Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-12-102 (2026)
Solicitation - Defenses disallowed
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) Whoever, by means of oral, written or electronic communication, directly or through another, intentionally commands, requests or hires another to commit a criminal offense, or attempts to command, request or hire another to commit a criminal offense, with the intent that the criminal offense be committed, is guilty of the offense of solicitation.
- (b) It is no defense that the solicitation was unsuccessful and the offense solicited was not committed. It is no defense that the person solicited could not be guilty of the offense solicited, due to insanity, minority, or other lack of criminal responsibility or incapacity. It is no defense that the person solicited was unaware of the criminal nature of the conduct solicited. It is no defense that the person solicited is unable to commit the offense solicited because of the lack of capacity, status, or characteristic needed to commit the offense solicited, so long as the person soliciting or the person solicited believes that either or both have such capacity, status, or characteristic.
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999).
State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999). “The defendant filed a Cross-Application for Permission to Appeal raising, among other issues, whether the trial court had committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of facilitation of a felony (ie.”
State v. Robinson, 146 S.W.3d 469 (Tenn. 2004). “" Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-12-102(a) (1997). Part (c) of the Burns test, which makes solicitation a lesser-included offense, applies "to situations in which a defendant attempts to commit, or solicits another to commit, either the crime charged or a lesser-included offense, but no…”
State v. Garrison, 40 S.W.3d 426 (Tenn. 2000). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-12-102 (1997) (emphasis added).”
State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90 (Tenn. 2008). “In addition to charging the jury as to first degree premeditated murder, the trial court also charged the jury as to facilitation of first degree murder, murder in the second degree, facilitation of second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, facilitation of voluntary…”
State of Tennessee v. Perry Avram March, 494 S.W.3d 52 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-12-102 (2005). Applying the “clear and present danger test,” the defendant argues that solicitation of first degree murder is constitutionally protected.”
State v. Hammonds, 30 S.W.3d 294 (Tenn. 2000). “Count one of the indictment in Clark charged only that the defendant "did unlawfully and knowingly attempt to commit the criminal offense of Aggravated Robbery, in violation of T.C.A. § 39-12-102 and T.C.A. 39-13-402 .”
United States v. Derek Benton, 639 F.3d 723 (6th Cir. 2011). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-12-102. Whether solicitation to commit aggravated assault constitutes a “violent felony” under the ACCA is a question of first impression in this Circuit.”
State v. Watson, 227 S.W.3d 622 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006). “T.C.A. § 39-12-102(a) (1997). However, part (c) of the Bums test is limited to “ ‘situations in which a defendant attempts to commit, or solicits another to commit, either the crime charged or a lesser-included offense, but no proof exists of the completion of the crime.”
State v. Dycus, 456 S.W.3d 918 (Tenn. 2014). “§ 39-12-102 (2010 & 2014), or conspiracy, see id.”
State v. Hawk, 170 S.W.3d 547 (Tenn. 2005). “§ 39-17-312 (abuse of a corpse); § 39-11-411 (accessory after the fact); § 39-12-102 (soliciting another to destroy evidence).”
State v. Latham, 910 S.W.2d 892 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “The offense of solicitation is defined under the provisions of Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-12-102 (1991). Although numerous defenses to the offense of solicitation are expressly disallowed under this section, the defense of entrapment is not so exempted.”
Commonwealth v. Barsell, 678 N.E.2d 143 (Mass. 1997). “00 (McKinney 1987) (criminal solicitation in the fifth degree if a person solicits another to “engage in conduct constituting a crime”); Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-12-102 (1991) (a person is guilty of the offense of solicitation if he solicits another to “commit a criminal offense”).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-12-102(a) — 11 cases
State v. Robinson, 146 S.W.3d 469 (Tenn. 2004). “" Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-12-102(a) (1997). Part (c) of the Burns test, which makes solicitation a lesser-included offense, applies "to situations in which a defendant attempts to commit, or solicits another to commit, either the crime charged or a lesser-included offense, but no…”
State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999). “The defendant filed a Cross-Application for Permission to Appeal raising, among other issues, whether the trial court had committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of facilitation of a felony (ie.”
State v. Watson, 227 S.W.3d 622 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006). “T.C.A. § 39-12-102(a) (1997). However, part (c) of the Bums test is limited to “ ‘situations in which a defendant attempts to commit, or solicits another to commit, either the crime charged or a lesser-included offense, but no proof exists of the completion of the crime.”
State of Tennessee v. Nikos Burgins (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022).
State of Tennessee v. Bruce D. Mendenhall (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-12-102(b) — 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Jerome Johnson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
Chivous S. Robinson v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2014).
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.