State v. Levell., 282 P.3d 576

Petitioner Donald Levell, Jr. was charged with Harassment for allegedly shoving Complainant on October 25, 2010 in Waikiki.
Pretrial, Levell moved under HRE 404(b)/403 to cross-examine Complainant about allegedly stealing his credit cards and using them after arrest; the district court denied.
At trial, the court barred the cross-examination on the credit-card theft, deeming it irrelevant to the harassment elements and potentially prejudicial.
Levell testified in his defense; Complainant testified regarding the alleged shove, and the court ultimately found him guilty of Harassment.
The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in a summary disposition order, concluding the district court’s ruling was not an abuse of discretion and the error, if any, was harmless.
The Hawaii Supreme Court vacated the ICA judgment, held that the confrontation clause requires allowing cross-examination about bias/motive, and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court violated the confrontation clause by excluding cross-examination about the alleged credit-card theft.	Levell argues the theft evidence shows bias/motive to lie and is relevant under HRE 609.1.	State contends the theft evidence is not relevant to elements and is highly prejudicial; 403 balancing favors exclusion.	Yes; restriction violated confrontation clause and was not harmless.
Whether the court’s refusal to permit cross-examination on theft prevented a proper assessment of Complainant’s credibility.	Levell contends cross-exam would reveal bias or motive to lie.	State argues credibility can be assessed from other testimony without this line of questioning.	Threshold inquiry required; exclusion denied the defense a full opportunity to expose bias.
Whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.	The centrality of Complainant’s testimony makes exclusion prejudicial; error could have contributed to conviction.	ICA found any error harmless given Levell’s testimony.	Not harmless; remand for new trial.

State v. Balisbisana, 83 Haw. 109, 924 P.2d 1215 (1996) (balancing Rule 403; confrontation threshold required)
State v. Marcos, 106 Haw. 116, 102 P.3d 360 (2004) (right to confrontation; expose motive or bias on cross-examination)
Estrada v. State, 69 Haw. 204, 738 P.2d 812 (1987) (bias/motive relevant under HRE 609.1)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (cross-examination to reveal witness bias; constitutional standard)
Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227 (1988) (harmless error considerations in confrontation clause errors)