State Court Motion in Limine - Rhode Island

MOTION IN LIMINE

(Rhode Island Superior Court — Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Motion and Notice

3. Memorandum of Law
   3.1 Introduction
   3.2 The Evidence Sought to Be Excluded
   3.3 Legal Standard
   3.4 Argument — Numbered Grounds
   3.5 Conclusion

4. [Proposed] Order

5. Certification (Service)

1. CAPTION

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
[________________________________] COUNTY, SC.
SUPERIOR COURT

C.A. No.: [________________________________]

[MOVANT]'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. [____] TO EXCLUDE [________________________________]

Assigned Justice: Hon. [________________________________]
Trial Date: [__/__/____]

2. MOTION AND NOTICE

TO: [________________________________], Counsel for [Plaintiff / Defendant], and all parties of record:

[Plaintiff / Defendant] [________________________________] ("Movant"), by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully moves this Court, in advance of trial and outside the presence of the jury, for an order prohibiting [the opposing party] [________________________________] ("[Opposing Party]"), and its counsel and witnesses, from offering, mentioning, referring to, interrogating concerning, or attempting to convey to the jury in any manner — directly or indirectly — the evidence and matters described below, and from suggesting to the jury that such matters exist, without first obtaining a ruling from the Court outside the presence and hearing of the jury.

This Motion is made pursuant to the Court's inherent authority to control the conduct of trial, R.I. R. Evid. 403, and the additional authorities set forth below, on the grounds that the evidence is irrelevant under R.I. R. Evid. 402 and/or its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or waste of time under R.I. R. Evid. 403. The Motion is supported by the accompanying Memorandum of Law, the pleadings and record, and any further evidence or argument presented at or before the hearing.

DATED: [__/__/____]

________________________________________
[Attorney Name] (R.I. Bar No. [________________])
[Firm Name] | [Address] | [Telephone] | [Email]
Attorney for [Movant]

3. MEMORANDUM OF LAW

3.1 Introduction

This is an action for [describe nature of action — e.g., negligence arising from a motor-vehicle collision / breach of contract / products liability]. Trial is set for [__/__/____]. Movant anticipates that, absent an order from this Court, [Opposing Party] will attempt to introduce or elicit evidence and argument that is irrelevant under R.I. R. Evid. 402, and/or that is subject to exclusion under R.I. R. Evid. 403 because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, and waste of time — the mere mention of which before the jury would cause harm that no cautionary instruction could cure. Movant therefore moves to exclude the matters set forth below.

3.2 The Evidence Sought to Be Excluded

Movant seeks an order excluding the following specific items of evidence:

1. [________________________________]
2. [________________________________]
3. [________________________________]

3.3 Legal Standard

Relevance (R.I. R. Evid. 401, 402). "'Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." (R.I. R. Evid. 401.) Evidence that is not relevant is not admissible. (R.I. R. Evid. 402.)

Discretion to Exclude — Rhode Island's R.I. R. Evid. 403 (the FRE 403 analog). "Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." (R.I. R. Evid. 403.)

Character and Other Acts (R.I. R. Evid. 404). Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that the person acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except as provided by the rule. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove character but may be admissible for other purposes such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, subject to exclusion under R.I. R. Evid. 403.

Credibility and Impeachment (R.I. R. Evid. 608, 609). A witness's character for truthfulness or untruthfulness may be addressed as provided in R.I. R. Evid. 608. Impeachment by evidence of a prior criminal conviction is governed by R.I. R. Evid. 609 and is subject to the court's discretion and to exclusion under R.I. R. Evid. 403.

Subsequent Remedial Measures (R.I. R. Evid. 407). Evidence of measures taken after an event which, if taken previously, would have made the event less likely to occur is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event.

Compromise and Offers to Compromise (R.I. R. Evid. 408). Evidence of offering or accepting (or promising to offer or accept) valuable consideration in compromising a claim disputed as to validity or amount, and conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations, is not admissible to prove liability for, invalidity of, or the amount of the claim. The rule preserves other-purpose use and otherwise discoverable evidence.

Liability Insurance (R.I. R. Evid. 411). Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue of whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully.

