Reginald Reece v. State
2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 9386
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Reginald Reece was convicted by a Bowie County jury for theft of property between $500 and $1,500 and, after enhancements, received a 20-year sentence; the punishment phase was later retried on remand.
- At the second punishment hearing a jury again assessed 20 years and a $10,000 fine.
- Before voir dire, Reece sought to show slides asking veniremembers about knowledge of local cases and whether punishments in those cases were appropriate; the State objected and the trial court excluded two slides as confusing and as commitment questions.
- During voir dire the court allowed Reece to question jurors about their general attitudes toward punishment and their ability to consider the full statutory range.
- At punishment the State called a Walmart assistant manager who testified about the general impact of shoplifting on prices and customers; Reece objected on relevancy/foundation grounds but did not renew objections or obtain a running objection when broader victim-impact testimony followed.
- Reece appealed, arguing the court improperly limited voir dire and erred in admitting victim-impact testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court improperly limited voir dire on punishment | Reece: exclusion of slides prevented full exploration of veniremembers’ ability to consider full range of punishment | State: slides were improper commitment/other-cases questions; Reece failed to preserve error by not proposing rephrased hypotheticals | Court: No abuse of discretion — form, not substance, was excluded; Reece could and did question jurors about punishment and failed to rephrase questions, so point overruled |
| Whether victim-impact testimony from Walmart manager was improper | Reece: testimony exceeded case-specific impact and impermissibly generalized effects of all shoplifting on prices/customers | State: Reece failed to preserve error by not making timely/specific continuing objections or obtaining running objection | Court: Error not preserved — initial objection addressed foundation/relevancy, not the later victim-impact scope; point overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Sells v. State, 121 S.W.3d 748 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (trial court has broad voir dire discretion; error if proper question about proper area is prohibited)
- Barajas v. State, 93 S.W.3d 36 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (trial court may restrict confusing, vague, or commitment voir dire questions)
- Hernandez v. State, 390 S.W.3d 310 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (defendant must attempt to rephrase excluded voir dire to preserve complaint)
- Wright v. State, 28 S.W.3d 526 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (form of question may be restricted; substance must remain accessible)
- Haley v. State, 173 S.W.3d 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (preservation rules require timely, specific objections; running objection or hearing may substitute)
- Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (appellate courts must enforce preservation requirements and examine preservation sua sponte)
- Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (objections must inform trial judge what relief is sought to preserve error)
- Campbell v. State, 667 S.W.2d 221 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1983) (trial court entirely prohibited punishment-theory voir dire; contrasted with present case)
- Hill v. State, 426 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2014) (trial court improperly prevented individual jurors from being asked whether they could consider full punishment range)