State of Tennessee v. Stanley Jefferson, W2020-00578-CCA-R3-CD

Victim (mid-70s) was assaulted in her home on Labor Day (Sept. 7, 2015): assailant impersonated a sheriff’s deputy, forced entry, beat her unconscious, digitally penetrated her, and stole her vehicle. Victim suffered facial trauma and a small cerebellar hemorrhage.
Forensic and physical evidence: vaginal/vulvar lacerations with active bleeding; sperm on vulvar and leg swabs; sperm/DNA from the Defendant on the car gear shift; vital-records form with Defendant’s personal data recovered from the stolen car.
GPS ankle-monitor data placed the Defendant within ~50 meters of the victim’s address during the evening of Sept. 7; the Defendant’s STOP monitoring record produced alerts for curfew violation and presence in the area.
The Defendant admitted to impersonating a deputy, striking the victim, stealing the car, and digitally penetrating the victim during a police interview.
Jury convicted the Defendant of aggravated rape (by bodily injury), two counts of especially aggravated burglary, aggravated assault (lesser included), and theft; effective sentence 58 years. On appeal the Defendant challenged only sufficiency of evidence for aggravated rape; the court also identified a sentencing/clerical issue on the theft count and remanded for correction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated rape (penetration and identity)	DNA (sperm on vulva/leg), vaginal lacerations, victim’s injuries, GPS presence, confession, and DNA in vehicle establish penetration and identity	No proof of penetration; victim could not identify attacker; claimant of low IQ diminishes confession reliability	Affirmed. Evidence (injuries, forensic DNA, GPS, confession, vehicle evidence) supports penetration and identity beyond a reasonable doubt
Sentencing classification for theft count	(State) unclear record whether savings statute applied; conviction form lists Class D	Defendant argues sentencing/grading error given statutory reclassification to Class E and savings statute	Remanded to correct/clarify the theft sentence (clerical or substantive application of savings statute)

State v. Pope, 427 S.W.3d 363 (Tenn. 2013) (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Smith, 436 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2014) (deference to jury credibility findings)
State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247 (Tenn. 2002) (verdict accredits State’s witnesses)
State v. Hawkins, 406 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. 2013) (view evidence in light most favorable to State)
State v. Wagner, 382 S.W.3d 289 (Tenn. 2012) (circumstantial evidence can support conviction)
State v. Bowles, 52 S.W.3d 69 (Tenn. 2001) (definition of penetration; entry of vulva/labia sufficient)
Hart v. State, 21 S.W.3d 901 (Tenn. 2000) (penetration need not rupture hymen; slight intrusion suffices)
State v. Bell, 512 S.W.3d 167 (Tenn. 2015) (identity is essential element; fact for jury)
State v. Thomas, 158 S.W.3d 361 (Tenn. 2005) (jury resolves identity/conflicting evidence)
State v. Hornsby, 858 S.W.2d 892 (Tenn. 1993) (jury’s role in accrediting testimony)
State v. Menke, 590 S.W.3d 455 (Tenn. 2019) (application of savings statute to reduced theft grading)