2024 IL App (1st) 232000-U

FOURTH DIVISION

Order filed: August 15, 2024

No. 1-23-2000 

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the 

limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

TEKELA R. SCOTT

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

LAMON P. CALDWELL, 

Defendant-Appellee.

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of

Cook County, Law Division. 

No. 2020 L 13839 

Honorable 

Thomas More Donnelly, 

Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE HOFFMAN delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Martin and Ocasio concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new 

trial due to two claimed violations of pretrial motions in limine, when one alleged

violation was not a clear violation of the motion in limine, the second alleged 

violation was indirect, and any error did not deprive the plaintiff of a fair trial. 

¶ 2 Plaintiff Tekela R. Scott brought a single-count complaint against defendant Lamon P. 

Caldwell under the Illinois Gender Violence Act (Act) (740 ILCS 82/1 et seq. (West 2022). The 

matter proceeded to a jury trial, and the jury returned a verdict for Caldwell and against Scott. 
No. 1-23-2000 

- 2 - 

Scott moved for a new trial, arguing that she was deprived of a fair trial due to questioning by 

Caldwell that she alleged violated two portions of the trial court’s order granting most of her

motions in limine. The trial court denied Scott’s motion for a new trial, and Scott appeals. We find 

that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Scott’s motion for a new trial and affirm.

¶ 3 In 2014, Caldwell was charged with four counts of criminal sexual assault based on an 

alleged assault of Scott. Following a bench trial at which Scott testified, Caldwell was found not

guilty. 

¶ 4 In 2020, Scott filed the instant action under the Act, alleging that Caldwell committed a 

battery against her because of her sex based on the same underlying incident as the prior criminal 

case. 

¶ 5 Prior to trial, Scott filed a set of motions in limine. Relevant to this appeal, Scott’s motion 

in limine #9 sought to “bar evidence of the verdict from the 2015 criminal trial” under Illinois Rule 

of Evidence 403 (eff. Jan. 1, 2011). Scott’s motion in limine #12 sought to bar reference to her two 

prior abortions in 1995 and 2002 under Illinois Rules of Evidence 401 (eff. Jan. 1, 2011), 402 (eff. 

Jan. 1, 2011), and 403. During the parties’ pre-trial conference, Caldwell asked that he be allowed 

to address the existence of the prior criminal trial, but not bring up the not guilty verdict. The trial 

court granted Scott’s motion in limine #9 with that understanding. Scott’s motion in limine #12 

was granted without any noted objection from Caldwell. Both motions #9 and #12 were granted 

in the trial court’s written pretrial order.

¶ 6 The matter proceeded to a three-day jury trial starting June 12, 2023. During opening 

statements, both parties referred to the fact that Caldwell had been arrested and criminally charged 

for the incident underlying Scott’s claim. Scott testified as part of her case-in-chief. During her 
No. 1-23-2000 

- 3 - 

cross-examination, Scott was asked numerous questions about her testimony in the “criminal 

transcript,” referring to the transcript of her testimony in Caldwell’s criminal trial on December 

14, 2015. No testimony was elicited regarding the result of that trial; the transcript was only used 

to impeach Scott.

¶ 7 Scott also called Dr. Louise Fitzgerald, Ph.D., who was admitted as an expert witness in 

the field of psychology, specifically on the psychological effects of sexual violence. On direct 

examination, Dr. Fitzgerald discussed her psychological evaluation of Scott in connection with the 

alleged assault and her opinion as to the source of Scott’s post-traumatic stress disorder, among 

other mental health conditions. 

¶ 8 During cross-examination, Dr. Fitzgerald was questioned regarding e-mail correspondence 

she had with Scott’s counsel. The e-mail exchange contains a sentence from Dr. Fitzgerald stating, 

“I particularly wish I had known about the second abortion,” in reference to her evaluation of Scott 

and the creation of her report. The cross-examination proceeded as follows: 

“Q. And in this e-mail, you indicate that Ms. Scott had a certain medical operation, 

a second one — 

[COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF]: Objection, [Y]our Honor, MIL.

THE COURT: And if you would proceed with another question, please.

[COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT]: Okay.

 Q. Now you agree that — now, Ms. Scott — now, you agree that there were 

omissions of the text message correct, and another omission of a certain nature, correct?

 A. Excuse me?
No. 1-23-2000 

- 4 - 

 Q. Do you agree that Ms. Scott omitted in her interviews telling you about her 

communications with Lamon Caldwell after the alleged assault, correct?

