena’s words

shortly before police arrested her: “‘Jesus, I am so sorry, Miyoshi. I never wanted
-17-

to do nothing to you. How many years does a person go to jail for something like

this?’” 

Upon redirect examination of Detective McAlister, the State presented

evidence that at the first interview, in response to the question of whether

Defendant had struck the victim in a harmful manner, Kena stated,

“No, and that was much -- we loved Miyoshi, like I said, and you

know, but this incident, he called me during the day, because he

wanted for me to reassure him, because he’s like I said, he’s real

nervous about this, so he didn’t know -- so he just went on what I

said, like I said, feel bad because I feel I should have did more, but

like I assume, she asleep, you know . . . .” 

To impeach the credibility of Kena’s statements implicating herself, the

State also introduced Kena’s earlier statement that she did not know exactly

where or how the victim fell in the bathroom: “I guess that’s when she fell. I can’t

say I saw it . . . .” In addition, the jury heard this account by Kena through

McAlister:

“I said, Baby, don’t worry about it. Should I call the ambulance? I

was like, Baby, no. I said, no, and I admit that, because I’m

thinking, there ain’t nothing wrong with her. And that’s the honest

truth, and I was telling everybody on my job, well, my husband was

nervous about my daughter. And if you ask him, he’s a little nervous

about her, but I don’t think wrong [sic] with her. Betty punches me

to herself, and says, get over -- and says, get over it. She’s fine.

He’s just overreacting. And I don’t know. And so then I was telling

him little things to do to her and stuff to try and hear her. I was like,

well Baby, take her in the tub and lay her in the tub and just take a

little cold water and put it on her belly. That will probably make her

squint, you know, if the temperature. No, Baby, it’s too cold to do

that. I don’t want to make her cold. I said, okay, well, that’s

understandable, you know.

. . . .
-18-

And so, I said, well, Baby, I don’t think nothing wrong. I think

she fine. You’re just overreacting.”

The general substance of this telephone call and another that day were verified

by Kena’s co-worker, who heard Kena speak. According to Kena’s statement,

Defendant called her back soon thereafter to request her to come home as soon

as possible because of the child’s condition. Regarding pain or marks on the

victim, Detective McAlister testified that Kena stated, 

“Like I said, I did not notice those things before I had left. I didn’t

see them, and I didn’t do them, and I didn’t see him do any while I

was there. I don’t believe he did while I was not there. I didn’t see

it and he didn’t tell me if he did. . . . Like you-all are saying, you

trying to figure out whether it was him, or whether it was m e, and I’m

trying to be like, I know for a fact it wasn’t me.” 

Finally, the State introduced this conversation between police and Kena: “‘Who’s

been doing it?’ . . . ‘It was not me.’ . . .’Who’s been doing it?’ . . . “Him.’”

B. Legal Analysis

Defendant was convicted of aggravated child abuse in violation of

Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-15-402(a)(1) and first degree murder in

violation of § 39-13-202(a)(2)—specifically, murder committed during the

perpetration of aggravated child abuse. We will address the murder conviction

first. 

Defendant argues that his conviction for murder during the perpetration of

aggravated child abuse should be reversed because the evidence was

insufficient to show (1) that he inflicted the abuse upon the victim, or (2) that he

was criminally responsible for Kena’s infliction of injury upon the child. We
-19-

conclude that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find Defendant guilty as

the principal perpetrator of felony murder. We further find that even if the jury

believed Kena Hodges inflicted the fatal blows, the evidence is nevertheless

sufficient to convict Defendant based upon his subsequent neglect of the victim

and his criminal responsibility for Kena’s conduct.

1. Felony Murder by Infliction of Injury

At the time of this offense, Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-13-202 read

in part: “First degree murder is . . . [a] killing of another committed in the

perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate any . . . aggravated child abuse.” Tenn.

Code Ann. § 39-13-202(a)(2). The legislature prescribed that “[a] person is guilty

of the offense of aggravated child abuse who commits the offense of child abuse

as defined in § 39-15-401 and . . . [t]he act of abuse results in serious bodily

injury to the child.” Id. § 39-15-402(a)(1) (emphasis added). In turn, the crossreferenced § 39-15-401, entitled “Child Abuse and Neglect,” stated:

Any person who knowingly, other than by accidental means, treats

a child under eighteen (18) years of age in such a manner as to

inflict injury or neglects such a child so as to adversely affect the

child’s health and welfare is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor;

provided that if the abused child is six (6) years of age or less, the

penalty is a Class D felony.

There can be no question that a killing has occurred within the meaning of § 39-

13-202(a)(2). Likewise, there can be no mistake that an act of abuse has

resulted in serious bodily injury within the meaning of § 39-15-402(a)(1).

Defendant disputes neither statem ent; he acknowledges in his brief, 

Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence at

trial established either that (1) the defendant’s co-defendant, Kena
-20-

Hodges, inflicted the injuries that caused the victim’s death, while

the defendant was awake and aware of such abuse, made no

attempt to stop said abuse, and made no effort to obtain medical

assistance for the victim; or (2) disregarding Kena Hodges’

confession, the defendant inflicted the injuries that caused the

victim’s death, her injuries being consistent with being struck with

rings the defendant may have been wearing on his hand(s); or (3)

some combination of the two theories outlined above.

