DocketNumber: No. CV91 039 75 54S
Citation Numbers: 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 2285
Judges: CORRADINO, J.
Filed Date: 3/7/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The first question to be considered is whether the court CT Page 2286 should entertain these motions in limine as a procedural matter. Discussion of this procedure in our state and other jurisdictions is contained in Connecticut Evidence, Tait 2 LaPlante, 2.6. pp
The term has been loosely used however and several cases refer to rulings on motions in limine in court trials, Tomasso Bros. Inc. v. October Twenty Four Inc.,
If such a practice were countenanced the already too busy short calendar docket would be burdened by these motions for no apparent reason. There is not even a claim that the evidence sought to be introduced here is prejudicial or that the trial is to be lengthy and complicated or that a decision on this matter will allow counsel to more effectively prepare for trial avoiding undue surprise or wasted effort. Even if all of these things were to be true it is still not clear why the trial judge couldn't deal with what is in fact a clear cut, concise legal issue.
Strictly speaking the motion in limine was developed as a "procedural tool used to ensure that potentially prejudicial evidentiary matters are not discussed in the presence of the jury." Shark v. Thompson,
In any event, none of the cases this court has read permit or even contemplate that any such motion — even broadly defined — should be heard by anyone but the trial judge. To permit these matters to be heard by a short calendar judge who may not be the trial judge is undesirable for reasons of the propriety of hearing this type of motion in the first place.
Some of these motions should not be heard on an in limine basis because a decision requires the development of a factual basis at trial. Why should a busy short calendar judge make decisions concerning such an issue when a trial judge assigned the case for trial in a week or two can examine the file at his or her leisure and make the necessary inquiries of counsel to determine such a question.
Even more importantly rulings on such motions often if not always should be considered interlocutory in nature. The judge trying the case upon reflection and as the evidence develops may conclude his original ruling on the motion was incorrect. Should the trial judge be bound by the decision of a short calendar judge whose reasoning he or she is not even aware of — a decision made weeks or days before trial. Given the interlocutory nature of these motions it makes more sense in terms of encouraging an intelligent decisional process to have one judge — the trial judge — hear these preliminary matters, continue to live with his or her decision as the case progresses and the evidence develops and reserve the right to change the ruling previously made if fairness indicates this would be the best course. The motion in limine is denied without prejudice and should be heard by the trial judge.
Corradino, J.