 A. I didn’t say that.

 Q. Isn’t it correct that you had wished that you had seen the text messages and 

pictures prior to your interview with Ms. Scott?

 A. I always want to see — not prior to my interview. I always want to see everything 

prior to my report.

 Q. And omissions could lead to wrong diagnoses, correct?

 A. Depends on what the omissions are.

 Q. Medical procedure omissions could lead to wrong diagnoses, Ms. — 

[COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF]: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

 Q. Isn’t it true that Ms. Scott testified — or Ms. Scott, during your interview, 

indicated her zealous religious nature?

 A. She did.

 Q. And isn’t it true that omissions potentially could conflict with her religious 

zealousness in the sense of your diagnosis of her mental state?

 A. I’m sorry, sir, that’s a completely incomprehensible question.” 

Scott did not object to the final question in the above exchange, and Caldwell moved on to a 

different topic without receiving an answer to the final question. The e-mail referring to Scott’s 

abortion was not published to the jury, nor was it admitted into evidence.
No. 1-23-2000 

- 5 - 

¶ 9 Caldwell testified as part of his case-in-chief. During introductory questioning about his 

background and occupation, Caldwell was asked, “By the way, have you ever been convicted of a 

crime?” Caldwell responded “No, sir.” Scott objected, and the trial court sustained the objection 

and struck Caldwell’s answer. 

¶ 10 During a sidebar outside the presence of the jury, Caldwell argued that the question did not 

directly violate motion in limine #9, as the question did not directly refer to the criminal trial or its 

result. The trial court agreed as to the indirect nature of the violation, but explained its ruling:

 “THE COURT: So I sustained the objection because I thought it would lead to the 

inference that it was a not guilty on the criminal charges.

And while it’s not a direct violation, I thought it was an indirect one, and I thought 

it was best to sustain the objection and instruct the jury to disregard it.”

¶ 11 At the close of evidence but before closing arguments, counsel for Scott raised the issue 

regarding the alleged violations of the motions in limine, resulting in the following exchange:

 “[COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF]: The other issue that we’re very concerned by 

defense counsel’s repeated eliciting or attempts to elicit information, evidence that was 

explicitly barred in this court’s order limiting — this court’s order related to the motions 

in limine including Mr. Caldwell’s lack of criminal conviction as well as Ms. Scott’s 

medical procedures.

THE COURT: And what do you want the Court to do?

[COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF]: Well, [Y]our Honor, we are considering our 

options at this point. At this point, we would like to preserve our objection. We know that 
No. 1-23-2000 

- 6 - 

we need to have — to the extent we need a motion for the filing for a new trial or mistrial, 

we would need to do that before the jury enters a verdict.

At this point, we need more time to consult with our client and discuss our options, 

so I did want to put on the record the concern.

THE COURT: So at this time, you don’t want me to do anything? I’ve sustained 

your objection and I instructed the jury to disregard it. I struck the testimony.

There’s nothing more you want me to do at this moment?

[COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF]: That’s correct. At this moment, there’s nothing 

more we want to you do. The one thing we do want to do is preserve our record and not 

waive anything today, [Y]our Honor.”

¶ 12 The parties then discussed the possibility of a curative instruction with the Court, and the 

trial court instructed the parties to confer. Prior to closing arguments, Scott represented that “we 

do not think any additional curative measures are needed,” and no curative instruction was 

ultimately given to the jury.

¶ 13 The jury returned a verdict for Caldwell and against Scott. Scott subsequently filed a 

motion for a new trial based on the alleged violations of the motions in limine. After a hearing, the 

trial court denied the motion. In its oral ruling, the trial court discussed the two alleged violations 

of the motions in limine. The trial court found that the exchange during the cross-examination of

Dr. Fitzgerald regarding a medical procedure was too confusing for the jury to make the inference 

that Scott had any abortions. The trial court agreed with Scott that the jury could have made the 

inference that Caldwell was found not guilty at the criminal trial based on the stricken testimony, 

but it found that the testimony was only an indirect violation of motion in limine #9. The trial court 
No. 1-23-2000 

- 7 - 

assessed the impact of the indirect nature of the violation, the apparent inadvertence of the 

violation, along with Scott’s decision to not ask for a curative instruction on the overall fairness of 

the trial, and found that a new trial was not warranted and denied the motion. This appeal follows.

