Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-405 (2026)

Criminal trespass

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Amended by 2017 Tenn. Acts, ch. 286,s 1, eff. 7/1/2017.

Amended by 2017 Tenn. Acts, ch. 135,s 1, eff. 7/1/2017.

Amended by 2014 Tenn. Acts, ch. 956,s 1, eff. 7/1/2014.

Amended by 2014 Tenn. Acts, ch. 876,s 9, eff. 7/1/2014.

Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 2005, ch. 297, §§ 1 - 3; 2009, ch. 510, § 1.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 63 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: State v. Gentry, 538 S.W.3d 413 (Tenn. 2017).
State v. Gentry, 538 S.W.3d 413 (Tenn. 2017). · cites it 2× “Defendant also argues that theft of real property is too severe a criminal offense to charge under the circumstances of this case and that other less severe criminal charges, such as criminal trespass, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-405 (2014 & 2017 Supp.”
State v. Vance, 888 S.W.2d 776 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “(T.C.A. § 39-14-405). We agree. Aggravated burglary is committed when a person without the effective consent of the property owner enters a habitation with intent to commit a felony or theft.”
Joan Weser v. Kimberly Goodson, 965 F.3d 507 (6th Cir. 2020). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-405 (a). The statute also provides that it is “a defense to prosecution under this section” that: (1) A person entered or remained on property that the person reasonably believed to be property for which the owner’s consent to enter had been granted; (2)…”
State v. Townes, 56 S.W.3d 30 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “§ 39-14-405(a) (1997). For purposes of criminal trespass, the term “enter means intrusion of the entire body.”
State v. Langford, 994 S.W.2d 126 (Tenn. 1999). · cites it 2× “One commits aggravated burglary by entering a habitation without the owner’s effective consent and with the intent to commit a felony, in this case, aggravated assault. 1 Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 39-14-402, -403 (1991).”
State v. Mikie Ash, 12 S.W.3d 800 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-14-405. The trial court acknowledged that the defendant was on Authority property knowing that he did not have the Authority’s effective consent in terms of the defendant knowing the officer’s apparent authority in serving the notice letter.”
State v. Lyons, 802 S.W.2d 590 (Tenn. 1990). · cites it 2× “Costs are taxed against the Appellee. FONES, COOPER and O’BRIEN, JJ.”
State of Tennessee v. Marcus Pope, 427 S.W.3d 363 (Tenn. 2013). “§ 39-14-405(a), (f) (2010) (emphasis added).”
State v. Terry, 118 S.W.3d 355 (Tenn. 2003). “§§ 39-14-405 to 39-14-406 (1997). Aggravated criminal trespass contains two elements in addition to those elements of aggravated burglary: first, that a defendant knows he or she does not have the owner’s effective consent to enter or remain on the owner’s property; second, that…”
Thompson v. Ashe, 250 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “2 The statute further provides that such knowledge will be inferred if notice against entering is given by “personal communication to the person by the owner or by someone with apparent authority to act for the owner.”
State v. Boyce, 920 S.W.2d 224 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “(Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-14-402(a)(l) (1991). 3 Criminal Trespass is committed when a person, knowing he does not have the owner’s effective consent to do so, enters or remains on property, or a portion thereof.”
State v. Hollingsworth, 944 S.W.2d 625 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). · cites it 6× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-14-405(a). The term “enter,” as used in the statute, is defined as an “intrusion of the entire body.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-405(a) — 14 cases
State of Tennessee v. Marcus Pope, 427 S.W.3d 363 (Tenn. 2013). “§ 39-14-405(a), (f) (2010) (emphasis added).”
State v. Boyce, 920 S.W.2d 224 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “(Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-14-402(a)(l) (1991). 3 Criminal Trespass is committed when a person, knowing he does not have the owner’s effective consent to do so, enters or remains on property, or a portion thereof.”
State v. Townes, 56 S.W.3d 30 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). “§ 39-14-405(a) (1997). For purposes of criminal trespass, the term “enter means intrusion of the entire body.”
State v. Dobbins, 265 S.W.3d 419 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).
State v. Hollingsworth, 944 S.W.2d 625 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-14-405(a). The term “enter,” as used in the statute, is defined as an “intrusion of the entire body.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-405(a)(1) — 3 cases
State of Tennessee v. Johnny J. Postles (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006).
State v. Ronald Byrd (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-405(a)(l) — 1 case
State v. Hollingsworth, 944 S.W.2d 625 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-14-405(a). The term “enter,” as used in the statute, is defined as an “intrusion of the entire body.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-405(b) — 5 cases
State v. Mikie Ash, 12 S.W.3d 800 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-14-405. The trial court acknowledged that the defendant was on Authority property knowing that he did not have the Authority’s effective consent in terms of the defendant knowing the officer’s apparent authority in serving the notice letter.”
State v. Dobbins, 265 S.W.3d 419 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).
Weser v. Goodson (E.D. Tenn. 2020).
State v. Ronald Byrd (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-405(b)(1) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Sergei A. Novikov (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-405(c) — 3 cases
State v. Townes, 56 S.W.3d 30 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). “§ 39-14-405(a) (1997). For purposes of criminal trespass, the term “enter means intrusion of the entire body.”
State v. Hollingsworth, 944 S.W.2d 625 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-14-405(a). The term “enter,” as used in the statute, is defined as an “intrusion of the entire body.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-405(d) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Sergei A. Novikov (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-405(g) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Malik Hardin (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).
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.