Author: LegalEase Solutions
Does the introduction of evidence that violates an order granting a motion in limine (motion to exclude evidence from a trial) reversible error and prejudicial such that a defendant is entitled to a new trial?
In Taylor v. state, 496 N.E.2d 561(1986) The court held: The granting of a motion in limine before trial is not a final ruling upon the admissibility of evidence; it is a protective order designed to prevent prejudicial questions and statements from being presented to the jury before the trial court has an opportunity to rule upon their admissibility in the context of the trial. Hare v. State (1984), Ind., 467 N.E.2d 7. No issue is raised on appeal regarding an alleged violation of an order in limine. Instead, the question is whether the evidence sought to be barred by the motion in limine was admissible and prejudicial at the time of introduction. Id. Therefore, to constitute grounds for a mistrial, the violation of the motion in limine must produce inadmissible evidence which is so prejudicial to the defendant as to deprive him of a fair trial.
A mistrial is an extreme remedy that is warranted. See;Banks v. state, 761 N.E.2d 403(2002);Francis v. State, 758 N.E.2d 528(2001); A mistrial is an extreme remedy warranted only when no other curative measure will rectify the situation.see also: Herrera v. State, 710 N.E.2d 931(1999).