Gonzalez v. State

, and, therefore, failed to proffer

a sufficient factual foundation to cross-examine M. about her U visa application.

According to the State, Mr. Gonzalez’s counsel failed to establish that M.’s initial

allegation of assault was motivated by the expectation of receipt of a U visa, that M. had

an agreement with the State, that she expected to receive a benefit in exchange for her

testimony, or that M. understood that her application for a U visa could be affected if she

did not cooperate with the State. The State also asserts that any error was harmless beyond

a reasonable doubt.

We hold that the circuit court erred in precluding Mr. Gonzalez’s counsel from

cross-examining M. about her U visa application. We conclude that, given the nature of

3
Black’s Law Dictionary states that “quid pro quo” is Latin for “something for
something” and defines the phrase as “[a]n action or thing that is exchanged for another
action or thing of more or less equal value[.]” Quid Pro Quo, Black’s Law Dictionary
(11th ed. 2019).

-5-
the requirement that, for a U visa to be approved, an applicant must be helpful in the

investigation or prosecution of criminal activity and provide a certification from a law

enforcement or government official to that effect, a sufficient factual foundation for

impeachment of a witness concerning a U visa application is established under Maryland

Rule 5-616(a)(4) where there has been a showing that a U visa application, based on the

witness being a victim of a crime that the defendant is charged with, has been submitted to

the government for approval. Additionally, evidence that the required certification has

been provided on the witness’s behalf by the prosecutor’s office or law enforcement official

responsible for investigating or prosecuting the defendant’s case is sufficient to establish

the required factual foundation regardless of whether the application has been submitted

by the witness. These circumstances are not intended to be exhaustive or all inclusive of

the circumstances that may warrant cross-examination of a witness about a U visa

application under Maryland Rule 5-616(a)(4). As with all determinations with respect to

cross-examination under Maryland Rule 5-616(a)(4), a trial court must on a case-by-case

basis determine whether there are circumstances that constitute an adequate factual

foundation for cross-examination and, if so, whether the probative value of the cross-

examination is substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice.

Our holding concerning the factual foundation necessary for impeachment under

Maryland Rule 5-616(a)(4) stems directly from Calloway,

414 Md. at 637

996 A.2d at 880

, in which we concluded that issues as to a witness’s credibility concerning an expected

benefit should be decided by the jury and not the trial court, and Manchame-Guerra,

457 Md. at 318

, in which we explained that the requisite factual foundation


                                          -6-
must “be viewed from the perspective of the witness” and whether the witness could expect

or hope for a benefit in exchange for testimony. (Citations omitted). Our conclusion is

also consistent with our holding in Kazadi,

467 Md. at 52-53

, in which

we concluded

       that, absent additional circumstances—such as allegations of quid pro quo or
       leniency in an immigration case giving rise to a motive to testify falsely or
       bias—a State’s witness’s status as an undocumented immigrant, or the
       existence of a deportation order to which the witness may be subject . . . does
       not show that the witness “has a motive to testify falsely[.]”

(Quoting Md. R. 5-616(a)(4)).

       In this case, we conclude that Mr. Gonzalez’s counsel established a sufficient factual

foundation for impeachment of M. under Maryland Rule 5-616(a)(4), as his counsel

demonstrated that a U visa application had been submitted on M.’s behalf on the ground

that she was the victim of an assault allegedly committed by Mr. Gonzalez, that M.

acknowledged that such an application had been submitted, and that M. knew that to obtain

a U visa she was expected to help government and law enforcement officials in the

investigation or prosecution of Mr. Gonzalez’s case. Equally important, Mr. Gonzalez’s

counsel demonstrated that a member of the State’s Attorney’s Office, which was

responsible for prosecuting Mr. Gonzalez, had signed the requisite certification on M.’s

behalf, already bestowing a benefit by certifying that M. had been or would be helpful in

the prosecution of Mr. Gonzalez. Under these circumstances, Mr. Gonzalez’s counsel

established an adequate factual foundation to ask questions pursuant to Maryland Rule 5-

616(a)(4) aimed at uncovering whether M. had an interest in the outcome of the proceeding,

or a motive to testify falsely or to embellish her testimony, either to obtain the benefit of a


                                           -7-
U visa or retain the prosecutor’s certification for the visa, and the circuit court erred in

precluding cross-examination on the ground that this requirement had not been satisfied.

       For the reasons discussed below, however, we hold that the error was harmless. As

such, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.

                                     BACKGROUND

                                            Trial

       In the circuit court, the State charged Mr. Gonzalez with five offenses: one count of

first-degree assault of his then-wife M., one count of second-degree physical child abuse

of their son F., two counts of second-degree assault of M., and one count of second-degree

assault of F. From June 14 to 17, 2022, the circuit court conducted a jury trial. At trial, as

a witness for the State, through an interpreter, M. testified as follows. In 2020, M., Mr.

Gonzalez, her former husband, their three children, and a tenant to whom they were renting

lived together in a three-bedroom single-family house. The three children are two sons, F.

and A., and one daughter, N., who, at the time of trial, were 14, 12, and 3 years old,

respectively. On March 13, 2020, M. came home from work at approximately 6:00 p.m.

and saw Mr. Gonzalez walking down the street with a bag of beer. Once in the house, Mr.

Gonzalez came into the kitchen and M. told him: “[Y]ou’re drinking again[.]” Mr.

Gonzalez responded that she should not be concerned because it was his money and none

of her business.

       Mr. Gonzalez had left bottles of beer in the laundry room. M. took the bottles of

beer to the kitchen and poured all of them out in the sink. Mr. Gonzalez came into the

kitchen and said: “Son of a b[…]. Why did you pour this beer? . . . [A]re you going to


                                           -8-
give that me that money back or are you going to give me the beer?” Mr. Gonzalez told

M.: “[Y]ou give it to me or you’ll see what’s going to happen to you[.]” Mr. Gonzalez

pushed M. in her chest area up against the wall.

       After he pushed M., Mr. Gonzalez left the kitchen and went to the living room. M.

stayed in the kitchen for a few minutes before going to her bedroom. Mr. Gonzalez and F.

came into the bedroom. While the three were in the bedroom, Mr. Gonzalez told F.: “I am

your father. I’ll do whatever I want with you. Not you do whatever you want with me. . .

. The whole time [you] ha[ve] been meddling and intervening and today you’re going to

see what’s going to happen [to] you.” F. “put his father up on the bed . . . [a]nd told him

to calm down.”

       Mr. Gonzalez got up, grabbed F. by the part of his shirt near the neck, pushed him,

threw him onto the bed, got on top of him, grabbed his neck with both hands, and said to

F.: “[O]f all your days[,] today came. . . . You are going to see what is going to happen to

you with your mom.” M. tried to pull Mr. Gonzalez off of F. and as soon as F. had “a little

space, he got up.” M. told F. to go to his room, and F. left the bedroom. Mr. Gonzalez

also left the bedroom, but M. remained.

       At some point, without M. hearing him, Mr. Gonzalez came back into the bedroom,

came behind her and put his arm around her neck, putting her in a chokehold. For a

moment, M.’s feet did not stay on the ground because Mr. Gonzalez was holding her up

and she could not breathe or talk. Mr. Gonzalez said “your day has come today[,]” which

M. took to mean that “he wanted to kill” her.

       All three children came into the bedroom and F. tried, unsuccessfully, to take Mr.


                                          -9-
Gonzalez’s hands off of M.’s neck. M.’s and Mr. Gonzalez’s tenant came into the bedroom

and was able to get Mr. Gonzalez’s arms off of M.’s neck and take Mr. Gonzalez to the

living room. M. called 911, and police and fire/rescue responded to the home. Officers

asked M. to write down what happened and she did so. An ambulance subsequently

transported M. to a hospital for treatment of her injuries.

       As a witness for the State, F., who was almost 15 years old at the time of trial,

testified that, in March 2020, he had “an on-and-off relationship” with his father, Mr.

Gonzalez, “where it would be very good when he was sober but it would be like quickly

just flipped upside down when he wasn’t[,]” which F. said was when Mr. Gonzalez was

drinking. F. testified that, on March 13, 2020, Mr. Gonzalez was drinking and that, as

“usual[,]” he grew “more aggressive.” F. testified that, when the beers were poured out,

Mr. Gonzalez grabbed him “by the arms” and F. grabbed Mr. Gonzalez’s arms and

“push[ed] him off[.]” Mr. Gonzalez left the kitchen.

       F. was in his bedroom with his brother when he “heard scuffling” and shouting

coming from his parents’ bedroom, so he went to the room and saw M. “being handled by

[his] dad.” F. testified that he saw Mr. Gonzalez with his arms around M. F. successfully

got Mr. Gonzalez “off” of M. and Mr. Gonzalez “got more aggressive towards” him. F.

testified that Mr. Gonzalez grabbed his neck with his hands, which affected his breathing.

Mr. Gonzalez’s hands remained around F.’s neck for a “[r]elatively short” period of time

before F. was able to get Mr. Gonzalez “off” of him. Mr. Gonzalez left the bedroom.

During his testimony, F. identified State’s Exhibits 3 and 4 as photographs of bruises on

his neck on March 13, 2020 that resulted from Mr. Gonzalez’s contact with him.


                                          - 10 -
       The following day, March 14, 2020, F.’s aunt took him to a hospital for medical

treatment. F.’s emergency department medical records from Adventist HealthCare Shady

Grove Medical Center were admitted into evidence as Defendant’s Exhibit 8. The records

indicate that F.’s “Chief Complaint” was that he had suffered “assault by strangulation by

father last night.” (Italics omitted). The medical records indicate F. advised that, the night

before, his father had been “intoxicated” and used a “stranglehold” on him “with one hand

on the right side of his neck[.]” According to the medical records, there were “[m]inor

physical findings . . . on his left side of his neck[,]” and “some mild redness where [his]

dad[’]s hands” were.

       As a witness for the State, Detective Renae McEvoy of the Rockville City Police

Department testified that, on March 13, 2020, she responded to a domestic violence call

involving M. While another officer and emergency medical services staff spoke with M.,

Detective McEvoy noticed that, when M. “would touch her neck, she would grimace[,]”

and that at points she was “also holding her left arm[.]”

       As a witness for the State, Najla Barton, RN, who worked as a nurse in the Forensic

Medical Unit of Adventist HealthCare Shady Grove Medical Center in March 2020, was

accepted as an expert in the field of forensic examinations. Nurse Barton testified that, on

March 13, 2020, she conducted a forensic examination of M. 4 Nurse Barton testified that,

during the exam, M. stated that she was suffering symptoms, including headache, shortness

of breath, chest pain and palpitations, sore throat, abdominal pain, extremity pain, neck


      Nurse Barton’s forensic examination report of M. was admitted into evidence as
       4

Defendant’s Exhibit 7.

