Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
https://www.moseleycollins.com/lawyer-attorney-1245027.htmlThe 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.)
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.
THE COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE EVIDENCE THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF WHICH IS SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHED BY ITS PREJUDICIAL IMPACT OR HAS THE RISK OF MISLEADING OR CONFUSING THE JURY
Pursuant to Evidence Code section 352, the Court should weigh the probative value of proffered evidence against the probability that it will create a substantial danger of undue prejudice. (People v. Murphy (1979) 8 Cal.3d 359.) If the Court finds that the probative value of the proffered evidence is weak and a danger of undue prejudice is strong, then it should rule that such evidence is inadmissible. (People v. Stanley (1967) 167 Cal.2d 812.) For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
There are a number of different factors with which to determine the strength or weakness of the probative value of evidence. Among the factors which the Court should consider are the following:
Its materiality;
The strength of its relationship to the issue upon which it is offered;
Whether it goes to a main issue or merely a collateral one; and
Whether it is necessary to prove the proponents case or merely cumulative to other available and sufficient proof.
(Burke v. Almaden Vineyards, Inc. (1978) 86 Cal. App.2d 750.) (See Part 3 of 4.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.