Hearsay (R.I. R. Evid. 801–806). Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence or other law.

Expert Testimony — R.I. R. Evid. 702 and DiPetrillo Reliability Gatekeeping (R.I. R. Evid. 702; DiPetrillo v. Dow Chemical Co.). Under R.I. R. Evid. 702, "[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise." The Rhode Island Supreme Court has embraced a Daubert-style reliability gatekeeping approach: the trial justice must determine that proffered scientific expert testimony is both reliable and relevant before it is admitted. (DiPetrillo v. Dow Chemical Co., 729 A.2d 677 (R.I. 1999).) In assessing reliability, the court considers factors drawn from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), including (1) whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) its known or potential rate of error and the existence of standards controlling its operation; and (4) whether it has attained general acceptance in the relevant scientific community.

Golden-Rule and Improper Appeals to Sympathy or Passion. Argument inviting jurors to place themselves in the position of a party (the "golden rule"), or appealing to sympathy, passion, or prejudice rather than the evidence, is improper and excludable under R.I. R. Evid. 403 and Rhode Island decisional law governing attorney misconduct in argument.

3.4 Argument — Numbered Grounds

GROUND 1 — Irrelevant Evidence (R.I. R. Evid. 401, 402).
Movant moves to exclude [describe evidence] because it has no tendency to make any fact of consequence more or less probable. Specifically, [________________________________]. Because the evidence is irrelevant, it is inadmissible under R.I. R. Evid. 402.

GROUND 2 — Unfair Prejudice, Confusion, and Waste of Time (R.I. R. Evid. 403).
Movant moves to exclude [describe evidence] because any probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, and waste of time. [________________________________].

GROUND 3 — Character and Other Acts (R.I. R. Evid. 404; R.I. R. Evid. 403).
Movant moves to exclude evidence, reference, or argument concerning [describe prior bad acts / character / other crimes], which is offered only to prove that the [party/witness] acted in conformity with a character trait and is inadmissible under R.I. R. Evid. 404, and which, even if offered for a permissible non-character purpose, should be excluded under R.I. R. Evid. 403.

GROUND 4 — Improper Impeachment (R.I. R. Evid. 608, 609; R.I. R. Evid. 403).
Movant moves to exclude impeachment by [describe prior conviction / other matter] because it does not satisfy R.I. R. Evid. 608 or R.I. R. Evid. 609 and/or its probative value on credibility is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under R.I. R. Evid. 403.

GROUND 5 — Inadmissible Hearsay (R.I. R. Evid. 801–806).
Movant moves to exclude [describe out-of-court statement / document] as inadmissible hearsay offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, for which no exception applies.

GROUND 6 — Subsequent Remedial Measures (R.I. R. Evid. 407).
Movant moves to exclude evidence of [describe post-event repair, change, recall, or policy change] offered to prove negligence or culpable conduct, inadmissible under R.I. R. Evid. 407.

GROUND 7 — Compromise and Offers to Compromise (R.I. R. Evid. 408).
Movant moves to exclude [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. R.I. R. Evid. 408 preserves other-purpose use and otherwise discoverable evidence.

GROUND 8 — Liability Insurance (R.I. R. Evid. 411; R.I. R. Evid. 403).
Movant moves to exclude any evidence, reference, or argument that any party was or was not covered by liability insurance, inadmissible on the issue of fault under R.I. R. Evid. 411 and unduly prejudicial under R.I. R. Evid. 403.

GROUND 9 — Inadmissible / Unreliable Expert Testimony (R.I. R. Evid. 702; DiPetrillo v. Dow Chemical Co.).
Movant moves to exclude the opinion testimony of [Expert Name] because it fails the reliability-and-relevance gatekeeping required by R.I. R. Evid. 702 and DiPetrillo v. Dow Chemical Co. Specifically, [the technique has not been tested or peer-reviewed / has an unacceptable rate of error / lacks controlling standards / is not generally accepted / ________________________________]. The Court should exercise its gatekeeping role and exclude this testimony as unreliable and/or irrelevant.