                                          - 11 -
pain, and back pain. Nurse Barton testified that M.’s neck had an “area of erythema[,]

which means redness not appreciated by the camera[.]”               Nurse Barton identified

photographs that she took of M. during the forensic examination and the photographs were

admitted into evidence as State’s Exhibit 6. Nurse Barton testified: “After I did my exam,

I would say that [the examination] was consistent with her disclosure of what occurred[.]”

       As a witness for the State, Dr. Jessica Volz, 5 the clinical director of the Forensic

Medical Unit at Adventist HealthCare Shady Grove Medical Center, was accepted as an

expert in the field of strangulation. Prior to testifying, Dr. Volz reviewed provider and

nursing notes, the medical forensic record, photographs, lab and radiology results, and vital

signs of M. for March 13-14, 2020. Dr. Volz testified that, in her opinion, M.’s injuries

and symptoms were consistent with her report of strangulation.

       As a witness for the defense, Dr. Wray Anthony Gerard, an emergency room

physician at the Lebanon Veteran Affairs Medical Center in Lebanon, Pennsylvania, was

accepted as an expert in the field of emergency medicine. Dr. Gerard testified that, based

on his review of “the police charges” and the medical records for M. and F., there was “no

medical evidence” that M. or F. were strangled. During Dr. Gerard’s testimony, a

Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Service report was admitted into evidence as

Defendant’s Exhibit 5. 6


       5
         Dr. Volz testified that she has “a bachelor’s of science in nursing[,]” a “bachelor of
science in behavioral science[,]” and “a doctor of nursing practice . . . with a focus on
family nurse practitioner.”
       6
         A section of Defendant’s Exhibit 5 labeled “Narrative” indicated that M.’s chief
complaint was “Neck Pain/Tenderness” and that she advised that she came home and


                                          - 12 -
       On cross-examination, Dr. Gerard acknowledged that M.’s emergency department

records from Adventist HealthCare Shady Grove Medical Center indicated that M. reported

“her husband came home drinking, assaulted her multiple times by pushing her against the

wall, pushing her from behind, and he held her by the neck against the walls strangling

her.” Dr. Gerard agreed with the prosecutor that the records indicated that M. stated “that

she was strangled by her husband and hit in the head against the wall.” M.’s emergency

department records were admitted into evidence as Defendant’s Exhibit 6.

       On his own behalf, Mr. Gonzalez testified that, on March 13, 2020, he took his sons

to school and went back home to make breakfast. Around 1:00 p.m. that day, M.’s sister

came to the house with her two daughters, and M. and her sister left while he stayed home

watching his daughter and nieces. F. came home around 3:15 p.m. and became “angry or

upset” because of a smell in his bedroom. F. started yelling at Mr. Gonzalez, who “got

upset, angry, and [] decided to take [F.’s] PlayStation away from him to punish him.”

       Around 6:00 p.m., M. came home with her sister, and she, her sister, and her sister’s

daughters left after dinner to go to a meeting at a church. Mr. Gonzalez stayed home

because he “had hidden some beers” and started drinking. Mr. Gonzalez hid the beers

because M. “would get upset” when he drank. M. returned from church around 7:15 or

7:20 p.m. During the approximately 40 minutes she had been gone, Mr. Gonzalez had




“found her husband intoxicated. Husband became aggressive, as he did not want to stop
drinking and physically assaulted her and her oldest son. [Patient] was put in a choke hold
and her head was banged against the wall.” The report stated that M. had “neck pain,
tenderness, and limited range of motion[,]” and that M. rated her “neck pain as a 9, on a
scale of 1 to 10.”

                                         - 13 -
consumed three beers and decided to go for a walk and buy six more. He was going into

the house with the beer while M. was parking. M. and the children saw that Mr. Gonzalez

had a bag with beers, F. took the bag away, and “[t]hey poured them” out “[i]n the sink.”

According to Mr. Gonzalez, he did nothing in response.

       Mr. Gonzalez testified that, around fifteen minutes later, when he went back into

the kitchen, M. tried to hit him on the face with an open hand. He avoided being hit by

grabbing M.’s hands and the two struggled. F. came in and Mr. Gonzalez grabbed F.

“almost in the neck area because [he] was pushing [F.] in order . . . to be able to leave.”

Mr. Gonzalez testified that he was able to get away from M. and F. and went to his

bedroom. When Mr. Gonzalez left the bedroom, he ran into M. in the narrow hallway and

she tried to hit him. Mr. Gonzalez testified that he “pushed” M. when she tried to hit his

face “because [he] wanted to get out.” Mr. Gonzalez testified that he sustained marks on

his neck as a result of contact between him and M. and F. 7 Mr. Gonzalez denied strangling

M. or F. and denied that he intended to hurt them.

      On cross-examination, Mr. Gonzalez acknowledged that he grabbed F.’s neck with

one hand, and that there were two red marks on F.’s neck after he grabbed it. Mr. Gonzalez

also confirmed that he pushed M. when he was in the hallway trying to leave the house.

When asked how M. got the red marks on her neck that Nurse Barton saw, Mr. Gonzalez

responded: “We confronted each other. We struggled.”




      7
        Mr. Gonzalez testified that M. scratched his neck while they were in the kitchen
and that, when he grabbed F., F. “hit [him] on the neck.”

                                         - 14 -
       Voir Dire Concerning M.’s Immigration Status and U Visa Application

       Prior to trial, the State disclosed to Mr. Gonzalez a letter dated April 23, 2021 from

Manuel Rivera, Esq. to the Montgomery County State’s Attorney’s Office, advising that

his office represented M. in immigration matters and was pursuing a U visa for M. The

State also disclosed the supplement, i.e., the certification signed by a member of the State’s

Attorney’s Office. Information written on the supplement stated that M. and her son, F.,

had been assaulted and identified Mr. Gonzalez as the person responsible for the criminal

activity. In a section of the supplement titled “Part 4. Helpfulness Of The Victim,” the

following appeared:

       1.     Does the victim possess information concerning the criminal activity
              listed in Part 3.? [The checkbox for “Yes” was marked.]

       2.     Has the victim been helpful, is the victim being helpful, or is the
              victim likely to be helpful in the investigation or prosecution of the
              criminal activity detailed above? [The checkbox for “Yes” was
              marked.]

       3.     Since the initiation of cooperation, has the victim refused or failed to
              provide assistance reasonably requested in the investigation or
              prosecution of the criminal activity detailed above? [The checkbox
              for “No” was marked.]

              If you answer “Yes” to Item Numbers 1. - 3., provide an explanation
              in the space below. If you need extra space to complete this section,
              use the space provided in Part 7.
              Additional Information.

              [The following was typed in:] M[.] is currently cooperating with the
              State[’s] Attorney’s Office.

(Bolding omitted). “Part 6. Certification” showed that the Chief of the Special Victims

Division of the Montgomery County State’s Attorney’s Office signed the supplement on



                                          - 15 -
August 4, 2021, under penalty of perjury, as the “Certifying Official” beneath language

stating, among other things: “I further certify that if the victim unreasonably refuses to

assist in the investigation or prosecution of the qualifying criminal activity of which he or

she is a victim, I will notify USCIS.” (Bolding omitted).

       At trial, when Mr. Gonzalez’s counsel asked M. about where she was born, the

prosecutor objected. During voir dire, outside of the presence of the jury, M. indicated that

she was not born in the United States and that she had an immigration attorney assisting

her with an application for a U visa. During the following exchange, Mr. Gonzalez’s

counsel asked M. if she understood that she needed to be helpful to the prosecutor to obtain

the U visa:

       [MR. GONZALEZ’S COUNSEL:] Okay. So[,] you are aware that, if you
       are helpful to the prosecutor, you and your family might be able to obtain a
       special immigration status and eventually a green card. Right?

       [M.:] I’m not doing this by myself. I’m doing what the attorney is telling me
       to.

       [MR. GONZALEZ’S COUNSEL:] I understand that. My question is you
       understand that you need to be helpful to the prosecutor for you to be able to
       get this U visa immigration status. Right?

       [M.:] With the attorney, yes. If the attorney tells me. Yes. Of course. Yes.

       [MR. GONZALEZ’S COUNSEL:] And on the flip of that, you also
       understand that if you don’t -- if you refuse to cooperate with the prosecutor’s
       office, you will not be able to get a special immigration visa?

       [M.:] I’m telling you the truth. I don’t know what you’re saying.

       [MR. GONZALEZ’S COUNSEL:] Okay. Let me rephrase it then. You also
       know that if you don’t cooperate with the State’s Attorney’s Office, you will
       not be able to get -- excuse me. You will not be able to get a green card to
       stay in the United States?


                                          - 16 -
       [M.:] I’m sorry. I don’t understand. I don’t understand what you want me
       to say.

       [MR. GONZALEZ’S COUNSEL:] I don’t want you to say anything that you
       don’t know. I’m simply asking if you know that if you don’t cooperate you
       won’t be able to get your U visa?

       [M.:] I feel like you are -- well, I don’t know what you want me to answer.

       [MR. GONZALEZ’S COUNSEL:] Do you know that if you do not cooperate
       you will not be able to get your U visa?

       [M.:] I have no idea but if you want more information about that get in
       contact with my immigration attorney.

       Mr. Gonzalez’s counsel asked M.: “You are undocumented.                 Correct?”    M.

responded: “Yes. I got here without any then I obtained my work permit.” Mr. Gonzalez’s

counsel asked M.: “For you to get a legal status in the United States, you need a U visa.

Right?” M. responded: “I don’t know if it is illegal or not. . . . If the attorney tells me that

there will be[—]that I will benefit myself and my children[,] then we can do it.”

       During a bench conference, the circuit court asked Mr. Gonzalez’s counsel whether

M. had “a U visa in the works” as of March 13, 2020. Mr. Gonzalez’s counsel responded

that the letter from M.’s immigration attorney was dated April 23, 2021, “a year later[,]”

but argued that the question of the timing of the U visa application “goes to weight[.]”

When asked about Defendant’s Exhibit 1, the letter to the State’s Attorney’s Office, and

whether her immigration attorney had been representing her on or about April 23, 2021,

M. responded that her immigration attorney had been in charge of her case since 2013.

       During the following exchange, Mr. Gonzalez’s counsel asked M. about

Defendant’s Exhibit 2, the completed supplement:


                                           - 17 -
      [MR. GONZALEZ’S COUNSEL:] I am showing you what is Defense
      Exhibit No. 2. Do you know what this document is? And you can flip
      through it if you need to?

      [M.:] Yes. I know that. That is from the immigration.

      [MR. GONZALEZ’S COUNSEL:] This is -- is it fair to say that this is a U
      visa application or certification is it fair to say that this is a U visa
      certification?

      [M.:] I imagine so. As I have been telling you, I just do what the attorney
      tells me to do.

      [MR. GONZALEZ’S COUNSEL:] And your name is on this document.
      Right?

      [M.:] Of course.

      [MR. GONZALEZ’S COUNSEL:] And your A number is on this document.
      Right?

