State v. Acacio., 140 Haw. 92

Defendant Rainier Acacio was charged with first-degree terroristic threatening and family abuse arising from a January 1, 2012 domestic incident; a jury convicted him of terroristic threatening and acquitted him of the family-abuse count.
The complainant (CW) testified she wanted Acacio out of her home after ending their relationship; only she and Acacio were present during the alleged incident.
On cross-examination defense counsel asked whether the CW knew Acacio was not a U.S. citizen and that arrest could lead to his deportation; the State objected and the trial court sustained the objection and struck the testimony, instructing the jury to disregard immigration status.
Trial court and ICA concluded the jury had enough information about CW’s motive without evidence of knowledge of immigration consequences and excluded the immigration-related inquiry under HRE Rule 403 as more prejudicial than probative.
The Hawai‘i Supreme Court held that excluding cross-examination on the CW’s knowledge of Acacio’s immigration status violated Acacio’s Sixth Amendment confrontation right, that the exclusion was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, vacated the convictions, and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	State's Argument	Acacio's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by prohibiting cross-examination of the CW about her knowledge of defendant’s immigration status	The jury already had facts showing motive (she wanted him out); evidence of immigration status is unduly prejudicial and invites improper sympathy or bias against the defendant	CW’s knowledge that arrest could cause deportation is highly probative of motive to fabricate and impeachment of credibility; exclusion violated Confrontation Clause	Court held exclusion violated confrontation right because jury lacked sufficient information about source of CW’s motive; exclusion not harmless; conviction vacated and remanded
Whether HRE Rule 403 justified exclusion after threshold confrontation inquiry	Even if relevant, probative value was weak and outweighed by prejudice (risk jury would consider deportation as punishment)	Probative value was substantial and prejudice could be limited by a limiting instruction; evidence offered in good faith to show motive	Court found ICA erred: either threshold inquiry was not met, or if it were, the Rule 403 balancing was incorrect because limiting instruction could have reduced prejudice

State v. Balisbisana, 83 Haw. 109, 924 P.2d 1215 (Haw. 1996) (defendant entitled to cross-examine complaining witness about matters that could show motive to fabricate)
State v. Levell, [citation="128 Hawai'i 34, 282 P.3d 576"] (Haw. 2012) (trial court must permit threshold inquiry into source of witness bias before excluding further impeachment evidence under Rule 403)
State v. Marcos, [citation="106 Hawai'i 116, 102 P.3d 360"] (Haw. 2004) (complainant’s motives are proper cross-examination subject when material to credibility)
State v. Pond, [citation="118 Hawai'i 452, 193 P.3d 368"] (Haw. 2008) (harmless-error standard for Confrontation Clause violations: error must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (exposure of witness motive is a principal purpose of confrontation and cross-examination)