State v. Bell, 512 S.W.3d 167

Background

Victim Starr Harris was found murdered on June 1, 2010; cause of death was strangulation and blunt-force trauma; body and an "assault scene" in nearby woods showed signs of sexual assault and a trail between scenes.
Defendant Rickey Alvis Bell, Jr., a laborer who visited the victim’s home that afternoon, was indicted for alternative counts of first-degree felony murder (kidnapping and rape), especially aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated sexual battery; convicted by a jury and sentenced to death.
Forensic evidence placed the defendant near the assault scene: a condom and a handgun-shaped lighter (both bearing DNA consistent with Bell) and a branch with hairs consistent with the victim were recovered near where the victim’s body was later found. The victim’s body bore injuries consistent with blunt-force trauma and sexual assault; defendant’s DNA was not found on the victim’s body.
Pretrial, Bell moved to bar the death notice on the ground of intellectual disability (claimed IQ ~74); psychologist testified but did not opine Bell’s functional IQ was ≤70; motion denied.
Trial rulings at issue on appeal: denial of death-penalty dismissal for intellectual disability; constitutionality of Tennessee’s intellectual-disability statute under Hall v. Florida; denial of two mistrial motions after unsolicited references to Bell’s prior incarceration; exclusion of cross-examination about the victim’s husband’s extramarital affair; sufficiency of evidence; and mandatory appellate review of the death sentence and aggravating circumstances.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Bell)	Held
1. Was denial of motion to dismiss death notice for intellectual disability error?	State: statute requires proof by preponderance; defense did not prove IQ ≤70 or adaptive deficits.	Bell: IQ test score (~74) within SEM could place him ≤70; he has adaptive deficits → ineligible for death.	Denied — evidence (expert testimony) failed to prove functional IQ ≤70 or adaptive deficits; Bell not intellectually disabled under Tenn. Code §39-13-203.
2. Is Tennessee’s intellectual-disability statute unconstitutional under Hall v. Florida?	State: Tennessee allows consideration of SEM and other evidence per Coleman; statute is constitutional as interpreted by Tenn. courts.	Bell: Hall requires courts to consider SEM and admit additional evidence when scores fall within error; Tennessee’s bright-line approach is unconstitutional.	Denied — Tennessee’s interpretation (per Coleman and later cases) permits expert consideration of SEM and other evidence, so statute, as applied, is not unconstitutional.
3. Were mistrials required after unsolicited references to defendant’s prior incarceration?	State: remarks were unsolicited, brief, and not elicited by prosecution; curative instruction offered; evidence against defendant strong.	Bell: unsolicited references were highly prejudicial in capital case, requiring mistrial.	Denied — no abuse of discretion; references brief/unelicited; court offered/issued curative instruction; State’s proof strong such that statements unlikely to have affected verdict.
4. Was exclusion of cross-examination about husband’s extramarital affair reversible error?	State: affair had limited probative value for motive; exclusion proper under Rule 608(b) (not probative of truthfulness).	Bell: affair was relevant to motive and impeachment; exclusion violated right to present a complete defense and ability to impeach (Rule 613).	Mixed: Trial court erred in excluding the affair as substantive and in limiting prior-inconsistent-statement impeachment under Rule 613, but error in excluding affair as substantive was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given strong forensic evidence and husband’s multiple alibi witnesses; impeachment exclusion likewise harmless.
5. Was evidence sufficient to support convictions (felony murder—kidnapping; felony murder—rape; especially aggravated kidnapping; aggravated sexual battery)?	State: circumstantial and forensic evidence (presence at house, DNA on objects, assault scene, injuries, drag trail) support identity and elements.	Bell: DNA not on victim; no eyewitness; timeline/absence of injuries on Bell argue insufficiency.	Held — Sufficient: jury could reasonably infer Bell abducted, assaulted, attempted/committed sexual acts, and killed victim; circumstantial evidence adequate under Jackson standard.
6. Was death sentence proper given aggravators and proportionality?	State: jury found four aggravators; at least two valid (HAC and felony-murder); aggravators outweigh minimal mitigation; death not disproportionate.	Bell: two aggravators invalid (prior violent felony and duplicative felony-murder instruction); mitigation (IQ, background) and errors require resentencing or reversal.	Held — Two aggravators invalid (prior convictions record insufficiently proven; felony-murder double-counted), but remaining valid aggravators (HAC and one felony-murder) supported death; error harmless beyond reasonable doubt; sentence proportionate and affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014) (when IQ score falls within test’s margin of error, defendant may present additional evidence of intellectual disability)
Coleman v. State, 341 S.W.3d 221 (Tenn. 2011) (trial courts may consider expert testimony, SEM, Flynn effect, and other factors in assessing functional IQ)
Pruitt v. State, 415 S.W.3d 180 (Tenn. 2013) (raw IQ scores are not sole determinant; courts may consider broader evidence of functional IQ)
Rice v. State, 184 S.W.3d 646 (Tenn. 2006) (erroneous exclusion of defense evidence can implicate constitutional right to present a defense; harmless-error framework explained)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
Howell v. State, 151 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2004) (addressing interpretation of 70-point IQ cutoff under Tennessee law)