Bell v. State

The defendant did not show that the state's proffered reasons for striking eight black jurors were pretextual, since the state's use of its preemptory strikes did not have a racially-disproportionate impact on the composition of the jury and the state's reasons for its strikes were not implausible and did not apply equally to white jurors, who were seated.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a jury trial, Derico Kenneth Bell was convicted of a single count of burglary.1 He now appeals from the denial of his new trial motion, asserting that the trial court erred in: 1 denying his Batson 2 motion challenging the State’s use of its peremptory jury strikes; and 2 denying his motion for a directed verdict. Bell also asserts an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, based on trial counsel’s failure to object to the admission of evidence regarding the victims’ pretrial identification of Bell, which he claims was tainted. Discerning no error, we affirm. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, Jackson v. State 3, the record shows that on December 23, 2005, two men broke into a house and stole a number of items, including jewelry, a video gaming system, video and computer games, and DVDs. At the time of the burglary, the homeowner’s son and grandson, ages eleven and nine, were in the residence. The boys retreated to an upstairs bedroom where, hidden from view, they observed the intruders. When the burglars left the bedroom where the boys were hiding, the older boy telephoned his mother at work. The mother contacted police and then drove immediately to her house. As the mother entered through the front of the house, the burglars exited out the back.

The boys gave police a description of the burglars and a short time later a patrol officer noticed Bell and his co-defendant, who matched the description of the perpetrators, walking by a car wash a short distance from the burgled home. At the time the officer first saw the men, Bell’s co-defendant was carrying a backpack. When he saw the police, however, the co-defendant walked behind the car wash and returned without the backpack. The patrol officer later recovered the backpack, and it was subsequently identified as having been stolen during the burglary.

Bell v. State

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report