People v. Bell

Citation246 Cal.Rptr.3d 527,7 Cal.5th 70,439 P.3d 1102
Decision Date02 May 2019
Docket NumberS080056
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)
Parties The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Michael Leon BELL, Defendant and Appellant.

Melissa Hill, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris and Xavier Becerra, Attorneys General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna, Sean M. McCoy and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Opinion of the Court by Corrigan, J.

While his girlfriend and her teenage son waited outside, defendant Michael Leon Bell robbed a convenience store and fatally shot the clerk. He was convicted of murder in the course of a robbery along with burglary, robbery, shooting at an occupied vehicle, unlawful possession of a firearm, and enhancements for a serious felony conviction and personal use of a firearm.1 The jury fixed the penalty at death. The court also imposed a determinate sentence of 25 years and 4 months on the additional charges and enhancements. We affirm the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND
A. Guilt Phase

Three surveillance cameras recorded a robbery of the Quik Stop convenience store in Turlock on January 20, 1997. The footage showed clerk Simon Francis dusting shelves at 3:54 a.m. when a man entered the store. The robber wore a ski mask and a dark hooded jacket. He appeared to be somewhere between six feet, two inches and six feet, five inches tall.2 He wore gloves and carried a revolver. The robber grabbed Francis and pulled him across the store, telling him to open the safe. When Francis said he did not know the combination, the robber dragged him behind the counter to the cash register, which Francis opened. The robber ordered him to lie face down on the floor, grabbed cash from the register, and threw the money tray to the floor. He fired two shots at Francis and left. The robber was in the store less than a minute and escaped with $ 261. Surveillance equipment also recorded the sound of gunshots being fired outside after the robber left the store.

Shortly before 4:00 a.m., truck driver Daniel Perry stopped at an intersection near the Quik Stop and saw a tall man in a dark hooded jacket run out of the store. Perry pulled away but heard two gunshots. Believing he was being shot at, Perry kept going. He passed a dark sedan parked off the side of the road. As Perry watched from his side mirror, the sedan’s lights came on and it drove off. Perry called the police. His truck had been dented near the passenger door. Later, police recovered a bullet from the driveway just north of the Quik Stop. Tire tracks and shoe prints were also visible nearby.

Truck driver Richard Faughn stopped at the Quik Stop at 3:58 a.m. The cash register drawer was open, and the clerk lay motionless behind the counter. The register’s money tray sat against the clerk’s leg, and change was scattered on the floor. Faughn called 911 and stayed until police arrived.

Emergency responders tried to resuscitate Francis without success. When they moved his body, they found a deformed bullet beneath him. Francis had been shot twice in the back. The fatal bullet traveled through his heart and lungs, exiting through the chest. A second bullet lodged in his abdominal cavity.

Police identified defendant as a suspect and interviewed him. Defendant said he had been sick and spent the weekend of the murder at his girlfriend’s apartment. He claimed he did not go to the Quik Stop or anywhere else the entire weekend. He said he had been with his girlfriend, Roseada T., her teenage son, Taureen "Tory" T.,3 and Tory’s friend, later identified as Robert D. Roseada drove a blue 1988 Chevrolet Beretta.

The police later arrested Roseada, searched her home, and impounded her car. Tread patterns from her car tires were compared with tire tracks found near the Quik Stop. Patterns from both front tires and the right rear tire could not be excluded as a source of marks left at the scene. Roseada helped police recover the murder weapon from a field. A .357 magnum revolver and several .38 caliber bullets were buried inside a green cloth case. Bullets fired from this gun matched slugs recovered from the crime scene and the victim’s autopsy. Another bullet, recovered from outside the store, was too damaged for a comparison. Gunshot residue on the victim’s sweater indicated that the gun was only one to two feet away when fired.

Witness Phillip Campbell recognized the revolver as one he had purchased from his brother-in-law and later sold to Nick Feder. Feder sold the gun to Debra Ochoa. Ochoa testified that she had known defendant for approximately 14 years. She was not questioned about the gun. (See post , at pp. 37-39.)

