observing that “[t]he three factors . . . are joined with the conjunctive ‘and,’ meaning they all must be present . . . .” (quotations and citation omitted)
How later courts described this case
- observing that “[t]he three factors . . . are joined with the conjunctive ‘and,’ meaning they all must be present . . . .” (quotations and citation omitted)
- a pre-trial “ruling is subject to change when the case unfolds. … Indeed even if nothing unexpected happens at trial, the [trial] judge is free, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, to alter a previous in limine ruling.”
- “The three factors ... are joined with the conjunctive ‘and,’ meaning they all must be present..,.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice KETCHUM,
concurring:
I totally agree with the excellent majority opinion. I write to emphasize that our recently amended Rules of Evidence not only discourage the use of motions in limine, but recognize that many of the motions that are filed are frivolous and a waste of judicial resources. The comment to Rule 103 of the new Rules of Evidence [2014] states:
Motions in limine on legal issues presented in a vacuum are often frivolous. Boilerplate, generalized objections in motions in limine are inadequate and tantamount to not making any objection at all and will not preserve errqr. For example, a motion that simply asks the trial court to prohibit the adverse party from presenting, hearsay evidence or mentioning insurance at trial is a waste of judicial resources. Generally, a motion in limine should not be filed (or granted) until the trial court has been given adequate context, and the evidence is sufficient to permit the trial court to make an informed ruling.
DAVIS, Justice, joined by BENJAMIN, Justice, dissenting: