concurrence">Jansen, P.J.

(concurring). I agree completely with the majority’s analysis and conclusion with regard to the instructional error. I also agree that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of plaintiff Nuo Cacevic’s illegal alien status and use of a fictitious social security number for obtaining employment and filing tax returns. However, I do not believe that this evidence could even be considered to be minimally relevant to any issue at trial.

Before trial, plaintiffs moved in limine to exclude all evidence relating to Nuo Cacevic’s alien status and use of a fictitious social security number. Defendant argued that this evidence was relevant to the issue of damages and the credibility of plaintiffs.1 The trial *732court denied plaintiffs’ motion, finding that the evidence was relevant with regard to plaintiffs’ credibility. This case, however, was about whether defendant negligently designed and manufactured the palletizer machine on which Lena Cacevic suffered a serious hand and arm injury. The evidence of Nuo’s alien status and use of a fictitious social security number is so prejudicial and completely irrelevant to this case that I can discern no reason for its admission other than to inflame the jury. Therefore, I find that the trial court clearly abused its discretion in admitting this evidence and agree with the majority that, on retrial, all reference to Nuo’s alien status and his use of a fictitious social security number must be excluded.

I agree that the trial court’s judgment in this case must be reversed and that the matter must be remanded for a new trial.

I note that Nuo Cacevic became a legal United States citizen in October 1992 and that the injury in this case occurred in September 1993.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress