Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-17-105 (2026)
Meeting witnesses face to face - Compulsory process
✓ current as of May 2026
As provided by the Constitution of Tennessee, the accused, in all criminal prosecutions, has a right to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in the accused's favor.
Code 1858, § 5377; Shan., § 7355; Code 1932, § 11959; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 40-2405.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2022 · leading case: State v. Hester, 324 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2010).
State v. Hester, 324 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2010). “’ ”); see also T.C.A. § 40-17-105 (“As provided by the Constitution of Tennessee, the accused, in all criminal prosecutions, has a right to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in the accused’s favor.”
State v. Johnson, 673 S.W.2d 877 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984). “However, both the Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, and T.C.A. § 40-17-105, provide for compulsory service of process for obtaining witnesses by a defendant.”
State of Tennessee v. Alexander Johnson & Michael F. Williams, 538 S.W.3d 32 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017). “In addition to the constitutional right to compulsory process, our Code contains a statutory right to compulsory process, see T.C.A. § 40-17-105 (“As provided by the Constitution of Tennessee, the accused, in all criminal prosecutions, has a right to meet the witnesses face to…”
Leroy Sexton v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-17-105 . Consistent with this right, our Code generally directs the clerks of courts in which criminal cases are pending -4- to issue subpoenas “at any time, to any part of the state, for such witnesses as either the district attorney general or the…”
Asata D. Lowe v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022). “; and that his judgments were imposed in “direct contravention” of Code section 40-17-105. In this petition, the Petitioner asserted that because he did “not have the funds to pay for the evidence/transcripts that [we]re needed to prove the claims stated herein,” he had attached…”
State of Tennessee v. Connie Easterly (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-17-105 (1997) states: As provided by the Constitution of Tennessee, the accused, in all criminal prosecutions, has a right .”
State of Tennessee v. Montgomery Koons (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “I, § 9; T.C.A. § 40-17-105; see State v. Brown, 29 S.”
State of Tennessee v. Frank Lee Tate (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007). “’”); see also T.C.A. § 40-17-105 (“As provided by the Constitution of Tennessee, the accused, in all criminal prosecution has a right to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in the accused’s favor.”
State of Tennessee v. Paul Graham Manning (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003). “” We acknowledge, of course, that defendants to criminal prosecution have the right under both our federal and state constitutions to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in their favor.”
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Dee Huskey (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-17-105 (providing that all criminal defendants have the right to compulsory process in order to acquire favorable witnesses).”
State of Tennessee v. Stephen Greene (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). “The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees a defendant the right to confront witnesses against him at trial.”
State of Tennessee v. Jennifer Hannah (Tenn. Crim. App. 2014). “I, § 9; T.C.A. § 40-17-105; see State v. Brown, 29 S.”
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.