Utah Court of Appeals
Can witness amnesia violate the Confrontation Clause? State v. Reyos Explained
Summary
Reyos was convicted of aggravated murder and firearm possession by a restricted person after shooting and killing a teenage victim. A witness named John made statements to police admitting Reyos confessed to him, but claimed amnesia about the statements at trial.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a witness’s claimed amnesia about prior statements violates a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation in State v. Reyos.
Background and Facts
Reyos was convicted of aggravated murder after shooting a teenage victim and leaving the body in a ditch. A key witness, John, had previously told police that Reyos confessed to killing the victim because the victim had “set him up.” However, at trial, John testified he had no recollection of speaking with police or making the statement, even after listening to a recording of his police interview. The State played the recorded interview, and the trial court admitted John’s out-of-court statements as non-hearsay under Utah Rule of Evidence 801.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was whether John’s claimed amnesia rendered him unavailable for Confrontation Clause purposes, thereby requiring exclusion of his prior testimonial statements. Reyos also challenged Utah’s aggravated murder sentencing scheme on constitutional grounds.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals distinguished between unavailability under the Confrontation Clause and unavailability under the Rules of Evidence. Under Crawford v. Washington, a witness is unavailable for confrontation purposes only if they do not testify at trial. The concept is “narrow and literal”—a witness who appears and testifies is available, regardless of memory claims. The court emphasized that the Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for cross-examination, not necessarily effective cross-examination. Defense counsel could have explored circumstances that might explain John’s memory loss or undermine his credibility.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that witness amnesia alone does not create confrontation problems when the witness testifies at trial. Practitioners should focus on cross-examination techniques that expose potential reasons for memory loss, such as substance use, bias, or poor attentiveness at the time of the original statement. The ruling also confirms that Utah’s aggravated murder sentencing provisions survive constitutional challenges under both federal and state law.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Reyos
Citation
2017 UT App 132
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20150338-CA
Date Decided
July 28, 2017
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A witness claiming amnesia regarding prior statements is available for Confrontation Clause purposes when present at trial and subject to cross-examination, and Utah’s aggravated murder sentencing scheme does not violate constitutional equal protection or due process requirements.
Standard of Review
Questions of law, including whether testimony was admitted in violation of the Sixth Amendment and whether a statute is unconstitutional, are reviewed for correctness
Practice Tip
When a witness claims amnesia about prior statements, focus cross-examination on circumstances that could explain the memory loss or undermine credibility, such as substance use at the time of the original statement.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.