Motion,Ex Parte: WILLIAMS -V- WILSON Print

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                ________




 1   McClaugherty & Associates
     Jay S. McClaugherty (State Bar No. 99063)                             ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Auto)
 2   Email: jay.rncclaugherty(mcctria1s.com                                SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
     Hayden T. Traver (State Bar No. 317428)                               COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
 3   Email: hayden.traver@mcctrials.com                                    11/29/2023 4:30 PM
     222 East Huntington Drive, Suite 230
 4   Monrovia, California 91016
     TeLephone: (626) 82 1-1 100
 5   Fax: (626) 821-2626

 6   Attorneys for Defendant
     MARICLARE MALDONADO
 7

 8                   SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 9            FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO                      -   CENTRAL DISTRICT

10

11   BARBARA WILLIAMS, an individual,               Case No.: C1VDS2002655
                                                    [Unlimited Jurisdiction]
12                     Plaintiff,
                                                    DEFENDANT MARICLARE MALDONADO’S
13                     v.                           MOTION IN LIMINE NO. TWO TO
                                                    EXCLUDE EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFF’S
14   TROY WILSON; MARICLARE                         DAUGHTER IS DECEASED
     MALDONADO; and DOES 1 through 100,
15   Inclusive,                                     Trial:
                                                    Date: December 11, 2023
16                      Defendants.                 Time: 10:00 a.m.
                                                    Dept.: S37
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




                                                     —1—
                                      DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2
 1   TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
 2          Defendant MARICLARE MALDONADO (‘Defendant”) hereby moves this court in
 3   lirnine, and before selection of the jury, for an order instructing Plaintiff BARI3ARA WILLIAMS
 4   (“Plaintiff’) not to present any evidence or testimony regarding the deaths of her two daughters.
 5   This evidence should be excluded as irrelevant under California Evidence Code Section 210, and
 6   as more prejudicial than probative under California Evidence Code 352.
 7                       MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES:

 8                                                     i.

 9                                          STATEMENT OF FACTS

10          This case arises out of a motor-vehicle collision on March 13, 2018. Plaintiff testified that

11   her daughter was murdered in November 2020. (See Declaration of Hayden T. Traver, hereafter

12   TraverDecl.J3).

13                                                    II.

14                                ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES

15   A.     Evidence of Plaintiffs Daughter’s Death is Irrelevant

16          Relevant evidence means evidence having reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact

17   that is of consequence in the determination of the action. Cal. Evid. Code §210.

18          This is a vehicle collision case. Evidence that Plaintiffs daughter is deceased, or was

19   murdered, does not prove or disprove any disputed fact in this case. This The Court should

20   exclude this evidence as irrelevant.

21   B.     Evidence of Plaintiffs Daughter’s Death is More Prejudicial than Probative

22          California Evidence Code 352 allows a Court to “exclude evidence if its probative value is

23   substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will: (a) necessitate undue

24   consumption of time; or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues,

25   or misleading the jury.” People v. Cardenas (1982) 31 Cal.3d 897, 904; People v. Sanders (1995)

26   11 Cal.App.4th 475, 514; and People v. Wagner (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 473, 481.

27          There is no probative value to evidence of Plaintiffs daughter’s death. Conversely, there

28   is significant prejudice from this evidence. The jury will very likely sympathize with Plaintiff
                                                     -2-
                                       DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2