Delaware v. Van Arsdall, No. 84-1279

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtREHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. WHITE
Citation106 S.Ct. 1431,89 L.Ed.2d 674,475 U.S. 673
PartiesDELAWARE, Petitioner, v. Robert E. VAN ARSDALL
Docket NumberNo. 84-1279
Decision Date07 April 1986

475 U.S. 673
106 S.Ct. 1431
89 L.Ed.2d 674
DELAWARE, Petitioner,

v.

Robert E. VAN ARSDALL.

No. 84-1279.
Argued Jan. 22, 1986.
Decided April 7, 1986.
Syllabus

During respondent's murder trial, the Delaware trial court refused to allow defense counsel to cross-examine a prosecution witness about an agreement that he had made to speak with the prosecutor about the murder in question in exchange for the dismissal of an unrelated criminal charge against him. Respondent was convicted. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed on the ground that the trial court, by improperly restricting defense counsel's cross-examination designed to show bias on the prosecution witness' part, violated respondent's rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and refused to consider whether such ruling was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Held: While the trial court's denial of respondent's opportunity to impeach the prosecution witness for bias violated respondent's rights under the Confrontation Clause, such ruling is subject to harmless-error analysis under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). The correct inquiry is whether, assuming that the damaging potential of the cross-examination were fully realized, a reviewing court might nonetheless say that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether such an error is harmless in a particular case depends upon a number of factors, including the importance of the witness' testimony, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of corroborating or contradictory testimony on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and the overall strength of the prosecution's case. Pp. 681-684.

486 A.2d 1 (Del.1984), vacated and remanded.

REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 684. MARSHALL, J., post, p. 686, and STEVENS, J., post, p. 689, filed dissenting opinions.

Richard E. Fairbanks, Jr., Wilmington, Del., for petitioner.

Paul J. Larkin, Jr., Washington, D.C., for U.S., as amicus curiae, in support of petitioner, by special leave of Court.

Page 674

John Williams, Dover Del., for respondent.

Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

Respondent Robert Van Arsdall was convicted of murder in a Delaware trial court. The Supreme Court of Delaware reversed his conviction on the ground that the trial court, by improperly restricting defense counsel's cross-examination designed to show bias on the part of a prosecution witness, had violated respondent's confrontation rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and that such violation required automatic reversal. 486 A.2d 1 (Del.1984). While we agree that the trial court's ruling was contrary to the mandate of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, we conclude that the Supreme Court of Delaware was wrong when it declined to consider whether that ruling was harmless in the context of the trial as a whole.

Shortly after midnight on January 1, 1982, Doris Epps was stabbed to death in an apartment in Smyrna, Delaware, after an all-day New Year's Eve party. Respondent and Daniel Pregent, who by respondent's testimony were the only two people in the apartment with Epps at the time she was killed, were arrested at the scene of the crime and charged with Epps' murder. At separate trials, respondent was convicted and Pregent was acquitted.

The State's case against respondent was based on circumstantial evidence, and proceeded on the theory that respondent had either killed Epps or assisted Pregent in doing so. Several of the partygoers testified about the party and the scene after the killing. The party, which lasted from late in the morning of December 31, 1981, until shortly before midnight, was held in the adjacent apartments of Pregent and

Page 675

Robert Fleetwood. Respondent, who was one of at least a dozen guests who attended the party during the course of the day, had stopped in for two brief periods in the late afternoon and early evening and then returned for a third time at about 11:30 p.m. By that time the party was over. Pregent had quarreled with a female guest, kicked a hole in a hallway wall and had to be restrained. An intoxicated Epps had been placed on a sofa bed in Pregent's apartment after passing out. And shortly before 11 p.m., a second altercation of some kind occurred, prompting Fleetwood to close the party in his apartment to everyone except his two friends, Alice Meinier and Mark Mood. When respondent returned to Pregent's apartment at about 11:30, only Pregent and Epps were present.

