State of Tennessee v. Heath Bell
W2016-00136-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | May 9, 2017Background
- On Feb. 15, 2013 Joe Howell was shot and killed in his newly leased SUV at Pendleton Place Apartments; $1,500 in cash was missing from his person/vehicle.
- Two eyewitnesses (James Edwards and Kayla Jennings) identified Heath Bell and co-defendant Nicholas Augustus as armed men seen near the scene shortly before the shooting; Chamere Talley gave a statement that she saw Bell running from the vehicle after gunshots.
- Ballistics: two distinct weapons fired (9mm and .40 cal); bullets entered from both driver and passenger sides.
- Cell‑tower records placed calls from Bell’s phone in the vicinity of the shooting around the time of the murder.
- Bell was indicted for first‑degree premeditated and felony murder; a jury convicted Bell (Augustus acquitted); court merged murder convictions and sentenced Bell to life imprisonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Suppression of Jennings’s ID | State: ID admissible; viewing was inadvertent, reliable, and had independent basis | Bell: courtroom exposure at preliminary hearings (prison attire, judge naming) impermissibly suggestive/tainted the ID | Denied suppression; court found exposure inadvertent, Jennings had independent basis and Biggers factors supported reliability |
| 2. Brady / withholding of exculpatory evidence (possible third‑party suspect) | State: no suppression; info public/known to defense counsel and not material | Bell: prosecution withheld evidence that victim was scheduled to testify in another case (possible third‑party motive) | Denied relief; court found no suppression, evidence public/known, and not material or likely to change outcome |
| 3. New trial on newly discovered evidence | State: evidence was not newly discovered or material | Bell: discovery of connection (victim was a witness in another case) would raise alternative‑perpetrator theory | Motion denied; trial court found counsel could/should have discovered it, and evidence would not probably change verdict |
| 4. Sufficiency of the evidence (identity) | State: eyewitness IDs, Talley statement, cell records, ballistics support conviction | Bell: IDs unreliable (intoxication, distance, darkness); cell‑tower presence insufficient | Conviction affirmed; viewed in light most favorable to State, evidence sufficient to establish identity |
| 5. Limitation of defense closing argument | State: trial court acted within discretion to curtail repetitive/overlong argument | Bell: curtailment prevented addressing jury instructions, identity, burden | No abuse of discretion; court reasonably limited length of closing argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (establishes two‑part test for suggestive pretrial identifications and Biggers reliability factors)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (weighs corrupting effect of suggestive ID against reliability factors)
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (discusses showup identifications and due process risk)
- Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (totality of circumstances standard for confrontation identifications)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution duty to disclose favorable, material evidence)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (materiality standard: undermining confidence in outcome)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (reasonable probability standard for suppressed evidence)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18 (Tenn. 1996) (deference to trial court findings in suppression hearings)