State Court Motion in Limine - New Mexico

[MOVING PARTY]'S MOTION IN LIMINE

(State of New Mexico — [________________] Judicial District Court, County of [________________])

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Introduction and Relief Requested
3. Statement of the Motion
4. Legal Standard
5. Argument — Grounds for Exclusion
6. Relief Requested (Instruction to Counsel and Witnesses)
7. Conclusion
8. Proposed Order
9. Certificate of Service

1. CAPTION

IN THE [________________] JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF [________________], STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No.: D-[________________]-CV-[____]-[________________]

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

Trial Date: [________________]
Judge: Hon. [________________]

2. INTRODUCTION AND RELIEF REQUESTED

[Moving Party] respectfully moves this Court, in advance of trial and pursuant to Rules 11-401 through 11-403 NMRA and the New Mexico Rules of Evidence, for an Order in limine precluding [opposing party], its counsel, and its witnesses from offering, eliciting, mentioning, or referring to the categories of evidence and argument described below, whether during voir dire, opening statement, examination of witnesses, or closing argument.

Resolving these admissibility questions before trial protects the jury from exposure to prejudicial matter that "cannot be unrung," conserves judicial resources, and permits counsel to prepare without uncertainty.

3. STATEMENT OF THE MOTION

The evidence and argument to be excluded are:

☐ [Brief description of evidence category 1]
☐ [Brief description of evidence category 2]
☐ [Brief description of evidence category 3]

4. LEGAL STANDARD

Relevance (Rule 11-401 / 11-402 NMRA). Evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence" and the fact is of consequence in determining the action. Rule 11-401. Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. Rule 11-402.

Unfair Prejudice (Rule 11-403 NMRA). 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." Rule 11-403. This balancing is the analytical core of most motions in limine.

Character and Other Acts (Rule 11-404, 11-608, 11-609 NMRA). Character evidence is generally not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion a person acted in conformity with the trait. Rule 11-404(A). Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is inadmissible to prove propensity but may be admissible for a non-propensity purpose such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake. Rule 11-404(B). Impeachment by truthfulness or by prior conviction is governed by Rules 11-608 and 11-609.

Hearsay (Rule 11-801 to 11-803 NMRA). Out-of-court statements offered for their truth are inadmissible unless an exclusion or exception applies.

Subsequent Remedial Measures (Rule 11-407 NMRA). Evidence of measures taken after an injury or harm that would have made it less likely is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct.

Compromise and Insurance (Rule 11-408, 11-411 NMRA). Settlement offers and negotiations are inadmissible to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim (Rule 11-408), and evidence of liability insurance is inadmissible to prove negligence or wrongful conduct (Rule 11-411).

Expert Testimony — Reliability (Rule 11-702 NMRA; Alberico). A qualified expert may testify if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact. New Mexico evaluates the reliability of expert opinion under the Daubert-Alberico standard. In State v. Alberico, 1993-NMSC-047, 116 N.M. 196, the New Mexico Supreme Court abandoned the Frye general-acceptance test and grounded admissibility in the Rules of Evidence, looking to the validity of the expert's reasoning and methodology. New Mexico courts consider non-exclusive reliability factors — testability, peer review and publication, known or potential error rate, and general acceptance — as guides, not a rigid checklist.

NEW MEXICO EXPERT STANDARD FLAG: New Mexico follows the Daubert-Alberico standard (State v. Alberico, 1993), having abandoned Frye. The trial court evaluates the validity of the expert's reasoning and methodology under Rule 11-702 NMRA. Verify current Rule 11-702 NMRA text and post-Alberico case law before filing.

Golden Rule / Appeals to Sympathy. Argument inviting jurors to put themselves in a party's position or to decide on sympathy, passion, or prejudice rather than the evidence is improper and should be precluded.

5. ARGUMENT — GROUNDS FOR EXCLUSION

Ground 1 — Irrelevant and Unfairly Prejudicial Evidence (Rule 11-401 to 11-403 NMRA)

[Moving Party] moves to exclude [describe evidence] because it lacks any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable and, even if marginally relevant, its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, and waste of time.

