Chapter 2 - § 2.5 EFFECT

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 2.5 EFFECT

Colorado

➢ Not Final. The district court's pretrial order was not "a final ruling on the admissibility of any evidence, but simply prohibited the use of certain evidence without obtaining permission of the court." Bruckman v. Pena, 487 P.2d 566, 569 (Colo. App. 1971). The trial court may still modify pretrial rulings at trial. Lombard v. Colo. Outdoor Educ. Ctr., Inc., 266 P.3d 412, 420 (Colo. App. 2011).

➢ New Trial. For a violation of an in limine order to serve as a basis for a new trial, the order must be clearly violated and the violation sufficiently prejudicial as to require reversal. Absent reference to the specific details of the excluded evidence, a near violation of an in limine order is not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant reversal. Van Shaack v. Van Shaack Holdings, Ltd., 856 P.2d 15, 24 (Colo. App. 1992), aff'd, 867 P.2d 892 (Colo. 1994); see also Halliburton v. Public Service Co., 804 P.2d 213, 218 (Colo. App. 1990).
➢ Be Careful What You Wish For. The owner and manager of a parking lot were successful in excluding evidence of a witness's fall and similar pending suit through the use of a motion in limine. Anderson v. Dunton Mgmt. Co., 865 P.2d 887, 892 (Colo. App. 1993). Since the defendant was successful in limiting the testimony related to the previous falls, it could not then argue prejudice when the plaintiff argued that there was no bias by the witness. The court held that "any limitation on the witness' testimony concerning possible bias was due, at least in part, to defendants' own motion in limine." Id.

➢ Condemnation Proceeding. Although a trial judge who is overseeing a commission hearing on compensation for a condemnation need not affirmatively grant or deny a motion in limine to exclude evidence, if the judge does issue an explicit ruling, then the commission is bound by that ruling and may not deviate from it. Reg'l Transp. Dist. v. 750 West 48th Ave., LLC, 357 P.3d 179 (Colo. 2015).

➢ Lack of Prejudice. A physician was not prejudiced by the inclusion in the attorney general's exceptions in response to the physician's exceptions in a disciplinary hearing of a reference to an instance in which the physician assisted in surgery while in a hypoglycemic state, which should have been excluded pursuant to the physician's motion in limine. Reversal of the revocation of the physician's license was not required by this inclusion where the Board, in reaching its decision, had before it the administrative law judge's

...