Nathan N. was 15 years old at the time of the murder.4 Roseada, Tory, and the defendant were all friends of his. Defendant borrowed a black hooded jacket, size XXXL, from Nathan about a month before the murder and returned it sometime thereafter. Nathan and his foster mother brought the jacket to the police. Nathan examined still images from the Quik Stop surveillance video and testified that the murderer’s jacket looked like his.

Nathan recalled seeing defendant with a revolver two or three weeks before the robbery. Sometime later, defendant gave the gun to a friend. Roseada later asked Nathan and Felix F. to get the gun back. They brought the gun to Roseada, who cleaned it. Afterward, they buried it in a field inside a green package.

Tory, 14 years old at the time of the murder, testified as part of a plea agreement.5 Defendant moved in with Tory and his mother sometime in 1996.

In December of that year, defendant showed Tory a .357 revolver loaded with .38 caliber bullets. Defendant said he got the gun because he wanted to rob someone. One night, Tory saw the gun and a red ski mask in his mother’s bedroom. Roseada and defendant were loading the gun and cleaning it with alcohol, which they said would prevent fingerprints. They also wrapped electrical tape around defendant’s shoes to mask their appearance. Defendant wore a black jacket Tory recognized as belonging to Nathan. Tory understood his mother and defendant were preparing to commit a robbery and wanted to join them. Although Roseada protested, defendant convinced her to let Tory come along.

At defendant’s direction, Roseada drove around looking for a store to rob. After defendant rejected some locations, they chose the Quik Stop because it had no customers and was in an isolated area. Defendant got out of the car and asked Tory if he should kill the clerk. Tory said no. When defendant ran out, holding cash in his hand, a large truck drove by. Defendant shot twice at the truck, got in the car, and Roseada drove off. Back at the apartment, they cleaned the gun and bullets. Tory buried the gun and burned defendant’s shoes, as defendant told him to do. Tory identified defendant as the shooter in the surveillance video. Defendant told Tory he shot the clerk because he put up a struggle. He said he shot at the truck driver because he wanted to leave no witnesses.

The defense presented testimony from two boys who had been in custody with Tory in juvenile hall. Kenneth A. said Tory had bragged that he committed the Quik Stop murder and was going to let defendant take the blame for it.6 Tory told Brandon T. he was in the car with his mother when her boyfriend committed the murder, but he described the boyfriend as "a black guy" from Las Vegas. He did not mention defendant. Tory also said he had buried the gun and burned a mask used in the crime.

On rebuttal, Tory’s grandmother testified that Roseada was once married to an African-American man from Las Vegas who died 10 months before the Quik Stop murder.

B. Penalty Phase
1. Prosecution Evidence

The victim’s father testified that Francis was the youngest of seven children. He was very upset after Francis died and could not go to church or visit his son’s grave. The victim’s older sister described Francis as kind and understanding, "the jewel of our family." He was precious to her because she had raised him like a son. She suffered a stroke upon learning of his death. Francis was 27 years old and had been married less than two months when murdered. His wife’s cousin described him as her "best friend" and "the nicest guy [she had] ever met." Shortly before his death, Francis was buying frames for wedding photographs and planning to pick up the videotape of his wedding. He never had a chance to see it. The prosecutor played a four-minute excerpt from the tape.

The prosecution presented extensive testimony about defendant’s past. L.O. described a sexual assault in May 1991. She was 19 years old, living with the defendant and their two young children. Defendant came home angry and intoxicated. He dragged her to the bedroom, threw her onto the bed, removed some of her clothing, and tried to have sex with her. In her struggle to escape, L.O. suffered a swollen lip. She later learned she was more than three months pregnant with defendant’s third child at the time.

