State v. Cochran, 365 S.W.3d 628

Cochran had eighteen dogs at her Boone County property during a January 15, 2009 visit by animal control and agriculture department staff who observed care needs and vaccination regulations.
On December 15, 2009, investigators observed Cochran's dogs in cold conditions with inadequate shelter, water, and debris, with one dog Fifi outside shivering and undernourished conditions.
A dog named Boss was present but not on the vaccination list; Cochran admitted Boss had been at the home for more than thirty days and asserted ownership nuances.
Cochran was charged with misdemeanor animal abuse (578.012) for Fifi's care and with a county ordinance violation (192.300) for failing to vaccinate Boss; Rold was endorsed as an expert the day before trial.
Rold testified as an expert about adequate care and opined there was animal abuse; Cochran objected to late expert disclosure but the court overruled.
The jury convicted Cochran on both counts; the trial court sentenced 30 days imprisonment (suspended) with two years’ probation and a $100 fine on the ordinance violation; Cochran appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rold's testimony on animal abuse was improper expert opinion	Cochran argues it invaded jury province and concerned ultimate issue; objections preserved on several grounds but not on the exact ultimate-issue framing.	State contends admission was permissible expert testimony aiding the jury on an adequate-care question related to the charged offense.	Denied; no plain error affecting substantial rights shown.
Whether the county ordinance violation (Count II) was proven without introducing the ordinance itself	State failed to prove the existence/terms of the ordinance 2.4.3; thus cannot sustain the conviction.	County health regulation evidence suffices to prove violation without formal ordinance presentation.	Granted; Count II vacated due to failure to introduce the ordinance and double-jeopardy concerns.

State v. Mickle, 164 S.W.3d 33 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (preservation of evidentiary objections; plain error review when not preserved)
State v. Purlee, 839 S.W.2d 584 (Mo. banc 1992) (need for specific objections at admission)
State v. Uptegrove, 330 S.W.3d 586 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (plain-error review framework)
State v. Beck, 167 S.W.3d 767 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (limits/role of expert testimony on ultimate issues)
State v. Gray, 347 S.W.3d 490 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (experts may testify on ultimate issues if aids jury and does not invade province)
State v. Haslett, 283 S.W.3d 769 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009) (limits on expert testimony regarding guilt or witness credibility)
State v. Pickens, 332 S.W.3d 303 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (expert may testify to ultimate issues but not substitute juror reasoning)
City of Boonville v. Martin, 694 S.W.2d 295 (Mo. App. W.D. 1985) (proof of ordinance required by formal presentation or stipulation)
City of Clarkton v. Manes, 140 S.W.3d 297 (Mo. App. S.D. 2004) (need for ordinance existence to prove offense)
Afshari, 938 S.W.2d 303 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997) (double-jeopardy concerns when failure to present evidence at first trial)
Furne, 642 S.W.2d 614 (Mo. banc 1982) (double jeopardy remedy when evidence missing on retrial)