MURFREESBORO, Tenn. - The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals has vacated the aggravated stalking conviction of Bradley J. Cooper, ruling that his subsequent prosecution in Rutherford County violated constitutional protections against double jeopardy.

The case centers on a series of incidents in October 2022 involving Cooper and his estranged wife. After a pattern of conduct spanning multiple jurisdictions, Cooper was first charged in Williamson County, where he later entered a guilty plea to a reduced charge of simple stalking in July 2023.

Cooper also faced charges in Rutherford County for aggravated stalking based on conduct occurring during the same time period. The trial court allowed the case to proceed, and a jury ultimately found him guilty of both aggravated stalking and harassment. He was sentenced to two years in prison.

On appeal, the court examined Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-315, which governs when a “continuous course of conduct” for stalking may be divided into separate offenses. Under the statute, a break in conduct occurs only if the defendant is arrested and charged, found to have violated an order of protection, or convicted.

The appellate court determined that although Cooper was charged in Rutherford County on October 30, 2022, he was not arrested until November 1, 2022. Because the arrest occurred after the conduct in both counties had taken place, the court concluded the actions constituted a single, continuous offense for purposes of double jeopardy.

“Consequently, Defendant’s prosecution in this case, which took place after his guilty plea in Williamson County, violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution,” wrote Judge Timothy L. Easter in the court’s opinion.

While the aggravated stalking conviction was vacated, the court affirmed Cooper’s conviction for harassment. The panel rejected his argument that the harassment statute is unconstitutionally overbroad, finding that it regulates the frequency or method of communication rather than the content of protected speech.

In conclusion, the Judge wrote, "Based on the foregoing, we vacate Defendant’s aggravated stalking conviction in Count 1 and affirm his harassment conviction in Count 2.  Because we vacated Defendant’s conviction in Count 1, we also remand the case for entry of a corrected judgment form on Count 2, removing the condition that Count 2 merged with Count 1."

The case has been remanded to the Rutherford County Circuit Court for entry of a corrected judgment related to the harassment conviction.