Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence or Reference in Washington

Background

“A motion in limine presents an opportunity for the trial [court] to rule on admissibility of evidence.” (See Reinert v. Heller, No. 37081-0-III, at *44 (Wash. Ct. App. Sep. 14, 2021).)

“Further, a motion in limine is intended to avoid the requirement that counsel object to contested evidence when it is offered during trial.” (See Peterson v. J.B. Hunt Tranpt (2006) 133 Wn. App. 1043.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“Unless the trial court indicates that further objections are required, a ruling on a motion in limine is final and the party losing the motion has a standing objection and need not object at trial in order to preserve the issue for review.” (See Garcia v. Providence Medical Center (1991) 60 Wn. App. 635.)

“Although one purpose of the motion in limine is judicial efficiency, the denial of a motion to exclude evidence is not in all circumstances a binding declaration that all such evidence is admissible, immune from further review during trial.” (See Harris v. Masters (2006) 134 Wn. App. 1053.)

“This is particularly so when the scope and purpose of the evidence cannot be determined pretrial.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“A motion in limine is addressed to the discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only in the event of abuse of discretion.” (See Fenimore v. Donald M. Drake Constr. Co. (1976) 87 Wn.2d 85, 91, 549 P.2d 483; Garcia v. Providence Medical Center (1991) 60 Wn. App. 635, 642.)

“Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Only ‘minimal logical relevancy’ is required.” (See Dahlquist v. City of Kent, No. 51796-1-I, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2004).)

“A motion in limine should be granted if the evidence objected to is clearly inadmissible.” (See Saltzberg v. Chuckanut Capital, LLC, 7 Wn. App. 2d 1035 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “ER 403 permits the court to exclude relevant evidence where unduly prejudicial.” (See King v. Olympic Pipe Line (2000) 104 Wn. App. 338, 356.)

It is well settled that “relevant evidence is evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” (See Sisley v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 (2012) 286 P.3d 974, 977.)