GROUND 10 — Golden-Rule Argument and Appeals to Sympathy or Passion (R.I. R. Evid. 403).
Movant moves to prohibit opposing counsel from making any "golden rule" argument asking jurors to place themselves in the position of a party, and from any argument or evidence appealing to sympathy, passion, or prejudice rather than the evidence.

GROUND 11 — [Additional Ground].
[________________________________]

3.5 Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Movant respectfully requests that the Court GRANT this Motion in Limine; ORDER that [Opposing Party], its counsel, and its witnesses refrain from offering, mentioning, or alluding to the excluded matters in the presence or hearing of the jury, whether during voir dire, opening statement, examination of witnesses, or closing argument, without first approaching the bench and obtaining leave of Court outside the jury's presence; DIRECT counsel to instruct and admonish their witnesses accordingly; and GRANT such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DATED: [__/__/____]

________________________________________
[Attorney Name] (R.I. Bar No. [________________])
Attorney for [Movant]

4. [PROPOSED] ORDER

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
[________________________________] COUNTY, SC.
SUPERIOR COURT

C.A. No.: [________________________________]

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON [MOVANT]'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. [____]

This matter came before the Court on Movant's Motion in Limine. The Court, having considered the Motion, any objection and reply, and the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing, ORDERS:

1. The following evidence, testimony, argument, and reference is EXCLUDED: [________________________________].
2. [Opposing Party], its counsel, and its witnesses shall not offer, mention, refer to, or attempt to convey to the jury — directly or indirectly — any of the excluded matters during voir dire, opening statement, the examination of witnesses, or closing argument, without first obtaining leave of Court outside the presence and hearing of the jury.
3. Counsel for [Opposing Party] shall instruct and admonish each of its witnesses to comply with this Order.

Ruling on each numbered ground:

☐ GROUND 1 — GRANTED ☐ / DENIED ☐ / RESERVED for trial ☐
☐ GROUND 2 — GRANTED ☐ / DENIED ☐ / RESERVED for trial ☐
☐ GROUND 3 — GRANTED ☐ / DENIED ☐ / RESERVED for trial ☐
☐ GROUND 4 — GRANTED ☐ / DENIED ☐ / RESERVED for trial ☐
☐ GROUND 5 — GRANTED ☐ / DENIED ☐ / RESERVED for trial ☐
☐ GROUND 6 — GRANTED ☐ / DENIED ☐ / RESERVED for trial ☐
☐ GROUND 7 — GRANTED ☐ / DENIED ☐ / RESERVED for trial ☐
☐ GROUND 8 — GRANTED ☐ / DENIED ☐ / RESERVED for trial ☐
☐ GROUND 9 — GRANTED ☐ / DENIED ☐ / RESERVED for trial ☐
☐ GROUND 10 — GRANTED ☐ / DENIED ☐ / RESERVED for trial ☐
☐ GROUND 11 — GRANTED ☐ / DENIED ☐ / RESERVED for trial ☐

ENTER:

______________________________
Associate Justice, Superior Court

DATED: [__/__/____]

5. CERTIFICATION (SERVICE)

I hereby certify that on [__/__/____], I served a true copy of the foregoing [Movant]'s Motion in Limine No. [____], Memorandum of Law, and [Proposed] Order upon the following via [the Court's electronic filing system / first-class mail / hand delivery / email by agreement]:

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

______________________________
[Attorney Name] (R.I. Bar No. [________________])

Sources and References

• Rhode Island Rules of Evidence (full text): https://www.courts.ri.gov/courts/supremecourt/rulesofevidence/Pages/default.aspx
• R.I. R. Evid. 403 — Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time
• R.I. R. Evid. 404 — Character evidence; other crimes, wrongs, or acts
• R.I. R. Evid. 609 — Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime
• R.I. R. Evid. 702 — Testimony by experts
• DiPetrillo v. Dow Chemical Co., 729 A.2d 677 (R.I. 1999) (Daubert-style reliability gatekeeping for scientific expert testimony)
• Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)
• Rhode Island Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure: https://www.courts.ri.gov/courts/superiorcourt/Pages/default.aspx