RULE 1. SCOPEThese rules govern the procedure in all criminal proceedings conducted in all courts of record in Tennessee.
Additionally they govern procedure in the General Sessions Courts of the state to the extent of:
(a) the institution of criminal proceedings pursuant to Rules 3, 3.5, and 4;
(b) the disposition of criminal charges pursuant to Rule 5;
(c) preliminary examinations pursuant to Rule 5.1;
(d) subpoena, pursuant to Rule 17;
(e) venue as outlined in Rule 18;
(f) search and seizure pursuant to Rule 41;
(g) assignment of counsel as provided in Rule 44;
(h) in any other situation where the context clearly indicates applicability.
[Amended effective August 15, 1979.]
These rules apply in cases which are clearly criminal in nature, including both misdemeanors and felonies. Procedures in purely juvenile and municipal courts are not covered. The term General Sessions Court, as used in these rules, includes all courts exercising the jurisdiction of a General Sessions Court in State criminal procedures, including:
(1) municipal courts having such jurisdiction by special legislative enactment;In summary, the purpose of the Commission was to formulate rules of practice in those State criminal cases presently considered to be State criminal procedures and now covered by rules serving the purposes of the ones promulgated herein.(2) special courts of multiple functions that include some jurisdiction in State criminal cases the same as that exercised by General Sessions Courts; and
(3) Justices of the Peace, to the extent that they may be permitted in some counties to perform any of the functions covered by these rules.
These rules are not completely comprehensive. For example, they do not now deal directly with pre-trial release because of the withdrawal of proposed Rule 46 from the original draft. It is intended that these rules be applied in every instance in which they address the procedure involved. If they do not expressly or by clear implication relate to the procedure in question, then existing law is to be applied. These rules take precedence over pre-existing statutes and case law which are in conflict with them, but statutes passed subsequent to their adoption which conflict with these rules shall control.
These Committee Comments were not as such adopted with the rules. They have been revised by the Commission and published with the Rules subsequent to the General Assembly's adoption of the resolution approving them. The purpose of these comments is to aid in the understanding and application of the rules; but it must be made clear that the Committee Comments are not a part of the rules and are not binding upon the courts.
Comment to 1984 Amendments
The 1984 amendments to the rules reflect changes in the law since the original adoption of the rules in 1978. The most obvious change has been the Tennessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1982, T.C.A. Section 40-35-101 et seq., which now provides for judge rather than jury sentencing in all but a limited number of circumstances. Constitutional decisions have been rendered in a few areas which have an impact on the rules. Moreover, appellate procedure and juvenile court are now governed by their own set of rules. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, upon which the Tennessee rules were originally based, have also been amended in several respects. The 1984 amendments to the Tennessee Rules are designed therefore to update the criminal rules in harmony with the new case, rule and statutory law.
In addition, actual practice under the rules in the past years has suggested several areas where the original rules were either unclear or somewhat deficient. Consequently, some amendments affect interpretations placed on the rules by the bench and bar where there appears to be conflict in application between local jurisdictions.
The text of original committee comments is intended to remain unaltered even where a particular rule is amended. New committee comments, which are styled "Comment to 1984 Amendment", are intended to supersede the former only to the extent that they are in conflict. However, the presence of both commentaries is designed to make alterations more readily apparent.