Opinion ID: 1494221
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Harmless Error Analysis of Lyons' Testimony

Text: Under well established Delaware law, [a]n error in admitting evidence may be deemed `harmless' when `the evidence exclusive of the improperly admitted evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction....' [54] In this case, we must consider the effect of the references to lie detector tests and Lyons' improper vouching testimony on the credibility of Gerry Capano's testimony. The prejudice involved here is limited to the potential that the jury might give undue credence [55] to the admissions Gerry made to his lawyer under threat of a lie detector test and after being counseled by the lawyer to tell the truth. In determining the effect of this potentially improper bolstering, we will consider the extent to which the State's case depends on the witness' testimony and the extent to which the credibility of the witness is in dispute. [56] Although we place emphasis on the evidence put forward by the State, our harmless error jurisprudence requires us to examine the entire record. [57] Our decision in Van Arsdall is an instructive illustration of the scope of the analysis. [58] In that case, in considering the significance of the tainted testimony in light of the defendant's admission, made on the stand at trial, as to his presence on the crime scene, we stated: [T]he reviewing Court must consider both the importance of the error and the strength of the other evidence presented at trial .... It is necessary to review the entire record to determine the significance of the error.... Ultimately, the Court must weigh the significance of the error against the strength of the untainted evidence of guilt to determine whether the error may have affected the judgment. [59] We have noted that [a]ny harmless error analysis is a case-specific, fact-intensive enterprise. [60] It is undisputed that Gerry provided the State with important evidence from which a jury could infer that Capano began planning Fahey's murder long before her death and that he disposed of her body at sea. Capano vigorously contested Gerry's credibility on several grounds, including: (1) his plea agreement with federal prosecutors, (2) his drug use and expert testimony concerning confabulation of events by drug users, [61] and (3) Gerry's conversation with his mother indicating that he would fabricate facts to incriminate Tom.
It is clear that the State regarded Gerry as a key witness and his credibility as crucial. In closing argument, the State said that the most important piece of evidence is Gerry's testimony. [62] The State also emphasized that Gerry solves the case and that [i]f it wasn't for Gerry and Dan Lyons, he [Capano] might have got away with it. [63] Capano refers to Gerry as a critical prosecution witness because the testimony that Capano had asked him whether his boat would be available if he ever should need it was the most important evidence in the case on the issue of premeditation. But the fact that Gerry was a critical witness whose credibility was pivotal is not the end of the harmless error analysis. One must place the unfortunate lie detector reference and vouching by Lyons in the context of all the evidence, particularly the other admissible evidence corroborating Gerry's testimony. As noted earlier, Gerry testified about several issues. Most important for our analysis, he testified concerning: (1) the extortion story described below and (2) the attempts to hide Fahey's death. It is crucial to examine the extent to which his testimony on these two issues was corroborated or undisputed. [64] We begin with the fact that most of the testimony regarding the immediate cover-up of Fahey's death, including the disposal of her body, is either undisputed or corroborated. [65] Capano admitted to dumping Fahey's body over the side of Gerry's boat. [66] The events of that morning are corroborated by eyewitness testimony and physical evidence, such as phone records and gas receipts. [67] The State emphasized in closing argument that when Gerry came forward with his story about the cooler, it was a story that he could not prove and might invite disbelief. But the cooler finally surfaced, having been found at sea by a fisherman. [68] Thus, Gerry's story was vindicated, and at trial the evidence of what had happened in disposing of the body was essentially undisputed. As the State argued, the cooler is the ultimate corroboration of Gerry Capano. [69] It appears to us that much of the importance ascribed to Gerry's testimony by the State is linked to this portion of his testimony, for the reason that only Gerry could give direct testimony concerning the disposal of Fahey's body in the State's case. Tom Capano in the defense case corroborated the essence of Gerry's testimony concerning the body disposal. This testimony does not, standing alone, show that Capano actually killed Fahey or how. But it does show a cover-up, and thus consciousness of guilt. The consciousness of guilt evidence was not contested at trial. Thus, we must focus on the main element of Gerry's testimony that was disputed: the evidence of planning and, more specifically, the alleged conversations about extortionists. According to Gerry, Thomas approached him in February 1996 and asked to borrow $8,000 in cash. [70] Gerry