IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs July 15, 2015

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JAMESON ROSS OWEN

 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Bedford County

No. 17854 Franklin Lee Russell, Judge

No. M2014-02394-CCA-R3-CD – Filed September 18, 2015

The defendant, Jameson Ross Owen, was convicted by a Bedford County Circuit Court 

jury of violation of an order of protection, a Class A misdemeanor, and was sentenced by 

the trial court to eleven months, twenty-nine days in the county jail. The sole issue the 

defendant raises on appeal is whether the trial court erred by admitting Rule 404(b) 

evidence of his alleged history of stalking the victim. Following our review, we affirm 

the judgment of the trial court. 

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

ALAN E. GLENN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JAMES CURWOOD WITT,

JR., and NORMA MCGEE OGLE, JJ., joined.

Daniel Lyn Graves II, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the appellant, Jameson Ross Owen.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; M. Todd Ridley, Assistant 

Attorney General; Robert J. Carter, District Attorney General; and Michael David 

Randles, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

FACTS

On July 29, 2013, Jennifer Carden filed an application for an order of protection in 

the Bedford County General Sessions Court, seeking protection from the defendant for 

herself and her seventeen-year-old twins, a son and a daughter. As the basis for the 

order, she alleged that the defendant had been stalking her daughter since November 

2012. The court granted a temporary order of protection and ordered the parties to appear 

in court for a hearing on August 14, 2013. On August 14, 2013, the court granted Ms. 

Carden and her children a permanent, one-year order of protection against the defendant. 
2

On October 7, 2013, Ms. Carden filed an affidavit of complaint in the Bedford 

County General Sessions Court, alleging that, between September 25 and October 6, 

2013, the defendant violated the order of protection by telephoning Ms. Carden’s 

seventeen-year-old daughter four times, texting her ten times, and leaving two voicemails 

for her. Following a January 14, 2014 bench trial, the defendant was found guilty of 

violating the order of protection and was sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days in 

the county jail, suspended to supervised probation after three months.

On March 11, 2014, Ms. Carden filed another affidavit of complaint alleging that 

the defendant violated the order of protection by attempting on March 10, 2014, to 

contact her daughter at the daughter’s place of employment. On May 19, 2014, the 

Bedford County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging the defendant with violation 

of the order of protection based on the March 10, 2014 incident. 

Prior to trial, the State filed a Rule 404(b) notice of its intent to introduce evidence 

of the defendant’s history of stalking the daughter and of his previous violation of the 

order of protection in order to show the defendant’s “intent, common scheme or plan, 

absence of mistake, and guilty knowledge.” Following a hearing, the trial court ruled that 

evidence of the defendant’s “prior stalking incidents” could be introduced, as well as 

evidence by stipulation of the parties of his “release from the Bedford County Jail on a 

conviction for violation of an order of pro[tection].” 

At the September 2, 2014 trial, Ms. Carden related how the defendant, who had 

become acquainted with her then-sixteen-year-old daughter through a social media 

website, began messaging, texting, and calling her daughter and repeatedly asking her 

out. The defendant was also calling their house phone and Facebook messaging Ms. 

Carden. Ms. Carden said that both she and her daughter repeatedly told the defendant, 

who was twenty-four, that he was too old for the daughter and that the daughter was not 

interested in him and to stop contacting her. The defendant, however, continued the 

contact, calling so frequently that Ms. Carden eventually had her home phone 

disconnected. 

Ms. Carden testified that no one in the family had ever met the defendant in person 

until late October or early November 2012 when he showed up unannounced and 

uninvited to their Shelbyville home asking for her daughter. She said she told him to 

leave, but he refused to go without seeing her daughter. She finally called her reluctant 

daughter, who did not want to see the defendant, out on the front porch with her, her son, 

and the defendant so that the defendant would leave. 
3

Ms. Carden testified that the defendant told her he had walked to their Shelbyville 

home from his home in Murfreesboro. She said she offered to drive him home because 

she wanted to get rid of him and wanted to find out where he lived. During that 

approximately thirty-mile drive, the defendant revealed that he had obtained the location 

of their home from codes embedded in a photograph that her daughter had posted to 

Instagram. The defendant also revealed that he had garnered a lot of additional 

information about the family, including the identity of Ms. Carden’s ex-husband and 

where he lived, where and with whom Ms. Carden worked, and that Ms. Carden’s mother 

had cancer. 

Ms. Carden testified that she dropped the defendant off at his home, made note of 

the location, and told him never to come to their home again and to leave her daughter 

and the rest of her family alone. The defendant, however, continued the unwanted 

contact, calling and texting repeatedly, mailing Christmas presents and a card to her 

daughter in December 2012, sending her daughter five Valentine’s Day gifts in February 

2013, and appearing at a February 2013 high school band concert in which her daughter 

was performing. Sometime in April or May of 2013, the defendant again appeared 

uninvited on the front porch of their home, frightening Ms. Carden’s children. Ms. 

