Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-202 (2026)
Exception
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) An exception to an offense in this title is so labeled by the phrase: "It is an exception to the application of ...," or words of similar import.
- (b)
- (1) Unless the statute defining an offense states to the contrary, the state need not negate the existence of an exception in the charge alleging commission of the offense.
- (2) An exception to be relied upon by a person must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1990, ch. 1030, § 4.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1999–2015 · leading case: State v. Dominy, 6 S.W.3d 472 (Tenn. 1999).
State v. Dominy, 6 S.W.3d 472 (Tenn. 1999). “While the spousal exclusion *479 must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, see Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-202(b)(2) (1997), there was abundant proof introduced at trial, including a certified copy of their marriage certificate, to establish that the defendant and the victim…”
State v. Kilpatrick, 327 S.W.3d 64 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “The “valid prescription” language of section -418(a) has indeed been deemed an “exception” as defined in Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-202, see State v. Timothy Wayne Grimes, No.”
State v. Cecil U. Cobb (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-202 provides as follows: (a) An exception to an offense in this title is so labeled by the phrase: “It is an exception to the application of .”
In Re Tennessee Walking Horse Forfeiture Litig. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “, applies to forfeitures pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-11-202(e). Id. at *3. Specifically, the Siliski Court recognized that while animals “are not property acquired or received as a result of the offense,” as contemplated in the forfeiture statutes, “absent…”
State of Tennessee v. Tarik Thompson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). “See T.C.A. § 39-11-202 (2010) (“An exception to an offense in this title is so labeled by the phrase: ‘It is an exception to the application of .”
State of Tennessee v. Charles Stan Martin (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007). “The court explained: -28- In simple terms, the statutory definition of criminal negligence relates to (1) the defendant’s conduct, (2) a substantial and unjustifiable risk existing at the time of the conduct or resulting from the conduct, (3) the defendant’s failure at the time…”
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Wayne Grimes (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). “1977); see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-202 (providing that the defendant has the burden of proving an exception by a preponderance of the evidence).”
State of Tennessee v. Terry Allen Dominy (Tenn. 1999). “While the spousal exclusion must be proven by a preponderance of -10- the evidence, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-202 (b)(2) (1997), there was abundant proof introduced at trial, including a certified copy of their marriage certificate, to establish that the defendant and the…”
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy A. Jarvis (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “§ 39-11-202(d). Voluntary manslaughter is “the intentional or knowing killing of another in a state of passion produced by adequate provocation sufficient to lead a reasonable person to act in an irrational manner.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-202(b)(2): 1 case
State v. Dominy, 6 S.W.3d 472 (Tenn. 1999). “While the spousal exclusion *479 must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, see Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-202(b)(2) (1997), there was abundant proof introduced at trial, including a certified copy of their marriage certificate, to establish that the defendant and the victim…”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-202(d): 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Charles Stan Martin (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007). “The court explained: -28- In simple terms, the statutory definition of criminal negligence relates to (1) the defendant’s conduct, (2) a substantial and unjustifiable risk existing at the time of the conduct or resulting from the conduct, (3) the defendant’s failure at the time…”
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy A. Jarvis (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “§ 39-11-202(d). Voluntary manslaughter is “the intentional or knowing killing of another in a state of passion produced by adequate provocation sufficient to lead a reasonable person to act in an irrational manner.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-202(e): 1 case
In Re Tennessee Walking Horse Forfeiture Litig. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “, applies to forfeitures pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-11-202(e). Id. at *3. Specifically, the Siliski Court recognized that while animals “are not property acquired or received as a result of the offense,” as contemplated in the forfeiture statutes, “absent…”
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.