Kevin Kennedy has seen these charges from the inside, having prosecuted in Davidson County for three years. He prosecuted theft cases ranging from misdemeanor shoplifting allegations to serious felony property offenses. He understands how prosecutors evaluate ownership, value, intent, possession, surveillance video, receipts, electronic records, witness statements, and alleged admissions when deciding whether a theft charge can be proven.
Theft of property in Tennessee can be a misdemeanor or a felony depending largely on value and the type of property involved. But value is only one part of the case. The State must also prove that the accused knowingly obtained or exercised control over property without the owner’s effective consent and did so with the intent to deprive the owner of it.
What Is Theft of Property in Tennessee?
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-103 provides that a person commits theft of property when, with intent to deprive the owner of property, the person knowingly obtains or exercises control over the property without the owner’s effective consent. Tennessee consolidated many older theft-related offenses under this general framework.
The statute can apply to many situations: alleged shoplifting, employee theft, taking property from another person, retaining property that allegedly belongs to someone else, unauthorized transfers, and other disputes over possession or ownership. The legal issue is not simply whether property changed hands—it is whether the State can prove the required knowledge, lack of consent, and intent to deprive.
Intent to Deprive
Intent is often the central issue in a theft case. A person may possess someone else’s property without having the criminal intent required for theft. Mistake, misunderstanding, temporary possession, disputed ownership, permission, or an expectation that property would be returned can all affect whether the State can prove intent to deprive beyond a reasonable doubt.
Because intent is rarely proven by direct evidence, prosecutors frequently rely on circumstances such as concealment, statements, conduct after the property was taken, attempts to sell or dispose of it, altered records, or efforts to avoid detection. Each inference should be tested against alternative explanations.
Value Determines the Grade of the Offense
Tennessee grades theft of property primarily by value. Property valued at $1,000 or less is generally a Class A misdemeanor. More than $1,000 but less than $2,500 is a Class E felony; $2,500 to less than $10,000 is a Class D felony; $10,000 to less than $60,000 is a Class C felony; $60,000 to less than $250,000 is a Class B felony; and $250,000 or more is a Class A felony.
Firearms receive special treatment. Theft of a firearm worth less than $2,500 is a Class E felony rather than a misdemeanor, and Tennessee law provides an additional mandatory period of confinement for theft of a firearm. Because grading can dramatically change sentencing exposure, valuation evidence should be examined carefully.
How Is Property Value Proven?
Value may be established through purchase price, fair-market value, replacement value, receipts, appraisals, testimony from the owner, expert testimony, or other evidence depending on the property. In some cases, the difference between two plausible valuations can determine whether the offense is a misdemeanor, Class E felony, Class D felony, or higher.
The State may also aggregate multiple thefts into a single count when the acts arise from a common scheme, purpose, intent, or enterprise. Aggregation can significantly increase the charged value and felony classification, so the alleged connection between separate transactions should be reviewed.
Claim of Right Defense
Tennessee law recognizes an affirmative claim-of-right defense to theft. Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-107, a person may have a defense if the person acted under an honest claim of right to the property, honestly believed there was a right to obtain or control it as done, or honestly believed the owner would have consented.
This defense can be important in family disputes, business disagreements, jointly owned property, employer-employee conflicts, and situations involving disputed debts or possession. A civil dispute does not automatically become criminal theft simply because the parties disagree about ownership.
Common Defenses to Theft of Property Charges
The strongest defense depends on the State’s theory and the evidence. Common issues include lack of intent to deprive, consent, mistaken identity, disputed ownership, inaccurate valuation, unreliable surveillance or witness testimony, and unlawful searches or statements.
Mistaken Identity or Weak Proof of Possession
Video may be unclear, eyewitness identifications may be unreliable, and property may be found in a shared vehicle, residence, or business. The State must still connect the accused to the alleged taking or control of the property. The defense should compare witness accounts with objective evidence such as video, timestamps, phone records, transaction records, and physical evidence.
Challenge Value and Aggregation
When felony grading depends on value, the defense should examine how that number was calculated. Depreciation, condition, market value, ownership interest, and whether separate incidents can legally be aggregated may materially affect the charge.
How Kevin Kennedy Defends Theft of Property Cases
Kevin begins by identifying exactly what property is at issue, who owned it, how the State claims it was obtained or controlled, and what evidence supposedly proves intent. He reviews surveillance footage, receipts, financial records, photographs, witness statements, text messages, electronic communications, body-worn camera footage, and any statements attributed to the accused.
His former-prosecutor experience helps him evaluate whether the State can prove criminal intent rather than a misunderstanding or civil dispute. Depending on the evidence, the defense may assert claim of right, challenge consent or ownership, dispute value, attack identification evidence, seek suppression, negotiate for dismissal or reduction, or prepare the case for trial. If you are charged with theft of property in Nashville or Middle Tennessee, contact Kevin Kennedy Law Firm for a free, confidential consultation.
Legal references: Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-14-101 to -103, 39-14-105, 39-14-107, and 40-35-111. This page is general information, not legal advice.