State v. Reece
349 P.3d 712, 2015 UT 45, 2015 Utah LEXIS 145 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court's erroneous refusal to give a defendant's requested lesser-included-offense instruction is subject to harmless error analysis. The error is harmless, and does not require reversal, if there is no reasonable likelihood that the error affected the trial's outcome, particularly when there is overwhelming evidence of guilt for the greater offense.
Facts:
- On July 13, 2010, a man returned home from work to find his wife beaten and dead from a gunshot wound to the forehead as she lay on the couch.
- That same evening, after several days of heavy drug use, Cody Reece was in the victim's neighborhood stealing mail.
- Reece was involved in a nearby car accident, abandoned his vehicle, entered several homes without permission, assaulted an occupant of one home, and was ultimately tackled and restrained by neighbors.
- Investigators found a spot of the victim's blood on the back of Reece's shirt, and another bloodstain from which neither he nor the victim could be excluded.
- While in jail, Reece told his cellmate that he had entered the victim's home, a woman grabbed him, and his gun "went off by accident."
- Reece told a confidential informant that he "probably shot a lady" and that he had been seen cleaning a 9 mm Beretta handgun, the type of weapon investigators believed was used in the murder.
- About a month later, police arrested Reece and found a stolen assault rifle in his car; this rifle had originally been stolen along with a 9 mm Beretta handgun of the same model.
- At trial, Reece testified that he entered the victim's home only to assist her after hearing a gunshot, got her blood on him while leaning over her, and fled when he saw another man holding a gun.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Utah charged Cody Reece in the Third District Court (trial court) with aggravated murder and other related offenses.
- Reece's counsel requested that the jury be instructed on several lesser-included offenses involving unintentional homicide, but the trial court denied the request.
- The jury found Reece guilty of aggravated murder, aggravated burglary, possession of a weapon by a restricted person, and obstruction of justice.
- After the jury verdict, the trial court found that Reece was a convicted felon, satisfying the final element of the weapons charge.
- The trial court sentenced Reece to life in prison without parole.
- Reece appealed his convictions and sentence to the Supreme Court of the State of Utah.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court's erroneous refusal to provide the jury with a requested lesser-included-offense instruction for unintentional homicide require reversal of an aggravated murder conviction when there is overwhelming physical and circumstantial evidence that the defendant committed the killing intentionally?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Durrant
No. A trial court's erroneous failure to give a lesser-included-offense instruction does not require reversal if the error was harmless. The court first found that the trial court did err. A defendant is entitled to a lesser-included-offense instruction if there is any rational basis in the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, to acquit on the greater offense and convict on the lesser. The cellmate's testimony that Reece said the gun went off by accident provided such a basis, even though Reece himself denied this at trial. However, the court classified this instructional error as an ordinary trial error subject to harmless error analysis, not a structural error requiring automatic reversal. The error was harmless because the evidence of an intentional killing was overwhelming. The physical evidence—a close-range, downward-trajectory gunshot, and signs of a severe beating—strongly contradicted the theory of an accidental discharge. Furthermore, Reece's own exculpatory testimony at trial was deemed "simply incredible" in light of his simultaneous crime spree. Given this overwhelming evidence, there was no reasonable likelihood the jury would have convicted him of a lesser offense even if instructed on it.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies in Utah that a trial court's failure to give a warranted lesser-included-offense instruction is not a structural error and is subject to harmless error review. This strengthens the finality of convictions by preventing automatic reversals for certain procedural mistakes, especially where the evidence of guilt for the more serious crime is overwhelming. The ruling places a higher burden on defendants on appeal, as they must not only show the trial court erred in refusing an instruction but also that this error likely affected the jury's verdict. It reinforces the principle that appellate courts will not overturn a conviction based on an error that, in the context of the entire trial, was inconsequential to the outcome.