Carden told the defendant to leave, and he got on his bicycle and pedaled off in the 

direction of the river. 

Ms. Carden testified that she called the police because she was concerned about 

the defendant’s state of mind. The police picked up the defendant and talked to him, but 

she declined their offer to press charges because she believed that the police encounter 

alone would be enough to make the defendant stop the unwanted contact. The defendant 

did not stop, however. Ms. Carden testified that the defendant showed up in the hospital 

room of Ms. Carden’s employer, where he met the pastor of Ms. Carden’s church. The 

pastor, who was unfamiliar with the situation, invited the defendant to attend their church 

and the defendant thereafter began attending services each Sunday. By that time, the 

defendant had slowed down his Facebook messaging to Ms. Carden, but he continued 

texting, calling, and Facebook messaging Ms. Carden’s daughter by either having his 

friends make contact with her on his behalf or by contacting her himself with a “whole 

different account” he had created with a false name. 

On July 27, 2013, the defendant showed up uninvited at the wedding of Nikita 

Graham, a family friend of the Cardens. The defendant was not a friend of the Grahams 

and Mrs. Graham “kicked him out” and “told him he had no business being there.” 

Instead of leaving the area, the defendant sat at a fast food restaurant across the street. 

The next day, Ms. Carden again saw the defendant at Sunday services at her church. The 

following morning, she filed the petition for the order of protection at issue in this case. 

Ms. Carden testified that she was granted the permanent, one-year order of protection on 
4

August 14, 2013. She said that, in addition to the written order, the judge also verbally 

admonished the defendant to cease all contact with her daughter. 

Ms. Carden testified that the defendant continued text messaging and calling her

daughter, despite the order of protection. On October 7, 2013, Ms. Carden signed a 

warrant against the defendant for violation of the order, and on January 16, 2014, the 

defendant was found guilty of violating the order and sentenced to jail. Ms. Carden 

testified that she was under the assumption that the defendant was still in jail when her 

daughter called her on March 10, 2014, to tell her that the daughter had just been 

informed by her employer that the defendant had showed up at the Gamestop store where 

the daughter held a part-time job. 

Ms. Carden’s daughter testified that she became acquainted with the defendant, 

who claimed they had a mutual friend, in late November 2012 when she accepted his 

Facebook “friend request.” She was initially polite and exchanged casual messages with 

him, but over time he began messaging more and more frequently and asking her out, 

despite her repeatedly telling him that she had a boyfriend, that he was too old for her, 

and that she was not interested. She described the escalation of his behavior, including 

his frequent phone calls, texts and messages, increasing irritation when she did not 

respond quickly enough to his messages or texts, and “gross” declarations of his love for 

her. She testified that, at both the hearing to obtain the order of protection and at the 

hearing on the violation of the order, the judge had her look directly at the defendant 

while she told him that she wanted nothing to do with him. The judge also directly told 

the defendant on both occasions to stop all contact with her. 

Rick Bruner, the manager of the Shelbyville Gamestop store where Ms. Carden’s 

daughter worked, testified that the defendant called him in January 2014 to complain that 

he had an issue with Ms. Carden’s daughter and wanted to come to the store to discuss it 

with Mr. Bruner. Mr. Bruner stated that he told the defendant he was aware of the order 

of protection and advised him that it would not be in his best interest to come to the store. 

He said that at approximately 2:00 or 2:10 p.m. on March 10, 2014, the barefoot 

defendant appeared in the store, asked to speak to him, and began trying to discuss their 

January 2014 phone conversation. He told the defendant he should leave, and the 

defendant looked around and asked, “[Ms. Carden’s daughter] isn’t here right now, 

right[?]” 

The parties stipulated that the defendant reported to the Bedford County Jail on 

January 24, 2014, to begin serving his sentence for violation of an order of protection and 

was released from jail on March 10, 2014, at 1:55 p.m. 
5

Bedford County General Sessions Judge Charles Rich testified that he granted Ms. 

Carden’s petition for an order of protection because it was clear to him that “there was 

not a relationship [between the defendant and Ms. Carden’s daughter] and that stalking 

was the only connection.” He said he believed the defendant had “an unhealthy 

obsession with this young girl” and recommended that he seek professional counseling. 

Having the feeling that the defendant was not going to stop his behavior, Judge Rich

spent more time going over the order with him than he had with any other similar 

defendant, telling him “unequivocally” that if he came around the girl or contacted her, 

either directly or indirectly, he would find him in violation of the order and put him in 

jail. 

