Motion in Limine in Maine

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion in Limine

“The primary purpose of deciding a Motion in Limine in advance of trial is to give counsel guidance on whether and how evidence may come in at trial.” (See Kinderhaus North LLC v. Nicolas, No. BCD-RE-19-09, at *1 (Me. Super. Mar. 10, 2020).)

“A motion in limine seeks a protective order prohibiting the opposing party, counsel and witnesses from offering offending evidence at trial, or even mentioning it at trial, without first having its admissibility determined outside the presence of the jury.” (See Gendron v. Pawtucket Mut. Ins. Co. (1979) 409 A.2d 656, 658-59.)

“A motion in limine is appropriate in civil and criminal cases alike. It is particularly addressed to the exclusionary rules. Indeed, the legitimacy of the motion at first was grounded in the inherent discretion of the trial judge to rule on questions of evidence.” (See id.)

Rules for Filing a Motion in Limine

“Today ample authority is found in the Maine Rules of Evidence, notably Rules 102, 103, 104, 402 and 403.” (See Gendron v. Pawtucket Mut. Ins. Co. (1979) 409 A.2d 656, 659.)

“If the trial judge is persuaded that a ruling should be made before the jury is impaneled, his order may take either of two forms: (a) His order may be an ‘absolute prohibitive’ one, directing the opposing party to neither offer the challenged evidence or even to mention it in the presence of the jury; (b) His order may be a ‘preliminary prohibitive’ one, directing the opposing party to neither offer the challenged evidence or even to mention it in the presence of the jury unless and until during trial out of the hearing of the jury he obtains a ruling on the admissibility of the challenged evidence. By that point in the trial it is anticipated the trial judge will have sufficient legal and factual information before him to make a final ruling.” (See id.)

“The motion in limine was not recognized at common law. Indeed, our legal tradition did not countenance the determination of evidentiary matters prior to the trial itself. At first this new procedural device encountered opposition in the courts. During the last thirty years, however, this motion has become widely recognized as a salutary device to avoid the impact of unfairly prejudicial evidence upon the jury and to save a significant amount of time at the trial.” (See id.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion in Limine

“We review the trial court's evidentiary rulings for clear error and an abuse of discretion.” (See Forrest Associates v. Passamaquoddy Tribe (2000) 760 A.2d 1041, 1043 n.1; Maine Shipyard Marine Ry. v. Lilley (2000) ME 9, ¶ 20, 743 A.2d 1264, 1269; Saucier v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1999) ME 197, ¶ 29, 742 A.2d 482, 491 [stating that we will only vacate an evidentiary ruling if the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion].)

“While this motion resembles the more familiar motion to suppress, there is an important distinction: the motion to suppress is grounded in constitutional right. The motion in limine is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge.” (See Gendron v. Pawtucket Mut. Ins. Co. (1979) 409 A.2d 656, 659.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion in Limine

It is well settled that “while an argument that goes to the sufficiency of the evidence might be a proper argument for summary judgment or for judgment as a matter of law, it is not a proper basis for a motion to exclude evidence prior to trial.” (See Mid-America Tablewares, Inc. v. Mogi Trading Co. (1996) 100 F.3d 1353,1363; Luongo v. Luongo, No. CV-2017-037, at *2 (Me. Super. May 10, 2022).)

As such, it is also well settled that “a motion in limine should not be used to resolve factual disputes or weigh evidence. [S]eeking what amounts to a pretrial resolution of a disputed factual issue .... is not the appropriate function of a motion in limine…” (See id; C&E Servs., Inc. v. Ashland, Inc. (2008) 539 F.Supp.2d 316, 323; Masello v. Stanley Works, Inc. (2011) 825 F.: Supp. 2d 308, 314 n.6.)