Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203 (2026)
Intellectually disabled defendants - Death sentence prohibited
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) As used in this section, "intellectual disability" means:
- (1) Significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning;
- (2) Deficits in adaptive behavior; and
- (3) The intellectual disability must have manifested during the developmental period, or by eighteen (18) years of age.
- (b) Notwithstanding another law to the contrary, a defendant with intellectual disability at the time of committing an offense shall not be sentenced to death for the offense.
- (c) The burden of production and persuasion to demonstrate intellectual disability by a preponderance of the evidence is upon the defendant. The determination of whether the defendant had intellectual disability at the time of the offense shall be made by the court.
- (d) If the court determines that the defendant was a person with intellectual disability at the time of the offense, and if the trier of fact finds the defendant guilty of an offense punishable by death, and if the district attorney general has filed notice of intention to ask for the sentence of imprisonment for life without possibility of parole as provided in § 39-13-208(b), the jury shall fix the punishment in a separate sentencing proceeding to determine whether the defendant shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life without possibility of parole or imprisonment for life. Section 39-13-207 shall govern the sentencing proceeding.
- (e) If the issue of intellectual disability is raised at trial and the court determines that the defendant is not a person with intellectual disability, the defendant shall be entitled to offer evidence to the trier of fact of diminished intellectual capacity as a mitigating circumstance pursuant to § 39-13-204(j)(8).
- (f) The determination by the trier of fact that the defendant does not have intellectual disability shall not be appealable by interlocutory appeal, but may be a basis of appeal by either the state or defendant following the sentencing stage of the trial.
- (g)
- (1) A defendant who has been sentenced to the death penalty prior to April 28, 2023 and whose conviction is final on direct review may petition the trial court for a determination of whether the defendant is intellectually disabled. The motion must set forth a colorable claim that the defendant is ineligible for the death penalty due to intellectual disability. A defendant filing a motion under this subsection (g) shall serve the attorney general and reporter, who will represent the state. Either party may appeal the trial court's decision in accordance with Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure.
- (2) A defendant shall not file a motion under subdivision (g)(1) if the issue of whether the defendant has an intellectual disability has been previously adjudicated on the merits.
- (3) If an order is issued requiring a determination under subdivision (g)(1) to be paid on behalf of a petitioner pursuant to this part, then the payment must be made from funding provided for indigent defendants' counsel as set forth within the annual appropriations act. The payment must be made only after receipt by the administrative director of the courts of a certified copy of the order and only upon receipt of a bill from the expert. The bill must set forth the name of the petitioner, the amount of the bill, and the name and address of the expert to which payment is to be made.
Amended by 2024 Tenn. Acts, ch. 951,s 6, eff. 7/1/2024.
Amended by 2024 Tenn. Acts, ch. 951,s 5, eff. 7/1/2024.
Amended by 2024 Tenn. Acts, ch. 951,s 4, eff. 7/1/2024.
Amended by 2023 Tenn. Acts, ch. 255, s 1, eff. 4/28/2023.
Amended by 2023 Tenn. Acts, ch. 182, s 4, eff. 4/28/2023.
Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 399, Secs.s 1, s 2 eff. 5/11/2021.
Acts 1990, ch. 1038, §§ 1, 2; 1993, ch. 473, § 10; 2010 , ch. 734, §§ 1-3.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 135
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: Howell v. State, 151 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2004).
Howell v. State, 151 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2004). “This Motion to Re-Open Petition for Post-Conviction Relief is without merit and should be dismissed without the benefit of a hearing. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court, and we granted the petitioner permission to appeal.”
Van Tran v. State, 66 S.W.3d 790 (Tenn. 2001). “In his motion, the petitioner asserted that new evidence establishes that he is mentally retarded and, therefore, ineligible for the death penalty under Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-203, which prohibits the execution of the mentally retarded.”
State v. Smith, 893 S.W.2d 908 (Tenn. 1994). “T.C.A. § 39-13-203 contains no standards for evaluating the evidence offered to establish or disprove "mental retardation.”
David Keen v. State of Tennessee, 398 S.W.3d 594 (Tenn. 2012). “test score purportedly showing that he could not be executed by virtue of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203 (2010) because he was intellectually disabled.”
State v. Strode, 232 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2007). “At the conclusion of the hearing on the Motion to Strike the Death Penalty, the trial court determined that the Defendant was mentally retarded for purposes of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-203. The pertinent findings of the trial court were as follows: The first prong…”
State of Tennessee v. Corinio Pruitt, 415 S.W.3d 180 (Tenn. 2013). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203 (2010). The best practice, however, would be to raise the -20- issue in a pretrial setting to ensure that both the State and the defendant are provided a full and fair opportunity to collect, exchange, and present the requisite proof.”
