There are numerous OCR errors in this but a pdf copy will be posted to the LMT web site in a little while. The State's Motion in Limine raises twelve separate evidentiary issues and requests this court to find that certain evidence is not admissible because it is either not relevant or that its relevance is outweighed by unfair prejudice.
All relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law.
Relevant evidence is inadmissible when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Whether to exclude otherwise relevant evidence rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge who must determine whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the exclusionary reasons set forth above. Lewis v. State. In balancing these factors, the trial judge may consider the need for the particular evidence, the availability of alternative means of proof and whether a limiting instruction will ameliorate any unfair prejudice. Almost all evidence sought to be introduced by the State in a criminal prosecution will be prejudicial to a defendant.