Motions in Limine in Connecticut

What Is a Motion in Limine?

Background

Practice Book § 15-3 provides:

“The judicial authority to whom a case has been assigned for trial may in its discretion entertain a motion in limine made by any party regarding the admission or exclusion of anticipated evidence.”

(Sheiman v. Sheiman (2002) 72 Conn. App. 193, 201 n.6 quoting Practice Book § 15-3.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“If a case has not yet been assigned for trial, a judicial authority may, for good cause shown, entertain the motion. Such motion shall be in writing and shall describe the anticipated evidence and the prejudice which may result therefrom. All interested parties shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard regarding the motion and the relief requested. The judicial authority may grant the relief sought in the motion or such other relief as it may deem appropriate, may deny the motion with or without prejudice to its later renewal, or may reserve decision thereon until a later time in the proceeding.” (Id.)

Relevancy of Evidence

“‘Relevant evidence is evidence which has a logical tendency to aid the trier of fact in the determination of an issue.” (Borkowski v. Sacheti (1996) 43 Conn. App. 294, 321 citing Pitt v. Kent (1962) 149 Conn. 351, 357; Allen v. Nissley (1981) 184 Conn. 539, 545, quoting Berndston v. Annino (1979) 177 Conn. 41, 43; see Plumb v. Curtis (1895) 66 Conn. 154, 166.)

“No precise and universal test of relevancy is furnished by the law, and the question must be determined in each case according to the teachings of reason and judicial experience....” (Borkowski v. Sacheti (1996) 43 Conn. App. 294, 321 citing State v. Echols (1987) 203 Conn. 385, 393 quoting State v. Towles (1987) 155 Conn. 516, 523.)

“It has been said that ‘[o]ne fact is relevant to another if in the common course of events the existence of one, alone or with other facts, renders the existence of the other either more certain or more probable....’” (Borkowski v. Sacheti (1996) 43 Conn. App. 294, 321 citing Allen v. Nissley, supra, 184 Conn. 545, quoting Berndston v. Annino, supra, 177 Conn. 43.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“[T]he trial court has broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility ... of evidence.... [The reviewing Court] will make every reasonable presumption in favor of upholding the trial court's ruling, and ... evidentiary rulings will be overturned on appeal only where there was an abuse of discretion and a showing by the defendant of a substantial prejudice or injustice.” (Sheiman v. Sheiman (2002) 72 Conn. App. 193, 201 citing Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Caldrello (2002) 68 Conn. App. 68, 76-77.)

The Court’s Decision

“[A]ny fact may be proved which logically tends to aid the trier in the determination of the issue.” Litvaitis v. Litvaitis (1972) 162 Conn. 540, 548.) “‘Unless excluded by some rule or principle of law, any fact may be proved which logically tends to aid the trier in the determination of the issue.” Plumb v. Curtis, supra, 66 Conn. 166; Pitt v. Kent, supra, 149 Conn. 357; Burns v. Gould (1977) 172 Conn. 210, 214.)

On the other hand, “a court has the discretion to exclude relevant evidence where it is more prejudicial than probative.” (See Batick v. Seymour (1982) 186 Conn. 632, 637; cf., e.g., Thibodeau v. Connecticut Co. (1952) 139 Conn. 9, 14.)

Documents for Motions in Limine in Connecticut

Sort By

DOE, JAMES v. BEMER, BRUCE, J document preview

ORDER RESULT: Order 5/10/2024 HON CARLETHA PARKINSON

1 page

ORDER 442329 DOCKET NO: UWYCV195030819S SUPERIOR COURT DOE, JAMES JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY V. AT WATERBURY BEMER, BRUCE, J 5/10/2024 …