Opinion ID: 1959412
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Motion In Limine to Suppress Evidence of a Prior Crime

Text: In a motion made prior to and renewed on the first day of trial, the defendant sought to suppress evidence of his prior conviction in Texas for a similar type of offense. [3] In each instance the trial justice reserved ruling until evidence has been properly admitted, in order that any potential prejudice may be more clearly assessed. Further, he cautioned the State not to attempt to introduce such evidence without first giving the court an opportunity outside the presence of the jury to determine its purpose and make a ruling as to its admissibility. At the conclusion of the State's case, the defense rested without further discussion of the motion. In chambers, the defense counsel noted that the decision to rest was made out of fear that evidence of the Texas incident would be admitted. On appeal, the defendant argues that his right to testify in his own behalf was impermissibly chilled by the trial justice's refusal to rule on the motion in limine. We disagree. The rule governing motions in limine explicitly allows the trial justice to reserve ruling on the motion. The rule provides: The defendant or the State may make a pretrial motion requesting a pretrial ruling on the admissibility of evidence at trial or on other matters relating to the conduct of the trial. The court may rule on the motion or continue it for a ruling at trial. In determining whether to rule on the motion or continue it, the court should consider the importance of the issue presented, the desirability that it be resolved prior to trial, and the appropriateness of having the ruling made by the justice who will preside at trial. For good cause shown the trial justice may change a ruling made in limine. M.R.Crim.P. 12(c). We have previously held that a trial judge is perfectly justified in refusing to make a final ruling in limine on the admissibility of evidence, preferring instead to hear the testimony of witnesses during the trial. State v. Ayers, 468 A.2d 606, 609 (Me.1983), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 1919, 80 L.Ed.2d 466 (1984); State v. Dodge, 397 A.2d 588, 592, 593 (Me.1979). We note that in the instant case, we have no evidence of how the presiding justice might have ruled had the defendant testified, nor any assurance that the defendant would have offered any testimony had the motion been granted. The defendant agreed with the trial court that the cautionary warning by the court to the State would prevent the State from mentioning the existence of evidence that might prove to be highly prejudicial to this defendant without a prior ruling by the court as to its admissibility. On this record, we hold that the trial justice properly deferred his ruling until he had heard the testimony of the defendant and the nature of the evidence that the State might seek to introduce. State v. Dodge, 397 A.2d at 593. See Luce v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, ___-___, 105 S.Ct. 460, 463-64, 83 L.Ed.2d 443, 447-48 (1984).