Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-609
Necessity
Except as provided in §§ 39-11-611 - 39-11-616, 39-11-620 and 39-11-621, conduct is justified, if:
- (1) The person reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm; and
- (2) The desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness.
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 57
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: State v. Bledsoe
State v. Bledsoe (2007)
“” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-609 (2006). Our Court of Criminal Appeals has recognized the common law distinction between the defense of duress and the defense of necessity: "While the defense of duress covered the situation where the coercion had its source in the actions of other…”
State v. Davenport (1998)
“” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-609. The Sentencing Commission Comments to this section state that the defense of necessity is applicable in exceedingly rare situations where criminal activity is “an objectively reasonable response to an extreme situation.”
State v. Culp (1994)
“§ 39-11-609, the defense of necessity is available when: (1) the person reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm; and (2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness,…”
State v. Bult (1998)
“Pursuant to T.C.A § 39-11-609, a person is justified to act through necessity under the following circumstances: (1) The person reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm; and (2) The desirability and urgency of avoiding harm clearly…”
State v. Williams (1995)
“See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-609. This defense was not fairly raised by the evidence.”
State v. Green (1995)
“T.C.A. 39-11-609 (1989). The claim of Saylors, Sr.”
State v. Green (1998)
“The defense of necessity is set forth at Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-11-609. That section provides as follows: Except as provided in §§ 39-11-611— 39-11-621, conduct is justified if: *606 (1) The person reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent…”
State v. Watson (1999)
“Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-609 Sentencing Commission Comments.”
Marquis D. Hendricks v. State of Tennessee (2017)
“Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-609 (emphasis added).”
State of Tennessee v. Antoine Perrier (2016)
“‖ T.C.A. § 39-11-609. He claims that this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the jury would have acquitted him of all charges had it been instructed on necessity.”
State of Tennessee v. Lafaris Brown (2021)
“Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-609 (2019) (emphasis added).”
State Of Tennessee v. Vincent Edward Crowson, Jr. (2022)
“” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-609 ; see T.P.I. - Crim.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-609(1) — 1 case
State v. Culp (1994)
“§ 39-11-609, the defense of necessity is available when: (1) the person reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm; and (2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness,…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-609(2) — 2 cases
Marquis D. Hendricks v. State of Tennessee (2017)
“Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-609 (emphasis added).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-609(b) — 1 case
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.