Robert Fleetwood was the 10th of 16 prosecution witnesses. In addition to recounting uncontroverted facts about the party, he testified that sometime between 11 and 11:30 p.m. he walked across the hall, looked into Pregent's living room from the doorway, and saw respondent sitting on the edge of the sofa bed next to Pregent's feet. Fleetwood, who did not have a complete view of the bed, did not see Epps or anyone else in the apartment. Upon returning to his own apartment, Fleetwood stayed awake long enough to hear nearby bells ring in the New Year, at which point he passed out. App. 82-85.

Meinier, who with Mood had remained awake in Fleetwood's apartment, testified that at roughly 1 a.m. respondent knocked at Fleetwood's door. Respondent's shirt and hands were spattered with blood, and he was holding a long, blood-covered knife. According to Meinier, respondent stated that "he had gotten in a fight" but that he "got them back." Id., at 130. After turning the knife over to Mood and washing his hands, respondent said "I think there's something wrong across the hall." Id., at 132. Meinier went to Pregent's apartment and discovered Epps' body lying in a pool of blood on the kitchen floor. Mood then summoned the police, who found respondent in Fleetwood's

Page 676

apartment and Pregent asleep on the blood-splattered sofa bed in his living room.

In addition to the testimony of the partygoers and the arresting officers, the State introduced Pregent's postarrest statement, respondent's two postarrest statements, and the testimony of a forensic expert. Among other things, the expert testified about the nature and source of the bloodstains on respondent's clothing.

During Fleetwood's cross-examination, defense counsel sought to impeach Fleetwood by questioning him about the dismissal of a criminal charge against him—being drunk on a highway—after he had agreed to speak with the prosecutor about Epps' murder. When the prosecutor objected, the trial court allowed counsel to question Fleetwood on the matter outside the presence of the jury. Fleetwood acknowledged that the drunkenness charge had been dropped in exchange for his promise to speak with the prosecutor about the murder, but he denied that the agreement had affected his testimony.1 The trial court barred any cross-examination about that agreement, citing Delaware Rule of Evidence 403.2 The court also refused to permit defense counsel to cross-examine Fleetwood about his being questioned by the police in connection with an unrelated homicide that had occurred after Epps' murder. On voir dire conducted outside the presence of the jury, Fleetwood denied that he had been

Page 677

offered any favors, inducements, promises, or deals concerning that homicide investigation in exchange for his testimony at respondent's trial.

Respondent was the only defense witness. Consistent with his second statement to the police, he attributed Epps' murder to Pregent. Consistent with Fleetwood's testimony, he stated that he had returned to Pregent's apartment, after drinking with friends, by about 11:30 p.m.

Defense counsel admitted in their opening and closing arguments to the jury that respondent was in Pregent's apartment when Epps was killed. In closing argument, after attempting to discredit Fleetwood's testimony (largely by emphasizing his intoxication), counsel stressed that all that testimony proved was what respondent "never denied," that "he was at Danny Pregent's apartment before Doris Epps was murdered." App. 188-189. The jury found respondent guilty of first-degree murder and possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony.

On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed respondent's conviction on the authority of the Confrontation Clause. Noting that "the bias of a witness is subject to exploration at trial and is 'always relevant as discrediting the witness and affecting the weight of his testimony,' " 486 A.2d, at 6 (quoting Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 1110, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974)), the court found that the trial judge's ruling denied respondent his constitutional right to effective cross-examination. By barring any cross-examination of Fleetwood about the dismissal of the public drunkenness charge, the ruling kept from the jury facts concerning bias that were central to assessing Fleetwood's reliability. The court rejected the State's argument that since "Fleetwood's basic testimony was cumulative in nature and unimportant," the Confrontation Clause error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 486 A.2d, at 7. The court held that "a blanket prohibition against exploring potential bias through cross-examination"

Page 678

is "a per se error," so that "the actual prejudicial impact of such an error is not examined." Ibid.3

We granted certiorari, 473 U.S. 923, 105 S.Ct. 3552, 87 L.Ed.2d 674 (1985), and now vacate and remand.

