Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-107 (2026)
Claim of right
✓ current as of May 2026
It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under §§ 39-14-103, 39-14-104 and 39-14-106 that the person:
- (1) Acted under an honest claim of right to the property or service involved;
- (2) Acted in the honest belief that the person had the right to obtain or exercise control over the property or service as the person did; or
- (3) Obtained or exercised control over property or service honestly believing that the owner, if present, would have consented.
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1990, ch. 1030, § 19.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2003–2024 · leading case: State v. Gentry, 538 S.W.3d 413 (Tenn. 2017).
State v. Gentry, 538 S.W.3d 413 (Tenn. 2017). “The witness responded that, based on what he had learned, it is not.”
State of Tennessee v. John D. Baskette (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024). “After the close of the State’s case-in-chief, the Defendant requested a special jury instruction on the claim of right affirmative defense provided in Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-107. Although the trial court found that the proof fairly raised the affirmative defense,…”
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Mitchell Dawson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022). “T.C.A. § 39-14-107. In response to the defendant’s notice, the State moved the trial court to conduct a hearing prior to trial to determine the admissibility of “evidence of another crime, to wit: the theft of a HVAC unit.”
State v. Michelle Franze (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “In the present case, the trial court correctly charged the jury as to the defense of “claim of right” as defined in Tenn. Code Ann. §39-14-107 . The terms of the charge in its entirety are easily understood by the average layperson and the law was clearly articulated in the…”
State of Tennessee v. Maurice Leonard & Kenneth Shondale Mason (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007). “In 1989, our criminal code was amended to include Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-107, which provides that “[i]t is an affirmative defense to prosecution .”
State of Tennessee v. Tabitha Gentry (AKA ABKA RE BAY) (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-107 (1)-(2). Defendant remained in this property for only a week and adverse possession requires possession for a period of years.”
State of Tennessee v. Gerald James Wingard (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011). “See generally T.C.A. § 39-14-107 (Claim of Right). However, claim of right is no defense to a charge of aggravated robbery.”
State of Tennessee v. Michael Todd Kirkup (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008). “See T.C.A. § 39-14-107 (2006). The State counters that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to it, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of theft over $1000.”
State of Tennessee v. Brigitte Pauli (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-107 . The jury rejected this defense which was the jury’s prerogative.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-107(1) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Maurice Leonard & Kenneth Shondale Mason (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007). “In 1989, our criminal code was amended to include Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-107, which provides that “[i]t is an affirmative defense to prosecution .”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-107(2) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. John D. Baskette (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024). “After the close of the State’s case-in-chief, the Defendant requested a special jury instruction on the claim of right affirmative defense provided in Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-107. Although the trial court found that the proof fairly raised the affirmative defense,…”
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.