Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-18-112 (2026)
Uncertainty as to intent or means of offense
✓ current as of May 2026
Where the intent with which, the mode in, or the means by which, an act is done are essential to the commission of the offense, and the offense may be committed with different intents, in different modes, or by different means, if the jury is satisfied that the act was committed with one (1) of the intents, in one (1) of the modes, or by either of the means charged, the jury shall convict, although uncertain as to which of the intents charged existed, or which mode, or by which of the means charged, the act was committed.
Code 1858, §5123; Shan., § 7086; Code 1932, § 11631; T.C.A. (orig. ed), § 40-2522.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case: State v. Hall, 958 S.W.2d 679 (Tenn. 1997).
State v. Hall, 958 S.W.2d 679 (Tenn. 1997). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-18-112 (1990 Repl.).”
State v. Cureton, 38 S.W.3d 64 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-18-112 (1997) (jury shall convict if it is satisfied that the crime was committed through “either of the means charged,” when it is capable of being committed by different means); Schad v.”
State of Tennessee v. Brandon D. Middlebrook (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021). “” T.C.A. § 40-18-112. -36- App. 1995). First, multiplicity “can lead to multiple convictions and punishment for only one offense.”
State of Tennessee v. Riley Christopher Wilburn (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021). “With respect to the issue of juror unanimity as to the specific mode by which the Defendant committed the offense, we conclude that because the Defendant was charged with a single DUI offense, he was not entitled to juror unanimity as to the particular mode or modes of the…”
Gregory Just. v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013). “] T.C.A. § 40-18-112 (2012). Because the record shows the Petitioner participated in a single drug transaction and possessed one bag of cocaine, the State was not required to elect the particular intent with which he possessed the drugs.”
Arthur Lee Taylor v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-18-112 (2003). See also State v.”
State of Tennessee v. Lakeisha Margaret Watkins (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011). “T.C.A. § 40-18-112 (2006). In State v. Cureton, 38 S.”
State of Tennessee v. Lee Harold Cromwell (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018). “1 Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-18-112 provides: “Where the intent with which, the mode in, or the means by which, an act is done are essential to the commission of the offense, and the offense may be committed with different intents, in different modes, or by different…”
Christopher Lee Shaw v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019). “(citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-18-112 (2012)). In this case, the indictment did not deny Petitioner his right to notice of the crime charged or jury unanimity.”
Antonio M. Crockett v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020). “May 22, 1998) (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-18-112 (stating that a jury may convict even when different intents, modes, or means of committing an offense are charged, so long as the jury is satisfied that the act was committed with one of the charged intents, modes, or means)).”
State of Tennessee v. James Rodney Smith (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022). “T.C.A. § 40-18-112. “The right of jury unanimity has never required more than a general verdict in cases where only one offense is at issue based on a single criminal occurrence.”
State of Tennessee v. Jay James Macken (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024). “T.C.A. § 40-18-112. The statutory definition of serious bodily injury simply provides alternative means by which the result of a defendant’s actions fulfills the serious bodily injury element of aggravated assault.”
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.