State Court Motion in Limine - New Hampshire

MOTION IN LIMINE AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT

(State of New Hampshire — [________________] County Superior Court)

TEMPLATE INSTRUCTIONS

☐ Replace every bracketed placeholder with case-specific information
☐ Frame any expert challenge under RSA 516:29-a (codified Daubert) and N.H. R. Evid. 702
☐ Cite the New Hampshire Rules of Evidence by rule number (401–403, 404, 407, 408, 411, 702)
☐ 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

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[________________], SS.    SUPERIOR COURT

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

2. MOTION IN LIMINE

NOW COMES [Moving Party Name] ("Movant"), by and through undersigned counsel, and respectfully moves this Honorable Court, in advance of trial, for an order prohibiting [Opposing Party Name], its counsel, and its witnesses from offering, mentioning, eliciting, referring to, or in any manner conveying to the jury — 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.

The matters identified below are inadmissible under the New Hampshire Rules of Evidence, and any reference to them before the jury would be so prejudicial that an instruction to disregard could not cure the harm. This Motion is supported by the following Memorandum of Law.

3. MEMORANDUM OF LAW 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 the New Hampshire Rules of Evidence. This Motion seeks to prevent the injection of such matters into trial, where their prejudicial effect could not be undone after the jury has heard them.

3.2 Legal Standard

Relevance — N.H. R. Evid. 401, 402. Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable. Relevant evidence is admissible unless otherwise provided; irrelevant evidence is not admissible.

Unfair prejudice — N.H. R. Evid. 403. The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

Character and prior acts — N.H. R. Evid. 404. Evidence of a person's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that the person acted in accordance with the character or trait on a particular occasion; evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is inadmissible to prove propensity but may be admissible for another purpose, such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.

Subsequent remedial measures — N.H. R. Evid. 407. When measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect, or a need for a warning or instruction, though it may be admissible for another purpose, such as impeachment or — if disputed — proving ownership, control, or feasibility.

Compromise — N.H. R. Evid. 408. Outside the rule's special treatment of tort settlements involving multiple tortfeasors, evidence of furnishing, promising, or offering (or accepting) valuable consideration to compromise a claim disputed as to validity or amount, and conduct or statements made during compromise negotiations, is not admissible to prove liability for, invalidity of, or the amount of the claim. The rule does not require exclusion for another purpose or of otherwise admissible evidence merely because it was presented during compromise negotiations.

Liability insurance — N.H. R. Evid. 411. Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to prove whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully.

Expert testimony — N.H. R. Evid. 702 and RSA 516:29-a (codified Daubert). A witness qualified as an expert may testify in the form of an opinion if specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact. New Hampshire has codified the Daubert reliability standard at RSA 516:29-a, which codified Baker Valley Lumber, Inc. v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 148 N.H. 609 (2002). Under RSA 516:29-a, expert testimony is admissible only if (a) it is based upon sufficient facts or data; (b) it is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (c) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. In evaluating the basis for the testimony, the court considers, if appropriate, whether the expert's opinions are supported by theories or techniques that have been or can be tested, have been subjected to peer review and publication, have a known or potential rate of error, and are generally accepted in the appropriate scientific literature — factors that are "not a definitive checklist or test." The court serves as a gatekeeper.

Golden-rule and sympathy argument. Argument inviting jurors to place themselves in a party's position, or appealing to passion, sympathy, or prejudice rather than the evidence, is improper and should be excluded.

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; even if marginally relevant, its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion under N.H. R. Evid. 401–403.

Ground 2 — Character evidence and prior bad acts of [________________].
Inadmissible under N.H. R. Evid. 404 to show conduct in conformity, and offered for no proper non-propensity purpose.

Ground 3 — Subsequent remedial measures.
[Repairs / design changes / policy changes] taken after [the event] are inadmissible under N.H. R. Evid. 407 to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect, or a need for a warning.

Ground 4 — Compromise and settlement negotiations.
Movant seeks exclusion of [identify the compromise offer, conduct, or statement], made during compromise negotiations concerning the disputed claim, to the extent it is offered to prove liability for, invalidity of, or the amount of that claim. N.H. R. Evid. 408 does not require exclusion for another purpose or of otherwise admissible evidence merely because it was presented during compromise negotiations.

Ground 5 — Liability insurance.
The existence, absence, or amount of any liability insurance is inadmissible under N.H. R. Evid. 411.

Ground 6 — Unreliable expert opinion of [Expert Name].
The opinions of [Expert Name] fail RSA 516:29-a and N.H. R. Evid. 702 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 technique is untested, unpublished, has an unacceptable error rate, or is not generally accepted]. The opinion should be excluded under the Court's gatekeeping role.

Ground 7 — Hearsay statements of [________________].
[Out-of-court statement] offered for the truth of the matter asserted is inadmissible hearsay not within any recognized exception (N.H. R. Evid. 801–804).

Ground 8 — Golden-rule, sympathy, and "send a message" argument.
Counsel should be barred from asking jurors to place themselves in a party's position or from appealing to passion, sympathy, or community prejudice.

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 or volunteer any of the excluded matters in the presence of the jury;
4. REQUIRE that, before any party offers 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], [N.H. Bar No. ________________]
[FIRM ADDRESS] | [CITY, STATE ZIP]
[TELEPHONE] | [EMAIL]
Attorney for [Moving Party]

4. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [__/__/____], a copy of the foregoing was forwarded to all counsel of record via the New Hampshire eFiling system or as indicated below:

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

Service method: ☐ New Hampshire eFiling ☐ U.S. Mail ☐ Email ☐ Hand delivery

______________________________
[Attorney Name], [N.H. Bar No. ________________]

5. [PROPOSED] ORDER

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[________________], SS.    SUPERIOR COURT

Docket No.: [________________]

ORDER ON MOTION IN LIMINE

Upon consideration of Movant's Motion in Limine, any objection, and the applicable law, the Court 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.

DATED: [__/__/____]

______________________________
Presiding Justice

Sources and References

• RSA 516:29-a — Testimony of Expert Witnesses (codified Daubert standard, eff. July 16, 2004): https://law.justia.com/codes/new-hampshire/title-liii/chapter-516/section-516-29-a/
• Baker Valley Lumber, Inc. v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 148 N.H. 609 (2002) — New Hampshire's adoption of Daubert
• New Hampshire Rules of Evidence (N.H. Judicial Branch): https://www.courts.nh.gov/rules-court/rules-evidence
• N.H. R. Evid. 401–403 (relevance/prejudice); 404 (character); 407 (subsequent remedial measures); 408 (compromise); 411 (liability insurance); 702 (experts)
• Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)