      [M.:] Well, it’s there. That’s true. I don’t remember it.

      [MR. GONZALEZ’S COUNSEL:] Is this a fair and accurate representation
      of your U visa certification?

      [M.:] Okay.

      [MR. GONZALEZ’S COUNSEL:] Is it? If you know?

      [M.:] I do what the attorney tells me like sign this paper. I signed this paper
      so I imagine so.

      [MR. GONZALEZ’S COUNSEL:] And you filled out this paper?

      [M.:] Of course. With my attorney.

Mr. Gonzalez’s counsel moved to add Defendant’s Exhibits 1 and 2 to the record “for




                                        - 18 -
appellate purposes[,]” and the circuit court admitted both exhibits. 8 When Mr. Gonzalez’s

counsel asked M. whether she got a response from the State’s Attorney’s Office with

respect to her application for a U visa, M. responded: “Of course. It has been accepted and

approved.”

       After argument by the parties, the circuit court ruled that it would “not allow any

further inquiry into [M.’s] immigration status” because Mr. Gonzalez’s counsel had not

shown “that any inquiry regarding her immigration status would be probative of her

character trait for truthfulness” and the “proper foundation ha[d] not been laid.” The circuit

court determined that there was not a sufficient foundation to establish a quid pro quo

relationship and found that M.’s testimony indicated “that she doesn’t understand or

doesn’t know if there are any negative consequences for her failure to cooperate[.]” The

circuit court stated:

       The nexus essentially in this case arises from an alleged assault that occurred
       on March 13 of 2020. The motivation to lie would have had to have begun
       at that point in time essentially and I have not seen anything at this point with
       the evidence which indicates a[] motivation to lie on her part was generated
       on March 13, 2020 that led to her U visa subsequently in a letter to the State’s
       Attorney’s Office more than a year later in April 2021.

       . . . [T]here is [] a big leap in time here . . . there is nothing showing that on
       March 13 o[r] March 14 that she is filing a U visa automatically saying, you
       know, let me use this [a]s some kind of way to get a visa so I can stay here
       which arguably closer in time arguably could be motivation to lie which was
       begun on March 13, 2020.

       8
        Although M. testified that she “signed this paper,” referring to the completed U
visa certification (Defendant’s Exhibit 2), there is no place for a U visa petitioner to sign
the supplement; only the certifying official signs. See USCIS Form I-918, Supplement B,
U Nonimmigrant Status Certification at 4. USCIS Form I-918, the U visa application,
however, requires the signature of a U visa petitioner under penalty of perjury. See USCIS
Form I-918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status at 8.

                                           - 19 -
              So, in this case, I think [it] is just a bit too attenuated in time. I don’t
       really believe there has been any showing quid pro quo and I don’t believe
       there is sufficient showing of any motivation to lie which began on March
       13, 2020 such that any testimony or questioning regarding her immigration
       status would not go to her -- address her credibility. Would not address her
       credibility or her motive to testify falsely or after character for witness[’s]
       truthfulness. I don’t believe the foundation has been sufficiently laid.

                                  Verdict and Sentencing

       The jury found Mr. Gonzalez guilty of two counts of second-degree assault of M.

and one count of second-degree assault of F., but not guilty of first-degree assault of M.

and second-degree physical child abuse of F. The circuit court sentenced Mr. Gonzalez to

four years’ imprisonment, with all but six months suspended, concurrently, as to Count 3

and 4, both second-degree assaults of M., and four years’ imprisonment, with all but sixty

days suspended, as to Count 5, the second-degree assault of F., to be served consecutive to

the sentence imposed for Count 4. The sentence included three years of supervised

probation. Mr. Gonzalez noted an appeal.

                      Opinions of the Appellate Court of Maryland

       On August 8, 2023, the Appellate Court of Maryland, with the Honorable Laura S.

Ripken writing for a majority of the panel, affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. See

Gonzalez,

2023 WL 5030170

, at *14. The Appellate Court “agree[d] with the trial court

that there was an insufficient factual foundation upon which to cross-examine M. about her

U-Visa application and immigration status in the presence of the jury.”

Id. at *6

. The

Appellate Court explained that whether there are additional circumstances, such as

evidence of a quid pro quo relationship between M. and the State, warranting cross-



                                           - 20 -
examination as to bias depends on “a review of the surrounding facts and circumstances

available to the trial court” and concluded that M.’s U visa application “failed to provide

aid in assessing M.’s credibility as a witness.”

Id.


       The Appellate Court reasoned that, although the circuit court did not “explicitly”

balance the probative value of Mr. Gonzalez’s counsel’s requested line of cross-

examination against the danger of undue prejudice, it was “implicit” in the record that the

circuit court did so, and that it would assume that the circuit court knew the law and applied

it properly.

Id.

 at *8 n.16. On this basis, the Appellate Court concluded that the circuit

court had implicitly determined that the probative value of such questioning would have

been substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice, and that the court did not

abuse its discretion in doing so.

Id. at *8

.

       Finally, the Appellate Court held that, even if the circuit court abused its discretion

in prohibiting Mr. Gonzalez’s counsel from questioning M. about her immigration status

and U visa application, the error was harmless. See

id. at *9

. The Appellate Court

explained that Mr. Gonzalez himself testified to committing acts constituting second-

degree assault. See

id. at *10

. The Appellate Court concluded that M.’s testimony was

corroborated by other evidence, such as F.’s testimony, photographs showing marks on

F.’s neck, and Nurse Barton’s testimony that she observed redness on M.’s neck. See

id.


The Appellate Court pointed out that, during closing argument, Mr. Gonzalez’s counsel

argued that M. and F. both consented to contact with Mr. Gonzalez by participating in the

incident, but Mr. Gonzalez never testified to being fearful of M. or F. or even that he

believed he was involved in a “mutual affray” with them.

Id.

 For these reasons, the


                                          - 21 -
Appellate Court was “convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that, had the court abused its

discretion in barring [Mr.] Gonzalez from raising M.’s U-Visa application and immigration

status, the error would not have influenced the jury’s verdict.”

Id.


       The Honorable Deborah S. Eyler and the Honorable Daniel A. Friedman each issued

a concurring opinion.      See

id. at *14

 (Eyler, J., concurring), *18 (Friedman, J.,

concurring). 9 Judge Eyler explained that, in her view, based on the letter from M.’s

immigration attorney and the U visa certification signed by a member of the State’s

Attorney’s Office, there was an adequate factual foundation under Maryland Rule 5-

616(a)(4) for cross-examination of M. about her immigration status and U visa application,

but agreed that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Gonzalez,

2023 WL 5030170

, at *14-*16 (Eyler, J., concurring). Judge Eyler pointed out that, “to succeed

in obtaining and keeping a U-Visa, which would be to M.’s benefit, she would have to

cooperate in the prosecution of the case against [Mr. Gonzalez], which only could happen

if she testified against him.”

Id. at *16

 (Eyler, J., concurring). Judge Eyler explained that

M., therefore, “had a motive to testify that [Mr. Gonzalez] committed the acts underlying

the criminal charges, even if he did not.”

Id.

 (Eyler, J., concurring). 10 Judge Eyler,


       9
         The concurring opinions show that one majority of the panel (Judge Ripken and
Judge Friedman) concluded that there was an insufficient factual foundation for cross-examination of M. concerning her U visa application. See Gonzalez,

2023 WL 5030170

,
at *6;

id. at *18

 (Friedman, J., concurring). A different majority of the panel (Judge Ripken
and Judge Eyler) concluded that any error by the circuit court in precluding cross-examination of M. was harmless. See

id.

 at *9-*10;

id. at *18

 (Eyler, J., concurring).
        10
           Judge Eyler also concluded that the circuit court did not find that the probative
value of the cross-examination would have been substantially outweighed by the danger of
undue prejudice or confusion and that, if it had, the circuit court would have abused its
discretion in doing so. See Gonzalez,

2023 WL 5030170

, at *17 (Eyler, J., concurring).

                                         - 22 -
however, concluded that the circuit court’s error was harmless given that Mr. Gonzalez had

acknowledged committing acts that constituted second-degree assaults and that the jury

found him not guilty of first-degree assault and second-degree physical child abuse. See

Gonzalez,

2023 WL 5030170

, at *18 (Eyler, J., concurring).

       Judge Friedman agreed that Mr. Gonzalez’s counsel failed to establish a sufficient

factual foundation for cross-examining M. about her U visa application, but pointed out

that a different trial judge may have permitted the requested cross-examination and that, in

his view, under the applicable standard of review, doing so would not have been an abuse

of discretion. See

id. at *18

 (Friedman, J., concurring). Judge Friedman explained that, in

light of the holding that there was no sufficient factual foundation, it was not necessary to

reach the question of whether the proposed cross-examination “was more probative than

prejudicial” and that he would not have addressed the issue of harmless error because he

did not agree that M.’s credibility “was unimportant in relation to everything else the jury

considered.”

Id.

 (Friedman, J., concurring) (cleaned up). 11

                             Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

       On September 19, 2023, Mr. Gonzalez petitioned for a writ of certiorari, which we

granted, raising the following three issues:

              1.    When seeking to cross-examine a witness about their
       submission of and/or interest in applying for a U-Visa—which is available
       to people “who have suffered mental or physical abuse and are helpful to law
       enforcement or government officials in the investigation or prosecution of

       11
         In addition, the Appellate Court concluded that the circuit court did not abuse its
discretion in declining to remove a prospective juror or in limiting Mr. Gonzalez’s closing
argument. See Gonzalez,

2023 WL 5030170

, at *10, *12;

id.

 at *14 n.2 (Eyler, J.,
concurring);

id. at *18

 (Friedman, J., concurring). Neither issue is before this Court.

                                          - 23 -
       criminal activity”—what must trial counsel proffer to satisfy Md. Rule 5-
       614(a)(4) and this Court’s holding in Kazadi v. State,

461 Md. 1

 (2020)?

              2.     Did a majority of the Appellate Court err in holding that
       defense counsel proffered an insufficient basis for cross-examining a witness
       for the State about her submission of a U-Visa application, even though
       defense counsel, inter alia, proffered (1) a copy of a letter from the witness’
       immigration attorney asking the State’s Attorney’s Office (“SAO”) to
       provide “certification” that the witness “was the victim of a crime and that
       she was helpful to law enforcement in the investigation or prosecution of”
       Petitioner and (2) a copy of the requisite federal form filled out by the SAO
       indicating that the witness had been “cooperating” with law enforcement
       regarding Petitioner’s prosecution?

              3.      Did a majority of the Appellate Court err in holding that any
       error was harmless even though the relevant witness’ credibility was a central
       issue in the case and even though Petitioner testified that, during the
       altercation, he touched the complaining witnesses only to protect himself?

See Gonzalez v. State,

486 Md. 216

305 A.3d 853

 (2023).

