Risper v. State

Citation250 A.3d 76
Decision Date06 April 2021
Docket NumberNo. 56, 2020,56, 2020
Parties McArthur RISPER, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Delaware

Nicole M. Walker, Esquire, OFFICE OF PUBLIC DEFENDER, Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellant McArthur Risper.

Andrew J. Vella, Esquire, DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellee State of Delaware.

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices.

TRAYNOR, Justice:

A Superior Court jury found McArthur Risper guilty of murder in the first degree, conspiracy in the first degree, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony for his role in the May 2018 shooting death of Corey Bailey. The Superior Court sentenced Risper to life plus 30 years in prison.

The theory of the prosecution was that Risper intentionally killed Bailey as revenge for Bailey's theft of drugs and a firearm belonging to Risper. Risper claims that the evidence of Bailey's theft and Risper's subsequent efforts to recover the stolen drugs and firearm was prior-misconduct evidence and therefore inadmissible under our rules of evidence. In this opinion, we conclude that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the challenged evidence.

But Risper also claims that he did not receive a fair trial because the State did not disclose in a timely manner evidence that was favorable to the defense as required under Brady v. Maryland1 and its progeny. According to Risper, the State's belated disclosures—one on the day before trial was to begin and the other on the fourth day of trial—fundamentally undermined the fairness of his trial. We agree with Risper and conclude that the State's failure to produce, until the afternoon before Risper's trial was to begin, a recorded interview of an individual who told the chief investigating officer that another person had confessed to her that he had killed Bailey and showed her the gun used in the shooting was a violation of the State's obligations under Brady . And because that violation undermines our confidence in the outcome of Risper's trial, we reverse and remand to the Superior Court for a new trial.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

During the early evening hours of May 11, 2018, Channell Gray was standing in front of her car on Mill Park Drive in the Coverdale Crossroads community near Bridgeville, Delaware, talking with her friend, Corey Bailey. When a black Jeep pulled up, Bailey anticipated trouble, immediately handing his phone to Gray and exclaiming, "these MFers got me, ... go get Dane." 2 Two men, wearing gloves and masks that only partially covered their faces, leaving their eyes, eyebrows, and noses exposed, got out of the Jeep and approached Bailey and Gray.

The man who alighted from the Jeep's front passenger seat walked toward Bailey, aimed a handgun at him, and fired it several times, killing Bailey. Gray recognized the shooter as McArthur Risper, a man she had known for over a decade because he "used to go with [her] cousin." 3 Consequently, Gray identified Risper as the shooter in a photographic lineup later that evening and again at trial.

To shed light on Bailey's suspicion that the arrival of the black Jeep foretold trouble, we must revisit the events of the three weeks preceding Bailey's fatal encounter with the masked shooter. As we summarize the evidence, we are mindful that some of it was admitted over Risper's objection. To the extent relevant to the issues Risper raises in this appeal, we reserve for later consideration the Superior Court's ruling on those objections.

About three weeks before Bailey's murder, he and his girlfriend, Staci Weldon, broke into a trailer on Camellia Drive in Bridgeville, intending to steal a television. Instead of taking a television, however, they stole an AR15 assault rifle and two large bags of marijuana, weighing between two and four pounds. At the time of the burglary Weldon did not know who owned the trailer, but afterwards Bailey clued her in as evidenced by Weldon's trial testimony:

Q. Did Corey ever indicate to you that there may be a consequence for stealing the drugs and marijuana ...?
A. Yeah. After we left, he kind of explained what he thought would happen.
Q. ... And what did he explain to you?
A. He pretty much told me that there was going to be people after us for doing what we did.
Q. Did he say which people?
A. Yes.
Q. And which people were they?
A. That would be his cousin and his cousin's friend.
Q. Do you know who his cousin is?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was it?
A. McArthur. 4

The stolen marijuana and assault rifle did not make it home with Bailey and Weldon. Instead, the two stopped at the residence of a friend, O'Shea Waples, where they left the weapon—"until [Bailey] found a buyer—and some of the weed." 5 Bailey and Weldon "traded" the marijuana that they did not leave with Waples. 6 After leaving the stolen marijuana and assault rifle with Waples, Bailey told Waples that people were after him because of "what he [(Bailey)] gave [Waples]." 7 At the time, Waples did not know the men seeking revenge, but Bailey later identified them as "Bug" and "Mike." 8

It does not appear as though Bailey ever returned to retrieve the weapon or the marijuana. But during the first week of May, Waples received two visits, the first from a man named "Mike," later identified as Mike Lewis, and the second from Lewis and another man who was identified as "Bug." At trial, Waples identified "Bug" as Risper. When Lewis arrived alone at Waples’ mobile home, he demanded the return of the weapon and marijuana Bailey had left with Waples several days earlier, "[a]nd he pulled out a gun." 9 Lewis left with the weapon but no marijuana.

Lewis returned to Waples’ trailer later that night with Risper; both men were dressed in black clothes, including black "hoodies" which, in Waples’ eyes, meant that they were not "coming to play or nothing." 10 Waples could see a "gun butt" 11 protruding from Risper's jacket. Lewis and Risper searched Waples’ car and his bedroom looking for the stolen marijuana. Finding none, they took some of Waples’ jewelry as payment for the missing marijuana.

The evidence suggests that Bailey was keenly aware that Risper would exact a price for his theft of the marijuana. Bailey told Weldon as much, and his suspicions were only confirmed by the home invasion at Waples’ mobile home.

We fast forward to May 11, the day of Bailey's murder. Bailey spent most of that day "just riding ... around" 12 with Devean Sheppard. As they rode, Bailey confided in Sheppard: "I got folks trying to kill me." 13 When Sheppard pressed Bailey to identify the "folks" he was referring to, "[h]e said, man, my peoples," 14 which Sheppard understood to mean Risper. Later, Sheppard and Bailey saw Laval Farmer and Risper slowly passing by in a truck. Sheppard described Bailey's reaction to this encounter: "And this is when I really knew he was serious when I seen him jump in my seat when he seen that truck come by. He was like, oh, there they go." 15

Other witnesses also saw Risper in a black Jeep on the day of Bailey's murder. For example, Hayward Risperdefendant Risper's cousin—saw Laval Farmer driving a black Jeep with Risper in the passenger seat on the day of the murder. Throughout that day, Hayward saw the Jeep drive through the neighborhood over five times. According to Hayward, it was not normal to see Farmer and Risper driving through the neighborhood.

Hayward spent most of the day barbequing and drinking a few beers with Guan Davis. Davis—Risper's nephew—also saw Farmer and Risper driving around the neighborhood throughout the day. Later that evening, Hayward and Davis heard gun shots—Davis initially believed the noise to be fireworks—and then saw the same Jeep, this time with Risper behind the wheel, speeding away from the shooting. Hayward attempted to stop Risper as he drove off, but to no avail. Davis testified that, after hearing the shots, he saw a black truck driven by Farmer pull up to Farmer's house. After entering his home, Farmer emerged five minutes later wearing different clothing. Thus, a conflict exists between Hayward's and Davis's account of who was driving the black SUV after they heard shots. Later that same evening, Hayward called Risper to discuss the shooting. During that phone call, Risper denied any involvement, but asked if Bailey was dead.

Earlier that same day, another witness, Shika Cannon, saw Risper, with whom she went to school, driving the black Jeep in the vicinity of the murder. In fact, Cannon was with Bailey and Channell Gray immediately before Bailey was shot. After talking with Bailey and Gray, Cannon went inside her house with her children to use the bathroom. Once inside, she heard gunshots. She then ran outside and saw "a black Jeep pulling off." 16

After the shooting, Risper asked Teara Harris—a close friend—to rent a hotel room in Salisbury, Maryland for Risper's long-time girlfriend, Desira Sutton. Harris believed Sutton wanted the room because "the police was coming there, and she didn't want to be there with the kids." 17 According to Sutton, Risper wanted to rent the hotel room so he could spend time with their children before he turned himself in to the police. While the couple stayed in the hotel, Sutton was unaware of the location of the Jeep. Sutton was the owner of the Jeep, but she testified that Risper was its primary operator.

The day after Bailey's murder, Risper's black Jeep appeared at Harris's house in Maryland without explanation. Confused and nervous about the car being in front of her house, Harris drove the Jeep to a gas station in Maryland. But before she left the Jeep at the gas station, Harris wiped down all of the areas that she thought she had touched. Harris then told Sutton the location of the Jeep.

Approximately a week after the shooting, police—with the help of Sutton—located the Jeep at the gas station in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Ray v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • July 1, 2022
    ...second degree, manslaughter, and criminally negligent homicide.78 Johnson , 711 A.2d at 30 (emphasis in original).79 Risper v. State , 250 A.3d 76, 87 (Del. 2021).80 Brady , 373 U.S. at 91, 83 S.Ct. 1194.81 Starling v. State , 882 A.2d 747, 756 (Del. 2005) (citing Strickler v. Greene , 527 ......
  • Ray v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • July 1, 2022
    ...second degree, manslaughter, and criminally negligent homicide. [78] Johnson, 711 A.2d at 30 (emphasis in original). [79] Risper v. State, 250 A.3d 76, 87 (Del. 2021). [80] Brady, 373 U.S. at 91. [81] Starling, 882 A.2d at 756 (citing Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-82 (1999)). [82] ......
  • Wilson v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • January 25, 2022
    ...Br. at A34.30 Id . at B107.31 Id . at B47–48; B62–70; B83.32 Id . at B26–27.33 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).34 250 A.3d 76, 90 (Del. 2021).35 Risper , 250 A.3d at 90 (quoting Starling v. State , 882 A.2d 747, 756 (Del. 2005) ).36 After Wilson's trial, the United States ......
  • Wilson v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • January 25, 2022
    ...at B30; App. to Opening Br. at A34. [30] Id. at B107. [31] Id. at B47-48; B62-70; B83. [32] Id. at B26-27. [33] 373 U.S. 83 (1963). [34] 250 A.3d 76, 90 (Del. 2021). [35] Risper, 250 A.3d at 90 (quoting Starling v. State, 882 A.2d 747, 756 (Del. 2003)). [36] After Wilson's trial, the United......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT