-1- 

### IN THE S UP REME COURT OF TENNESS EE

AT NAS HVILLE Fe br ua ry 200 4 S es sio n
STATE v. WI LMORE HATFI ELD
App e al b y pe r m iss ion fro m th e Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

Crim inal Cou rt for F entre ss County No. 7750 Hon. Eric Sh ayne Sexton, Jud ge

No. M2002- 00939-SC-R11- CD - F iled March 11, 2004

This is an appea l from the Criminal Court for F entre ss C o u n t y whi ch convic ted the defe ndant, W i l m ore H atfield, of f elony rec kless endang erme nt as a lesse r-include d offe nse of ag g ravated assault. Relying on this C ourt’s decision in State v. Moore, 77 S.W.3d 132 (Tenn. 2002), the Court of Criminal Ap p ea l s re v er s edt h e c o n v i ct i o n , co n cl u d i n g t h at fe l o n y re ck l ess endang erme nt was not a le sser-inc luded offe nse of a g g ravated assault. The State then soug ht, and this Court g rante d, permission to appea l on the sole issue of whe ther felony rec kless endang erme nt is a lesser

inc lu ded off

e ns e of a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult c omm itt e d b y

int e nti on a lly

or kn ow ing ly

c a us ingbo dil y injury to another by the us e of a deadly wea pon. We hold that it is a lesser -included of fense under State v. Bur

ns, 6 S.W .3d 453 (Tenn. 1999)

. Consequently , the Court of Criminal Appea ls’ decision wi th r e sp e c t to the fe lony re c kle ss e nd ang e rm e nt c on vic tio n is re ve rs e d, and that con vic tio n is reinstated.

Te nn. R . A pp. 1 1 A ppe al b y P e r m iss ion ; J udgm e nt of t he Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

Reve rsed in Par t; Judgm ent of Trial Cou rt R einstated

W I L L I AM M. B ARKE R , J ., delivere d the opinion of t he cour t, in which F RAN K F. D R OW OT A , III , C.J ., and E. R I L EY ANDE R S ON , A DOL PH O A. B I RCH , J r., and J ANI CE M. H OL DER , J J . joined.

P aul G. S um mer s, At to rney Gen eral & R epo rt er; Mi chael E. Mo ore, S ol ici to r Gen eral ; E li z abet h B. Marne y , Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llant, State of Tenne ssee. Onnie Winebarg er, B y

rdstown, Tenne ssee, f

or the a ppellee, Wilmore Hatfield.-2- OP IN ION

BACK GR OUND

On Fe bruar

y 9, 1999, the defendant, W ilmore Hatfie ld, afte r receiving his income tax refund, purcha sed two six -pac ks of beer. He then drove to Obe Delk’s me at-pa ckag ing busine ss just before dark. As t h e def

endant a rrived on the premises, Tr ace y Ker ney , the victim, came outside, a nd a heate d argument betwee n the two ensue d. Ms. Ker ney enter ed the de fenda

nt’s car and beg an to beat his he a d a g a ins t th e c ar w ind ow . T he de fe nd ant t e sti fi e d th a t Ms . K e rn e y hit him in t he he a d w ith
a pis tol and

that du ri ng the a lte rc a tio n, the we a

po n fe ll ont o the fl oo r of the de fe nd ant’ s veh ic le . M s. Ker ney denied having a

g un that night. Ms. Ker

ney explained that she was intoxi cate d and assa ulted the def endant be ca u s e he had re cently beate n up the son of her boy friend. Shortly

afte r the
a l t e r c a t i o nb e g an , t h e d e f e n d an tdr o v e aw ay.
The de fenda

nt testified that he re turned a bout thirty

minutes later af

t er discoveringthat approximately

$332.00 of h i s income tax refund a nd some tax papers had f allen out of his pocke t during the alter cation with Ms. K erne y

. Upon his return, Ms. Ke rney ag ain exited the business. A shot was fire d by

the def endant, a nd the bullet struck Ms. Ker ney i n t h e l ef

t fo ot. Obe De lk, the
owner of the business, testified that the defe ndant had cocke d the g un and fired at the victim say ing “Run, bitch! Run!” The defe ndant denied making such a statement and claimed that he wa s try ing to unload the g un when his t h u m b slipped off the ha mmer and it we nt off. The defe ndant drove
awa y afte r the we apon wa s fired.

