Bell v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-00900-SCT Linked Case(s): 2006-KA-00900-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-19-2007 Opinion Author: Smith, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Manslaughter - Sufficiency of evidence - Prior bad acts - M.R.E. 404(b) - Illegal arrest - Discovery violations - Miranda rights - Initial appearance - Spoliation of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Waller and Diaz, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson, Dickinson, Randolph and Lamar, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-18-2006 Appealed from: Amite County Circuit Court Judge: Forrest Johnson Disposition: An Amite County jury found Bell guilty of manslaughter and sentenced him to a term of fifteen years with five years suspended in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. The trial court denied Bell’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. District Attorney: Ronnie Lee Harper Case Number: 05-KR-013 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | DARRAL BELL |
CHARLES E. MILLER |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Manslaughter - Sufficiency of evidence - Prior bad acts - M.R.E. 404(b) - Illegal arrest - Discovery violations - Miranda rights - Initial appearance - Spoliation of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Darral Bell was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to fifteen years with five years suspended. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Bell argues that insufficient evidence supported the verdict, because the State’s case rested entirely on the testimony of unreliable witnesses who gave no independent corroboration of the evidence because the court erred by not suppressing physical evidence such as the truck, the four-wheeler and photographs. A review of the record shows Bell offered no evidence to prove that the witness was unreliable. In addition, the question of credibility of the evidence is to be determined by the jury. Based on the evidence introduced at trial, there was sufficient evidence in support of the verdict. Issue 2: Prior bad acts Bell argues that the State improperly elicited testimony from officers that Bell committed a crime by driving in the middle of the road, because this testimony violates M.R.E. 404(b). This evidence was part of Bell’s voluntary statement to the investigators that he drove in the middle of the road to prevent the victim from passing him. At trial, the police officer read the statement during his testimony with no objection from the defense. Evidence of other crimes or bad acts is admissible to tell the complete story so as not to confuse the jury. Bell’s voluntary statement that he was driving in the middle of the road was part of the story of the crime, explaining the events resulting in the death of the victim. This act was admissible as it is so interrelated with the charge against Bell that it constitutes a closely related series of occurrences. While it was error for the prosecution to elicit testimony from the officer that Bell committed a crime by driving in the middle of the road, the court cured the error by advising the jury to disregard the testimony concerning whether it is unlawful to drive in the middle of the road. Issue 3: Illegal arrest Bell argues that he was arrested, held and questioned without probable cause. In defining probable cause in warrantless arrests, the officer involved is charged to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given the totality of the circumstances, there is a fair probability that the person proposed to be arrested or searched is involved in substantial criminal activity. Based on the officer’s observation of Bell at the scene and his confirmation from Bell that he had been drinking and was the driver of the second vehicle in the accident, there was probable cause for Bell’s arrest. Issue 4: Discovery violations Bell argues that the district attorney committed a discovery violation by submitting the State expert’s report as to the examination of the truck and crime scene on the first day of the trial. When a trial court is faced with previously undisclosed evidence to which the defendant has objected, it should give the defendant a reasonable opportunity to familiarize himself with the evidence. If the defendant thereafter believes he may be prejudiced by the admission of the evidence because of his lack of opportunity to prepare to meet it, he must request a continuance. If the defendant fails to request a continuance, he waives the issue. In this case, the defense had notice of the prosecution’s rebuttal expert. Furthermore, the failure of the defense to object to this testimony or request a continuance waived this issue. Issue 5: Miranda rights Bell argues that his Miranda rights were violated, because the officer did not inform him of any charges against him prior to his giving any statements. The State meets its burden of proving the voluntariness of a confession by the testimony of an officer, or other person having knowledge of the facts, that the confession was voluntarily made without any threats, coercion, or offer of reward. The State offered all the officers who were involved in the questioning of Bell. This testimony fails to suggest that any threats or violence were used in obtaining Bell’s voluntary statement. Issue 6: Initial appearance Bell argues that he was improperly held in jail for more than forty-eight hours without the benefit of an appearance, in which time he was questioned and forced to give a statement without the benefit of an attorney. It is well-established that the failure to provide an initial appearance for an accused within the time provided is not, in itself, a reason to suppress a confession. Because there is no evidence of coercion and Bell’s written statement was voluntarily given within forty-eight hours of his arrest, this issue is without merit. Issue 7: Spoliation of evidence Bell argues that the destruction of the rearview side mirror of the truck violated his due process rights. To find a due process violation by the State in a preservation of evidence case, the evidence in question must possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed; the evidence must be such that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means; and the prosecution's destruction of the evidence must have been in bad faith. In this case, the court found that the truck was released to its private owner several days after the wreck and that the damage to the truck was well documented by the numerous photographs in evidence. Therefore, the court did not err in finding that there was no willful destruction of the evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