                                      DISCUSSION

                                        The U Visa

       “In October 2000, Congress created the U-visa as part of the Victims of Trafficking

and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (‘the Act’),

Pub. L. No. 106-386,

Div. A,

114 Stat. 1464

 (2000), codified at inter alia,

8 U.S.C. § 1101

(a)(15)(U).” Calderon-Ramirez v.

McCament,

877 F.3d 272, 274

 (7th Cir. 2017). The Act created a new visa classification

that permits noncitizens “who are victims of serious crimes and who assist law enforcement

to apply for and receive a nonimmigrant visa called a U-visa.”

 (citation omitted). 12 For

a petitioner to qualify for a U visa, the Secretary of Homeland Security must determine


       12
         A nonimmigrant is a foreign national who enters the United States on a temporary
basis for work, study, tourism, or other reasons. See USCIS, Glossary, https://www.uscis.
gov/tools/glossary [https://perma.cc/C3GD-AEZA].

                                         - 24 -
that: (1) the petitioner “has suffered substantial physical or mental abuse as a result of

having been a victim” of qualifying criminal activity; 13 (2) the petitioner “possesses

information concerning [the] criminal activity”; (3) the petitioner “has been helpful, is

being helpful, or is likely to be helpful” to government officials investigating or

prosecuting the criminal activity; and (4) the criminal activity at issue violated the laws of

the United States or occurred in the United States or the territories and possessions of the

United States.

8 U.S.C. § 1101

(a)(15)(U)(i)(I-IV).

       “Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations give USCIS sole jurisdiction

over U-visa petitions.” J.M.O. v. United States,

3 F.4th 1061, 1062

 (8th Cir. 2021) (citation

omitted). As such, USCIS decides whether to approve or deny a petition. See

8 C.F.R. § 214.14

(c)(5). 14 To petition for a U visa, a petitioner submits Form I-918 (Petition for U

Nonimmigrant Status) to USCIS, which is a division of DHS. See USCIS Form I-918,

Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status at 1.            The form requires petitioners to fill out

information about themselves, a spouse, and/or their children and must be signed and dated

by the petitioner under penalty of perjury. See

id. at 1, 7-8

. 15


       13
           Qualifying criminal activity includes the commission of or an attempt, conspiracy,
or solicitation to commit crimes such as domestic violence, felonious assault, abusive
sexual contact, sexual assault, stalking, and others. See 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(U)(iii).
        14
           “Congress enacted a statutory cap of 10,000 U-visas each fiscal year.” Calderon-Ramirez,

877 F.3d at 274

 (citing

8 U.S.C. § 1184

(p)(2)(A)). As a result, “a waiting list
exists for petitioners seeking adjudication” and there are “two separate waiting periods and
two adjudications for each petitioner—one for placement on the waiting list and one to
receive a U-visa.”

Id.

 (citation omitted).
        15
           Form I-918, Supplement A (Petition for Qualifying Family Member of U-1
Recipient) is a form that a petitioner fills out with information about any qualifying family
member included in the petition. See USCIS Form I-918, Supplement A, Petition for


                                           - 25 -
          A petitioner must also submit Supplement B. See USCIS Form I-918, Supplement

B, U Nonimmigrant Status Certification at 1. Supplement B includes a certification,

“which confirms that the petitioner has been helpful, is being helpful, or is likely to be

helpful in the investigation or prosecution of the qualifying criminal activity of which he

or she is a victim.”

8 C.F.R. § 214.14

(a)(12). Supplement B must be “signed by a

certifying official within the six months immediately preceding the filing of Form I-918.”

8 C.F.R. § 214.14

(c)(2)(i). Under

8 C.F.R. § 214.14

(a)(3)(i) and (ii), the “certifying

official” must be “[t]he head of the certifying agency, or any person(s) in a supervisory

role who has been specifically designated by the head of the certifying agency to issue U

nonimmigrant status certifications on behalf of that agency” or “[a] Federal, State, or local

judge.” The “certifying agency” must be “a Federal, State, or local law enforcement

agency, prosecutor, judge, or other authority, that has responsibility for the investigation

or prosecution of a qualifying crime or criminal activity.”

8 C.F.R. § 214.14

(a)(2).

          Among the requirements for eligibility to obtain a U visa is that, “since the initiation

of cooperation, [the petitioner] has not refused or failed to provide information and

assistance reasonably requested.”

8 C.F.R. § 214.14

(b)(3). A certifying official is required

to notify USCIS if a petitioner refuses or fails to provide aid when reasonably expected.

See

id.


          It can easily be seen that a U visa provides a noncitizen and the person’s family

substantial benefits. If a U visa “petition is approved, a petitioner present in the United


Qualifying Family Member of U-1 Recipient at 1, available at https://www.uscis.gov/sites/
default/files/document/forms/i-918supa.pdf [https://perma.cc/5FJ2-C3V9].

                                             - 26 -
States receives lawful nonimmigrant status and employment authorization for up to four

years.” J.M.O.,

3 F.4th at 1062

 (citations omitted). There is an opportunity to extend the

four-year period upon attestation by the certifying official that the petitioner’s presence in

the United States continues to be necessary to assist in the investigation or prosecution of

qualifying criminal activity. See

8 C.F.R. § 214.14

(g)(2)(ii). Once a petitioner who has

been granted U nonimmigrant status has continuously been physically present in the United

States for at least three years following receipt of a U visa, the petitioner is eligible to apply

for lawful permanent residency. See

8 U.S.C. § 1255

(m)(1)(A). In other words, the

Secretary of Homeland Security has the authority to convert a petitioner’s status from

lawful U nonimmigrant to lawful permanent resident. See J.M.O.,

3 F.4th at 1062

. And,

even petitioners who apply for a U visa and are placed on the waiting list receive a benefit

because USCIS “will grant eligible petitioners and qualifying family members on the

waiting list deferred action [as to removal] and work authorization while they wait for final

adjudication.” Calderon-Ramirez,

877 F.3d at 274

 (citing

8 C.F.R. § 214.14

(d)(2)).

       All of these benefits may be revoked if an applicant fails to assist law enforcement

in the investigation and prosecution of criminal activity. USCIS may revoke an approved

petition after giving notice of intent to revoke if “[t]he certifying official withdraws the U

nonimmigrant status certification [i.e., Supplement B] or disavows the contents in

writing[.]”

8 C.F.R. § 214.14

(h)(2)(i)(A).

                   Maryland Rule 5-616(a)(4) and Relevant Case Law

       “An appellate court reviews without deference a trial court’s restriction of cross-

examination where that restriction is based on the trial court’s understanding of the legal


                                            - 27 -
rules that may limit particular questions or areas of inquiry.” Kazadi,

467 Md. at 49

223 A.3d at 582-83

 (cleaned up).      “An appellate court reviews de novo a trial court’s

determination as to whether evidence is relevant.” Portillo Funes v. State,

469 Md. 438, 478

230 A.3d 121, 144

 (2020) (citation omitted).

       Maryland Rule 5-616(a) addresses impeachment by inquiry of a witness and

provides, in relevant part: “The credibility of a witness may be attacked through questions

asked of the witness, including questions that are directed at: . . . (4) Proving that the

witness is biased, prejudiced, interested in the outcome of the proceeding, or has a motive

to testify falsely[.]” On more than one occasion, we have held that,

       when the trier of fact is a jury, questions permitted by Rule 5-616(a)(4)
       should be prohibited only if (1) there is no factual foundation for such an
       inquiry in the presence of the jury, or (2) the probative value of such an
       inquiry is substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice or
       confusion.

Manchame-Guerra,

457 Md. at 312

178 A.3d at 8

 (cleaned up).

       A sufficient factual foundation may be established through circumstantial or direct

evidence and issues concerning a witness’s credibility as to an expectation of a benefit are

for the trier of fact to determine. Our holdings in Calloway, Manchame-Guerra, and

Martinez v. State,

416 Md. 418

7 A.3d 56

 (2010) demonstrate these points. In Calloway,

414 Md. at 619, 639

996 A.2d at 870, 881-82

, a case in which the defendant’s former

cellmate called the Montgomery County State’s Attorney’s Office and offered to testify

about inculpatory statements the defendant allegedly made to him, we held that “there was

a solid factual foundation for an inquiry into [the witness’s] self interest, and the

circumstantial evidence of [the witness’s] self interest was not outweighed—substantially


                                         - 28 -
or otherwise—by the danger of confusion and/or unfair prejudice to the State.” (Emphasis

omitted). At the time that the witness offered to provide information, he was awaiting trial

on charges of second-degree assault and reckless endangerment, facing a violation of

probation as a result of a guilty plea he entered in another matter, and had been unable to

post bail. See

id. at 619

996 A.2d at 870

. In between the call to the State’s Attorney’s

Office and the defendant’s trial, the witness was released from custody, the State nolle

prossed the pending charges, and no violation of probation charges were filed against the

witness. See

id. at 637

996 A.2d at 880

.

       The State filed a motion in limine to prohibit defense counsel from cross-examining

the witness about whether he had volunteered to testify in the hope of receiving a benefit

from the State. See

id. at 619

996 A.2d at 870

. At a hearing on the motion, the witness

acknowledged that he had pending charges and was incarcerated when he called the

prosecutor, but testified that he did not expect to receive any benefit from the State by

talking about the defendant. See

id. at 624-25

996 A.2d at 873

. The trial court granted

the State’s motion in limine, finding the witness to be credible. See

id. at 631

996 A.2d at 877

.

       We held that the trial court committed reversible error. See

id. at 620

996 A.2d at 870-71

. We concluded that issues concerning the witness’s credibility, i.e., whether the

witness made the call to the State’s Attorney’s Office “in the hope of being released from

detention, and whether he was testifying at trial in the hope of avoiding a violation of

probation charge, should have been decided by the jury rather than by the [trial c]ourt.”

Id. at 637

996 A.2d at 880

. We stressed that the issue was whether the witness “had a hope


                                         - 29 -
that he would benefit from volunteering to testify against [the defendant.]”

Id. at 637

996 A.2d at 880-81

. We explained that it was “of no consequence” that the State had not

entered into an agreement with the witness in exchange for testimony or that the witness’s

testimony before the jury would be consistent with his testimony at the hearing.

Id. at 637

. Quoting the Appellate Court in Leeks v. State,

110 Md. App. 543, 557

678 A.2d 80, 87

 (1996), we stated that

       [t]he issue of bias is often generated by circumstantial evidence, and does not
       disappear merely because the witness denies any reason to be biased. If such
       circumstantial evidence exists, the trier of fact is entitled to observe the
       witness’s demeanor as he or she responds to questions permitted by Rule 5-
       616(a)(4).

