Tenn. Code Ann. » Tenn. Code / Title 39 / Chapter 11 / Part 1
Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-104 (2026)

Construction of criminal code

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This title shall be construed according to the fair import of its terms, including reference to judicial decisions and common law interpretations, to promote justice, and effect the objectives of the criminal code.

Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 101 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1993–2022 · leading case: State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012). · cites it 6× “Of course, “[pjrior Tennessee law required penal statutes to be strictly construed,” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-104 , Sentencing Comm’n cmts.”
State v. Sims, 45 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2001). · cites it 3× “"[P]rovisions of [the criminal code] shall be construed according to the fair import of their terms, including reference to judicial decisions and common law interpretations, to promote justice, and effect the objectives of the criminal code.”
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Henderson, 531 S.W.3d 687 (Tenn. 2017). · cites it 4× “at 640 (quoting Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-104 (1997)), 4 the Owens Court adopted the common law rule that “the use of violence or fear must precede or be-contemporaneous with the taking of property from the person to constitute the offense of robbery,” id.”
State v. Majors, 318 S.W.3d 850 (Tenn. 2010). · cites it 2× “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-104 (2006). This construction requires that we give “[t]he words of the statute .”
State v. Campbell, 245 S.W.3d 331 (Tenn. 2008). · cites it 2× “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-104 (2006). In analyzing the scope and applicability of these statutes, the Court of Criminal Appeals, relying on an unpublished opinion filed over twenty years ago, began with the premise that escape is a continuing offense, the legislative intent being…”
State v. Carson, 950 S.W.2d 951 (Tenn. 1997). · cites it 4× “” See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-104. The Sentencing Commission *954 comments to the statute explain the legislative intent as follows: The commission intends the language of the sections themselves to be an authoritative statement of the law.”
State v. Pendergrass, 13 S.W.3d 389 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-104 (1997). The duty of the courts is to give effect to legislative intent while refraining from restricting or expanding a statute’s scope beyond that which was intended.”
State v. Sherman, 266 S.W.3d 395 (Tenn. 2008). · cites it 2× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-104 (2006). Our chief concern is to carry out legislative intent without broadening the statute beyond its intended scope.”
State v. Desirey, 909 S.W.2d 20 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “" T.C.A. § 39-11-104; see State v. Horton, 880 S.”
State v. Smiley, 38 S.W.3d 521 (Tenn. 2001). · cites it 2× “" Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-104 sentencing comm’n cmts.”
State v. Edmondson, 231 S.W.3d 925 (Tenn. 2007). · cites it 2× “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-104 (2006). II. Carjacking Statute: “Possession” Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-404 defines the offense of carjacking as “the intentional or knowing taking of a motor vehicle from the possession of another by use of: (1) A deadly weapon; or (2)…”
State v. Flemming, 19 S.W.3d 195 (Tenn. 2000). · cites it 2× “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-104 (1997). This Court’s role in construing statutes is to give effect to the legislative intent without unduly restricting or expanding a statute’s coverage beyond its intended scope.”
Show all 101 citing cases →
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.