Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-201 (2026)
Issue of guilt and sentence to be tried separately - Instructing jury on possible sentences
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) In all contested criminal cases, the issue of guilt or innocence is submitted to the trier of fact for a verdict on that issue alone. If the defendant is found or pleads guilty, sentence shall be set in accordance with this chapter in a separate sentencing hearing. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to deprive a defendant of a right to a jury trial as to the defendant's guilt or innocence pursuant to Rule 23 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure and appropriate provisions of the United States or Tennessee constitutions.
- (b) In all contested criminal cases, except for capital crimes that are governed by the procedures contained in §§ 39-13-204 and 39-13-205, and as necessary to comply with the Tennessee Constitution, article VI, § 14 and § 40-35-301, the judge shall not instruct the jury, nor shall the attorneys be permitted to comment at any time to the jury, on possible penalties for the offense charged nor all lesser included offenses.
- (c) "Plea of guilty" or "guilty plea," as used in this chapter, includes the plea of nolo contendere as provided in Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 6; 1994, ch. 847, §§ 1, 2; 1998, ch. 1041, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 129
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: State v. Nichols, 24 S.W.3d 297 (Tenn. 2000).
State v. Nichols, 24 S.W.3d 297 (Tenn. 2000). “Jury Instruction Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-201 (b) We first address Nichols’s contention that his due process rights were violated when the trial judge instructed the jury to weigh and consider the meaning of a sentence of imprisonment pursuant to a previous version of…”
State v. King, 973 S.W.2d 586 (Tenn. 1998). “II The appellant contends that Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-201 (b)(2) violates two constitutional principles: separation of powers and due process.”
State of Tennessee v. Travis Kinte Echols, 382 S.W.3d 266 (Tenn. 2012). “The trial court allowed the State to redact these portions of the recording pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-201(b) (2010), which provides that in non-capital criminal cases, “the judge shall not instruct the jury, nor shall the attorneys be permitted to…”
Vaughn v. State, 202 S.W.3d 106 (Tenn. 2006). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-201 (b)(2) (A)(i) .”
State v. Cook, 816 S.W.2d 322 (Tenn. 1991). “Section 40-35-201(b) asking the Court to instruct the jury on the possible punishment for all offenses charged in the indictments and all lesser included offenses.”
State v. Green, 995 S.W.2d 591 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). “1041, an amendment to § 40-35-201, which deletes subsection (b) in its entirety and substitutes the following: In all contested criminal cases, except for capital crimes which are governed by the procedures contained in TCÁ §§ 39-13-204 and 39-13-205, and as necessary to comply…”
Dean v. State, 59 S.W.3d 663 (Tenn. 2001). “The trial court denied post-conviction relief on this ground after concluding that the erroneous range of punishment instruction was a statutory error under Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-201(b) and not a constitutional error that is cognizable in post-conviction proceedings.”
State v. Maddox, 957 S.W.2d 547 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “This jury charge was given pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-201(b), which allows the jury in non-capital cases to consider the possible penalties for the offense charged.”
State v. Harts, 7 S.W.3d 78 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). “First, the state argues that the defendant waived the issue because he requested an instruction on the range of punishment pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-35-201. See T.R.A.P. 36(a). However, the record shows that although the defendant did request an instruction on the range of…”
State v. Campbell, 904 S.W.2d 608 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-201(b). 1 The trial court summarily granted this motion.”
State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229 (Tenn. 1986). “See T.C.A. §§ 40-35-201 through 40-35-214. These procedural requirements underwrite the purposes of the Act to “[ajssure fair and consistent treatment of all defendants by .”
State v. Meyer, 994 S.W.2d 129 (Tenn. 1999). “This provision was recently repealed by the General Assembly in 1998, so that for all non-capital criminal trials subsequent to May 19, 1998, the "judge shall not instruct the jury, nor shall the attorneys be permitted to comment at any time to the jury, on possible penalties…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-201(b) — 60 cases
State v. Nichols, 24 S.W.3d 297 (Tenn. 2000). “Jury Instruction Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-201 (b) We first address Nichols’s contention that his due process rights were violated when the trial judge instructed the jury to weigh and consider the meaning of a sentence of imprisonment pursuant to a previous version of…”
State of Tennessee v. Travis Kinte Echols, 382 S.W.3d 266 (Tenn. 2012). “The trial court allowed the State to redact these portions of the recording pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-201(b) (2010), which provides that in non-capital criminal cases, “the judge shall not instruct the jury, nor shall the attorneys be permitted to…”
State v. Cook, 816 S.W.2d 322 (Tenn. 1991). “Section 40-35-201(b) asking the Court to instruct the jury on the possible punishment for all offenses charged in the indictments and all lesser included offenses.”