Turning to a facet of greater dispute, therefore, we examine whether the

proof established Defendant’s guilt as the deliverer of physical blows. Defendant,

by his own admission, cared for the victim alone between the hours of

approximately 6:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The mother, Kena Hodges, did not recall

noticing any signs of physical injury to the child prior to leaving her in Defendant’s

care. The jury viewed photographs of Defendant’s bruised toe, scraped knuckle,

and the rings he normally wore. The jury heard Defendant’s statement, in which

he recounted that the victim had soiled her clothes during the day, and could

have surmised that the incident provoked him. Although Kena admitted to having

struck the child in the morning hours, the jury also heard, by her statement to

police, that she did not believe she could have caused such severe injuries. In

addition, Defendant conceded that the victim had been further injured while in his

care by falling at least twice, including once from the height of a commode. 

Our supreme court has long stated, “[T]he weight to be given circumstantial

evidence and ‘“[t]he inferences to be drawn from such evidence, and the extent

to which the circumstances are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with

innocence, are questions primarily for the jury.”’” State v. Mann, 959 S.W.2d 503,
-21-

518 (Tenn. 1997) (quoting Marable v. State, 313 S.W.2d 451, 457 (Tenn. 1958)

(quoting Wharton’s Criminal Evidence)). We conclude that it was within the jury’s

purview to find Defendant guilty of battering the victim while alone with her the

day of her death. See generally State v. Donald Ray Lacy, No. 02C01-9701-CC00013, 1997 WL 729261 (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, Nov. 25, 1997) (finding

circumstantial evidence sufficient to convict of felony murder by aggravated child

abuse when victim was in defendant’s sole care); State v. Cynthia & Rhodney

Roberson, No. 02C01-9503-CC-00059, 1995 WL 765009 (Tenn. Crim. App.,

Jackson, Dec. 28, 1995) (same); State v. James DuBose, No. 01C01-9405-CC00160, 1995 WL 504803 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Aug. 25, 1995) (same),

aff’d, State v. DuBose, 953 S.W.2d 649 (Tenn. 1997) (permission to appeal

denied on sufficiency issue).

2. Felony Murder by Acts of Neglect

Likewise, we find the evidence sufficient for the jury to find Defendant guilty

of neglecting the victim within the meaning of Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-

15-401(a) and, by incorporation, §§ 39-15-402(a)(1) and 39-13-202(a)(2). As

explained above, first degree felony murder is a “killing committed in the

perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate any . . . aggravated child abuse.” Tenn.

Code Ann. § 39-13-202(a)(2). Next, aggravated child abuse is the commission

of “child abuse as defined in § 39-15-401" that causes serious bodily injury. Id.

§ 39-15-402(a)(1). Child abuse, as defined in § 39-15-401, includes “knowingly,

other than by accidental means, . . . neglect[ing a child under eighteen] so as to

adversely affect the child’s health and welfare.” Id. § 39-15-401.
4

 At that time, subsection (a)(1) of § 39-2-202 included the collection of offenses that

we deem “felony murder.”

-22-

Defendant argues to the contrary. He agrees that the evidence establishes

the crime of neglect, but disputes that he was charged with that offense:

[T]he most that the evidence at trial establishes is that the defendant

neglected the victim, an offense with which he was not charged. . .

. At the time of the offense, the offense of aggravated child neglect

did not exist in Tennessee. Child neglect is a distinct offense from

child abuse. Child neglect is not a predicate offense for felony

murder.

(Footnote omitted.) (Citing State v. Cynthia Denise Smith, No. 1153, 1990 WL

134934 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Sept. 20, 1990.)) In addition, Defendant

argues that this Court “held that child neglect was insufficient to support a

conviction for felony murder” in State v. Denise Maupin, No. 272, 1991 WL

197420 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Oct. 7, 1991); and he argues that the

supreme court affirmed this conclusion in State v. Maupin, 859 S.W.2d 313, 315

(Tenn. 1993). 

The primary distinction between both Maupin opinions and the case at bar

is that the statute at issue in Maupin was not, as Defendant claims, the felony

murder statute. See Maupin, 859 S.W.2d at 314. Rather, the problematic statute

was Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-2-202(a)(2), which the legislature had

recently enacted.4

 Subsection (a)(2), reading, 

It shall also be murder in the first degree to kill a child less than

thirteen (13) years of age, if the child’s death results from one (1) or

more incidents of a protracted pattern or multiple incidents of child

abuse comm itted by the defendant against such child, or if death

results from the cumulative effects of such pattern or incidents,
5

 Section 39-4-401, as considered in Maupin, differed from § 39-15-401, the child abuse

statute in force at the time of Miyoshi Hodges’s death, because it was strictly a misdemeanor

offense, whereas child abuse may now constitute a Class D felony.

6

 When a jury had returned a verdict of guilty as to neglect and not guilty as to infliction

of injury, or “abuse.” See State v. Cynthia Denise Smith, No. 1153, 1990 WL 134934, at *3-4

(Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Sept. 20, 1990).

