The Wisconsin Court of Appeals has affirmed the convictions of Max E. Bell, who was found guilty of multiple charges stemming from three separate incidents involving female sex workers. The central issue on appeal was whether the circuit court erred in joining the three cases for a single trial. Bell argued that the joinder was improper and prejudiced his defense.
The Court of Appeals, however, sided with the State, finding that the joinder was indeed appropriate because the crimes shared a “common scheme or plan.”
Background of the Cases
The charges against Bell arose from incidents in February 2018, September 2019, and July 2020, each involving a different victim and location in Verona and Madison. In each instance, Bell allegedly arranged to meet a female sex worker under the guise of consensual sex, but then violently assaulted her. Two of the incidents also involved violent sexual assault, while the third involved Bell fleeing after the victim screamed.
Specifically, the cases involved:
* Case 2019CF1525: Bell was charged with strangulation and pandering after allegedly choking and sexually assaulting A.B. in February 2018. A forensic examination reportedly found bruising consistent with strangulation.
* Case 2020CF2585: Bell was charged with second-degree sexual assault and felony bail jumping after allegedly sexually assaulting C.D. in July 2020, after she told him “time’s up” during a paid encounter. The complaint alleged that he pinned her arm behind her back and engaged in anal intercourse without her consent. DNA evidence reportedly linked Bell to the crime.
* Case 2020CF2958: Bell was charged with substantial battery and felony bail jumping after allegedly attacking E.F. in September 2019. E.F. reported that a man she met for a paid sexual encounter punched and kicked her without warning, causing significant injuries. She later identified Bell as her attacker.
The Joinder Dispute
Bell’s primary argument on appeal was that the circuit court improperly joined the three cases for trial. He claimed that the cases were not sufficiently similar, involved different victims and types of alleged assault, and occurred over a significant period. He further argued that the joinder confused the jury and resulted in unfair prejudice.
The State countered that the cases shared a common scheme or plan and that evidence from each case would be admissible in the others as “other acts” evidence. They also argued that joinder did not cause substantial prejudice to Bell.
Court’s Reasoning on Joinder
The Court of Appeals upheld the circuit court’s decision, relying on Wisconsin Statute § 971.12(1), which allows for the joinder of crimes if they are of the same or similar character, based on the same act or transaction, connected together, or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan.
The court found that the crimes in Bell’s cases constituted “parts of a common scheme or plan” to meet a female sex worker, direct her to an isolated location, and violently assault her. The court emphasized the similar *modus operandi* in each incident, noting the pattern of arranging to meet a sex worker for consensual sex, leading her to a secluded spot, and then committing a violent assault.
Prejudice and “Other Acts” Evidence
The court also addressed the issue of prejudice, clarifying that a circuit court can consider whether the evidence of the defendant’s “other acts” in the joined cases would be admissible in any one of the cases if they were tried separately.
The Court of Appeals determined that Bell had not demonstrated that the circuit court erred in concluding that joinder would not result in substantial prejudice. The court pointed to the similarities in the facts of the three cases and the limiting instructions given to the jury, which cautioned them against using evidence from one case to find guilt in another and directed them to limit their consideration of the facts from the other cases to specific issues like motive, opportunity, intent, and plan.
Severance Argument Forfeited
Finally, the Court of Appeals declined to address Bell’s argument that he was entitled to severance, noting that he had not filed a motion for severance in the circuit court. Consequently, the court deemed the argument forfeited on appeal.