Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-17-106 (2026)
Endorsement of names of witnesses
✓ current as of May 2026
It is the duty of the district attorney general to endorse on each indictment or presentment, at the term at which the indictment or presentment is found, the names of the witnesses as the district attorney general intends shall be summoned in the cause, and sign each indictment or presentment name thereto.
Code 1858, § 5596; Shan., § 7637; Code 1932, § 12266; modified; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 40-2047.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 67
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: State v. Harris, 839 S.W.2d 54 (Tenn. 1992).
State v. Harris, 839 S.W.2d 54 (Tenn. 1992). “ADMISSIBILITY OF LAY AND EXPERT TESTIMONY The Defendant avers that the testimony of Antonia Jones and Johnnie Shultz should have been excluded because their names were not given to the Defendant as part of discovery, nor were they listed on the indictment as required under…”
State v. Hutchison, 898 S.W.2d 161 (Tenn. 1994). “Wilson had recently surrendered himself to police after having escaped from jail, and had therefore been previously unavailable. Before allowing his testimony, the court allowed defense counsel to interview Wilson and the State provided counsel with Wilson's criminal record.”
State v. Kendricks, 947 S.W.2d 875 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). “The prosecuting attorneys contended at trial that they had not become aware of the substance of this witness’ testimony until during the trial, and that they notified defense counsel as soon as they determined that she should be called as a witness.”
State v. Morris, 750 S.W.2d 746 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “Section 40-17-106, TenmCode Ann., providing for endorsement of witnesses on an indictment, is intended to prevent surprise to a defendant, and to insure that defendant will not be handicapped in the preparation of his case.”
State v. Allen, 976 S.W.2d 661 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-17-106 directs the State to list “the names of such witnesses as [it] intends shall be summoned in the cause” on the charging indictment.”
State v. Baker, 751 S.W.2d 154 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “Some of the defendants complain jointly of the admission of testimony of witnesses for the State who were not listed on the indictment and whose names were not disclosed to them prior to the trial in violation of T.C.A. § 40-17-106. The courts have ruled this code section is…”
State v. Singleton, 853 S.W.2d 490 (Tenn. 1993). “T.C.A. § 40-17-106. Although these avenues of limited discovery may not prove helpful in every case, they are among the only means of discovery currently provided in criminal cases.”
State v. Street, 768 S.W.2d 703 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-17-106 creates the duty for the district attorney general to endorse on each indictment or presentment the names of the witnesses he intends to summon for the state.”
State v. Underwood, 669 S.W.2d 700 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984). “During a hearing before the trial judge defense counsel insisted he had not had adequate time to investigate these witnesses to prepare to impeach their credibility or to refute their evidence.”
State v. Kilpatrick, 52 S.W.3d 81 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). “In a related issue, the defendant complains that the trial court erred by allowing Officers Chip Beck and Craig Story, who testified to aspects of the chain of custody for the marijuana, to appear as witnesses for the state.”
State v. Wilson, 164 S.W.3d 355 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003). “The defendant argues that the trial court should have either continued the trial or granted a mistrial so as to permit the defense an opportunity to properly investigate.”
State v. Elliott, 703 S.W.2d 171 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985). “At least ninety (90) days prior to trial a motion was filed by the defense requesting disclosure of the names of any witnesses to be used by the State who had not been previously listed on the indictment in accordance with T.C.A. § 40-17-106. On the trial date the Assistant…”
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.