Opinion ID: 895202
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Harm

Text: The erroneous admission of evidence is harmless unless the error probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment. TEX.R.APP. P. 44.1. Probable error is not subject to precise measurement, but it is something less than certitude; it is a matter of judgment drawn from an evaluation of the whole case from voir dire to closing argument, considering the `state of the evidence, the strength and weakness of the case, and the verdict.' Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. v. Sevcik, 267 S.W.3d 867, 871 (Tex.2008) (quoting Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Reese, 584 S.W.2d 835, 841 (Tex.1979)). Although the trial court initially granted a motion in limine on immigration matters, it later reversed that ruling, admitting extensive testimony and extrinsic evidence concerning Rodriguez's immigration status, including that he:  was an undocumented Mexican alien who had illegally entered the United States on multiple occasions;  invented a false Social Security number, which he used to apply for a Texas commercial driver's license;  falsely answered no in his deposition when asked if he had ever lied to obtain a Texas driver's license;  falsely answered yes on his TXI employment application when asked if he had the legal right to work in the United States;  pleaded guilty to and was convicted of a misdemeanor immigration violation, serving four months in jail; and  was previously deported and ordered not to return to the United States for ten years. Rodriguez was also Hughes's first called witness, and the first questions posed to him concerned his immigration status. There followed over forty references to Rodriguez's status, including thirty-five to his status as an illegal immigrant and seven to his prior deportation. TXI representatives were also cross-examined regarding whether they owed a duty to the public to prevent an illegal from driving a TXI truck:  Do you think he is entitled to drive here if he's illegally here?  And you don't think you owe any duty... to the public ... to the people who are driving up and down [Highway] 114... to decide whether he's illegal or not?  Mr. Rodriguez is still illegal in the United States, is he not? ... Will anybody ever turn him in, or will he just continue to drive for TXI? The investigating DPS trooper was asked whether she knew Rodriguez was in this country illegally. Additionally, there were thirty-two references to Rodriguez's misconduct in using a falsified Social Security number, sixteen references to Rodriguez's commercial driver's license being invalid or fraudulently obtained, and seven references that Rodriguez was a liar who had lied on his TXI employment application. A TXI representative was pointedly questioned about whether Rodriguez might also have lied in denying responsibility for the accident:  Do you think Mr. Rodriguez lied to ... enter the United States?  Are you telling this jury that you don't know whether he lied to get into the United States? Now do you think that Mr. Rodriguez would lie when it relates to driving a rock truck?  Did you ever consider ... and I want you to face this jury and tell this jury, did you ever consider whether Mr. Rodriguez might have lied about how this accident occurred? TXI complains that the repeated references to Rodriguez's immigration problems and alleged misrepresentations were inflammatory and deliberately calculated to cause the jury to disbelieve Rodriguez. TXI further objected to the trial court's charge, complaining that the broad-form negligence question was misleading in this particular case and that the negligence question should instead include Hughes's theory of the accident's causethat Rodriguez caused the accident by first crossing over into the opposing lane of traffic. The trial court refused TXI's requested substitutions, which TXI complains was harmful because it allowed Hughes to disguise his real claimthat Rodriguez was negligent for driving without a right to be in this country and that TXI was negligent for hiring an illegal alien. The dissenting justice in the court of appeals concluded that the Hughes's repeated injection into the case of Rodriguez's nationality, ethnicity, and illegal-immigrant status, including his conviction and deportation, was plainly calculated to inflame the jury against him. 224 S.W.3d at 931 (Gardner, J., dissenting). We agree. Even assuming the immigration evidence had some relevance, its prejudicial potential substantially outweighed any probative value. Even in instances where immigration status may have limited probative value as to credibility, courts have held that such evidence is properly excluded for undue prejudice under Rule 403. [8] The only context in which courts have widely accepted using such evidence for impeachment is in criminal trials, where a government witness's immigration status may indicate bias, particularly where the witness traded testimony for sanctuary from deportation. [9]