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of an accused in a criminal prosecution "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." The right of confrontation, which is secured for defendants in state as well as federal criminal proceedings, Pointer v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
6970 practice notes
  • Bowers v. Walsh, No. 00-CV-6459L.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
    • July 22, 2003
    ...that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.'" Jones v. Berry, 880 F.2d 670, 673 (2d Cir.1989) (quoting Delaware v. VanArsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986)). Finally, "the scope and extent of cross-examination are generally within the sound discretion of the ......
  • Scott v. United States, Nos. 15-11377
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • May 23, 2018
    ...a fair trial when a Brady violation occurs.8 Yet the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a fair trial. Delaware v. Van Arsdall , 475 U.S. 673, 681, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986). So imprisoning someone based on the results of an unfair trial and then precluding any remedy at......
  • Barresi v. Maloney, No. CIV.A. 00-10403-EFH.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • July 24, 2003
    ...of the defendant's right to effective cross-examination. Olden, 488 U.S. at 232, 109 S.Ct. 480 (quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986)); Dolinger, 302 F.3d at The Court accepts petitioner's argument that the complainant's sexual relationshi......
  • United States v. Sandoval, No. 18-1993
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • July 7, 2021
    ...prejudice, confusion of the issues, . . . or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant." Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 (1986). And, the District Court supportably concluded that the line of questioning at issue was irrelevant insofar as it was offered to impe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7102 cases
  • Bowers v. Walsh, 00-CV-6459L.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
    • July 22, 2003
    ...that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.'" Jones v. Berry, 880 F.2d 670, 673 (2d Cir.1989) (quoting Delaware v. VanArsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986)). Finally, "the scope and extent of cross-examination are generally within the sound discretion of the ......
  • Capote v. State, CR-17-0963
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • January 10, 2020
    ...extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution's case.’ Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986)." Floyd v. State, 289 So. 3d 337, 406-07 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017).The statements at issue were by......
  • People v. Giron-Chamul, A140628
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 18, 2016
    ...would have been no better had "the damaging potential of the cross-examination [been] fully realized." (Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986) 475 U.S. 673, 684, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674.) As we cannot conclude the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we must reverse the conviction. ......
  • Alvarado v. Superior Court, S059827.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • August 17, 2000
    ...the right of an accused in a criminal prosecution "`to be confronted with the witnesses against him.'" (Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986) 475 U.S. 673, 678, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674.) "The right of confrontation, which is secured for defendants in state as well as federal criminal procee......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Two Rights Collide: Determining When Attorney-Client Privilege Should Yield to a Defendant’s Right to Compulsory Process or Confrontation
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Nbr. 58-2, April 2021
    • April 1, 2021
    ...evidence to be material and favorable to the defense before the Compulsory Process Clause is implicated). 104. Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679–80 (1986) (holding that the trial court’s ruling prohibiting the defendant’s inquiry into the possibility that a witness was biased as a ......
  • Character, Credibility, and Rape Shield Rules
    • United States
    • The Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy Nbr. 19-1, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ...admit falsity; defendant should be allowed to prove falsity in pre-trial hearing through other means). 52. See Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 (1986) (holding that the trial court’s refusal to permit defense counsel to ask prosecution witness on cross examination about government......
  • A Comprehensive Consideration of the Structural-Error Doctrine.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 85 Nbr. 4, September 2020
    • September 22, 2020
    ...(45.) Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 501-04 (1987). (46.) Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 691 (1986). (47.) Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 (1986); see also Moore v. Illinois, 434 U.S. 220, 232 (1977); Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 230-32 (48.) Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S.......
  • AMERICA'S MISUNDERSTOOD CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 170 Nbr. 4, March 2022
    • March 1, 2022
    ...the Court should defer to state experimentation with how to best guarantee a fair trial to criminal defendants); Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 707 (1986) (Stevens, J., dissenting) ("[S]tate constitutions have their own unique origins, history, language, and structure--all of which ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT