Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court reversed McArthur Risper’s convictions for first-degree murder, first-degree conspiracy, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and remanded for a new trial. The court held that evidence concerning Risper’s possession of marijuana and a firearm and his related conduct was admissible under Delaware Rule of Evidence 404(b), but that the State violated its Brady obligations by belatedly disclosing evidence that another person allegedly confessed to the murder. The court concluded that the disclosure violation undermined confidence in the trial’s outcome.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Superior Court abused its discretion by admitting evidence concerning Bailey's theft of marijuana and a firearm from Risper and Risper's subsequent attempt to recover the property under D.R.E. 404(b).
- Whether the State violated Brady by disclosing on the eve of trial a recorded interview in which an individual reported that someone else had confessed to killing Bailey and had shown her the gun used in the shooting.
- Whether the Superior Court abused its discretion by denying Risper a continuance after the State's belated disclosure of the recorded interview.
- Whether the belated disclosure of evidence concerning a shoplifting scheme involving prosecution witnesses independently required dismissal or a new trial.
Holdings
- The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence that Bailey stole marijuana and a firearm from Risper and that Risper later attempted to recover the property. The evidence was relevant to motive and was sufficiently plain, clear, and conclusive under Getz.
- The State violated its Brady obligations by withholding until the afternoon before trial a recorded interview containing potentially exculpatory evidence that another person had confessed to killing Bailey.
- Allowing the defense to play the recorded interview and cross-examine the interviewing detective was not an adequate remedy for the State's late disclosure, and denying a continuance was an abuse of discretion.
- The State should have disclosed before trial that Channell Gray was the person who asked Staci Weldon to obtain clothing through shoplifting, but the Supreme Court did not decide whether that disclosure independently constituted a Brady violation because the AE disclosure alone required a new trial.
Key quotations
“In criminal proceedings, the prosecution has a constitutional obligation to disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence within its possession to the defense when that evidence might be material to the outcome of the case.” (23-24)
“But the State, by opposing Risper’s continuance request, actively stepped in the way of any such investigation even though its mistake had created the problem.” (28)
“Because that is so, we conclude that Risper did not receive a fair trial resulting in a verdict worthy of our confidence.” (31)
Factual background
Corey Bailey and Staci Weldon stole an AR-15 rifle and marijuana from a trailer and left the items at O'Shea Waples's residence. Evidence showed that Risper and Mike Lewis later confronted Waples while attempting to recover the stolen property, and witnesses placed Risper in or near a black Jeep before and after Bailey was shot. Channell Gray identified Risper as the masked shooter, and police later found Risper's DNA on items in the recovered Jeep. Before and during trial, however, the State belatedly disclosed an interview in which an individual claimed that someone else had confessed to killing Bailey and also disclosed evidence potentially impeaching Gray.
Procedural history
A Superior Court jury convicted Risper of first-degree murder, first-degree conspiracy, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Before trial, the Superior Court admitted evidence concerning Bailey's theft of marijuana and a firearm from Risper and Risper's subsequent attempt to recover the property. During trial, the State disclosed a recorded interview suggesting that another person had confessed to killing Bailey and disclosed that a key witness had been involved in a shoplifting scheme with another prosecution witness. The Superior Court denied Risper's motions to dismiss, for a mistrial, and for a continuance, and sentenced him to life plus 30 years. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Remand instructions
The Superior Court must conduct a new trial consistent with the Delaware Supreme Court's opinion.