## Facts

- Kimberly Collier, a U.S. Navy tool custodian, had a four-month romantic relationship with HM2 C and lived at C’s home during the relationship.
- After the relationship ended acrimoniously, Collier sought command assistance to retrieve personal items from C’s home.
- C reported discovering about 65 tools marked with Collier’s command code among Collier’s belongings; the tools were common items and included an etcher.
- A recent visual inspection of the unit’s tool cabinet had not revealed missing tools.
- Collier was charged with larceny of government property based on the tools found at C’s home.
- While charges were pending, Collier slashed C’s car tire, admitted the act, and was also charged with an obstruction-related offense premised on retaliation or intimidation of a witness.
- The defense theory was that C framed Collier for larceny due to bias and animus from the failed relationship, and that the tire-slashing reflected personal anger rather than witness intimidation.
- The military judge permitted inquiry into a “close friendship” that turned sour but barred cross-examination and extrinsic evidence that the relationship was sexual, homosexual, intimate, or romantic.
- In argument, the prosecution contended that a soured friendship was an implausible motive to frame someone, undercutting the defense bias theory.
- Collier was convicted at a general court-martial; the service court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether prohibiting cross-examination and extrinsic evidence about the romantic/sexual nature of the accused’s relationship with the principal government witness, offered to show bias and motive to fabricate, violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
2. If so, whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The court held that the categorical prohibition on inquiry and proof concerning the romantic/sexual relationship violated the accused’s Sixth Amendment right to confront and impeach the witness for bias.
- The court concluded the constitutional error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The affirmed findings and sentence were set aside, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- The Confrontation Clause protects meaningful cross-examination aimed at exposing a witness’s motivation, bias, or reason to fabricate.
- Trial judges may impose reasonable limits on cross-examination, including under M.R.E. 403, but may not use discretion to foreclose a core line of bias impeachment central to the defense.
- “Unfair prejudice” under M.R.E. 403 concerns a risk that the factfinder will decide on an improper basis unrelated to proof of the charged offenses, not merely that the evidence harms a witness’s credibility.
- A military policy concerning homosexuality does not, by itself, justify treating evidence of a homosexual relationship as per se unfairly prejudicial.
- When Confrontation Clause error occurs, the government bears the burden to show the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, considering factors such as the importance of the witness and the role of the excluded bias evidence.

## Conclusion

Because the government’s case depended heavily on the principal witness whose credibility was directly challenged by a relationship-based bias theory, and because the trial court’s ruling prevented meaningful presentation of that theory, the convictions were reversed and the case remanded.


United States v. Collier, 67 M.J. 347 (C.A.A.F. 2009)