“In Kansas, a court's power to consider a motion in limine arises from its statutory pretrial authority.” (See State v. Quick (1979) 226 Kan. 308, 311, 597 P.2d 1108; State v. Bloom (2002) 273 Kan. 291, 300.)
“We have recognized a motion in limine as a proper method of excluding evidence not at issue in a trial.” (See U.S.D. No. 464 v. Porter (1984) 234 Kan. 690, 694; State v. Quick (1979) 226 Kan. 308, 597 P.2d 1108; Febert v. Upland Mutual Ins. Co. (1977) 222 Kan. 197, 563 P.2d 467.)
“Generally, the motion is seen as a manner by which to exclude inflammatory, prejudicial, immaterial and irrelevant evidence which if inquired about at trial, despite an objection, would so prejudice the side objecting as to preclude a fair trial.” (See id.)
As such, "the purpose for an order in limine is to exclude inadmissible evidence from trial, recognizing that the mere offer of inadmissible evidence at trial can prejudice the jury.” (See State v. Abu-Fakher (2002) 274 Kan. 584, 596.)
“Essentially, a motion in limine requests a district court make an evidentiary ruling in advance of trial as to the admissibility of anticipated testimony or proposed exhibits to be offered at trial.” (See State v. White (2014) 337 P.3d 71; State v. Shadden (2010) 290 Kan. 803, 815–16, 235 P.3d 436.)
“In other words, the party wants the district court to rule on what would otherwise be a trial objection to evidence before the trial has begun.” (See State v. White (2014) 337 P.3d 71.)
“Typically in arguing a motion in limine, the parties proffer to the district court their prognostication of what the trial evidence will be, thereby anchoring the requested ruling in a factual setting, albeit a distinctly conditional or hypothetical one.” (See id.)
“If the district court denies a motion in limine to exclude evidence, the party cannot rely on that ruling to preserve the issue for appeal. First, as anyone who has tried a couple of cases knows, the evidence at trial usually comes in differently from what the lawyers expect—sometimes in minor ways but often in significant ways.” (See id.)
“Development of the actual evidence at trial may cause a district court to reconsider an advance evidentiary ruling made on the parties' proffers.” (See id)
“In considering motion in limine, district court may be unable to determine materiality of challenged evidence until other evidence has been admitted.” (See id; State v. Nunn (1989) 244 Kan. 207, 213, 768 P.2d 268.)
“Rulings on motion in limine is subject to change when the case unfolds, particularly if the actual testimony differs from what was contained in the defendant's proffer.” (See State v. White (2014) 337 P.3d 71; Luce v. United States (1984) 469 U.S. 38, 41, 105 S.Ct. 460, 83 L.Ed.2d 443.)
“Ruling denying motion in limine fails to preserve for appeal any error in admission of challenged evidence at trial, since district court might have sustained contemporaneous objection based on actual development of trial evidence.” (See State v. White (2014) 337 P.3d 71; Gill v. Thomas (1996) 83 F.3d 537, 540–41.)
“Because motions in limine are filed before the Court has seen or heard the evidence or observed the trial unfold, rulings in limine may be subject to alteration or reconsideration during the course of trial.” (See State v. White (2014) 337 P.3d 71; Ellis v. Country Club Hills, No. 06 C 1895, 2011 WL 6001148, at *1 (N.D.Ill .2011).)
“So the party seeking to keep the evidence out must make a contemporaneous trial objection.” (See State v. White (2014) 337 P.3d 71.)
“Second, the district court's denial of a motion in limine typically doesn't mean the challenged evidence will be admitted at trial—only that there isn't a sufficiently clear evidentiary basis to exclude it before trial.” (See id.)
“At trial, then, the parties must deal with the disputed evidence as if no motion in limine had been filed. If a party still wants the evidence out, he or she has to object when it's offered.” (See id.)
“This court generally reviews the granting of a motion in limine for abuse of discretion.” (See Martinez v. Milbum Enterprises, Inc. (2010) 290 Kan. 572, 578; State v. Morton (2007) 283 Kan. 464, 473, 153 P.3d 532.)
“However, [t]he abuse of discretion standard includes review to determine that the discretion was not guided by erroneous legal conclusions.” (See id.)
“A motion in limine should be granted if the trial court finds two factors are present:
(See id; State v. Galloway (2000) 268 Kan. 6 82, 690, 1 P.3d 844.)
"Judicial discretion is abused only when no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court." (See Varney Business Services, Inc. v. Pottroff (2002) 275 Kan. 20, 44, 59 P.3d 1003; Poff v. IBP, Inc. (2005) 33 Kan. App. 2d 700, 704.)
It is well settled that “a motion in limine is a request for the district court to make an evidentiary ruling in advance of trial as to the admissibility of anticipated testimony or proposed exhibits to be offered at trial.” (See Biglow ex rel. Surviving Heirs of Biglow v. Eidenberg (2016) 369 P.3d 341.)
It is also well settled that “an order in limine is to insure that evidence inadmissible at trial is not offered, because the mere offer of or statements about such evidence would tend to prejudice the jury. The Quick court set forth the following guidelines in using a motion in limine: it is important that a proper written motion be filed to pinpoint the material or evidence to be protected against. This is necessary together with an order of the court setting forth the specific basis for exclusion or admission. . . . The motion should not be general in scope.” (See State v. Bloom (2002) 273 Kan. 291, 300; State v. Quick (1979) 226 Kan. 308, 311, 597 P.2d 1108; State v. Heath (1998) 264 Kan. 557, 581, 957 P.2d 449.)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