Coleman v. State, 341 S.W.3d 221 (Tenn. 2011). “This appeal involves the role of expert testimony in proceedings to determine whether a prisoner who has been sentenced to death is intellectually disabled and thus barred from being executed under Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-203 (2010). An inmate facing execution filed a motion in…”
Leonard Edward Smith v. State of Tennessee, 357 S.W.3d 322 (Tenn. 2011). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-203 (2010). The motion to remand stated as follows in pertinent part: Because of counsel and court error, insufficient inquiry was made regarding [Smith’s] competency to waive presentation of mitigating evidence at his capital resentencing hearing.”
State v. Bell, 512 S.W.3d 167 (Tenn. 2015). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203 (b) (2010). The statute defines “intellectual disability” as follows: (1) Significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning as evidenced by a functional intelligence quotient (I.”
Byron Black v. Ricky Bell, 664 F.3d 81 (6th Cir. 2011). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203 (a). Each side presented conflicting evidence concerning whether Black qualifies as mentally retarded.”
State v. Dellinger, 79 S.W.3d 458 (Tenn. 2002). “[7] Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-203 prohibits imposition of a death sentence on any defendant who, at the time of the offense, had an IQ level of 70 or less, had deficits in adaptive behavior, and had mental retardation manifested during the developmental period or by…”
Pervis Tyrone Payne v. State of Tennessee, 493 S.W.3d 478 (Tenn. 2016). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-203. While the Petitioner acknowledges that the statute does not contain ■ an explicit provision allowing him to seek an eviden-tiary hearing, he nevertheless contends that the statute allows this Court to infer such a provision.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203(2010) — 2 cases
Coleman v. State, 341 S.W.3d 221 (Tenn. 2011). “This appeal involves the role of expert testimony in proceedings to determine whether a prisoner who has been sentenced to death is intellectually disabled and thus barred from being executed under Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-203 (2010). An inmate facing execution filed a motion in…”
Colemen v. State, 341 S.W.3d 221 (Tenn. 2011).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203(3)(b) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Joshua Lee Brown (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203(a) — 35 cases
Howell v. State, 151 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2004). “This Motion to Re-Open Petition for Post-Conviction Relief is without merit and should be dismissed without the benefit of a hearing. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court, and we granted the petitioner permission to appeal.”
State v. Strode, 232 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2007). “At the conclusion of the hearing on the Motion to Strike the Death Penalty, the trial court determined that the Defendant was mentally retarded for purposes of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-203. The pertinent findings of the trial court were as follows: The first prong…”
State v. Smith, 893 S.W.2d 908 (Tenn. 1994). “T.C.A. § 39-13-203 contains no standards for evaluating the evidence offered to establish or disprove "mental retardation.”
Van Tran v. State, 66 S.W.3d 790 (Tenn. 2001). “In his motion, the petitioner asserted that new evidence establishes that he is mentally retarded and, therefore, ineligible for the death penalty under Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-203, which prohibits the execution of the mentally retarded.”
Coleman v. State, 341 S.W.3d 221 (Tenn. 2011). “This appeal involves the role of expert testimony in proceedings to determine whether a prisoner who has been sentenced to death is intellectually disabled and thus barred from being executed under Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-203 (2010). An inmate facing execution filed a motion in…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203(a)(1) — 24 cases
State of Tennessee v. Corinio Pruitt, 415 S.W.3d 180 (Tenn. 2013). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203 (2010). The best practice, however, would be to raise the -20- issue in a pretrial setting to ensure that both the State and the defendant are provided a full and fair opportunity to collect, exchange, and present the requisite proof.”
Leonard Edward Smith v. State of Tennessee, 357 S.W.3d 322 (Tenn. 2011). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-203 (2010). The motion to remand stated as follows in pertinent part: Because of counsel and court error, insufficient inquiry was made regarding [Smith’s] competency to waive presentation of mitigating evidence at his capital resentencing hearing.”
Hicks v. State, 983 S.W.2d 240 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998).
Howell v. State, 151 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2004). “This Motion to Re-Open Petition for Post-Conviction Relief is without merit and should be dismissed without the benefit of a hearing. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court, and we granted the petitioner permission to appeal.”
