Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence or Reference in Connecticut

What Is a Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence or Reference?

Background

Practice Book § 15-3 provides:

“The judicial authority to whom a case has been assigned for trial may in its discretion entertain a motion in limine made by any party regarding the admission or exclusion of anticipated evidence.”

(Sheiman v. Sheiman (2002) 72 Conn. App. 193, 201 n.6 quoting Practice Book § 15-3.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“If a case has not yet been assigned for trial, a judicial authority may, for good cause shown, entertain the motion. Such motion shall be in writing and shall describe the anticipated evidence and the prejudice which may result therefrom. All interested parties shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard regarding the motion and the relief requested. The judicial authority may grant the relief sought in the motion or such other relief as it may deem appropriate, may deny the motion with or without prejudice to its later renewal, or may reserve decision thereon until a later time in the proceeding.” (Id.)

Relevancy of Evidence

“‘Relevant evidence is evidence which has a logical tendency to aid the trier of fact in the determination of an issue.” (Borkowski v. Sacheti (1996) 43 Conn. App. 294, 321 citing Pitt v. Kent (1962) 149 Conn. 351, 357; Allen v. Nissley (1981) 184 Conn. 539, 545, quoting Berndston v. Annino (1979) 177 Conn. 41, 43; see Plumb v. Curtis (1895) 66 Conn. 154, 166.)

“No precise and universal test of relevancy is furnished by the law, and the question must be determined in each case according to the teachings of reason and judicial experience....” (Borkowski v. Sacheti (1996) 43 Conn. App. 294, 321 citing State v. Echols (1987) 203 Conn. 385, 393 quoting State v. Towles (1987) 155 Conn. 516, 523.)

“It has been said that ‘[o]ne fact is relevant to another if in the common course of events the existence of one, alone or with other facts, renders the existence of the other either more certain or more probable....’” (Borkowski v. Sacheti (1996) 43 Conn. App. 294, 321 citing Allen v. Nissley, supra, 184 Conn. 545, quoting Berndston v. Annino, supra, 177 Conn. 43.)

Exclusion of Expert Opinion

“The decision to preclude a party from introducing expert testimony is within the discretion of the trial court.” (Amsden v. Fischer (2001) 62 Conn. App. 323, 325-26 citing Sturdivant v. Yale-New Haven Hospital (1984) 2 Conn. App. 103, 107.) On appeal, that decision is subject only to the test of abuse of discretion. (Kemp v. Ellington Purchasing Corporation (1986) 9 Conn. App. 400, 405.) The salient inquiry is whether the court could have reasonably concluded as it did. (Sturdivant v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, supra, 108; Yale University School of Medicine v. McCarthy (1992) 26 Conn. App. 497, 500-501.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

Appellate Courts review the trial court's ruling on a motion to preclude evidence pursuant to an abuse of discretion standard. (Bligh v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co. (2015) 154 Conn. App. 564, 577 citing Otwell v. Bulduc (2003) 76 Conn.App. 775, 777.) Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is material to the determination of the proceeding more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” (Bligh, id., citing Conn.Code Evid. § 4–1.)

“[T]he trial court has broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility ... of evidence.... [The reviewing Court] will make every reasonable presumption in favor of upholding the trial court's ruling, and ... evidentiary rulings will be overturned on appeal only where there was an abuse of discretion and a showing by the defendant of a substantial prejudice or injustice.” (Sheiman v. Sheiman (2002) 72 Conn. App. 193, 201 citing Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Caldrello (2002) 68 Conn. App. 68, 76-77.)

The Court’s Decision

“[A]ny fact may be proved which logically tends to aid the trier in the determination of the issue.” Litvaitis v. Litvaitis (1972) 162 Conn. 540, 548.) “‘Unless excluded by some rule or principle of law, any fact may be proved which logically tends to aid the trier in the determination of the issue.” Plumb v. Curtis, supra, 66 Conn. 166; Pitt v. Kent, supra, 149 Conn. 357; Burns v. Gould (1977) 172 Conn. 210, 214.)

On the other hand, “a court has the discretion to exclude relevant evidence where it is more prejudicial than probative.” (See Batick v. Seymour (1982) 186 Conn. 632, 637; cf., e.g., Thibodeau v. Connecticut Co. (1952) 139 Conn. 9, 14.)

Documents for Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence or Reference in Connecticut

Sort By

ROTHMAN, LISA v. RED LOBSTER RESTAURANTS LLC document preview

MOTION IN LIMINE as to department of health

7 pages

DOCKET NO: DBD-CV22-6042624-S : SUPERIOR COURT LISA ROTHMAN : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY VS. : AT DANBURY RED LOBSTER RESTAURANTS LLC : APRIL 22, 2024 MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE REFERENCES TO DEPARTME…