229 N.C. App. 442
N.C. Ct. App.2013Background
- Bradley Graham Cooper (Defendant) and Nancy Lynn Rentz Cooper were married in 2000 and moved to Cary, NC in 2001; by 2008 their marriage was strained and Ms. Cooper hired counsel to move out.
- In July 2008 the couple's relationship remained largely separate; they attended a neighbor party where arguments occurred, and Ms. Cooper disappeared the morning of July 12, 2008.
- Ms. Cooper’s body was found July 14, 2008; cause of death was strangulation with death likely occurring after she was last seen at the party.
- The State’s case hinged on digital evidence from a laptop left at Cooper’s home, with expert testimony from FBI CART members and police investigators about forensic data and Google Map files.
- Ward, a defense witness, testified about tampering theories but was limited by the trial court; Masucci, later substituted as defense expert, was excluded as a discovery sanction, and the court denied discovery requests, leading to a conviction.
- The court vacated the conviction, holding that the exclusion of Ward’s testimony and the denial of Masucci’s testimony and discovery were reversible errors requiring a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ward’s exclusion as an expert was an abuse of discretion | Cooper contends Ward was qualified to opine on tampering | State argued Ward lacked forensic credentials | Abuse of discretion; Ward’s testimony should have been admitted. |
| Whether Ward’s exclusion deprived Cooper of a due process defense | Ward’s testimony was essential to challenge Google Map evidence | State’s evidentiary rules justified exclusion | Constitutional rights violated; new trial required. |
| Whether Masucci could testify after Ward was excluded | Masucci offered necessary alternate expert testimony | Masucci violated discovery rules and was properly excluded | Exclusion improper; new trial warranted. |
| Whether denial of discovery precluded defense evidence | Defense needed CART data and procedures to rebut State’s evidence | State asserted privilege/work product; court denied discovery | Order to deny discovery was improper; new trial warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brower, 289 N.C. 644 (1976) (constitutional right to present a complete defense; admissibility of evidence and due process)
- Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988) (right to present witnesses; due process and compulsory process)
- Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986) (due process; exclusion of favorable evidence deprives a fair trial)
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) (defendant’s right to expert assistance in difficult cases)
- Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440 (2004) (three-step test for admissibility of expert testimony; reject Daubert approach)
- State v. Moore, 321 N.C. 327 (1988) (discovery sanctions and right to an adequate defense)
- State v. Ward, 364 N.C. 133 (2010) (expertise standard in forensic analysis; admissibility of data interpretation)
- Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145 (1991) (Taylor sanction framework; weigh compulsory process against interests)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (cross-examination as a fundamental safeguard against false testimony)
- United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) (procedural rules cannot abridge a defendant’s right to present essential evidence)