State v. Reece
2015 UT 45
| Utah | 2015Background
- Cody Reece was convicted of aggravated murder, aggravated burglary, possession of a weapon by a restricted person, and obstruction of justice.
- Trial evidence linked Reece to the murder scene through victim DNA on his shirt, blood distribution, and his prior criminal conduct in the neighborhood.
- A stolen rifle found in Reece’s car was admitted to connect him to the murder weapon, though the actual murder weapon was not recovered.
- Reece sought multiple lesser-included-offense instructions and challenged voir dire limits, evidentiary rulings, severance of counts, and sentencing on LWOP.
- The trial court sentenced Reece to life without parole; on appeal, the court remanded for a limited sentencing hearing to address potential statutorily-based misreadings; otherwise, convictions upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying lesser-included-offense instructions | Reece argues there is a rational basis for unintentional-homicide instructions | State contends no rational basis for these instructions given overwhelming evidence | Harmless error; convictions upheld |
| Whether voir dire limits violated Reece’s right to jury selection/autonomy | Reece claims broad questionnaire and limited questioning impeded bias discovery | Court allowed extensive follow-up and adequate exposure to jurors’ biases | Limits not an abuse of discretion; voir dire was adequate |
| Whether admission of the stolen rifle under Rule 404(b) was proper | Stolen rifle evidence used to prove identity and access to weapon | Evidence prejudicial and not sufficiently probative | Admissible for noncharacter purposes; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice |
| Whether the weapons charge should have been severed | Severance required due to potential prejudice from prior-conviction information | Bifurcation prevented prejudice; severance not an abuse of discretion | Not an abuse of discretion; denial to sever affirmed |
| Whether the LWOP sentencing statute is constitutional or misapplied; remand to assess impact of any misreading | Statute constitutional; possible improper presumptive LWOP influenced decision | Statute constitutional; any error requires limited remand to assess impact | Statute constitutional; but remanded to determine if erroneous reading affected LWOP decision; if so, new sentencing hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Perea, 322 P.3d 624 (Utah Supreme Court 2013) (upheld constitutionality of noncapital aggravated-murder statute; addresses sentencing discretion)
- State v. Evans, 20 P.3d 888 (Utah 2001) (harmless error in denying lesser-included-offense instruction when evidence supports guilt)
- State v. Piansiaksone, 954 P.2d 861 (Utah 1998) (harmful vs harmless analysis in voir dire and jury instructions)
- State v. Cruz, 122 P.3d 543 (Utah 2005) (proper application of harmless-error standards in instructional rulings)
- State v. Ball, 685 P.2d 1055 (Utah 1984) (limits on voir dire questioning; balancing privacy and information gathering)
- State v. Kell, 2002 UT 106, 61 P.3d 1019 (Utah 2002) (harmless-error approach to lesser-included-offense instructions)
- State v. Bluff, 2002 UT 66, 52 P.3d 1210 (Utah 2002) (guide on sentencing discretion and proportionality)