State of Louisiana v. Jonathon Tyrone Cooper

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: December 17, 2025
• Docket: 56,664-KA
• Status: Published

Opinion

Judgment rendered December 17, 2025. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.

No. 56,664-KA

COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

Versus

JONATHAN TYRONE COOPER Appellant

Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court No. 389,219

Honorable John D. Mosely, Jr., Judge

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Edward K. Bauman

JAMES E. STEWART, SR. Counsel for Appellee District Attorney

REBECCA A. EDWARDS MICHAEL T. ANDERSON Assistant District Attorneys

Before COX, STEPHENS, and MARCOTTE, JJ. STEPHENS, J.,

This criminal appeal arises from the First Judicial District Court,

Parish of Caddo, the Honorable John Mosley, Jr., Judge, presiding. The

defendant, Jonathan Tyrone Cooper, was indicted by a Caddo Parish grand

jury on July 19, 2022, for the first degree rape of his minor child, A.C., when

A.C. was under the age of thirteen years old, a violation of La. R.S.

14:42(A)(4). Following the trial, the jury found Cooper guilty as charged,

and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment at hard labor without

the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. For the

following reasons, Cooper’s conviction and sentence are affirmed, but we

remand this matter for compliance with La. R.S. 15:543.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 12, 2022, A.C. reported to her teacher at her elementary

school that her father, Jonathan Cooper, had touched her inappropriately and

had sex with her. A.C., her brother, J.C., and Cooper were living together

with Cooper’s mother at the time A.C. confided in her schoolteacher.1 A

jury trial commenced on November 21, 2024, where the following evidence

and testimony was presented.

A.C.’s teacher, Penny Brown, testified that A.C. told her that she

could not take it anymore and had to tell someone. A.C. then described what

would happen during these interactions with A.C.’s father. A.C. told Ms.

Brown that Cooper would have his pants down and her pants would be down

while Cooper was on top of her. A.C. related to Ms. Brown that A.C. told

1 A.C.’s brother, J.C., also made statements that corroborated A.C.’s story. He related that he saw “it” happen between his father and his sister one time. There was also testimony that J.C. heard his sister and his father on several occasions. her grandmother, who informed her not to tell anyone. Ms. Brown stated

that she then took A.C. to the school counselor, and Ms. Brown and the

counselor contacted CPS and law enforcement. Ms. Brown stated that A.C.

had previously told lies or attempted to mislead her, but A.C. showed every

sign of telling the truth on the day she told Ms. Brown about the sexual

abuse.

Dr. Jennifer Rodriguez, an associate professor at LSU Health

Shreveport and the medical director at the CARA Center for children who

are suspected of being abused or neglected, testified at trial as an expert in

child abuse pediatrics. Dr. Rodriguez stated that she performed A.C.’s

examination the day after she had been placed in foster care. During the

examination, Dr. Rodriguez inquired if A.C. had experienced any bleeding

following the encounters with her father. A.C. replied she did not remember

any bleeding. Dr. Rodriguez stated that A.C. had some redness close to her

hymen, but her hymen and anus looked normal. Dr. Rodriguez testified that

a normal exam does not indicate the lack of sexual abuse. She stated that

often children who experience abuse typically have “normal” results

following an examination due to elasticity and fast-healing qualities of

certain body parts.

Lacie Hadley, the director of forensic interviews at the Gingerbread

House Children’s Advocacy Center, was tendered by the State as an expert

and testified at trial. When questioned about her qualifications, Ms. Hadley

stated to the court that she has a bachelor’s degree in psychology and a

master’s degree in counseling. She discussed that a week-long training is

required to become a forensic interviewer, and she is required to complete a

minimum of 20 hours of continuing education each year. Ms. Hadley 2 testified that she has attended multiple trainings in advanced forensic

interviewing, which included how to interview children who are victims of

human trafficking, and how to interview children with disabilities. Not only

had she participated in several conferences and training courses led by

experts in the field, but Ms. Hadley testified that she has led and conducted

several presentations and training courses alongside other forensic

interviewers. Ms. Hadley stated that she has been a co-facilitator for peer

reviews, and she has completed over 2,000 forensic interviews in her eight

years as an interviewer.

