State v. Lopez, 417 P.3d 116

Background

Shannon Lopez was killed by a single gunshot to the left ear while in a truck with her husband, Komasquin Lopez; the manner of death (suicide vs. homicide) was disputed and was the central issue at trial.
Physical evidence was inconclusive: wound location atypical for suicide (medical examiner), gun and holster found on driver’s side, gunshot residue on Lopez’s hand, and Shannon’s right hand was hidden in her sleeve; Shannon had prior suicide-related statements and recent methamphetamine use.
The State presented Dr. Craig Bryan, a clinical psychologist, who applied the Fluid Vulnerability Theory of Suicide (FVTS) to opine that Shannon’s behavior was inconsistent with suicide; defense presented an expert opining the death was a “classic suicide.”
The trial court admitted Dr. Bryan’s FVTS-based opinion (with limits) and admitted two prior-act 404(b) incidents in which Lopez pointed a gun at family members or threatened to kill one if she left.
A jury convicted Lopez of murder and use of a dangerous weapon; Lopez appealed challenging the admission of the FVTS testimony and the prior-act evidence; the Utah Supreme Court reversed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of FVTS expert testimony	State: FVTS is generally accepted and reliable; Dr. Bryan qualified to apply it to assess suicidal likelihood even post-mortem	Lopez: No adequate foundation that FVTS is reliable when applied to a decedent; testimony not properly grounded under Rule 702	Court: Reversed — State failed to show FVTS is generally accepted or otherwise reliable for post-mortem suicide risk; admission was abuse of discretion
Sufficiency of foundation that FVTS can assess suicide risk of a deceased person	State: Assessing risk at different times is the same question; FVTS acceptance in clinical settings shows reliability	Lopez: FVTS relies on interviews and live-patient data; no proof it can identify baseline/acute factors in someone who cannot be interviewed	Held: FVTS may be accepted for live patients but State presented no evidence it reliably applies to decedents; foundation insufficient
Admission of prior-act evidence under Rule 404(b) for identity/modus operandi	State: Prior instances of Lopez pointing a gun at family members show identity (he was the shooter)	Lopez: Evidence was propensity evidence, not sufficiently similar to establish modus operandi or intermediate inference; prejudicial	Held: Reversed — district court abused discretion; the prior acts lacked the high degree of similarity or link to weapon/access needed for non-character identity inference
Doctrine of chances as alternative basis for admitting prior acts	State (on appeal): doctrine of chances could show improbability of innocent explanation	Trial court rejected doctrine of chances; State did not cross-appeal on that ruling; on appeal sought to affirm on that alternative ground	Held: Court declined to apply doctrine of chances here — facts lacked required materiality, similarity, independence, and frequency foundations; not apparent basis to affirm on that ground

Key Cases Cited

State v. Maestas, 299 P.3d 892 (Utah 2012) (standard of review and gatekeeping for expert testimony under Rule 702)
State v. Thornton, 391 P.3d 1016 (Utah 2017) (abuse of discretion review for admission of character/evidence issues)
State v. Verde, 296 P.3d 673 (Utah 2012) (doctrine of chances foundational requirements for 404(b) evidence)
State v. Lucero, 328 P.3d 841 (Utah 2014) (use of prior acts to prove modus operandi/identity requires high degree of similarity)
State v. Tuttle, 780 P.2d 1203 (Utah 1989) (harmless-error standard for evidentiary errors)