People v. Bell
241 Cal. App. 4th 315
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Four defendants (Bell, Lewis, Joseph, Williams) were convicted after a 2008 casino robbery and related offenses; they received long prison terms and multiple enhancements (gang and firearm).
- The original 2010 trial ended in mistrial after a prosecutor called a witness who referenced SWAT/raid evidence previously excluded; defendants later pleaded once in jeopardy claiming prosecutorial goading.
- Trial court ruled prosecutorial intent was a procedural question for the judge and denied the jury trial on the once-in-jeopardy pleas; court later denied dismissal and defendants were retried and convicted.
- On appeal the primary statutory question was whether Penal Code §§ 1041(3) and 1042 require a jury trial to resolve factual issues raised by a plea of once in jeopardy based on Kennedy-type prosecutorial-goading claims.
- The Court of Appeal concluded the statutes’ plain language requires a jury trial on any factual issue raised by a plea of once in jeopardy unless facts are undisputed or only one inference is reasonable; conditioned reversal and remanded for compliance with that rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §§1041(3) and 1042 require a jury trial on once-in-jeopardy pleas asserting prosecutorial goading (Kennedy-type) | AG: statutes should not apply to Kennedy-type claims; intent determinations are procedural and for judge | Defs: plain statutory wording of §§1041(3)/1042 requires jury to decide any factual issue raised by a once-in-jeopardy plea | Held: §§1041(3) and 1042 plainly require jury trial for material factual issues on pleas of once in jeopardy, including Kennedy-type claims, unless facts undisputed/only one inference reasonable; conditional reversal and remand |
| Whether the trial court properly refused to strike defendants’ jeopardy pleas without a jury | AG: judge may adjudicate intent; routine practice supports bench resolution | Defs: they requested jury trials on the pleas and statutory right attaches | Held: trial court used wrong standard; prosecution or court may move to strike plea only after defendants given chance to present evidence and only if no material dispute of fact remains |
| Whether omission of accomplice instructions (re: witnesses Turner, Grayson) was prejudicial | AG: omission erroneous but harmless | Defs: omission prejudicial | Held: omission harmless — Turner had immunity; Grayson’s testimony had credibility issues and general credibility instructions sufficed |
| Sufficiency of evidence for various enhancements and convictions (gang enhancements, personal firearm use, possession by felon, conspiracy count 22) | AG: evidence supports enhancements except conceded insufficiency for conspiracy count 22 | Defs: challenged sufficiency of several findings | Held: substantial evidence supported most enhancements and possessory findings; court accepted AG concession and reversed conspiracy conviction (count 22) for insufficient evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982) (prosecutorial intent to goad defendant into mistrial bars retrial)
- People v. Batts, 30 Cal.4th 660 (2003) (discusses double jeopardy and prosecutorial misconduct; expresses doubt about jury resolving prosecutorial-intent factual issues)
- Stone v. Superior Court, 31 Cal.3d 503 (1982) (if material factual issue exists on double jeopardy plea, it is for the jury; otherwise judge decides)
- People v. Greer, 30 Cal.2d 589 (1947) (jury must determine whether prior conviction/acquittal was based on same act — example of jury resolution of jeopardy factual issues)
- People v. Masbruch, 13 Cal.4th 1001 (1996) (broad view of firearm "use" — jury may consider video of entire encounter in assessing firearm-use enhancement)