STATE OF TENNESSEE v. EDWARD G. JAMESON, M2020-00945-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Defendant Edward G. Jameson was indicted on 13 counts (three counts of statutory rape by an authority figure and ten counts of incest) for sexual abuse of his biological daughter occurring between 2006 and 2015; trial was held April 2018.
Victim (born Dec. 10, 1990) is legally blind; she met Jameson in 2005, testified to a long-term sexual relationship (including oral and anal sex) beginning in 2005–2006 and continuing intermittently through June 2015, and reported the abuse in 2015 at age 24.
At trial the State elected specific incidents to correspond to counts (e.g., graveyard incident, kitchen incident, sex behind a barn, episodes while living together); jury convicted on most counts (Counts 8 and 9 were dismissed at trial).
Sentencing: Jameson agreed to Range II classification based on out‑of‑state felonies; trial court imposed consecutive sentences for Counts 1–6 and concurrent on remaining counts, yielding an effective 54‑year term plus sex‑offender registration and lifetime community supervision.
On appeal Jameson challenged (inter alia) sufficiency of evidence for specific incidents, statute of limitations for several counts, State’s election/unanimity on Count 10, Range II classification (plain error), and consecutive sentencing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Jameson)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence (Counts 1–4: whether penetration proved for specific incidents)	Victim’s testimony and the totality of proof allowed reasonable inference of penetration for each charged incident	Victim never expressly testified to penetration for the graveyard or kitchen incidents; prosecutor’s statements alone insufficient	Court reversed and vacated Counts Two and Four (incest) for insufficient proof of penetration; Counts One and Three were vacated on statute‑of‑limitations grounds (see below)
Statute of limitations (Counts 1, 3, 7, 10)	State conceded several counts were time‑barred under the applicable limitation periods	Counts were not timely prosecuted; defendant did not waive the defense	Court reversed and vacated Counts One, Three, Seven, and Ten as barred by the statute of limitations
Election of offenses / jury unanimity (Count 10)	Election was adequate	Failure to elect deprived defendant of unanimous verdict	Moot — Count Ten was already vacated for statute of limitations, so the claim was not justiciable
Range classification (Range II based on out‑of‑state felonies)	State relied on defendant’s agreement to Range II; out‑of‑state felonies qualified	Jameson argued classification was erroneous and should be reviewed for plain error because one foreign conviction’s elements weren’t developed	No plain error relief: defendant repeatedly agreed at sentencing to Range II (tactical waiver), so classification stands
Consecutive sentencing (partial consecutive, 54‑year total)	Trial court made explicit findings (factor (5) — multiple sexual offenses of a minor; duration, relationship, scope, victim harm) and applied sentencing principles	Trial court failed to justify why such a long sentence was necessary or proportionate	Affirmed as not an abuse of discretion for the counts that remain; trial court properly applied factor (5) and considered enhancement/mitigating factors; remedial adjustments ordered to judgment forms due to vacated counts

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hanson, 279 S.W.3d 265 (Tenn. 2009) (burden on defendant to show insufficiency on appeal)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency review: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Wagner, 382 S.W.3d 289 (Tenn. 2012) (appellate sufficiency review standards)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (same for circumstantial evidence)
State v. Bowles, 52 S.W.3d 69 (Tenn. 2001) (penetration is a question of fact)
State v. Nance, 393 S.W.3d 212 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012) (victim testimony alone can support conviction)
State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274 (Tenn. 2000) (plain error doctrine and five‑factor test)
State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. 2013) (standard of review and presumption of reasonableness for consecutive sentencing)