 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Loen v. Anderson1/19/2005
>
[ .] Motions in limine are heard in advance of trial and seek a court order requiring the parties not to discuss or disclose certain facts that the court deems to be prejudicial. Motions in limine have long been favored by this Court. The purpose of these motions is to prevent prejudicial information from reaching the ears of the jury. See Luce v. United States, 469 US 38, 41 (1984). This is based on the recognition that when prejudicial matters are brought before the jury no amount of objection or instruction can entirely remove the harmful effect. Kjerstadt v. Ravellette Publication, Inc., 517 NW2d 419, 426 (SD 1994). "Once the question is asked, the harm is done." Id.
[ .] Both before and during trial, Loens made various motions in limine seeking specific evidentiary rulings from the trial judge as to what was to be admissible during trial. Based on these motions, the trial court ruled that there was to be no discussion of prior or subsequent injuries, pre-existing medical conditions or the speed of the vehicles at the time of the accident.
[ .] The court specifically granted Loens' motion precluding Welter from bringing any information regarding any of their prior or subsequent health conditions or injuries before the jury. The order was specific in its prohibitions and was further clarified for Welter by the trial court before opening statements.
[ .] Despite the specificity of the order, Welter repeatedly violated its terms. Beginning with his opening statement, Welter referenced Douglas' possible pre-existing rotator cuff tendonitis. Loens, outside the presence of the jury, moved for a mistrial. That motion was denied. Welter thereafter continued to violate the trial court's order.
[ .] Welter asked Douglas "how long have you been a diabetic?" Loens were forced to object and the trial judge sustained the objection. In the next immediate question, Welter asked "did you go to St. Mary's Healthcare Center for a stress test?" Loens were again forced to object in front of the jury. The trial judge admonished the jury and sent them out. He then admonished Welter, once again, that the prior health conditions were not related to the auto accident. This did not stop Welter. In his very next question he asked, "On the day of the accident were you taking any prescription medication?" A bench conference ensued. This discussion was followed by yet another violation when Welter asked, " ere there any side effects you were aware of in taking the blood pressure pill?" Welter then again violated the order by inquiring into Douglas' prior and subsequent chiropractic use. Finally, he violated the ruling on the motion in limine concerning Cindy when he asked about a subsequent injury that she possibly sustained.
[ .] As previously mentioned, prior to trial Anderson admitted liability for the accident. In light of this admission, the trial judge ruled that the speed of the vehicles was not relevant to the issue of damages during the course of the trial. Welter repeatedly chose to violate this ruling as well. He questioned Douglas about the speed of the vehicles at the time of the accident. The court reminded him that this line of questioning was not relevant. This also did not deter Welter. He called Anderson to the stand and asked her, "do you know how fast you were going at the time?" He followed this with a reference to the accident report. At this time, Loens objected and the court admonished the jury on the issue as follows:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, there's been testimony in this case of the speed of the vehicle being anywhere from 10-30 miles per hour. That is not an issue in this case. It has no bearing on the issue of damages,
Page 1 2 3 4 5 South Dakota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|