In September 1993, defendant assaulted Patrick Carver.7 Defendant and some others confronted Carver at a house where he was staying. A girl tried to provoke Carver into hitting her, while the group circled around him. This incident ended without a fight, but later that evening the group returned. Defendant dragged Carver out of his car and slammed him to the ground. Defendant repeatedly kicked Carver in the face while the others restrained him. After Carver was beaten into unconsciousness, defendant threw him over a backyard fence. Carver recalled being tied to a chair while the group continued to beat and kick him. At one point, defendant took Carver’s knife, held it across his throat, and jabbed its tip into the top of Carver’s head. Feigning concern at Carver’s distress, defendant asked if he would like a drink. When Carver said yes, defendant turned on the garden hose and held it to Carver’s mouth. As...

To continue reading

Request your trial
226 cases
  • People v. Wang
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 24, 2020
    ...statements.’ " ( Centeno , supra , 60 Cal.4th at p. 667, 180 Cal.Rptr.3d 649, 338 P.3d 938 ; People v. Bell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 70, 111, 246 Cal.Rptr.3d 527, 439 P.3d 1102 ( Bell ).)3. Analysis Viewed in the context of the prosecutor’s whole argument, the yellow light analogy was not improper.......
  • People v. Battle
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • July 1, 2021
    ...overbroad. ( People v. Eubanks (2011) 53 Cal.4th 110, 153, 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 795, 266 P.3d 301 ; see also People v. Bell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 70, 130, 246 Cal.Rptr.3d 527, 439 P.3d 1102 [" ‘Section 190.2 adequately narrows the category of death-eligible defendants and is not impermissibly overbro......
  • People v. Morales
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • August 10, 2020
    ...we have cautioned trial courts not to admit videotapes that can overly rouse the jurors’ emotions. (See People v. Bell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 70, 127–128, 246 Cal.Rptr.3d 527, 439 P.3d 1102.) The victim impact evidence in this case falls within constitutional bounds. The five victim impact witnes......
  • People v. Vargas
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • July 13, 2020
    ...overbroad." ( People v. Eubanks (2011) 53 Cal.4th 110, 153, 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 795, 266 P.3d 301 ; see also People v. Bell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 70, 130, 246 Cal.Rptr.3d 527, 439 P.3d 1102 [" ‘Section 190.2 adequately narrows the category of death-eligible defendants and is not impermissibly overbr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...Cal. Rptr. 3d 592 (5th Dist. 2020)—Ch. 1, §2.2; Ch. 2, §11.2.5(2); Ch. 5-E, §3.2.1(2)(b); §7.2; Ch. 8, §1.2.1; §2.2.2(1) People v. Bell, 7 Cal. 5th 70, 246 Cal. Rptr. 3d 527, 439 P.3d 1102 (Cal. 2019)—Ch. 1, §2.1.1(2); Ch. 3-A, §3.4.3(1)(c); Ch. 4-A, §1.3.1(1)(b); B, §3.5; C, §1.8.3; §4.1; ......
  • Chapter 4 - §4. Attorney-client privilege
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 4 Statutory Limits on Particular Evidence
    • Invalid date
    ...by clients without fear that the information will be conveyed to others. People v. Miles (2020) 9 Cal.5th 513, 589; People v. Bell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 70, 96; Los Angeles Cty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Ct. (2016) 2 Cal.5th 282, 292; People v. Gionis (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1196, 1207; People v. ......
  • Privileges and public policy exclusions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...evidence. Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 591, 599, 208 Cal. Rptr. 886. The privilege is absolute. People v. Bell (2019) 7 Cal. 5th 70, 96, 246 Cal. Rptr. 3d 527. The information subject to the privilege is not discoverable under any circumstance. Shannon v. Superior Court (199......
  • Chapter 4 - §1. Overview
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 4 Statutory Limits on Particular Evidence
    • Invalid date
    ...with few exceptions, the court cannot require disclosure in order to rule on a privilege claim. Evid. C. §915(a); People v. Bell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 70, 97. Note Even if an in camera review is not statutorily permitted, the privilege holder may choose to disclose privileged information for an ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT