The motion in limine is a universal tool in American courtrooms, but its application, procedural nuances, and governing case law are profoundly shaped by state-specific rules and judicial interpretations. A strategy that succeeds in one jurisdiction may fail in another. For the criminal litigator practicing in Texas, California, New York, or Florida—four of the nation's largest and most influential legal systems—understanding these distinctions is not merely academic; it is the key to effectively shielding a client from prejudicial evidence and preserving critical issues for appeal. This essay provides a state-by-state analysis of motions in limine, highlighting unique rules, pivotal case law, and strategic considerations for making these motions winnable and preserving the record.
All four states have evidence codes that mirror the Federal Rules in their core principles:
The Prejudice/Probative Balance: Each has a rule equivalent to FRE 403, allowing the exclusion of evidence whose probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
The Propensity Bar: Each has a rule equivalent to FRE 404(b), prohibiting evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts to prove character and action in conformity therewith.
The divergence lies in how state courts interpret and apply these rules.
Texas practice is characterized by formalistic rules and a strict insistence on preserving error.
Key Authority: The Texas Rules of Evidence (TRE) are largely modeled on the Federal Rules. TRE 403 and TRE 404(b) are the primary grounds for motions in limine.
Case Law and Strategic Nuances:
Propensity Evidence (TRE 404(b)): Texas courts are generally strict on prohibiting propensity evidence. However, the "doctrine of chances" and "identity" are frequently litigated grounds.
Powell v. State: This case reinforces that when an extraneous offense is admitted for a non-propensity purpose, the trial court must, upon request, give a limiting instruction to the jury under TRE 105, instructing them on the specific, limited purpose for which they may consider the evidence.
Impeachment with Prior Convictions (TRE 609): This is a critical battleground. Unlike the federal rule, Texas has its own specific test.
Theus v. State: The landmark case establishing the factors for admitting prior convictions for impeachment: (1) the impeachment value of the prior crime; (2) the temporal proximity of the past crime to the present trial and the defendant's subsequent history; (3) the similarity between the past crime and the charged offense (if the crimes are too similar, prejudice may be overwhelming); (4) the importance of the defendant's testimony; and (5) the importance of the credibility issue. A winning motion meticulously analyzes each Theus factor against the prosecution.
Preservation for Appeal: Texas is notoriously strict. A pre-trial ruling on a motion in limine is almost never sufficient to preserve error.
Geuder v. State: The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has consistently held that a motion in limine does not preserve error. To preserve a complaint for appellate review, the defendant must object at trial when the evidence is offered. Failure to make a contemporaneous objection results in waiver.
Texas Practice Tip: File the motion in limine to frame the issue for the judge, but your real focus must be on the trial moment. When the prosecutor begins to ask the question or offer the exhibit, you must stand and state: "Objection, Your Honor, under Rule 403 [or 404(b)], as we discussed in our motion in limine."
California's Evidence Code is distinct from the FRE, and its appellate courts grant trial judges broad discretion.
Key Authority: The California Evidence Code is the governing law. Key sections include:
§ 352: The state's counterpart to FRE 403, granting judges power to exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability of undue prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury.
§ 1101(a): The propensity bar, prohibiting character evidence to prove conduct.
Case Law and Strategic Nuances:
Propensity Evidence (§ 1101): While § 1101(a) bars propensity evidence, § 1101(b) allows it for non-propensity purposes like motive, intent, plan, or identity. The California Supreme Court has been permissive in finding such purposes.
People v. Ewoldt: This case established a framework for admitting uncharged acts to prove a "common plan or scheme," which is distinct from mere propensity. The court will look for a high degree of common features between the acts. A strong motion argues that the proffered evidence lacks the specificity and uniqueness to show a plan and is, in reality, just propensity evidence.
The "Macho" Problem: A unique California doctrine arises when a defendant claims complete innocence or a "frame-up" defense.
People v. Macho: Held that if a defendant "opens the door" by claiming the police planted evidence or that he is the victim of a frame-up, the prosecution may then introduce evidence of the defendant's uncharged misconduct to prove the defendant's "criminal propensities" as a direct rebuttal to the defense. A motion in limine must carefully consider whether the defense theory will trigger Macho, and if not, argue forcefully that the prosecution should be precluded from anticipating and introducing such evidence prematurely.
Preservation for Appeal: Like Texas, a motion in limine alone is insufficient. A contemporaneous objection at trial is required. Furthermore, if the motion is denied, counsel must make an offer of proof (under Evidence Code § 354(a)) if the ruling excludes defense evidence, detailing what the evidence would have shown.
