Motion in Limine in Vermont

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion in Limine

“The whole reason for a motion in limine is to resolve disputed evidentiary issues before trial.” (See Billings v. Billings, SR (2011) Vt. 116.)

“The trial court grants a motion in limine in general terms, such that the scope must be fleshed out by specific rulings on questions at trial.” (See id.)

“An order in limine bars questioning of witnesses regarding [inadmissible] evidence and safeguards against the prejudicial impact resulting from asking questions and making objections before the jury regarding inadmissible evidence.” (See Turner v. Burlington (2009) 186 Vt. 396, 407.)

"Once the court makes a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal." (See V.R.E. 103(a)(2); State v. Ladue (2017) 168 A.3d 430, 434 n.1.)

“But when the trial court makes only a preliminary ruling denying the defendant's motion in limine to exclude the testimony, then a defendant must object to the testimony at trial when it is presented.” (See id.)

“The motion in limine is an important way to resolve issues prior to trial.” (See State v. Blair (1990) 155 Vt. 271, 278.)

Usefulness of a Motion in Limine

“A motion in limine is a useful device for limiting the issues and evidence prior to trial where that is possible.” (See 1 Weinstein's Evidence sub. sec. 103[02] [motions in limine may prevent disruptions at trial which could render the proceedings incoherent to the jurors, and generally help the trial judge manage the progress of a trial]; Rothblatt Leroy, The Motion in Limine in Criminal Trials: A Technique for the Pretrial Exclusion of Prejudicial Evidence, 60 Ky. L.J. 611, 613-19 (1972).)

“However, [t]he motion should be used, if used at all, as a rifle and not as a shotgun . . . ." (See Lewis v. Buena Vista Mutual Ins. Ass'n (1971) 183 N.W.2d 198, 201; see also Schichtl v. Slack (1987) 293 Ark. 281, 285, 737 S.W.2d 628, 630 [motions in limine are not to be used as a sweeping means of testing issues of law].)

“It is often impossible to make definitive evidentiary rulings prior to trial because admissibility will depend on the state of the evidence at the time of the ruling.” (See America Home Assur. Co. v. Sunshine Supermarket, Inc. (1985) 753 F.2d 321, 324-25.)

“For the above reasons, the denial of a motion in limine is appropriate when the trial court can conceive of a set of circumstances that would make the evidence admissible.” (See State v. Dubois (1988) 150 Vt. 600, 602.)

“Such denial does not, of course, mean that the evidence is admissible.” (See id.)

“If the evidence is offered during the course of the trial, the party seeking exclusion of the evidence may object at that time.” (See id.)

“Only in the clearest cases of abuse of discretion — where nothing that could happen in the trial could be relevant to the evidentiary issue involved — would we reverse the denial of a motion in limine that sought the exclusion of evidence.” (See State v. Dubois (1988) 150 Vt. 600, 602.)

“Thus, denial of a motion in limine rarely imposes a hardship on the requesting party.” (See Rojas v. Richardson (1983) 703 F.2d 186, 188.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion in Limine

“A trial court has broad discretion in its pretrial evidentiary rulings.” (See Ball v. Melsur Corp. (1993) 161 Vt. 35, 42, 633 A.2d 705, 711.)

“The trial court has broad discretion to exclude marginally relevant evidence that is remote, tends to confuse the issues or causes a waste of time.” (See V.R.E. 403; LaBrie v. Phillips (1988) 150 Vt. 652, 653, 553 A.2d 149, 150; Contractor's Crane Serv. Inc. v. Vermont Whey Abatement Auth. (1986) 147 Vt. 441, 450, 519 A.2d 1166, 1173; In re Letourneau (1998) 168 Vt. 539, 554.)

“We will affirm its rulings absent a showing that the court has withheld or abused its discretion on clearly untenable or unreasonable grounds.” (See Lamb v. Geovjian (1996) 165 Vt. 375, 379.)

“The burden of showing abuse is a heavy one.” (See Fagnant v. Foss (2013) Vt. 16.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion in Limine

It is well settled that “where a plaintiff refuses to proceed with trial following a [trial] court's unfavorable ruling on a request for continuance or in limine motion, . . . a [trial] court has no real choice but to dismiss the case.” (See Cegalis v. Knutsen, No. 22-AP-280, at *4 (Vt. May 5, 2023).)

It is also well settled that “a mistrial can be an appropriate remedy for a violation of an order made in response to a motion in limine. Further, the court has inherent power to sanction a party to protect the integrity of the judicial system." (See Turner v. Burlington (2009) 186 Vt. 396, 405.)