Reginald Reece v. State, 06-14-00192-CR

Appellant Reginald Reece was convicted of theft with two prior theft convictions; punishment was set at 20 years. After an earlier reversal of punishment, he was retried on punishment and again sentenced to 20 years.
Reece raises two appellate complaints limited to the punishment retrial: (1) the trial court improperly limited defense voir dire by excluding PowerPoint slides that referenced facts and sentences from other cases; (2) the trial court erred by allowing victim-impact testimony from Wal‑Mart assistant manager Mark Harrison.
The trial court sustained the State’s objection to defense slides that asked jurors to evaluate whether sentences in other, unrelated cases were appropriate, excluding them as likely to confuse or commit the panel.
Defense was allowed to ask general questions about whether jurors could consider the full range of punishment and to contrast petty theft punishment with punishment for murder.
At punishment, Harrison testified about the economic impact of shoplifting on the store (protecting assets helps keep costs down). The defense objected to relevance; the court overruled and later the defense did not renew objections during further questioning.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Reece)	Held
Whether exclusion of voir dire slides referencing other cases was an abuse of discretion	Trial court reasonably excluded slides because they injected facts from other cases and would mislead/commit jurors; defense was still allowed to explore whether jurors could consider full punishment range	Reece argued exclusion prevented specific voir dire inquiries about jurors’ attitudes based on local sentencing examples	Exclusion not reversible: error not preserved (no specific questions framed) and, alternatively, not an abuse of discretion because slides raised commitment/confusion issues and defense could still probe punishment views
Admissibility of victim-impact testimony from Wal‑Mart assistant manager	Testimony was relevant victim‑impact evidence from a corporate representative with personal knowledge about loss and store impact	Reece argued testimony was improper victim‑impact evidence and irrelevant	Overruled: objection preserved only to initial question; later objections not renewed; testimony permissible as relevant victim‑impact from a knowledgeable representative; trial court’s ruling within discretion

Cantu v. State, 939 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (limits on victim‑impact testimony where witness lacked direct connection to victim)
Sells v. State, 121 S.W.3d 748 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (preservation rules for voir dire and error review)
De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (evidentiary rulings may be upheld if correct on any theory)
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (standard for review of evidentiary rulings and abuse of discretion)
Robbins v. State, 88 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (trial court discretion in admitting evidence; reversal only for clear abuse of discretion)