Execution at the Little White Earth housing complex in Minneapolis

2007-M-041    State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Wambli S. McArthur, Appellant.

THE CRIME:  After midnight on June 23, 2005, a crowd was partying in a courtyard at the Little White Earth housing complex in Minneapolis.  MacArthur and another man came out of an alley and stood behind Vincent LaRoque.  MacArthur shot LaRoque in the back of the head.  The two men walked out of the courtyard while laughing.

Twelve eyewitnesses testified either that they had seen MacArthur shoot LaRoque or that they had seen that MacArthur and another man approaching or leaving the murder site.

A Hennepin County jury convicted MacArthur of first-degree, premeditated murder, and McArthur was sentenced to life imprisonment.  McArthur brought this direct appeal to the Supreme Court.

SUMMARY:  First, the Supreme Court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the guilty verdict of premeditated murder where, although no motive was shown, the defendant was armed, walked purposefully to where the victim was standing, shot the victim in the head at close range, and immediately fled the scene. 

Second, the Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting testimony regarding witnesses’ fears of the defendant

Third, the Supreme Court held that the prosecutor did not misrepresent the evidence, vouch for witnesses’ testimony, or otherwise commit misconduct in closing argument. 

Fourth, the Supreme Court declined to rule on a separate appeal which was added later and would be decided appropriately by a lower post-conviction court.

The Supreme Court affirmed MacArthur’s conviction and life sentence.

SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE:  MacArthur argued that his conviction and sentence should be reversed because the prosecution provided no evidence of a motive for the killing was provided to demonstrate that he had premeditated the execution.

The Supreme Court rejected this argument on the basis that the overwhelming evidence that MacArthur had armed himself, walked up and stood behind LaRoque, shot him in the head from twelve inches, and fled the scene while laughing.

WITNESS FEARS:  MacArthur complained that he was harmed when witnesses testified that they had been less than forthcoming in initial conversations with police or even had to be arrested for evading a subpoena before they testified.  They testified that they were afraid of MacArthur and his family and friends because of his reputation for violence and his affiliations.  One witness testified that police had given her $600 to keep her off the streets after word circulated that MacArthur’s brother (the father of her children) would kill her if she testified.  Another witness cried about her fear on the witness stand.

The Supreme Court noted that the trial judge had prohibited the prosecutor from introducing MacArthur’s gang affiliations, past crimes, and criminal record in either the direct case, cross examination, or statements to the jury.

The Supreme Court noted that “bias, which may be induced by self-interest or by fear of testifying for any reason, is almost always relevant because it is probative of witness credibility.”

CLOSING ARGUMENT:  MacArthur argued that during closing arguments, the prosecutor had misrepresented the evidence, vouched for witnesses’ testimony, or otherwise committed misconduct in closing arguments.

First, the Supreme Court held that the prosecutor did not misrepresent the evidence when he mentioned one witness’ repeated tears or another witness’ need to be arrested and hauled to court because her child’s father had threatened to kill her or harm her child if she testified.

Second, the Supreme Court held that the prosecutor spoke factually about the witnesses’ testimony about their fears and did not improperly vouch for the credibility of their testimony or improperly enflame the passions of the jury.

LATE ARGUMENT:  After he filed the above three arguments in this direct appeal, MacArthur filed a claim that an order prohibiting his attorney from discussing witnesses’ identities with him until seven days before the trial was improper and prejudicial. 

The Supreme Court noted that the trial record had no information about how this could have harmed MacArthur’s defense.  It held that the issued would require fact-finding and a record by a lower court before an appeal could be considered by the Supreme Court.

CONCLUSION:  The Supreme Court upheld MacArthur’s conviction and sentence and remanded the fourth claim to a lower post-conviction court for a hearing and judgment.

                    Hanson (Russell Anderson, Page, Paul Anderson, Meyer, Barry Anderson, and Gildea)

DATE OF DECISION:  April 12, 2007

RECORD NUMBER:  2007-0

FULL OPINION:  A06-853,

DESCRIPTION: [MURDER] [GANG]