Opinion ID: 1312695
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: violations of in limine motions

Text: Prior to the commencement of trial Ravellette filed and was granted several motions in limine. Four of these motions were violated during the course of the trial. Specifically, in Motions in Limine 2-5, the trial court restricted the plaintiffs from offering any evidence or otherwise mentioning the following subject matters before the jury without further order of the court: (2) Referring in any way to the proceedings before the State Division of Human Rights. (3) Referring in any way to any settlement or compromise of any prior administrative proceedings. (4) Referring in any way to Doctor Hayes or otherwise insinuating what Doctor Hayes may have testified to were he properly designated as an expert and was present at trial, or introducing evidence of his office notes. (5) Referring in any way to any suspicions by the plaintiffs that they were spied upon[.] Despite the granting of these specific motions in limine, the counsel for the plaintiffs violated each one during the course of the trial. In their opening statement, plaintiffs' counsel introduced material that violated the prohibitions of the fourth motion in limine regarding Dr. Hayes and the fifth motion in limine regarding the plaintiffs' suspicions that they were being spied upon. The trial court sternly admonished plaintiffs' counsel at that time but denied a motion for a mistrial. Plaintiffs' counsel later violated the prohibitions of the second and third motions in limine during questioning of Ravellette on rebuttal. They recalled Ravellette as a witness and asked him: MR. DUFFY: Mr. Ravellette, it is true, is it not, that you issued a written apology for your actions MR. JOHNSON: Excuse me. MR. DUFFY: To each of my clients THE COURT: Just a minute, approach, counsel. Plaintiffs' counsel waived the letter of apology in his hand while he asked the above question. A motion for a mistrial was again denied by the trial court. The decision to grant a new trial is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and this Court will not disturb the trial court's decision absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. Dartt v. Berghorst, 484 N.W.2d 891, 894 (S.D.1992). The trial court, however, has the duty in jury cases to conduct proceedings, to the extent practicable, so as to prevent inadmissible evidence from being suggested to the jury by any means, such as making statements or offers of proof or asking questions in the hearing of the jury. SDCL 19-9-5 (Rule 103(c)). The granting of motions in limine to prevent the admission of prejudicial evidence is one method of achieving this duty. A motion in limine has been defined as: [A] motion, heard in advance of jury selection, which asks the court to instruct the [party], its counsel and witnesses not to mention certain facts unless and until permission of the court is first obtained outside the presence and hearing of the jury. Lapasinskas v. Quick, 17 Mich.App. 733, 170 N.W.2d 318, 319 (1969). The Lapasinskas court went on to state: If prejudicial matters are brought before the jury, no amount of objection or instruction can remove the harmful effect, and the [party] is powerless unless he wants to forego his chance of a trial and ask for a mistrial. Once the question is asked, the harm is done. Lapasinskas, 170 N.W.2d at 319. Thus, the purpose of the motion in limine is to prevent prejudicial evidence from reaching the ears of the jury. In order for a violation of an in limine motion to serve as the basis for a new trial, the order must be specific in its prohibitions, and violations must be clear. Northern Trust Bank v. Carl, 200 Ill.App.3d 773, 146 Ill.Dec. 488, 493, 558 N.E.2d 451, 456 (1990). Further, a new trial may follow only where the violation has prejudiced the party or denied him a fair trial. Id. Prejudicial error is error which in all probability produced some effect upon the jury's verdict and is harmful to the substantial rights of the party assigning it. State v. Michalek, 407 N.W.2d 815, 818 (S.D.1987). The motions in limine were specific in their prohibitions. Dr. Hayes was not to be referred to in any way. Further, the proceedings before the Division of Human Rights or the settlement provisions were not to be referred to in any way. This language is unequivocal and clear in its prohibitions. Plaintiffs' counsel violated the prohibitions by mentioning Dr. Hayes and by interjecting the apology in front of the jury. The violations of the motions in limine have prejudiced Ravellette and denied him a fair trial. The rulings of the trial court were violated several times. Plaintiffs' counsel was sternly admonished after each violation. This was not a situation where the prejudice was created in the heat of the battle and was beyond counsel's control. Rather, the attempt to introduce the evidence, especially the apology, appears to be an intentional attempt to bring to the jury evidence it was clearly not to hear. If counsel wanted to