Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-101 (2026)

Objectives of criminal code

✓ current as of May 2026

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

The general objectives of the criminal code are to:

(1) Proscribe and prevent conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably causes or threatens harm to individual, property, or public interest for which protection through the criminal law is appropriate;

(2) Give fair warning of what conduct is prohibited, and guide the exercise of official discretion in law enforcement, by defining the act and the culpable mental state that together constitute an offense;

(3) Give fair warning of the consequences of violation, and guide the exercise of official discretion in punishment, by grading of offenses; and

(4) Prescribe penalties that are proportionate to the seriousness of the offense.

Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 31 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: State v. Hill, 954 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Hill, 954 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1997). · cites it 2× “Yet another reference is found in Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-101 (1991): The general objectives of the criminal code are to .”

State v. Boyd, 925 S.W.2d 237 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-101(2) & (3). Thus, our code recognizes the importance of clearly defined criminal offenses.”

State v. Carson, 950 S.W.2d 951 (Tenn. 1997). · cites it 2× “The Sentencing Commission comments to Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-101 explain that the statute is a restatement of the principles of Tennessee common law which provide equal criminal liability for principals, accessories before the fact, and aiders and abettors.”

State v. Rogers, 992 S.W.2d 393 (Tenn. 1999). · cites it 2× “” Additionally, the State relies upon the Sentencing Commission Comments to Section 102 which state “[i]t is the intent of the commission that common law offenses be replaced with statutory offenses to effectuate the goals set forth in § 39-11-101(1) and (2).” Finally, the State…”

VanArsdall v. State, 919 S.W.2d 626 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-101(2) & (3) (1991 Repl.”

State v. Turner, 953 S.W.2d 213 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “" Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-101(2) (1991). Although the driving while intoxicated statute eliminates the necessity for a culpable mental state, the statute does not eliminate the necessity for some "act.”

Lowe v. State, 805 S.W.2d 368 (Tenn. 1991). · cites it 2× “, have now been superseded by the provisions of the Tennessee Sentencing Reform Act of 1989, T.C.A. §§ 39-11-101 et seq. (1990 Supp.) From and after November 1, 1989, the appropriate sentence for a recidivist is to be determined by the trial judge, based on a formula devised by…”

State v. Latham, 910 S.W.2d 892 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “The Sentencing Commission Comments to Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-102 state: “It is the intent of the commission that common law offenses be replaced with statutory offenses to effectuate the goals set forth in Tenn.”

Smith v. State, 6 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). “Indeed, our legislature has proclaimed that one of the objectives of our criminal code is to “[proscribe and prevent conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably causes or threatens harm to individual, property, or public interest for which protection through criminal law is…”

State of Tennessee v. Johnny C. Menifee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “[,]” T.C.A. § 39-11-101, by prohibiting conduct which may place another person in danger of death or serious bodily injury with a deadly weapon.”

State of Tennessee v. Joshua W. Gabehart (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “2023) (first citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-101 (2) (2018); and then citing State v.”

Dodson v. Tennessee Attorney Gen. (Habeas) (M.D. Tenn. 2019). · cites it 2× “In keeping with its power and duty under this framework, the Tennessee legislature has defined seven chapters of state criminal offenses, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-11-101 to 39-17-1812, and has vested original jurisdiction in the state’s circuit and criminal courts over “all…”

Show all 31 citing cases →

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-101(1) — 7 cases

State v. Rogers, 992 S.W.2d 393 (Tenn. 1999). “” Additionally, the State relies upon the Sentencing Commission Comments to Section 102 which state “[i]t is the intent of the commission that common law offenses be replaced with statutory offenses to effectuate the goals set forth in § 39-11-101(1) and (2).” Finally, the State…”

State v. Latham, 910 S.W.2d 892 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “The Sentencing Commission Comments to Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-102 state: “It is the intent of the commission that common law offenses be replaced with statutory offenses to effectuate the goals set forth in Tenn.”

State of Tennessee v. Johnny C. Menifee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006). “[,]” T.C.A. § 39-11-101, by prohibiting conduct which may place another person in danger of death or serious bodily injury with a deadly weapon.”

Richard Madkins v. State (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-101(2) — 5 cases

State v. Boyd, 925 S.W.2d 237 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-101(2) & (3). Thus, our code recognizes the importance of clearly defined criminal offenses.”

VanArsdall v. State, 919 S.W.2d 626 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-101(2) & (3) (1991 Repl.”

State v. Turner, 953 S.W.2d 213 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). “" Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-101(2) (1991). Although the driving while intoxicated statute eliminates the necessity for a culpable mental state, the statute does not eliminate the necessity for some "act.”

State v. Wm. Henry Barney (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).

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.