State v. Bell
| Decision Date | 03 May 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 102752,ED 102752 |
| Citation | 488 S.W.3d 228 |
| Parties | State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Kenneth Bell, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Craig A. Johnston, Woodrail Centre, Bldg 7, Ste 100, Columbia, MO 65203, for appellant.
Chris Koster, Nathan J. Aquino, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.
Appellant Kenneth Bell (“Bell”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court entered after a jury convicted him on two counts of first-degree murder and one count of armed criminal action. On appeal, Bell argues that the trial court clearly erred in denying a pretrial motion to suppress Bell's confession. Bell contends that the detectives violated Edwards v. Arizona1 by interrogating him after he told the detectives he was invoking his right to have legal counsel present before speaking to them. Bell also argues that the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce evidence that he possessed cocaine when Bell was arrested.
The evidence of Bell's possession of cocaine was inadmissible because it constituted uncharged bad acts. The evidence was not logically or legally relevant for any other purpose. However, because there is no reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different conclusion but for the improper evidence, Bell suffered no outcome-determinative prejudice. Therefore, we cannot reverse the trial court's judgment on this point.
However, because the detectives engaged in the functional equivalent of express questioning under Rhode Island v. Innis2 before Bell initiated any conversation with the detectives, the detectives improperly subjected Bell to interrogation after he invoked his right to counsel. Accordingly, the trial court should have suppressed Bell's confession. Because we cannot conclude that the admission of Bell's confession was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to his conviction for murder in the first degree, the trial court's judgment is reversed and remanded. However, because the admission of Bell's confession was harmless error as to the charges of murder in the second degree, this matter is remanded, and in accordance with Rule 30.22,3 the trial court is directed to allow the State to elect within sixty days from the issuance of the mandate, to either retry Bell on all issues within the charges of murder in the first degree and armed criminal action, or to accept the lesser convictions of murder in the second degree and armed criminal action.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the following evidence was established at trial:
Bell was charged with two counts of first-degree murder and one count of armed criminal action for the death of Shannon James (“James”) and James's girlfriend, Misty Cole (“Cole”). Bell, James, and Cole lived in the same apartment building. On February 7, 2013, around 11:30 p.m., Bell and his brother were smoking cigarettes on a sidewalk behind Bell's apartment building. James and his friend Argentry Marshall (“Marshall”) walked on the sidewalk towards Bell. As James and Marshall approached, Bell and his brother remained standing in the middle of the sidewalk. Marshall decided to walk around, but James stayed on the sidewalk and bumped into Bell. After a brief verbal altercation, Bell went into his apartment, which had an exterior door in the back of the apartment building. Bell's girlfriend, who was sitting at the kitchen table, asked Bell what was going on. Without replying to his girlfriend, Bell retrieved a gun from his kitchen and walked through his apartment's front door and into a shared foyer area in the apartment building.
Meanwhile, James and Marshall had been walking toward the front door of the apartment building, which opened into the shared foyer area. As James opened the front door, Marshall saw Bell through a window. Bell was standing in the foyer area brandishing a gun. Marshall decided against going inside because of Bell's gun, but James decided to go inside. Marshall watched James walk through the small foyer and to the front door of his apartment. Cole opened the door for James from inside of their apartment. Marshall testified that he saw the door to James's apartment open, but that he immediately turned and walked away. As Marshall started to walk away, he testified that he heard three to four gunshots, then a slight pause, and then a couple more. Marshall called 911 as he ran away. After officers had arrived on the scene, an officer saw the silhouette of a person in a nearby alleyway. After a short pursuit, police apprehended the silhouetted person, who was identified as Bell. Police conducted a pat-down search of Bell at the police station and found cocaine in his rear pants pocket. Bell also tested positive for gunshot residue.
As police assessed the scene, officers found Cole's dead body in the doorway of her shared apartment with James. Officers found James's dead body inside the apartment. Both Cole and James suffered fatal gunshot wounds. Officers found six spent bullet casings and 11 spent bullets nearby, all of which were the same brand (R & P Luger 9mm). Police also searched Bell's apartment and found an assortment of live and spent bullets and shell casings, and an empty gun holster, A semi-automatic gun was found on the roof of a house next-door to the apartment complex. The gun fit inside the empty holster found in Bell's apartment, and DNA taken from the gun matched Bell's DNA, All of the bullets inside the gun were the same R & P Luger 9mm rounds found near the victims. A criminalist testified at trial that all eighteen spent bullet casings were fired from the gun. The criminalist was unable to say with scientific certainty, but the physical evidence was consistent with the gun having fired the spent bullets. An autopsy confirmed that the victims died of gunshot wounds, James was shot several times and died of a gunshot wound to the head; Cole was shot six or seven times, with several of the wounds possibly fatal.
II. Bell's Time in Custody and his Confession
Several parts of Bell's time in custody are relevant to this case. Detectives Don Perry (“Det. Perry”) and Darren Estes (“Det. Estes”) conducted two separate conversations with Bell, The first conversation occurred at 2:52 a.m. on February 8, 2013—just hours after the shootings. The second conversation occurred that afternoon, at 3:47 p.m. on February 8, 2013.
At 2:52 a.m. on February 8, 2013, Det. Perry and Det. Estes took Bell to an interview room. The detectives informed Bell that he was under investigation for the murders and read Bell his Miranda4 rights. This exchange occurred:
On a written advice-of-rights form, Bell wrote “NO” on the line that reads, “Having these rights in mind, do you wish to talk to me now?” The detectives nevertheless continued their attempt to get Bell to waive his Miranda rights. As the trial court found in its order denying Bell's motion to suppress, “The detectives did not ask Bell anything specific to the investigation but they continued to talk to him in a manner clearly designed to draw Bell into waiving his Miranda rights and answering questions about the murders.”5 According to the video's timestamp, the first interview lasted thirty-five minutes.
Two relevant events occurred between Bell's first and second conversations with the detectives. The first intervening event occurred between 11:00 a.m. and noon on February 8. Security video of Bell's holding cell showed Station Commander Barry Meadows (“Commander Meadows”) approach Bell, who was in his cell. Commander Meadows told Bell that his wife6 had tried to call a couple of times, but that Bell was not allowed to take phone calls.
The second intervening event occurred at approximately 2:00 p.m. Surveillance video of Bell's cell showed Corporal7 Bonham ( ) approach Bell's cell. Cpl. Bonham told Bell that Bell needed to soften the jurors and warned about how the jurors would perceive the situation if Bell did not explain his side of the story. Cpl. Bonham implored Bell to put himself in the minds of the jurors and to consider that Bell had a ruthless killing on his hands. Cpl. Bonham also told Bell that the jury would have no mercy if it did not know what happened. Cpl. Bonham proceeded to escort Bell to the restroom.
At approximately 3:47 p.m. that afternoon, February 8, Det. Estes and Det. Perry removed Bell from his cell and brought him to an interview room. After the detectives reintroduced themselves, the following exchange occurred 58 seconds into the conversation:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Feldt
...arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful, deliberate consideration. State v. Bell , 488 S.W.3d 228, 249 (Mo.App.E.D. 2016) (citing State v. Roggenbuck , 387 S.W.3d 376, 382 (Mo.banc 2012) ). Where, in deciding whether to allow an amendment t......
-
State v. Nichols
...United States v. Orr , 636 F.3d 944 (8th Cir.2011) ; see also United States v. Allen , 247 F.3d 741 (8th Cir.2001) ; State v. Bell , 488 S.W.3d 228, 242 (Mo.App.E.D.2016) ; State v. Wade , 866 S.W.2d 908, 910-11 (Mo. App. W.D. 1993) ; State v. Myers , 291 S.W.3d 292, 295–96 (Mo.App.S.D.2009......
-
State v. Little
...among the Miranda warnings is the right of the individual being interrogated to the presence of an attorney. State v. Bell, 488 S.W.3d 228, 238 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (citing Miranda, 384 U.S. at 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602 ). Once the individual being interrogated invokes their right to counsel, the ......
-
State v. West
...reviewing the entire record, we are " ‘left with a definite and firm belief a mistake has been made.’ " Id. (quoting State v. Bell , 488 S.W.3d 228, 238 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) ). "A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress must be supported by substantial evidence." State v. Johnson , 354......