renew the request for admission of any of the evidence excluded by the motions in limine, it was their duty to approach the bench outside of the jury's presence. Scruggs v. State, 782 S.W.2d 499, 502 (Tex.App.1989). As the Court stated in Lapasinskas, perhaps the greatest advantage to a motion in limine is not having to object in the jury's presence to evidence which may be logically relevant and which the jury may want to hear. Lapasinskas, 170 N.W.2d at 319. Plaintiffs' counsel made no attempt to raise the issue outside the hearing of the jury and instead inserted the improper evidence in their presence. The prejudicial impact of the introduction of the evidence is amplified because the inadmissible evidence went to the vital issue in the case. The apology was written as a part of the settlement of the proceedings before the Division of Human Rights. SDCL 19-12-10 expressly precludes the admission of settlement negotiations to prove liability. [3] Further, whether or not Ravellette spied on these women was not actually determined by those proceedings. [4] Because settlement negotiations are inadmissible to prove liability and the issue of whether Ravellette spied on these women was never determined by the prior proceedings before the Division of Human Rights, the trial court properly determined that there would be no mention of those proceedings or the settlement thereof. In Cody v. Mustang Oil Tool Co., Inc., 595 S.W.2d 214, 216 (Tex.Civ.App.1980), the trial court held that it was reversible error to allow admission of police officer's testimony that he issued the defendant a traffic ticket after an automobile accident. In that case the question of which vehicle ran the red light was the vital factual issue and the trial court had previously granted a motion in limine restraining testimony concerning the ticket. The present case is analogous in that the trial court had granted a motion in limine that prevented evidence which effectively determined the vital factual issue in the case. Thereafter, the prejudicial evidence was introduced in violation of the motion in limine. The factual issue that was to be determined in the present case was whether Ravellette intentionally observed the plaintiffs in the restroom. It was the jury's duty as the finders of fact to determine whether this actually occurred. When the jury heard the evidence that he had issued a written apology for his actions, the issue whether he had spied on the plaintiffs was essentially foreclosed in the minds of the jury. No conceivable testimony could have been more prejudicial and damaging to Ravellette than for the jury to hear that he had apologized to the plaintiffs. Further, as the Court in Lapasinskas stated, once the prejudicial matters are brought before the jury no amount of objection or instruction can remove the harmful effect. Lapasinskas, 170 N.W.2d at 319. Even if the trial court had instructed the jury to disregard the evidence, the knowledge of the apology would not have been erased in their minds. One can not unring a bell. Thus, Ravellette was clearly prejudiced by the introduction of the evidence which had been ruled inadmissible by a motion in limine. The prejudicial effect of the evidence was further amplified because there was not overwhelming admissible evidence that Ravellette had spied on the plaintiffs. See Cody at 216. If there had been overwhelming evidence that Ravellette had spied on these women, the prejudicial effect of the evidence would have been slight and the error harmless. See Michalek at 818. In this case, however, the evidence that Ravellette had spied on these women in the restroom is almost wholly based on circumstantial evidence. Only Tireman ever saw a flicker of light on more than one occurrence while she was using the restroom. Although the plaintiffs had heard footsteps on the other side of the wall, this could have been explained by the fact that Ravellette frequently worked in that area. The only direct evidence the plaintiffs presented was the incident where Hindman looked through a window for three seconds and observed Ravellette apparently looking through the hole while Kjerstad was using the restroom. Ravellette testified that he was working in the area at that time but denied that he was spying on Kjerstad. Without the apology, this Court is not prepared to conclude that the evidence weighed heavily in favor of the plaintiffs' version of the events in question and that the apology had no effect on the jury's decision. The introduction of the written apology was in clear violation of the motions in limine granted by the trial court. The inadmissible evidence essentially decided the vital issue in a case where the evidence was not overwhelmingly balanced either way. Consequently, this error in all probability produced some effect upon the jury's verdict and is harmful to the substantial rights of Ravellette in that he was denied a fair trial. Therefore, it is the holding of this Court that Ravellette was denied a fair trial and that a mistrial should have been granted.