State v. Reece, 349 P.3d 712

Background

On July 13, 2010 a Sandy, Utah woman was found beaten and shot on her living-room couch; police recovered 9mm shell casing, slugs, and a broken guide rod matching a Beretta handgun; the murder weapon was not recovered.
Cody Reece committed a two‑hour crime spree that evening (mail thefts, unlawful entries, assault); he was arrested, and later blood matching the victim was found on his shirt.
Jailhouse testimony (Cellmate) and a friend’s statements suggested Reece said the gun went off accidentally during a struggle; Reece testified denying those statements and claimed he had no gun that day.
Police later found a stolen assault rifle in Reece’s car (traced to a theft where a Beretta 90‑Two had been stolen with the rifle); the State introduced the rifle evidence under Utah R. Evid. 404(b) to link Reece to access to a Beretta.
Reece was tried, convicted of aggravated murder, aggravated burglary, possession of a weapon by a restricted person, and obstruction; jury found he possessed a weapon July 13; court found felon status in a bench proceeding.
On appeal Reece challenged (1) denial of several lesser‑included instructions, (2) limits on voir dire, (3) admission of the stolen rifle/related arrest evidence, (4) refusal to sever the weapons count, and (5) constitutionality/interpretation of the aggravated‑murder sentencing statute (LWOP). The Court affirmed convictions but remanded on sentencing issue.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Reece's Argument	Held
Denial of lesser‑included offense instructions (murder/various unintentional homicide variants)	Overlap in elements is not enough; physical/forensic evidence overwhelmingly supports intentional aggravated murder so lesser instructions unnecessary	Cellmate’s jailhouse testimony (gun went off accidentally) gave a rational basis for unintentional‑homicide instructions	Court: Error to deny unintentional‑homicide instructions (rational basis existed) but error was harmless given overwhelming evidence of intentional killing; convictions affirmed
Limits on voir dire / juror questionnaire	Trial court allowed most questions, unlimited individual follow up; privacy concerns justified narrow exclusions	Twelve proposed questions were struck; this impaired ability to uncover biases and exercise peremptories	Court: No abuse of discretion; totality of questionnaire + follow‑up provided adequate means to probe bias
Admission of stolen rifle and arrest details (Rule 404(b))	Evidence admitted for a genuine noncharacter purpose (identity/access to Beretta); relevant and not unduly prejudicial given other admitted crimes and admissions	Evidence was character propensity evidence and/or too attenuated and unfairly prejudicial	Court: Admission proper—offered for identity/absence of mistake, conditionally relevant (preponderance supportable that murder weapon was a Beretta), and probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice
Severance of weapons count (possession by restricted person)	Court bifurcated restricted‑person element so jury never learned of felony status; no undue prejudice	Joinder prejudiced Reece because jury could infer he was a felon and convict for other crimes on that basis	Court: No abuse of discretion; bifurcation prevented jurors learning of prior felony, so risk of prejudice was adequately managed
Constitutionality and application of aggravated‑murder sentencing statute (LWOP)	Statute constitutional as construed in State v. Perea; sentencing judge must weigh factors; no presumption of LWOP	Statute unconstitutionally vague/arbitrary; trial court treated LWOP as presumptive, and that error infected sentencing	Court: Statute constitutional (Perea controlling) but trial court erroneously described LWOP as presumptive; record unclear whether that error affected sentencing — remand for limited hearing to determine if resentencing is required

Key Cases Cited

State v. Perea, 322 P.3d 624 (Utah 2013) (upholding constitutionality of aggravated‑murder sentencing statute and describing sentencing court’s duty to weigh totality of circumstances)
State v. Powell, 154 P.3d 788 (Utah 2007) (standard for determining entitlement to lesser‑included‑offense instruction; view evidence in light most favorable to defendant)
State v. Lucero, 328 P.3d 841 (Utah 2014) (procedures for admitting prior bad‑act evidence under Rule 404(b) and conditional relevance under Rule 104(b))
State v. Spillers, 152 P.3d 315 (Utah 2007) (discussed in context of lesser‑included instruction jurisprudence)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (principle that facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be found by a jury; cited by parties and addressed in sentencing analysis)