The 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