State Tr oo pe r K e vin

No rr is s top pe d th e de fe nd ant’ s v ehi cle sh or tly the re a ft e r. No rr is testified that he smelled a lcohol on the def endant’ s breath and that upon sea rchingthe vehicle , he found a .32 c aliber pistol and par t of two six -pac ks of bee r. About for ty -five minutes af

t er being stopped, the def

endant wa s taken to a hospital whe re a blood sample was taken; his blood alcohol content wa s found to be 0.11 per cent.

A F e ntr e ss County g ra

nd jur y re tur ne d a fo ur -c ount ind ic tme nt c ha rg ingthe de fe nd ant w ith attempted first de g ree murder, a g g ravated assault, felony possession of a we apon, and D UI . At the conclusion of the tr ial, the trial cour t char g ed the j u ry

on attempted first de g ree murder, se cond de g re e mur de r a s a

le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e of a tte mpt e d f

ir st d e g re e mur de r, a gg ravate d a ssa ult , rec k l es s agg ravated assault and f elony rec kless endang erme nt as lesser- included off enses of ag g ravated assault, and D UI . The de fenda nt was found guilty

of fe lony rec kless endang erme nt and DUI and sentenc ed to two y ear s for the former and eleve n months and twenty -nine da y s for the latter.

On a ppe a l, t he Court of Cr imi na l App e a ls c on c lud e d th a t f e lony re c kle ss e nd ang e rm e nt i s not a lesser -included of

fense of agg ravated assault. The court there fore reve rsed that c onviction and
rema nded f o r a new tria l on the lesser c harg e of misdemea nor assa ult. The Court of Criminal Appea ls affirme d the conviction for DUI but modified the sentenc e to re flec t suspension of sentenc e afte r ser vice of forty -eig ht hours. The State filed a timely application to appe al on the issue of whether felony rec kless endang erme nt is a lesser- included off ense of ag g ravated assault committedA n o ff e n se is a le sse r in c lud e d o ff e n se o f a c h a rg e d o ff

e n se if: 1

( a) a l l of i t s s t at u t or y el eme n t s ar e i n cl u ded wi t h i n t h e s t at u t or y el eme n t s of t h e of f en s e ch ar g ed; or ( b) i t f ai l s t o m ee t t h e de f

i n i t i on i n par t (a ) onl y i n t h e r es pec t t h at i t c on t ai n s a s t at u t or y e l eme n t or el em ent s est ab l i shi ng

(1) a dif f erent m ent al s t at e i nd i cat i ng a l ess er ki nd of cul p ab i l i t y ; and / o r (2 ) a les s se rio u s h a rm o r risk o f ha rm to the sa m e p e rs o n , p r o p e rty o r p u b lic i nt erest ; or (c ) it co n sists o f (1) f aci l i t at i o n of t he o f

f ense charged .

. . ; or (2) an at t em p t t o co m m i t t he o f f ense charged .

. . ; or (3 ) so licita tio n to c o m m it the o ff e n se c h a rg e d

. . . .
B u r n s , 6 S. W

. 3d a t 466- 67.
-3- by int e nti on a lly

or kn ow ing ly

c a us ingbo dil y

inj ur y to a no the r b y the us e or

dis pla y of a de a dly
wea pon.
STA ND AR D O F RE VI EW The que stion of whether

a g iven offe nse should be submitted to the jury as a le sser-inc luded offe nse is a mix ed question of law and fac t. State v. Bur ns, 6 S.W .3d 453, 461 (Tenn. 1999) . The standard of revie w for mixed questions of law and f act is de novo w ith no presumption of
corr ectne ss. I d.; see a lso Ruff v. State, 978 S.W .2d 95, 96 (Tenn. 1998)

. AN AL YSI S

The sole iss u e i s whether the offe nse of f

elony rec kless endang erme nt is a lesser- included offe nse of a g g ravated assault committed by causingbodily

injury by use of a de adly

wea pon under part (b) (2) of

the rule w e esta

blished in St ate v. B urns, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999). 1

Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tions 39-13-101, -102 (2003) define the o ffe nse of a g g ravated assault. Pursuant to the statute, ag g ravated assault may be committed in either of two way s: (1) by intentionally

or knowing ly

causinganother

to rea sonably

fea r imminent bodil y

injury by use of a deadly wea pon, or (2) by

intentionally , knowing ly

or re cklessly

causingbodily

injury to another by use of a deadly wea pon. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39- 13-101, - 1 0 2 (2003). B y compar ison, felony
re c kle ss e nd ang e rm e nt i s de fi ne d a s re c kle ssl y e ng a g ing in c on du c t wh ic h pla c e s ano the r p e rs on in imminent dange r of death or serious bodily

injury by use of a deadly wea pon. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-103( a) ( 2003).

I n State v. Moore, 77 S.W .3d 132 (Tenn. 2002), we held that when the offe nse of a g g ravated
a ssa ult is c ha rg e d a s havin g be e n c omm itt e d by c a us ing fe ar of bo dil y inj ur y , fe lony reck less endang erme nt is not a lesser-inc luded offe nse.-4-

[T] he pre sence of dang er is not an essential element of aggravated assault committed by pla c ingano the r p e rs on

in f e ar o f i mmi ne nt d ang e r of de a th o r s e ri ou s b od ily injury . Consequently , one ca n commit the of

fense of ag g ravated assault by placing another person in fe ar of dang er even if there is no r isk of dang er. The same doe s not hold true for

felony rec kless endang erme nt

. I t l o gically follows that the dang er produce d during the commi ssion of fe lony rec kless endang erme nt produce s a more serious har

m o r ri s k o f harm than the fea r of a non-existent dange r that may be produce d during the commission of ag g ravated assault; there fore , part (b) (2) of the Bur ns test if not satisfied. Moore, 77 S.W.3d at 135-36 (footnote omitted).

The fa cts in t h i s case are differ ent from those in Moore , in that in this case , the def endant actua lly inflicted injury by use of a deadly wea pon and did not mere ly

cause fea r of injury . When
a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult is c ha rg e d a s b e ingc omm itt e d b y c a us ingbo dil y

inj ur y by us e of a de a dly
wea pon, felony

rec kless endanger m ent is a lesser -included of fense under pa

rt (b)( 2) of B urns be c a us e a c tua l bo dil y inj ur

y to ano the r pe rs on a s the re su lt of an a g g ra vate d a ssa

ul t i s nec e ssa

ri ly a g reater ha

rm than the mer ely

placinga per son in dang er of serious bodily

injury or death. For
e xamp le , th e inf

lic tio n o f a

g un sh ot w ound , a s o c c ur re d in th e case un de r s ub mis sio n, pr od uc e s a mor e s er i o u s h ar m than cre ating a dang er that such a ha rm might oc cur. See State v. Rush, 50 S.W .3d 424, 431 (Tenn. 2001) (re ckless ag g ravated assault not a lesser-include d offe nse of attempted seco n d-degree murder unde r B urns (b)( 2) bec ause r eckle ss ag g ravated assault re quires pr oo f o f e ith e r s e ri ou s b od ily inj ur y or bo dil y inj ur y wh ile a tte mpt ed mu rder doe s n ot n e c e ssa ri ly inv olv e inj ur

y to v ic tim ). B e c a

us e of thi s, fe lony re c kle ss e nd ang e rm e nt is a le sse r- inc lud e d o ff e ns e of ag g ravated assault committed by intentionally or knowing ly causing bodily injury to another by the use of a

deadly wea pon.
CO NC LU SION

I n summary , we hold that whe re a g g ravated assault is cha rg ed as having been c ommitt ed by
c a u s in g a c tu a l b o d il y in

ju r y , f e lo n y r e c k le s s e n d an g e r

me n t is a le s s e r
- in c lu d e d o f f e nse of that ag g ravated assault. There fore , we rever se t he C ourt of C riminal Appea ls’ decision and r einstate the defe ndant’s convic tion for fe lony rec kless endang erme nt.

Costs of this appea l are assessed to the de fenda nt, Wi lmore Hatfield.

_____________________________ WI L L I AM M. B ARKE R, JUS TI CE