Calloway,

 (emphasis omitted). Because we could not

determine that the trial court’s error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we

concluded that the defendant was entitled to a new trial at which the issue of the witness’s

motive to testify falsely would be decided by the jury. See

id. at 639

996 A.2d at 882

. 16

       Shortly after Calloway, in Martinez,

416 Md. at 420

7 A.3d at 57

, a case involving

charges of murder and attempted murder, we held that the trial court erred in precluding



       16
         In Calloway,

, we also held that, to the extent our
analysis was inconsistent with that of Ebb v. State,

341 Md. 578

671 A.2d 974

 (1996) and
Watkins v. State,

328 Md. 95

613 A.2d 379

 (1992), those cases were overruled. In
Watkins,

328 Md. at 103

613 A.2d at 382-83

, we held that a trial court did not abuse its
discretion in precluding cross-examination of State’s witnesses concerning whether they
were on probation where the trial court determined that the evidence had limited probative
value that “was outweighed by other appropriate considerations.” In Ebb,

341 Md. at 590

671 A.2d at 980

, we held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion in precluding cross-examination of State’s witnesses concerning whether they had charges pending against
them at the time of their testimony where the witnesses denied expecting to receive
leniency. After Calloway, these holdings were no longer good law.

                                         - 30 -
cross-examination of a witness about the State’s dismissal of the witness’s pending

charges. The State had dismissed the pending charges six days before the witness testified

at a hearing in the defendant’s case, and the witness had been incarcerated at the time on a

writ of body attachment pending testimony in the case. See id. at 431,

7 A.3d at 63

. We

concluded that these events constituted “circumstantial evidence of bias, motivated by self-

interest[,]” and provided a sufficient factual foundation for cross-examination under

Maryland Rule 5-616(a)(4).

Id. at 431

7 A.3d at 63

.

       In Manchame-Guerra,

457 Md. at 319-20

178 A.3d at 12-13

, a case involving a

defendant charged with first-degree murder and second-degree murder, a witness for the

State testified that he saw the defendant shoot the victim and we held that the trial court

erred in precluding defense counsel from cross-examining the witness about pending

charges. We concluded that, although there was no direct evidence that the witness had a

motive to testify falsely, such as an agreement between the witness and the State, the

defendant proffered sufficient circumstantial evidence that, viewed from the witness’s

perspective, could have led the witness to expect or hope for a benefit in exchange for his

testimony. See

id. at 319-20

178 A.3d at 12-13

. We explained that our case law does not

require direct evidence to satisfy the requisite factual foundation for inquiry under

Maryland Rule 5-616(a)(4). See

id. at 320

. Quoting Calloway,

, we reiterated that circumstantial evidence of a witness’s bias or

self-interest is admissible and that the “trier of fact is entitled to observe the witness’s

demeanor as he or she responds to questions permitted by Rule 5-616(a)(4).” Manchame-

Guerra,

457 Md. at 313-14

178 A.3d at 8-9

 (emphasis omitted).


                                         - 31 -
       We counseled that a “proffer is to be viewed from the perspective of the witness:

i.e., the witness’s expectation or hope for a benefit in return for testimony favorable to the

prosecution[,]” and that the trial court “must allow a defendant wide latitude to cross-

examine a witness as to bias or prejudices.”

Id. at 318-19

178 A.3d at 11-12

 (cleaned up).

We noted that the defendant’s proffer included that the witness’s charges were pending in

the same county where the defendant was standing trial and that the charges had been

pending for eighteen months at the time of the defendant’s trial. See

id. at 321

. 17 We held that the trial court erred in denying defense counsel the opportunity to

cross-examine the witness pursuant to Maryland Rule 5-616(a)(4) as to whether he had a

motive to testify falsely, and we observed that, “to its credit,” the State did not argue that

the error was harmless. Manchame-Guerra,

457 Md. at 322

178 A.3d at 14

.

       Although the facts of Calloway, Martinez, and Manchame-Guerra did not involve

impeachment of a witness concerning the witness’s immigration status or application for a

U visa, the principles set forth in those cases are equally applicable to impeachment

concerning a U visa application under Maryland Rule 5-616(a)(4).

                                           Kazadi

       We are unaware of any reported Maryland opinion in which either this Court or the

Appellate Court has addressed an issue concerning cross-examination of a witness under




       17
         We pointed out that the State did not contest that the probative value was not
substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice or confusion. See Manchame-Guerra,

457 Md. at 321-22

.

                                          - 32 -
Maryland Rule 5-616(a)(4) based on a witness’s U visa application. 18 In Kazadi,

467 Md. at 48-54

223 A.3d at 582-85

, this Court addressed whether the State was required to

disclose during discovery information about a witness’s immigration status and the

circumstances under which cross-examination of a State’s witness concerning the witness’s

immigration status might occur. 19

       In Kazadi,

467 Md. at 53

, we concluded that the trial court did not

err in denying a motion to compel the State to disclose a witness’s, S.L.’s, Alien

Registration Number, immigration case number, and a copy of a deportation order to which

the witness was subject. The defendant had been charged with first-degree murder, use of

a firearm during commission of a crime of violence or felony, and wearing, carrying, or

transporting a handgun. See

id. at 8

223 A.3d at 558

. Before trial, the defendant’s counsel


       18
           In Carrero-Vasquez v. State,

210 Md. App. 504, 508-09

63 A.3d 647, 650

 (2013),
a case in which the defendant was charged with offenses related to a stolen handgun that
had been found in a car, the Appellate Court held that the trial court erred in precluding
cross-examination of a State’s witness, who was the owner of the car, about the witness’s
immigration status. The witness had acknowledged being an undocumented immigrant
and that being convicted of possessing a stolen handgun would be grounds for deportation.
See

id. at 516

63 A.3d at 654

. There was no indication that the witness had applied for a
U visa.
        19
           Cross-examination concerning a witness’s immigration status and a U visa
application, while related, involve different inquiries. “‘[I]mmigration status’ is a term of
art generally used to describe a person’s lawful or unlawful presence in the United States.”
Miguleva v. Wash. State Dep’t of Nat. Res.,

670 F. Supp. 3d 1173

, 1180 (E.D. Wash. 2023)
(citation omitted). An “undocumented immigrant is an immigrant without any valid
documentation or lawful immigration status.” Tara Kennedy, Barred from Practice?
Undocumented Immigrants and Bar Admissions,

63 DePaul L. Rev. 833

, 838 (2014)
(cleaned up). A U visa allows noncitizens who are the victims of certain qualifying crimes
to live and work in the United States. In this case, the record is unclear as to whether M.
was undocumented at the time of the alleged assault or trial. The issue of cross-examination concerning M.’s lawful or unlawful presence in the United States was not
raised as one of the questions presented in the petition for a writ of certiorari.

                                         - 33 -
filed a motion to compel discovery seeking the Alien Registration Number, immigration

case number, and immigration-related paperwork for S.L., who, according to the defendant,

was subject to a deportation order along with her son, M.L., who was also a witness for the

State. See

id. at 10-11

223 A.3d at 560

. The defendant argued that the deportation order

gave S.L. and M.L. “a motive to testify against” him, “in that their testimony could make

them eligible for relief from deportation.”

Id. at 11

223 A.3d at 560

. The State opposed

the motion and filed a motion in limine to preclude the defendant from cross-examination

about S.L.’s immigration status.

Id. at 11

223 A.3d at 560

.

       The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to compel and granted the State’s

motion in limine, ruling that the defendant failed to show a “‘special relationship’ between

S.L. and the State as to immigration, or a promise, inducement, or benefit that the State

extended concerning immigration[.]”

Id. at 11-12, 15

223 A.3d at 560, 563

. The question

before this Court was “whether, during discovery, a prosecutor must disclose immigration-

related information concerning a State’s witness who is an undocumented immigrant, and

whether a defendant may cross-examine such a witness concerning his or her immigration

status.”

Id. at 7

223 A.3d at 558

. 20 We concluded:

       [A]bsent additional circumstances—such as allegations of quid pro quo or
       leniency in an immigration case giving rise to a motive to testify falsely or
       bias—a State’s witness’s status as an undocumented immigrant, or the
       existence of a deportation order to which the witness may be subject does not
       “show the character of the witness for untruthfulness[,]” Md. R. 4-
       263(d)(6)(A), is not “probative of a character trait of untruthfulness[,]” Md.
       R. 5-608(b), and does not show that the witness “has a motive to testify

       20
          Although we resolved the case on an unrelated issue concerning voir dire, we
addressed “the issues as to immigration-related information because they [were] likely to
recur at trial.” Kazadi,

467 Md. at 48

 n.14,

223 A.3d at 582

 n.14.

                                         - 34 -
       falsely[,]” Md. R. 5-616(a)(4). Without more, a State’s witness’s status as
       an undocumented immigrant, or any deportation order to which the person is
       subject, is not required to be disclosed by a prosecutor during discovery, and
       is not a proper subject of cross-examination.

Kazadi,

467 Md. at 52-53

. We explained that, “[g]enerally, a witness’s

immigration status is not relevant to his or her credibility because, absent additional

circumstances, a witness’s status as an undocumented immigrant, or the existence of a

deportation order to which the witness may be subject, does not make the witness any more

likely to falsely testify than any person would be.”

Id. at 53

.

“[I]mmigration status alone does not reflect upon an individual’s character, and is thus not

admissible for impeachment purposes.”

Id. at 53

 (cleaned up).

       In upholding the trial court’s ruling precluding cross-examination of the witnesses

about their immigration status, we stated:

       There is no evidence of any quid pro quo or leniency in any immigration
       matter involving S.L. or M.L. There is no indication that any of the
       immigration-related information that [the defendant] requested would “show
       the character of S.L. for untruthfulness.” Md. R. 4-263(d)(6)(A). Because
       there was no evidence that S.L.’s or M.L.’s immigration status, or the
       deportation order, reflected on their credibility, disclosure of the requested
       documents was not required and cross-examination regarding the same was
       not permitted.

Id. at 53-54

 (brackets omitted).

          Use of the U Visa for Impeachment Purposes: Other Jurisdictions

       Other jurisdictions have addressed cross-examination of a witness about a U visa

application, i.e., use of the U visa for impeachment purposes. Appellate courts in Oregon

and Kentucky and the Supreme Courts of South Dakota, Vermont, and Connecticut have

held that trial courts erred in precluding cross-examination of witnesses concerning a U


                                         - 35 -
visa application, while Courts of Appeal of Arizona and California have reached a different

conclusion.

       In some jurisdictions, the threshold for establishing a sufficient factual foundation

to impeach a witness through cross-examination about a U visa application is a relatively

low bar. For instance, in State v. Valle,

298 P.3d 1237, 1239

 (Or. Ct. App. 2013), the Court

of Appeals of Oregon concluded that the trial court erred in precluding cross-examination

of a witness about the fact that the witness had applied for a U visa and that the error was

not harmless. The Court explained that there is a sufficient factual foundation for the

admission of evidence to impeach a witness “if the party shows that the evidence could

support a reasonable inference that the witness is biased or self-interested” and “the only

question is whether a jury could find that the witness has a motive to testify in a certain

manner.”

Id. at 1243

. The Court stated that, where a witness has applied for a U visa on

the ground that the witness is the victim of a crime, a defendant need only show that the

circumstances are such that a jury could reasonably infer that the witness “had a personal

interest in testifying in a manner consistent with her application” to secure a U visa.

Id. at 1243

. The defendant is not required to show that the victim believed that her eligibility for

a U visa was dependent on her testimony or that there was an established quid pro quo

relationship. See

id. at 1244-45

.

       Later, in State v. Del Real-Galvez,

346 P.3d 1289, 1293

 (Or. Ct. App. 2015), in

reviewing whether a trial court erred in excluding evidence that a witness’s mother had

applied for a U visa based on the offense at issue, the Court of Appeals of Oregon held that

“all [the] defendant had to do”—which the defendant did—was “lay a sufficient foundation


                                          - 36 -
. . . that the evidence was relevant, and, to do that, all he had to show was that the evidence

had a tendency, however slight, to demonstrate that [the witness] had a personal interest in

testifying against him.” (Quoting Valle,

298 P.3d at 1243

). The Court held that it was not

necessary for the defendant to show that the witness “knew or believed that her mother

would submit a U visa application if [the witness] accused [the] defendant of sexual abuse.”


       Similarly, in Romero-Perez v. Commonwealth,

492 S.W.3d 902, 903

 (Ky. Ct. App.

2016), the Court of Appeals of Kentucky held that the trial court erred in precluding defense

counsel from cross-examining a witness, who was an alleged victim of burglary and

domestic assault, about a pending U visa application. The Court of Appeals stated:

       One can readily see how the U-Visa program’s requirement of “helpfulness”
       and “assistance” by the victim to the prosecution could create an incentive to
       victims hoping to have their U-Visa’s [sic] granted. Even if the victim did
       not outright fabricate the allegations against the defendant, the structure of
       the program could cause a victim to embellish her testimony in the hopes of
       being as “helpful” as possible to the prosecution.

Id. at 906

 (citation omitted). The Court explained that “[t]he ability to transform oneself

from illegal immigrant, to legal visa holder, to permanent legal resident in a relatively short

amount of time without ever having to the leave the United States, could provide a strong

motive for fabrication or embellishment.”

Id. at 907

 (emphasis in original). The Court

stated: “While some prejudice might result from allowing examination into the U-Visa

application, we believe a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to confront his accuser

must prevail in this instance.”

Id. at 906

. The Court concluded that “the improper denial

of a defendant’s opportunity to impeach a witness for bias, like other Confrontation Clause



                                          - 37 -
errors, is subject to harmless-error analysis[,]” and that, given the overwhelming evidence

of guilt, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Id. at 907-08

 (cleaned up).

       In State v. Dickerson,

973 N.W.2d 249

, 252-53 (S.D. 2022), the Supreme Court of

South Dakota held that a trial court erred in granting the State’s motion in limine and

precluding any reference to a witness’s immigration status, including the circumstance that

an attorney told the witness that, if the witness continued to cooperate with the

investigation, the witness could apply for a U visa. After explaining that it had not

previously addressed whether “a witness’s immigration status or efforts to obtain a U-Visa

may be admissible to show motive to testify in a certain manner[,]” the Supreme Court

discussed Romero-Perez and Valle as examples of cases in which other courts had

determined that a trial court erred in precluding cross-examination concerning a witness’s

U visa application. Dickerson, 973 N.W.2d at 259-60 (footnote omitted). The Supreme

Court concluded that the defendants had a right to inquire into any possible motives

influencing the witness’s testimony, including whether the witness knew of the U visa

program but had not yet applied, as that provided a basis to show that the witness “had an

incentive to embellish or exaggerate his testimony against [the defendants] in order to be

perceived as the victim[.]” Id. at 261. 21

       And, in State v. Juan A. G.-P.,

287 A.3d 1060

, 1082 (Conn. 2023), the Supreme

Court of Connecticut held that a sufficient factual foundation for the admission of


       In Dickerson, 973 N.W.2d at 264, the Court held that the State had not
       21

demonstrated that the trial court’s error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, as there
was no evidence corroborating the witness’s testimony and the State’s case primarily
depended on whether the jury accepted the witness’s version of events.

                                             - 38 -
impeachment evidence is established where a defendant shows that the proposed evidence

is relevant to a witness’s motive to testify in a certain manner. The Supreme Court

explained that U visa applications were “prototypical impeachment evidence showing that

a witness was promised or stood to gain some type of benefit from the government in return

for his or her cooperation.” Id. at 1081 (citations omitted). The Supreme Court pointed

out that it is for the jury to believe some, all, or none of a witness’s testimony and that the

U visa program’s structure “could cause a witness to embellish his or her testimony in the

hopes of being as helpful as possible to the prosecution.” Id. at 1082 (quoting Romero-

Perez,

492 S.W.3d at 906

) (cleaned up). 22

       In contrast to the cases discussed above, in State v. Buccheri-Bianca,

312 P.3d 123, 126-27

 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013), the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2, held that the

trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence about the immigration status

of a witness, who was a minor and an alleged victim of child molestation by the defendant.

The Court observed that nothing in the record demonstrated that the witness or her family

knew about the U visa program when the molestation was reported and pointed out that the

witness did not get support from the State for a U visa application until nearly a year after

the initial molestation allegations. See

id. at 127

. According to the Court, the length of

time between the allegations and the filing of the U visa application supported the trial

“court’s conclusion that the possibility of obtaining a U-Visa was not relevant to [the


        Although the Court determined that the trial court erred, it was not necessary for
       22

it to engage in a harmless error analysis because it had already determined that the
defendant was entitled to a new trial on a different ground. See Juan A. G.-P., 287 A.3d at
1084.

                                          - 39 -
witness’s] accusation.” Id. 23

       Although the facts of Valle, Del Real-Galvez, Romero-Perez, Dickerson, and Juan

A. G.-P. are not on all fours with those of this case, we agree with the holdings in the cases

and conclude that the holdings are consistent with ours in Calloway, Martinez, and

Manchame-Guerra.

                           Application of the Above Principles

       We now address the first two questions presented by Mr. Gonzalez. As we

explained in Manchame-Guerra,

457 Md. at 318

, “[i]t would be difficult—

and likely dangerous—to attempt to prescribe the minimum factual foundation that must

be included in a Rule 5-616(a)(4) proffer[.]” With this in mind, as we did in Manchame-

Guerra and other cases, we confirm that a proffer concerning the factual foundation is to

be viewed from the perspective of the witness, i.e., the question is whether the witness may


       23
           In People v. Villa,

55 Cal. App. 5th 1042

, 1044-45, 1052 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020), the
Court of Appeal of California, Fourth District, concluded that the trial court did not abuse
its discretion by excluding evidence that the victim had applied for a U visa because, even
though the evidence was relevant, the victim testified at a preliminary hearing that she did
not know about the U visa program when she gave a statement to law enforcement, and her
trial testimony was the same, so “the probative value of the evidence [was] minimal, easily
outweighed by the potential for wasted time and jury confusion.” The Court concluded
that,

       where an abuse victim has provided the same basic testimony about suffering
       abuse before and after learning of the U visa program, the probative force of
       the evidence she submitted an application for such a visa is significantly
       outweighed by the risks of prejudice to the victim and of confusing the jury
       and taking up undue trial time to explain the potential for bias.

Id. at 1054

. The Court also determined that any error in exclusion of evidence that the
victim was seeking a U visa was harmless because “the physical evidence of the abuse was
overwhelming[.]”

Id. at 1045

.

                                          - 40 -
have an expectation or a hope for a benefit in return for giving testimony favorable to the

prosecution. See

id. at 318

. We also reiterate the important principle that

circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to establish the requisite foundation concerning

the witness’s hope or expectation of a benefit. See

id. at 315

178 A.3d at 9

. And, although

it is for a trial court to decide whether an adequate factual foundation has been established,

issues of credibility concerning a witness’s expectation of a benefit are for the trier of fact

to resolve. See

id. at 313

178 A.3d at 8

.

       The nature of a U visa application and our case law interpreting Maryland Rule 5-

616(a)(4) compel the conclusion that a witness’s application for a U visa can, on its own,

create a basis for cross-examination where the U visa application has been submitted on

the witness’s behalf on the ground that the witness is the victim of a crime that a defendant

is on trial for. A U visa application submitted by a witness demonstrates that the witness

is applying for a visa that confers a substantial benefit based on the requirement that the

witness be helpful in the investigation or prosecution of criminal activity specified in the

application. In signing a U visa application, under penalty of perjury, a petitioner attests:

“I certify . . . that all of the information in my petition and any document submitted with it

were provided or authorized by me, that I reviewed and understand all of the information

contained in, and submitted with, my petition, and that all of this information is complete,

true, and correct.” USCIS Form I-918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status at 8. It would

be difficult to conclude that a defendant cannot question a witness about bias or an interest

in the outcome of a case where the witness has submitted an application, under penalty of

perjury, seeking the benefit of a visa on the basis that the witness will assist in the


                                          - 41 -
investigation or prosecution of the defendant as a condition of obtaining the visa. And,

where the requisite certification has been provided by a certifying official on the ground

that the witness is assisting in the prosecution of the defendant’s case, regardless of whether

the witness has submitted the application, a sufficient factual foundation for impeachment

of the witness under Maryland Rule 5-616(a)(4) has been established, as the witness has

already received a benefit and has more than just a hope or expectation of such in exchange

for testimony.

       Given the substantial benefits that may be attained through a U visa and the structure

of the U visa program, we fully agree with the Court of Appeals of Kentucky’s statement

that “[o]ne can readily see how the U-Visa program’s requirement of ‘helpfulness’ and

‘assistance’ by the victim to the prosecution could create an incentive to” a victim hoping

to have a U visa application granted. Romero-Perez,

492 S.W.3d at 906

 (citation omitted).

As that Court observed, even if a victim does “not outright fabricate the allegations against

the defendant, the structure of the program could cause a victim to embellish her testimony

in the hopes of being as ‘helpful’ as possible to the prosecution.”

 (citation omitted).

       In Kazadi,

467 Md. at 52-53

, we concluded that allegations of

additional circumstances beyond a “witness’s status as an undocumented immigrant, or the

existence of a deportation order to which the witness may be subject[,]” such as a quid pro

quo relationship, are necessary to establish a factual foundation for cross-examination

under Maryland Rule 5-616(a)(4). In other words, evidence that establishes a factual

foundation of allegations of a quid pro quo arrangement between a witness and the State is

sufficient to demonstrate a basis for cross-examination under Maryland Rule 5-616(a)(4).


                                          - 42 -
To be sure, definitively establishing the existence of an actual quid pro quo relationship

between a witness and the State through direct evidence of an agreement between the two

would form the factual foundation for impeachment under Maryland Rule 5-616(a)(4).

But, Kazadi does not stand for the proposition that a defendant is required to definitively

establish the existence of a quid pro quo arrangement to establish a sufficient factual

foundation for impeachment under Maryland Rule 5-616(a)(4) as to immigration matters.

       Nor does our holding in Manchame-Guerra require that to establish a factual

foundation for cross-examination of a witness under Maryland Rule 5-616(a)(4), a

defendant must demonstrate the existence of a quid pro quo relationship or an actual

agreement between the State and the witness. Instead, under Manchame-Guerra,

457 Md. at 318

, there must be a proffer that, when viewed from the witness’s

perspective, shows that the witness hopes or anticipates receiving a benefit in exchange for

testimony. It is for the trier of fact to determine whether the witness’s testimony is, in fact,

being given in exchange for or in return for a benefit (or expected benefit) and whether the

witness’s testimony is, therefore, false or embellished as a result of the promised or

anticipated benefit. See

id. at 313

178 A.3d at 8

We conclude that Mr. Gonzalez’s counsel established a sufficient factual foundation

for impeachment of M. under Maryland Rule 5-616(a)(4) about her U visa application and

that the circuit court erred in precluding cross-examination on this ground. Mr. Gonzalez’s

counsel proffered circumstances that could have caused a trier of fact to believe that M.’s

testimony was affected by the expectation or hope of a benefit in return for testifying

favorably for the State. Although M.’s U visa application was not made a part of the record,

- 43 -
during voir dire, M. testified that she filled out the supplement, i.e., the certification, with

her attorney, and signed it. The supplement does not require the signature of an applicant,

but a reasonable inference from M.’s testimony is that she signed the U visa application

itself. See USCIS Form I-918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status at 8.

At oral argument, the State acknowledged that M. had submitted a U visa

application but argued that because the focus is on what the witness believes, more than

submission of the application must be shown. In response to a question from the Court,

the State argued:

At its core, the facts that [Mr. Gonzalez] points to that support it are really
just the existence of the certified application that [M.]
submitted. Right? And, and, what we’re saying is that that alone isn’t
enough. And, and what it might be that creates that nexus between credibility
and the U visa might vary from case to [] case. But here he showed nothing
other than the fact that with the benefit of counsel she submitted this U visa
in connection with this case. And because the focus is on what the witness
believes and what the witness expects, either through direct or circumstantial
evidence, it’s that additional circumstance, which is referred to in
Manchame-Guerra.

M.’s testimony, however, was indicative of more than just the circumstance that a

U visa application had been submitted on her behalf. During voir dire, M. acknowledged

that she understood that she needed to be helpful to the prosecutor to be able to get a U

visa, even though she couched her testimony in terms of: “If the attorney tells me.” Based

on M.’s testimony, a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded that M. knew she was

seeking a U visa, a substantial benefit, on the condition that she would be helpful in the

prosecution of Mr. Gonzalez’s case and that this knowledge provided an interest in the

outcome of the proceeding or a motive to testify falsely or to embellish her testimony.

- 44 -
Even without M.’s acknowledgment that she understood she had an obligation to be helpful

to the prosecution, based on her having submitted the U visa application, a reasonable trier

of fact could have inferred that she was aware of the requirement.

Significantly, Mr. Gonzalez also established that a member of the State’s Attorney’s

Office, which was responsible for the prosecution of his case, had signed the certification

for M.’s U visa application, attesting that M. was cooperating with the prosecution, and

that M. knew that the State had approved the certification on her behalf. During voir dire,

in answer to Mr. Gonzalez’s question about whether she received a response from the

State’s Attorney’s Office with respect to her U visa application, M. testified: “Of course.

It has been accepted and approved.” Although it is unclear whether M. meant only that her

certification had been completed by a member of the State’s Attorney’s Office or that her

U visa application had been accepted and approved, the circumstance that the certification

was signed by the same office responsible for prosecuting Mr. Gonzalez’s case is evidence

that M. had already received a benefit in exchange for her promise to cooperate. Having

applied for a U visa with a certification that had been approved by the prosecutor’s office,

M. risked having the State’s certification being withdrawn and the visa not approved (or

revoked, if it had been granted) if she failed to be helpful and cooperative with the

prosecution.

In precluding impeachment of M., the circuit court credited M.’s testimony during

voir dire “that she d[id]n’t understand or d[id]n’t know if there [were] any negative

consequences for her failure to cooperate[.]” M. may or may not have been telling the truth

when she indicated that she did not understand or know if there would be negative

- 45 -
consequences if she failed to cooperate or when she testified about other matters during

voir dire concerning her U visa application. As Judge Eyler explained, M.’s “credibility”

on such matters, “like other credibility determinations regarding her testimony, was a

demeanor-based assessment for the jury, not the court, to make[,]” and the circuit court

erred in concluding otherwise. Gonzalez,

2023 WL 5030170

, at *16 (Eyler, J.,

concurring). 24

                  Probative Value Versus the Danger of Undue Prejudice

       Where a sufficient factual foundation for inquiry under Maryland Rule 5-616(a)(4)

has been established, the trial court must engage in a balancing analysis similar to that

required under Maryland Rule 5-403 to weigh the probative value of the inquiry against

the danger of undue prejudice to the State or confusion. See Calloway,

; Manchame-Guerra,

457 Md. at 321

. An appellate court

reviews for abuse of discretion a trial court’s determination as to whether evidence is

inadmissible because the danger of undue prejudice substantially outweighs its probative

value. See Montague v. State,

471 Md. 657, 673-74

243 A.3d 546, 555

 (2020).

       We do not read the circuit court’s ruling in this case, however, as demonstrating that

the circuit court either implicitly or explicitly balanced the probative value of the inquiry


       24
         We also agree with Judge Eyler that the circumstance that one year passed between
the incident and M.’s attorney’s April 23, 2021 letter to the State’s Attorney’s Office is not
dispositive of whether an adequate factual foundation existed but rather is a “fact for the
jury to consider in assessing M.’s credibility.” Gonzalez,

2023 WL 5030170

, at *17 (Eyler,
J., concurring). A jury could reasonably have inferred that, although the evidence did not
establish precisely when M. actually applied for the U visa, the benefit of having or getting
a U visa may have subsequently motivated her to lie or embellish her testimony. See

id.

(Eyler, J., concurring).

- 46 -
against the danger of undue prejudice or confusion. To be sure, in announcing its ruling,

the circuit court stated that Mr. Gonzalez’s counsel had not shown that cross-examination

concerning M.’s “immigration status would be probative of her character trait for

truthfulness[.]” Given that the circuit court found there was an insufficient factual

foundation for impeachment of M., there was no need for the circuit court to address the

second part of the analysis. 25

Although both parties have discussed the issue in their briefs, whether the circuit

court addressed the issue of the danger of undue prejudice and how it ruled on the matter

was not explicitly raised as a question in the petition for writ of certiorari. This Court

ordinarily refrains from deciding an issue that was not raised by a party in a petition for

writ of certiorari. See Md. R. 8-131(b)(1). And, ordinarily an appellate court will not

decide an issue unless it was raised in or decided by the trial court. See Md. R. 8-131(a).

Given that we conclude that the error in precluding cross-examination of M. concerning

her U visa application was harmless, it is unnecessary for us to deviate from our general

practice of refraining from deciding an issue that was not decided by the trial court or raised

in a petition for writ of certiorari.

25
In the Appellate Court, only Judge Ripken interpreted the circuit court’s ruling as
having implicitly balanced the probative value of the inquiry against the danger of undue
prejudice or confusion and concluded that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion. See
Gonzalez,

2023 WL 5030170

, *8-*9. Judge Friedman would not have reached the issue
and Judge Eyler explained that, in her view, the circuit court had not engaged in a balancing
analysis. See

id. at *18

 (Friedman, J., concurring);

id. at *17

 (Eyler, J., concurring). Judge
Eyler also stated that, “had the [circuit] court determined that the probative value of the U-
Visa evidence for impeachment was substantially outweighed by the danger of undue
prejudice or confusion, it would have abused its discretion.”

Id. at *17

 (Eyler, J.,
concurring).

                                          - 47 -
                                       Harmless Error

       The convictions should be affirmed because the error was harmless beyond a

reasonable doubt. “When an appellate court considers the State’s argument that an error is

harmless, the court conducts its own independent review of the record.” Belton v. State,

483 Md. 523, 541

295 A.3d 612, 622

 (2023) (cleaned up). Under a harmless error analysis,

“an appellate court does not reverse a conviction based on a trial court’s error or abuse of

discretion where the appellate court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial

court’s error or abuse of discretion did not influence the verdict to the defendant’s

detriment.” Ford v. State,

462 Md. 3, 41

197 A.3d 1090, 1112

 (2018) (citation omitted).

“The harmless error standard is highly favorable to the defendant, and the burden is on the

State to show that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not influence

the outcome of the case.” Perez v. State,

420 Md. 57, 66

21 A.3d 1048, 1054

 (2011)

(cleaned up).

       In Dionas v. State,

436 Md. 97, 100-01, 118, 121

80 A.3d 1058, 1060-61, 1071, 1072

 (2013), a case markedly different from this one, where the defendant was convicted

of second-degree murder, first-degree assault, and handgun offenses, we held that the trial

court erred in limiting cross-examination of a State’s witness who was an eyewitness to the

shooting incident and the brother of one of the victims and that the error was not harmless.

We stated that, in a criminal jury trial, the jury is the trier of fact, responsible for weighing

the evidence and rendering a verdict, and, as such, “any factor that relates to the jury’s

perspective of the case necessarily is a significant factor in the harmless error analysis.”




                                           - 48 -

Id. at 109

80 A.3d at 1066

. 26 Citing Martin v. State,

364 Md. 692, 703

775 A.2d 385, 391


(2001), a case in which there had been a complete denial of an opportunity to impeach the

a witness’s credibility, we observed that, “where credibility is an issue and, thus, the jury’s

assessment of who is telling the truth is critical, an error affecting the jury’s ability to assess

a witness’ credibility is not harmless error.” Dionas,

436 Md. at 110

80 A.3d at 1066

.

And, we reiterated that the test we apply when assessing harmless error is whether “the

reviewing court can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the error in no way influenced




       26
         In Dionas,

436 Md. at 101-02

80 A.3d at 1061

, the defendant sought to cross-examine the witness regarding an expectation of leniency—namely, the witness, who was
charged with a violation of probation and was incarcerated, sought a continuance of the
violation of probation hearing to testify at the defendant’s trial and requested to be released
on home detention pending the hearing. The presiding judge in the violation of probation
case granted the request. See

id. at 102

80 A.3d at 1061

. The defendant sought to cross-examine the witness about his motive to testify and whether the witness believed he would
receive a benefit at his violation of probation hearing as a result of testifying for the State.
See

id. at 102-03

80 A.3d at 1061-62

.
       Following a three-and-a-half-day trial, the jury deliberated for five-and-a-half days.
See

id. at 103

. On the first day of deliberations, the jury requested
instruction as to first- and second-degree murder. See

id. at 103

. On the
second day, the jury sent two more notes, the first note advised that the jury was unable to
reach a unanimous verdict on any count and asked “[w]hat should we do at this point?”
and the second note stated that the jury had deliberated to the best of its ability and could
only agree on two counts.

