|
From Royce Of No-DL yahoogroup
STYLE OF THE CASE }
{PARTY}’S MOTION IN LIMINE
Before the voir dire examination of the jury panel, and out of the presence and hearing of the jury panel, {party}, {name}, makes this motion in limine.* {Party} seeks to exclude matters that are incompetent, irrelevant, or prejudicial to the issues in this case.* If {adverse party}, {name}, injects these matters into the trial of this case through a party, an attorney, or a witness, it will cause irreparable harm to {party}’s case, which no jury instruction could cure.* If any of these matters are brought to the attention of the jury, directly or indirectly, {party} would be compelled to move for a mistrial.* In an effort to avoid prejudice and a mistrial, {party} urges this motion in limine.
Defendant denies that he is the person defined*in the State of Misery's Vehicle Code. Defendant further denies that his personal automobile is the motor vehicle*defined*in the State of Misery's Vehicle Code.
{Party} asks the court to instruct {adverse party} and all counsel not to mention, refer to, interrogate about, or attempt to convey to the jury in any manner, either directly or indirectly, any of the matters listed below without first obtaining a ruling from the court outside the presence and hearing of the jury, and to instruct {adverse party} and all counsel to warn and caution each witness to follow the same instructions.
A.* Grounds
{CHOOSE & ADAPT PARAGRAPHS 1-72 AS APPROPRIATE}
(reword the request using an appropriate one from below*that is near what you are asking about. Use your own state's court cases, rules of evidence or procedure.)
{General grounds}
1.*** Any witness {adverse party} did not name in response to requests for disclosures or interrogatories, or any evidence requested by {party} but not produced by {adverse party}.* See, e.g., Gee v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 765 S.W.2d 394, 395 (Tex. 1989).
AGREED:******** YES******** NO
2.*** Any testimony or arguments that contradict {adverse party}’s deemed admissions.
AGREED:******** YES******** NO
3.*** Any testimony or argument suggesting {party} asserted claims of privilege during discovery.* Claims of privilege are not admissible as evidence.* See Tex. R. Evid. 513(a), (b).
AGREED:******** YES******** NO
4.*** Any attempt to elicit testimony from {party} about communications with {his/her/its} lawyers.* Such communications are privileged.* Tex. R. Evid. 503.
AGREED:******** YES******** NO
5.*** Any attempt in the presence of the jury to seek or request {party}’s attorneys to produce do***ents, to stipulate to any fact, or to make any agreement.
AGREED:******** YES******** NO
6.*** Any testimony by {adverse party}’s expert concerning {his/her} discussions with another expert.* See Tex. R. Evid. 801, 802; Birchfield v. Texarkana Mem. Hosp., 747 S.W.2d 361, 365 (Tex. 1987).
AGREED:******** YES******** NO
7.*** Any evidence that {party}’s expert was represented by {party}’s counsel in a past lawsuit.* Such evidence is not admissible for impeachment purposes.* See Stam v. Mack, 984 S.W.2d 747, 751 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999, n.p.h.); Watson v. Isern, 782 S.W.2d 546, 549 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1989, writ denied).
AGREED:******** YES******** NO
8.*** Any mention {party} is an atheist.* Evidence of religious beliefs of a witness is not admissible to enhance or impair credibility.* See Tex. R. Evid. 610.*
AGREED:******** YES******** NO
9.*** Any mention {adverse party} goes to church every Sunday and tithes.* Evidence of religious beliefs of a witness is not admissible to enhance credibility.* See Tex. R. Evid. 610.*
AGREED:******** YES******** NO
10.* Any mention {party} has {describe conduct}.* Even though evidence of a habit may be admissible to prove that a party’s conduct on a particular occasion conformed with the habit or routine practice, evidence of past conduct that does not rise to the level of habit is inadmissible.* See Tex. R. Evid. 406, 608(b); Magro v. Ragsdale Bros., Inc., 721 S.W.2d 832, 834 (Tex. 1986).
