State v. Chavez-Reyes
357 P.3d 1012
Utah Ct. App.2015Background
- On Jan 5–6, 2010, Deputy Josie Greathouse Fox was shot after stopping a Cadillac; the Cadillac was owned by Ruben Chavez‑Reyes and driven that night by his cousin.
- Chavez‑Reyes picked up his cousin after the crash, transferred the Cadillac plates to his Corvette, and the cousin discarded two firearms from the Corvette while they drove to Salt Lake City; the two later traveled to Beaver and were arrested.
- Chavez‑Reyes was charged with obstruction of justice, burglary of a non‑dwelling, tampering with evidence, burglary of a dwelling, and possession of a firearm by a restricted person; convicted on the first three counts and acquitted on the last two.
- Key contested trial events: admission of a non‑graphic photograph of Deputy Fox’s body, prosecutor remarks in rebuttal about Chavez‑Reyes previously loaning the Cadillac to his cousin, and sentencing issues arising from the presentence investigation report (PSI).
- On appeal, Chavez‑Reyes challenged (1) admission of the photograph as gruesome and prejudicial, (2) prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing for failing to obtain a new PSI.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Chavez‑Reyes' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of photograph of victim | Photo was relevant to proving the predicate murder and properly admitted; not gruesome | Photo was irrelevant to obstruction charge and was gruesome/unfairly prejudicial | Photo was relevant, not gruesome, and its probative value did not create unfair prejudice; admission was within trial court discretion |
| Prosecutorial remarks about prior loan of Cadillac | Remarks supported jurors’ inference of obstruction context | Remarks improperly highlighted collateral, attenuated conduct (loaning Cadillac two months earlier) and were prejudicial | Remarks were improper but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given other evidence of intent and defendant’s admissions |
| Ineffective assistance re: PSI and sentencing | PSI corrected/deletions were made; counsel requested new PSI | Counsel was ineffective for not forcing preparation of a new PSI and for allowing sentencing on inaccurate PSI | No deficient performance or prejudice: counsel requested a new PSI, court struck offending statements and the judgment noted deletion; Strickland standard not met |
| Standard for evaluating gruesome photographs and prejudice | Apply Bluff test: relevance, gruesomeness, then balancing (403 if not gruesome) | Photo was gruesome given publicity and emotional impact; thus should be excluded | Applied precedent: focus is on photograph characteristics; publicity/emotion are not features of the photo itself; photograph not gruesome under Staples factors and 403 balancing favored admission |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bluff, 52 P.3d 1210 (Utah 2002) (three‑part test for allegedly gruesome photographs: relevance, gruesomeness, and balancing)
- State v. Gulbransen, 106 P.3d 734 (Utah 2005) (relevance not defeated by stipulation; admissibility reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Stapley, 249 P.3d 572 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (factors for assessing whether a photograph is gruesome)
- State v. Decorso, 993 P.2d 837 (Utah 1999) (non‑gruesome evidence is subject to Rule 403 balancing)
- State v. Tillman, 750 P.2d 546 (Utah 1987) (prosecutorial remarks constitute reversible misconduct only when they call jurors’ attention to matters they should not consider)
- State v. Davis, 311 P.3d 538 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (application of harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard to prosecutorial‑misconduct review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)