SYLLABUS (This syllabus is not part of the Court’s opinion. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Court. In the interest of brevity, portions of an opinion may not have been summarized.) Juan Morales-Hurtado v. Abel V. Reinoso (A-5-19) (082293) (NOTE: The Court did not write a plenary opinion in this case. The Court affirms the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Nugent’s opinion, published at 457 N.J. Super. 170 (App. Div. 2018).) Argued March 16, 2020 -- Decided April 16, 2020 PER CURIAM The Court considers the Appellate Division’s determination that the cumulative effect of many errors deprived plaintiff Juan Morales-Hurtado of a fair trial. Plaintiff filed a vehicular negligence claim against defendant Abel V. Reinoso. The Appellate Division’s decision chronicles a number of errors that occurred during the parties’ trial. See generally 457 N.J. Super. 170 (App. Div. 2018). During his opening statement, defense counsel told the jury: “[a]s one might expect, not surprising in our litigious society, defendant . . . [is] claiming that he’s injured.” The Appellate Division concluded that counsel’s reference to one’s expectations in a litigious society was improper. The remark was not a statement of evidence, and it arguably was an impermissible appeal to prejudice. See id. at 191. Defense counsel cross-examined plaintiff about when plaintiff came to the United States, his citizenship, whether he had been in the United States continually since his arrival, and his need for an interpreter. The Appellate Division determined that those questions raised the same concerns expressed in State v. Sanchez-Medina, 231 N.J. 452, 463 (2018), where the Court noted that “evidence of a defendant’s undocumented immigration status could appeal to prejudice, inflame certain jurors, and distract them from their proper role in the justice system.” The appellate court found that plaintiff’s attorney did not open the door to those questions, which were irrelevant. The court noted that, even if the questions could be considered relevant, their probative value was substantially outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice. See 457 N.J. Super. at 192. The Appellate Division also found irrelevant defense counsel’s questions about the age of the passengers in plaintiff’s car. Further, the appellate court reasoned that defense counsel’s question to his own client about whether any of the passengers had sued him 1 undermined counsel’s contention that he asked about the passengers’ ages to establish their presence. The court also expressed concern that, although the trial court immediately struck the question about other suits, the instruction might have been inadequate to effectively blunt the risks of significant prejudice. See id. at 192-93. Defense counsel cross-examined plaintiff about the airbags in plaintiff’s car not deploying upon impact. The Appellate Division concluded that such evidence was inadmissible absent expert testimony and might have been misleading because there is no evidence airbags are engineered to deploy in rear-end accidents. See id. at 193. The ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals