Motion in Limine in Virginia

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion in Limine

“This court looks with favor upon the use of stipulations, admissions, discovery and other pre-trial techniques which are designed to narrow the issues and expedite the trial or settlement of litigation.” (See Mclaughlin v. Gholson (1970) 210 Va. 498, 500; Harris v. Diamond Const. Co. (1946) 184 Va. 711, 722, 723, 36 S.E.2d 573, 578, 579; Parker v. DeBose (1965) 206 Va. 220, 223, 224, 142 S.E.2d 510, 512, 513.)

“If evidence is relevant and admissible, then a defendant should be allowed to present that evidence.” (See Jones v. Com (2007) 50 Va. App. 437, 451.)

"Evidence is admissible if it is relevant to an issue in the case and is not precluded by a specific rule." (See Marni v. Marni, Record No. 0103-18-4, at *17 (Va. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2018); McCarter v. Commonwealth (2002) 38 Va. App. 502, 506, 566 S.E.2d 868, 869; Peacock Buick v. Durkin (1981) 221 Va. 1133, 1136, 277 S.E.2d 225, 227.)

"Evidence is relevant if it has any logical tendency to prove an issue in a case." (See Marni v. Marni, Record No. 0103-18-4, at *17 (Va. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2018); John Crane, Inc. v. Jones (2007) 274 Va. 581, 590, 650 S.E.2d 851, 855; Goins v. Commonwealth (1996) 251 Va. 442, 461, 470 S.E.2d 114, 127.)

"[R]elevant evidence may be excluded only if the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighs its probative value." (See id.)

“A motion in limine is [a] pretrial request that certain inadmissible evidence not be referred to or offered at trial." (See Motion in limine, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014); Turner v. Commonwealth (2017) 68 Va. App. 72, 76 n.2.)

“Motions in limine have gained wide usage and acceptance.” (See Harward v. Commonwealth (1988) 5 Va. App. 468, 474.)

“They serve worthwhile functions of narrowing issues, preventing trial delay, avoiding expense, and promoting judicial efficiency.” (See id.)

“Their legitimate use should be encouraged. However, abuses lead to additional expense, delay, duplication of judicial and legal time and effort, and in some instances confusion.” (See id.)

“Motions in limine are not properly used to exact from the court nonbinding, advisory, or conditional rulings.” (See id.)

“Many issues can be definitively ruled upon pretrial. Others may more appropriately, or must by necessity, be ruled upon contemporaneously during trial.” (See id.)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion in Limine

Rule 1:18B of the Virginia Court Rules is the uniform pretrial scheduling order to be followed in Virginia.

It states that “pursuant to Rule 4:13 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, when requested by any party or upon its own motion, the court may order a pretrial conference where in motions in limine, settlement discussions, or other pretrial motions which may aid in the disposition of this action can be heard.” (See Va. R. Sup. Ct. 1:18B.)

“Absent leave of court, any motion in limine which requires argument exceeding five minutes must be duly noticed and heard before the day of trial.” (See id.)

Additionally, Rule 1:19 of the Virginia Court Rules governs pretrial conferences and that rule states that “in addition to the pretrial scheduling conferences provided for by Rule 4:13, each trial court may, upon request of counsel of record, or in its own discretion, schedule a final pretrial conference within an appropriate time before the commencement of trial.” (See Va. R. Sup. Ct. 1:19.)

“In cases set for trial for five days or more, upon request of any counsel of record, made at least 45 days before trial, the court must schedule a final pretrial conference within an appropriate time before commencement of trial.” (See id.)

“At the final pretrial conference, which the trial court in its discretion may conduct in person or by telephone or by videoconference, the court and counsel of record may consider any of the following…(e) any pending motions including motions in limine.” (See id.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion in Limine

“A trial court is not bound by an in limine ruling and may be required to rule differently depending upon whether the evidence is relevant or material at trial.” (See Shifflett v. Commonwealth, Record No. 2600-98-2, at *1 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 29, 2000).)

“On appeal, evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion.” (See Jones v. Commonwealth (2019) 71 Va. App. 70, 85, 833 S.E.2d 918; Tomlin v. Commonwealth (2022) 74 Va. App. 392, 409.)

“A court has abused its discretion if its decision was affected by an error of law or was one with which no reasonable jurist could agree.” (See Grattan v. Commonwealth (2009) 278 Va. 602, 620, 685 S.E.2d 634; Tomlin v. Commonwealth (2022) 74 Va. App. 392, 409.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion in Limine

It is well settled that “whether or not evidence should be admitted is a matter for the trial court's independent determination, based on the rules of evidence and the nature of the litigation.” (See M.E.D. v. J.P.M (1986) 3 Va. App. 391, 400.)

It is also well settled that “arguments challenging evidentiary rulings by a trial court must be made at the time of the ruling. Objections must be stated with reasonable certainty at the time of the ruling. Such arguments cannot be raised for the first time in a post-trial motion.” (See Golden v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0468-08-1, at *3 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2009); Nusbaum v. Berlin (2007) 273 Va. 385, 402-03, 641 S.E.2d 494, 503.)