¶ 14 Scott’s sole claim of error on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion by denying 

her motion for a new trial based on the alleged violations of motions in limine #9 and #12. We find 

that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Scott’s motion for a new trial, as the 

alleged violation of motion in limine #12 was not clear, and any violation of motion in limine #9 

did not deprive her of a fair trial, nor did cumulative effect of both alleged violations. 

¶ 15 A trial court’s ruling on a motion for a new trial will not be disturbed on appeal unless the 

moving party can demonstrate that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. Anderson v. Zamir ̧ 

402 Ill. App. 3d 362, 364 (2010). A violation of a motion in limine is not per se reversible error. 

Jones v. Chicago Osteopathic Hospital, 316 Ill. App. 3d 1121, 1132 (2000). An alleged violation 

of a motion in limine warrants a new trial only when the order is specific, the violation is clear, 

and the violation deprives the movant of a fair trial. Bakes v. St. Alexius Medical Center, 2011 IL 

App (1st) 101646, ¶ 40.

¶ 16 Starting with motion in limine #12, we agree with the trial court that it was unclear whether 

motion in limine #12 was violated by the exchange with Dr. Fitzgerald on cross-examination. 

While the order clearly prohibited reference to Scott’s prior abortions, the exchange at issue

contains no direct reference to abortion, and the indirect reference to medical procedures was in 

the context of an exhibit that the jury did not see.

¶ 17 Caldwell attempted to elicit an answer from Dr. Fitzgerald regarding Scott’s disclosure of 

medical procedures and communications with Caldwell and the impact that non-disclosure may 
No. 1-23-2000 

- 8 - 

have had on Dr. Fitzgerald’s evaluation of Scott. As Caldwell points out, the word “abortion” was 

never uttered during this exchange. In the context of the e-mails being shown to Dr. Fitzgerald, 

the questioning was almost certainly referring to Scott’s failure to disclose a prior abortion to Dr. 

Fitzgerald, but that e-mail was neither admitted into evidence nor published to the jury. The jury 

was only presented with the questions by Caldwell referring to “medical procedure omissions.” 

Additionally, Scott failed to object to the final question in this sequence, and therefore has not 

preserved any claim of error with regards to that question. 

¶ 18 We agree with the trial court that there was no clear violation of motion in limine #12, and, 

therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Scott’s motion for a new trial on 

that basis. See Brown v. Bozorgi, 234 Ill. App. 3d 972, 977 (1992) (finding that veiled references 

to fact that doctor involved in treating plaintiff had reached settlement agreement did not constitute 

clear violation of motion in limine barring reference to plaintiff’s settlement agreements and did 

not warrant new trial).

¶ 19 Scott also argues that the fact that she was required to raise two objections to this line of 

questioning alone constitutes prejudice or deprived her of a fair trial, but we disagree. Caldwell 

was entitled to cross-examine the basis of Dr. Fitzgerald’s opinions about Scott, and he attempted 

to explore Scott’s non-disclosure of certain aspects of her history without directly referring to 

abortion. Scott points to Geisberger v. Quincy, 3 Ill. App. 3d 437, 441 (1972), in support of her 

position, but Geisberger is distinguishable from the present case, as that case involved “repeated 

rulings and admonitions” not to address prohibited topics, whereas here the trial court made one 

admonishment to “proceed with another question” after Scott’s first objection and sustained her 

second objection. After a third question arguably implicating the barred topic was not objected to
No. 1-23-2000 

- 9 - 

or answered by Dr. Fitzgerald, Caldwell moved on. Given the numerous objections raised by Scott 

throughout the trial, we cannot say that the fact that she raised two objections during this exchange 

drew undue attention to the questions or resulted in any prejudice.

¶ 20 Turning to motion in limine #9, we agree with the trial court and Scott that the jury could 

have “put 2 and 2 together to make 4” and concluded that Caldwell had been tried and found not 

guilty of criminal sexual assault. It was no secret based on the parties’ opening statements and the 

repeated referrals to Scott’s testimony in a prior criminal trial during her cross-examination that 

Caldwell had been criminally tried regarding the allegations underlying the civil case. Within that 

context, Caldwell’s testimony that he had not been convicted of a crime could lead to an inference 

that the result of the criminal trial was a not guilty verdict. However, we also agree with the trial 

court that this was an indirect violation of motion in limine #9. Rather than directly eliciting the 

not-guilty verdict of the criminal trial as prohibited by motion in limine #9, it required an inference 

based on two pieces of testimony taken on different days that there was a criminal trial and that 

Caldwell had not been convicted of any crime. Regardless, Caldwell’s testimony that he had not 

been convicted of a crime was a clear, if indirect, violation of motion in limine #9’s prohibition on 

introducing evidence of the not-guilty finding in Caldwell’s criminal trial.

