Tennessee Supreme Court

George A. Ruff, Appellant v. State of Tennessee, Appellee; Billy Joe Smith, Appellant, v. State of Tennessee, Appellee

September 28, 1998978 S.W.2d 95

Summary

The Tennessee Supreme Court consolidated the appeals of George Ruff and Billy Joe Smith to decide whether indictments that fail to charge a specific culpable mental state are valid, and held under its controlling decision in State v. Hill that every challenged indictment was sufficient because it gave constitutionally adequate notice, satisfied the statutory form requirements, and permitted the requisite mental state to be inferred from the conduct alleged. The Court further held that a Department of Human Services investigator's repetition of the child victim's statements was inadmissible hearsay, but that the error was harmless in light of the strength of the direct testimony. Finally, it held that the trial court did not err in denying Smith an ex parte hearing and state-funded independent psychiatric evaluation, because he failed to make the threshold showing of particularized need required for expert assistance. In ruling, the Court expressly overruled State v. Hughes to the extent it conflicts with Hill and declared the strict common-law pleading requirements relaxed.

Holding

  • Validity of Ruff's aggravated sexual battery indictment omitting a culpable mental state.. The indictment is sufficient and the conviction valid: under Hill, it gave Ruff and the trial court adequate notice, a basis for proper judgment, and double-jeopardy protection; its form met Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-13-202; and the intentional nature of the offense is logically inferable from the conduct alleged — unlawful sexual contact.
  • Admission of the DHS investigator's repetition of the victim's hearsay statements.. Admitting Flynn's testimony relaying the victim's statements was error because the statements were hearsay fitting no exception and outside the fresh-complaint doctrine, but the error was not reversible: it neither more probably than not affected the judgment nor affirmatively affected the result given the direct testimony of the victim and her eyewitness sister.
  • Validity of Smith's aggravated kidnaping indictment omitting an express culpable mental state.. The indictment is legally sufficient under the Hill criteria and the conviction valid: notice and double-jeopardy protection were adequate, form complied with § 40-13-202, and the knowing mental state is easily inferable from the conduct alleged — the unlawful removal of a person while armed with a deadly weapon.
  • Validity of the aggravated rape and aiding-and-abetting indictments omitting a culpable mental state.. All three counts are clearly sufficient and the convictions valid: the analysis is directly controlled by Hill, which upheld nearly identical indictment language, and the culpable mental state is even more easily inferable here because the counts reference force and the use of a deadly weapon.
  • Denial of Smith's request for an ex parte hearing and State-funded independent psychiatric evaluation.. No error: under Barnett an indigent defendant must make a threshold showing of particularized need, and Smith — already fully evaluated twice at State expense — offered only assertions that the existing reports were inconsistent and invalid, so the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying funds for another evaluation.

Docket 03S01-9711-CC-00140

Cited authorities

  • Tenn. R. App. P. 11
  • Tenn. R.Crim. P. 12(b)
  • Tenn. R. Evid. 803(5)
  • Tenn. R.Crim. P. 52(b)
  • Tenn. R.App. P. 36(b)
  • Tenn. R.Crim. P. 52(a)
  • Tenn. R.App. P. 13(b)
  • Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-504

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF