People v. Bell, 246 Cal. Rptr. 3d 527

Background

In 1997 Michael Leon Bell (6'5") robbed a convenience store in Turlock, fatally shot clerk Simon Francis, and fled; surveillance video, ballistic evidence, and witness testimony tied Bell to the crime. He was convicted of first‑degree murder (felony‑murder during robbery), related felonies, and firearm/serious‑felony enhancements; jury fixed death.
Key prosecution evidence: surveillance footage, recovery of the .357 revolver matching crime‑scene bullets, witness testimony (including co‑participant Tory T. under a plea deal), tire/tread comparisons, and admissions by accomplices that the gun was buried and cleaned.
Defense mitigation: neuropsychological and psychosocial evidence of low IQ, learning disabilities, ADHD, difficult childhood, and testimony about defendant’s character and family impact. Defense also disputed identity (size differences with Tory) and raised trial‑level evidentiary and procedural objections.
Important trial events: repeated pretrial requests for funding a jury consultant were denied (but Keenan counsel appointment expanded); multiple voir dire and death‑qualification disputes; pretrial recusal/disclosure motions concerning a juvenile cooperator’s former attorney were denied on privilege/conflict grounds; and a violent courtroom outburst by Bell resulted in restraints and his temporary absence during penalty‑phase testimony.
Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and death sentence, rejecting challenges to funding denials, voir dire procedures, various hearsay/confrontation claims, evidentiary rulings (including surveillance and victim videos), exclusion/privilege rulings, restraint/absence issues, prosecutorial remarks, and constitutional attacks on California’s capital sentencing scheme.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Bell)	Held
Denial of funds for a jury‑selection consultant under §987.9	Court acted within §987.9 discretion; Keenan counsel and limited investigator funding provided	Denial violated state law and federal due process/equal protection by denying equivalent resources	Denial not error; no constitutional right to jury‑selection expert; court acted within discretion (affirmed)
Voir dire/death‑qualification scope	Voir dire (court + counsel) adequate and within judge’s broad discretion	Court curtailed counsel’s questioning, improperly rehabilitated death‑leaning jurors, and failed to excuse biased jurors	Voir dire adequate; limitations reasonable; cause challenges forfeited or correctly decided; no reversible error
Recusal / disclosure of communications between cooperator Tory and his former counsel Cassidy	No actual conflict; privilege protects communications; Cassidy screened and did not handle the case	Duty to disclose communications/impeachment material; DA office biased by hiring Cassidy	Privilege stands; no basis for recusal; defendant not entitled to invade attorney‑client privilege; motion denied properly
Admission of codefendant/citizen‑informant statements (confrontation/hearsay)	Statements admitted for non‑hearsay purposes (to show effect on investigator); defense opened the door	Admission conveyed out‑of‑court identifications and violated Crawford/Bruton confrontation rights	Admission lawful as nonhearsay or harmless; no Bruton problem (not jointly tried); any error harmless beyond doubt
Witness invocation of Fifth (Ochoa) and related testimony (gun chain)	Prosecution could call Ochoa about relationship; Fifth prevented cross on gun; prior witnesses traced gun to Ochoa	Calling her and allowing other witnesses’ testimony prejudiced Bell; denial of immunity violated confrontation	Court properly limited questions to avoid privilege invocation; no Sixth Amendment violation; prosecutor not required to grant immunity
Surveillance & victim audio/video (guilt/penalty phases)	Video probative of events; dying sounds redacted for guilt phase but admissible at penalty; victim‑impact video permissible	Playing victim’s dying audio or wedding video was unduly prejudicial/inflammatory under Evid. Code §352	Court’s rulings within discretion: redaction in guilt phase; unredacted tape admissible at penalty; short wedding clip admissible as victim‑impact evidence
Defendant’s courtroom outburst, restraints, and absence during penalty testimony	Restraints and temporary exclusion were justified by manifest need and safety; defendant waived presence for a day; jury admonitions sufficient	Removal/absence and visible restraints violated statutory right to be present, confrontation, and prejudiced jury against him	Waiver of presence was knowing/voluntary for the day; removal for violent disruption lawful; restraints justified by manifest need; failure to give sua sponte instruction harmless/not reversible
Constitutional challenges to California death penalty statutes and procedures	Penal Code scheme provides adequate narrowing, individualized sentencing, and appellate review	Scheme violates due process, jury‑trial/Apprendi/Ring/Hurst principles and evolving standards	Court reaffirms prior holdings: statute constitutional; no new constitutional defect found

Key Cases Cited

Aranda v. Superior Court, 63 Cal.2d 518 (admissibility/Bruton‑style issues)
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (co‑defendant statements and confrontation rule)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause framework)
Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (narrowing Bruton; non‑incriminating context)
Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (defendant’s right to be present but may lose it by misconduct)
Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (visible restraints require essential state interest)
Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (right to psychiatric assistance where sanity defense asserted) — discussed by analogy
People v. Box, 23 Cal.4th 1153 (limits on funding jury‑selection experts)
People v. Leon, 61 Cal.4th 569 (voir dire/Witt practice guidance)
People v. Virgil, 51 Cal.4th 1210 (§987.9 funding and trial court discretion)