Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-102
Part definitions
As used in this part:
- (1) "Abuser" or "animal abuser" means a person who has been convicted in this state of committing an animal abuse offense;
- (2) "Animal" means a companion animal, and a "non-livestock animal", as defined in § 39-14-201. "Animal" does not mean "livestock", as defined in § 39-14-201, or "wildlife", as defined in § 70-1-101;
- (3) "Animal abuse offense" means:
- (A) Aggravated cruelty to animals, under § 39-14-212;
- (B) Animal fighting, under § 39-14-203, where the defendant's act constitutes a felony; and
- (C) A criminal offense against animals, under § 39-14-214;
- (4) "Companion animal" means any dog, defined as any live dog of the species Canis familiaris, or cat, defined as any live cat of the species Felis catus;
- (5) "Conviction" means a judgment entered by a Tennessee court upon a plea of guilty, a plea of nolo contendere, or a finding of guilt by a jury or the court, notwithstanding any pending appeal or habeas corpus proceeding arising from the judgment. Conviction includes a disposition of pretrial diversion under § 40-15-105, a disposition of judicial diversion under § 40-35-313, or the equivalent dispositions from other jurisdictions;
- (6) "Director" means the director of the TBI; and
- (7) "TBI" means the Tennessee bureau of investigation.
Acts 2015, ch. 413, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1997–2012 · leading case: Moody v. State
Moody v. State (2005)
“See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-39-102 (2003). The definition of “sexual offense” is currently codified under § 40-39-202(16) (2004 Supp.”
State v. Turco (2003)
“The expungement provision, however, does not apply if the offense for which deferral and probation was granted was a “sexual offense" as defined in section 40-39-102(5). Assuming arguendo that the trial court was authorized to place Truco on judicial diversion, it appears that…”
Helman v. State (2001)
“(Michie 1999); Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-39-102 et seq. (1997); Utah Code Ann.”
State v. Blanchard (2002)
“nty-first birthday shall, upon petition by such person to the court having jurisdiction over the original conviction, be removed and destroyed if such person: (A) Petitions for destruction within one (1) year of April 25, 2000; (B) Has not been convicted of an offense except for…”
Cutshall v. Sundquist (1997)
“…exploitation of a minor, incest, and attempt, solicitation or conspiracy to commit any of the above listed offenses. Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-39-102(3)”
State of Tennessee v. Adrian Leroy Scott (2012)
“§40-39-102. In our view, any testimony concerning the defendant’s supervision if convicted or any testimony concerning a witness’s opinion regarding such supervision was irrelevant and inadmissible.”
United States v. Mynatt (2004)
“Dill, 2000 WL 1456923 at * 2 (quoting Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-102 (2)). The Dill court noted that this definition formed the crux of the problem before it: "Clearly reading the first paragraph of the statute conviction is plainly a prerequisite to sexual offender status.”
State of Tennessee v. William Charles Howse (2010)
“T.C.A. §§ 40-39-102, -103 (repealed). At the bench trial, Avis Stone testified that she was the custodian of the sexual offender registry records for the TBI.”
State of Tennessee v. James Howard Theus, III (2006)
“See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-102 (3)(A)(xv) and (xvii)(1997).”
State of Tennessee v. Larry Wade Gibson (2004)
“Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-102 (4)(B)(iii) (repealed 2004).”
State of Tennessee v. Michael Allen Conrad (2003)
“Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-102 (2)-(3)(v), (xvi).”
State v. Morrell (1997)
“As of January 1, 1995 this statute is one of those enumerated in T.C.A. 40-39-102, “Definitions” (Sex Offender Registration and Monitoring Act) as constituting a sex offense requiring registration under the act.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-102(2) — 1 case
United States v. Mynatt (2004)
“Dill, 2000 WL 1456923 at * 2 (quoting Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-102 (2)). The Dill court noted that this definition formed the crux of the problem before it: "Clearly reading the first paragraph of the statute conviction is plainly a prerequisite to sexual offender status.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-102(3) — 3 cases
Moody v. State (2005)
“See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-39-102 (2003). The definition of “sexual offense” is currently codified under § 40-39-202(16) (2004 Supp.”
State v. Blanchard (2002)
“nty-first birthday shall, upon petition by such person to the court having jurisdiction over the original conviction, be removed and destroyed if such person: (A) Petitions for destruction within one (1) year of April 25, 2000; (B) Has not been convicted of an offense except for…”
Cutshall v. Sundquist (1997)
“…exploitation of a minor, incest, and attempt, solicitation or conspiracy to commit any of the above listed offenses. Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-39-102(3)”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-102(5) — 1 case
State v. Turco (2003)
“The expungement provision, however, does not apply if the offense for which deferral and probation was granted was a “sexual offense" as defined in section 40-39-102(5). Assuming arguendo that the trial court was authorized to place Truco on judicial diversion, it appears that…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-102(5)(A) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Adrian Leroy Scott (2012)
“§40-39-102. In our view, any testimony concerning the defendant’s supervision if convicted or any testimony concerning a witness’s opinion regarding such supervision was irrelevant and inadmissible.”
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.