This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Cooper (D) met L.K. through a mutual friend when D was in his mid-fifties and L.K. was in her mid-twenties. L.K. was living on the streets at the time, and D invited her to stay at his house. She accepted his invitation and moved in with him. About a month later, they became romantically involved. Approximately a year and a half into their intimate relationship, D and L.K. had a physical altercation. D was arrested on scene. He was later charged with one felony (menacing with a deadly weapon) and three misdemeanors (third-degree assault, harassment, and cruelty to animals). P alleged that the act underlying each offense was an act of 'domestic violence.' L.K. was uncooperative and was not going to testify against D. Months before trial, P endorsed Janet Kerr, a licensed professional counselor and the executive director of a domestic violence and sexual assault agency. P informed the court and D that Kerr intended to offer generalized expert testimony on the dynamics of domestic violence. D filed a motion in limine related to that proposed testimony. The court initially took up Kerr's proffered testimony on the first day of trial. Kerr had never met L.K. or D, much less analyzed their relationship, and had no plans to opine about whether L.K. was telling the truth or whether D was guilty of any charge. The purpose of her endorsement was to educate the jury 'about the dynamics of abusive relationships so that the jury could more accurately assess the credibility of the witnesses given some counterintuitive dynamics that are commonly seen in abusive relationships.' D asked the court to defer ruling on his motion until after L.K. testified so that the court could better assess whether Kerr's proffered testimony was relevant. Following L.K.'s testimony, the court revisited D's motion outside the presence of the jury. The most common trait that's counterintuitive that we see in the courtroom are victims of domestic violence either recanting their original statement to authorities minimizing their statement to authorities or failing to obey a subpoena, and I think it's very important for the record to reflect that this case is not one of those. The court did not hear anything in [L.K.'s] testimony that could fairly be characterized as a minimization or a recantation in any way. The court directed P to identify 'the counterintuitive fact in this case' about which Kerr needed to educate the jury. Kerr was prepared to educate the jury about those overarching concepts through the 'Power and Control Wheel' (a tool developed by social scientists to explain the common dynamics of domestic violence). P asserted that there were some behaviors by L.K. which, while not among the most commonly seen in domestic violence cases, would nevertheless seem counterintuitive to jurors. P discussed: (1) L.K.'s refusal to be transported to a hospital after the assault, something that she and a responding officer had been questioned about on cross-examination; and (2) L.K.'s decision to continue to have in-person and phone contact with D after the incident to express her love for him, which, according to the People, reflected the presence of the cycle of violence. P also maintained that Kerr's testimony was necessary to educate the jury about several other matters: (1) the kindness-violence dichotomy reflected in D's offer to provide L.K. a warm place to live and his subsequent attack against her-contrasting behaviors that P feared could lead some jurors to question the credibility of the allegations; (2) 'the age differential' of approximately thirty years between D and L.K., which P believed contributed to the power and control he exerted over her; (3) the assault on Buddy, which P considered a form of intimidation and thus relevant to D's power and control over L.K.; and (4) L.K.'s financial dependence on D, which P urged was part and parcel of the power-and-control dynamic. D asked the court to exclude Kerr's opinions on the ground that they were irrelevant and constituted improper bolstering of P's theory of the case without enough connection to the facts. The court allowed the proffered opinions that had a sufficient logical connection to the facts of this case to be helpful to the jury without violating Rule 403. The court set boundaries around the generalized expert testimony it was admitting. It told the parties that Kerr was 'not going to be allowed to give an opinion' about whether she thought L.K. 'was telling the truth' or whether D was 'guilty.' Instead, Kerr would simply be permitted to provide 'general information to educate the jury' about the concepts and ideas the court had identified. The jury ultimately returned mixed verdicts. It found D guilty of third-degree assault and harassment but not guilty of menacing and cruelty to animals. D appealed and the court of appeals reversed. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.