-23-

was determined to be unconstitutional by our supreme court in the case of

Maupin’s boyfriend, State v. Hale, 840 S.W.2d 307 (Tenn. 1992), decided while

Maupin was on appeal to the supreme court.

Despite the obvious and significant difference in the relevant statute, a

similarity exists between the “child abuse murder” statute of Maupin and the

“felony murder by aggravated child abuse” statute we contemplate here. The

child abuse murder statute also did not define “child abuse” within its terms, and

courts turned to the statutory offense of child abuse: § 39-4-401.5 Like § 39-15-

401 that we consider in this case, § 39-4-401 was entitled “Child Abuse and

Neglect.” Section 39-4-401 contained two separate ways to satisfy commission

of the offense—by either inflicting injury upon or neglecting a child. Because this

Court had previously upheld a conviction for child neglect alone under § 39-4-

401,6 a panel of this Court concluded in Maupin that “child abuse, as proscribed

in [the child abuse murder statute], did not include child neglect.” Maupin, 1991

WL 197420, at *5.

Turning to the felony murder by aggravated child abuse statute at issue

here, however, we respectfully disagree that the legislature did not intend for the

term “child abuse” to include child neglect. Throughout our Code, different
-24-

concepts, prohibitions, and mandates are expressed in separate sections and

subsections. Specifically, our criminal laws are divided into explicit subsections

to avoid ambiguity of interpretation. Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-15-401

creates one crime which can be satisfied by two different courses of conduct, not

two separate crimes. 

When stating, “A person is guilty of the offense of aggravated child abuse

who commits the offense of child abuse as defined in § 39-15-401 . . . ,” we do

not believe our legislature intended to refer only to one half of an unenumerated,

uninterrupted, unpunctuated statute subsection, as Defendant would have us

conclude. “Child abuse as defined in § 39-15-401" encompasses § 39-15-401(a)

in its entirety:

Any person who knowingly, other than by accidental means, treats

a child under eighteen (18) years of age in such a manner as to

inflict injury or neglects such a child so as to adversely affect the

child’s health and welfare is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor;

provided, that if the abused child is six (6) years of age or less, the

penalty is a Class D felony. 

See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-15-402, -401; see also State v. Cynthia & Rhodney

Roberson, No. 02C01-9503-CC-00059, 1995 WL 765009, at *6 (Tenn. Crim.

App., Jackson, Dec. 28, 1995).

The facts presented by the State support a jury verdict of murder during the

perpetration of aggravated child abuse based upon neglect of the victim “so as

to adversely affect the child’s health and welfare,” resulting in serious bodily

injury. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-15-401, -402. Defendant knew that the child
-25-

had been forced to stand for hours overnight against the wall, unable to sleep,

eat, or relieve herself. Early the next morning, Defendant admitted that he heard

a loud boom while Kena and the victim were in the bathroom together.

Immediately thereafter, he “seen [sic] her with her hair going to the door”; and the

victim flew across the room, hit a milk-crate nightstand, and flipped upside down,

landing on the floor. Defendant either knew or strongly suspected that Kena had

kicked M iyoshi. 

Toward mid-morning, Defendant observed the victim fall at least twice, and

he noticed that she was too sleepy to awaken herself, as she would normally do.

Closer to midday, Defendant attempted several times to wake Miyoshi, but the

victim managed only a slight response, if any. Kena told police that Defendant

was extremely distressed about the victim’s condition throughout the day, and

that at one point, Defendant was alarmed enough to try to hear her heartbeat and

feel her pulse. The jury saw photographs in which the child’s facial bruises were

evident, and medical personnel testified that bruises were apparent when they

arrived at the scene. 

Defendant knew this child was in serious medical trouble. Defendant took

no action to provide medical attention for the child he considered his own.

Miyoshi died as a result. Cf. State v. Bordis, 905 S.W.2d 214, 225-26 (Tenn,

Crim. App. 1995) (finding that evidence was sufficient to convict of second

degree murder where “deterioration [of victim] was evident and the need for

medical attention was apparent,” yet defendant elected not to nourish or seek
-26-

medical assistance). We find the evidence sufficient to permit the jury to convict

him of first degree felony murder based upon a theory that Defendant knowingly

neglected her so as to adversely affect her health and welfare. 

Finally, this same evidence is sufficient to show that Defendant is criminally

responsible for the conduct of Kena Hodges. To be criminally responsible,

Defendant, “[h]aving a duty imposed by law . . . and acting with intent . . . to

promote or assist [the offense’s] commission,” must have “fail[ed] to make a

reasonable effort to prevent com mission of the offense.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-

11-402(3). As Miyoshi’s step-parent and caretaker, Defendant bore a duty to

protect her from harm and provide her with emergency attention. Defendant,

although not the victim’s legal guardian, was entrusted by her legal guardian to

watch over her on a daily basis. We consider this to be a “duty imposed by law”

within the meaning of § 39-11-402(3). See State v. Michael Tyrone Gordon, No.

