Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-38-301 (2026)
Intent of general assembly
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) It is the intent of the general assembly by enactment of this part to implement and make fully operational the provisions of Constitution of Tennessee, Article I, § 35, relative to the rights of victims of crime. The proposed amendment that became the Constitution of Tennessee, Article I, § 35 was ratified by the voters of Tennessee at the November 3, 1998, general election, but there was some question as to whether it required the general assembly to define certain terms before the amendment could be implemented and in full force and effect.
- (b) It is the further intent of the general assembly that this part only govern the implementation of the Constitution of Tennessee, Article I, § 35. If any other provision of law confers additional, enhanced or more expansive rights upon victims of crime than are set out in this part or the Constitution of Tennessee, Article I, § 35, a victim shall also be entitled to the additional, enhanced or expansive statutory rights.
- (c) If any other provision of law contains a broader definition of "crime," "victim" or "critical stages of the criminal justice process" for any purpose other than implementation of the Constitution of Tennessee, Article I, § 35, the broader definition shall control for such purpose.
Acts 2000, ch. 577, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: State v. Blackhurst, 70 S.W.3d 88 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).
State v. Blackhurst, 70 S.W.3d 88 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). “See also Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-38-301.) *93 ANALYSIS The State contends that the trial court erred in granting probation to Defendant because the trial court misapplied the applicable law governing the testimony of a victim at Defendant’s sentencing hearing.”
State v. Ring, 56 S.W.3d 577 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). “In the November 3, 1998 general election, the voters of Tennessee ratified an amendment to the Tennessee Constitution relative to the rights of victims of crimes, which became Article I, Section 35.”
William W. York v. Tennessee Bd. Of Parole, 502 S.W.3d 783 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). “4 Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-38-301(a) (2014). Pertinent to this appeal, the General Assembly defined “critical stages of the criminal justice process” to include “[a]ny parole hearing at which the defendant’s release on parole will be discussed or determined” and “victim” to mean a…”
James M. Morris v. Tennessee Bd. of Prob. & Parole (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-38-301 (a) (2014). Pertinent to this appeal, the General Assembly defined “critical stages of the criminal justice process” to include “[a]ny parole hearing at which the defendant’s release on parole will be discussed or determined” and “victim” to mean a…”
Dean Smith v. Tennessee Bd. of Paroles (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019). “”); Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-38-301 (a) (implementing an amendment to the Tennessee Constitution in which victims were granted a variety of rights concerning his or her participation in the criminal justice process, including parole hearings).”
State of Tennessee v. Troy Lynn Fox (Tenn. Crim. App. 2014). “I, section 35; Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-38-301 , -302 (Victim’s Bill of Rights) (definition of victim includes parent of deceased victim).”
State of Tennessee v. Letalvis Cobbins In Re: Gary Christian (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015). “§§ 40-38-101 to 118; T.C.A. § 40-38-301 to 303. We have found no authority for the proposition that Petitioners’ right to access judicial documents is broader than that of the media and the public at large.”
State of Tennessee Ex Rel. Victor S. Johnson, III v. Mark Gwyn (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “§§ 40-38-101 to 118; T.C.A. § 40-38-301 to 303. We have found no authority for the proposition that Petitioners’ right to access judicial documents is broader than that of the media and the public at large.”
Clata Renee Brewer v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty. (2023). “§§ 40-38-101-119 ; and Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-38-301 (a)) do not confer a right to intervene and that “Intervenors seek to rewrite the TPRA to include a victims’ rights exception that does not exist.”
Clata Renee Brewer v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2026). “I, § 35 nor Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-38-301, et seq. provides any exception to disclosure under the TPRA for the materials at issue in this particular case.”
State v. Robert D. Ring (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). “Analysis We first address the State’s assertion that the trial court misapplied the applicable law governing testimony of the victim at the sentencing hearing. In the November 3, 1998 general election, the voters of Tennessee ratified an amendment to the Tennessee Constitution…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-38-301(a) — 1 case
William W. York v. Tennessee Bd. Of Parole, 502 S.W.3d 783 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). “4 Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-38-301(a) (2014). Pertinent to this appeal, the General Assembly defined “critical stages of the criminal justice process” to include “[a]ny parole hearing at which the defendant’s release on parole will be discussed or determined” and “victim” to mean a…”
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.