Summary 2008 WY 5

Summary of Decision issued January 18, 2008

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Cooper. v. State

Citation: 2008 WY 5

Docket Number: S-07-0018, S-07-0049

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable Scott W. Skavdahl, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Diane M. Lozano, Wyoming State Public Defender; Tina N. Kerin, Appellate Counsel; and Kirk A. Morgan, Assistant Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Cathleen D. Parker, Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: A jury convicted Cooper of two counts of forgery, one count of obtaining goods by false pretenses, and one count of unlawful use of a credit card. Cooper argued on appeal that the district court should not have admitted the testimony of the handwriting expert and that the prosecution committed misconduct in its closing.
Expert Testimony: A decision to admit or reject expert testimony rests solely within the discretion of the district court and will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. The Court adopted the reasoning in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. A qualified expert witness may testify about scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge if such testimony will help the jury understand the case. Cooper contended that the officer was not qualified and that her testimony was not the product of reliable application of approved methods. The Court reviewed the record to determine whether or not the district court appropriately applied a Daubert analysis in the case. They stated that the court properly determined that the officer’s methodology was reliable and subsequently, that her testimony fit the facts of the case.
Prosecutorial Misconduct: Claims of prosecutorial misconduct are settled by reference to the entire record and hinge on whether or not the defendant’s case has been so prejudiced as to constitute the denial of a fair trial. Cooper did not object to the alleged misconduct at trial so the review was plain error. The purpose of closing argument is to give both the prosecution and defense counsel the opportunity to explain the significance of the evidence and how it should be viewed. The prosecutor is entitled to comment on the evidence and to draw reasonable inferences from it. The record provides no support for a claim that the comments were a purposeful attempt to inflame or mislead the jury. There was also no evidence that Cooper was materially prejudiced by the comments. Cooper did not show a transgression of a clear and unequivocal rule of law.

Holding: The Court was confident that under the Daubert model, the trial court properly determined that the officer’s methodology was reliable and that her testimony fit the facts of the case. The court’s decision was not an abuse of discretion. The prosecutor did not commit misconduct in his closing argument because the statements, when taken in context, were appropriate and did not prejudice Cooper.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/352g2n .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]