01C01-9605-CR-00213, 1997 WL 578961, at *6 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville,

Sept. 18, 1997); State v. Jeffrey Lloyd Winders, No. 88-142-III, 1989 WL 105710,

at *2-3 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Sept. 14, 1989). Kena admitted that she

struck the child on the morning of December 28, 1995, and Defendant grew

increasingly aware of the child’s m edically severe condition as the day

progressed. This proof is sufficient for the jury to infer Defendant’s intent to

promote or assist in the infliction of injury or neglect of the child. 

3. Aggravated Child Abuse
-27-

Because we have already found the evidence sufficient to find Defendant

guilty of aggravated child abuse based upon either a theory that Defendant

knowingly inflicted injury on the victim, causing her death, or a theory that

Defendant knowingly neglected the child so as to adversely affect her health and

safety, causing her death, we need not further address the argument that the

evidence is not sufficient to support his conviction of aggravated child abuse.

This issue lacks merit.

II. ELECTION OF OFFENSES

At trial, prior to Defendant’s presentation of proof, he moved the court to

compel the State to elect one of its two theories of guilt—whether the State

wished to proceed on a theory that Defendant inflicted injury upon the victim, or

whether Defendant was criminally responsible for Kena Hodges’s infliction of

injury upon the victim. Defendant also moved for a special jury instruction, which

would have advised the jury that its verdict must be unanimous regarding

whether Defendant was guilty as a principal or as criminally responsible for Kena.

The trial court denied Defendant’s motion, and the jury received a standard

unanimity instruction at the conclusion of proof. In addition, the State argued

strenuously in closing that the jury’s verdict need not be unanimous regarding the

theory of guilt.

Defendant argues that “[w]hen a defendant is charged with multiple

possible crimes in one indictment, the State must elect which charge on which

to proceed.” Moreover, he contends that 
-28-

the trial court’s failure to require election created the potential that

each juror did not consider the ‘same occurrence’ in arriving at the

verdicts. Some jurors may have considered only the incident where

Kena Hodges physically abused the victim before she left for work,

and convicted the defendant under a criminal responsibility theory.

Other jurors may have considered only the defendant’s alleged

conduct in abusing the victim after Kena Hodges left for work.

We disagree that election was required in this case. Proof of multiple

occurrences of the offense, any of which the State offers to satisfy the

requirements of the indicted offense, is the typical situation in which election is

crucial to a defendant’s constitutional right to a unanimous jury. See, e.g., State

v. Shelton, 851 S.W.2d 134 (Tenn. 1993); Burlison v. State, 501 S.W.2d 801

(Tenn. 1973); State v. Hoyt, 928 S.W.2d 935 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). In those

situations, such as when a child alleges some type of abuse yet cannot relate

when the offenses occurred, the jury must support a verdict of guilt by a

unanimous decision that the defendant committed one specific offense—one

juror may not convict based upon a decision that the defendant committed the

offense on one date, while another juror believes the defendant committed the

same statutory offense, but on different date. Such a defendant would be

convicted of different offenses, each by a partial jury. 

Here, in contrast, Defendant could only have been convicted of the same

offense: a killing committed in perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate aggravated

child abuse on December 28, 1995. Although the State did indeed present the

jury two distinct alternatives, in doing so it posed no threat to Defendant’s

constitutional rights, because it offered not two alternative offenses, but two
-29-

alternative means for culpability for a single offense. Specifically, if several jurors

believed Defendant inflicted blows to the victim, and several jurors believed that

Defendant neglected the victim following blows by Kena, then we believe they

may all convict of first degree murder committed during the perpetration of or

attempt to perpetrate aggravated child abuse. 

Similarly, the State need not elect between prosecution as a principal actor

and prosecution for criminal responsibility in this case. See State v. Williams,

920 S.W.2d 247 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). In William s, this Court found no error

in the trial court’s failure to require election between theories of actual

perpetration of aggravated rape and criminal responsibility for the conduct of

another. Id. at 257-58. We stated,

Unlike the cited authority, this case involves one particular offense

occurring during one criminal event. Problems with a unanimous

jury verdict generally arise when the State fails to elect among

different offenses. Here the State properly elected to seek a

conviction of aggravated rape by serious bodily injury. The trial

judge instructed the jury on the elements of this offense, and found

the evidence to warrant a further instruction on criminal

responsibility for another, and for criminal responsibility relative to

the elements of aggravated rape. The jury reached a verdict based

on one set of facts relating to the one incident of rape. We conclude

that the Defendant’s constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict

was not violated by the court’s instructions. 

Id.

Furthermore, if upon further review it is determined that failure to require

election was error, we conclude that such error was harmless beyond a

reasonable doubt. The jurors necessarily must have agreed upon the facts
-30-

underlying the conviction. That is to say, those jurors, if any, who convicted

Defendant because they believed he inflicted blows upon Miyoshi, must

necessarily have come to the conclusion that he then, for the remainder of the

day, neglected her in such a manner as to adversely affect her health or safety.

One cannot reach the former conclusion without subsequently reaching the latter

conclusion—to do so would be totally inconsistent with the proof presented by the

State. Likewise, those same jurors would have essentially concluded that

Defendant breached his custodial duty to protect the child with the intent to

promote commission of the aggravated child abuse initiated by Kena earlier in the

morning, satisfying the offense of criminal responsibility for her conduct. This

issue lacks merit. 

