Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113 (2026)
Mitigating factors
✓ current as of May 2026 Cite as: Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113 (2026)
If appropriate for the offense, mitigating factors may include, but are not limited to:
- (1) The defendant's criminal conduct neither caused nor threatened serious bodily injury;
- (2) The defendant acted under strong provocation;
- (3) Substantial grounds exist tending to excuse or justify the defendant's criminal conduct, though failing to establish a defense;
- (4) The defendant played a minor role in the commission of the offense;
- (5) Before detection, the defendant compensated or made a good faith attempt to compensate the victim of criminal conduct for the damage or injury the victim sustained;
- (6) The defendant, because of youth or old age, lacked substantial judgment in committing the offense;
- (7) The defendant was motivated by a desire to provide necessities for the defendant's family or the defendant's self;
- (8) The defendant was suffering from a mental or physical condition that significantly reduced the defendant's culpability for the offense; however, the voluntary use of intoxicants does not fall within the purview of this factor;
- (9) The defendant assisted the authorities in uncovering offenses committed by other persons or in detecting or apprehending other persons who had committed the offenses;
- (10) The defendant assisted the authorities in locating or recovering any property or person involved in the crime;
- (11) The defendant, although guilty of the crime, committed the offense under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely that a sustained intent to violate the law motivated the criminal conduct;
- (12) The defendant acted under duress or under the domination of another person, even though the duress or the domination of another person is not sufficient to constitute a defense to the crime, including a misdemeanor or non-violent felony committed while the defendant was a victim of human trafficking or a commercial sex act; and
- (13) Any other factor consistent with the purposes of this chapter.
Amended by 2022 Tenn. Acts, ch. 1115, s 17, eff. 7/1/2022.
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 6.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2,591
cases (273 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: State v. Ross
State v. Ross (2001)
“CONSIDERATION OF MITIGATING FACTOR IN SENTENCING Finally, the appellant asserts that the trial court improperly sentenced him to serve the maximum sentence in the range by refusing to consider the mitigating factor that "[t]he defendant's criminal conduct neither caused nor…”
State v. Carter (2008)
“§ 40-35-113, the trial court could reduce the enhanced sentence, see id.”
State v. Kelley (2000)
“The defendant contends that the trial court should have applied the following mitigating factors provided in Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113 : (3) Substantial grounds exist tending to excuse or justify the defendant’s criminal conduct, though failing to establish a defense; [and]…”
State v. Keel (1994)
“See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-114(16). 33 . State v.”
State v. Anderson (1997)
“The defendant also asserts that the trial court should have considered that his conduct neither caused nor threatened serious bodily injury, T.C.A. § 40-35-113(1), that he had an excellent employment record, T.”
State v. Dykes (1990)
“1989), refers to the mitigating factors enumerated in Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-113 (Supp.1989). The phrase “enhancement factors,” as used in this statute, refers to the enhancement factors enumerated in Tenn.”
State v. Martin (2004)
“The trial court may also consider the mitigating and enhancing factors set forth in T.C.A. §§ 40-35-113 and -114. T.C.A. § 40-35-210(b)(5); State v.”
State v. Inlow (2001)
“Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-113(11); and That the defendant acted under duress or under the domination of another person, even though the duress or domination of another person is not sufficient to constitute a defense to the crime.”
State of Tennessee v. Susan Renee Bise (2012)
“consider the following: (1) The evidence, if any, received at the trial and the sentencing hearing; (2) The presentence report; (3) The principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives; (4) The nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct involved; (5)…”
State v. Bingham (1995)
“Of the factors relied upon by the trial court as mitigation of the appellant's sentence, only one, her age, is an enumerated mitigating factor under Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-113 (1990 Repl.). However, Tenn.”
State v. Parker (1996)
“Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-113(4). 39 . Tenn.”
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan David Patterson (2018)
“]"); Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113 (9) ("The defendant assisted the authorities in uncovering offenses committed by other persons or in detecting or apprehending other persons who had committed the offenses[.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(1) — 273 cases
State v. Ross (2001)
“CONSIDERATION OF MITIGATING FACTOR IN SENTENCING Finally, the appellant asserts that the trial court improperly sentenced him to serve the maximum sentence in the range by refusing to consider the mitigating factor that "[t]he defendant's criminal conduct neither caused nor…”
State v. Butler (2003)
State v. Dykes (1990)
“1989), refers to the mitigating factors enumerated in Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-113 (Supp.1989). The phrase “enhancement factors,” as used in this statute, refers to the enhancement factors enumerated in Tenn.”