State v. Smith, 893 S.W.2d 908 (Tenn. 1994). “T.C.A. § 39-13-203 contains no standards for evaluating the evidence offered to establish or disprove "mental retardation.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203(a)(2) — 8 cases
Coleman v. State, 341 S.W.3d 221 (Tenn. 2011). “This appeal involves the role of expert testimony in proceedings to determine whether a prisoner who has been sentenced to death is intellectually disabled and thus barred from being executed under Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-203 (2010). An inmate facing execution filed a motion in…”
Leonard Edward Smith v. State of Tennessee, 357 S.W.3d 322 (Tenn. 2011). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-203 (2010). The motion to remand stated as follows in pertinent part: Because of counsel and court error, insufficient inquiry was made regarding [Smith’s] competency to waive presentation of mitigating evidence at his capital resentencing hearing.”
State of Tennessee v. Corinio Pruitt, 415 S.W.3d 180 (Tenn. 2013). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203 (2010). The best practice, however, would be to raise the -20- issue in a pretrial setting to ensure that both the State and the defendant are provided a full and fair opportunity to collect, exchange, and present the requisite proof.”
Colemen v. State, 341 S.W.3d 221 (Tenn. 2011).
State of Tennessee v. Corinio Pruitt (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203(a)(3) — 8 cases
State of Tennessee v. Corinio Pruitt, 415 S.W.3d 180 (Tenn. 2013). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203 (2010). The best practice, however, would be to raise the -20- issue in a pretrial setting to ensure that both the State and the defendant are provided a full and fair opportunity to collect, exchange, and present the requisite proof.”
State v. Smith, 893 S.W.2d 908 (Tenn. 1994). “T.C.A. § 39-13-203 contains no standards for evaluating the evidence offered to establish or disprove "mental retardation.”
Coleman v. State, 341 S.W.3d 221 (Tenn. 2011). “This appeal involves the role of expert testimony in proceedings to determine whether a prisoner who has been sentenced to death is intellectually disabled and thus barred from being executed under Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-203 (2010). An inmate facing execution filed a motion in…”
State v. Strode, 232 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2007). “At the conclusion of the hearing on the Motion to Strike the Death Penalty, the trial court determined that the Defendant was mentally retarded for purposes of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-203. The pertinent findings of the trial court were as follows: The first prong…”
Colemen v. State, 341 S.W.3d 221 (Tenn. 2011).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203(a)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Dellinger, 79 S.W.3d 458 (Tenn. 2002). “[7] Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-203 prohibits imposition of a death sentence on any defendant who, at the time of the offense, had an IQ level of 70 or less, had deficits in adaptive behavior, and had mental retardation manifested during the developmental period or by…”
Dellinger v. Mays (DPLC1) (E.D. Tenn. 2022).
Dellinger v. Mays (DPLC1) (E.D. Tenn. 2022).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203(a)(l) — 6 cases
Coleman v. State, 341 S.W.3d 221 (Tenn. 2011). “This appeal involves the role of expert testimony in proceedings to determine whether a prisoner who has been sentenced to death is intellectually disabled and thus barred from being executed under Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-203 (2010). An inmate facing execution filed a motion in…”
State of Tennessee v. Corinio Pruitt, 415 S.W.3d 180 (Tenn. 2013). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203 (2010). The best practice, however, would be to raise the -20- issue in a pretrial setting to ensure that both the State and the defendant are provided a full and fair opportunity to collect, exchange, and present the requisite proof.”
Leonard Edward Smith v. State of Tennessee, 357 S.W.3d 322 (Tenn. 2011). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-203 (2010). The motion to remand stated as follows in pertinent part: Because of counsel and court error, insufficient inquiry was made regarding [Smith’s] competency to waive presentation of mitigating evidence at his capital resentencing hearing.”
Bowling v. Commonwealth, 163 S.W.3d 361 (Ky. 2005).
Byron Black v. Ricky Bell, 664 F.3d 81 (6th Cir. 2011). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203 (a). Each side presented conflicting evidence concerning whether Black qualifies as mentally retarded.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203(b) — 20 cases
State v. Smith, 893 S.W.2d 908 (Tenn. 1994). “T.C.A. § 39-13-203 contains no standards for evaluating the evidence offered to establish or disprove "mental retardation.”
David Keen v. State of Tennessee, 398 S.W.3d 594 (Tenn. 2012). “test score purportedly showing that he could not be executed by virtue of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203 (2010) because he was intellectually disabled.”
State v. Strode, 232 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2007). “At the conclusion of the hearing on the Motion to Strike the Death Penalty, the trial court determined that the Defendant was mentally retarded for purposes of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-203. The pertinent findings of the trial court were as follows: The first prong…”
Van Tran v. State, 66 S.W.3d 790 (Tenn. 2001). “In his motion, the petitioner asserted that new evidence establishes that he is mentally retarded and, therefore, ineligible for the death penalty under Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-203, which prohibits the execution of the mentally retarded.”
