“The purpose of a motion in limine is to prevent disclosure of potentially prejudicial matter to the jury.” (See State v. Floyd (1988) 295 S.C. 518, 520; Lagenour v. State (1978) 268 Ind. 441, 376 N.E.2d 475; State v. Johnson (1971) 183 N.W.2d 194.)
“A ruling on the motion is not the ultimate disposition on the admissibility of evidence. It remains subject to change based upon developments during trial.” (See id.)
“The Supreme Court has indicated that even where a motion in limine is granted, it is not the final ruling on the admissibility of the evidence.” (See id; S.C. Dept. High. Pub. Transp. v. Galbreath (1993) 315 S.C. 82, 84 n.2.)
“Making a motion in limine to exclude evidence at the beginning of trial does not preserve an issue for review because a motion in limine is not a final determination.” (See Samples v. Mitchell (1997) 329 S.C. 105, 108.)
“The moving party, therefore, must make a contemporaneous objection when the evidence is introduced.” (See id; State v. Simpson (1996) 325 S.C. 37, 479 S.E.2d 57.)
“Importantly, we review a trial court's evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.” (See State v. Cross (2019) 427 S.C. 465, 485.)
“The trial [court] has considerable latitude in ruling on the admissibility of evidence and [it]s decision should not be disturbed absent prejudicial abuse of discretion." (See State v. Woods, Appellate No. 2017-000775, at *3 (S.C. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2021); State v. Clasby (2009) 385 S.C. 148, 154, 682 S.E.2d 892, 895.)
"An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law or, when grounded in factual conclusions, is without evidentiary support." (See State v. Woods, Appellate No. 2017-000775, at *3 (S.C. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2021); State v. Black (2012) 400 S.C. 10, 16, 732 S.E.2d 880, 884; State v. Jennings (2011) 394 S.C. 473, 477-78, 716 S.E.2d 91, 93.)
“To be preserved for appellate review, an issue must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court.” (See State v. Woods, Appellate No. 2017-000775, at *3 (S.C. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2021); State v. Dunbar (2003) 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 [an issue that was not preserved for review should not be addressed by the Court of Appeals…]; State v. Floyd (1988) 295 S.C. 518, 520, 369 S.E.2d 842, 843 [rulings in limine do not constitute final determinations on admissibility of evidence].)
It is well settled that “generally, a motion in limine seeks a pretrial ruling preventing the disclosure of potentially prejudicial matter to the jury. A ruling on the pre-trial motion is preliminary, and is subject to change based on developments at trial.” (See State v. Floyd (1988) 295 S.C. 518, 369 S.E.2d 842; State v. Mueller (1995) 319 S.C. 266, 268.)
As such it is also well settled that "making a motion in limine to exclude evidence at the beginning of trial does not preserve an issue for review because a motion in limine is not a final determination. The moving party, therefore, must make a contemporaneous objection when the evidence is introduced." (See Watson v. Chapman (2000) 343 S.C. 471, 481; Samples v. Mitchell (1997) 329 S.C. 105, 108, 495 S.E.2d 213, 215.) "Because the evidence developed during trial may warrant a change in the ruling, the losing party must renew his objection at trial when the evidence is presented in order to preserve the issue for appeal.” (See State v. Mueller (1995) 319 S.C. 266, 268.)
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