Ground 2 — Character Evidence and Prior Bad Acts (Rule 11-404, 11-608, 11-609 NMRA)

The Court should exclude [describe character/other-acts evidence] offered to show that [party/witness] acted in conformity with a character trait. Any impeachment by prior conviction must satisfy Rule 11-609 and its probative-value balancing.

Ground 3 — Inadmissible Hearsay (Rule 11-801 to 11-803 NMRA)

[Describe statement/document] is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth and falls within no exception. It should be excluded.

Ground 4 — Subsequent Remedial Measures (Rule 11-407 NMRA)

Evidence that [party] [repaired / modified / warned / changed policy] after the events at issue is inadmissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct.

Ground 5 — Settlement Communications and Liability Insurance (Rule 11-408, 11-411 NMRA)

Any reference to settlement offers, negotiations, or the existence or absence of liability insurance must be excluded.

Ground 6 — Unreliable Expert Testimony (Rule 11-702 NMRA; Alberico)

[Opposing expert]'s opinion that [describe opinion] should be excluded because the reasoning and methodology are not scientifically valid under the Daubert-Alberico standard. The opinion [rests on an untested theory / lacks peer-reviewed support / has no known error rate / is not generally accepted in the relevant field].

Ground 7 — Golden-Rule and Sympathy Argument

The Court should preclude any "golden rule" argument or appeal to jury sympathy, passion, or prejudice.

Ground 8 — [Additional Ground]

[Describe additional evidence and the rule(s) requiring its exclusion.]

6. RELIEF REQUESTED (INSTRUCTION TO COUNSEL AND WITNESSES)

[Moving Party] respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order:

1. Excluding the categories of evidence, testimony, and argument identified above;
2. Instructing all counsel to refrain from mentioning, referring to, or attempting to elicit the excluded matters in the presence of the jury — including during voir dire, opening statement, examination of witnesses, and closing argument;
3. Directing counsel to admonish their witnesses, before they testify, not to volunteer or refer to any excluded matter;
4. Requiring that, before any party offers, mentions, or seeks to introduce any excluded matter, counsel first approach the bench and obtain a ruling outside the presence of the jury; and
5. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

7. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, [Moving Party] respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion in Limine in its entirety.

DATED: [__/__/____]

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

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

8. PROPOSED ORDER

IN THE [________________] JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF [________________], STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No.: D-[________________]-CV-[____]-[________________]

ORDER GRANTING MOTION IN LIMINE

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on [Moving Party]'s Motion in Limine, and the Court having reviewed the Motion, any response, and the arguments of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The Motion in Limine is GRANTED.
2. [Opposing party], its counsel, and its witnesses are precluded from offering, eliciting, mentioning, or referring to the following at trial: [list excluded matters].
3. Counsel shall admonish their witnesses to comply with this Order, and no party shall offer or reference any excluded matter without first obtaining a ruling at the bench outside the presence of the jury.

______________________________
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

9. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [__/__/____], I served a copy of the foregoing Motion in Limine, supporting papers, and proposed Order on all counsel of record by:

☐ Odyssey File & Serve (NM e-filing) ☐ Email ☐ U.S. Mail ☐ Hand Delivery

to:

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

______________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]
[NM Bar No. ________________]

Sources and References

• New Mexico Rules of Evidence (Rules 11-101 to 11-1103 NMRA), N.M. Compilation Commission: https://www.nmcompcomm.us/
• Rule 11-401 to 11-403 NMRA (Relevance; Exclusion for Prejudice): https://nmonesource.com/
• Rule 11-404, 11-407, 11-408, 11-411, 11-608, 11-609, 11-702 NMRA: https://nmonesource.com/
• State v. Alberico, 1993-NMSC-047, 116 N.M. 196, 861 P.2d 192: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-mexico/supreme-court/1993/116-n-m-196.html
• Rule 1-007.1 NMRA (Motion Practice): https://nmonesource.com/