## Facts

- Ami E. Smith pleaded guilty to one count of incest under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-15-302 and received three years of supervised probation, including electronic monitoring.
- Smith destroyed her electronic monitor, was charged with vandalism, pleaded guilty, and received a two-year Community Corrections sentence consecutive to the incest sentence; the incest probation was revoked and reimposed as Community Corrections.
- Within three months, Smith violated multiple Community Corrections conditions; the trial court revoked Community Corrections and ordered service of an effective five-year sentence in the Department of Correction.
- Smith did not take a direct appeal from the incest conviction or sentence.
- Smith filed a post-conviction petition collaterally attacking only the incest conviction, arguing the incest statute was unconstitutional as applied to consenting adults engaging in private, noncommercial sexual activity.
- The trial court denied relief, finding the incest statute constitutionally valid.
- Smith appealed the denial of post-conviction relief.

## Issues

1. Whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-15-302 violates the Tennessee Constitution’s right to privacy when applied to consensual, private, noncommercial sexual conduct between adult relatives.
2. Whether the privacy analysis applied to other consensual adult sexual conduct under state constitutional law requires invalidation of the incest statute as applied.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief.
- The court held Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-15-302 is constitutional under the Tennessee Constitution’s privacy protections, including as applied to private, consensual adult incest.
- The court concluded that any protected privacy interest in private adult sexual activity does not bar the legislature from criminalizing incest in light of substantial governmental interests.

## Legal Principles

- Tennessee’s constitutional privacy protections for intimate personal decisions are not absolute and may yield to sufficiently strong governmental interests.
- A statute regulating private, consensual adult sexual conduct may be upheld where the conduct implicates distinct state concerns beyond mere moral disapproval.
- Prohibitions on incest may be justified by legitimate state interests, including protection against intra-family exploitation, preservation of family structure, and concerns associated with intra-family sexual relationships.
- Prior state privacy precedent protecting certain private adult sexual conduct does not compel invalidation of incest prohibitions because incest involves familial relationships and related state interests not present in conduct between unrelated adults.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Tennessee’s incest statute against a state-constitutional privacy challenge, ruling that even consensual, private, noncommercial adult incest may be criminalized because the legislature may regulate conduct that implicates substantial interests in family integrity and protection from intra-family harms.


Smith v. State, 6 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999)