Opinion
DBDCV186025337S
07-11-2019
Felinda DE LANTIGUA et al. v. Joseph SHAW et al.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
OPINION
Krumeich, J.
This is an automobile accident case involving a collision between two private passenger vehicles in an intersection controlled by a traffic light. Each party has accused the other of running a red light. Plaintiff had made motions in limine to preclude evidence of (1) plaintiff’s immigration status, (2) the status of plaintiff’s driver’s license at the time of the accident and (3) other lawsuits or claims brought by plaintiff. For the reasons stated below, the motion in limine is granted in part and reserved in part.
Standards for Deciding a Motion In Limine
In Guamamtario v. Sound Beach Partners, LLC, 2015 WL 467234 *3 (Conn.Super. 2015) (Arnold, J.), Judge Arnold discussed the standards for deciding a motion in limine:" ‘The purpose of a motion in limine is to exclude irrelevant, inadmissible and prejudicial evidence from trial ... A trial court should exclude evidence if it would create undue prejudice and threaten an injustice if admitted.’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. LoSacco, 26 Conn.App. 439, 444, 602 A.2d 589 (1992). ‘The decision whether, in the first instance, the court should entertain a motion in limine is a discretionary one. As a general proposition, the purpose of the motion is to insulate the jury from exposure to harmful inadmissible evidence ... A ruling excluding (or admitting) evidence claimed to be cumulative is also a discretionary one.’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Sarfaty v. PFY Management Co., Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, No. CV-02-0394269-S (Feb. 15, 2008, Blawie, J.) 45 Conn. L. Rptr. 47, quoting, Tech Air of Naugatuck v. CTR of Charlotte, Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Docket No. CV-04-0184947-S (July 17, 2007, Gallagher, J.) . ‘Questions of relevance must be determined in each case by reliance on reason and judicial experience as no exact test of relevancy is found in the law ... Evidence is admissible when it tends to establish a fact in issue or to corroborate other direct evidence in the case ... A fact is relevant whenever its existence, either alone or in connection with other facts, makes more certain or probable the existence of another fact ... [A]ny fact may be proved which logically tends to aid the trier in the determination of the issue ... Relevant evidence is admissible if the trial court, in the exercise of its broad discretion, determines that the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect.’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Lynch v. Granby Holdings, Inc., 32 Conn.App. 574, 581, 630 A.2d 609 (1993). ‘Although relevant, evidence may be excluded by the trial court if the court determines that the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighs its probative value ... We have identified at least four circumstances where the prejudicial effect of otherwise admissible evidence may outweigh its probative value: (1) where the facts offered may unduly arouse the jury’s emotions, hostility or sympathy, (2) where the proof and answering evidence it provokes may create a side issue that will unduly distract the jury from the main issues, (3) where the evidence offered and the counter proof will consume an undue amount of time, and (4) where the party against whom the evidence has been offered, having no reasonable ground to anticipate the evidence, is unfairly surprised and unprepared to meet it.’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Potter v. Chicago Tool Company, 241 Conn. 199, 265-66, 694 A.2d 1319 (1997)."
Evidence Concerning Plaintiff’s Immigration Status Is Excluded
Plaintiff’s immigration status arguably would be relevant to a claim that the injuries affected a plaintiff’s ability to earn future wages or livelihood. See Guamamtario, 2015 WL 467234 *6, 8, 10. There is no such claim in the complaint. Compare, Jimenez v. Brooks, 2016 WL 1443594 * (Conn.Super. 2019) (Moore, J.) (lost wages claim withdrawn).
Immigration status is a controversial topic in the current political climate and evidence that plaintiff is an illegal immigrant may subject the plaintiff to bias and prejudice that would appear to far outweigh the marginal relevance of such issue to a future wages claim. See Guamamtario, 2015 WL 467234 *5. Injecting immigration status into the case may implicate "both state and federal constitutional concerns" because it burdens the immigrant’s rights to open access to our courts. See Jimenez, 2016 WL 1443594 *4, citing Guamamtario, 2015 WL 467234 *4. There are no issues in this lawsuit that would warrant admission of evidence on plaintiff’s immigration status.
The motion to exclude evidence of plaintiff’s immigration status is granted.
Evidence Concerning the Status of Plaintiff’s Driver’s License Is Excluded
Plaintiffs seek to exclude evidence concerning the status of plaintiff’s driver’s license at the time of the accident. Whether or not plaintiff had a valid driver’s license is irrelevant to the issues of liability and damages in this case.
This is not a case alleging negligent entrustment of an automobile where knowledge that the operator does not have a valid driver’s license may be highly relevant and probative. Compare, Maisonette v. Gromiller, 2018 WL 3203887 *4-6 (Conn.Super. 2018) (Povodator, J.).
Evidence Concerning Unrelated Claims or Litigation by Plaintiff Is Excluded
Plaintiffs have moved to exclude evidence of "other lawsuits or claims brought by the plaintiff ..." This motion is granted as to claims or lawsuits alleging facts unrelated to this accident. Presumably such evidence would be offered as proof that plaintiff was litigious, which is irrelevant and prejudicial. Alternatively, evidence of other accidents may be offered to suggest that plaintiff has a poor driving record, which also is irrelevant and prejudicial and confusing to the jury. See State v. Jordan, 308 Conn. 1, 30 (2012) (speeding on prior occasions is inadmissible to show speeding at the time of the incident under Code Evid. § 4-5(a)). This ruling does not exclude evidence of injuries relevant to the claims in this case that were the subject of previous claims or litigation. The court reserves ruling on evidence of claims or lawsuits related to this accident because they may contain relevant admissions.