Pervis Tyrone Payne v. State of Tennessee, 493 S.W.3d 478 (Tenn. 2016). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-203. While the Petitioner acknowledges that the statute does not contain ■ an explicit provision allowing him to seek an eviden-tiary hearing, he nevertheless contends that the statute allows this Court to infer such a provision.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203(b)(2) — 1 case
Corinio Pruitt v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203(c) — 24 cases
Howell v. State, 151 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2004). “This Motion to Re-Open Petition for Post-Conviction Relief is without merit and should be dismissed without the benefit of a hearing. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court, and we granted the petitioner permission to appeal.”
State v. Smith, 893 S.W.2d 908 (Tenn. 1994). “T.C.A. § 39-13-203 contains no standards for evaluating the evidence offered to establish or disprove "mental retardation.”
Van Tran v. State, 66 S.W.3d 790 (Tenn. 2001). “In his motion, the petitioner asserted that new evidence establishes that he is mentally retarded and, therefore, ineligible for the death penalty under Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-203, which prohibits the execution of the mentally retarded.”
State v. Strode, 232 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2007). “At the conclusion of the hearing on the Motion to Strike the Death Penalty, the trial court determined that the Defendant was mentally retarded for purposes of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-203. The pertinent findings of the trial court were as follows: The first prong…”
Bowling v. Commonwealth, 163 S.W.3d 361 (Ky. 2005).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203(e) — 13 cases
State v. Cauthern, 967 S.W.2d 726 (Tenn. 1998).
State v. Hutchison, 898 S.W.2d 161 (Tenn. 1994).
Pervis Tyrone Payne v. State of Tennessee, 493 S.W.3d 478 (Tenn. 2016). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-203. While the Petitioner acknowledges that the statute does not contain ■ an explicit provision allowing him to seek an eviden-tiary hearing, he nevertheless contends that the statute allows this Court to infer such a provision.”
State v. Smith, 893 S.W.2d 908 (Tenn. 1994). “T.C.A. § 39-13-203 contains no standards for evaluating the evidence offered to establish or disprove "mental retardation.”
David Keen v. State of Tennessee, 398 S.W.3d 594 (Tenn. 2012). “test score purportedly showing that he could not be executed by virtue of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203 (2010) because he was intellectually disabled.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203(f) — 3 cases
State v. Strode, 232 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2007). “At the conclusion of the hearing on the Motion to Strike the Death Penalty, the trial court determined that the Defendant was mentally retarded for purposes of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-203. The pertinent findings of the trial court were as follows: The first prong…”
Coleman v. State, 341 S.W.3d 221 (Tenn. 2011). “This appeal involves the role of expert testimony in proceedings to determine whether a prisoner who has been sentenced to death is intellectually disabled and thus barred from being executed under Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-203 (2010). An inmate facing execution filed a motion in…”
Colemen v. State, 341 S.W.3d 221 (Tenn. 2011).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203(g) — 5 cases
State v. Smith, 857 S.W.2d 1 (Tenn. 1993).
State of Tennessee v. Pervis Tyrone Payne (Tenn. 2025).
Dellinger v. Mays (DPLC1) (E.D. Tenn. 2022).
Dellinger v. Mays (DPLC1) (E.D. Tenn. 2022).
Charles Rice v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203(g)(1) — 2 cases
Chalmers v. Mays (W.D. Tenn. 2022).
Sims v. Colson (W.D. Tenn. 2023).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203(g)(2) — 4 cases
Dellinger v. Mays (DPLC1) (E.D. Tenn. 2022).
Dellinger v. Mays (DPLC1) (E.D. Tenn. 2022).
Sutton v. Colson (E.D. Tenn. 2024).
State of Tennessee v. Pervis Tyrone Payne (Tenn. 2025).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203(i)(2) — 3 cases
State v. Hall, 976 S.W.2d 121 (Tenn. 1998).
State v. Blanton, 975 S.W.2d 269 (Tenn. 1998).
State v. Cribbs, 967 S.W.2d 773 (Tenn. 1998).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203(i)(5) — 4 cases
State v. Pike, 978 S.W.2d 904 (Tenn. 1998).
State v. Mann, 959 S.W.2d 503 (Tenn. 1998).
State of Tennessee v. Chrysta Gail Pike (Tenn. 1998).
State of Tennessee v. Glenn Bernard Mann - Concurring (Tenn. 1997).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203(i)(9) — 1 case
State v. Reynolds, 457 N.W.2d 405 (Neb. 1990).
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.