III. MOTION TO SUPPRESS

Next, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to

suppress a statement taken by Detective E.J. Bernard of the Metropolitan

Davidson County Police Department. In essence, Defendant claims that this

statement should have been excluded from trial based upon its inherent

unreliability. To demonstrate its unreliability, Defendant argues (1) that the

statement was neither audiotaped nor videotaped, although both methods of

recordation were available; and (2) that the most prejudicial of assertions found

in Detective Bernard’s typewritten account of Defendant’s statement cannot be

found in Bernard’s contemporaneous, handwritten notes.
-31-

Relying on his typewritten report of Defendant’s statement, Detective

Bernard testified to Defendant’s account of the events surrounding the victim’s

death. Specifically, he included:

[Defendant] stated the child was placed in the bed and she

was crying, for whatever the reasons may be. He further stated that

he put some covers over her face, turned the radio up loud so that

he wouldn’t have to listen to the cries. That the child died at

approximately noon that day, and the mother didn’t come home ‘till

approximately 5 o’clock. . . . And he stated that . . . then they came

up with a story about calling 911. 

Defendant denied ever making these statements and argues that “any of these

statements, had they actually been made by him, were of such importance that

any trained police investigator taking contemporaneous notes would have

included this information therein.” He remarks that the statements cannot be

corroborated by any other statement made by Defendant, by a recording of the

statement made to Bernard, or by Bernard’s handwritten notes.

Defendant urges this Court to require, as a condition to admissibility,

recordation of a custodial interrogation when it is feasible. He notes that both

Minnesota and Texas require custodial interrogations to be recorded, as do the

Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Model Code of Pre-Arraignment

Procedure. We decline to adopt this rather bright-line rule of admissibility,

reserving this issue for our supreme court or the legislature. In addition, we

conclude that the State was not required to record this particular interrogation as

a prerequisite to its admissibility. 
-32-

Here, Defendant had an opportunity to cross-exam ine Detective Bernard

regarding discrepancies between Bernard’s testimony at trial, based upon his

typewritten statement, and his handwritten notes. Defendant did indeed crossexamine on such discrepancies, as well as the feasibility of recording the

interrogation. Detective Bernard testified that the typed statement was produced

from the notes within twenty-fours hours, that he accurately transcribed the

statement, and that no recording devices were available in the particular room in

which the statement was taken. 

Defendant does not dispute that he gave the statement knowingly and

voluntarily; he disputes the accuracy of Detective Bernard’s recollection. We

consider this an issue of credibility appropriate for the jury. Through crossexamination, the jury heard evidence that the typed statement contained

statements not recorded in the detective’s notes, and the jury apparently

accredited Detective Bernard’s testimony. This issue is without m erit.

IV. EVIDENCE OF PRIOR ABUSE BY KENA HODGES

In his fourth issue, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by refusing

to permit Defendant to present evidence through the testimony of two witnesses

that Kena Hodges, the victim’s mother, had abused the child in the past. The

State argues, and the trial court agreed, that Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b)

mandates the inadmissibility of this evidence. In response, Defendant cites State

v. Smith, 868 S.W.2d 561, 574 (Tenn. 1993), State v. Turnbill, 640 S.W.2d 40,

46-47 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982), and State v. Glebock, 616 S.W.2d 897, 905-06
-33-

(Tenn. Crim. App. 1981), for the proposition that evidence of prior acts of violence

against the victim are relevant to show motive and intent to commit the offense.

Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b) reads:

Evidence of other crim es, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove

the character of a person in order to show action in conformity with

the character trait. It may, however, be admissible for other

purposes. The conditions which must be satisfied before allowing

such evidence are: 

(1) The court upon request must hold a hearing outside the

jury’s presence; 

(2) The court must determine that a material issue exists other

than conduct conforming with a character trait and must upon

request state on the record the material issue, the ruling, and the

reasons for admitting the evidence; and 

(3) The court must exclude the evidence if its probative value

is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

The State correctly notes that, once the above criteria of Rule 404(b) have been

satisfied, the appropriate standard of review is whether the trial court abused its

discretion when ruling upon the admissibility of evidence at trial. State v.

DuBose, 953 S.W.2d 649 (Tenn. 1997). The trial court followed the strictures of

Rule 404(b) by conducting a hearing out of the presence of the jury; by ruling on

the record that the evidence was being offered to show the propensity of Kena

Hodges to commit abuse, rather than for any other purpose; and by indicating

that the evidence was cumulative—that the record already reflected other similar

evidence. The trial court, therefore, must be afforded an abuse of discretion

standard of review.
-34-

State v. Smith, relying upon Turnbill and Glebock, held that “violent acts

indicating the relationship between the victim of a violent crime and the defendant

prior to the commission of the offense are relevant to show defendant’s hostility

toward the victim, malice, intent, and a settled purpose to harm the victim.” 868

S.W.2d at 574. Here, we have a distinguishable case: the State does not seek

to introduce evidence against the accused; rather, Defendant seeks to introduce

evidence that another person, Kena Hodges, committed a prior violent act

against the victim. 

