State Court Motion in Limine - Missouri

MOTION IN LIMINE AND SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT

(State of Missouri — Circuit Court of [________________] County, [________________] Judicial Circuit)

TEMPLATE INSTRUCTIONS

☐ Replace every bracketed placeholder with case-specific information
☐ Confirm whether § 490.065(2) (Daubert) or § 490.065(1) applies to your action before drafting the expert-exclusion ground
☐ Cite Missouri common-law relevance/prejudice authority (there is no codified "Rule 403")
☐ Renew each objection at trial — a ruling on this motion preserves nothing by itself
☐ Remove all template instructions and guidance notes before filing

1. CAPTION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF [________________] COUNTY, MISSOURI
[________________] JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

Case No.: [________________]
Division: [____]
Judge: Hon. [________________]
Trial Date: [__/__/____]

2. MOTION IN LIMINE

COMES NOW [Moving Party Name] ("Movant"), by and through undersigned counsel, and respectfully moves this Court, in advance of trial, for an order prohibiting [Opposing Party Name], its counsel, and its witnesses from offering, mentioning, referring to, interrogating concerning, or attempting to convey to the jury in any manner — whether directly or indirectly — any of the matters set forth below, without first approaching the bench and obtaining a ruling outside the presence and hearing of the jury.

In support, Movant states that the matters identified below are inadmissible under Missouri law, and that mere reference to them in the presence of the jury would be so prejudicial that no instruction to disregard could cure the resulting harm. In support of this Motion, Movant submits the following Suggestions in Support.

3. SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT

3.1 Introduction

This case is set for jury trial on [__/__/____]. Movant anticipates that, absent an order in limine, [Opposing Party] will attempt to introduce evidence or argument that is irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, or otherwise inadmissible under Missouri law. The purpose of this Motion is to prevent the injection of such matters into the trial, where their prejudicial effect could not be undone by an objection and instruction after the jury has already heard them.

3.2 Legal Standard

Relevance. Evidence is admissible only if it is logically and legally relevant. Evidence is logically relevant if it tends to make the existence of a material fact more or less probable; it is legally relevant only if its probative value outweighs its costs — unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, undue delay, cumulativeness, or the danger of misleading the jury. The trial court has broad discretion to exclude evidence whose prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value. See Cox v. Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc., 473 S.W.3d 107 (Mo. banc 2015); Williams v. Mercy Clinic Springfield Cmtys., 568 S.W.3d 396 (Mo. banc 2019).

Character and prior acts. Evidence of a person's character or prior bad acts is generally inadmissible to show action in conformity therewith; such evidence is admissible, if at all, only for a proper non-propensity purpose (e.g., motive, intent, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake) and only where its probative value is not outweighed by unfair prejudice.

Subsequent remedial measures. Under settled Missouri law, evidence of repairs, design changes, or other remedial measures taken after an event is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct, though it may be admissible for a limited purpose such as control, feasibility (if controverted), or impeachment.

Settlement and compromise. Evidence of settlement, offers to compromise, or statements made in compromise negotiations is inadmissible to prove liability or the amount of a disputed claim.

Liability insurance. Evidence that a party was or was not insured against liability is inadmissible on the question of whether the party acted negligently or wrongfully.

Expert testimony — § 490.065 (Daubert). Effective August 28, 2017, Missouri adopted the federal Daubert standard. Under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 490.065(2) (applicable to most civil actions), an expert may testify only if (a) the expert is qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education; (b) the testimony will help the trier of fact; (c) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (d) it is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (e) the expert has reliably applied those principles and methods to the facts of the case. The trial court serves as a gatekeeper to exclude unreliable opinion testimony. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); Huett v. Branson, 2023 WL 4566209 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023).

Golden-rule and sympathy argument. Argument that asks jurors to place themselves in a party's position ("golden rule") or that appeals to passion, sympathy, or prejudice rather than the evidence is improper and warrants exclusion.

3.3 Specific Matters To Be Excluded

Ground 1 — Irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial evidence of [________________________________].
This evidence has no tendency to prove any fact of consequence and serves only to inflame the jury. Even if marginally relevant, its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues. It should be excluded.

