Court Opinion

ID: 9897518
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:15:30.973669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:51.963997
License: Public Domain

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                             SUPREME COURT

  In Case No. 2022-0372, State of New Hampshire v. Vincent
Cooper, the court on September 12, 2023, issued the following
order:

      The court has reviewed the written arguments and the record submitted
on appeal, has considered the oral arguments of the parties, and has
determined to resolve the case by way of this order. See Sup. Ct. R. 20(2). The
defendant, Vincent Cooper, appeals his conviction following a jury trial in
Superior Court (St. Hilaire, J.), on one felony count of second degree assault-
domestic violence, in that he knowingly engaged in the strangulation of
another. See RSA 631:2, I(f) (2016); RSA 631:2, III (Supp. 2022). The
defendant argues that the trial court erred when it ruled that he “opened the
door” to the admission of text messages that he sent to the victim about
obedience and respect. The State counters that even if the trial court erred in
allowing the State to read aloud the messages during its cross-examination of
the defendant, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm.

                                        I

       The jury could have found the following facts. The defendant and the
victim met in January 2019 and married approximately one week later. After
marrying, their relationship went downhill “fairly quickly.” The victim testified
that there was “a lot of” physical, mental, and emotional abuse in the
relationship “from the very beginning.” In February 2019, the victim became
pregnant and gave birth to twins in October. In the weeks that followed, the
victim was home alone with the children during the day when the defendant
was at work.

      On December 18, 2019, the defendant, after arriving home from work,
spent approximately four hours on the phone. The victim and the children
were in the bedroom and the victim yelled for the defendant, who was in an
adjacent room, to get something for the children that she needed. The
defendant muted his phone and yelled at the victim that she was interrupting
his phone call and “should know better.” The victim, who had her phone in her
hand, walked to where she could see the defendant, asked for help again, and
made a comment about his phone call. The victim testified that, because there
had been prior acts of violence and abuse, she knew from the look on the
defendant’s face that “he was going to physically do something.” She told the
defendant that she “was going to record him beating his wife” and started
recording on her phone.
        The defendant struck the phone out of her hand and it flew across the
bedroom and landed against the wall by the bed. The defendant then struck
the victim in the face, grabbed her and threw her down on the bed, with one
hand choking her throat and the other hand over her mouth. The victim
testified that she was scared and could not breathe. The defendant, while still
holding the victim’s neck, grabbed a pillow and put it over her face, applying
pressure to push the pillow into her face. The victim testified that, despite
attempting to, she could not breathe, was fighting to stay alive, felt like she was
going to die, and was in “excruciating” pain because her neck had cracked.

                                        II

       After the defendant’s direct examination, the State asked to cross-
examine the defendant about text messages between the defendant and the
victim regarding respect in the relationship, arguing that the messages were
relevant to show the defendant’s mental state during the assault and that they
established a motive for the defendant’s emotional and physical abuse of the
victim. Over defense counsel’s objection, the trial court ruled that, because the
defendant testified and claimed self-defense as his motive for assaulting the
victim, he had put at issue “who would be the primary aggressor and who
started this” and, therefore, it was “appropriate for the State to explore that
area.” The State then read aloud several text messages in which the defendant
texted the victim that: (1) when he says something, the victim is “going to
respect it”; (2) the victim had “been disrespectful to [him] for years”; (3) the
victim had disrespected him in front of another person; and (4) the rules for his
relationship with the victim included “being completely faithful and loyal” and
that “[d]isrespectful is not to be tolerated, and it’s a mandatory violation.” We
need not determine whether the trial court erred because we conclude that the
asserted error would be harmless.

      To establish harmless error, the State must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the error did not affect the verdict. State v. Boudreau, 176 N.H. ___,
___ (decided June 7, 2023) (slip op. at 9). This standard applies to both the
erroneous admission and exclusion of evidence. Id. We consider the
alternative evidence presented at trial as well as the character of the
erroneously admitted evidence itself. Id. To determine whether the State has
proven beyond a reasonable doubt that an error did not affect the verdict, we
must evaluate the totality of the circumstances at trial. Id.

       The factors that we have considered in assessing whether an error did
not affect the verdict include, but are not limited to: (1) the strength of the
State’s case; (2) whether the admitted or excluded evidence is cumulative or
inconsequential in relation to the strength of the State’s case; (3) the frequency
of the error; (4) the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or
contradicting the erroneously admitted or excluded evidence; (5) the nature of
the defense; (6) the circumstances in which the evidence was introduced at

                                        2
trial; (7) whether the court took any curative steps; (8) whether the evidence is
of an inflammatory nature; and (9) whether the other evidence of the
defendant’s guilt is of an overwhelming nature. Id. at ___ (slip op. at 10). No
one factor is dispositive, we may consider factors not listed above, and not all
factors may be implicated in a given case. Id.

       The defendant was charged with knowingly engaging in the strangulation
of the victim in that he used his hand to apply pressure to her neck or throat
and/or covered her face with a pillow causing her to experience impeded
breathing or a change in voice. See RSA 631:2, I(f); RSA 631:2, II(c) (2016)
(defining “strangulation” as “the application of pressure to another person’s
throat or neck, or the blocking of the person’s nose or mouth that causes the
person to experience impeded breathing or blood circulation or a change in
voice”).

       As set forth above, the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was
overwhelming. The victim testified that the defendant threw her on the bed,
choked her with one hand and applied pressure to push a pillow into her face
with the other hand, thereby impeding her breathing. The defendant admitted
on cross-examination that he “slammed [the victim] onto the mattress,” “got on
top of her,” put his hand on the side of her face, and “mushed her head into
the mattress.” The defendant testified that he released pressure from the
victim “[b]ecause she was struggling” and “said she couldn’t breathe” and that,
hearing her neck crack, he “got up off her.” The defendant admitted that the
eight-minute video recording from the victim’s phone, which was played for the
jury, recorded the victim’s voice, the change in her voice, and her struggle to
breathe.

       Furthermore, the text messages were inconsequential in relation to the
strength of the other evidence that the defendant strangled the victim.
Therefore, we conclude that, based upon the totality of the circumstances, even
if the trial court erred in allowing the State to read aloud the text messages
during its cross-examination of the defendant, any error did not affect the
verdict and thus was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

                                                         Affirmed.

    MACDONALD, C.J., and HICKS, BASSETT, HANTZ MARCONI, and
DONOVAN, JJ., concurred.

                                                  Timothy A. Gudas,
                                                       Clerk

                                        3