Opinion ID: 1058905
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Material Issue

Text: Next, I believe that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that evidence of one offense would have been admissible in a trial of the other offense had they been tried separately. Although evidence of a common scheme or plan is most often used where identity of the perpetrator is a material issue, it is not strictly limited to that purpose. See Moore, 6 S.W.3d at 239 n. 5. The trial court recognized that identity was not a material issue in this case, but it found that the offenses were relevant to establish the defendant's culpable mental state and to establish that the injuries suffered by the victim were not the result of accidental means. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-15-401. The majority concludes that the offenses were not relevant to intent or any other material issue. While the majority correctly states that child abuse is a nature of conduct offense, see State v. Ducker, 27 S.W.3d 889, 896-97 (Tenn.2000), that does not resolve the issue. The charges in this case were aggravated child abuse. The prosecution was required to establish that the defendant knowingly treated the victim in a manner that caused injury and that the defendant did so by employing a deadly weapon. The latter issue required the jury to determine whether the defendant used a device that was designed, made or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury  or was in the manner of its use or intended use capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-15-402(a) (emphasis added). Accordingly, I would conclude that the offenses were admissible for the jury to consider the defendant's motive, purpose, and intent in using the braided extension cord as it related to the required element of deadly weapon. I also believe that the offenses were committed through accidental means. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-15-401. In sum, I believe that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.