testified that Tom's explanation for this request was that a guy and a girl were extorting Tom, threatening to hurt his kids and ruin his career. [71] Gerry testified that he went to the bank, cashed a check, and gave Tom the money. [72] Gerry further related at trial that in a later conversation, Tom said that he was scared that the guy was going to beat him up or hurt him, and asked to borrow one of Gerry's guns. [73] Tom later returned the gun unused. [74] Finally, Gerry testified that Tom asked if he could use the boat if the extortionists hurt his kids and he was to do something to them. [75] The State used this testimony as evidence of planning. Capano disputes Gerry's testimony on these points. The State's theory was that Thomas was thinking ahead about using Gerry's boat to dispose of Fahey's body, and feeding Gerry a story about extortionists so that Gerry would think there was a legitimate reason for this use of the boat. [76] According to the State's theory, borrowing $8,000 in cash was a premeditated attempt to support the extortionist story because Capano had at least $125,000 in his checking account at all times in February 1996, and over $150,000 on the day he borrowed the money. [77] The State also argued that the jury could infer that Capano borrowed the gun at that time as a premeditated step toward carrying out the murder. [78] The State argued to the jury that Thomas later returned the gun to Gerry (and had MacIntyre purchase a different gun) because Thomas realized that this gun would be easily traceable to him if recovered after he used it to kill Fahey. [79] According to the State, all of this planning connected to the extortion smokescreen took place just when Fahey was beginning to truly distance herself from Capano, supplying a timely motive. The references to lie detector tests tended to bolster the credibility of the State's planning evidence that was centered on Gerry's testimony. Nevertheless, we find that there are significant factors in the context of the totality of the State's case militating against the likelihood that these improper references constituted such substantial prejudice to Capano that we should reverse the conviction and sentence. First, Gerry's testimony about the extortionist story is circumstantially corroborated. The fact that Thomas borrowed $8,000 from Gerry in early February 1996 is admitted by Thomas and established by bank records offered by the State and admitted into evidence. [80] Capano's own explanation for the transaction appears strained and its credibility was strongly contested at trial. [81] Second, as with the cash, it is undisputed that Thomas accepted a gun from Gerry. [82] The corroborating evidence mitigates the impact of the lie detector evidence on the credibility of Gerry's testimony. Gerry testified that after Tom told him about the extortionists, he went to his friend Jon Burris to ask whether he knew a leg breaker who could help his brother. [83] Jon Burris gave testimony corroborating Gerry on this point. [84] Another source of corroboration of Gerry's testimony is MacIntyre's testimony that Capano told her about extortionists as an explanation for why he wanted her to purchase a gun for him. [85] Additionally, MacIntyre's purchase of the gun for Capano corroborates Gerry's testimony because it leads to the inference that Capano was not a passive and reluctant recipient of Gerry's gun; rather, he was actively seeking a gun by May 1996. All of this corroboration greatly reduces the prejudicial impact of the references to the lie detector test. Of significant concern is Gerry's statement that my brother said to me that if somebody was to hurt my kids and I had to do something to them, could we use the boat. [86] Relatedly, this statement is the one most directly bolstered by both Gerry's and Lyons' references to the lie detector test. This is because according to both of these witnesses, it is the one statement that Gerry withheld from Lyons until he was threatened with a lie detector test. [87] Although the lie detector reference certainly risks enhancing the credibility of all of Gerry's testimony, this statement is the one that is directly and specifically bolstered. The State confirms this in closing argument, saying with reference to this statement: But [Gerry] told his story, his testimony, to Dan Lyons as early as April 1997, months before his house was raided. And the only piece of the puzzle he left out had to do with the defendant's request that if he killed somebody he could use the boat. That's the only piece missing. And we get that piece when on October 30th Dan Lyons, knowing that Gerry is about to come in and discuss his case with the Government, tells [Gerry] you must tell the complete truth. He threatens him with the lie detector test and he says you have to tell the complete truth, you cannot hold back. [88] Thus, we must weigh the impact of this statement, in light of the rest of the State's evidence, mindful of the credence that the jury may have accorded it. But, in the context of this ten-week trial, this statement was harmless when measured against the strength of the total evidence against Capano, despite the State's reliance on it. Moreover, we discuss in subsection C-3 the trial court's instruction carefully limiting the purpose for which the lie detector references were admitted.
