State v. Perea, 322 P.3d 624

Background

On Aug. 4, 2007, Riqo Perea (then 19) was in an SUV from which multiple witnesses testified shots were fired into a crowd; two people were killed and others injured. Shell casings and bullet fragments were .22 caliber; gun not recovered. Perea later told police the gun was a .22.
Perea was arrested, read Miranda warnings, and confessed at the station; interrogation was not recorded (Ogden PD policy). He signed a written statement and waived rights.
State charged Perea with two counts aggravated murder and two counts attempted murder; jury convicted; district court sentenced Perea to life without parole on each aggravated-murder count and 3 years-to-life on each attempted-murder count. Perea appealed.
Pretrial evidentiary rulings: court limited defense crime-scene expert James Gaskill (excluded photos and animations, barred credibility opinions about other witnesses but allowed theory testimony); court excluded defense false-confession expert Dr. Richard Ofshe (generally) but allowed defense to argue coercion and promised a jury instruction; court barred potential anonymous defense witnesses unless names were disclosed to prosecution.
Appellate holdings: court found exclusion of Gaskill’s animations and Ofshe’s false-confession testimony to be errors but harmless given overwhelming eyewitness, physical, and confession evidence; suppression challenge to confession was denied; sentencing statute (Utah Code §76-3-207.7) and Perea’s LWOP were upheld; court declined to require recording of station-house interrogations.

Issues

Issue	Perea's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Admissibility of crime-scene demonstrative animations (Gaskill)	Animations were demonstrative aids that accurately reflected Gaskill’s reconstruction and should be admitted	Foundation inadequate because expert did not create/know animators’ methods	Court: Excluding animations was an abuse of discretion (animations are demonstrative; expert confirmation suffices) but error was harmless because expert testimony itself was allowed and animations added little.
Exclusion of false-confession expert (Ofshe)	Expert testimony on false confessions is admissible under Rule 702 to help jurors evaluate reliability; cross-exam and instructions are inadequate	Testimony impermissibly comments on credibility; methodology unreliable under Rule 702	Court: Erred in excluding general false-confession testimony; science sufficiently developed and such experts are admissible if meeting Rule 702; error harmless on facts here.
Excluding anonymous defense witnesses	Defense needed anonymity to secure exculpatory witnesses; refusal deprived compulsory-process rights	Non-disclosure prevents prosecution from investigating; discovery rules and fairness justify exclusion	Court: No error; district court acted within discretion to require disclosure and prevent last-minute surprises; exclusion not a Sixth-Amendment violation here.
Suppression of confession (invocation of counsel)	Earlier phone statement that he would consult a lawyer before coming in was an anticipatory invocation of right to counsel; therefore later station-house statements should be suppressed	Anticipatory invocation outside custodial interrogation is not binding; Perea waived Miranda rights at station and again before signing statement	Court: No error; anticipatory invocation before custody does not bar later questioning once Miranda warnings were given and valid waiver obtained.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Clopten, 223 P.3d 1103 (Utah 2009) (expert testimony on eyewitness ID should be routinely admissible under Rule 702 when reliable and helpful)
State v. Rimmasch, 775 P.2d 388 (Utah 1989) (limits on testimony that opines as to a witness’s truthfulness)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation requires warnings and counsel protections)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (once right to counsel invoked in custody, further interrogation requires counsel unless suspect initiates)
McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (1991) (noting Court has never allowed anticipatory invocation of Miranda right outside custodial interrogation)
Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988) (trial court may exclude witness testimony as sanction for discovery violations; compulsory-process right not absolute)
State v. Long, 721 P.2d 483 (Utah 1986) (cautionary jury instruction required when eyewitness ID is central)