State v. Bell, 86A02-2

Bryan Christopher Bell was convicted of first-degree murder (felony murder and premeditation), first-degree kidnapping, and burning of personal property relating to the 2000 killing of Elleze Kennedy. He was sentenced to death and consecutive prison sentences for the other convictions.
Bell's initial appeals to the North Carolina Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court upheld his conviction and sentence; no claim of gender discrimination was raised at trial or on direct appeal.
Years later, in post-conviction proceedings, Bell filed a motion for appropriate relief (MAR), amended in 2012 to raise a claim — for the first time — that the prosecution engaged in unconstitutional gender-based discrimination during jury selection, based on the peremptory strike of a female juror, Viola Morrow.
The MAR relied in part on a 2012 affidavit from an assistant district attorney admitting a deliberate effort to seek more male jurors. However, no J.E.B. (gender-based Batson) objection was made at trial.
The superior court denied relief on procedural grounds (failure to preserve and raise on direct appeal), and the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed, holding the claim was procedurally barred even where direct evidence of discriminatory intent surfaced post-trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Bell's J.E.B. claim (gender-based jury discrimination) preserved?	Bell argues it could not have been raised at trial or on direct appeal because key evidence arose post-conviction via affidavit.	State argues ample evidence at trial and in the record to raise the issue; no timely objection made.	Not preserved: no J.E.B. objection at trial or direct appeal.
Is Bell's gender-based claim procedurally barred under state law?	The Butler affidavit and jury questionnaire notes constitute new evidence not discoverable with reasonable diligence at trial.	State argues the factual basis was in the record and could have been raised earlier.	Procedurally barred; not new evidence; could have been raised.
Did Bell show good cause to overcome procedural bar?	The State withheld its true motives, and post-conviction discovery revealed direct evidence of discrimination, qualifying as good cause.	State argues the motive was evident in the prosecution's statements on the record.	No good cause shown: public record evidence sufficed.
Should a new trial be ordered where gender discrimination is shown?	Yes, an admitted constitutional violation in voir dire mandates vacatur and retrial to remedy the exclusion.	Procedural bars prohibit review, regardless of underlying discrimination.	No new trial; procedural bar controls outcome.

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibits racial discrimination in peremptory jury strikes)
J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (extends Batson to prohibit gender-based discrimination in peremptory jury strikes)
Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (addresses the evidentiary framework for claims of discriminatory strikes)
Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (articulates injury from even one discriminatory jury strike)
Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (establishes the broad basis for claims against improper peremptory strikes)
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (discusses the fundamental right to a jury trial)