BAGADA DIONAS v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Bell, Filed Dec. 10, 2013,
Harmless Error- Not harmless error where trial court limited cross-examination of identifying witness regarding possible motive to lie based on pending Violation of Probation hearing

Defendant was involved in a double murder. 3 witnesses identified the defendant as the shooter at trial, including the brother of one of the victims. This brother was facing a pending VOP that had been postponed several times to allow him to testify, and the State filed a motion in limine to prevent the defendant from questioning him about this. The trial court, finding that no quid-pro-quo existed, granted the motion. After a 3 and a half day trial, jury deliberated for 5 and a half days before convicting the defendant.

The CoSA held that the trial court should have allowed cross-examination into whether or not the brother believed that an agreement existed, but in light of the strength of the State’s case and the cumulative nature of the testimony, it was harmless error.

The CoA disagreed, finding that the CoSA failed to apply the harmless-error test properly in that they “relied primarily on the strength of the State’s case, discounting, to a large degree, the jury’s behavior during deliberations. In addition, that court improperly substituted its fact-finding and credibility determinations for those of the jury; it independently, and, in total disregard of the jury’s responsibility as the trier of facts, weighed the evidence produced at trial.”

Other notes from the case:
Harmless Error- the length of jury deliberations is a relevant factor in the harmless error analysis
Harmless Error- Once error is established, the State bears the burden to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the rendition of the guilty verdict
Harmless Error- In a harmless error analysis, the issue is not what evidence was available to the jury, but rather what evidence the jury, in fact, used to reach its verdict.
Harmless Error- “We have stated frequently that, where credibility is an issue and, thus, the jury’s assessment of who is telling the truth is critical, an error affecting the jury’s ability to assess a witness’ credibility is not harmless error.” (Editor’s note- the cases cited by the CoA do NOT support this statement unless the testimony of that particular witness is particularly important)