Examining Rule 404(b) in conjunction with Rule 401, this evidence may or

may not be relevant evidence in this case—that is to say, it may or may not have

“any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the

action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”

Tenn. R. Evid. 401. Assuming that under Rule 404(b), prior violent acts against

the victim can be relevant evidence of motive and intent to commit the acts again,

evidence in this case that Kena had abused the child could be relevant evidence

that she had abused Miyoshi on the day of her death, but it would not make

abuse or neglect by Defendant any less likely. Therefore, we conclude that the

trial judge did not abuse his discretion by denying admission of this evidence.

V. JURY INSTRUCTION ON CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

Defendant next contends that the trial court committed an error of

constitutional magnitude when it instructed the jury on the third section of criminal

responsibility for the conduct of another and a juvenile criminal statute mandating
-35-

that persons who have knowledge of child abuse report such abuse to the

authorities. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-11-402(3), 37-1-403. Specifically, the

trial court instructed:

The defendant is criminally responsible for an offense

committed by the conduct of another if having a duty imposed by

law or voluntarily undertaken to prevent commission of the offense

and acting with the intent to benefit in the proceeds or results of the

offense or to promote or assist its com mission, the defendant fails

to make a reasonable effort to prevent commission of the offense.

In a later instruction, separated by nineteen pages of the record, the trial court

advised the jury,

Any person having knowledge of or called upon to render aid to any

child who is suffering from or has sustained any wound, injury,

disability or physical or mental condition which is of such a nature as

to reasonably indicate that it has been caused by brutality, abuse or

neglect or which on the basis of available information reasonably

appears to have been caused by brutality, abuse or neglect shall

report such harm immediately by telephone or otherwise to the

judge having juvenile jurisdiction or to the county office of the

Department of Human Services or to the office of the Sheriff or the

chief law enforcem ent official of the municipality where the child

resides. Persons includes, but is not limited to neighbor, relative,

friend or any other person.

We conclude that, while the latter instruction was likely not warranted by the facts

of this case, its inclusion was not erroneous; and furthermore, if erroneous, such

error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 

We find that these instructions were charged to the jury each separate from

the other, with no indication from the trial court that the jury should consider them

together and with no further instruction that the latter constituted a “duty imposed

by law” under the former. Had the jury decided that Defendant failed to report

child abuse in violation of this instruction, such a decision nevertheless should
-36-

have had no bearing on fulfillment of the criminal responsibility statute, because

the third criminal responsibility prong requires “a duty imposed by law . . . to

prevent commission of the offense.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-402(3) (emphasis

added). Failing to report child abuse, by its terms, is an altogether different

proposition and does not satisfy this prong of criminal responsibility. The two

instructions combined created no error. Therefore, we now contemplate whether

the instructions given alone created error.

“It is the duty of the trial court to give a complete charge of the law

applicable to the facts of a case.” State v. Harbison, 704 S.W.2d 314, 319 (Tenn.

1986) (citing State v. Thompson, 519 S.W.2d 789, 792 (Tenn. 1975)); see State

v. Burkley, 804 S.W.2d 458, 461 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). In this case, the State

presented a theory by which the jury could conclude that Defendant was

criminally responsible for Kena Hodges’s actions. We have determined that the

evidence was sufficient to find Defendant guilty of criminal responsibility for felony

murder by reason of Defendant undertaking the obligation to care for and protect

a young, helpless child. Therefore, we find that the trial court was warranted in

charging the jury with the third prong of criminal responsibility—having a duty

imposed by law.

The second instruction, dealing with failure to report child abuse, we find

to be essentially irrelevant. Defendant was not charged under the juvenile code

with failure to report child abuse, nor does this instruction assist the trier of fact

in determining any issue relevant to a charged offense. Our supreme court
-37-

addressed irrelevant jury instructions in Adcock v. State, 236 S.W.2d 88 (Tenn.

1949), and Pedigo v. State, 236 S.W.2d 89 (Tenn. 1951), in which improper jury

instructions required reversal of convictions. We find both cases distinguishable

from the case at bar.

In Pedigo, the supreme court described the jury instruction as follows:

A photostat of the charge as it was handed to the jury,

convinces us that by reason of incompetent and irrelevant matter,

illegible interlineation and meaningless annotation, the charge might

as well have been written in a foreign language and could serve no

purpose except to confuse the jury. 

236 S.W.2d at 90. Here, we have only a single irrelevant instruction, no illegible

interlineation and no meaningless annotation. This case clearly does not rise to

the magnitude of the impropriety in Pedigo. Turning to Adcock, the predecessor

to Pedigo and the case of Pedigo’s co-defendant, we find that the written

instructions given to the jury “contained not only points of law applicable to the

. . . case, but also much that was inapplicable and confusing.” Furthermore,

[n]ot only did [the Adcock jury] receive much law that had no

application to the facts of this case, but they were also given

instruction on many facts which were not in evidence and were

contrary to the theory of the Defendant. 

