Opinion ID: 205890
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Orr's Motion in Limine

Text: On June 20, 2008, Orr filed his Motion [in Limine] To Exclude Evidence of Burglary of Residence of Brayden Bergen. Therein, Orr sought to exclude evidence of the burglary of Mr. Brayden Bergen's house, asserting that Defendant is not a suspect of that burglary and presenting such evidence would be more prejudicial than its probative worth. This burglary ultimately produced the stolen X-box which Orr accepted from Nelson in exchange for crack cocaine. The district court denied Orr's motion, and Orr now asserts that the district court erred in doing so. A district court's denial of a motion in limine is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. United States v. Blaylock, 535 F.3d 922, 927-28 (8th Cir.2008). Essentially, Orr's motion in limine was predicated on the theory that any evidence pertaining to the burglary was irrelevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 or, alternatively, that its probative value was substantially outweighed by its unfair prejudice in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 403. For its part, the government maintained that evidence of the burglary was relevant and admissible because it was offered merely to explain how law enforcement's attention initially settled on Orr. Because this is an arguably close question of evidence, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in allowing evidence of the burglary. Moreover, even assuming that the evidence was irrelevant or was otherwise inadmissible due to undue prejudice, this error was harmless. See United States v. Parish, 606 F.3d 480, 487 (8th Cir.2010) (Even if the district court erred in admitting the evidence, we will not reverse if the admission of the evidence was harmless.). As already stated, the jury heard ample evidence upon which to base its guilty verdict, and Orr cannot reasonably argue that, but for this evidentiary ruling, the trial's outcome might have differed.