B. A pretrial request that certain inadmissible evidence not be referred to or offered at trial.
Listen to pronunciationLegal Definition -
in limine (in lim-ə-nee), adv. [Latin "at the outset] Preliminarily; presented to only the judge, before or during trial <a question to be decided in limine>.
Motion in Limine A pretrial request that certain inadmissible evidence not be referred to or offered at trial. --Typically, a party makes this motion when it believes that mere mention of the evidence during the trial would be highly prejudicial and could not be remedied by an instruction to disregard. If, after a motion is granted, the opposite party mentions or attempt to offer the evidence in the jury's presence, a mistrial may be ordered. A ruling on the motion in Limine does not always preserve evidentiary error for appellate purposes. To raise such an error on appeal, a party may be required to formally object when the evidence is actually admitted or excluded during trial.
Black's Law Dictionary® Eighth Edition © 2004
Current Usage -
Computer-generated animations (CGA) may be admissible as evidence in criminal trials, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has unanimously ruled in a case of first impression. The six justices who participated in deciding Commonwealth v. Serge did not all agree as to how trial courts should approach admitting CGA evidence. Discussion of the case prompted differing arguments from several justices concerning how CGA evidence should be treated with respect to motions in limine, jury instructions and indigent defendants. But all six concluded that Lackawanna Common Pleas Judge Terrence R. Nealon had properly admitted the CGA that was used in the winter 2002 first-degree murder prosecution of Michael Serge. "Society has become increasingly dependent upon computers in business and in our personal lives," Justice Sandra Schultz Newman wrote in the lead opinion. "With each technological advancement, the practice of law becomes more sophisticated and, commensurate with this progress, the legal system must adapt. Courts are facing the need to shed any technophobia and become more willing to embrace the advances that have the ability to enhance the efficacy of the legal system." Asher Hawkins The Legal Intelligencer 05-03-2006