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 and N.H. R. Evid. 702
☐ Cite the New Hampshire Rules of Evidence by rule number (401–403, 404, 407, 408, 411, 702)
☐ Identify whether the court's ruling is definitive on the record; if tentative or deferred, object or make an offer of proof when needed under Rule 103(a)
☐ 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 — the specific matters selected below for exclusion, without first approaching the bench and obtaining a ruling outside the presence and hearing of the jury.

Movant contends that the selected matters are inadmissible for the purposes identified below and that advance resolution will reduce the risk of prejudice or interruption during trial. The factual grounds are supported by [affidavit of ____ / identified papers already on file ____ / signed written agreement ____], as required by N.H. Super. Ct. R. 11(b). 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. Subject to the rule's stated exceptions, character evidence is not admissible to prove conduct in conformity on a particular occasion. Evidence of another crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove propensity but may be admissible for another purpose, such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, if Rule 404(b)(2)'s additional conditions are met.

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 product or design 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; the court may admit it for another purpose, such as bias, agency, ownership, or control.

Expert testimony — N.H. R. Evid. 702 and RSA 516:29-a. A qualified expert may testify if specialized knowledge will help the factfinder and the testimony satisfies Rule 702's reliability conditions. Under RSA 516:29-a, the court must find sufficient facts or data, reliable principles and methods, and reliable application to the case. The court considers testing, peer review and publication, error rate, and general acceptance when appropriate, and may consider other factors specific to the testimony. Baker Valley Lumber, Inc. v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 148 N.H. 609 (2002), applies the flexible Daubert approach under Rule 702; the trial court acts as a gatekeeper for methodology, leaving weight and credibility to the factfinder.

Prejudicial argument. Argument outside the evidence may be challenged under Rule 403 if it risks unfair prejudice or confusing or misleading the jury. Identify the specific anticipated statement and its likely effect.

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] should be excluded under N.H. R. Evid. 407 to the extent offered to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a product or design defect, or a need for a warning or instruction. [Address any asserted alternative purpose.]

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.
Evidence that [person] [was / was not] insured is offered to prove negligent or wrongful conduct and should be excluded under N.H. R. Evid. 411. [Explain why no proper alternative purpose, such as bias, agency, ownership, or control, applies.]

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]. [Explain any relevant testing, peer review, error-rate, or general-acceptance factor and why the methodology is unreliable in this case.] The opinion should be excluded under the Court's gatekeeping role.

Ground 7 — Hearsay statements of [________________].
[Out-of-court statement] is offered for the truth of the matter asserted and should be excluded under N.H. R. Evid. 801–802 if no applicable exclusion or exception permits its admission. [Address any asserted exception under Rules 803 or 804.]

Ground 8 — Unfairly prejudicial argument.
Counsel should be barred from making the following anticipated statement: [________________]. [Explain specifically why it risks unfair prejudice or confusion under N.H. R. Evid. 403.]

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: https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LIII/516/516-29-a.htm
• Baker Valley Lumber, Inc. v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 148 N.H. 609 (2002) — New Hampshire's adoption of Daubert: https://www.courts.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt471/files/documents/2022-10/2002151ingersoll.pdf
• 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)