Jerry Coop v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 22A01-1610-CR-2376

Background

Between Feb. 2014 and Apr. 2015 Jerry Coop repeatedly molested two girls (R.M. and H.M.), ages ~10–12, during overnight visits at his home; a third child (S.G.) and Coop’s son (K.C.) observed or reported misconduct.
Victims described being given pills before bed and waking to Coop touching or penetrating them; medical exams showed no acute trauma but detected Gardnerella in both girls.
Coop waived Miranda and admitted sleeping with the girls and giving them medication but denied sexual contact except for equivocal statements about a girl jumping on his lap.
At trial the State presented testimony from victims, a detective, and forensic interviewer Rebecca Sanders, who explained that children often disclose incrementally and answered a juror’s question about whether the children had discussed the events with each other.
The jury convicted Coop of multiple counts of child molesting (two Level 1 felonies and two lesser included felonies); the trial court found two aggravators (significant emotional harm and abuse of a position of trust) and imposed the statutory maximum aggregate sentence of 120 years.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Coop)	Held
Admissibility / alleged vouching and "drumbeat" evidence	Testimony from forensic interviewer and detective and two exhibits were admissible and did not impermissibly bolster victims beyond permitted expert testimony on disclosure patterns	Sanders improperly vouched for victims' credibility and the cumulative “drumbeat” of corroborative testimony/exhibits unfairly bolstered the case	No fundamental error: Sanders’ general testimony about disclosure was permissible; juror-question answer was allowed after defense opened the door; cumulative evidence did not make a fair trial impossible.
Prosecutorial misconduct in rebuttal argument	Prosecutor properly responded to defense closing and may distinguish roles of counsel	Prosecutor improperly demeaned defense counsel by saying defense’s job is not to search for truth, creating grave peril	No fundamental error: remarks were responsive to defense argument and did not place defendant in grave peril.
Sentencing — use of alleged drugging as aggravator	Court permissibly considered abuse of position of trust and victim harm as aggravators	Trial court improperly relied on Coop’s alleged drugging (jury acquitted elevated counts) as an impermissible aggravator	No abuse of discretion: court’s finding of abuse of trust rested on broader evidence (grooming, gifts, control); drugging was a descriptive part of that finding, not an independent improper aggravator.
Appropriateness of 120-year aggregate sentence under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)	Sentence appropriate given multiple victims, grooming, prolonged abuse, emotional harm, and breach of trust	Sentence is excessive given Coop’s minimal criminal history, low recidivism risk, lack of physical injury, and that some elevated counts were not convicted	Sentence affirmed: appellate court finds sentence not inappropriate given nature of offenses (multiple victims, grooming, sustained abuse) and offender’s character.

Key Cases Cited

Halliburton v. State, 1 N.E.3d 670 (Ind. 2013) (sets narrow standard for fundamental error review)
Griffith v. State, 59 N.E.3d 947 (Ind. 2016) (defendant bears heavy burden to show error made fair trial impossible)
Sampson v. State, 38 N.E.3d 985 (Ind. 2015) (expert testimony on signs of coaching permissible if defendant opened the door)
Craig v. State, 630 N.E.2d 207 (Ind. 1994) (improperly admitted credibility-bolstering statements with only minor impact do not require reversal)
Marcum v. State, 725 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. 2000) (response-to-defense comments by prosecutor may be improper but not necessarily prejudicial)
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (appellate role under Rule 7(B) to "leaven the outliers")
Serino v. State, 798 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. 2003) (consecutive sentences permissible where multiple victims)