Opinion ID: 2460607
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: mens reaincest

Text: The defendant next argues that the indictment charging him with two counts of incest did not allege the proper mens rea and is therefore void. We disagree. Recently, in State v. Hill, 954 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn.1997), we held that for offenses which neither expressly require, nor plainly dispense with a culpable mental state, an indictment which fails to specifically allege a mental state will be sufficient so long as the mental state required can be logically inferred from the allegations in the indictment so as to satisfy constitutional and statutory requirements of notice and form. Id. at 727. The offense of incest is defined by Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-15-302 (1991 Repl) as follows: (a) A person commits incest who engages in sexual penetration as defined in § 39-13-501, with a person he or she knows to be, without regard to legitimacy: (1) The person's natural parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, stepparent, stepchild, adoptive parent, adoptive child; or (2) The person's brother or sister of the whole or half-blood or by adoption. (b) Incest is a Class C felony. With respect to commission of the offense, the definition of incest does not expressly require, nor plainly dispense with a culpable mental state. [6] Accordingly, intent, knowledge, or recklessness will suffice to establish the culpable mental state for commission of the offense. Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-301(c) (1991 Repl). Therefore, under our recent decision in Hill, if any one of those three culpable mental states can be logically inferred from the allegations in the indictment, the defendant's argument must fail. Id. at 727. The indictment at issue in this case charged the following: GUSSIE WILLIS VANN AND BERNICE ANN VANN on or about the 30th day of July, 1992, in McMinn County, Tennessee, and before the finding of this indictment did unlawfully engage in sexual penetration of the vaginal opening as defined in T.C.A. XX-XX-XXX, of Necia Vann, a person the said Defendants know to be their daughter, in violation of T.C.A. XX-XX-XXX, all of which is against the peace and dignity of the State of Tennessee.     On or about the 30th day of July, 1992, in McMinn County, Tennessee, and before the finding of this indictment did unlawfully engage in sexual penetration of the anal opening as defined in T.C.A. XX-XX-XXX, of Necia Vann, a person the said Defendants know to be their daughter, in violation of T.C.A. XX-XX-XXX, all of which is against the peace and dignity of the State of Tennessee. We agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals that the mens rea of knowingly can be logically inferred from the language of the indictment. The nature of the criminal conduct alleged, sexual penetration, and the phrase, know[n] to be their daughter, gives rise to the inference. The defendant's claim that the indictment is void is without merit.