Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-15-104 (2026)
Pretrial investigation
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) Upon stipulation of the parties, the trial court by order may direct any county, municipal or authorized private agency, available for this purpose, or the department of correction if no local agency is available, to conduct an investigation of the defendant's background. In counties having a metropolitan form of government and in counties having a population of over six hundred thousand (600,000), according to the 1970 federal census or any subsequent federal census, the county, municipal or authorized private agency shall conduct any investigation of the defendant's background, but, this sentence shall be implemented within the existing level of funding to the department of correction. The order shall specify the purpose and scope of the procedure and the matters to be covered, and shall direct that the results of any investigation be embodied in a written report, copies of which shall be made available to the parties.
- (b) In counties where there is a pretrial release program in operation, the agency responsible for the operation of that program shall be the agency to conduct the background investigation ordered by the court, and the order shall so stipulate. In counties which have a local county probation officer paid for by local funds, the county probation officer shall be the agency responsible for conducting the background investigation as ordered by the trial court.
Acts 1975, ch. 352, § 3; 1979, ch. 396, §§ 1-3; T.C.A., § 40-2107; Acts 1998, ch. 1049, §§17, 18; 2012 , ch. 727, § 11.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1985–2012 · leading case: State v. Lovvorn, 691 S.W.2d 574 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985).
State v. Lovvorn, 691 S.W.2d 574 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985). “By a letter addressed to the District Attorney General’s office, the defendant’s attorney requested that an investigation of the defendant’s social history and background be conducted pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-15-104, and that defendant be placed on pretrial diversion.”
State v. Herron, 767 S.W.2d 151 (Tenn. 1989). “Of course this information may be supplemented by the pretrial investigation authorized by T.C.A. § 40-15-104, but the investigation does not lessen the obligation of an applicant to endeavor to show beforehand he is an appropriate subject for diversion.”
State v. Markham, 755 S.W.2d 850 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). “Upon Appellees’ applications for pretrial diversion, alleging the statutory qualifications and requesting pretrial investigation pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-15-104, an agreed order was entered continuing the case until the investigation had been completed.”
State v. Winsett, 882 S.W.2d 806 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). “See T.C.A. § 40-15-104. The prosecutor must consider all the evidence which tends to show that the applicant is amenable to correction and is not likely to commit additional crimes.”
State v. Baxter, 868 S.W.2d 679 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). “This information may be supplemented by the pretrial investigation authorized by T.CA. § 40-15-104. The obligation is on the applicant to show the prosecutor beforehand that he or she is an appropriate- subject for diversion.”
State of Tennessee v. Darnell Horton (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). “The burden is on the defendant to provide the prosecution with sufficient information to allow a reasoned decision; this information may be supplemented by the pretrial investigation authorized by Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-15-104. State v. Baxter, 868 S.”
State of Tennessee v. Carolyn L. Curry (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008). “Instead, statutory eligibility sets the stage for the district attorney general to review the information provided by the defendant on the diversion application or gathered through a pretrial investigation pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-15-104, and to determine if the defendant is…”
State of Tennessee v. Jerry W. Yancy (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003). “This information may be supplemented by the pretrial investigation, as authorized by Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-15-104 , but the investigation does not lessen the defendant’s obligation “to show beforehand he is an appropriate subject for diversion.”
State of Tennessee v. William Lee Clifton (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). “3d at 179 ; an investigation report authorized by Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-15-104 may be used to supplement the information provided by the defendant.”
State v. Phillips (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). “Instead, statutory eligibility sets 9 the stage for the district attorney general to review the information provided by the defendant on the diversion application or gathered through a pretrial investigation pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-15-104 and to determine if the defendant is…”
State v. Phillips (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). “Instead, statutory eligibility sets 9 the stage for the district attorney general to review the information provided by the defendant on the diversion application or gathered through a pretrial investigation pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-15-104 and to determine if the defendant is…”
State v. Morrell (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “Of course this information may be supplemented by the pretrial investigation authorized by T.C.A. § 40-15-104, but the investigation does not lessen the obligation of an applicant to endeavor to show beforehand he is an appropriate subject for diversion.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-15-104(a) — 1 case
State v. Lovvorn, 691 S.W.2d 574 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985). “By a letter addressed to the District Attorney General’s office, the defendant’s attorney requested that an investigation of the defendant’s social history and background be conducted pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-15-104, and that defendant be placed on pretrial diversion.”
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.