Chapter 2 - § 2.3 GROUNDS FOR GRANTING

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 2.3 GROUNDS FOR GRANTING

Colorado

➢ General. Because no specific statute authorizes a motion in limine, the trial court has broad discretion to grant the requested relief. "The underlying power of the trial court to pass on the admissibility of evidence is inherent and is reflected in the rules governing trial procedure." Good v. A. B. Chance Co., 565 P.2d 217, 221 (Colo. App. 1977), superseded on other grounds, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19366 (D. Colo. 2006).

➢ General. No specific grounds are required so long as the order does not operate to prejudice the rights of a litigant. Bruckman v. Pena, 487 P.2d 566, 569 (Colo. App. 1971); C.R.C.P. 16(a); C.R.C.P. 43.

➢ Example of Inadmissible Evidence. The plaintiff's motion in limine to exclude evidence of Medicaid benefits paid on behalf of the plaintiff and the amounts paid to or accepted by the plaintiff's medical providers was granted by the trial court and affirmed on appeal. As a matter of first impression in Colorado, under C.R.S. § 10-1-135(10)(a), evidence of Medicaid benefits paid on behalf of a plaintiff are inadmissible at trial. Also, as a matter of first impression, under C.R.S. § 10-1-135(10)(a), the so-called "gratuitous government benefits" exception to the collateral source rule is abrogated. Smith v. Kinningham, 328 P.3d 258 (Colo. App. 2013).

➢ No Objection Raised to Exclusion of Evidence. It was improper for the attorney general to refer to evidence that had been specifically excluded by the ALJ in response to the physician-petitioner's motion in limine, because the attorney general did not specifically challenge the ALJ's ruling excluding the evidence. Colorado State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs v. Hoffner, 832 P.2d 1062, 1067 (Colo. App. 1992).

➢ Excluding "Other Acts." In making an in limine ruling on the admissibility of other acts evidence, the trial court must apply the Spoto analysis in evaluating whether CRE 404(b) excludes such evidence. See Hock v. New York Life Ins. Co., 876 P.2d 1242, 1249 (Colo. 1994); see also Boettcher & Co. v. Munson, 854 P.2d 199, 210 (Colo. 1993) (en banc) (adopted the Spoto analysis in evaluating whether CRE 404(b) excludes "other acts"

...