Ground 2 — Character evidence and prior bad acts of [________________].
[Opposing Party] should be barred from referencing [prior conduct / unrelated acts / reputation] of [Movant / witness], which is inadmissible to show conduct in conformity and is offered for no proper non-propensity purpose.

Ground 3 — Subsequent remedial measures.
[Opposing Party] should be barred from referencing [repairs / design changes / policy changes / disciplinary action] taken after [the event] to prove negligence or culpable conduct.

Ground 4 — Settlement negotiations and offers of compromise.
[Opposing Party] should be barred from referencing any settlement discussions, demands, offers, or statements made in compromise negotiations regarding [________________].

Ground 5 — Liability insurance.
[Opposing Party] should be barred from referencing the existence, absence, or amount of any liability insurance coverage.

Ground 6 — Unreliable expert opinion of [Expert Name].
The opinions of [Expert Name] fail the requirements of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 490.065(2) because [the opinion is not based on sufficient facts or data / is not the product of reliable principles and methods / the methodology was not reliably applied to the facts]. The opinion should be excluded under the Court's gatekeeping role.

Ground 7 — Hearsay statements of [________________].
[Opposing Party] should be barred from offering [out-of-court statement] for the truth of the matter asserted, as it is inadmissible hearsay not within any recognized exception.

Ground 8 — Golden-rule, sympathy, and "send a message" argument.
[Opposing Party]'s counsel should be barred from asking jurors to place themselves in a party's position, or from appealing to passion, sympathy, or community prejudice rather than the evidence.

Ground 9 — [Additional ground: ________________________________].
[State the evidence and the basis for exclusion.]

3.4 Relief Requested

WHEREFORE, Movant respectfully requests that the Court:

1. GRANT this Motion in Limine and enter an order excluding each category of evidence and argument identified above;
2. INSTRUCT counsel for [Opposing Party] to refrain from any direct or indirect reference to the excluded matters in voir dire, opening statement, examination of witnesses, exhibits, or closing argument;
3. DIRECT counsel for [Opposing Party] to admonish and instruct each of its witnesses, before testifying, not to mention, refer to, or volunteer any of the excluded matters in the presence of the jury;
4. REQUIRE that, before any party offers, mentions, or attempts to elicit any excluded matter, counsel first approach the bench and obtain a ruling outside the presence and hearing of the jury; and
5. GRANT such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DATED: [__/__/____]

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: ______________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME], [Mo. Bar No. ________________]
[FIRM ADDRESS] | [CITY, STATE ZIP]
[TELEPHONE] | [EMAIL]
Attorney for [Moving Party]

4. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on [__/__/____], a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served upon all counsel of record via the Missouri eFiling system (Case.net) or as indicated below:

[Opposing Counsel Name] | [Firm] | [Address] | [Email]

Service method: ☐ Missouri eFiling/Case.net ☐ U.S. Mail ☐ Email ☐ Hand delivery

______________________________
[Attorney Name], [Mo. Bar No. ________________]

5. [PROPOSED] ORDER

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF [________________] COUNTY, MISSOURI
[________________] JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

Case No.: [________________] Division: [____]

ORDER ON MOTION IN LIMINE

NOW on this ______ day of ________________, 20____, the Court takes up Movant's Motion in Limine. The Court, having considered the Motion, any response, and the applicable law, ORDERS as follows as to each numbered ground:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall instruct their witnesses to comply with this Order and shall approach the bench before referring to any matter excluded above.

SO ORDERED.

______________________________
Judge, Division [____]

Sources and References

• Mo. Rev. Stat. § 490.065 — Expert witness; admissibility (Daubert standard, eff. Aug. 28, 2017; current text): https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=490.065
• Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)
• Huett v. Branson, 2023 WL 4566209 (Mo. App. E.D. July 18, 2023) — applying amended § 490.065
• Cox v. Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc., 473 S.W.3d 107 (Mo. banc 2015); Williams v. Mercy Clinic Springfield Cmtys., 568 S.W.3d 396 (Mo. banc 2019) — relevance/prejudice
• Missouri Courts — Rules of Civil Procedure and Court Operating Rules: https://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=692
• Missouri adoption of Daubert (H.B. 153, 2017) overview: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/missouri-adopts-daubert-standard-49547/