The defense of the accused was an alibi. In the charge taken

by the jury to the jury room, it was stated . . . , “the Defendant admits

that he did the killing, but says that it was done by him in his own

necessary self-defense, etc.” Then follows an elaborate charge on

self-defense.

236 S.W.2d at 89.
-38-

Again, we conclude that the case at bar clearly does not reach the significance

of Adcock. We find no reversible error in the trial court’s inclusion of this accurate

and non-misleading, yet irrelevant instruction.

VI. STATUTORY AGGRAVATING FACTORS

A. Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-13-204(i)(1)

Defendant argues that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on both

statutory aggravating factors requested by the State during sentencing. The first

factor, listed in Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-13-204(i)(1), reads: “The murder

was committed against a person less than twelve (12) years of age and the

defendant was eighteen (18) years of age, or older.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-

204(i)(1). 

In support of his argument, Defendant contends that this factor “should not

apply to cases of felony murder where the underlying felony is aggravated child

abuse, because such application would automatically support a sentence of life

without parole for any defendant over the age of eighteen.” Moreover, Defendant

claims, 

Application of this factor in no meaningful way narrows the class of

defendants eligible for a sentence of life without parole. This

aggravating factor unconstitutionally duplicates a single aspect of

the alleged crime - the victim’s age - and thereby violates due

process, double jeopardy, the right to a fair trial, and the protections

against cruel and unusual punishment as guaranteed by the Fifth,

Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution; and Article I, §§ 8, 9, 16, and 17 of the Tennessee

Constitution.

 
-39-

This issue has been resolved by our supreme court in State v. Butler, No.

02S01-9711-CR-00094, 1998 WL 710632 (Tenn., Jackson, Oct. 12, 1998) (for

publication). In Butler, the supreme court held that “there are no constitutional

or statutory prohibitions” to relying upon the felony murder aggravating

circumstance when seeking a sentence of life without the possibility of parole for

defendants charged with felony murder. Id. at 2 (discussing Tennessee Code

Annotated § 39-13-204(i)(7)). 

The court first stated that, when the proposed penalty is not death,

constitutional provisions prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment and defining

the need to narrow the class of offenders “are not at issue.” Id. at 4-5. Second,

the court discussed statutory sentencing requirements—specifically, §§ 39-13-

204 and 39-13-207—and determined that “[n]othing in the text of either section

39-13-207 or 39-13-204 prohibits the jury from considering an aggravating

circumstance when the aggravator duplicates an element of the underlying

offense.” Id. at 7. 

Although in this case the trial court instructed as an aggravator a different

element of the underlying offense, we are confronted with a nearly identical

situation. Furthermore, prior to Butler, this Court approved the use of the same

aggravator in a case in which age was an element of the offense. State v. Danny

Ray Lacy, No. 02C01-9701-CC-00013, 1997 WL 729261 (Tenn. Crim. App.,

Jackson, Nov. 25, 1997) (permitting § 39-13-204(i)(1) as an aggravating factor

in a prosecution for first degree m urder by aggravated child abuse), perm. to
-40-

appeal denied (Tenn. 1998). We therefore hold that there are no constitutional

or statutory impediments to the use of § 39-13-204(i)(1) as a sentencing

aggravating factor by the trial court in this case. 

B. Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-13-205(i)(5)

Defendant next argues that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to find

the statutory aggravating factor in Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-13-

204(i)(5)—that the murder was “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it

involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce

death.” The State contends that it presented sufficient evidence by which the jury

could have come to this conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, and we agree.

“Torture” has been defined as “the infliction of severe physical or mental

pain upon the victim while he or she remains alive and conscious.” State v.

William s, 690 S.W.2d 517, 529 (Tenn. 1985); State v. Nesbit, 1998 WL 670966,

at *10 (Tenn., Jackson, Sept. 28 1998). In State v. Pike, 1998 WL 690064

(Tenn., Knoxville, Oct. 5, 1998), the supreme court noted that “[w]ith respect to

‘serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death,’ we explained

in State v. Odom that ‘serious’ alludes to a matter of degree, and that the physical

abuse must be ‘beyond that’ or more than what is ‘necessary to produce death.’”

1998 WL 690064, at *14. When determining whether the evidence shows

“severe physical or mental pain,”

[t]he jury may use their common knowledge and experience

in deciding whether a fact is logically deducible from the

circumstances in evidence, or in making reasonable inferences from
-41-

the evidence, and may test the truth and weight of the evidence by

their own general knowledge and judgment derived from

experience, observation, and reflection; but neitherjurors nor judges

when acting as arbiters of guilt are permitted to base their decisions

on the existence or non-existence of facts according to their

personal beliefs or experiences, but only on facts established by

legal and competent evidence or on inferences deducible from such

proven facts as are authorized by law. 

Fairbanks v. State, 508 S.W.2d 67, 69 (Tenn. 1974) (citing 23A C.J.S. Criminal

Law § 1373), quoted in Nesbit, 1998 WL 670966, at *11. 

