People v. Bell
| Decision Date | 03 December 1987 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 745 P.2d 573 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ronald Lee BELL, Defendant and Appellant. Crim. 20879. |
Ronald Matthias, Atty. General's Office, San Francisco, for plaintiff and respondent.
This is an automatic appeal (Pen.Code, § 1239, subd. (b)) from a judgment imposing a sentence of death under the 1977 death penalty legislation (Stats.1977, ch. 316, §§ 4-14, pp. 1256-1262, former Pen.Code, §§ 190-190.6). 1
Defendant Ronald Bell was charged with murder (§§ 187, 189), attempted murder (§§ 187, 664), robbery (§ 211), and possession of a concealable firearm by an ex-felon (§ 12021). The information also alleged that defendant used a firearm in the commission of the first three offenses, (§ 12022.5), that the attempted murder and robbery involved the infliction of great bodily injury (§ 12022.7), and that the murder occurred during the commission of a robbery, thereby constituting a special circumstance (former § 190.2, subd. (c)(3)(i)).
Defendant was tried twice. In his first trial the jury found him guilty of possession of a concealable firearm but was unable to reach a verdict as to the other counts. Defendant moved for and was granted a new trial as to the firearm possession conviction, and that charge was consolidated with the counts for which a mistrial had been granted.
In his second trial the jury convicted defendant on all counts and found the special circumstance allegation and all enhancement allegations to be true. The jury fixed the penalty at death. As will appear, we affirm the judgment in all respects.
On February 2, 1978, Wolff's Jewelry Store in Richmond was robbed and in the course of the robbery two employees were shot, one fatally. At trial, several eyewitnesses identified defendant Ronnie Bell as the person responsible for the shootings. Other evidence, however, tended to discredit the eyewitness testimony and suggested that defendant's brother Larry could have been the responsible party. The principal theory advanced by the defense was that of mistaken identification.
The robbery took place about 4 p.m. Shortly before this time, Ernestine Jackson, age 28, drove to Wolff's Jewelry Store to pick up a watch that had been left for repair. Accompanying Ernestine were her sister, Ruby Judge, age 14, and her nieces, Dorothy Dorton, age 13, and Alicia Carter, age 4. Ernestine parked in a red zone near the store and sent Ruby in for the watch. The prosecution's case was based primarily on the testimony of Ernestine, Dorothy, and Ruby concerning the events they witnessed after arriving at the store.
The testimony was essentially as follows: While Ernestine waited in the car with her nieces, she observed defendant walking in her direction. As he approached her car, she lowered a window and said, "How're you doing, Ronnie Bell?" He replied, "Who is it?" She answered, "Ernestine." He looked in the car window, said, "Hi there," and walked away.
After this exchange, Ernestine turned to Dorothy and told her that defendant was supposed to have killed her (Dorothy's) father in 1968. 2 Dorothy replied that she wanted to "get a good look at him" and left the car. She followed the man down the street, momentarily lost sight of him, and concluded he may have walked into Wolff's Jewelry Store. She entered and found him inside.
At first, however, Dorothy believed the man in the store was not defendant but Larry Bell. Dorothy testified that she asked Ruby, who was waiting for the watch, to ask the man if his name was Larry Bell. Ruby testified, however, that she could not remember whether Dorothy told her to ask the man his name. Dorothy also testified that Ruby did ask the man if he was Larry Bell, and he said he was not. Ruby, however, remembered asking the man whether his name was Ronnie Bell, and he said it was not.
Shortly thereafter, the man shot two employees, seized some jewelry, and left the store. About this time, Ernestine saw defendant through her rear-view mirror: he was leaving the area of the store. She left the car and went into the store, where she found Dorothy and Ruby. Dorothy told her that "two men had got shot."
The police soon arrived and questioned the witnesses. Ernestine, Dorothy, and Ruby were taken to the police station and shown photographic lineups that included pictures of defendant. All three identified defendant as the man they had seen at the store. At trial, however, both Ernestine and Dorothy admitted that before seeing the photographs they had decided the man in the store was defendant, and when they were shown the lineups they were specifically looking for a picture of defendant and not simply looking to see if there was a photograph of anyone who resembled the man they saw in the store.
