Feb. 19, 2015) (affirming defendant’s conviction for attempted murder and two counts of aggravated assault because the State “effectively elected [in its closing argument] the set of facts for which it was trying to establish the offenses” and the indictment also was specific as to which offense related to which charge); State v. Carman-Thacker, No. M2014-00757-CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 1881135, at *6 (Tenn.Crim.App. Apr. 24, 2015), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 17, 2015) (reversing defendant’s conviction for willful abuse,- neglect, or exploitation because the State failed to elect the abuse, neglect, or exploitation on which it was relying); State v. Yancey, No. W2011-01543-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 4057369, at *9 (Tenn. Crim.App. Sept. 17, 2012), perm, app. denied (Tenn. Jan 14, 2013) (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Dyck, No.
holding that proof of an agreement to commit a felony is not a necessary element in a conviction for the commission of the felony holding that although the specific underlying felony is an essential element of felonymurder the government is not required to include the elements of the underlying felony or state the specific means by which it alleges the defendant committed the underlying felony holding that the trial court committed plain error by failing to require the state to elect which felony it was relying on for the defendants charge of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony holding that for facilitation of a felony the state must prove the commission of a specified felony and the assistance the accused gave to the person committing the specified felony holding the state must prove that at the time of the homicide the defendant was engaged in the commission of the felony