State of Tennessee v. Rodney Stephens, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 391

Background

Rodney Stephens was tried for domestic assault and aggravated stalking; acquitted of assault and convicted of aggravated stalking; trial court sentenced him to two years (with probation after 60 days). The Court of Criminal Appeals reduced the conviction to misdemeanor stalking for insufficient evidence; Tennessee Supreme Court granted review.
On August 19–20, 2010, Stephens confronted his estranged wife, Jessica Stephens, in/near her car; police arrested him that night and he spent the night in jail.
On August 20, Jessica obtained an ex parte order of protection; she was notified the defendant had been released and was told he had been served. The court record included a multi‑page exhibit (petition, application, ex parte order) with a Petition showing service at 10:10 a.m.; the Order of Protection’s return-of-service line was blank.
Later on August 20 and through September 2010, Jessica testified the defendant followed her, attempted to block her, banged on a Verizon storefront window, threatened her and her daughter, called from an unknown number threatening harm, and circled her vehicle; police repeatedly responded and arrested him.
Deputy Daugherty testified Stephens had paperwork on him and showed a document to the deputy; Stephens testified he was given “something” at the jail and later showed that same document to the deputy, and on cross‑examination admitted he knew there was an order prohibiting contact.
The sole contested legal issue was whether the State proved the statutory element that Stephens "knowingly" violated the order of protection, which upgrades stalking to aggravated stalking under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39‑17‑315(c)(1)(E).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Stephens "knowingly" violated an order of protection (element of aggravated stalking)	State: testimony and exhibits (Defendant admitted he knew of the order; he showed paperwork to Deputy Daugherty; repeated post‑order harassing acts) establish actual knowledge and knowing violation	Stephens: record ambiguous — exhibit contains multiple documents, no return-of-service on the Order, serving officer did not testify; he testified he may have been given a document but did not know what it was	Tennessee Supreme Court: reversed CCA; viewing evidence in light most favorable to State, Defendant's own admission that he knew of the order and prohibited contact was legally sufficient to prove knowing violation; aggravated stalking conviction upheld

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Smith, 436 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2014) (interpret elements before sufficiency review)
State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185 (Tenn. 1992) (post‑verdict presumption of guilt on appeal)
State v. Ellis, 453 S.W.3d 889 (Tenn. 2015) (distinguishing weight vs. sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (circumstantial‑evidence sufficiency standard)
State v. Harris, 839 S.W.2d 54 (Tenn. 1992) (jury credibility deference)
State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913 (Tenn. 1982) (defendant’s burden to show insufficiency on appeal)
State v. Moats, 906 S.W.2d 431 (Tenn. 1995) (trial judge as thirteenth juror; weight of evidence)
State v. Johnson, 692 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1985) (discussing appellate review vs. weighing evidence)