to admit any wrongdoing or to accept responsibility for his actions and, therefore, the assistant district attorney general abused his discretion. We agree with Stanton that he was not required to admit his guilt to the animal cruelty charges in order to be granted pretrial diversion. Neither our pretrial diversion statute nor previous case decisions require an admission of guilt. State v. Oakes, 269 S.W.3d 574, 578 (Tenn.Crim.App.2006) (“[T]he failure of the defendant to admit guilt is not, in and of itself, a proper basis for denying diversion.”); State v. Thompson, 189 S.W.3d 260, 268 (Tenn.Crim.App.2005) (finding that prosecutor abused his discretion in requiring an admission of guilt as a prerequisite to pretrial diversion); State v. Lane, 56 S.W.3d 20, 29 (Tenn.Crim.App.2000) (<HOLDING>); State v. King, 640 S.W.2d 30, 33
holding that evidence of violent crimes and other illegal activities of defendants gang was not unduly prejudicial because defendant was not directly implicated and the evidence was probative of elements of the crimes that the defendant was charged with holding that it was error to admit into evidence a gun purchased by the defendant which was not connected with the charged crimes holding that pretrial diversion was improperly denied where district attorney general essentially required that defendant admit guilt of crimes charged and express regret holding defendant was improperly denied potentially exculpatory evidence holding that a showing of actual prejudice was required where the defendant claimed that counsel was ineffective for conceding guilt at the guilt phase of a capital trial