Leffel v. State
404 P.3d 196
| Alaska Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Leffel, a Hells Angels member, stabbed Schurig in the thigh outside the Buckaroo Club after Schurig mocked Leffel’s three-wheel motorcycle; Schurig bled heavily and lost consciousness.
- Leffel remained at the scene and was arrested; he later testified at trial claiming self-defense, supported by two witnesses (a bouncer and a fellow Hells Angel).
- At trial the prosecutor asked whether Leffel’s account was "new information," implying Leffel had not told police his version post-arrest; defense objected.
- The trial judge prohibited direct questioning about post-arrest silence but allowed asking whether the story was being presented for the first time; prosecutor asked that question.
- Prosecutor also asked Leffel whether he had read pretrial discovery (police reports); defense did not object at trial to that line of questioning.
- Leffel moved pretrial to exclude evidence of Hells Angels membership under Rule 403; the judge denied the motion, finding membership relevant to witness bias and Leffel’s motive/reaction; Leffel volunteered club details during testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Leffel's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor’s question that the defendant’s testimony was "new information" improperly commented on post-arrest silence | Prosecutor’s remark implied Leffel remained silent to police; unconstitutional comment on post-arrest silence | Question was permissible because Leffel had earlier suggested he chose not to speak to police | Court: Question was improper comment on post-arrest silence but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether Leffel’s volunteering that he consulted counsel opened the door to comment on silence | Leffel: his statement merely explained why he did not retrieve the knife; did not claim police denied him chance to speak | State: Leffel’s comment invited inquiry into silence and counsel contact | Court: Leffel’s brief reference did not open the door to prosecutor’s "new information" question |
| Whether prosecutor’s questioning that Leffel had read pretrial discovery improperly implied he tailored testimony based on post-arrest silence | Leffel: Such questioning insinuates tailoring due to pretrial silence; improper comment on silence | State: Analogized to permissible "advantage of going second" questioning (Portuondo); no explicit silence comment | Court: Commenting on review of discovery should generally be avoided; here the question was error but plain-error review found it harmless |
| Whether evidence/testimony about Hells Angels membership was unfairly prejudicial and should have been excluded | Leffel: Membership is inflammatory and more prejudicial than probative under Rule 403 | State: Membership relevant to witness bias and to explain Leffel’s reaction to insult | Court: Admission not an abuse of discretion; Leffel volunteered much of the club-related testimony and membership was relevant to bias and motive |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758 (Alaska 2011) (prosecutorial comment on post-arrest silence is normally constitutional error; limited exception when defendant asserts denial of opportunity to explain)
- Portuondo v. Agard, 529 U.S. 61 (2000) (prosecutor may comment on defendant’s opportunity to tailor testimony from hearing earlier witnesses)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless error standard: must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Moreno v. State, 341 P.3d 1134 (Alaska 2015) (factors for assessing prejudice from comments on silence and impeachment)