motion in limine bar in Pennsylvania

2021Knox added that Sullivan could have avoided the accident by following the instruction that the platform be seated within the side rails with the deck pins rotated “before each use.” Before trial, Sullivan filed a motion in limine to bar the admission of any government or industry standards evidence at trial, arguing that Pennsylvania courts have generally barred such evidence in strict liability cases. -8- J-A04035-21 Importantly, he contended, this prohibition was unaffected by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014), which, as discuss

2021Knox added that Sullivan could have avoided the accident by following the instruction that the platform be seated within the side rails with the deck pins rotated “before each use.” Before trial, Sullivan filed a motion in limine to bar the admission of any government or industry standards evidence at trial, arguing that Pennsylvania courts have generally barred such evidence in strict liability cases. -8- J-A04035-21 Importantly, he contended, this prohibition was unaffected by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014), which, as discuss

2021As the trial court noted: [he] filed a motion in limine to bar admission of evidence underlying a prior probation before judgment for DUI recidivist sentencing purposes. [Hayes] argued that [his] prior probation before judgment (“PBJ”) disposition in Maryland on July 14, 2011, as evidence of a “prior offense” under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3806 of the Vehicle Code, was barred by the Superior Court case Commonwealth v. Chichkin, supra. [At the hearing on the motion in limine,] the only evidence presented by the Commonwealth was a document from the District Court for Carroll County, Maryland for a Garrett

2021As the trial court noted: [he] filed a motion in limine to bar admission of evidence underlying a prior probation before judgment for DUI recidivist sentencing purposes. [Hayes] argued that [his] prior probation before judgment (“PBJ”) disposition in Maryland on July 14, 2011, as evidence of a “prior offense” under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3806 of the Vehicle Code, was barred by the Superior Court case Commonwealth v. Chichkin, supra. [At the hearing on the motion in limine,] the only evidence presented by the Commonwealth was a document from the District Court for Carroll County, Maryland for a Garrett

2016See Commonwealth v. Levanduski, 2006 PA Super 204 , 907 A.2d 3 , 15- 16 (2006) (citing Commonwealth v. Chandler, 554 Pa. 401 , 721 A.2d 1040 (1998); Commonwealth v. Sneeringer, 447 Pa.Super. 241 , 668 A.2d 1167 (1995); Commonwealth v. Stallworth, 566 Pa. 349 , 781 A.2d 110 (2001)); See also Commonwealth v. Fisher, 545 Pa. 233 , 681 A.2d 130, 140 (1996). 22 In the case at bar, Defendant filed a motion in limine to bar the portion of Jones's statement to police in which Jones overheard an unknown declarant say to Defendant, "How you let [Riggs] pull a gun on you and you don't do anything about i

2016See Commonwealth v. Levanduski, 2006 PA Super 204 , 907 A.2d 3 , 15- 16 (2006) (citing Commonwealth v. Chandler, 554 Pa. 401 , 721 A.2d 1040 (1998); Commonwealth v. Sneeringer, 447 Pa.Super. 241 , 668 A.2d 1167 (1995); Commonwealth v. Stallworth, 566 Pa. 349 , 781 A.2d 110 (2001)); See also Commonwealth v. Fisher, 545 Pa. 233 , 681 A.2d 130, 140 (1996). 22 In the case at bar, Defendant filed a motion in limine to bar the portion of Jones's statement to police in which Jones overheard an unknown declarant say to Defendant, "How you let [Riggs] pull a gun on you and you don't do anything about i

2016See Commonwealth v. Levanduski, 2006 PA Super 204 , 907 A.2d 3 , 15- 16 (2006) (citing Commonwealth v. Chandler, 554 Pa. 401 , 721 A.2d 1040 (1998); Commonwealth v. Sneeringer, 447 Pa.Super. 241 , 668 A.2d 1167 (1995); Commonwealth v. Stallworth, 566 Pa. 349 , 781 A.2d 110 (2001)); See also Commonwealth v. Fisher, 545 Pa. 233 , 681 A.2d 130, 140 (1996). 22 In the case at bar, Defendant filed a motion in limine to bar the portion of Jones's statement to police in which Jones overheard an unknown declarant say to Defendant, "How you let [Riggs] pull a gun on you and you don't do anything about i

2016See Commonwealth v. Levanduski, 2006 PA Super 204 , 907 A.2d 3 , 15- 16 (2006) (citing Commonwealth v. Chandler, 554 Pa. 401 , 721 A.2d 1040 (1998); Commonwealth v. Sneeringer, 447 Pa.Super. 241 , 668 A.2d 1167 (1995); Commonwealth v. Stallworth, 566 Pa. 349 , 781 A.2d 110 (2001)); See also Commonwealth v. Fisher, 545 Pa. 233 , 681 A.2d 130, 140 (1996). 22 In the case at bar, Defendant filed a motion in limine to bar the portion of Jones's statement to police in which Jones overheard an unknown declarant say to Defendant, "How you let [Riggs] pull a gun on you and you don't do anything about i

2002Prior to trial, DeJesus joined in a motion in limine to bar the Commonwealth from asking the witness whether one of the conditions of his plea agreement was to "testify truthfully." The trial court granted the motion as to the witness's direct testimony, but allowed for the possibility of an appropriate inquiry in that regard on redirect. [1] When the witness was testifying on direct that he had pled guilty, the prosecutor asked him whether "[i]n return for [your] deal, did you have to testify truthfully in this case?" Id. at 411 (quoting N.T., 7/28/99, at 137).

2002Prior to trial, DeJesus joined in a motion in limine to bar the Commonwealth from asking the witness whether one of the conditions of his plea agreement was to “testify truthfully.” The trial court granted the motion as to the witness’s direct testimony, but allowed for the possibility of an appropriate inquiry in that regard on redirect. 1 When the witness was testifying on direct that he had pled guilty, the prosecutor asked him whether “[i'|n return for [your] deal, did you have to testify truthfully in this case?” Id. at 411 (quoting N.T., 7/28/99, at 137).