Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-204 (2026)
Affirmative defense
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) An affirmative defense in this title is so labeled by the phrase: "It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under ..., which must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, that ..." or words of similar import.
- (b) The state is not required to negate the existence of an affirmative defense in the charge alleging commission of the offense.
- (c)
- (1) If a person intends to rely upon an affirmative defense, the person shall, no later than ten (10) days before trial, notify the district attorney general in writing of the intention, or at such time as the court may direct naming the affirmative defense or defenses to be asserted, and file a copy of the notice with the clerk.
- (2) Except as provided in this title, if there is a failure to comply with this subsection (c), the affirmative defense may not be raised; provided, that this shall not limit the right of the person to testify on the person's own behalf.
- (3) The court may, for cause shown, allow late filing of the notice or grant additional time to the parties to prepare for trial or make other orders as may be appropriate.
- (4) Evidence of an intention to raise an affirmative defense, which is later withdrawn, is not admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding against the person who gave the notice of the intention.
- (5) This subsection (c) shall only apply in courts of record.
- (d) The issue of the existence of an affirmative defense may not be submitted to the jury unless it is fairly raised by the proof and notice has been provided according to subsection (c).
- (e) If the issue of the existence of an affirmative defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall instruct the jury that the affirmative defense must be established by a preponderance of the evidence.
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1990, ch. 1030, § 5.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1993–2024 · leading case: State v. Ruane, 912 S.W.2d 766 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).
State v. Ruane, 912 S.W.2d 766 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-204. The “year- and-a-day rule” is not listed among those defenses now available.”
State v. Shropshire, 874 S.W.2d 634 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). “T.C.A. § 39-11-204. Although the Sentencing Commission Comments to T.”
State v. Jones, 889 S.W.2d 225 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-204(d). Once a defense is factually at issue, the state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense does not apply.”
State v. Hood, 868 S.W.2d 744 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). “See T.C.A. § 39-11-204. Although the trial court stated that “the proof has been beyond a reasonable doubt as to the fact that this defense was not accepted,” we have difficulty discerning what it meant given its express understanding of what constituted promiscuous sexual…”
State of Tennessee v. John D. Baskette (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-204 (c)(1), (d) (2018).”
State of Tennessee v. Tony Harp (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-204 (d). An affirmative defense must be established by a preponderance of the evidence.”
State of Tennessee v. Ricky Rex Corlew (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-204 , Sentencing Comm’n Cmts.”
State of Tennessee v. James Ray Parker (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019). “T.C.A. § 39-11-204(d); see State v. Parris, 236 S.”
State v. James Conrad (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-204 (c), (d) (1997).”
State v. William Jordan (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). “In order for a defendant to avail himself of an affirmative defense at trial, he must "fairly raise" it, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-204 (d) (1997), and he must establish it by a preponderance of the evidence.”
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Davis (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-204 (d). To determine if the issue is fairly raised by the proof, “a court must, in effect, consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, including drawing all reasonable inferences flowing from that evidence.”
State of Tennessee v. William Glenn Wiley (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-203 (c); Tenn. Code Ann.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-204(a) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Jimmy Sprague (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-204(c) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. John D. Baskette (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-204 (c)(1), (d) (2018).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-204(c)(1) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. John D. Baskette (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-204 (c)(1), (d) (2018).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-204(d) — 3 cases
State v. Jones, 889 S.W.2d 225 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-204(d). Once a defense is factually at issue, the state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense does not apply.”
State of Tennessee v. James Ray Parker (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019). “T.C.A. § 39-11-204(d); see State v. Parris, 236 S.”
State of Tennessee v. John D. Baskette (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-204 (c)(1), (d) (2018).”
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.