Every MIL Ruling Is Tentative

Latest revision as of 19:07, May 5, 2025

Recently, a prosecutor conceded a motion in limine that the defense had filed to keep out some of the state's evidence. He agreed it should be excluded, but he wanted it on the record that it might become admissible if the defense opens the door.

Sure, I said. As far as I'm concerned, that's always true. Every MiL ruling is tentative.

If you lose a pretrial motion in limine to exclude a certain part of the state's evidence, you need to be prepared to raise it again, depending on how the evidence comes in.

As the Oregon Supreme Court recently reiterated in State v. Akins:

To the extent that defendant’s OEC 403 challenge in this court is based on how the evidence came in at trial, not on the trial court’s pretrial ruling on defendant’s motion in limine,that challenge is unpreserved for appellate review because defendant did not assert an OEC 403 objection when the testimony was offered and received at trial, as noted above. See Pitt, 352 Or at 574 (stating that, after the trial court has denied a pretrial motion to exclude evidence, parties should make “the same or other objections, if war-ranted, when a party offers the evidence during trial”); Perry, 347 Or at 118 (stating that, even though the trial court had denied a defendant’s pretrial motion to exclude evidence, “it was defendant’s responsibility to point out to the trial court” any additional objections to the evidence when it was offered at trial). Because our decision in this case is based on the record at the time of the motion in limine, it does not preclude trial courts in other cases from assessing whether such testimony is inadmissible under OEC 403 in the con-text in which the testimony may be offered at trial.

So for example, if the judge allows in expert testimony about "delayed disclosure" before trial starts, you'll want to renew the objection if the expert happens to say that such disclosures go up after the middle school health class has done a segment on abuse, and the complainant in your case only came forward at the same time.

Akins again:

Expert testimony connecting the expert’s explanation of delayed reporting to the specific reasons offered by the victim for the delay could be inadmissible as vouching. In other instances, the probative value of such testimony may be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant, making the evidence inadmissible under OEC 403 or at least requiring an appropriate limiting instruction.