Dean v. State, 59 S.W.3d 663 (Tenn. 2001). “The trial court denied post-conviction relief on this ground after concluding that the erroneous range of punishment instruction was a statutory error under Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-201(b) and not a constitutional error that is cognizable in post-conviction proceedings.”
Vaughn v. State, 202 S.W.3d 106 (Tenn. 2006). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-201 (b)(2) (A)(i) .”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-201(b)(1) — 10 cases
State v. King, 973 S.W.2d 586 (Tenn. 1998). “II The appellant contends that Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-201 (b)(2) violates two constitutional principles: separation of powers and due process.”
State v. Meyer, 994 S.W.2d 129 (Tenn. 1999). “This provision was recently repealed by the General Assembly in 1998, so that for all non-capital criminal trials subsequent to May 19, 1998, the "judge shall not instruct the jury, nor shall the attorneys be permitted to comment at any time to the jury, on possible penalties…”
State v. Rosa (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
Frank Bright, Jr. v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004).
State v. Harry David Johnson (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-201(b)(2) — 7 cases
State v. King, 973 S.W.2d 586 (Tenn. 1998). “II The appellant contends that Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-201 (b)(2) violates two constitutional principles: separation of powers and due process.”
State v. Green, 995 S.W.2d 591 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). “1041, an amendment to § 40-35-201, which deletes subsection (b) in its entirety and substitutes the following: In all contested criminal cases, except for capital crimes which are governed by the procedures contained in TCÁ §§ 39-13-204 and 39-13-205, and as necessary to comply…”
State v. Nichols, 24 S.W.3d 297 (Tenn. 2000). “Jury Instruction Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-201 (b) We first address Nichols’s contention that his due process rights were violated when the trial judge instructed the jury to weigh and consider the meaning of a sentence of imprisonment pursuant to a previous version of…”
State v. James Nichols (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998).
State v. Raymond Hale (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-201(b)(2)(A) — 3 cases
State v. Maddox, 957 S.W.2d 547 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “This jury charge was given pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-201(b), which allows the jury in non-capital cases to consider the possible penalties for the offense charged.”
State v. Green, 995 S.W.2d 591 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). “1041, an amendment to § 40-35-201, which deletes subsection (b) in its entirety and substitutes the following: In all contested criminal cases, except for capital crimes which are governed by the procedures contained in TCÁ §§ 39-13-204 and 39-13-205, and as necessary to comply…”
State v. James Edward Gates (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-201(b)(2)(A)(I) — 1 case
State v. Reco Douglas (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-201(b)(2)(A)(i) — 5 cases
State v. Green, 995 S.W.2d 591 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). “1041, an amendment to § 40-35-201, which deletes subsection (b) in its entirety and substitutes the following: In all contested criminal cases, except for capital crimes which are governed by the procedures contained in TCÁ §§ 39-13-204 and 39-13-205, and as necessary to comply…”
Craig Stephen Bourne v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004).
State v. Bankston (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
State v. Dwjuan L. Bradford (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
Johnny Wayne Garner & Richard Darrell Miller v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-201(b)(2)(A)(ii) — 1 case
Roger M. Gardner v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-201(b)(2)(B) — 2 cases
State v. Green, 995 S.W.2d 591 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). “1041, an amendment to § 40-35-201, which deletes subsection (b) in its entirety and substitutes the following: In all contested criminal cases, except for capital crimes which are governed by the procedures contained in TCÁ §§ 39-13-204 and 39-13-205, and as necessary to comply…”
Roger M. Gardner v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-201(b)(l) — 2 cases
State v. Rosa, 996 S.W.2d 833 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).
State v. Green, 995 S.W.2d 591 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). “1041, an amendment to § 40-35-201, which deletes subsection (b) in its entirety and substitutes the following: In all contested criminal cases, except for capital crimes which are governed by the procedures contained in TCÁ §§ 39-13-204 and 39-13-205, and as necessary to comply…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-201(c)(1) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Serena Carter (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-201(d) — 9 cases
State of Tennessee v. Ernest Banks (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).
State of Tennessee v. James A. Stokes (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006).
State of Tennessee v. Jason Curtis Johnson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006).
State of Tennessee v. Ronnie Woodall (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005).
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Lynn Chatman (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-201(e) — 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Derrick Gates (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
State of Tennessee v. James A. Stokes (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006).
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.