Case Title: James Richard Cooper v. State Of Florida

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC09-1169

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2010-08-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC09-1169 
____________ 
 
JAMES RICHARD COOPER,  
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA,  
Respondent. 
 
[August 26, 2010] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
James Richard Cooper seeks review of the decision of the Second District 
Court of Appeal in Cooper v. State, 13 So. 3d 147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), on the 
grounds that it expressly and directly conflicts with the decision of this Court in 
State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986).1   
Cooper was convicted of four counts of sexual battery on a person in 
familial custody and two counts of lewd molestation for his sexual abuse of a 
single victim over a period of years.  Cooper v. State, 13 So. 3d 147, 148 (Fla. 2d 
DCA 2009).  On appeal, the Second District concluded that the trial court erred in 
                                          
 
1.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. 
 
- 2 - 
allowing the State to present evidence that Cooper engaged in extensive, ongoing 
abuse of the victim when Cooper was charged with only six single counts of sexual 
misconduct.2  Id. at 148-49.  The Second District then performed a harmless error 
analysis, citing but not using the standard set forth by this Court in DiGuilio: 
As to whether the error of allowing the State to present 
evidence of extensive abuse did or did not contribute to the verdict, 
we note that if the case had been presented as six distinct acts as 
charged, the State’s presentation of its case would have necessarily 
been different.  On the other hand, the jury heard a taped statement 
where Cooper admitted engaging in sexual acts with the victim.  
Because the taped statement is strong evidence of Cooper’s guilt, we 
conclude that the error of allowing the State to present evidence of 
multiple sexual acts did not affect the verdict and was harmless in this 
case.  See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986). 
 
Cooper, 13 So. 3d at 149 (emphasis added).   
Although the Second District cited DiGuilio, it failed to follow the DiGuilio 
standard when it relied on what it deemed the “strong evidence of Cooper’s guilt.”  
Id.  As we have explained, the applicable test “is not a sufficiency-of-the-evidence, 
a correct result, a not clearly wrong, a substantial evidence, a more probable than 
not, a clear and convincing, or even an overwhelming evidence test.”  
DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d at 1139.  Likewise, it is not a strong evidence test.  Rather, 
the test is “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error affected the 
verdict.”  Id.; see also Ventura v. State, 29 So. 3d 1086, 1091 (Fla. 2010) (quashing 
                                          
 
2.  We decline to address whether the admission of evidence of numerous 
incidents of sexual contact was, in fact, error in these circumstances.   
 
- 3 - 
and remanding a district court’s decision when the harmless error analysis focused 
on overwhelming evidence of guilt because it “does not address a proper 
[DiGuilio] analysis and does not discuss whether there is a reasonable possibility 
that the . . . error affected the verdict”).   
Accordingly, we quash and remand to the Second District for 
reconsideration of the harmless error analysis enunciated in DiGuilio. 
It is so ordered. 
CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, 
and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
 
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - Direct 
Conflict of Decisions 
 
 
Second District - Case No. 2D08-1981 and CF06-005770-XX 
 
 
(Polk County) 
 
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and William L. Sharwell, Assistant 
Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Marilyn Muir Beccue, 
Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, 
 
 
for Respondent