Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-127 (2026)

Basic rights at hearing

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A party is entitled to the opportunity to introduce evidence and otherwise be heard in the party's own behalf and to cross-examine adverse witnesses.

(b) A child charged with a delinquent act need not be a witness against self-interest or otherwise engage in self-incrimination.

(c) An extra-judicial statement, if obtained in the course of violation of this part or that would be constitutionally inadmissible in a criminal proceeding, shall not be used against the child.

(d) Evidence illegally seized or obtained shall not be received over objection to establish the allegations made against the child.

(e) A confession validly made by a child out of court is insufficient to support an adjudication of delinquency unless it is corroborated in whole or in part by other evidence.

(f) If a child is charged with a delinquent act that could qualify such child as a violent juvenile sexual offender, as defined by § 40-39-202, such child shall be given verbal and written notice of the violent juvenile sexual offender registration requirements prior to a hearing on whether the child committed such act.

(g)
- (1) A video recording of a child by a forensic interviewer containing a statement made by the child under eighteen (18) years of age describing an act of sexual or physically violent contact performed with or on the child by a person or describing an act of sexual or physically violent contact performed by a person with or on another and witnessed by the child is admissible and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant in evidence at any stage of proceedings in an action under this title, if the requirements of this subsection (g) are met.
- (2)
  - (A) Except as provided in subdivision (g)(2)(B), a video recording may be admitted as provided in subdivision (g)(1) if:
    - (i) The video recording is shown to the reasonable satisfaction of the court to possess particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. In determining whether a statement possesses particularized guarantees of trustworthiness, the court may consider the factors set forth in § 24-7-123(b)(2);
    - (ii) The interview was conducted by a forensic interviewer who met the requirements of § 24-7-123(b)(3) at the time the video recording was made;
    - (iii) The recording is both visual and oral and is recorded on film or videotape or by other similar audiovisual means;
    - (iv) The entire interview of the child was recorded on the video recording and the video recording is unaltered and accurately reflects the interview of the child; and
    - (v) Every voice heard on the video recording is properly identified as determined by the court.
  - (B) In delinquency and unruly conduct proceedings, a video recording may be admitted as provided in subdivision (g)(1) if the requirements of § 24-7-123(b) have been met.
- (3) If a video recording is offered into evidence pursuant to subdivision (g)(1), then the court shall:
  - (A) Make specific findings of fact on the record as to the basis for the court's ruling regarding the admission or denial of admission of the video recording; and
  - (B) Enter a protective order to restrict the video recording from further disclosure or dissemination.
- (4) A video recording offered into evidence pursuant to this subsection (g) is not a public record. The court shall order the video recording to be sealed and preserved following the conclusion of any proceeding.

Amended by 2023 Tenn. Acts, ch. 139, s 3, eff. 4/6/2023.

Acts 1970, ch. 600, § 27; T.C.A., § 37-227; Acts 2011 , ch. 483, § 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: State v. Carroll, 36 S.W.3d 854 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Carroll, 36 S.W.3d 854 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). “§ 37-1-127(e). According to the appellant, the only corroborating evidence presented by the State at the juvenile transfer hearing was the “unbelievable,” “unreliable,” and “totally worthless” testimony of James Carroll.”

Jurico Readus v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016). · cites it 9× “The petitioner argues that his statement was obtained in violation Code section 37-1-115 and thus subject to suppression under Code section 37-1-127 and that trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to make this argument in the trial court.”

State of Tennessee v. Andre Terry & Nolandus Sims (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021). · cites it 8× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-127 (c). After a hearing, the trial court denied Defendant Terry’s motion to dismiss the indictment, and Defendant Terry filed an application for permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal regarding the denial.”

State of Tennessee v. Mario A. Reed (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “” T.C.A. § 37-1-127. At the transfer hearing the following occurred: THE COURT: Request was made for said transfer December 28th , more than five days before this date.”

State of Tennessee v. Frank Deangelo Taylor (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “-12- Violations of Tennessee Code Annotated Sections 37-1-114 or 115 1 can result in the exclusion of an extra-judicial statement under section 37-1-127(c). However, the Tennessee Supreme Court has held that the protections afforded by section 37-1-127(c) are only applicable in…”

State of Tennessee v. Keylone Jones (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “Moreover, as this Court has previously recognized, Violations of Tennessee Code Annotated Sections 37-1-114 or 115 can result in the exclusion of an extra-judicial statement under section 37-1- 127(c).”

State v. Christopher Williams (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). · cites it 5× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-115 . Subsequent provisions provide that "[a]n extra-judicial statement, if obtained in the course of the violation of this part .”

Andrew Levi Jefferson v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “§ 37-1-127(c) (2001) (providing that "[a]n extra-judicial statement, if obtained in the course of violation of this part or which would be constitutionally inadmissible in a criminal proceeding, shall not be used against [a child]").”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-127(c) — 6 cases

Jurico Readus v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016). “The petitioner argues that his statement was obtained in violation Code section 37-1-115 and thus subject to suppression under Code section 37-1-127 and that trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to make this argument in the trial court.”

State of Tennessee v. Frank Deangelo Taylor (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “-12- Violations of Tennessee Code Annotated Sections 37-1-114 or 115 1 can result in the exclusion of an extra-judicial statement under section 37-1-127(c). However, the Tennessee Supreme Court has held that the protections afforded by section 37-1-127(c) are only applicable in…”

State of Tennessee v. Keylone Jones (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026). “Moreover, as this Court has previously recognized, Violations of Tennessee Code Annotated Sections 37-1-114 or 115 can result in the exclusion of an extra-judicial statement under section 37-1- 127(c).”

Andrew Levi Jefferson v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003). “§ 37-1-127(c) (2001) (providing that "[a]n extra-judicial statement, if obtained in the course of violation of this part or which would be constitutionally inadmissible in a criminal proceeding, shall not be used against [a child]").”

State v. Christopher Williams (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-115 . Subsequent provisions provide that "[a]n extra-judicial statement, if obtained in the course of the violation of this part .”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-127(e) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.