State v. Bell

• Decision Date: 06 July 2016
• Docket Number: No. 2015–KA–1264.,2015–KA–1264.
• Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Christopher J. BELL.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

197 So.3d 358

STATE of Louisiana
v.
Christopher J. BELL.

No. 2015–KA–1264.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

July 6, 2016.

197 So.3d 360

Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr., District Attorney, Kyle Daly, Assistant District Attorney, New Orleans, LA, for Appellee/State of Louisiana.

Kevin V. Boshea, Metairie, LA, for Defendant/Appellant.

(Court composed of Chief Judge JAMES F. McKAY, III, Judge DENNIS R. BAGNERIS, SR., Judge ROLAND L. BELSOME ).

ROLAND L. BELSOME, Judge.

The defendant, Christopher Bell, appeals his conviction and sentence for manslaughter. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the conviction and the sentence.

Statement of Facts

On August 26, 2011, Lionel Williams was shot and killed at East Shore Park in New Orleans. At the time of the shooting, there was a crowd of people at the park for a party. Approximately three months after the shooting, Siera Whitley met with a federal agent and gave a statement regarding what she had witnessed on the day of the shooting. At that time, Ms. Whitley identified the defendant as the shooter from a photographic lineup.

Procedural History

By bill of information, the defendant Christopher J. Bell (“Mr. Bell”) was charged with second-degree murder (La. R.S. 14:30.1 ) of Lionel Williams. Subsequently, the defendant appeared for arraignment and pled not guilty. He filed motions to suppress the evidence and identification which the trial court denied.

A jury trial was held from February 24–26, 2015. The jury returned a verdict of guilty as to manslaughter. The defendant was sentenced to forty years, without the benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence to be served concurrently with any other sentence. A hearing was held that same day on the State's multiple bill of information. Thereafter, the trial court adjudicated the defendant a fourth felony offender, vacated his original sentence of forty years, and re-sentenced him to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation and suspension of sentence. The trial court also denied the defendant's motion for new trial and for post-verdict judgment of acquittal. This appeal followed.

Assignments of Error

On appeal, the following assignments of error are raised: 1) there was insufficient evidence to convict the defendant therefore the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal and alternatively, in denying the defendant's motion for a new trial; 2) the trial court erred by giving the jury an Allen charge; 3) the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce inadmissible other crimes evidence; 4) the trial court denied the defendant due process by repeated reference to his prior incarceration; 5) the non-unanimous jury verdict is unconstitutional; and 6) the trial court

197 So.3d 361

erred by adjudicating the defendant a multiple offender.

Sufficiency of the Evidence

The defendant argues that the verdict was contrary to the law and evidence and therefore the trial court should have granted his motions for post-verdict judgment of acquittal.

Under La. R.S. 14:31(A)(1), manslaughter is “... a homicide which would be murder under either Article 30 (first degree murder) or Article 30.1 (second degree murder), but the offense is committed in sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by provocation sufficient to deprive an average person of his self-control and cool reflection. “Provocation shall not reduce a homicide to manslaughter if the jury finds that the offender's blood had actually cooled, or that an average person's blood would have cooled, at the time the offense was committed. The State was required to prove “the defendant's specific intent to kill or cause great bodily harm.”

“A post-verdict judgment of acquittal shall be granted only if the court finds that the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the state, does not reasonably permit a finding of guilty.”¹ When “reviewing the sufficiency of evidence, an appellate court must determine that the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, or a mixture of both, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”² In State v. Mussall, the Louisiana Supreme Court, discussing the Jackson standard, stated that a reviewing court must consider the record through the eyes of a hypothetical rational trier of fact who interprets all of the evidence as favorably to the prosecution as any rational fact finder can.³ The inquiry requires the reviewing court to ask whether such a hypothetical rational trier of fact interpreting all of the evidence in this manner could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.⁴ “The testimony of a single witness, if believed by the trier of fact, is sufficient to support a conviction.”⁵ A trier of fact's determination as to the credibility of a witness is a question of fact entitled to great weight, and its determination will not be disturbed unless it is clearly contrary to the evidence.⁶

Siera Whitley was the sole eyewitness who talked to police about the shooting. She testified that people had gathered at the park for a party, it was daylight, and the park was full of people when the shooting occurred. Ms. Whitley, who knew Mr. Bell from living in the same area of town, testified that Mr. Bell walked over and greeted Lionel Williams. Once Lionel Williams turned around, Mr. Bell shot him in the back of his head. After Lionel Williams fell to the ground, Mr. Bell shot him several more times. Ms. Whitley testified that his brother, Gabriel Bell, whom she was also familiar with, accompanied Mr. Bell, and they both drove away, after the shooting, in a vehicle she described as a Saturn.

197 So.3d 362

On cross-examination, in an effort to discredit the State's witness, the defense challenged Ms. Whitley's testimony suggesting that she was testifying to get a federal inmate, Brian Glover's, sentence reduced. This allegation was made based on her Facebook name, Siera Glover. However, she stated several times that she did not know Brian Glover, and her name on Facebook was in regards to her child's father, Larry Glover.

The State also called Detective Decyna Barnes of the NOPD as a witness. She testified that Corey Thomas, a fellow inmate of Mr. Bell at Avoyelles Correctional Center in 2012, had informed her that Mr. Bell admitted to killing Lionel Williams and provided details. She stated that based on that information she contacted the Orleans Parish District Attorney's office. Mr. Wayne Rumore, an investigator with the Orleans Parish DA's Office, also testified that Mr. Thomas had informed him that Mr. Bell admitted to killing Lionel Williams, in the same manner that Ms. Whitley had described. Mr. Rumore further testified that Mr. Thomas told him Mr. Bell threatened to kill Ms. Whitley. However, at trial Mr. Thomas testified that he did not talk to investigators and that Mr. Bell did not tell him anything in regards to the shooting.

In this case, the jurors heard Ms. Whitley's testimony that it was daylight when the shooting occurred and that she recognized the defendant. She testified that after the defendant greeted the victim, and the victim turned around, the defendant shot the victim without provocation. Once the victim fell to the ground, the defendant shot him several more times.

In addition to Ms. Whitley's testimony, the jurors heard Investigator Wayne Rumore recount several meetings he had with Cory Thomas. Mr. Thomas knew the defendant and was housed with him in the fall of 2012 at the Avoyelles Paris Correctional Institution. Mr. Rumore recounted that Mr. Thomas told him the defendant admitted and bragged about the shooting and that the defendant had a lack of remorse for the victim's death. Detective Decynda Barnes also testified that Cory Thomas contacted her with information that the defendant had bragged to him about the shooting.

Reviewing the record in accordance with Jackson, Ms. Whitley's testimony in addition to the corroboration by Mr. Rumore's and Det. Barnes' testimony is sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that Mr. Bell was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of manslaughter. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for post-verdict acquittal.

The defendant also asserts that he was entitled to a new trial in accordance with La. C.Cr.P. art. 851(B)(1) because his guilty verdict was not supported by the evidence. Here we have reviewed the evidence and found that it was sufficient to support the verdict. Thus, we find no error with the trial court's denial of the motion for new trial.

Allen Charge

The defendant...