Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-201 (2026)
Criminal homicide
✓ current as of May 2026
Criminal homicide is the unlawful killing of another person, which may be first degree murder, second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide or vehicular homicide.
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1991, ch. 377, § 1; 1995, ch. 460, § 3.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 246
cases (26 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997).
State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997). “" Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-201 (b)(2) (1991 Repl.”
State v. Nesbit, 978 S.W.2d 872 (Tenn. 1998). “2d at 538 (citations and internal quotations omitted); Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-201(b)(1); Sentencing Commission Comments, Tenn.”
State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516 (Tenn. 2000). “" Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-201(b)(2) (1991). Finally, deliberation requires proof of a "cool purpose" that includes some period of reflection during which the mind is free from passion and excitement.”
State v. Pike, 978 S.W.2d 904 (Tenn. 1998). “" Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-201(b)(2) (1991 Repl.”
State v. Hall, 958 S.W.2d 679 (Tenn. 1997). “" T.C.A. § 39-13-201(b)(1) (1991). As is usually the case, a determination of culpable mental states, such as premeditation and deliberation, must be inferentially made from the circumstances surrounding the killing.”
State v. Bordis, 905 S.W.2d 214 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “Initially, it was the state’s theory that the critical element of premeditation could be inferred as set forth in Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-201 (Supp.1990): Criminal homicide.”
State v. Rogers, 188 S.W.3d 593 (Tenn. 2006). “" Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-201. First degree murder is defined as follows: (a) (1) a premeditated and intentional killing of another; *630 (2) a killing of another committed in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate any first degree murder, arson, rape, robbery, burglary,…”
Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451 (2001). “" Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-201 (1997). Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, arguing that, despite its absence from the statute, the year and a day rule persisted as part of the common law of Tennessee and, as such, precluded his…”
State of Tennessee v. Lemaricus Devall Davidson, 509 S.W.3d 156 (Tenn. 2016). “Without question, the murders of Chris and Channon were especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel and clearly involved torture and serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death.”
State v. Gentry, 881 S.W.2d 1 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). “The Sentencing Commission Comments to the statute provide that the “phrase is designed to allow the defendant who kills another with passion or provocation to be adjudged guilty of either second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter-” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-201 (b). The…”
State v. Mann, 959 S.W.2d 503 (Tenn. 1998). “1992), and “the exercise of reflection and judgment,” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-201(b)(2) (1991). Deliberation requires a “cool purpose” and the absence of “passion or provocation.”
State v. Nichols, 24 S.W.3d 297 (Tenn. 2000). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-201 (1991). Additionally, the Sentencing Commission Comments to the above-quoted statute provide that: The definition of “a premeditated act” .”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-201(1) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. George Franklin (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-201(2) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Ariel K. Robinson, Christopher Duncan, & Timothy Shoffner (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-201(a) — 8 cases
State v. Addison, 973 S.W.2d 260 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
State v. Michael Addison (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
State v. Timothy Roberson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
State v. Darron Clayton (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998).
State v. William Bogus (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-201(a)(1) — 6 cases
Thomas N. Allen v. Shawn Phillips, Warden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019).
Sidney Porterfield v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
Tyrone Chalmers v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2014).
Vincent Sims v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2014).
State of Tennessee v. Willis Ayers (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-201(b) — 6 cases
State v. Brimmer, 876 S.W.2d 75 (Tenn. 1994).
State v. Carter, 970 S.W.2d 509 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
State v. Brown, 836 S.W.2d 530 (Tenn. 1992).
Mario Hawkins v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002).
State v. Allan Brooks (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-201(b)(1) — 17 cases
State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516 (Tenn. 2000). “" Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-201(b)(2) (1991). Finally, deliberation requires proof of a "cool purpose" that includes some period of reflection during which the mind is free from passion and excitement.”
State v. Pike, 978 S.W.2d 904 (Tenn. 1998). “" Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-201(b)(2) (1991 Repl.”
State v. Hall, 958 S.W.2d 679 (Tenn. 1997). “" T.C.A. § 39-13-201(b)(1) (1991). As is usually the case, a determination of culpable mental states, such as premeditation and deliberation, must be inferentially made from the circumstances surrounding the killing.”
State v. Nesbit, 978 S.W.2d 872 (Tenn. 1998). “2d at 538 (citations and internal quotations omitted); Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-201(b)(1); Sentencing Commission Comments, Tenn.”
State v. Mann, 959 S.W.2d 503 (Tenn. 1998). “1992), and “the exercise of reflection and judgment,” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-201(b)(2) (1991). Deliberation requires a “cool purpose” and the absence of “passion or provocation.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-201(b)(1)(1991) — 2 cases
State v. Rosa, 996 S.W.2d 833 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).
State v. Rosa (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-201(b)(1)(2) — 1 case
State v. McKee (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-201(b)(2) — 19 cases
State v. Nesbit, 978 S.W.2d 872 (Tenn. 1998). “2d at 538 (citations and internal quotations omitted); Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-201(b)(1); Sentencing Commission Comments, Tenn.”
State v. Pike, 978 S.W.2d 904 (Tenn. 1998). “" Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-201(b)(2) (1991 Repl.”
State v. Hall, 958 S.W.2d 679 (Tenn. 1997). “" T.C.A. § 39-13-201(b)(1) (1991). As is usually the case, a determination of culpable mental states, such as premeditation and deliberation, must be inferentially made from the circumstances surrounding the killing.”
State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997). “" Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-201 (b)(2) (1991 Repl.”
State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516 (Tenn. 2000). “" Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-201(b)(2) (1991). Finally, deliberation requires proof of a "cool purpose" that includes some period of reflection during which the mind is free from passion and excitement.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-201(b)(l) — 4 cases
State v. Morris, 24 S.W.3d 788 (Tenn. 2000).
State v. Gentry, 881 S.W.2d 1 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). “The Sentencing Commission Comments to the statute provide that the “phrase is designed to allow the defendant who kills another with passion or provocation to be adjudged guilty of either second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter-” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-201 (b). The…”
State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516 (Tenn. 2000). “" Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-201(b)(2) (1991). Finally, deliberation requires proof of a "cool purpose" that includes some period of reflection during which the mind is free from passion and excitement.”
State v. Schafer, 973 S.W.2d 269 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-201(c) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. David Lynn Jordan (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-201(d) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Tony v. Carruthers & James Montgomery (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).
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.