Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-214 (2026)
"Another" and "another person" to include fetus of a human being
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) For the purposes of this part, "another" and "another person" include a human embryo or fetus at any stage of gestation in utero, when any such term refers to the victim of any act made criminal by this part.
- (b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to amend [former] § 39-15-201 [repealed], or §§ 39-15-203 - 39-15-205 and 39-15-207.
- (c) Nothing in subsection (a) shall apply to any act or omission by a pregnant woman with respect to an embryo or fetus with which she is pregnant, or to any lawful medical or surgical procedure to which a pregnant woman consents, performed by a health care professional who is licensed to perform such procedure.
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; T.C.A., § 39-13-210; Acts 1990, ch. 1038, § 4; 2011 , ch. 408, § 2; 2012 , ch. 1006, §§ 1, 2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1995–2022 · leading case: State v. Nesbit, 978 S.W.2d 872 (Tenn. 1998).
State v. Nesbit, 978 S.W.2d 872 (Tenn. 1998). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-214 (1989). As such, proof of a reasonable creature in being is no longer necessary.”
State v. Williamson, 919 S.W.2d 69 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “Consequently, testimony concerning this issue of fact was relevant. The probative value was not “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice .”
Ankrom v. State, 152 So. 3d 397 (Ala. 2013). “2011); Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-214 (Supp.2012); Tex.”
Miller Ex Rel. Miller v. Dacus, 231 S.W.3d 903 (Tenn. 2007). “§ 39-13-214 (2006) (same for any criminal homicide); Id.”
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Scott Donaldson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017). “Although this statute, prior to 2011, referred to “a viable fetus of a human being,” see T.C.A. § 39-13-214 (2010), the 2011 amendment removed the viability requirement, altering the language to read that “another” included “a fetus of a human being, regardless of viability of…”
State of Tennessee v. Shelby Isaac - Concur (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019). “However, after consideration, I have concluded that the Tennessee General Assembly, in T.C.A. § 39-13-214, provided sufficient notice that an ordinary person should perceive the “substantial and unjustifiable risk,” T.”
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Scott Donaldson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022). “Crider’s unborn child under the terms of Code section 39-13-214, which provides that, “[f]or the purposes of this part, ‘another’ and ‘another person’ include a human embryo or fetus at any stage of gestation in utero, when any such term refers to the victim of any act made…”
State of Tennessee v. Shelby Isaac (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019). “” T.C.A. § 39-13-214(a). Criminally negligent conduct is defined as “when the person ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur.”
State of Tennessee v. Quentin Dean Bird (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022). “§ 39-13-214 (a) (2018) (“For the purposes of this part, ‘another’ and ‘another person’ include a human embryo or fetus at any stage of gestation in utero, when any such term refers to the victim of any act made criminal by this part.”
Shannon Wade Jacobs v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005). “§ 39-13-214, appear between the proscription of criminally negligent homicide and the greater offense of reckless homicide.”
State v. Gilford Williams (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). “§ 39-13-214 (1989). As such, proof of a reasonable creature in being is no longer necessary.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-214(a) — 4 cases
State v. Williamson, 919 S.W.2d 69 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “Consequently, testimony concerning this issue of fact was relevant. The probative value was not “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice .”
State of Tennessee v. Shelby Isaac - Concur (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019). “However, after consideration, I have concluded that the Tennessee General Assembly, in T.C.A. § 39-13-214, provided sufficient notice that an ordinary person should perceive the “substantial and unjustifiable risk,” T.”
State of Tennessee v. Shelby Isaac (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019). “” T.C.A. § 39-13-214(a). Criminally negligent conduct is defined as “when the person ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur.”
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Scott Donaldson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022). “Crider’s unborn child under the terms of Code section 39-13-214, which provides that, “[f]or the purposes of this part, ‘another’ and ‘another person’ include a human embryo or fetus at any stage of gestation in utero, when any such term refers to the victim of any act made…”
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.