CHAPTER 7.II. Sample Motions

• Jurisdiction: United States

II. Sample Motions

A. Motion to Exclude Evidence of Alcohol Use of Witness

NO.__________

__________

v.

__________

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

__________ JUDICIAL COURT

__________ COUNTY, TEXAS

Motion to Exclude Evidence of Alcohol Use of Witness

Comes now___, Plaintiff in this cause, and file this, her Motion to Exclude Evidence of Alcohol Use of Witness, and in support would show the Court the following:

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case involves a civil action for damages arising from the alleged wrongful imprisonment of the Plaintiff, who was detained for three hours in Defendant's department store after witnesses observed him shoplifting.

A key issue in this case relates to the credibility of one of the percipient witnesses, Percy Appient, an undercover security guard employed by the Defendant. The Defendant anticipates that the Plaintiff will seek to admit evidence relating to this witness's prior treatment for alcoholism. According to the testimony of this witness, he has been "clean and sober" for three years, and it is undisputed that he was not drinking at the time he observed the Plaintiff's actions.

By this motion, the Defendant seeks to exclude any alcohol evidence regarding this witness.

2. THE COURT MAY EXCLUDE PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE

Evidence should be excluded when the prejudicial impact of the evidence outweighs the probative value of it. Texas Rule of Evidence 403 states: "Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."

3. THE COURT MAY EXCLUDE IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE

Texas Rule of Evidence 402 states that "evidence which is not relevant is inadmissible." Relevant evidence is defined by Texas Rule of Evidence 401 as "having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." See Torrington v. Stutzman, 46 S.W.3d 829, 845 (Tex. 2000). Irrelevant evidence is not admissible. Morale v. State, 557 S.W.3d 569, 573 (Tex. 2018); Diamond Offshore Services Ltd. v. Williams, 542 S.W.3d 539, 549 (Tex. 2018).

Evidence may be properly excluded where not relevant to matters at issue. See Morale v. State, 557 S.W.3d 569, 573 (Tex. 2018). Plaintiff's immigration or residence status is not relevant to the issues in the case...