law-harmful-error-analysis | admission and exclusion of evidence at trial | standard of review of evidentiary ruling  

HARM ANALYSIS ON APPEAL FROM EVIDENTIARY RULINGS

We review a trial court's admission or exclusion of evidence for an abuse of discretion. In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d
570, 575 (Tex. 2005). The erroneous admission of evidence requires reversal only if the error probably caused
the rendition of an improper judgment. Tex. R. App. P. 44.1; see also Nissan Motor Co. v. Armstrong, 145 S.W.3d
131, 144 (Tex. 2004). We review the entire record, and we require the complaining party to demonstrate that the
judgment turns on the particular evidence admitted. Id. The erroneous admission of evidence is harmless if it is
merely cumulative. Armstrong, 145 S.W.3d at 144; Corrales v. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 155 S.W.3d
478, 487 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2004, no pet.) ("Reversible error seldom occurs when the evidence in question is
cumulative and not controlling on a material issue dispositive of the case."); Crosby v. Minyard Food Stores, Inc.,
122 S.W.3d 899, 904 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2003, no pet.) ("The error is harmless if other competent evidence of the
fact in question appears elsewhere in the record."). Whether the erroneous admission of evidence is harmful is
more a matter of judgment than precise measurement, and in making that judgment, we may consider the efforts
made by counsel to emphasize the erroneous evidence and whether there was contrary evidence that the
improperly admitted evidence was calculated to overcome. Armstrong, 145 S.W.3d at 144.
Air Products & Chemicals Inc. v. Odfjell Seachem (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 27, 2009)(Jennings)
(
jury charge error claim overruled, harmful error analysis, negligence per se claim, amending pleadings)
AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by
Justice Jennings    
Before Justices Jennings, Keyes and Higley  
01-08-00591-CV Air Products & Chemicals Inc. v. Odfjell Seachem A/S, Odfjell Asia Pte. Ltd., and Odfjell
Singapore Pte., Ltd  Appeal from 61st District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge:
Hon. John Donovan
Assuming that the trial court erred in admitting certain portions of Hamre's testimony regarding what his second
mate had been told by shoreside personnel on the grounds that the testimony constituted inadmissible hearsay,
(6) we must now determine whether the trial court's error in admitting the testimony was harmful. See Tex. R. App.
P. 44.1(a). Here, although we agree that there is some conflicting evidence as to whether shoreside personnel
had in fact instructed the Bow Favour to commence discharge operations, the overwhelming weight of the
evidence shows that shoreside personnel with OTH did instruct the Bow Favour to discharge the DCPD. For
example, Dickie Wayne Schiesser, the OTH loadmaster, testified in his deposition, which was introduced at trial,
that he had instructed the Bow Favour to start discharging the DCPD. Additionally, in a report, which was
prepared by AP's own adjustor, Paul Foreman, and admitted into evidence, a time line of events reflects that the
dockman opened the cargo valve and "advised the ship that they could line up and start their pump." This report
contained an additional statement that the adjustor had "found no evidence of direct contribution from the Bow
Favour" and that the Bow Favour's mate "simply opened the manifold valve and started the deep-well pump on
the tank containing the DCPD when so ordered by the dockman." (Emphasis added).


Walker v. Rangel (pdf) (Tex.App.- Houston [14th  Dist.] Dec. 3, 2009)(Seymore)
(
admission and exclusion of evidence, harm analysis)
(A jury found Rangel’s negligence did not proximately cause the accident.  Walker now appeals, contending the
trial court erred in admitting opinion testimony of Senior Police Officer Daryl Woods of the Houston Police
Department and Rangel’s accident reconstruction expert, Dale King.
After a thorough review of the appellate record, we conclude the trial court erroneously admitted testimony)(harm
analysis re admission/exclusion of evidence)
REVERSED AND REMANDED: Opinion by Justice Seymore  
Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Seymore and Sullivan    
14-08-00643-CV        Juanita Walker v. April Rangel    
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 4 of Harris County
Trial Court Judge:
Roberta Anne Lloyd



CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS  

HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE