State Court Motion in Limine - Idaho

MOTION IN LIMINE

(State of Idaho — District Court)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Notice of Motion and 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. Certificate of Service
9. Exhibit A — Proposed Order

1. CAPTION

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE [________________] JUDICIAL DISTRICT
OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF [________________]

Hearing Date: [__/__/____]
Hearing Time: [____]
Hearing Place: [________________]
Judge: Hon. [________________]
Oral Argument: ☐ Requested ☐ Not Requested

2. NOTICE OF MOTION AND HEARING

TO: [OPPOSING COUNSEL OF RECORD] AND TO THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on [__/__/____] at [____], or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at [Courthouse Address / Courtroom / Zoom Link], before the Honorable [Judge Name], [Moving Party Name] ("Movant") will, and hereby does, move this Court in limine 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 described below, without first obtaining a ruling from the Court outside the presence of the jury.

This Motion is based on this Notice, the accompanying grounds and authorities, the pleadings and records on file, any matters of which the Court may take judicial notice, and such argument and evidence as may be presented at the hearing.

DATED: [__/__/____]

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: ______________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]
[IDAHO STATE BAR NO. ________________]
[FIRM ADDRESS]
[CITY, STATE ZIP]
[TELEPHONE] | [EMAIL]
Attorneys for [Moving Party]

3. INTRODUCTION

Movant respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to its inherent authority to control the conduct of trial and under the Idaho Rules of Evidence (I.R.E.), for an Order in limine excluding the categories of evidence, testimony, argument, and reference identified below. 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 resulting 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 I.R.E. 401 and is therefore inadmissible under I.R.E. 402. Alternatively, even if marginally relevant, its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence, and it should be excluded under I.R.E. 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 I.R.E. 404(a). Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove propensity under I.R.E. 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 I.R.E. 403 balancing and any applicable notice requirement.

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 I.R.E. 608 (a witness's character for truthfulness or untruthfulness) and I.R.E. 609 (impeachment by evidence of a criminal conviction, including its limitations).

Ground 4 — Inadmissible Hearsay.
Movant moves to exclude [describe statement(s)] as inadmissible hearsay under I.R.E. 801 and I.R.E. 802, no exception under I.R.E. 803 or I.R.E. 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, culpable conduct, a defect, or a need for a warning or instruction under I.R.E. 407.

Ground 6 — Compromise Offers and Negotiations.
Movant moves to exclude evidence of [describe settlement discussions / offers]. Such evidence is not admissible to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim under I.R.E. 408.

Ground 7 — 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 to prove whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully under I.R.E. 411.

Ground 8 — Unreliable Expert Testimony.
Movant moves to exclude the opinions of [expert name] because they fail the requirements of I.R.E. 702. Idaho applies its own Rule 702 reliability/relevance standard — Idaho has not formally adopted the federal Daubert test, and it does not follow Frye: under I.R.E. 702, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may give expert testimony only if it will assist the trier of fact, and the trial court evaluates whether the underlying principles and methodology are reliable and reliably applied. Idaho courts may look to Daubert factors (testing, peer review, error rate, general acceptance) as persuasive but non-binding guidance. See State v. Parkinson, 128 Idaho 29 (Ct. App. 1996). The opinions here should be excluded because [no reliable methodology / speculative or conjectural / expert unqualified / will not assist the trier of fact].

Ground 9 — "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 I.R.E. 403.

Ground 10 — [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. I.R.E. 402. Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. I.R.E. 401.

Unfair Prejudice (Rule 403). Under I.R.E. 403, the court may exclude relevant evidence "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting 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. I.R.E. 404.

Expert Reliability (Rule 702). Idaho applies its own I.R.E. 702 standard. The trial court acts as a gatekeeper to ensure expert testimony rests on a reliable foundation and will assist the trier of fact; evidence resting on speculation or conjecture must be excluded. Idaho has not formally adopted Daubert and does not follow Frye, although Daubert factors may be considered as persuasive guidance. See State v. Parkinson.

Settlement, Insurance, and Remedial Measures. Evidence of subsequent remedial measures (I.R.E. 407), compromise (I.R.E. 408), and liability insurance (I.R.E. 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

WHEREFORE, Movant respectfully requests that this Court:

1. GRANT this Motion in Limine and enter the Proposed Order attached as Exhibit A, excluding 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.

DATED: [__/__/____]

______________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]
[Idaho State Bar No. ________________]
Attorney for [Moving Party]

8. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on [__/__/____], I electronically filed the foregoing MOTION IN LIMINE with the Clerk of the Court using the iCourt E-Filing system, which served a true and correct copy upon the following counsel of record:

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

______________________________
[Attorney Name]
[Idaho State Bar No. ________________]

EXHIBIT A — PROPOSED ORDER

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE [________________] JUDICIAL DISTRICT
OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF [________________]

ORDER ON MOTION IN LIMINE

The Court, having reviewed [Moving Party]'s Motion in Limine, any response thereto, and the arguments of counsel, and being fully advised in the premises, hereby ORDERS 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ______ day of ________________, 20____

______________________________
DISTRICT JUDGE

Sources and References

• Idaho Rules of Evidence (I.R.E.), Article IV (Relevancy) and Article VII (Expert Testimony): https://isc.idaho.gov/rules-procedure/ire
• I.R.E. 403 — Excluding relevant evidence for prejudice, confusion, or waste of time.
• I.R.E. 404 — Character evidence; other crimes, wrongs, or acts.
• I.R.E. 702 — Testimony by expert witnesses: https://isc.idaho.gov/ire702
• State v. Parkinson, 128 Idaho 29, 909 P.2d 647 (Ct. App. 1996) — reliability of scientific/expert evidence; discussion of Daubert factors as guidance.
• Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure (I.R.C.P.): https://isc.idaho.gov/rules-procedure/irc