There was conflicting evidence on whether defendant and Larry Bell were similar in appearance. 3 Some witnesses testified they looked alike, while others said there were significant differences between them in height, build, and coloring. Specifically, Ernestine, Dorothy, and Ruby each testified that Larry was taller and lighter-skinned than defendant, and that they could clearly tell the two apart. Ernestine also testified she had attended school with defendant from 1962 to 1969, and had lived for a long time in the same neighborhood as the Bell family. She further testified that she knew Larry. In recent years, however, she had seen defendant only "a couple of times" and Larry "every now and then." Ruby and Dorothy had also been familiar with Larry before witnessing the shootings, and Ruby also knew defendant.
Evidence was presented that the murder weapon was probably a .38 caliber handgun, and that defendant's father had given defendant a gun of this type five weeks before the murder. The father testified, however, that the gun in question was originally given to him by Larry.
There was additional testimony concerning the police investigation. No tangible evidence--such as fingerprints--was found that connected defendant to the shootings. A ring that was probably stolen from the jewelry store during this incident, however, was found in Larry's possession.
Testimony was also given by Marilyn Mitchell, a friend of Larry. She stated that she and Larry spent the day of February 2 at the Sea Horse Motel, where they both "shot up" cocaine. On cross-examination, however, she admitted that Larry left the room for 30 to 45 minutes about the time it was getting dark. This meant that Larry could have walked to the jewelry store, committed the robbery, and returned to the motel in the amount of time that Marilyn said he was away from the room.
Finally, Dr. Robert Shomer, an expert witness for the defense, testified at length concerning eyewitness identification. 4 He explained that an individual's perception is strongly affected by his expectations and internal motivations; to a great extent, in other words, we see what we expect or want to see. Dr. Shomer concluded that the eyewitness testimony in this case was highly unreliable. He based his opinion on the following factors, which he believed cast serious doubt on the accuracy of the testimony: (1) Dorothy, Ernestine, and Ruby were all related to Alcus Dorton, a man that defendant had killed prior to this robbery. Thus, each had a reason to be biased against defendant and to expect him to be capable of committing violent acts. (2) The claim of all three witnesses that they bore no ill feelings towards defendant was unrealistic, and may have been indicative of strong unconscious feelings of hostility towards him. The fact that eight days after the robbery Ruby told a detective that defendant belonged in the electric chair strengthens the impression that she was a hostile witness. (3) Before Dorothy took a good look at the man in the jewelry store, Ernestine informed her that he was Ronnie Bell and had killed her father. As Ernestine was an adult and was the child's aunt, Dorothy was probably predisposed to believe that the man was indeed Ronnie Bell. Nevertheless, when she saw the man in the store she first thought it was Larry, not defendant. (4) The fact that Ruby asked the man his name also indicated that she, as well as Dorothy, was uncertain as to his identity. (5) Ruby and Dorothy were both young teenagers and thus their testimony was generally less reliable. Yet they were the only persons who actually witnessed the shootings. (6) A detective at the police station made certain comments suggesting his belief that defendant was the guilty party, and this could easily have influenced the witnesses when they made their subsequent identifications. (7) There were also minor discrepancies in the witnesses' testimony regarding less significant matters, such as the color or style of the clothing worn by the man who committed the shootings.
In the penalty phase the prosecution presented evidence of three prior incidents of assaultive behavior. The 1968 incident involving Alcus Dorton was described by Leon Hunter. He testified that Dorton was drunk and put his arm around defendant's girlfriend. Defendant was angered and left for his home to get his gun. Dorton was bigger than defendant, followed him, and tried to get into his house. Hunter pulled Dorton away, but defendant emerged and fatally shot Dorton.
Bobby Ingram testified that in 1974 he beat defendant for having flirted with his wife, and that defendant later returned and shot three bullets through the front door of his home, one of which wounded Ingram in the leg. Vicky Clark testified to another incident that occurred in 1974. Defendant asked her whether she would purchase a gun from him at a bar. She refused, and later in the evening, as she was...
To continue reading
Request your trial