Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-501 (2026)
Insanity
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature or wrongfulness of the defendant's acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense. The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.
- (b) As used in this section, "mental disease or defect" does not include any abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.
- (c) No expert witness may testify as to whether the defendant was or was not insane as set forth in subsection (a). Such ultimate issue is a matter for the trier of fact alone.
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1995, ch. 494, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 106
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: State v. Holton, 126 S.W.3d 845 (Tenn. 2004).
State v. Holton, 126 S.W.3d 845 (Tenn. 2004). “(b) As used in this section, "mental disease or defect" does not include any abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct. (c) No expert witness may testify as to whether the defendant was or was not insane as set forth in subsection (a).”
State v. Flake, 88 S.W.3d 540 (Tenn. 2002). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-501. The jury found the defendant guilty of attempted voluntary manslaughter, and by this verdict, implicitly rejected the insanity defense.”
State v. Holder, 15 S.W.3d 905 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). “The current version of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-501 (1997) is fundamentally different than the prior version.”
State v. Flake, 114 S.W.3d 487 (Tenn. 2003). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-501. The jury rejected the insanity defense, however, and found the defendant guilty on both counts of premeditated first degree murder.”
State v. Perry, 13 S.W.3d 724 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). “In this appeal of right, the defendant presents the following issues for review: (I) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction for second degree murder; (II) whether the trial court erred by denying the defendant’s motion to suppress his custodial statement;…”
Van Tran v. State, 66 S.W.3d 790 (Tenn. 2001). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-501 (1997). The relevant issue in this case, however, is not whether a mentally retarded individual may be held responsible for a criminal offense, but whether that individual may be executed as a punishment for the offense.”
State v. Hall, 958 S.W.2d 679 (Tenn. 1997). “See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-11-501 621 (1991 Repl.”
Van Tran v. State, 6 S.W.3d 257 (Tenn. 1999). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-501 (1997). In considering the insanity defense, this Court has held that sanity is presumed.”
State v. Shuck, 953 S.W.2d 662 (Tenn. 1997). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-501(c)(1996 Supp.).”
State v. Phipps, 883 S.W.2d 138 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). “Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-11-501 -621 (1991 Repl.”
State v. Brimmer, 876 S.W.2d 75 (Tenn. 1994). “Insanity is a defense to prosecution if, at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, the person lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of the person's conduct or to conform that conduct to the requirements of law.”
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Paul Colvett, 481 S.W.3d 172 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2014). “■ Tennessee Code' Annotated section 39-11-501 provides as follows: (a) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-501(a) — 22 cases
Van Tran v. State, 66 S.W.3d 790 (Tenn. 2001). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-501 (1997). The relevant issue in this case, however, is not whether a mentally retarded individual may be held responsible for a criminal offense, but whether that individual may be executed as a punishment for the offense.”
State v. Brimmer, 876 S.W.2d 75 (Tenn. 1994). “Insanity is a defense to prosecution if, at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, the person lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of the person's conduct or to conform that conduct to the requirements of law.”
State v. Flake, 88 S.W.3d 540 (Tenn. 2002). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-501. The jury found the defendant guilty of attempted voluntary manslaughter, and by this verdict, implicitly rejected the insanity defense.”
State v. Flake, 114 S.W.3d 487 (Tenn. 2003). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-501. The jury rejected the insanity defense, however, and found the defendant guilty on both counts of premeditated first degree murder.”
State v. Sparks, 891 S.W.2d 607 (Tenn. 1995).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-501(b) — 3 cases
State of Tennessee v. Denver Christian Smith (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024).
State of Tennessee v. Robert King Vaughn, Jr. (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025).
Robert Lee Goss & Carl W. Hale v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-501(c) — 7 cases
State v. Shuck, 953 S.W.2d 662 (Tenn. 1997). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-501(c)(1996 Supp.).”
State v. Flake, 88 S.W.3d 540 (Tenn. 2002). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-501. The jury found the defendant guilty of attempted voluntary manslaughter, and by this verdict, implicitly rejected the insanity defense.”
State v. Thompson, 151 S.W.3d 434 (Tenn. 2004).
State v. Flake, 114 S.W.3d 487 (Tenn. 2003). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-501. The jury rejected the insanity defense, however, and found the defendant guilty on both counts of premeditated first degree murder.”
State of Tennessee v. Denver Christian Smith (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024).
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.