Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence or Reference in Michigan

Background

A motion in limine is “[a] motion, heard in advance of jury selection, which asks the court to instruct the defendant, its counsel and witnesses not to mention certain facts unless and until permission of the court is first obtained outside the presence and hearing of the jury.... ‘If prejudicial matters are brought before the jury, no amount of objection or instruction can remove the harmful effect, and the plaintiff is powerless unless he wants to forego his chance of a trial and ask for a mistrial. Once the question is asked, the harm is done. Under the harmless error rule many of these matters would probably not be reversible error even though they have a subtle but devastating effect upon the plaintiff's case.’” (Lapasinskas v. Quick (1969) 17 Mich. App. 733, 738 n.1 [internal citation omitted].)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“[P]ursuant to MRE 403 provides:

‘Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.’”

(Fremont Ins. Co. v. Gro-Green Farms, Inc., No. 324075, at *5-6 [Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2016] citing MRE 403.)

“MRE 401 defines ‘relevant evidence’ as ‘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.’” (Wells Fargo Vendor Fin. Servs. v. Word Network Operating Co., No. 348998, at *13 n.5 [Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 22, 2020].)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.... An abuse of discretion is found only if an unprejudiced person, considering the facts on which the trial court acted, would say there is no justification or excuse for the ruling made.” (Thompson v. Thompson (2004) 261 Mich. App. 353, 355 [finding that“the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to limit the evidence regarding the children's custody to those incidences, occurrences, or events that took place after the entry of the temporary custody order.”]; see also Ellsworth v. Hotel Corp. of America (1999) 236 Mich. App. 185, 188.)

The Court’s Decision

“Perhaps the greatest single advantage to a motion in limine is not having to object in the jury's presence to evidence which is ‘logically relevant.’ Jurors cannot be expected to understand why they should not be allowed to consider all evidence which is related to the case, and will usually resent the fact that an objection kept them from hearing it.” (Lapasinskas v. Quick (1969) 17 Mich. App. 733, 738 n.1 quoting Davis, Motions in Limine, 15 Clev-Mar L Rev. 255, 256 [1966].)

“Evidence is not inadmissible simply because it is prejudicial. Clearly, in every case, each party attempts to introduce evidence that causes prejudice to the other party.” (Fremont Ins. Co., supra, id., citing Waknin v Chamberlain (2002) 467 Mich 329, 334.)