According to the proof in the record, Miyoshi Richardson conclusively

sustained blunt force trauma to the head and torso, each injury being sufficient

to cause death, as a result of multiple blows causing various hemorrhaging of the

brain and lacerations to the liver. In addition to these grievous injuries, the victim

showed affirmative evidence of shaken baby syndrome by her damaged,

hemorrhaging optic nerve area. Finally, in addition to her serious physical

injuries, the jury heard evidence that the child suffered both physical

torture—through an explanation of the child’s worsening symptoms throughout

the day of her death prior to slipping into unconsciousness, due to deprivation of

medical attention; as well as mental torture—through a detailed description of

how the two-year-old child was forced to stand with her palm s against the wall,

in a corner of the room all night long, while her mother and Defendant engaged

in sexual intercourse and slept, without being permitted to sleep, sit down, or

relieve herself. We find the evidence sufficient to permit a jury to find this

aggravating factor.
-42-

VII. MAXIMUM SENTENCE FOR AGGRAVATED CHILD ABUSE

Defendant’s final argum ent is that the trial court erred by imposing the

maximum sentence available by law for the conviction of aggravated child

abuse—twenty-five years as a Range I offender. He contends that the trial court

applied one enhancement factor in error, while also improperly denying one

mitigating factor. Although this Court must conduct a de novo review when a

criminal defendant appeals the length, range, or manner of service of sentence;

the legislature has mandated a “presumption that the determinations made by the

court from which the appeal is taken are correct.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-

401(d). The presumption of correctness is conditioned, however, upon proper

consideration by the trial court of the sentencing principles in Tennessee Code

Annotated § 40-35-103. State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 168 (Tenn. 1991). We

find no error by the trial court in this case.

Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-35-114(5)

The trial court applied the statutory enhancement factor found in

Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-35-114(5): “The defendant treated or allowed

a victim to be treated with exceptional cruelty during the commission of the

offense.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114(5). Defendant asserts that this

enhancement factor was improperly considered because it is inherent to the

crime—an “essential element” of the offense. Defendant cites this Court’s

opinion in State v. Claybrooks, 910 S.W.2d 868, 872 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994), for

the proposition that “[f]actors that are inherent in a particular offense, even if not

designated as an element, may not be applied to increase a sentence.”
-43-

Specifically, he argues that it is impossible to inflict serious bodily injury upon a

child of six years or less—elements of the offense—without treating the child with

“exceptional cruelty.”

The State, in support of its argument that this enhancement factor was

appropriately applied, cites State v. Poole, 945 S.W.2d 93 (Tenn. 1997), in which

our supreme court held that the element of “serious bodily injury,” as included in

the offense especially aggravated robbery, does not necessarily constitute

“exceptional cruelty.” Id. at 98. The court stated, “In other words, the facts in a

case may support a finding of ‘exceptional cruelty’ that ‘demonstrates a culpability

distinct from and appreciably greater than that incident to’ the crime of especially

aggravated robbery.” Id. We believe that Poole provides appropriate guidance

in this case. Defendant in this case could be convicted of aggravated child abuse

without a finding of exceptional cruelty and, for that reason, application of the

enhancement factor was permissible in this case.

B. Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-35-113(4)

Defendant’s final argument is that the trial court should have applied the

statutory mitigating factor found in Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-35-113(4):

“The defendant played a minor role in the comm ission of the offense.” The trial

court was within its authority to reject this mitigating factor in light of the evidence

presented. Even if the evidence showed that Kena Hodges inflicted the blunt

force trauma upon the victim, Defendant at the very least ignored the obvious,

severe medical peril of a helpless, two-year-old child for whom he had accepted
7

 Despite the fact that a plain-language reading of § 40-35-210 would indicate that a

sentencing court must return to the minimum sentence in the range when enhancement factors

are present (although the presumptive sentence with no mitigating or enhancement factors is

the mid-point), the appropriate and correct result is to start from the mid-point of the range.

See State v. Katherine Irene Warren, No. 01C01-9710-CC-00455, 1998 WL 749412, at *4

(Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Oct. 28, 1998) (following State v. Chance, 952 S.W.2d 848 (Tenn.

Crim. App. 1997), which noted the incongruity of § 40-35-210(c), (d), and (e), but concluded

that a plain-language reading of its provisions would create an absurd result). 

-44-

a primary care responsibility on a regular basis and for whom he had accepted

a parental relationship. Taken even in the light most favorable to Defendant, the

evidence does not portray a minor role for him.

C. Maximum Sentence

Under Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-35-210, the trial court shall

presumptively apply the mid-point of the sentencing range for Class A felonies.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(c). Here, the mid-point of the range is twenty

years because Defendant is a Range I offender. When enhancement factors are

found but no mitigating factors are found, the trial court may sentence a

defendant above this presumptive sentence.7 Because the trial court found two

statutory enhancement factors, we conclude that the trial court did not err in

sentencing Defendant to twenty-five years on the charge of aggravated child

abuse. 

In conclusion, we affirm the judgment of conviction for first degree murder

committed during perpetration of aggravated child abuse and the conviction for

aggravated child abuse. Furthermore, we affirm Defendant’s sentences of life

imprisonment without the possibility of parole for murder and twenty-five years

for aggravated child abuse.
-45-

____________________________

DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE

CONCUR:

______________________________

JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE

______________________________

JOHN K. BYERS, SENIOR JUDGE