Tennessee § 40-35-113 - Mitigating factors.

§ 40-35-113. Mitigating factors.

If appropriate for the offense, mitigating factors may include, but are not limited to: The defendant's criminal conduct neither caused nor threatened serious bodily injury; The defendant acted under strong provocation; Substantial grounds exist tending to excuse or justify the defendant's criminal conduct, though failing to establish a defense; The defendant played a minor role in the commission of the offense; 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; The defendant, because of youth or old age, lacked substantial judgment in committing the offense; The defendant was motivated by a desire to provide necessities for the defendant's family or the defendant's self; 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; The defendant assisted the authorities in uncovering offenses committed by other persons or in detecting or apprehending other persons who had committed the offenses; The defendant assisted the authorities in locating or recovering any property or person involved in the crime; 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; 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; and Any other factor consistent with the purposes of this chapter. Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 6. Sentencing Commission Comments. Under § 40-35-210(b)(5) , the trial judge is required to consider mitigating factors in determining the specific sentence length and the appropriate combination of sentencing alternatives that should be imposed. This section sets forth twelve specific mitigating factors which are similar in nature to prior law. It should be observed that the list is not exclusive and the final portion of this section provides that the trial judge may consider “any other factor consistent with the purposes of this chapter.” There has been a tendency to perceive mitigating factors as “statutory” and “non-statutory” in the sense that the latter are somehow of less significance than the former. The commission believes that appropriate sentencing determinations should be made on the basis of all relevant information presented to the trial judge. Simply because a particular mitigating factor is not specifically listed in this section does not diminish its significance. Obviously, not every factual situation can be statutorily contemplated for designation as a mitigating factor. Factual matters which are consistent with the purposes of sentencing, § 40-35-102 , and the sentencing considerations, § 40-35-103 , must be considered by the trial judge. Compiler's Notes. The sentencing commission terminated June 30, 1995. Sentencing Commission Comments have been retained, but do not reflect 1995 or subsequent legislation. Cross-References. Victim impact statement to be considered evidence in determining whether factors in § 40-35-114 and this section apply, § 40-38-207 . Textbooks. Tennessee Criminal Practice and Procedure (Raybin), §§ 26.47, 28.42, 28.97, 28.60, 32.221, 32.237. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 8 Tenn. Juris., Criminal Procedure, § 40. Law Reviews. Blended Sentencing in Tennessee Courts, 44 U. Mem. L. Rev. 767 (2014). Extralegal Punishment Factors: A Study of Forgiveness, Hardship, Good Deeds, Apology, Remorse, and Other Such Discretionary Factors in Assessing Criminal Punishment (Paul H. Robinson, Sean E. Jackowitz, and Daniel M. Bartels), 65 Vand. L. Rev. 737 (2012). Judicial Discretion Under the New Tennessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1982 (Thomas A. Wiseman, Jr.), 18 No. 4 Tenn. B.J. 13 (1982). Specific Crime vs. Criminal Ways: Criminal Conduct and Responsibility in Rule 3E1.1, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 205 (2001). The Criminalization of Mental Illness: How Theoretical Failures Create Real Problems in the Criminal Justice System (Georgia Lee Sims), 62 Vand. L. Rev. 1053 (2009).