¶ 21 Finding that motion in limine #9 was indirectly violated, we find that the trial court did not 

abuse its discretion in denying Scott’s motion for a new trial based on this violation. The violating 

question and answer was in the context of Caldwell’s background, rather than intertwined with a 

discussion of the alleged assault or of the criminal trial. The trial court sustained Scott’s objection 

and struck Caldwell’s answer, which “generally is a prompt cure for any prejudicial impact that 

may have been caused.” Kass v. Resurrection Medical Center, 316 Ill. App. 3d 1108, 1114 (2000). 
No. 1-23-2000 

- 10 - 

¶ 22 Scott argues that the jury still heard this information, and the jury could have used the fact 

that Caldwell was acquitted to undermine her credibility or confuse the burden of proof. However, 

we must presume that the jury followed the trial court’s instruction when it struck the offending

testimony and followed the trial court’s instruction regarding the applicable burden of proof. 

McHale v. Kiswani Trucking, Inc. 2015 IL App (1st) 132625 ¶ 47. We cannot find the trial court 

abused its discretion in denying Scott’s motion for a new trial based on its assessment of the impact 

of the single improper question on the proceedings as a whole.

¶ 23 Scott also contends that the trial court improperly considered the apparent unintentional 

nature of the violation of the motions in limine, the indirect nature of the violations, and her failure 

to request a curative instruction or move for a mistrial in denying her motion for a new trial. We 

disagree that these considerations by the trial court in its oral ruling on Scott’s motion constitute 

error or an abuse of discretion. The trial court’s discussion of intent was related to the context of 

the question regarding Caldwell’s criminal history following preliminary questions about his 

background, rather than in the context of the criminal trial or the allegations in this case. With 

regards to the discussion of the indirect nature of the violation, the trial court discussed the lack of 

precedent supporting the proposition that an indirect violation of a motion in limine warranted a 

new trial. We cannot say that the trial court’s discussion of relevant precedent, or lack thereof, was 

an improper consideration.

¶ 24 Similarly, the trial court properly considered Scott’s decision not to move for a mistrial or 

curative instruction as a factor in denying her motion for a new trial. Before closing arguments, 

Scott explicitly addressed the possibility of moving for a mistrial or asking for a curative 

instruction but wanted to evaluate her options before doing so. Rather than move for a mistrial or 
No. 1-23-2000 

- 11 - 

ask for a curative instruction, Scott elected to wait for the verdict, then raise her claim of error in 

a posttrial motion. Scott is correct that she was not required to ask for a curative instruction or 

move for a mistrial in order to preserve her claim of error for review. Jackson ex rel. Jackson v. 

Reid, 402 Ill. App. 3d 215, 231 (2010). However, this conduct suggests that prior to the verdict in 

Caldwell’s favor, Scott did not see the error as so prejudicial as warranting a new trial. See 

Holloway v. Sprinkmann Sons Corp. of Illinois, 2014 IL App 4th 131118, ¶ 127 (“A party cannot 

wait until after the verdict and then revise its assessment of fairness. That would be taking two 

bites out of the apple.”). The trial court properly took Scott’s tactical decisions into account as a 

factor in assessing whether she received a fair trial. 

¶ 25 Alternatively, Scott argues that the cumulative impact of both alleged violations deprived 

her of a fair trial. We disagree. Even considering the cumulative impact of both claimed violations, 

we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying Scott’s motion for a new trial. In ruling 

on Scott’s motion for a new trial, the trial court carefully discussed the alleged violations in the 

context of the entire trial and found that Scott was not deprived of a fair trial due to the claimed

violations of the motions in limine. The trial court was in a superior position to assess the impact 

of the claimed violations on the jury and on the trial as a whole. The trial court also considered 

many of the same cases cited by Scott before this court and found that none of them were directly 

analogous to the present case. Given the trial court’s carefully thought-out reasoning, we find no 

abuse of discretion in the trial court’s conclusion that the claimed violations of the motions in 

limine did not deprive Scott of a fair trial.

¶ 26 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order denying Scott’s motion for a 

new trial.
No. 1-23-2000 

- 12 - 

¶ 27 Affirmed.