Court Opinion

ID: 9520933
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:53:26.42547+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:15.611786
License: Public Domain

STATON, Presiding Judge,
dissenting opinion.
I dissent from the Majority's treatment of the motion in limine. The motion in limine was never intended for use in a voir dire setting. Any attempt to place it in a setting other than a jury trial where evidence is being offered on the merits of an action destroys the entire concept of its origin and purpose. Any attempt to broaden its application to other phases of the trial obscures its meaningfulness and ra*748tionale for being a useful tool for the administration of justice.
My dissent necessarily incorporates the written objection made by Rohrkaste, since a motion in limine has no application to a voir dire setting. His written objection did not waive the error of the trial court when it sustained the motion in limine. The error was properly preserved for appeal. I would have reversed the trial court on this issue alone, since the error prevented Rohrkaste from obtaining and assuring himself that a fair and impartial jury had been selected.
The motion in limine granted by the trial court prohibited Rohrkaste's Counsel during "... voir dire examination from asking any and all questions of the respective jurors directed to the area of interest that any such juror may have in an insurance company, particularly, such insurance company, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, (by way of example: questions as to whether any prospective jurors are an employee, has stock or any interest, or is insured by United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company)" This is not the purpose of a motion in limine. Its purpose is to function in an evidentiary setting where a jury is determining the merits of factual issues. The purpose and function of a voir dire setting is to allow considerable latitude to counsel so that he may discover any interest, prejudice, or bias of prospective jurors. A fair and impartial jury is the purpose of voir dire not the exclusion or suppression of offers in evidence, prejudicial questions, or prejudicial statements. This is the purpose of the motion in limine.
In Burris v. Silhavy (1973), 155 Ind.App. 558, 293 N.E.2d 794, this Court explained the purpose of a motion in limine:
"The purpose in filing a motion in li-mine to suppress evidence or to instruct opposing counsel not to offer it is to prevent the asking of prejudicial questions and the making of prejudicial statements in the presence of the jury with respect to matters which have no proper bearing on the issues in the case or on the rights of the parties to the suit. It is the prejudicial effect of the questions asked or statements made in connection with the offer of the evidence, not the prejudicial effect of the evidence itself, which the motion in limine is intended to reach...."
293 N.E.2d at 796-7.
The use of a motion in limine in a voir dire setting is foreign to its purpose and incompatible with its function.
The use of a motion in limine is limited to the jury trial, and its use is further restrict ed to the exclusion of prejudicial matters. In Baldwin v. Inter City Contractors Service, Inc. (1973), 156 Ind.App. 497, 297 N.E.2d 831, this Court reversed a trial court that attempted to use a motion in limine in a matter that was being tried before the court rather than before a jury. In Baldwin this Court stated:
"This cause was being tried by a trial court. The trial court's ruling upon the 'motion in limine' excluded expert testimony as irrelevant. A 'motion in limine' has no place or use in this setting. Its use is limited to the jury trial. Secondly, this court has held that the 'motion in limine' has a very restricted use which flows from the trial court's inherent power. This restricted use is to exclude prejudicial matters. The exclusion by the trial court may encompass both prejudicial and irrelevant matter, but the primary purpose for granting the motion must be that the matter excluded would be prejudicial to the moving party. Burrus v. Silhavy (1973) [155] Ind.App. [558], 293 N.E.2d 794." (Emphasis original), 297 N.E.2d at 883-4.
It is error for a trial court to attempt an application of the motion in limine to a court trial. It is error for a trial court to attempt an application of the motion in limine to a voir dire setting.
An evidentiary setting is indispensible to the function of a motion in limine. Error can only be perfected for an appeal by objecting to the prejudicial matter when it *749is offered in evidence. If the objection is sustained, an offer to prove must be made to complete the record for appeal. Justice DeBruler succinetly explained the function of the motion in limine and the perfection of error on appeal in Lagenour v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 441, 376 N.E.2d 475. Justice DeBruler explained:
"The State counters that the evidence sought to be excluded by a motion in limine must be objected to at the time of its introduction at trial for any error in the denial of the motion to be preserved. This proposition is correct. Morris v. State (1977), [172] Ind.App. [509], 360 N.E.2d 1027; Marsh v. Lesh (1975), [164] Ind.App. [67], 326 N.E.2d 626. Appellant's motion sought to absolutely prohibit the State from using this evidence. For instructive purposes it should be noted at this point that it is not the office of a motion in limine to obtain a final ruling upon the ultimate admissibility of evidence as was sought by appellant, but is rather to prevent the proponent of potentially prejudicial matter from displaying it to the jury, making statements about it before the jury, or presenting the matter to a jury in any manner until the trial court has ruled upon its admissibility in the context of the trial itself. Baldwin v. Inter City Contractors Service, Inc. (1973), 156 Ind.App. 497, 297 N.E.2d 831."
Obviously, a motion in limine has absolute ly no place in a voir dire setting where counsel is trying to discover conflicting interest, prejudice, or bias on the part of a prospective juror.
The trial court committed reversible error when it granted the City of Terre Haute's motion in limine in a voir dire setting. Rohrkaste should have been permitted to make a good faith inquiry into the interests of prospective jurors. Proper objections and instructions to the jury are the proper means to deflect inquiries which are inappropriate. I dissent and I would reverse.