The defendant’s mother, Terry Owen, testified that the defendant called her on 

March 10, 2014, to tell her that he had just been released from jail and was headed to the 

Shelbyville Walmart and that she arranged for her daughter to pick him up there. She 

further testified that the Walmart was close to the Gamestop store and that the defendant 

was a regular customer of various Gamestop stores in the area. 

ANALYSIS

The sole issue the defendant raises on appeal is whether the trial court abused its 

discretion by admitting evidence of “a series of stalking incidents which resulted in this 

prosecution.” The defendant argues that Ms. Carden’s extensive testimony about the 

series of events that led to the order of protection, which he characterizes as “unrestricted 

prejudicial character evidence,” had little, if any, probative value on the issue of whether 

he had violated the order of protection in the instant case and was unnecessarily 

cumulative and prejudicial. He asserts that there was no material issue of motive or the 

relationship of the parties, given his stipulation with respect to the order of protection. He 

further asserts that the trial court erroneously allowed the prosecution to exceed the 

parameters of its own order by allowing Ms. Carden’s testimony about his many 

instances of past conduct, which she characterized as abnormal or strange but which no 

reasonable person could consider as “stalking events” that “resulted in this prosecution.” 

The State argues that the trial court properly acted within its discretion in allowing 

evidence of the defendant’s prior history of stalking in order to show the defendant’s 

intent, common scheme or plan, or motive. The State additionally argues that the 

evidence was necessary to establish that the defendant “knowingly” violated the order of 

protection, as required under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-113. We agree 

with the State. 

Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides as follows:
6

Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts 

is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action 

in conformity with the character trait. It may, however, be admissible for 

other purposes. The conditions which must be satisfied before allowing 

such evidence are:

(1) The court upon request must hold a hearing outside the jury’s 

presence;

(2) The court must determine that a material issue exists other than 

conduct conforming with a character trait and must upon request state on 

the record the material issue, the ruling, and the reasons for admitting the 

evidence;

(3) The court must find proof of the other crime, wrong, or act to be 

clear and convincing; and

(4) The court must exclude the evidence if its probative value is 

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Exceptional cases in which evidence of an accused’s prior bad acts will be 

admissible include those in which the evidence is introduced to prove identity, intent, 

motive, opportunity, or rebuttal of mistake or accident. State v. Drinkard, 909 S.W.2d 

13, 16 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995); see also Neil P. Cohen et al., Tennessee Law of 

Evidence § 4.04[7][a] (5th ed. 2011). Where the trial judge has substantially complied 

with procedural requirements, the standard of review for the admission of bad act 

evidence is abuse of discretion. State v. DuBose, 953 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tenn. 1997). 

The defendant did not include the transcript of the hearing on the State’s Rule 

404(b) notice in the record before this court. The trial court’s written ruling, however, 

reflects that a hearing was held on August 12, 2014, at which the parties were afforded 

the opportunity to present evidence and arguments of counsel. The trial court’s order 

admitting the evidence states in pertinent part: 

The Court found pursuant to Rule 404(b) that a material issue exists 

as to the Defendant’s motive for the crime on trial and as to the nature of 

the relationship of the Defendant to the alleged victim in the crime on trial; 

that evidence of a series of stalking incidents between the Defendant and 

the alleged victim in the crime on trial prior to the alleged incident which 

resulted in this prosecution would be highly probative of the Defendant’s 

motive and of the relationship of the parties; that there was no challenge at 
7

the Rule 404(b) hearing to the ability of the State to prove the prior 

incidents by clear and convincing evidence; that the probative value of the 

prior incident outweighs any danger of unfair prejudice to the Defendant; 

and that defense counsel advised in open court that he would stipulate to 

the fact and to the admissibility of the fact that immediately before the 

alleged stalking incident which is the subject of this prosecution, the 

Defendant was released from the Bedford County Jail from service for a 

sentence of forty-five days for violation of an order of protection protecting 

the alleged victim from the Defendant[.]

We agree with the trial court that the evidence was relevant to show the 

defendant’s motive and the relationship of the parties and that the prejudicial impact of 

such evidence did not outweigh its probative value. The evidence was also relevant to 

rebut the defendant’s implied claims of accident or mistake in entering the public store 

where the victim worked and to show that the defendant acted knowingly in violating the 

order of protection. As for the defendant’s claim that the prosecution exceeded the scope 

of the order in the evidence it elicited, we note, like the State, that the trial court sustained 

the only specific objection defense counsel raised on this ground at trial. We conclude, 

therefore, that the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing authorities and reasoning, we affirm the judgment of the 

trial court. 

 

_________________________________ 

ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE