State Court Motion in Limine - Hawaii

MOTION IN LIMINE

(State of Hawai'i — Circuit Court)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Notice of Hearing
3. Introduction
4. Specific Evidence Sought to Be Excluded (Grounds)
5. Legal Standard
6. Request to Instruct Counsel and Admonish Witnesses
7. Conclusion
8. Declaration of Counsel
9. Certificate of Service
10. Proposed Order

1. CAPTION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE [________________] CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAI'I

(Nature of Action: [________________])

Hearing Date: [__/__/____]
Hearing Time: [____]
Courtroom: [________________]
Judge: Hon. [________________]
Courthouse: [________________]

2. NOTICE OF HEARING

TO: ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the foregoing Motion in Limine will be heard before the Honorable [Judge Name] on [__/__/____] at [____] a.m./p.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, in Courtroom [________________], [Courthouse Address, City, Hawai'i].

IF YOU INTEND TO OPPOSE THIS MOTION, you must file and serve your written opposition in accordance with HRCP Rule 7 and the Rules of the Circuit Courts (RCC). Failure to comply may be deemed a waiver of opposition and the Motion may be granted.

DATED: [________________], Hawai'i, [__/__/____]

______________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME], Esq.
Attorney for [Moving Party]

3. INTRODUCTION

[Moving Party Name] ("Movant"), by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully moves this Court in limine, pursuant to its inherent authority to control the trial and under the Hawai'i Rules of Evidence (HRE), Chapter 626, Hawai'i Revised Statutes, for an Order prohibiting the [opposing party / all parties], their counsel, and their witnesses from offering, mentioning, referring to, or attempting to convey to the jury in any manner the matters identified below, without first obtaining a ruling from the Court outside the presence of the jury.

Each category is irrelevant, inadmissible, or so unfairly prejudicial that its mere mention would deprive Movant of a fair trial, and no curative instruction could undo the harm. This action arises out of [brief description of the case].

4. SPECIFIC EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE EXCLUDED (GROUNDS)

Ground 1 — Irrelevant Evidence and Evidence Whose Prejudice Substantially Outweighs Probative Value.
Movant moves to exclude [describe evidence] because it is not relevant within the meaning of HRE 401 and is therefore inadmissible under HRE 402. Alternatively, even if marginally relevant, its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence, and it should be excluded under HRE 403.

Ground 2 — Character Evidence and Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.
Movant moves to exclude [describe evidence] offered to show that a party or witness acted in conformity with a character trait, which is inadmissible under HRE 404(a). Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove propensity under HRE 404(b); to the extent offered for a permitted purpose (motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident), it must still survive HRE 403 balancing.

Ground 3 — Improper Impeachment by Specific Instances or Prior Convictions.
Movant moves to exclude [describe] to the extent offered to attack a witness's character for truthfulness by improper means. See HRE 608 (evidence of character and conduct of witness) and HRE 609 (impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime, including its restrictions).

Ground 4 — Inadmissible Hearsay.
Movant moves to exclude [describe statement(s)] as inadmissible hearsay under HRE 801 and HRE 802, no exception under HRE 803 or HRE 804 applying.

Ground 5 — Subsequent Remedial Measures.
Movant moves to exclude evidence of [describe repair, design change, policy change, or other measure] taken after the event at issue. Such evidence is inadmissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct under HRE 407.

Ground 6 — Compromise, Offers to Compromise, and Mediation Proceedings.
Movant moves to exclude evidence of [describe settlement discussions / offers / mediation communications]. Such evidence is not admissible to prove liability for or the amount of a disputed claim under HRE 408.

Ground 7 — Expressions of Sympathy and Condolence.
Movant moves to exclude [describe] statements or gestures expressing sympathy, commiseration, or condolence concerning the consequences of the event at issue, which are inadmissible to prove liability under HRE 409.5.

Ground 8 — Liability Insurance.
Movant moves to exclude any reference to whether a party was or was not insured against liability. Evidence of liability insurance is not admissible on the issue of whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully under HRE 411.

Ground 9 — Unreliable Expert Testimony.
Movant moves to exclude the opinions of [expert name] because they fail the requirements of HRE 702. Hawai'i applies a relevance-and-reliability standard under HRE 702 (a Daubert-influenced approach, not the rigid federal Daubert test): the rule provides that, in determining whether expert testimony will assist the trier of fact, "the court may consider the trustworthiness and validity of the scientific technique or mode of analysis employed by the proffered expert." HRE 702. To be admitted, expert testimony must be (1) relevant and (2) reliable; the witness must be qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, and the analysis must meet a threshold level of reliability and trustworthiness. See State v. Vliet, 95 Hawai'i 94 (2001); State v. Metcalfe, 129 Hawai'i 206 (2013). The opinions here should be excluded because [no reliable methodology / not trustworthy or valid / expert unqualified / not relevant].

Ground 10 — "Golden Rule" Argument and Appeals to Sympathy, Passion, or Prejudice.
Movant moves to prohibit counsel from asking jurors to place themselves in the position of a party ("Golden Rule" argument) and from any argument calculated to inflame the jury's passion, sympathy, or prejudice. Such argument is improper and excludable under HRE 403.

Ground 11 — [Additional Case-Specific Ground].
Movant moves to exclude [describe] for the reasons that [state grounds and cite authority].

5. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion in limine permits a party to obtain a pretrial ruling on the admissibility of evidence so that the jury is not exposed to potentially prejudicial matter before the court can rule. The trial court has broad discretion to grant the motion and to control the presentation of evidence.

Relevance. Only relevant evidence is admissible. HRE 402. "Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. HRE 401.

Unfair Prejudice (Rule 403). Under HRE 403, "[a]lthough 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."

Character and Other Acts (Rule 404). Character evidence is not admissible to prove conduct in conformity therewith, and other-acts evidence is not admissible to prove propensity, though it may be admissible for a non-propensity purpose subject to Rule 403 balancing. HRE 404.

Expert Reliability (Rule 702). Hawai'i requires that expert testimony be both relevant and reliable; in assessing assistance to the trier of fact, the court may consider "the trustworthiness and validity of the scientific technique or mode of analysis." HRE 702. Hawai'i has not adopted the rigid federal Daubert test, but its reliability inquiry is Daubert-influenced. See State v. Vliet; State v. Metcalfe.

Settlement, Insurance, Sympathy, and Remedial Measures. Evidence of subsequent remedial measures (HRE 407), compromise and mediation (HRE 408), expressions of sympathy (HRE 409.5), and liability insurance (HRE 411) is inadmissible for the prohibited purposes stated in those rules.

6. REQUEST TO INSTRUCT COUNSEL AND ADMONISH WITNESSES

Movant further requests that the Court direct opposing counsel, before the jury is brought in, to:

☐ Refrain from offering, mentioning, or alluding to the excluded matters in any manner — including in voir dire, opening statement, examination of witnesses, argument, or closing — without first approaching the bench and obtaining a ruling outside the presence of the jury;
☐ Instruct and admonish each of their witnesses, before the witness testifies, not to volunteer, mention, or refer to any excluded matter; and
☐ Treat any violation of the Court's Order as a basis for sanctions, a curative instruction, or a mistrial as the Court deems appropriate.

7. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Movant respectfully requests that the Court:

1. GRANT this Motion in Limine and exclude the categories of evidence identified above;
2. DIRECT counsel and witnesses to comply with the Order and refrain from any reference to the excluded matters before the jury; and
3. GRANT such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

8. DECLARATION OF COUNSEL

I, [________________], declare as follows:

1. I am counsel for Movant in this action and am competent to testify to the matters stated herein.
2. The facts set forth in the foregoing Motion are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
3. [If required by RCC: I have conferred or attempted in good faith to confer with opposing counsel regarding the relief sought.]

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

DATED: [________________], Hawai'i, [__/__/____].

______________________________
[DECLARANT NAME], Esq.
Attorney for [Moving Party]

9. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was duly served electronically through JEFS (or by U.S. Mail, first-class, postage pre-paid, if the receiving party is not JEFS-registered) upon all counsel of record on this ______ day of ________________, 20____.

[Opposing Counsel Name]
[Firm Name]
[Address]
[City, State ZIP]
[Email]

______________________________
[Attorney Name], Esq.
[Hawai'i Bar No. ________________]

10. PROPOSED ORDER

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE [________________] CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAI'I

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON MOTION IN LIMINE

The Court, having considered [Moving Party]'s Motion in Limine, the memoranda and declarations on file, and the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED [in whole / in part] as follows:

1. The following evidence, testimony, argument, and reference is EXCLUDED: [________________________________].
2. Counsel for all parties shall INSTRUCT and ADMONISH their witnesses not to mention, refer to, or volunteer any excluded matter.
3. No party, attorney, or witness shall offer, mention, or allude to any excluded matter in the presence of the jury without first obtaining leave of Court outside the jury's presence.

DATED: [________________], Hawai'i, ________________, 20____.

______________________________
Judge of the above-entitled Court

Sources and References

• HRE 401–411 (Relevancy and its limits), Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 626: https://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/title-33/chapter-626/
• HRE 702 — Testimony by experts: https://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/title-33/chapter-626/rule-702/
• HRE 409.5 — Expressions of sympathy and condolence: https://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/title-33/chapter-626/
• State v. Vliet, 95 Hawai'i 94, 19 P.3d 42 (2001) — HRE 702 relevance/reliability for expert evidence.
• State v. Metcalfe, 129 Hawai'i 206, 297 P.3d 1062 (2013) — three-part HRE 702 framework.
• Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) and Rules of the Circuit Courts (RCC): https://www.courts.state.hi.us/