Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence or Reference in Ohio

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

Background

“A motion in limine is commonly used as a tentative, precautionary request to limit inquiry into a specific area until its admissibility is determined during trial.” (Gable v. Village of Gates Mills (2004) 103 Ohio St. 3d 449, 456 citing Riverside Methodist Hosp. Assn. v. Guthrie (1982) 3 Ohio App.3d 308, 310; see, also, State v. Grubb (1986) 28 Ohio St.3d 199, 201-202.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“As a tentative, interlocutory, precautionary ruling, ‘[...] finality does not attach when the motion is granted.’” (Id. at 202.) “‘By its very nature, [...] its grant cannot be error. It is not a ruling on evidence. It adds a procedural step prior to the offer of evidence.’” (Gable v. Village of Gates Mills (2004) 103 Ohio St. 3d 449, 456 [internal citations omitted] citing State v. Maurer (1984) 15 Ohio St.3d 239, 259.)

As such, “‘[...]the ruling [o]n a motion in limine does not preserve the record on appeal[;] ... [a]n appellate court need not review the propriety of such an order unless the claimed error is preserved by [a timely objection] ... when the issue is actually reached [during the] ... trial.’” (Gable v. Village of Gates Mills (2004) 103 Ohio St. 3d 449, 456 [internal citations omitted].)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to admit or exclude evidence. Absent an abuse of discretion that materially prejudices a party, the trial court's decision will stand.” (Davis v. Goodwill Industries of Miami Valley, 2009 Ohio 6133, 21 [Ohio Ct. App. 2009] quoting Krischbaum v. Dillon (1991) 58 Ohio St.3d 58, 66; accord, Banford v. Aldrich Chem. Co. (2008) 180 Ohio App.3d 107, 135, 2008-Ohio-6837, at ¶ 128.)

“An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court ‘makes a decision that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.’” (Davis, id., citing Huntington Natl. Bank v. Burch (2004) 157 Ohio App.3d 71, 2004-Ohio-2046, at ¶ 14, citing Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983) 5 Ohio St.3d 217.)

The Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court of Ohio, in State v. Grubb (28 Ohio St.3d 199, 201 (1986)] defined a motion in limine as ‘a precautionary request, directed to the inherent discretion of the trial judge, to limit the examination of witnesses by opposing counsel in a specified area until its admissibility is determined by the court outside the presence of the jury.’” (Gollihue v. Consol. Rail Corp. (1997) 120 Ohio App. 3d 378, 388 citing id.)

“With respect to a party's ability to appeal the admissibility of evidence subject to a ruling on a motion in limine, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held: ‘At trial it is incumbent upon a [party], who has been temporarily restricted from introducing evidence by virtue of a motion in limine, to seek the introduction of the evidence by proffer or otherwise in order to enable the court to make a final determination as to its admissibility and to preserve any objection on the record for purposes of appeal.’” (Estate of Beavers v. Knapp (2008) 175 Ohio App. 3d 758, 787 quoting State v. Grubb (1986) 28 Ohio St.3d 199, 28 OBR 285, 503 N.E.2d 142, paragraph two of the syllabus.)