Defense counsel objected to Ms. Hadley being accepted as an expert

and explained that the defense was not satisfied that Ms. Hadley was an

expert in the field. Counsel argued that the defendant had no pretrial notice

that the State intended to qualify Ms. Hadley as an expert. However, the

trial court ultimately qualified Ms. Hadley as an expert, and defense

counsel’s objection was noted for the record.

Ms. Hadley testified that she performed A.C.’s forensic interview on

May 12, 2022. She discussed A.C.’s body language in the video footage

from the Gingerbread interview. A.C.’s body was facing Ms. Hadley when

they were discussing neutral things, but A.C. began to turn her body away

from Ms. Hadley when they entered the disclosure phase of the interview.

Ms. Hadley testified that A.C. wrote on a piece of paper during the interview

that she was scared her dad was going to be in jail. A.C. also indicated to

Ms. Hadley during the interview that she told her grandmother about the

abuse, but her grandmother told her not to tell anybody else.

Barry Hornsby, the former supervisor over sex crimes at the

Shreveport Police Department, testified at trial. Hornsby stated that he was 3 the monitoring law enforcement officer for the Gingerbread interview.

Following A.C.’s interview wherein she indicated that her father was

“hunching” her, SPD had probable cause to arrest Cooper. Hornsby also

testified that his investigation revealed that there was evidence of oral and

anal penetration. Hornsby has seen false claims of sexual assault from his

experience with the sex crimes unit. However, he testified that no signs of

false claims were present in this case.

A.C. testified that she knew the difference between a truth and a lie.

She stated that she remembered talking to Ms. Hadley, and she told Ms.

Hadley the truth. A.C. also stated that when she was seven, eight, and nine

years old, she lived with her grandmother.

Lashondra Owens, a CPS investigator, also testified. She stated that

A.C.’s Gingerbread interview helped her determine that A.C. needed to be

removed from the grandmother’s home and put in an emergency placement

for her safety and well-being. Ms. Owens related that she saw no signs of

deception about the information A.C. had provided in her interview. Ms.

Owens also testified that to her knowledge the children (A.C. and her

brother) were placed with their biological mother.

A.C.’s grandmother, Charlesetta Cooper, testified that A.C. never

informed her that Cooper had sexually abused her. Ms. Cooper stated that if

something like that had happened in her house, she would have known about

it because she is home all the time. She stated that while she loved her son,

she would never lie for him. Ms. Cooper also testified that the children,

A.C. and her brother, had a history of lying.

Last to testify at trial was the defendant, Jonathan Cooper. He stated

that he did not do what he had been accused of. Cooper testified that A.C. 4 made up the story because she was mad at him for refusing to give her a

snack around midnight one evening. He told the jury that he was having

health issues, his father had passed away, and his wife had left him around

the time this was happening.2 Because of this, Cooper testified that he was

depressed and not in his right mind. Cooper stated that he suffers from

kidney failure, high blood pressure, and erectile dysfunction. These reasons

ultimately led him to send a text message to Ms. Owens, the CPS

investigator, that while he maintained that he did not do what A.C. accused

him of, he would take responsibility and that he felt his children would be

better off if he did take responsibility for the things of which he was

accused.

Following the close of trial on November 21, 2024, the jury returned a

unanimous verdict of guilty as charged of first-degree rape. On January 8,

2025, Cooper filed a motion for new trial and a motion for post-verdict

judgment of acquittal, but the trial court denied both motions, finding that

the testimony of all of the witnesses was sufficient for the verdict reached in

the case. The sentencing hearing took place on February 11, 2025. The trial

court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment without the benefit of

probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. The sentence was to run

concurrently with any other sentence Cooper would be required to serve and

Cooper was given credit for time served. Cooper filed a motion to

reconsider sentence on March 6, 2025, which was denied by the trial court

on that same date. Cooper now appeals his conviction.

2 The State established on cross-examination that Cooper’s wife left two years prior to A.C.’s allegations. 5 DISCUSSION

In his sole assignment of error, Cooper asserts that the trial court erred

in allowing Lacy Hadley to testify as an expert witness, thereby bolstering

A.C.’s testimony and denying Cooper his right to a fair trial. He urges that

the trial court abused its discretion in qualifying Ms. Hadley as an expert

because it did not specify on the record or for the jury the field in which Ms.

Hadley was an expert. In reply, the State contends that the trial court

properly qualified Ms. Hadley as an expert and was within its discretion to

do so. The State asserts that Cooper’s arguments have no merit as the record

clearly indicates that Ms. Hadley was accepted as an expert witness in her

field of forensic interviewing. The State points out that Ms. Hadley testified

about her specialized skills and knowledge as well as her education and

schooling that would support her being an expert in child forensic

interviews.

La. C.E. art. 702 provides that a witness who is qualified as an expert

by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the

form of an opinion or otherwise if: (1) the expert’s scientific, technical, or

other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the

evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (2) the testimony is based on

sufficient facts or data; (3) the testimony is the product of reliable principles

and methods; and (4) the expert has reliably applied the principles and

methods to the facts of the case.

Trial courts are vested with great discretion in determining the

competence of an expert witness, and rulings on the qualification of a

witness as an expert will not be disturbed unless there was a clear abuse of

that discretion. State v. Hilliard, 52,652 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/14/19), 278 So. 6 3d 1065, writ denied, 19-01701 (La. 7/24/20), 299 So. 3d 68; State v.

Critton, 52,058 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/22/18), 251 So. 3d 1281, writ denied, 18-

1515 (La. 2/25/19), 266 So. 3d 292; State v. Farris, 51,094 (La. App. 2 Cir.

12/14/16), 210 So. 3d 877, writ denied, 17-0070 (La. 10/9/17), 227 So. 3d

828.

Despite Cooper’s contention that Ms. Hadley’s designation as an

expert placed her testimony beyond the reach of challenge, denying him his

right to confrontation, we note that defense counsel had every opportunity to

question her about her experience, education, and training. The only

objection the defense offered in its challenge to Ms. Hadley being tendered

as an expert was that counsel was not satisfied with Ms. Hadley being

considered as an expert in the field of forensic interviewing. We find that no

reasonable grounds were given to challenge Ms. Hadley’s experience,

education, or training in forensic interviewing. The record shows that Ms.

Hadley testified extensively about her qualifications, her continuing

education, and her experience prior to the trial court qualifying her as an

expert in forensic interviewing. The record also clearly reflects that the

State requested Ms. Hadley be tendered and accepted as an expert in the

field of forensic interviewing.

Given Ms. Hadley’s testimony, as well as the trial court’s vast

discretion in determining the competence of an expert witness, nothing in

the record suggests that the trial court abused this discretion in accepting Ms.

Hadley as an expert witness in forensic interviewing. Furthermore, most, if

not all, of Ms. Hadley’s testimony merely described the video footage of

A.C.’s Gingerbread interview that was played for the jury. We find that the

trial court properly exercised its discretion in qualifying Ms. Hadley as an 7 expert witness in forensic interviewing. Consequently, Cooper’s assignment

of error has no merit.

ERROR PATENT

Following our review of the record and appropriately highlighted in

the State’s brief, the minutes of the trial court and the record as a whole do

not reflect that Cooper was provided with written notice of the sex offender

notification and registration requirements as mandated by La. R.S. 15:543.3

As such, we agree with the State’s proposal that this matter be remanded to

the trial court to correct this issue and provide appropriate written notice and

instructions to Cooper. Once the trial court provides written notice to

Cooper, an entry must be made in the court minutes that Cooper was

provided with this written notification as required by La. R.S. 15:543.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the conviction and sentence of the

defendant, Jonathan Tyrone Cooper, are affirmed, and the matter is

remanded to the trial court for compliance with La. R.S. 15:543.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

3 La. R.S. 15:543 provides, in pertinent part:

The court shall provide written notification to any person convicted of a sex offense and a criminal offense against a victim who is a minor of the registration requirements and the notification requirements of this Chapter. For purposes of this Subsection, the court shall use the form contained in R.S. 15:543.1 and shall provide a copy of the registration and notification statutes to the offender. Such notice shall be included on any guilty plea forms and judgment and sentence forms provided to the defendant, and an entry shall be made in the court minutes stating that the written notification was provided to such offenders. 8