Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1003 (2026)
Offense of sexual exploitation of a minor
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess material that includes a minor engaged in:
- (1) Sexual activity; or
- (2) Simulated sexual activity that is patently offensive.
- (b) A person possessing material that violates subsection (a) may be charged in a separate count for each individual image, picture, drawing, photograph, motion picture film, videocassette tape, or other pictorial representation. Where the number of materials possessed is greater than fifty (50), the person may be charged in a single count to enhance the class of offense under subsection (d).
- (c) In a prosecution under this section, the trier of fact may consider the title, text, visual representation, internet history, physical development of the person depicted, expert medical testimony, expert computer forensic testimony, and any other relevant evidence, in determining whether a person knowingly possessed the material, or in determining whether the material or image otherwise represents or depicts that a participant is a minor.
- (d) A violation of this section is a Class D felony; however, if the number of individual images, materials, or combination of images and materials, that are possessed is more than fifty (50), then the offense shall be a Class C felony. If the number of individual images, materials, or combination of images and materials, exceeds one hundred (100), the offense shall be a Class B felony.
- (e) In a prosecution under this section, the state is not required to prove the actual identity or age of the minor.
- (f) It shall not be a defense to a violation of this section that a minor victim of the offense consented to the conduct that constituted the offense.
Amended by 2013 Tenn. Acts, ch. 350,s 2, eff. 7/1/2013.
Acts 1990, ch. 1092, § 7; 2005, ch. 496, § 2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 84
cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: State v. Pickett, 211 S.W.3d 696 (Tenn. 2007).
State v. Pickett, 211 S.W.3d 696 (Tenn. 2007). “We granted the appeal in each of these cases to determine the constitutionality of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-1003 (2003), which prohibits the possession of child pornography.”
State of Tennessee v. Jared Scott Aguilar, 437 S.W.3d 889 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013). “128 was observed to be in possession of files that contained images of minors engaged in sexual activity, in violation of T.C.A. 39-17-1003, Sexual Exploitation of Minor.”
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Whited, 506 S.W.3d 416 (Tenn. 2016). “Analysis ' The issues presented in this appeal require interpretation of Tennessee statutes on the sexual exploitation of children, specifically the Tennessee Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1990, Tennessee Code Annotated sections 39-17-1001 to -1008…”
State of Tennessee v. Charles D. Sprunger, 458 S.W.3d 482 (Tenn. 2015). “*487 Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-17-1003 (2007). 9 . Since Section 39-17-103 refers to the abandonment of certain airtight containers, we presume for purposes of this appeal that the State intended this sentence in the Complaint to refer to Section 39-17-1003.”
In Re: Est. of Martha M. Tanner, 295 S.W.3d 610 (Tenn. 2009). “3d at 928 (“When the Legislature does not provide a specific definition for a statutory term, this Court may look to other sources, including Black’s Law Dictionary, for guidance.”
Terrance N. CARTER v. Rickey BELL, 279 S.W.3d 560 (Tenn. 2009). “2007) (interpreting Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1003 (a)). Recently, this Court specifically identified Black’s Law Dictionary as an authoritative informational source.”
State v. Berger, 134 P.3d 378 (Ariz. 2006). “); Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-17-1003 , 40-35-111, 40-35-303(a) (West, Westlaw through 2005 Sess.”
Davis-Kidd Booksellers, Inc. v. McWherter, 866 S.W.2d 520 (Tenn. 1993). “le of intoxicating liquors, unlawful sale of any regulated legend drug, narcotic or other controlled substance, unlawful gambling, any sale, exhibition or possession of any material determined to be obscene or pornographic with intent to exhibit, sell, deliver or distribute…”
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Ackerman, 397 S.W.3d 617 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). “The offense of "sexual exploitation of a minor” is codified at section 39-17-1003 and makes it unlawful "to knowingly possess material that includes a minor engaged in .”
State v. Talley, 307 S.W.3d 723 (Tenn. 2010). “See Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 39-17-1003 & -417 (2003).”
State v. Trusty, 326 S.W.3d 582 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-17-1003(b) (2003) (emphasis added).”
Commonwealth v. Davidson, 938 A.2d 198 (Pa. 2007). “Codified Laws § 22 -24A-3; Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-17-1003; Tex Penal Code § 43.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1003(a) — 14 cases
State v. Pickett, 211 S.W.3d 696 (Tenn. 2007). “We granted the appeal in each of these cases to determine the constitutionality of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-1003 (2003), which prohibits the possession of child pornography.”
In Re: Est. of Martha M. Tanner, 295 S.W.3d 610 (Tenn. 2009). “3d at 928 (“When the Legislature does not provide a specific definition for a statutory term, this Court may look to other sources, including Black’s Law Dictionary, for guidance.”
State of Tennessee v. Jared Scott Aguilar, 437 S.W.3d 889 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013). “128 was observed to be in possession of files that contained images of minors engaged in sexual activity, in violation of T.C.A. 39-17-1003, Sexual Exploitation of Minor.”
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Ackerman, 397 S.W.3d 617 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). “The offense of "sexual exploitation of a minor” is codified at section 39-17-1003 and makes it unlawful "to knowingly possess material that includes a minor engaged in .”
State of Tennessee v. Robin Lee Teague (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1003(a)(1) — 4 cases
State of Tennessee v. Jared Scott Aguilar, 437 S.W.3d 889 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013). “128 was observed to be in possession of files that contained images of minors engaged in sexual activity, in violation of T.C.A. 39-17-1003, Sexual Exploitation of Minor.”
State of Tennessee v. Tolbert Cates Kail (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Allen Gentry (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
Jared S. Aguilar v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1003(a)(l) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Jared Scott Aguilar, 437 S.W.3d 889 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013). “128 was observed to be in possession of files that contained images of minors engaged in sexual activity, in violation of T.C.A. 39-17-1003, Sexual Exploitation of Minor.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1003(b) — 6 cases
State v. Pickett, 211 S.W.3d 696 (Tenn. 2007). “We granted the appeal in each of these cases to determine the constitutionality of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-1003 (2003), which prohibits the possession of child pornography.”
State of Tennessee v. Jared Scott Aguilar, 437 S.W.3d 889 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013). “128 was observed to be in possession of files that contained images of minors engaged in sexual activity, in violation of T.C.A. 39-17-1003, Sexual Exploitation of Minor.”
State v. Trusty, 326 S.W.3d 582 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-17-1003(b) (2003) (emphasis added).”
State of Tennessee v. Walter Jude Dec (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
State of Tennessee v. Domnick Doria (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1003(c) — 3 cases
State of Tennessee v. Jared Scott Aguilar, 437 S.W.3d 889 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013). “128 was observed to be in possession of files that contained images of minors engaged in sexual activity, in violation of T.C.A. 39-17-1003, Sexual Exploitation of Minor.”
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Curtis Greenman (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022).
State of Tennessee v. Joshua Johnson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1003(d) — 3 cases
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Curtis Greenman (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022).
Forrest David Agostinho v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).
State of Tennessee v. David Wayne Phillips (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1003(e) — 3 cases
State of Tennessee v. Hugh Everret Burt (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).
State of Tennessee v. Joshua Johnson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Curtis Greenman (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022).
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.