By: Eric Richwine, Law Clerk
Edited by: Betsy G. Ramos, Esq.
The issue before the New Jersey Appellate Division in Rodriguez v. Cano, No. A-1561-21, 2023 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1733 (App. Div. Oct. 12, 2023) was whether plaintiff Lenny Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) was denied a fair trial following a no-cause verdict in a damages-only auto negligence case in favor of defendant-driver Stephanie Cano. Plaintiff contended that defense counsel went too far in cross-examining Plaintiff’s treating physician about a fraudulent medical services action pending against the physician.
In the trial court proceedings, Defendant Cano did not contest liability; rather, the sole issue for the jury to determine was the amount of damages to be awarded to Rodriguez. During trial, Rodriguez’s treating physician testified to his injuries following the accident. The defense counsel soon after cross-examined the physician, focusing on the fact that a major insurance company had a pending fraudulent medical services action against him. During this cross-examination, the defense counsel also noted that Mr. Rodriguez’s treatment was explicitly included in the insurance fraud complaint to provide an example of the physician’s fraud. The defense counsel reasoned that this line of questioning was for the purpose of establishing the physician’s credibility.
The trial court judge realized only after the cross-examination that this line of questioning, which ultimately implied that Rodriguez’s treatment was unnecessary (or even fraudulent), was inadmissible, and, as such, the court instructed the jurors to disregard the testimony. The judge also allowed Rodriguez’s counsel to engage in re-direct to provide the physician the opportunity to rebut and elaborate on the defense counsel’s accusations. During re-direct, Rodriguez’s physician became irate and made several allegations against the insurer for false allegations and bad faith.
Plaintiff’s Rodriguez’s counsel moved for a mistrial, which the trial court denied. The jury returned a no-cause verdict. Rodriguez’s counsel then moved for a new trial, which the trial court also denied. The judge reasoned that any errors were “harmless.” The judge further reasoned that the jury surely “didn’t consider the evidence that I told them … to disregard,” citing the amount of time the jury took to deliberate; because the jury “didn’t come back in five minutes,” the judge purported that the jury did not think of Mr. Rodriguez and the physician as “criminals” or “fraudsters.” Plaintiff Rodriguez appealed.
The Appellate Division first addressed the defense’s cross-examination of the physician and the timing of the trial court judge’s instruction to the jury to disregard the testimony. The Court cited Rule 608 of the New Jersey Rules of Evidence, which prohibits the use of specific instances of conduct through cross-examination in a civil action to attack a witness’s character for truthfulness. The Court quickly determined that defense counsel’s line of questioning was “patently improper” per Rule 608 and that the trial court’s verdict “cannot stand.”
The Court found that, despite the defense counsel’s purported reason for its cross-examination questioning, it was inadmissible and ergo the trial court did correctly instruct the jury to disregard the testimony. The Court further noted that, although the trial court was well-intentioned in allowing the physician the opportunity for re-direct following the defense counsel’s ambush, this decision was ultimately misguided and backfired, as evidenced by the physician’s outburst.
Stating that “the prejudice to [Mr. Rodriguez] … cannot be overstated,” the Appellate Division ultimately determined that the trial court’s denial of Mr. Rodriguez’s mistrial motion and motion for a new trial was improper; as such, the Court held that Plaintiff was denied a fair trial and reversed the trial court’s decisions and remanded the matter back to the trial court for further proceedings.