California Practice Tip: Frame your § 352 argument in terms of the "undue" prejudice. California courts recognize that all evidence is prejudicial to the opposing side; the key is whether it is unfairly prejudicial. Argue that the evidence will invite the jury to decide the case on an improper emotional basis.
New York's evidence law is a blend of statute and a rich, unique common law tradition. Its trial judges wield significant discretion.
Key Authority: The New York Rules of Evidence are less codified than other states. The "Molineux" rule is the cornerstone for analyzing prior bad acts.
Case Law and Strategic Nuances:
Propensity Evidence (The Molineux Rule):
People v. Molineux: This 1901 case is the foundational New York precedent. It established the general prohibition against propensity evidence and outlined the recognized exceptions: motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, common scheme or plan, and identity. New York courts are generally conservative in admitting Molineux evidence.
People v. Ventimiglia: This case established the procedure for admitting such evidence. The prosecution must notify the defense of its intent to offer Molineux evidence, and the court must hold a Ventimiglia hearing outside the jury's presence to determine its admissibility. A winning motion in limine often takes the form of a motion to preclude evidence following a Ventimiglia hearing.
The "Sandoval" Hearing: This is a critical and unique New York procedure for prior convictions.
People v. Sandoval: Held that a defendant is entitled to a pre-trial hearing where the court determines the extent to which the prosecution can use the defendant's prior convictions or bad acts to impeach their credibility if they testify. The judge balances the probative value of the prior act on the issue of credibility against the risk of unfair prejudice. The ruling provides the defendant with crucial information to decide whether to testify.
Preservation for Appeal: New York follows the contemporaneous objection rule (CPL 470.05(2)). An objection must be made "at the time of such ruling or instruction or at any subsequent time when the court had an opportunity of effectively changing the same." A motion in limine may be sufficient if the court makes a "definite and final" ruling on the record, but the safest practice is to renew the objection when the evidence is offered at trial.
New York Practice Tip: Your primary pre-trial focus should be on winning the Sandoval and Ventimiglia hearings. These are the procedural vehicles for motions in limine on prior bad acts and convictions. Come to these hearings prepared with a detailed analysis of the Molineux factors or a compelling Sandoval compromise.
Florida has a comprehensive evidence code that deliberately tracks the Federal Rules of Evidence, though state-specific interpretations abound.
Key Authority: The Florida Evidence Code (Ch. 90, Fla. Stat.) contains the primary rules.
Case Law and Strategic Nuances:
Propensity Evidence ("Williams Rule" Evidence): Florida's term for 404(b)-type evidence comes from a seminal case.
Williams v. State: The origin of the "Williams Rule," now codified in § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat.. It allows evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake. However, the evidence must be "relevant and material to a legitimate, disputed issue" and its probative value must not be substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
McLean v. State: A key case requiring the prosecution to provide "clear and convincing evidence" that the defendant committed the other act before it can be admitted under the Williams Rule. A potent argument in a motion in limine is that the prosecution cannot meet this threshold standard of proof for the uncharged act.
The "Collateral Crime" Jury Instruction: When Williams Rule evidence is admitted, the court must give a specific limiting instruction to the jury, both at the time the evidence is presented and in the final jury charge. A motion in limine should request this instruction to mitigate the prejudice.
Preservation for Appeal: Florida law is clear that a motion in limine, by itself, does not preserve an issue for appeal.
Joiner v. State: The Florida Supreme Court has held that a contemporaneous objection at the time the evidence is offered is required to preserve a claim that the trial court erroneously admitted evidence. A ruling on a motion in limine is considered preliminary and subject to change based on the trial context.
Florida Practice Tip: When arguing against Williams Rule evidence, focus on the "clear and convincing" standard from McLean. Attack the quality of the prosecution's proof for the uncharged act. Furthermore, always ensure you object at trial and request the specific, contemporaneous limiting instruction to both minimize the damage and solidify the record for appeal.
The motion in limine is a powerful shield, but its metal is forged in state-specific fires. The successful advocate must know not only the universal principles of evidence but also the local terrain:
In Texas, mastery of Theus and relentless focus on the contemporaneous objection is paramount.
In California, navigating the broad discretion of § 352 and the pitfalls of the Macho doctrine defines success.
In New York, victory is often secured not through a generic motion, but by prevailing in the specialized Sandoval and Ventimiglia hearings.
In Florida, attacking the foundation of "Williams Rule" evidence under the McLean standard and demanding proper jury instructions are key strategies.
Across all jurisdictions, one rule is universal: a motion in limine is the opening argument, but the final preservation of a client's rights hinges on a vigilant, timely, and specific objection at the moment of truth during trial.