State v. Vanderford (1997)
State v. Hayes (1995)
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(10) — 30 cases
State v. Ward (2003)
State v. Madden (2002)
State v. Grigsby (1997)
State v. Grissom (1997)
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(11) — 65 cases
State v. Martin (2004)
“The trial court may also consider the mitigating and enhancing factors set forth in T.C.A. §§ 40-35-113 and -114. T.C.A. § 40-35-210(b)(5); State v.”
State v. Inlow (2001)
“Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-113(11); and That the defendant acted under duress or under the domination of another person, even though the duress or domination of another person is not sufficient to constitute a defense to the crime.”
State v. Parker (1996)
“Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-113(4). 39 . Tenn.”
State v. Raines (1994)
State v. Belser (1996)
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(12) — 11 cases
State v. Inlow (2001)
“Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-113(11); and That the defendant acted under duress or under the domination of another person, even though the duress or domination of another person is not sufficient to constitute a defense to the crime.”
State v. Eldridge (1994)
State v. Cowart (2010)
State v. Gerald Henry (1999)
State v. Jerry Taylor (1998)
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(13) — 271 cases
State v. Carter (2008)
“§ 40-35-113, the trial court could reduce the enhanced sentence, see id.”
State v. Kelley (2000)
“The defendant contends that the trial court should have applied the following mitigating factors provided in Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113 : (3) Substantial grounds exist tending to excuse or justify the defendant’s criminal conduct, though failing to establish a defense; [and]…”
State v. Keel (1994)
“See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-114(16). 33 . State v.”
State v. Anderson (1997)
“The defendant also asserts that the trial court should have considered that his conduct neither caused nor threatened serious bodily injury, T.C.A. § 40-35-113(1), that he had an excellent employment record, T.”
State v. Martin (2004)
“The trial court may also consider the mitigating and enhancing factors set forth in T.C.A. §§ 40-35-113 and -114. T.C.A. § 40-35-210(b)(5); State v.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(13)(1990) — 1 case
State v. Butler (1994)
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(13)(2019) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(16) — 2 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(2) — 66 cases
State v. Johnson (1995)
State v. Kelley (2000)
“The defendant contends that the trial court should have applied the following mitigating factors provided in Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113 : (3) Substantial grounds exist tending to excuse or justify the defendant’s criminal conduct, though failing to establish a defense; [and]…”
State v. Inlow (2001)
“Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-113(11); and That the defendant acted under duress or under the domination of another person, even though the duress or domination of another person is not sufficient to constitute a defense to the crime.”
State v. Baxter (1996)
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(2006) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(2009) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(3) — 40 cases
State v. Schiefelbein (2007)
State v. Keel (1994)
“See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-114(16). 33 . State v.”
State v. Ruane (1995)
State v. Grigsby (1997)
State v. Anderson (1997)
“The defendant also asserts that the trial court should have considered that his conduct neither caused nor threatened serious bodily injury, T.C.A. § 40-35-113(1), that he had an excellent employment record, T.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(4) — 17 cases
State v. Parker (1996)
“Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-113(4). 39 . Tenn.”
State v. Anderson (1997)
“The defendant also asserts that the trial court should have considered that his conduct neither caused nor threatened serious bodily injury, T.C.A. § 40-35-113(1), that he had an excellent employment record, T.”
State v. Turner (2000)
State v. Bowman (2009)
State v. Hodges (1998)
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(5) — 3 cases
State v. Goltz (2003)
State v. Patricia Morris (1998)
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(6) — 64 cases
State v. Adams (1993)
State v. Inlow (2001)
“Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-113(11); and That the defendant acted under duress or under the domination of another person, even though the duress or domination of another person is not sufficient to constitute a defense to the crime.”
State v. Bingham (1995)
“Of the factors relied upon by the trial court as mitigation of the appellant's sentence, only one, her age, is an enumerated mitigating factor under Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-113 (1990 Repl.). However, Tenn.”
State v. Turner (2000)
State v. Johnson (1995)
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(6)(1990) — 1 case
State v. Elder (1998)
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(7) — 14 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(8) — 63 cases
State v. Reid (2002)
State v. Black (1995)
State v. Alder (2001)
State v. Raines (1994)
State v. Madden (2002)
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(9) — 29 cases
State v. Keel (1994)
“See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-114(16). 33 . State v.”
State v. Robinson (2004)
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(a) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(a)(4) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(b)(1) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(b)(2) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-113(l) — 1 case
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.