Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence or Reference in Illinois

Understanding a Motion in Limine

“Motions in limine are designed to produce a trial without the introduction of prejudicial material.” (Ford v. Herman (2000) 316 Ill. App. 3d 726, 736 citing Konieczny v. Kamin Builders, Inc. (1999) 304 Ill. App.3d 131, 136.)

Requirements for a Motion in Limine

“It is well recognized that, in ruling on a motion in limine, the threshold question is whether the rules of evidence require exclusion of the subject matter of the motion. If not the motion must be denied. If the subject matter should be excluded, the trial court then has the discretion to grant or deny the motion, leaving it to the moving party to specifically object at trial.” (Moore v. Bellamy (1989) 183 Ill. App. 3d 110, 116 citing People v. Williams (1978) 60 Ill. App.3d 529, 532-33; Department of Public Works Buildings v. Roehrig (1976) 45 Ill. App.3d at 194-96.)

When a Motion in Limine is Denied

In civil cases [...] “the law is well established that the denial of a motion in limine does not preserve an objection to disputed evidence later introduced at trial. The moving party remains obligated to object contemporaneously when the evidence is offered at trial.” (Hghwy. Auth. v. Heritage Standard (1994) 163 Ill. 2d 498, 502 citing Cunningham v. Millers General Insurance Co. (1992) 227 Ill. App.3d 201, 206.)

Standard of Review for Appealing a Motion in Limine Ruling

“A trial court maintains broad discretion in both the admission of evidence and in ruling upon a motion in limine, and a decision on a motion in limine will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion.” (Colella v. JMS Trucking Co. of Illinois, Inc. (2010) 932 N.E.2d 1163, 1174 citing Todd W. Musburger, Ltd. v. Meier (2009)394 Ill.App.3d 781, 801-02.)

“When a motion in limine is granted, the key to saving for review an error in the exclusion of evidence is an adequate offer of proof in the trial court.” (Snelson v. Kamm (2003) 204 Ill. 2d 1, 23.)

“An offer of proof informs the trial court, opposing counsel, and the reviewing court of the nature and substance of the evidence sought to be introduced.” (Colella v. JMS Trucking Co. of Illinois, Inc. (2010) 403 Ill. App. 3d 82, 93 citing K4 Enterprises, Inc. v. Grater, Inc. (2009) 394 Ill.App. 3d 307, 318.) “A proper offer of proof is the key to preserving a trial court's alleged error in excluding evidence.” (K4 Enterprises, supra, 394 Ill.App. 3d at 318.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on Motions in Limine

“[A] ruling on a motion in limine is interlocutory and subject to reconsideration.” (Colella v. JMS Trucking Co. of Illinois, Inc. (2010) 932 N.E.2d 1163, 1175 citing Schuler v. Mid-Central Cardiology (2000) 313 Ill.App.3d 326, 334.)

“It is well settled that the decision to grant or deny a motion in limine to bar testimony will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion.” (Noyes v. Noyes, 2018 Ill. App. 2d 170667, 50 [Ill. App. Ct. 2018] citing People v. DeGorski, 2013 IL App (1st) 100580, ¶ 57; Alm v. Loyola University Medical Center (2007) 373 Ill. App. 3d 1, 4.) “An abuse of discretion is a highly deferential standard of review and occurs only when the trial court's decision is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable to the degree that no reasonable person would agree with it.” (People v. Lerma, 2016 IL 118496, ¶ 32; People v. Byrd, 2017 IL App (2d) 140715, ¶ 30.)