Opinion ID: 1726198
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: whether the lower court erred in denying the downtown grill's motion in limine and allowing plaintiffs to offer evidence regarding allegations of underage drinking?

Text: ¶ 45. Because this issue is not a necessary issue in the case before this Court, we will only briefly address it. The Downtown Grill filed a motion in limine seeking to prohibit plaintiffs from mentioning, offering evidence, or soliciting testimony regarding allegations of the Downtown Grill allowing minors to consume alcoholic beverages. The motion was denied. ¶ 46. The appellant presents the following argument in its brief. The fact that the person who later confessed to this crime was a minor who was allegedly drinking alcohol in the Downtown Grill on the night in question was not relevant to anyissue presented by this case, as is best evidenced by the fact that the plaintiffs did not include this allegation in their jury instructions. Such evidence was irrelevant and furthermore inadmissible under Rules 404 (improper character evidence of a party) and 608 (improper character evidence of a witness) of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence. Alternatively, any probative value of this evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury and therefore inadmissible under Rule 403. Compare Holladay v. Tutor, 465 So.2d 337, 338 (Miss.1985) (court reversed and remanded for new trial where evidence that a box of marijuana and quaaludes were found in defendant's car was not relevant and the only purpose for which it was offered was to prejudice the jury); Pope v. McGee, 403 So.2d 1269, 1271 (Miss.1981) (evidence that two six packs of beer and an unidentified white powder were found in defendant's automobile shed no light on proximate cause of collision and was highly prejudicial; this evidence is not to be admitted on retrial). ¶ 47. There is no argument made to the contrary. Appellees only argue that the Downtown Grill did not report the forged check because it was afraid the police would find out the young man who eventually confessed to being the person who actually forged the check was underage. This Court finds that this argument is nothing more than speculation on the part of the plaintiffs in this case. There is no proof contained within the record that this proposal by plaintiffs had any truth whatsoever. Speculation does not fall within the duties of this Court in interpreting the laws of our State. Further, this issue has no place in a case claiming malicious prosecution.