M-Wakili

Ask a lawyer:
Draft a motion in limine to exclude prejudicial evidence in a criminal trial

Motion in Limine to Exclude Prejudicial Evidence in a Criminal Trial

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction

  2. Legal Basis for Motion in Limine

  3. Grounds for Exclusion of Prejudicial Evidence

  4. Relevant Case Laws

  5. Conclusion

  6. TLDR


1. Introduction

In the context of a criminal trial, a motion in limine is a pretrial request made to the court to rule on the admissibility of certain evidence. The primary objective of such a motion is to prevent the introduction of evidence that is deemed prejudicial, irrelevant, or otherwise inadmissible. This document outlines a sample motion in limine to exclude prejudicial evidence, tailored to the legal framework of Kenya.

2. Legal Basis for Motion in Limine

The legal basis for filing a motion in limine in Kenya is grounded in the principles of fair trial and the rules of evidence as stipulated in the Evidence Act (Cap 80) and the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75). The Evidence Act provides the framework for determining the admissibility of evidence, while the Criminal Procedure Code outlines the procedural aspects of criminal trials.

Relevant Provisions:

  • Evidence Act (Cap 80): Sections 5, 6, 7, and 8, which deal with the relevance and admissibility of evidence.

  • Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75): Sections 137 and 138, which provide for the exclusion of evidence that is irrelevant or prejudicial.

3. Grounds for Exclusion of Prejudicial Evidence

The grounds for seeking the exclusion of prejudicial evidence in a criminal trial may include, but are not limited to:

  • Irrelevance: Evidence that does not directly relate to the facts in issue.

  • Prejudice: Evidence that may unduly influence the jury or judge by appealing to emotions rather than facts.

  • Hearsay: Statements made outside of court that are presented to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

  • Character Evidence: Evidence that seeks to establish a person's character rather than the facts of the case.

  • Prior Bad Acts: Evidence of previous misconduct that is not directly related to the current charges.

4. Relevant Case Laws

4.1. Republic v. Kipkering Arap Koske & Another (1949) 16 EACA 135

Facts: The accused were charged with murder. The prosecution sought to introduce evidence of the accused's previous bad acts.

Outcome: The court held that evidence of prior bad acts was inadmissible as it was prejudicial and not directly related to the facts in issue.

Relevance: This case underscores the principle that evidence of prior bad acts should be excluded if it is likely to prejudice the jury or judge.

4.2. Republic v. Ndalamia & Another (2003) eKLR

Facts: The accused were charged with robbery with violence. The prosecution attempted to introduce hearsay evidence.

Outcome: The court ruled that hearsay evidence was inadmissible as it did not meet the standards of reliability and relevance.

Relevance: This case highlights the importance of excluding hearsay evidence to ensure a fair trial.

4.3. Republic v. Mutiso (2008) eKLR

Facts: The accused was charged with theft. The prosecution sought to introduce character evidence to show that the accused had a propensity for dishonesty.

Outcome: The court excluded the character evidence, stating that it was more prejudicial than probative.

Relevance: This case illustrates the need to exclude character evidence that may unduly influence the jury or judge.

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, a motion in limine to exclude prejudicial evidence is a crucial tool in ensuring a fair trial. By preventing the introduction of evidence that is irrelevant, prejudicial, or otherwise inadmissible, the court can focus on the facts in issue and deliver a just verdict. The legal framework provided by the Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Code, along with relevant case laws, supports the exclusion of such evidence.

6. TLDR

A motion in limine is a pretrial request to exclude prejudicial evidence in a criminal trial. It is grounded in the principles of fair trial and the rules of evidence as stipulated in the Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Code. Relevant case laws support the exclusion of evidence that is irrelevant, prejudicial, or otherwise inadmissible.


Sample Motion in Limine


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT [LOCATION]

CRIMINAL CASE NO. [CASE NUMBER]

REPUBLIC

VERSUS

[DEFENDANT'S NAME]


MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE


TO: THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

NOW COMES the Defendant, [Defendant's Name], by and through his/her counsel, and respectfully moves this Honorable Court for an order excluding certain evidence that the prosecution intends to introduce at trial. In support of this motion, the Defendant states as follows:

1. Introduction

1.1. The Defendant is charged with [specific charges] under [relevant sections of the Penal Code].

1.2. The prosecution has indicated its intention to introduce evidence that is prejudicial, irrelevant, and otherwise inadmissible.

2. Legal Basis

2.1. This motion is brought pursuant to the provisions of the Evidence Act (Cap 80) and the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75).

2.2. Sections 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Evidence Act provide the framework for determining the relevance and admissibility of evidence.

2.3. Sections 137 and 138 of the Criminal Procedure Code provide for the exclusion of evidence that is irrelevant or prejudicial.

3. Grounds for Exclusion

3.1. Irrelevance: The evidence in question does not directly relate to the facts in issue and is therefore irrelevant under Section 5 of the Evidence Act.

3.2. Prejudice: The evidence is likely to unduly influence the jury or judge by appealing to emotions rather than facts, contrary to the principles of a fair trial.

3.3. Hearsay: The evidence constitutes hearsay and does not meet the standards of reliability and relevance as required by the Evidence Act.

3.4. Character Evidence: The evidence seeks to establish the Defendant's character rather than the facts of the case, which is inadmissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.

3.5. Prior Bad Acts: The evidence pertains to previous misconduct that is not directly related to the current charges and is therefore inadmissible.

4. Relevant Case Laws

4.1. Republic v. Kipkering Arap Koske & Another (1949) 16 EACA 135: Evidence of prior bad acts was excluded as it was prejudicial and not directly related to the facts in issue.

4.2. Republic v. Ndalamia & Another (2003) eKLR: Hearsay evidence was excluded as it did not meet the standards of reliability and relevance.

4.3. Republic v. Mutiso (2008) eKLR: Character evidence was excluded as it was more prejudicial than probative.

5. Conclusion

5.1. For the reasons stated above, the Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant this motion in limine and exclude the prejudicial evidence that the prosecution intends to introduce at trial.

DATED at [Location] this [Date] day of [Month], [Year].

Respectfully submitted,


[Defendant's Counsel's Name]

[Law Firm's Name]

[Address]

[City, Postal Code]

[Email Address]

[Phone Number]

Attorney for the Defendant


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion in Limine to Exclude Prejudicial Evidence was served upon the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, [Address], on this [Date] day of [Month], [Year].


[Defendant's Counsel's Name]

[Law Firm's Name]


Sources

  • Kenya Law Reports

  • Evidence Act (Cap 80)

  • Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75)

  • Republic v. Kipkering Arap Koske & Another (1949) 16 EACA 135

  • Republic v. Ndalamia & Another (2003) eKLR

  • Republic v. Mutiso (2008) eKLR


By filing this motion, the Defendant seeks to ensure that the trial proceeds fairly and that only relevant and admissible evidence is considered by the court. This is in line with the principles of justice and the right to a fair trial as enshrined in the Constitution of Kenya.

Answered by mwakili.com