The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident case and its proceedings.)
Defendants’ Motion In Limine to Exclude Reference to 30-Year-Old Prior Felony Conviction
Defendants Victor Lee and XYZ Car Rental Of Sacramento hereby move this court, in limine, before jury selection at the trials commencement for an order instructing plaintiff, his counsel, and each and every one of plaintiffs witnesses, not to mention, interrogate on, or in any other manner convey to the jury whether during voir dire, opening statement, testimony, final argument, or otherwise, any reference to or evidence of defendant Victor Lee’s 30-year-old felony conviction. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
This motion is based on the ground that the probative value on credibility of said felony conviction is outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice and that argument about or reference to or admission of such evidence regarding defendant is not relevant and should be precluded on the ground that its entry would be more prejudicial than probative.
THE TRIAL COURT POSSESSES THE INHERENT POWER TO GRANT MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND SUCH MOTIONS ARE A WELL ESTABLISHED METHOD OF EXCLUDING INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE
Clemens v. American Warranty Corp. (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 444, 451.
A MOTION IN LIMINE MAY BE USED TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE TO WHICH COUNSEL COULD OBJECT AT TRIAL IS IRRELEVANT OR IS SUBJECT TO THIS DISCRETIONARY EXCLUSION BECAUSE OF ITS UNDULY PREJUDICIAL EFFECT
Clemens v. American Warranty Corp. (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 444, 451.
NO EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE EXCEPT FOR RELEVANT EVIDENCE.
If a prior felony conviction does not involve the character trait of truthfulness, it must be excluded as irrelevant at the outset (Evidence Code section 350). (See Part 2 of 3.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.