State of New Hampshire v. Vincent Cooper, 168 N.H. 161

Defendant Vincent Cooper was convicted by a jury of armed robbery and conspiracy related to a July 26, 2010 Dover robbery; codefendants were David McLeod and Warren Griffen.
The State played the victim’s 911 audio at trial; the victim did not testify and defendant objected on hearsay and Confrontation Clause grounds.
Co-defendant McLeod testified that Cooper drove a tan Buick, handed McLeod a gun, directed him to commit the robbery, and drove them away after the incident; McLeod received immunity/leniency in exchange for his testimony.
Corroborating evidence included police testimony about a tan vehicle, pepper spray can and unfired bullets at the scene, a neighbor’s observation of a car with temporary plates, and testimony about Cooper’s recent purchase of a tan Buick.
In closing, the prosecutor (1) asserted Griffen’s fingerprints were found on items at a crash scene though no evidence identified Griffen as the source, and (2) misstated the reasonable-doubt standard by saying the jury should not give the defendant “the benefit of the doubt.”

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of 911 call / Confrontation Clause	State: admission was proper (excited utterance) and any error harmless	Cooper: 911 statements were hearsay and violated Confrontation Clause because victim unavailable	Court assumed possible error but ruled any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming corroborating evidence (McLeod, police, neighbors, physical evidence)
Prosecutor’s improper closing (facts not in evidence and burden misstatement)	State: conceded statements were erroneous but argued no prejudice; trial judge instructed jury on law	Cooper: prosecutor vouched by arguing facts not in evidence (fingerprints) and told jury not to give defendant benefit of doubt; seeks plain-error relief	Court found errors plain but defendant failed to show they affected substantial rights; jury instructions and corroborating evidence cured any prejudice; conviction affirmed

Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (harmless-error framework for Confrontation Clause violations)
Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (approach to reasonable-doubt instructions)
State v. Ramsey, 166 N.H. 45 (harmless-error review where Confrontation/Rule errors are assumed)
State v. Mueller, 166 N.H. 65 (plain error standard and burden allocation)
State v. White, 155 N.H. 119 (erroneous admission of evidence harmless only if verdict unaffected)
State v. Lake, 125 N.H. 820 (prosecutorial argument may not present facts not in evidence; caution to prosecutors)
State v. Willis, 165 N.H. 206 (presumption that juries follow instructions)