State v. Bell
| Decision Date | 03 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-5389-15T2 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROBERT BELL, a/k/a SHABAZZ HAKIM, BELL JAY and SHABAZZ H, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
Before Judges Yannotti, Carroll, and DeAlmeida.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester County, Indictment No. 13-01-0004.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Michele E. Friedman, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the briefs).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Sarah D. Brigham, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).
Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.
Defendant Robert Bell appeals his June 20, 2016 judgment of conviction and sentence for the first-degree attempted murder of Joseph Battle, and related charges. We affirm.
The following facts are derived from the record. On July 26, 2012, defendant and the victim were at a party at a house in Franklinville. Defendant's girlfriend, Dorothea Withers, who is also the victim's sister, was present. Other members of the victim's family were also party guests: Denise Battle and Joann Rankin, two of his sisters; Daniesha Battle, his niece; and Jonathan Battle, his nephew. Brooke Hansen, in whom the victim had a romantic interest, was also present.
Dorothea1 started a fight with Brooke over a debt that Brooke owed defendant. At the time, the victim and Brooke were sitting in Brooke's car. After a stick or bat broke the car window, Brooke asked the victim to exit the vehicle. She then left the party.
About forty-five minutes later, defendant and the victim engaged in a verbal dispute related to the previous incident. The argument escalated into a physical altercation between the two men, who engaged in fisticuffs, and fell to the ground wrestling.Joann, Denise, and Jonathan broke up the fight, physically separating the men. Jonathan pulled the victim off defendant and told him to "leave that man alone and go home." He also pushed defendant away from the victim and told him to "leave that dumb shit alone." Once the men were separated, Denise told the victim to go into the house, and defendant to go in a different direction.
Although the two were still exchanging words, the victim began walking away from defendant. As the victim was about to enter the house, defendant said "I'm going to shoot you," and reached into his pocket as if he were retrieving a gun. Denise testified that at that time she heard other guests at the party say, "he's about to shoot."
The gun was not fully visible because it was wrapped in a bag, rag, or sock. Denise, however, saw its wooden handle. She also saw defendant "fiddle" underneath the material hiding the weapon. Dorothea testified that she saw defendant with a sock, which she told police might have contained a gun. She had previously seen defendant in possession of a handgun.
Defendant pointed the gun at the victim's stomach and pulled the trigger. The gun clicked, but no shot fired. Defendant pulled the trigger a second time, shooting the victim in the right leg, as the victim was in the doorway trying to enter the house.
After the shooting, defendant told Dorothea to "come on" and "get [him] the hell out of there." Dorothea and defendant left in her car with Jonathan running after them.
At about that time, Sergeant James Reilly of the Franklin Township Police Department was arriving at a home near the location of the party on an unrelated call. As he arrived, the homeowner told Reilly he had heard gunshots. The officer then received a radio dispatch of a reported gunshot victim at the party. Reilly observed Dorothea's car speed past him, but headed to the party to provide aid to the victim. Before the officer reached the scene of the shooting, Jonathan approached his patrol car and said that the shooter was in the car that had passed the officer.
Reilly pursued Dorothea's vehicle and stopped it nearby. Defendant exited the vehicle and ran into the woods before he could be detained by the officer. His flight was recorded on the patrol vehicle's video recorder. Police were unable to apprehend defendant that evening.
The victim was treated by medical personnel and transported to a local hospital. Detective John Petroski of the Gloucester County Prosecutor's Office met with the victim at the hospital approximately two hours and forty-five minutes after the shooting. The victim, who was in a bed being treated by medical personnel, was largely uncooperative, stating that he wanted to "take care"of the shooter himself. He did, however, tell the officer that the shooter was his "brother-in-law" with whom he lives. The detective made an audio recording of the victim's interview.
After interviewing the victim, Petroski went to police headquarters to interview witnesses. Denise, Joann, Jonathan, Daniesha, and Dorothea all identified defendant as the shooter.
With information provided by these witnesses, police traced a cellphone believed to be in defendant's possession to a motel in the area of the shooting. Although defendant was not present when an investigating officer arrived, the officer testified that he reviewed a motel surveillance video on which he saw a man enter the motel lobby and secure a room key. The officer testified that the man in the video resembled a composite sketch of defendant given to him by another officer.
Five days after the shooting, defendant was apprehended at a hotel in Philadelphia. At the time of his arrest, defendant had scrapes and marks, particularly on his upper body, consistent with having recently run through brush or sticker bushes.
A grand jury indicted defendant for: first-degree attempted murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1 and N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1); second-degree possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a); second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b); second-degree aggravated assault causing seriousbodily injury, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1); third-degree aggravated assault causing bodily injury with a deadly weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(2); fourth-degree aggravated assault by pointing a firearm, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(4); and second-degree certain persons not to have weapons, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)(1).
At trial, five eyewitnesses identified defendant as the shooter. The victim, on the other hand, testified that although he and defendant had a physical altercation at the party, they went their separate ways after the fight broke up. He testified that he did not know who shot him, and denied having told the detectives that his brother-in-law shot him.
Defendant did not testify. In summation, his counsel argued that defendant did not shoot the victim, and that another, unidentified guest at the party fired the shot, and left before the police arrived. Counsel claimed that defendant coincidentally left the party with Dorothea just after the shooting.
After a ten-day trial, a jury convicted defendant of all charges. On May 2, 2016, the State moved for an extended term based on defendant's status as a persistent offender under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(a). The trial court granted the motion, and sentenced defendant to an extended term of thirty years imprisonment, with an eighty-five percent period of parole ineligibility under the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, for first-degreeattempted murder. This sentence is to run concurrent with a term of ten years imprisonment, with a five-year period of parole ineligibility for second-degree unlawful possession of a firearm. The court imposed a consecutive ten-year term of imprisonment, with a five-year period of parole ineligibility on the certain-persons conviction. The remaining counts were merged into the attempted murder conviction. Defendant, therefore, received an aggregate term of forty years of imprisonment, with a parole ineligibility period of thirty years and six months.
This appeal followed. Before us, defendant, in a brief filed by counsel, raises the following points:
In a supplemental pro se brief, defendant raises the following arguments:
To continue reading
Request your trial