Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-115 (2026)
Criminal simulation
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a)
- (1) A person commits the offense of criminal simulation who, with intent to defraud or harm another:
- (A) Makes or alters an object, in whole or in part, so that it appears to have value because of age, antiquity, rarity, source or authorship that it does not have;
- (B) Possesses an object so made or altered, with intent to sell, pass or otherwise utter it; or
- (C) Authenticates or certifies an object so made or altered as genuine or as different from what it is.
- (2) A person commits the offense of criminal simulation who, with knowledge of its character, possesses:
- (A) Any machinery, plates or other contrivances designed to produce instruments reporting to be credit or debit cards of an issuer who had not consented to the preparation of the cards; or
- (B) Any instrument, apparatus or contrivance designed, adapted or used for commission of any theft of property or services by fraudulent means.
- (1) A person commits the offense of criminal simulation who, with intent to defraud or harm another:
- (b) Criminal simulation is punishable as theft pursuant to § 39-14-105, but in no event shall criminal simulation be less than a Class E felony.
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 2009, ch. 408, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2001–2024 · leading case: Rondal Akers v. Prime Succession of Tennessee, Inc., 387 S.W.3d 495 (Tenn. 2012).
Rondal Akers v. Prime Succession of Tennessee, Inc., 387 S.W.3d 495 (Tenn. 2012). “At the time of the offense, criminal simulation was defined at Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-115 (1989) as follows: (a) A person commits an offense of criminal simulation who: (1) With intent to defraud or harm another: (A)Makes or alters an object, in whole or in part,…”
State of Tennessee v. Alkita M. Odom, 64 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). “§ 39-14-115. Again, there is no requirement that the person committing the offense receive anything in return.”
Robert Allen Doll, III v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee (Tenn. 2024). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-115 . 2 Mr. Doll appealed his criminal convictions to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.”
State of Tennessee v. Todd Joseph Sweet a/k/a Jamie Lee Turpin (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011). “T.C.A. § 39-14-115(a) (2006). a. Sufficiency of the Indictment The Defendant contends that the counts of the Indictment charging him with criminal simulation did not allege the essential elements of criminal simulation and, thus, that the Indictment did not comply with State v.”
State of Tennessee v. Eric Shavonn Sayers (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013). “Counts 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the presentment surround the Defendant’s creating various counterfeit checks between January 23, 2008, and February 5, 2008, with the intent to sell, pass, or otherwise utter them in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-115 (2010). Count…”
Rondal Akers v. Prime Succession of Tennessee, Inc (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). “In pertinent part, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-115 provides: 39-14-115.”
State of Tennessee v. Mark Walker (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). “] Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-115 . In addition, subpart (c) of the statute provides that the offense “is punishable as theft pursuant to § 39-14-105, but in no event shall criminal simulation be less than a Class E felony.”
State of Tennessee v. John William Anderson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021). “” T.C.A. § 39-14-115(a)(1)(B). In the light most favorable to the State, the evidence established that the defendant took a check for $13,187.”
State of Tennessee v. Noel Maltese (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-115 (a)(1)(C). The indictment alleged that the Appellant and Gilly “did authenticate or certify an object, to wit: a document filed with the Williamson County, Tennessee, Register of Deeds, purporting to transfer the property located [on] McCanless Road…”
State of Tennessee v. Jason Glenn Baggett (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008). “] T.C.A. § 39-14-115(a)(1) (2006). On appeal, Baggett challenges the sufficiency of only one element, his “intent to defraud.”
State of Tennessee v. Larry Joe Carroll, AKA Larrie Carroll (2019). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-115 (a)(2)(B) (2017).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-115(a) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Todd Joseph Sweet a/k/a Jamie Lee Turpin (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011). “T.C.A. § 39-14-115(a) (2006). a. Sufficiency of the Indictment The Defendant contends that the counts of the Indictment charging him with criminal simulation did not allege the essential elements of criminal simulation and, thus, that the Indictment did not comply with State v.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-115(a)(1) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Jason Glenn Baggett (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008). “] T.C.A. § 39-14-115(a)(1) (2006). On appeal, Baggett challenges the sufficiency of only one element, his “intent to defraud.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-115(a)(1)(A) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Todd Joseph Sweet a/k/a Jamie Lee Turpin (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011). “T.C.A. § 39-14-115(a) (2006). a. Sufficiency of the Indictment The Defendant contends that the counts of the Indictment charging him with criminal simulation did not allege the essential elements of criminal simulation and, thus, that the Indictment did not comply with State v.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-115(a)(1)(B) — 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. John William Anderson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021). “” T.C.A. § 39-14-115(a)(1)(B). In the light most favorable to the State, the evidence established that the defendant took a check for $13,187.”
State of Tennessee v. Eric Shavonn Sayers (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013). “Counts 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the presentment surround the Defendant’s creating various counterfeit checks between January 23, 2008, and February 5, 2008, with the intent to sell, pass, or otherwise utter them in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-115 (2010). Count…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-115(a)(1)(c) — 1 case
Robert Allen Doll, III v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee (Tenn. 2024). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-115 . 2 Mr. Doll appealed his criminal convictions to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.”
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.