Bell v. Ohio

Petitioner
Willie Lee Bell
Respondent
State of Ohio
Petitioner's Claim
That his conviction of aggravated murder, which resulted in a death sentenceunder the Ohio death penalty statute, violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution by preventing the sentencing judge from taking into account mitigating factors with regard to his character and intelligence.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
H. Fred Hoefle
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Leonard Kirschner
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger (writing for the Court), Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., John Paul Stevens, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
William H. Rehnquist (William J. Brennan, Jr., did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
3 July 1978
Decision
That the Ohio death penalty statute does not allow for consideration of all possible mitigating factors in sentencing a defendant, as provided in the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution; therefore the Court ruled in favor of the appellant.
Significance
Though not as well-known as Furman v. Georgia (1972) and other cases related to capital punishment procedure, Bell v. Ohio concerned itselfwith two of the fundamental issues explored in most of the landmark death penalty-related cases: the examination of mitigating factors in sentencing, andthe question of whether the death penalty itself constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
On 16 October 1974, Willie Lee Bell, a 16-year-old, met his 18-year-old friend Samuel Hall at a youth center in Cincinnati, Ohio. After going to Hall's home, Hall borrowed a car, and the two drove around for some time. They pursueda car driven by Julius Graber, 64, and forced him into a parking garage. Using a sawed-off shotgun, Hall forced Graber to give up his car keys, then ordered him to get into the trunk. Hall drove Graber's car, and Bell followed inHall's car, back to Hall's house; then the two drove Graber's car, with Bellat the wheel and Graber still in the trunk, to a cemetery.
A nearby resident would later testify that he saw Graber's car on the cemetery's service road with its parking lights on. There were sounds of two car doors closing, and a voice screaming, "Don't shoot me! Don't shoot me!" This wasfollowed by two shots. After seeing Graber's car pull away, now with its lights off, the witness called the police. The latter found Graber lying facedown with a wound on the back of his neck, and another on his right cheek. By the time the ambulance arrived at the hospital, he was dead.
Meanwhile, Bell and Hall spent the night with friends of Hall in Dayton, Ohio. The next day, with Bell again at the wheel of Graber's car, they pulled upat a service station, where Hall used the shotgun to force the station attendant to get into his own car's trunk. Now in an apparent repeat of the previous day's escapade, Hall drove away in the attendant's car, with the latter inthe trunk, while Bell followed in Graber's car. But this time, a policeman stopped Hall for a defective muffler--and in the course of this, discovered thecar's owner in the trunk.
Bell was not caught immediately, having driven on past when the patrolman stopped Hall, but he was apprehended soon after he returned to Cincinnati and abandoned Graber's car. He waived both his right to testify and his right to ajury trial, opting instead for trial by a three-judge panel. In lieu of testimony from the defendant, Bell's counsel presented the court with a statementmade by the defendant at the time of his arrest. In it, Bell said that although he had gone to the cemetery with Hall, he had no intention of participating in a murder. Instead, he claimed, he asked Hall what they were going to doto, and was told, "We'll see. Give me the keys." According to Bell's statement, Hall marched Graber into the woods and shot him out of Bell's sight. (Perhaps not surprisingly, Hall claimed that Bell had shot Graber.)
Ohio Sentences Bell to the Death Penalty
The judges were unanimous in finding Bell guilty of aggravated murder, whichoccurred in the course of a kidnapping--an offense punishable by death underOhio law. The law required that, before sentencing, the court should order apsychiatric evaluation of the defendant. The investigation of his mental state found him to be of "low . . . intellectual capability." The report noted that he had appeared in juvenile court several times, and stated that he claimed to have been using the drug mescaline on the night of the crime.
In this, the penalty phase, the panel of judges allowed both sides to speak,and now Bell testified. He said that he had been on drugs nearly every day for the three years leading up to the crime, and had been intimidated by Hall to the extent that he was highly suggestible. Hall had been like an "older brother," he said, and he was "scared" not to do what Hall told him to do. Following Bell's testimony, several of his teachers testified to his problems withdrugs, his emotional instability, and his mental deficiencies. Bell's lawyerfurther argued that Bell was a minor, which in itself constituted a type ofmental deficiency in that he did not have full understanding of the choices he was making.
The defense contended that not only Bell's youth, but his cooperation with the police and the lack of proof that he had actually participated in the killing, were all mitigating factors that presented a strong case for a penalty less than death. Furthermore, the defense moved that Ohio's death penalty law,which the state had formed in the wake of the Supreme Court case of Furmanv. Georgia, should be declared unconstitutional. The Ohio statute, it was stated, was in violation of two constitutional amendments: the Eighth, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment, and the Fourteenth, which guaranteesa citizen's right to the due process of law. According to the defense, the Ohio statute did not allow for the mitigating factors of Bell's age, his cooperation, and the lack of proof to be used as a basis for receiving a lesser sentence.
The judges, having concluded that none of the mitigating factors as defined by Ohio law were present, sentenced Bell to death. Bell's counsel immediatelyappealed the case and took it to the state supreme court, which ruled that there was sufficient evidence to establish that Bell had aided and abetted Hall--which meant, under Ohio law, that Bell could be prosecuted and punished asthough he were the one who had actually pulled the trigger.
The High Court Strikes Down Ohio's Law
In reviewing the case of Bell v. Ohio, the Court ruled 7-1 in favor ofBell. In an opinion joined by Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, Chief Justice Burger made two points. First, he said, the two Amendments referred to in Bell's case do indeed require that the sentencing judge not be prevented from considering any and all possible mitigating factors relating to the defendant orthe circumstances of the offense. And second, the Ohio death penalty statuteprecludes such individualized consideration of mitigating factors.
Justices White and Blackmun concurred with the judgment, but for different reasons, both finding causes why the death sentence was invalid in this instance. Marshall, while also concurring with the judgment, announced that he believed the death penalty to be cruel and unusual punishment under all circumstances, and therefore disagreed with "the Court's assumption to the contrary." The lone dissenter was Justice Rehnquist, who ruled, as he had earlier that year in the case of Lockett v. Ohio, that federal law can only require that states give defendants fair trials--not that they hear all possible mitigating testimony.
Related Cases

• Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
  
• Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978).