Roop v. State

An error in allowing an officer to testify that he had been to "neurolinguistic schools," he had learned to judge people on their mannerisms and defendant behaved suspiciously was harmless, where the defendant gave significant misleading information to the investigating officers.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

The appellant, Raymond Roop, appeals from his conviction for the murder of Jeffrey Patterson.1 On appeal, Roop contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, and that the trial court erred in permitting a State’s witness to give his opinion regarding Roop’s culpability and credibility. For the reasons that follow, we resolve these contentions adversely to Roop, and thus affirm his convictions. 1. Roop first contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. Although the evidence is not without conflict, this Court does not reweigh the evidence, resolve conflicts in testimony, or judge the credibility of witnesses when evaluating the sufficiency of evidence on appeal.2 Instead, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.3 In the present case, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that it was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that, while Roop and the victim were talking in the parking lot of a coffee store about 3:15 a.m., Roop shot the victim in the face and took the victim’s wallet. Accordingly, the evidence is sufficient to support Roop’s conviction for malice murder.4

2. At trial, a police officer who assisted in the investigation on the evening of the crimes testified that he had been to several “neurolinguistic schools;” that he had learned to judge people by their eyes and mannerisms; and that he found Roop’s behavior suspicious. On appeal, Roop contends that the officer’s testimony was improper opinion testimony about Roop’s culpability and his credibility as a witness, and that the testimony was improper because the scientific reliability of “neurolinguistic” signs was not established at trial. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that no reversible error occurred.

Roop v. State

An error in allowing an officer to testify that he had been to "neurolinguistic schools," he had learned to judge people on their mannerisms and defendant behaved suspiciously was harmless, where the defendant gave significant misleading information to the investigating officers.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report