Having identified the potentially tainted portion of Gerry's testimony, we next determine the extent to which the evidence exclusive of the improperly admitted evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction. [89] We must therefore determine whether, excluding Gerry's testimony that Tom had asked to borrow Gerry's boat in the event that Tom had to do something to two extortionists, the State presented sufficient untainted evidence of planning to support a conviction for first degree murder. [90] The State's theory, as developed in its closing argument, was that Tom's conversations with Gerry about extortionists were merely the beginning of the evolution of a plan to kill Fahey. [91] Even though Capano offered innocent explanations in some instances, we conclude that a rational jury could have convicted Capano based on the following evidence of planning and motive: (1) Capano's purchase of a large cooler in April 1996; (2) his purchase of the lock and chain that he used to secure the cooler top; (3) his purchase of a gun through Debby MacIntyre in May 1996; (4) his immediate concealment of Fahey's death and disposal of her body; and (5) evidence that Fahey sought to end her romantic involvement with Capano and began dating another person early in 1996. First, the jury heard evidence that Capano purchased a very large, 162-quart cooler on April 20, 1996. [92] The State presented evidence that Capano made this purchase at approximately the same time that Fahey began to distance herself from him and to become closer to Michael Scanlon. [93] Second, the jury heard evidence that, at some point early in 1996, Capano purchased the lock and chain that he used to secure the cooler containing Fahey's body. Although Capano presented innocent explanations for these purchases, the State vigorously attacked these explanations in its rebuttal and closing. Capano testified that, around January 1996, he purchased a twelve-foot length of chain from a neighborhood hardware store to increase the traction of his car tires during the winter. [94] The State argued in its closing that it would make no sense for Capano to purchase only twelve feet of chain, without hooks, for this purpose. [95] In addition, the State presented testimony that the hardware stores in Capano's neighborhood had no record of purchases of chain over eight feet long from January of '96 through June 28, 1996. [96] Capano also testified that he purchased the lock early in 1996 because someone had broken into his locker at his country club and because the club president had issued a letter advising members to purchase locks for their lockers. [97] In rebuttal, the State presented testimony from several witnesses refuting this testimony. These witnesses testified that Capano's country club did not issue a letter advising members to purchase locks for their lockers. [98] From the State's evidence, the jury could reasonably infer that Capano purchased the lock and chain at approximately the same time as he purchased the cooler, as part of his overall plan to kill Fahey and to dispose of her body at sea. [99] Third, Deborah MacIntyre testified that Capano asked her to purchase a gun for him in April 1996  at approximately the same time that Capano purchased the cooler. [100] Although MacIntyre was unable to purchase the gun for him at that point, she testified that Capano renewed his request in May 1996. [101] After MacIntyre agreed to this second request, Capano drove her to a gun shop and she purchased a handgun. MacIntyre testified that she immediately gave the handgun to Capano and claims not to have seen it again. [102] From evidence of this transaction, the jury could infer that Capano sought to purchase a gun that could not be traced directly to him  once again, as part of his plan to kill Fahey. Fourth, the State presented substantial evidence that, immediately after Fahey died, Capano concealed her death and disposed of her body and other physical evidence. Capano testified that, at about 11:35 p.m., after he abandoned his attempts to revive Fahey after the accident, he retrieved the cooler from a crawlspace and placed Fahey's body inside. [103] At this point, he also retrieved a bottle of Clorox to remove the bloodstains on the loveseat. [104] Within approximately twenty minutes of Fahey's death, Capano drove to Fahey's nearby apartment to make a star-69 call from her phone and to leave a gift and some perishable groceries. [105] On cross-examination, Capano conceded that these actions, which were taken within twenty minutes of Fahey's death, were designed to give the appearance that Fahey had been at home recently. [106] Capano testified that he knew that Fahey was not going to work the next day, [107] and thus knew that her co-workers would be unaware of her disappearance until the following Monday. At 12:05 a.m. on June 28, 1996, approximately thirty minutes after Fahey's death, Capano also made a call to the voice mail system at his law firm to create an alibi that I was home because he knew that the system recorded the time of incoming calls. [108] Thus Capano admits that he acted immediately and decisively to conceal his involvement in Fahey's death and to create an alibi for himself. This admission is consistent with planning, and it supports a reasonable inference that, before June 27, 1996, Capano had planned Fahey's death. [109] Similarly, Capano's efforts to destroy physical evidence of Fahey's death are consistent with planning. By about 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, June 28, 1996  after Thomas and Gerry Capano returned to Wilmington from disposing of Fahey's body at sea  Thomas had transported the stained loveseat from his great room to a dumpster at a construction site run by his family. [110] His brother, Louis Capano, testified that Thomas asked him to have the dumpster emptied on Monday, July 1, 1996. [111] On June 29, 1996, less than one day after Fahey's death, Thomas placed the stained rug from his great room and various cleaning materials into a dumpster at a hotel in New Jersey owned by his family's business. [112] Because Capano effectively destroyed most of the physical evidence connecting him with Fahey's death in a relatively short time span, the jury could reasonably infer that his actions were the product of a pre-arranged plan to conceal her death. Fifth, the State presented evidence that Fahey sought to end her romantic involvement with Capano in January and February of 1996. [113] The State also presented evidence that Capano did not want the relationship to end and that he was upset about Fahey's attempts to break things off between them. [114] This evidence supports the State's theory that Capano had a motive to kill Fahey because she rejected him and started to date another man. [115]
We also note that the trial judge twice issued limiting instructions  once during Lyons' testimony and once in the final jury charge  regarding the jury's use of the lie detector evidence in their deliberations. [116] These instructions limited the jury's consideration of the contested testimony and thus reduced the prejudicial effect of the testimony. The fact that these limiting instructions tended to minimize the impact of the evidence is a factor to consider in this harmless error analysis. Accordingly, we conclude that, although the totality of Gerry's testimony was critical to the State's case, the portion of Gerry's testimony that was tainted by Lyons' vouching testimony was not an indispensable or critical part of the State's case [117] and that the State presented ample untainted evidence of planning to support Capano's conviction. On harmless error analysis, therefore, we hold that the erroneous admission of Lyons' testimony concerning Gerry's polygraph test and his improper vouching did not substantially prejudice the defense and that admission of this testimony does not warrant a reversal of Capano's conviction and sentence. [118]