Wilson v. State
| Decision Date | 25 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | 201,2020 |
| Parties | BRIAN WILSON, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
Submitted: November 10, 2021
Upon appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr ID No. N1901009072 AFFIRMED.
Zachary A. George, Esquire (argued), Hudson Jones Jaywork & Fisher, Dover, Delaware, and Anthony A. Figliola, Jr Esquire, Greto Law, Wilmington, Delaware, for Defendant Below, Appellant Brian Wilson.
Elizabeth R. McFarlan, Esquire (argued), Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, for Plaintiff Below, Appellee State of Delaware.
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, VAUGHN, TRAYNOR, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices, constituting this Court en Banc.
A Superior Court jury convicted Brian Wilson of first-degree murder for hiring someone to kill Allen Cannon. On appeal, Wilson raises three claims of error-first, the court abused its discretion when it refused to allow testimony about a witness's reputation as a snitch introduced to counter the witness's incriminatory statement about Wilson and the murder; second, the court erred when it overruled a hearsay objection and admitted text messages that infer Wilson was the person responsible for Cannon's murder; and third, the State committed a Brady violation when it failed to disclose a witness's agreement with federal prosecutors to testify in Wilson's trial in exchange for a possible lighter sentence.
We affirm Wilson's convictions. The testimony about the witness's reputation as a prison snitch was inadmissible character evidence not subject to any exceptions. And while the State concedes that the text messages were inadmissible, the Superior Court's error in admitting them was harmless. Finally, we agree with the Superior Court that the impeachment evidence resulting from the alleged Brady violation was immaterial and does not undermine confidence in the verdict given the witness's favorable testimony for the defense and the other evidence supporting Wilson's convictions beyond a reasonable doubt.
According to the evidence at trial, in the early hours of June 25, 2016, an unidentified individual called 911 to complain about people gambling in front of her neighbor's house. When a Wilmington Police Department detective arrived, the group scattered. They were involved in a high stakes dice game, and Wilson was part of this game with $10, 000 in his pockets. Before the game, Cannon asked Artie Pratt to steal the money from Wilson. Wilson owed Cannon money, and Cannon wanted to collect. Pratt attempted to take the money at the dice game but was unsuccessful.
Wilson, frustrated that Cannon and Pratt tried to rob him, hired someone to kill Cannon. Sometime between the dice game and the next morning, Wilson contacted Robert Shepard and asked if Shepard knew someone "that wanted to put some work in[.]"[1] Shepard later testified this meant he was looking to hire someone to kill Cannon. Shepard told him he did not know anyone. Wilson contacted another man named Robert Teat, also known as Bobby Dimes, and asked the same question. Dimes arranged for an associate, Eric Ray, to kill Cannon for $10, 000.
The evening after the dice game, Cannon was in a car near the location of the dice game. Tomika Tate, Pratt's mother, saw Cannon crying in the car. She walked over and asked Cannon to leave with her. Cannon got out of the car but said he was waiting for something and could not leave. About ten to fifteen minutes later, someone fatally shot Cannon from behind. Tate was standing next to Cannon, so close that she fell to the ground when the gunshots started. Tate testified that Ray was the one who shot Cannon. Testimony and footage from security cameras showed that Dimes and Ray were standing around the scene of the shooting before it occurred, and Dimes was at the scene immediately after.
In January of 2019, a New Castle County grand jury indicted Wilson for murder first-degree, conspiracy first-degree, and criminal solicitation first-degree. At trial, Wilson denied any involvement in the dice game or Cannon's murder. The State offered as witnesses several inmates who testified that Wilson told them that he had ordered Cannon's murder. One of the witnesses was Timothy Keyes.
Keyes made a statement to Sergeant Robert Fox of the Wilmington Police Department three weeks before Wilson's trial. Keyes said Wilson admitted he had arranged Cannon's murder by having Dimes hire Ray to kill Cannon in retaliation for the attempted theft. But when the State called Keyes to testify at Wilson's trial, he was uncooperative. He did not comply with a subpoena, and only appeared as a witness after being served with a warrant. At trial, Keyes said he had not been promised anything in exchange for his testimony.[2] He then directly contradicted his prior statement to Sergeant Fox, stating "I don't know anything about-[Wilson] never expressed anything to me about his case."[3] Keyes also said his prior statement to Sergeant Fox was based on what he read in the papers.[4] As a result, the State introduced Keyes' prior statement to demonstrate that Keyes' story had changed dramatically.[5]
Wilson's counsel then attempted to introduce character evidence through the testimony of Thomas Wisher. Wilson's counsel asked Wisher, who had been in prison with Keyes, about Keyes' reputation. The State objected on the grounds that Wisher would testify that other people in prison viewed Keyes as a snitch, and this would be inadmissible hearsay and improper character evidence. The trial court sustained the objection.[6]
The State also offered text messages from Pratt's cell phone relevant to Wilson's guilt. Wilson's counsel objected, arguing that, because Pratt was unavailable to testify, the text messages were inadmissible hearsay. The State claimed they were admissible under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay. The Superior Court agreed and admitted the text messages.[7]
The jury found Wilson guilty of all charges. The Superior Court sentenced him to a mandatory life sentence at Level V for the murder charge, along with additional Level V time for the remaining charges.[8] Wilson timely appealed his conviction.
Shortly after filing an appeal, new information came to light. On October 21, 2020, the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Delaware informed the State that an Assistant United States Attorney told Keyes the Office would consider his cooperation in Wilson's case when recommending a sentence for federal charges. The State informed Wilson's counsel, and the parties sought a stay of Wilson's appeal and a remand to the Superior Court to consider the implications under Brady v. Maryland, [9] which we granted.
On remand, Wilson moved for a new trial or dismissal on the basis that the State's failure to disclose the offer to Keyes was a Brady violation. The Superior Court held that, while the offer was evidence that could be used to impeach Keyes, no Brady violation occurred because the State did not suppress the evidence.[10] It also found that the State was not aware of the offer until October 2020 and the State disclosed the evidence as soon as it learned of it.[11]
The court also ruled that, even if the U.S. Attorney's Office offer should have been disclosed to the defense, it was immaterial as impeachment evidence.[12] Keyes' testimony at trial contradicting his statement to Sergeant Fox was helpful to the defense and impeachment of his prior statement to Sergeant Fox was unnecessary and counterproductive.[13] Finally, the court ruled that, even if the offer should have been disclosed to the defense before trial, the other evidence at trial strongly supported Wilson's convictions.[14]
On appeal, Wilson challenges two of the Superior Court's evidentiary rulings and raises a constitutional claim. We review a trial court's evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, [15] and we review constitutional claims de novo.[16]
A.
Wilson argues first that the Superior Court abused its discretion when it sustained the objection to the admission of Wisher's testimony. He contends that Wisher's testimony was admissible character evidence because Keyes' character for truthfulness became relevant when the State introduced Keyes' prior statement. According to Wilson, the testimony that Keyes was viewed among prison inmates as a snitch would show that Keyes has a reputation for untruthfulness and call into question the credibility of his prior statement.
The State counters that, because the testimony was based on what Wisher heard from inmates that were not testifying, it was inadmissible hearsay. The State also argues that Wisher's testimony does not show that Keyes has a character for untruthfulness. At most, a reputation as a snitch demonstrates that the witness is willing to cooperate with the State.
Character evidence is generally inadmissible, but "[e]vidence of a witness's character may be admitted under [Delaware Rules of Evidence] 607, 608, and 609."[17] Rule 608 provides that a witness's credibility may be attacked "by testimony about the witness's reputation for having a character for truthfulness or untruthfulness," but "only after the witness's character for truthfulness has been attacked."[18]
Even if we accept that Keyes' character for truthfulness had been attacked by the State when it introduced Keyes' prior inconsistent statement, Wilson has failed to show that Wisher's testimony relates to Keyes' character for truthfulness. A "snitch" in this context is an inmate who informs the government of what other inmates have said or done, usually in exchange for preferential treatment. But a snitch is not necessarily an...
To continue reading
Request your trial