Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-17-102 (2026)

Remote testimony by forensic analyst

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) As used in this section:
- (1) "Forensic analyst" means an expert in the scientific detection of crime; and
- (2) "Remote testimony" means any method by which a forensic analyst testifies from a location other than the location where the hearing or trial is being conducted and outside the physical presence of a party or parties.

(b) The court may permit remote testimony by a forensic analyst in any criminal proceeding only if:
- (1) The state has provided a copy of any report produced by the forensic analyst that the state is seeking to admit into evidence through remote testimony to the defendant at least fifteen (15) days prior to the proceeding;
- (2) The defendant agrees to permit remote testimony;
- (3) The court finds that the defendant's agreement was knowing and voluntary; and
- (4) The court and the state agree to permit remote testimony.

(c) Any remote testimony conducted under this section must allow all parties to observe the demeanor of the analyst as the analyst testifies in a similar manner as if the analyst were testifying in the location where the hearing or trial is being conducted. The court shall ensure that the defendant has a full and fair opportunity for examination and cross-examination of the analyst.

Added by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 501,s 1, eff. 7/1/2021.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1999–2000 · leading case: Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 2000). · cites it 8× “273, § 32 (repealing Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-17-102), our Tennessee Rules of Evidence clearly indicate that a criminal defendant is competent to testify.”

Momon v. State (Tenn. 1999). · cites it 2× “§ 40-14-101 (1998) (“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused is entitled to a speed y trial, and to be h eard in pe rson an d by coun sel.”). 13 Although we do not address the question of ineffective assistance of counsel, it should be em pha sized that tr ial tac tics a nd st…”

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.