Id. at 103

. On the fourth day, the jury submitted
a note asking whether the use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence counts
related to the enumerated victims. See

id. at 103

. On the fifth day, the
jury sent two more notes, one asking what the consequences are for jurors who are not
cooperating in deliberations and a second note from Juror # 9 stating: “I did not talk to no
one about this case, I am being pick[ed] out. Some one that I do not know ask [sic.] me if
we came to a verdict. My verdict did not match their verdict it made the count 11 to 1, on
more than one count.”

Id. at 103-04

 (brackets in original). In concluding
that the trial court’s error was not harmless, we explained that the jury’s behavior during
deliberations was a relevant factor in the harmless error analysis. See

id. at 111, 115-16

80 A.3d at 1066-67, 1069

.

                                            - 49 -
the verdict.”

Id. at 114

80 A.3d at 1069

 (quoting Dorsey v. State,

276 Md. 638, 659

350 A.2d 665, 678

(1976)) (ellipsis omitted).

In reviewing for harmless error in this case, we are considering whether the circuit

court’s error in precluding cross-examination of M. about her U visa application influenced

the verdict. Based on the evidence adduced at trial, we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt

that the preclusion of cross-examination of M. concerning her U visa application did not

influence the jury’s verdict. While testifying on his own behalf, Mr. Gonzalez

acknowledged committing acts that constituted second-degree assault, i.e., grabbing M.

and struggling with her in the kitchen (which resulted in a red mark on her neck), grabbing

F. “in the neck area” and pushing him as he left the kitchen, and pushing M. in the hallway

upstairs. Mr. Gonzalez’s theory of the case was not that he had no physical contact with

M. or F., but rather that M. and F. consented to being touched by involving themselves in

an altercation and that he did not engage in conduct that constituted the more serious

offenses of first-degree assault and child abuse. During closing argument, Mr. Gonzalez’s

counsel argued:

That is another reason why [Mr. Gonzalez’s] testimony is credible. He
knows what he did because what he did was accurate. M[.] consented to
being touched. That is one of the elements. . . . Just because you involve
yourself in a physical altercation doesn’t mean that you do not consent to
being touched.
M[.] and F[.] took steps to get involved, took steps to attempt to put
hands on [Mr. Gonzalez]. They both consented to being touched.

Although Mr. Gonzalez’s counsel argued consent as a defense, no specific jury

instruction was requested or given defining consent. And, because Mr. Gonzalez’s theory

of the case did not include self-defense, no jury instruction on self-defense was requested

- 50 -
or given. The circuit court instructed the jury, using the Maryland Criminal Pattern Jury

Instruction on second-degree assault, that, for the jury to convict Mr. Gonzalez of second-

degree assault, the State was required to prove that Mr. Gonzalez “caused offensive

physical contact with or physical harm to F[.] and M[.], that the contact was a result of an

intentional or reckless act of [Mr. Gonzalez] and was not accidental, and that the contact

was not consented to by F[.] and M[.] and not legally justified.”

During deliberations, the circuit court received a note from the jury inquiring about

the three counts of second-degree assault, asking that the court explain: “What specifically

are the 3 counts[?]” and “Which of the 3 2nd degree counts apply to the 1 1st degree

count[?]” After consulting with counsel, the circuit court responded in writing to the jury:

“As to the 2nd degree assault, the State has alleged separate acts as to M[.] & F[.] You

must rely on your memory as to the evidence of the separate acts.” (Paragraph break

omitted). That the jury acquitted Mr. Gonzalez of first-degree assault of M. and second-

degree physical child abuse of F. demonstrates that the jury carefully considered the

conduct constituting each offense and acquitted Mr. Gonzalez of the two more serious

offenses that involved conduct that he did not acknowledge having engaged in. Although

Mr. Gonzalez denied strangling or intending to kill M. or F., trying to abuse or be cruel to

F., or that he intended to hurt M. or F., he acknowledged that he grabbed M. and struggled

with her, grabbed F. near his neck, and pushed M. in the upstairs hallway. The logical

inference is that the jury rejected the contention that M. and F. consented to being subject

to the physical contact that constituted the three second-degree assaults. This

determination did not rest on issues related to M.’s credibility but rather on the nature of

- 51 -
the evidence, common sense, and Mr. Gonzalez’s own testimony, which established that

he engaged in offensive physical contact with M. and F.

Even so, M.’s testimony was corroborated by F.’s. M. was not the sole witness to

the events of the evening of March 13, 2020. M. and F. were both witnesses. There is no

indication that Mr. Gonzalez sought to impeach F. under Maryland Rule 5-616(a)(4) about

M.’s U visa application. Even if Mr. Gonzalez had been able to impeach M. by asking

about her U visa application in the presence of the jury, the same inquiry would not have

applied to F., whose testimony was consistent with M.’s.

Other evidence corroborated M. and F.’s testimony. F.’s emergency department

medical records were admitted into evidence and showed that there was redness on the left

side of F.’s neck. Photographs of bruises on F.’s neck were admitted into evidence as

State’s Exhibits 3 and 4. Photographs of M. that Nurse Barton took during her forensic

examination of M. were also admitted into evidence. Nurse Barton testified that, during

the forensic examination, she observed redness on M.’s neck and M. complained of neck

pain. And, Detective McEvoy, one of the officers who responded to the location on March

13, 2020, testified that she witnessed M. grimace when she touched her neck and that, at

points, M. was “holding her left arm[.]”

In addition, M.’s testimony at trial was consistent with her initial description of the

incident. M. called 911 very shortly after the incident with Mr. Gonzalez. The

Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Service responded to the location and its report,

which was admitted into evidence, indicated that M. reported that Mr. Gonzalez was

intoxicated, became aggressive, and physically assaulted her and F., and that she had been

- 52 -
placed in a chokehold and her head was banged against the wall. This mirrored M.’s

testimony at trial.

In short, the impact of potential cross-examination of M. about her U visa

application was undercut by the other evidence corroborating M.’s testimony, including

F.’s testimony and the medical records, photographs, and other testimony that corroborated

M.’s injuries. The trial lasted four days and the jury began deliberating after closing

arguments, around lunch time on the last day, and reached a verdict the same afternoon.

Other than a note advising that it had reached a verdict, the jury sent only the note discussed

above. And, Mr. Gonzalez’s own testimony confirmed that he engaged in the conduct that

formed the basis of the crimes for which he was convicted. 27

In addition, at trial, during opening statements, Mr. Gonzalez’s counsel gave an
27

account of the events from Mr. Gonzalez’s perspective, which was a preview of Mr.
Gonzalez’s testimony, and acknowledged that Mr. Gonzalez had engaged in conduct with
M. and F. that formed the basis of the second-degree assaults. During opening statements,
Mr. Gonzalez’s counsel stated:

[O]n this particular night, M[.] tried to slap [Mr. Gonzalez]. Now, I don’t
know about you, but I don’t think anyone appreciates being slapped but,
again, as you learn about Mr. Gonzalez himself that he tries to be very
reserved but in order to avoid being slapped, he has to prevent someone from
slapping him.
So he grabbed M[.]’s wrists and pushed her back. F[.] saw his father
grab his mom and I think naturally we would want to our kids to kind of stand
up for us if they can. I get that. F[.] saw his father grab his mom and, mixed
with the anger from earlier that afternoon, he went after his father. So this is
no longer an altercation between mother and father. This is now an
altercation between father, mother, and son. And F[.] at the time was not a
slight child. He is a bigger kid and that’s okay. He is roughly about the same
size as his father. So [Mr. Gonzalez] is now going up against his wife and
his child and all he wants to do is just get out of the house.

- 53 -
As Judge Eyler observed, “although [M.’s] impeachment may have affected the

jury’s assessment of whether [Mr. Gonzalez] committed first-degree assault and second-

degree child abuse, the jurors found [him] not guilty of those crimes anyway.” Gonzalez,

2023 WL 5030170

, at *18 (Eyler, J., concurring). Based on M.’s and F.’s testimony, the

evidence documenting their injuries, and Mr. Gonzalez’s own testimony, the State has

shown beyond a reasonable doubt that preclusion of cross-examination of M. concerning

her U visa application did not influence the jury’s verdict as to the second-degree assaults.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court of Maryland.

JUDGMENT OF THE APPELLATE COURT OF
MARYLAND AFFIRMED. PETITIONER TO
PAY COSTS.

So, as he is struggling with his wife trying to avoid her slaps, F[.]
comes in and he essentially shoves F[.] out of the way. [Mr. Gonzalez]
leaves the space where was happening, goes into his room, grabs his shoes
and as he is leaving the house, M[.] doesn’t leave the house. Instead M[.]
blocks him. It’s a narrow hallway. She blocks him from leaving. So [Mr.
Gonzalez] pushes past her to get out of the house there is only one way to get
out through that hallway. Pushes past her and leaves. The cops arrive on the
scene.
. . . [A]nd so we have two very different stories about what happened
on March 13.

In other words, Mr. Gonzalez’s counsel’s opening statement demonstrates that Mr.
Gonzalez planned to testify and give his account of the incident regardless of any potential
objection or ruling as to impeachment of M. about the U visa application, given that without
first raising the issue, his counsel had already informed the jury of his side of the story.

- 54 -
Circuit Court for Montgomery County
Case No. 138036C
Argued: March 5, 2024

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF MARYLAND

No. 23

September Term, 2023
______________________________________

ANTONIO E. GONZALEZ

STATE OF MARYLAND
______________________________________

Fader, C.J.,
Watts,
Hotten,*
Booth,
Biran,
Gould,
Eaves,

JJ.
______________________________________

Dissenting Opinion by Gould, J.
______________________________________

Filed: May 29, 2024

* Hotten, J., participated in the hearing of the
case, in the conference in regard to its decision,
and in the adoption of the opinion as an active
judge. She retired from the Court and was
recalled to senior status prior to the filing of the
opinion.
I join the part of the Majority’s opinion that holds the trial court erred in precluding

defense counsel from cross-examining M. about her U visa application, but I respectfully

dissent to the Majority’s harmless error analysis. In my view, the error was not harmless,

and Mr. Gonzalez should be granted a new trial.

Under the harmless error doctrine, a trial court’s error entitles the defendant to a

new trial unless the reviewing court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the error

“in no way influenced the verdict” and “that there is no reasonable possibility that the

evidence complained of-whether erroneously admitted or excluded-may have contributed”

to the guilty verdict. Dorsey v. State,

276 Md. 638, 659

 (1976). In conducting the harmless

error analysis, we must keep in mind that the jury “is responsible for weighing the evidence

and rendering the final verdict.” Dionas v. State,

436 Md. 97, 109

 (2013). So “any factor

that relates to the jury’s perspective of the case necessarily is a significant factor in the

harmless error analysis.”