STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY COURT
COUNTY OF MONROE
_____________________________________________
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
vs

VERDICT
Indict. No.: 2016-1081A

ERICA BELL,
Defendant.
___________________________________________
The defendant Erica Bell is charged in the First Count with Murder in the Second Degree
- Depraved Indifference Murder, causing death to a child less than eleven years old. In the
second count the defendant is charged with Manslaughter in the First Degree, Recklessly
Causing the Death of a child less than eleven years old, with intent to cause physical injury.
The trial was held over the previous two weeks. As the fact-finder, the defendant having
waived her right to a trial by jury and elected to have the case tried by a single judge, I have
listened to and reviewed all the testimony and have considered the applicable legal instructions.
The proof is closed, the parties have made their closing arguments, and I am prepared to
announce a verdict with respect to each count.
Let me first take up Count Two, Manslaughter in the First Degree.
Under our law, a person is guilty of Manslaughter in the First Degree when, being
eighteen (18) years old or more and with intent to cause physical injury to a person less than
eleven (11) years old, he or she recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of
serious physical injury to such person and thereby causes the death of such person.
Thus, in order for me to find the defendant guilty of this crime, the People are required to
prove, from all the evidence in the case, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the following four
elements:

 1. That on or about and between November 9, 2016 and November 13, 2016, in the
county of Monroe, the defendant, Erica Bell, caused the death of a person less than eleven
(11) years old, namely, Brooke Stagles.
I find, based upon the credible evidence, that Erica Bell caused the death of Brooke
Stagles by delivering a blow to her abdomen such a degree of force that it ruptured her bowel,
causing the contents of her bowel to spill into her abdomen and in turn to cause sepsis and
eventual death.
The cause of death was determined to have been blunt force trauma. Erica Bell delivered
that blunt force trauma to three-year-old Brooke Stagles when she punched her in the abdomen.
There was testimony from an inmate in the jail, who overheard Erica Bell saying to another
inmate that she did so because Brooke Stagles had walked in on her while she was ingesting or
injecting herself with heroin. I find that testimony to be credible, the inmate having no apparent
motive to lie or to fabricate the story,
In several conversations the defendant had with her grandmother Debbie Smith, Erica
Bell admitted, with no apparent remorse of contrition, that she had punched Brook Stagles.
All but one of those conversations took place over the telephone while Erica Bell was in
jail. They were recorded and were played for the Court. The conversations and the admissions
made by the defendant were unrehearsed, unscripted, unfiltered, and beyond any doubt, related
the truth of what Erica Bell had done to Brooke Stagles.
Moreover, Erica Bell made those admissions to her grandmother Debbie Smith because,
judging by the tone of the conversations between them, she trusted her completely. Debbie Smith
had enabled the defendant’s drug habit, had paid for the defendant’s drug habit, drove her to

 Clinton Avenue so she could get the drugs to satisfy her addiction, all because she found that the
defendant’s behavior was virtually intolerable when she needed to get another fix.
What Erica Bell did not count on was that her grandmother would tell the truth to the
police when asked whether she knew what had happened to Brooke Stagles.
Once her grandmother told her that Brooke had died, and realizing her grandmother had
told the police that she had struck Brooke in the stomach, Erica Bell expressed, in words that
were spontaneous and again unfiltered, almost, as argued by the People, in the manner of an
excited utterance, her realization of the legal jeopardy she was in.
It was only after the call had ended, and she had time to reflect on what to do, did the
defendant then change her story. She told her grandmother that Michael Stagles, the child’s
father, had delivered the blows that resulted in Brooke’s death. The content and tone of that call
inherently calls into question its believability, what with the statement, among others, “I am not
going down for this.”
She repeated that alternative story in her testimony at the trial, and I find that testimony
to be not credible.
Rather, I find that she told the truth when she said she struck Brooke; she lied when she
said Michael Stagles did it.
I do not know if the defendant was abused as a child. I do not know if Michael Stagles
abused her (finding her statements to former boyfriend Frank Cerrito to be not entirely credible),
but I cannot accept that she confessed her crime to her grandmother in order to cover for Michael
Stagles. After all, she did not expect her grandmother to tell law enforcement or anyone else
what she had admitted to, why wouldn’t she expect her grandmother to stay silent if she had
related that Michael Stagles had punched the child?

 The second element the People are required to prove is:
2. That the defendant did so by recklessly engaging in conduct which created a
grave risk of serious physical injury to Brooke Stagles.
The defendant’s conduct in causing Brooke’s death was not limited to punching Brooke;
she also caused the death by lying to several people as to what was wrong with Brooke when
Brooke presented with symptoms described as “zombie-like,” like a character in the “zone,”
lifeless, not interacting as a normal child, not eating, labored breathing, not responding to
questions, multiple vomiting episodes, grey pallor, bruising (the origin of which the defendant
lied about) and in actively resisting the efforts of Robin Reyome to get Brooke medical care.
The defense has ably raised two issues here. One is control – if Brooke is not the mother,
and Michael is the custodial parent with ultimate authority as to whether Brooke goes to the
hospital or not, can the defendant be held for that conduct.
I find that she can. First of all, she inflicted the blows on Brooke, there is no evidence
that she had told Michael what she had done.
Moreover, Michael does not seem to have been present when the critical - and I mean that
literally- decision was made to not take Brooke to the hospital, but to drive to Clinton Avenue to
buy drugs and to keep her away from the hospital for the rest of the day, after having assured
Robin Reyome, that the defendant and her grandmother were going straight there. This after
Robin had said she was not going to leave until Brooke was taken to the hospital.
Second, the defense has argued that the defendant’s conduct did not meet the standard for
reckless.

 Reckless is defined as follows:
A person acts RECKLESSLY with respect to this count when that person: engages
in conduct which creates a substantial, unjustifiable, and grave risk that serious physical
injury to a person less than eleven (11) years old will occur, and when he or she is aware of
and consciously disregards that risk, and when that risk is of such nature and degree that
disregard of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable
person would observe in the situation.,
Thus the defense argues that a layperson such as the defendant could not have been aware
of this grave risk of serious physical injury that would flow from her conduct, when the
symptoms exhibited by Brooke mimicked the flu or some other illness, and when the team of
doctors and nurses at the hospital did not arrive at a definitive diagnosis until having run multiple
diagnostic tests, including an MRI.
However, one of those doctors said quite clearly, and I quote, anybody would know,
seeing a child exhibiting the degree of dehydration and lethargy that Brooke did on the Saturday
before her death, that something was seriously wrong. But more than that, the standard by which
the law judges a layman’s awareness of a risk of serious injury is different than what is required
for a doctor to make a diagnosis of a person’s complaints.
Also, I am designated to find the facts in this case in place of a jury, and juries are often
implored to use their common sense and to draw on their life experiences. In my life, I have
children of my own, I have seen them be sick with every illness in the book, flu, strep, coxsackie
virus, fifth disease, you name it, but I have never seen my children as sick looking as several

 people described Brooke Stagles on that Saturday, so sick at the party that Courtney Bell and
Omar Hussain were sufficiently disturbed that they thought about it all night, and called 911 the
next day.
That Erica Bell should have been aware that Brook Stagles was at risk of sustaining a
serious injury or dying is simply common sense.
Knowing that she had struck Brook in the abdomen with a significant force, and knowing
that Brook had immediate pain (as testified to by Dr Wakeman), and further, knowing that
Brooke began vomiting that night, and was complaining of pain, and knowing the next morning
that she continued to vomit, that she was lethargic and probably dehydrated, that she was lifeless
and with a grey skin pallor, that according to Dr. Wakeman the pain would have been of even
greater severity, and that the vomiting continued in the car, and that she was unable to keep fluids
down, I find that the People have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
consciously disregarded a grave risk of serious physical injury, not only in punching Brooke, but
in not doing anything to get her to a hospital and in actively preventing efforts by others to get
her to a hospital.
I also find that the defendant’s awareness and conscious disregard of the risk constituted
a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in
the situation.
A reasonable person, such as Robbin Reyome, such as Debbie Smith, such as Gail Geer,
such as Courtney Bell, such as Omar Hussain, all of whom realized Brooke was suffering from a
grave illness, would have taken Brooke to the hospital and related what had happened.
The next element the People are required to prove is:
3. That the defendant acted with the intent to cause physical injury to (specify)

 I find that the People have established beyond a reasonable doubt, that when Erica struck
Brooke, she did so with the intent to cause physical injury, defined as substantial pain or
impairment of physical condition.
And lastly, the People are required to prove:
4. That, at such time, the defendant was eighteen (18) years old or more.
Clearly the defendant was more than 18 years of age.
Therefore, I find the defendant Erica Bell guilty of the second count in the Indictment,
Manslaughter in the First Degree.
Turning now to the first count, Murder in the Second Degree, depraved indifference
murder.
In order for you to find the defendant guilty of this crime, the People are required to
prove, from all the evidence in the case, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the following four
elements: 1. That on or about and between November 9 and November 13, in the county of
Monroe, the defendant caused the death of a person less than eleven (11) years old, namely,
Brook Stagles; 2. That the defendant did so by recklessly engaging in conduct which created a
grave risk of serious physical injury or death to Brook Stagles; 3. That, at such time, the
defendant was eighteen (18) years old or more;
And 4: That the defendant engaged in such conduct under circumstances evincing a
depraved indifference to human life.
Three of those elements are the same as Manslaughter in the First Degree, namely, that
the defendant caused the death of an eleven year old child; that the defendant did so by
recklessly engaging in conduct which created a grave risk of serious physical injury or death to
recklessly; and that the defendant was 18 years old or more.

 What takes Manslaughter in the First Degree and elevates it to Murder in the Second
Degree - Depraved Indifference murder - is the element listed as number four above, that the
defendant engaged in such conduct under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to
human life.
Having found that the People have proven those three common elements beyond a
reasonable doubt, I will address now whether the defendant’s conduct constituted depraved
indifference to human life.
“DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE TO HUMAN LIFE” refers to a person’s state of mind in
recklessly engaging in conduct which creates a grave risk of death. A person has a depraved
indifference to human life when that person has an utter disregard for the value of human life – a
willingness to act, not because he or she means to cause grievous harm [to the person who is
injured], but because he or she simply does not care whether or not grievous harm will result. In
other words, a person who is depravedly indifferent is not just willing to take a grossly
unreasonable risk to human life - - that person does not care how the risk turns out. Depraved
indifference to human life reflects a wicked, evil or inhuman state of mind, as manifested by
brutal, heinous and despicable acts. It is evinced by conduct that is wanton, deficient in a moral
sense of concern, devoid of regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to justify
the same criminal liability that the law imposes on a person who intentionally kills.
The People argue that the totality of circumstances evinces that the defendant acted with
an utter disregard for human life – from the traumatic blunt force she administered to Brooke
Stagles, in her deception to visitors to the house and friends at the party as to what was wrong
with her and to her outright lie she told to Robin Reyome that she was going to the hospital with

 her grandmother, and to her request from the jail to her grandmother to tell Michael not to take
Brooke to the hospital.
The defense argues, in addition to repeating their argument regarding the lack of
awareness of the severity of Brooke’s condition, that the acts recited above do not indicate a
depraved indifference to human life, but rather, the deceptions were part of her intent to keep
Michael Stagles out of trouble with Child Protective Services, and that the defendant’s concern
for the child is evidenced by their relationship before the events of that weekend, when she
would take Brooke on walks, and Brooke would call her Mommy. It is also rebutted by the
concern the defendant showed on Saturday, taking her up for a bath and clothing her before
going out, and at the baby shower being held for the defendant’s sister Courtney, where
witnesses saw the defendant holding Brook, and attempting to feed her, until of course the
defendant was arrested for a violation of probation.
I find that the defendant had no concern for Brooke in the acts she took in bathing her,
feeding her, holding her at the party. Rather, the defendant’s sole concern was to not let anyone
know what had happened to Brooke, so as to protect her and perhaps Michael Stagles. That is
why the vomit in her hair was washed out, that is why bruises on her face were attributed to a
fall, that is why makeup was applied to the bruise on her eye, that is why the defendant scrubbed
Brooke’s face so hard with a washcloth hoping to somehow rub out a bruise that she took the
skin off. I am not sure the testimony established whether at the party Erica held Brook or Brook
sought out Erica and put her head on her lap or shoulder because she was so sick – in any event, I
have no doubt the defendant was thinking only of making it look as though Brooke was just tired
or getting over sickness.

 As depraved indifference goes to state of mind or intent, I find that Erica’s intent was
vividly on display in the recorded conversations from the jail with her grandmother and with
Michael Stagles. Defendant expresses no concern for Brooke, not even when she is told that
Brooke is dead. Then her sole concern, without so much as a pause to even say a prayer or allow
for a moment of silence in respect of Brooke’s life, is what is going to happen to her. And for her
it seems so unjust, because, after, all, “its not like I beat the kid every f____ day.”
In those conversations, and throughout the events on Saturday, the defendant was not at
all concerned whether Brooke lived or died - it is not a great leap to infer that the defendant had a
story ready to go in the event Brooke died and the bowel rupture was discovered – she fell off the
couch, she fell off the bike, the dresser fell on her, etc. All that had to happen is that her
grandmother not reveal their conversations – but of course she did.
Accordingly, I find that the People have established beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant engaged in conduct under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human
life; that is, that she had an utter disregard for Brooke’s life, and I find accordingly, that she is
guilty of Murder in the Second Degree.
Dated: September 29, 2017
Rochester, New York
_______________________________
HON. CHRISTOPHER S. CIACCIO
Monroe County Court Judge