Skip to main content

State of Tennessee v. Rodney Stephens

Tenn.June 16, 2017No. E2014-02514-SC-R11-CDCited 87 times
Defendant WinRodney Stephens

Case Details

Judge(s)
Chief Justice Jeffrey S. Bivins
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal to Tennessee Supreme Court; reversal of Court of Criminal Appeals decision

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision, reinstating the defendant's aggravated stalking conviction after finding sufficient evidence that the defendant had actual knowledge of the protection order issued against him.

Excerpt

We granted the State's application for permission to appeal in this case in order to determine whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in concluding that the evidence was not sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction of aggravated stalking. The Court of Criminal Appeals reduced the Defendant's conviction to misdemeanor stalking after concluding that the State had not adduced sufficient evidence to establish that the Defendant knowingly violated an order of protection. We hold that the Court of Criminal Appeals misapplied the standard of review and so committed reversible error. Because the proof was sufficient to support the jury's determination that the Defendant had actual knowledge of the order of protection issued against him on August 20, 2010, the evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction of aggravated stalking. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and reinstate the trial court's judgment.

What This Ruling Means

**Tennessee Supreme Court Ruling: State of Tennessee v. Rodney Stephens** This case involved a worker named Rodney Stephens who was convicted of aggravated stalking and violating a protection order. The key issue was whether Stephens knew about the protection order that had been issued against him when he allegedly violated it. Initially, Stephens was convicted of aggravated stalking, which is a serious felony charge. However, an appeals court later reduced his conviction to simple misdemeanor stalking, ruling that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he actually knew about the protection order. The state of Tennessee disagreed with this decision and took the case to the state's highest court. The Tennessee Supreme Court sided with the state and reversed the appeals court's decision. They found there was sufficient evidence to prove that Stephens did know about the protection order when he violated it, which restored his original aggravated stalking conviction. **What this means for workers:** This ruling reinforces that protection orders are taken seriously by courts, and claiming ignorance of such orders is unlikely to succeed if there's evidence you actually knew about them. Workers facing workplace harassment situations should understand that legal protections like restraining orders carry real consequences when violated.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

State of Tennessee v. Andre Davis, Jr.
TENNCRIMAPPNov 2024

The Madison County Grand Jury indicted Defendant, Andre Davis, Jr., for one count each of harassment and aggravated stalking. A jury found Defendant guilty as charged, and the trial court imposed an effective two-year sentence. Defendant appeals and argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. After a careful review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant Win
Derinda Carr v. Windham Professionals, Inc.
Tenn.Apr 2022

Appellant Derinda Carr challenges the trial court's finding her neck injury did not arise primarily "out of and in the course and scope of' her employment. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We agree with the trial court and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Win
Bethany Shelton v. Hobbs Enterprises, LLC
Tenn.Sep 2021

Bethany Shelton ("Employee") filed a petition for benefit determination against Hobbs Enterprises, LLC ("Employer") alleging an injury to her right shoulder suffered in a work- related accident on August 26, 2017. She sought temporary total, permanent partial, and continued medical benefits. Following the issuance of a dispute certification notice, Employer moved for summary judgment on the basis the only medical testimony, from the Employee's treating orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Sean Kaminsky, was insufficient as a matter of law to establish causation. The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims (the "trial court") denied the motion and denied Employer's motion to reconsider. Employer sought an expedited appeal before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, but then sought and was granted a dismissal of that appeal. A trial was held, after which the trial court denied Employee's claim on the ground she had failed to meet her burden to establish her right shoulder injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment with Employer. Employee filed a motion to reconsider, which the trial court denied. She appealed directly to the Supreme Court. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Workers' Compensation Claims.

Defendant Win

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.