Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-102 (2026)
Effect of criminal code
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) Conduct does not constitute an offense unless it is defined as an offense by statute, municipal ordinance, or rule authorized by and lawfully adopted under a statute.
- (b) Parts 1-6 of this chapter apply to offenses defined by other laws, unless otherwise provided by law.
- (c) This title does not bar, suspend, or otherwise affect any right or liability to damages, penalty, forfeiture, or other remedy authorized by law to be recovered or enforced in a civil suit for conduct the criminal code defines as an offense, and the civil injury is not merged into the offense.
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2024 · leading case: State v. Hill, 954 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1997).
State v. Hill, 954 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1997). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-102(1991) and the Sentencing Commission Comments thereto.”
State v. Jackson, 173 S.W.3d 401 (Tenn. 2005). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-102, Sentencing Comm’n Comments.”
State v. Lemacks, 996 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1999). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-102. After a review of the record, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the DUI conviction based upon criminal responsibility.”
State v. Bonds, 502 S.W.3d 118 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015). “” T.C.A. § 39-11-102, Sentencing Comm’n Commts.”
State v. Bolden, 979 S.W.2d 587 (Tenn. 1998). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-102(2) (1997). The jury was presented with evidence that Bolden and Hayes drove around looking for the victim, who owed Bolden money.”
State v. Rogers, 992 S.W.2d 393 (Tenn. 1999). “Rogers contends that this statutory section is further supported by the Sentencing Commission Comments to Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-102 (1997 Repl.), which state that “the commission does not intend to abrogate the interpretive rules developed under common law and specifically…”
VanArsdall v. State, 919 S.W.2d 626 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-102(a) (1991 Repl.”
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 v. Turner, 953 S.W.2d 213 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-102 (b) provides that “[t]he provisions of parts 1-6 of this chapter apply to offenses defined *215 by other laws unless otherwise provided by law.”
State of Tennessee v. Eugenio Gomez Ruiz (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024). “7 In a variation on this first argument, the Defendant notes that Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-102(b) provides that “Parts 1-6 of this chapter apply to offenses defined by other laws, unless otherwise provided by law.”
Kimberly Holliday v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). “” The Petitioner was properly charged under a viable Tennessee statute and not under common law, therefore her argument under Section 39-11-102 is without merit. Rather, the crux of the Petitioner’s argument centers on the interpretation of the word “services” in section…”
State of Tennessee v. Devonte Bonds (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016). “‖ T.C.A. § 39-11-102, Sentencing Comm‘n Commts.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-102(1991) — 1 case
State v. Hill, 954 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1997). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-102(1991) and the Sentencing Commission Comments thereto.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-102(2) — 1 case
State v. Bolden, 979 S.W.2d 587 (Tenn. 1998). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-102(2) (1997). The jury was presented with evidence that Bolden and Hayes drove around looking for the victim, who owed Bolden money.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-102(a) — 5 cases
State v. Hill, 954 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1997). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-102(1991) and the Sentencing Commission Comments thereto.”
VanArsdall v. State, 919 S.W.2d 626 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-102(a) (1991 Repl.”
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.”
Kimberly Holliday v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). “” The Petitioner was properly charged under a viable Tennessee statute and not under common law, therefore her argument under Section 39-11-102 is without merit. Rather, the crux of the Petitioner’s argument centers on the interpretation of the word “services” in section…”
Tracy Rose Baker v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-102(b) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Eugenio Gomez Ruiz (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024). “7 In a variation on this first argument, the Defendant notes that Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-102(b) provides that “Parts 1-6 of this chapter apply to offenses defined by other laws, unless otherwise provided by law.”
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.