AGREED:******** YES******** NO
11.* Any mention {party} drinks or spends excessively on liquor.* Intoxication is not an issue in this trial, and this evidence would unduly prejudice the jury against {party}.* See McCarty v. Gappelberg, 273 S.W.2d 943, 945 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1954, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
AGREED:******** YES******** NO
12.* Any mention {party} received a dishonorable discharge from the military.
AGREED:******** YES******** NO
13.* Any mention {party} has not filed income tax returns.* See Wilkins v. Royal Indem. Co., 592 S.W.2d 64, 66-67 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1979, no writ).
AGREED:******** YES******** NO
14.* Any mention {party} is wealthy, which is irrelevant and prejudicial.* See Wilmoth v. Limestone Prods. Co., 255 S.W.2d 532, 534 (Tex. App.—Waco 1953, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
AGREED:******** YES******** NO
15.* Any mention {adverse party} is {poor/not wealthy}.* See Wilmoth v. Limestone Prods. Co., 255 S.W.2d 532, 534 (Tex. App.—Waco 1953, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
AGREED:******** YES******** NO
16.* Any mention of the value of {party}’s assets, which can be an indicator of wealth, and is irrelevant and prejudicial. See First Nat’l Bank v. Beavers, 619 S.W.2d 288, 289-90 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1981, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
AGREED:******** YES******** NO
17.* Any mention {party} received a traffic ticket or paid the traffic ticket.* See Isaacs v. Plains Transp. Co., 367 S.W.2d 152, 153 (Tex. 1963); Condra Funeral Home v. Rollin, 314 S.W.2d 277, 282 (Tex. 1958).
AGREED:******** YES******** NO
18.* Any mention {adverse party} did not receive a traffic ticket.* See Isaacs v. Plains Transp. Co., 367 S.W.2d 152, 153 (Tex. 1963); Condra Funeral Home v. Rollin, 314 S.W.2d 277, 282 (Tex. 1958).
AGREED:******** YES******** NO
19.* Any mention {party} was convicted of misdemeanor DWI.* Evidence of criminal convictions is admissible for impeachment only if the trial court rules that the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect, and the crime was a felony or involved moral turpitude.* See Tex. R. Evid. 609(a); Ramirez v. Wood, 577 S.W.2d 278, 290 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1978, no writ).* A conviction for DWI is a misdemeanor and does not involve moral turpitude.* Shipman v. State, 604 S.W.2d 182, 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).
AGREED:******** YES******** NO
20.* Any mention of a statement made by {party} during plea negotiations that did not result in a plea of guilty, or resulted in a guilty plea that was later withdrawn.* Tex. R. Evid. 410.
AGREED:******** YES******** NO
21.* Any mention {adverse party} received a purple heart from the military.
AGREED:******** YES******** NO
22.* Any mention {party}’s witness is a resident alien and is about to be deported.* See Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 215, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 2394 (1982) (illegal aliens are covered by the 14th amendment and must be treated equally with citizens).
AGREED:******** YES******** NO
23.* Any mention, by reference to title or otherwise, that the witness, {name}, who will be called by {adverse party}, {is/was} a judge.* The jury should not be influenced by {name}’s {present/former} status as a judge, which would increase the probative value of {name}’s testimony and unfairly prejudice the jury in {adverse party}’s favor.* Weiss v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, 981 S.W.2d 8, 22 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. denied).
AGREED:******** YES******** NO
24.* Any mention of the probable testimony of a witness who is absent, unavailable, or not called or allowed to testify in this case.
AGREED:******** YES******** NO
25.* Any mention of an untrustworthy blood test.* See, e.g., United Pac. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 710 S.W.2d 760, 762 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (blood test improperly authenticated).
AGREED:******** YES******** NO
26.* Any testimony in violation of the Dead Man’s Statute.* See, e.g., Cain v. Whitlock, 741 S.W.2d 528, 530 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ); see Tex. R. Evid. 601(b).
AGREED:******** YES******** NO
27.* Any comment by {adverse party}’s attorney that informs the jury of the effect of its answers to the questions in the charge.* See Magic Chef, Inc. v. Sibley, 546 S.W.2d 851, 857 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
AGREED:******** YES******** NO
|