Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-13-201 (2026)
Form generally
✓ current as of May 2026
An indictment must contain in the caption or body of the indictment, the name of the state, county and court; the term in and at which the indictment is preferred; and must conclude "against the peace and dignity of the state of Tennessee."
Code 1932, § 11623; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 40-1801.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1986–2005 · leading case: State v. Holloman, 835 S.W.2d 42 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992).
State v. Holloman, 835 S.W.2d 42 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992). “This required language is found in Article VI, Section 12 of the Tennessee Constitution and T.C.A. § 40-13-201. In the instant eight-count indictment, the phrase “against the peace and dignity of the State of Tennessee” was included at the end of counts four and eight only.”
Benson v. State, 153 S.W.3d 27 (Tenn. 2005). “The court found that the challenged charging instruments complied with Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40-13-201 and 40-13-202 and therefore were valid.”
State v. Booher, 978 S.W.2d 953 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “Moreover, the indictments satisfy the requirements set *958 forth in Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-13-201 et seq. (1990).”
State v. Sowder, 826 S.W.2d 924 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). “T.C.A. § 40-13-201, 202, 203. The appellant contends that the indictment in the language heretofore quoted states only legal conclusions and is, therefore, insufficient.”
State v. Mingledorff, 713 S.W.2d 88 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986). “T.C.A. § 40-13-201 sets out that an indictment must contain, in the caption or its body, the name of the state, county, and court, and term in at which it is preferred, and must *89 conclude “against the peace and dignity of the State of Tennessee”.”
State of Tennessee v. Wilbur Deck, Jr. (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004). “As to the form of the indictment, including the caption at the beginning of all indictments, Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-13-201 states, “An indictment must contain, in the caption or body thereof, the name of the state, county and court, and term in and at which it is…”
Jessie Hodges, Pro Se v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003). “With regard to Petitioner’s assertion that the indictment failed to “run in the name of the State,” the indictment was properly captioned pursuant to section 40-13-201, Tennessee Code Annotated.”
Jorge Acosta Rubio v. Tony Parker, Warden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005). “The Court has reviewed a copy of the indictment and found it to be in accordance with T.C.A. 40-13-201 and T.C.A. 40-13-202. The issues as to ambiguity pertaining to the Class X law and the failure to instruct the jury on essential mental elements of Homicide and/or Intent to…”
Torian Benson a.k.a. Marcus Terry a.k.a. Marcus Benson v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. 2004). “The court found that the challenged charging instruments complied with Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40-13-201 and 40-13-202 and therefore were valid.”
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.