Motion in Limine for DUI Cases
The DUI defense attorney will file a motion in limine in DUI cases. Issues including in that motion in limine might include:
- preclude the State from qualifying any previously disclosed witness as an expert, or otherwise having such a witness testify as to a subject requiring an expert opinion;
In McKeown, the Fourth District determined the officer’s testimony that he did not make an arrest every time he investigated a DUI, was irrelevant and tended to improperly bolster the State’s case. 16 So.3d 247, 249 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). During the trial, the defendant made a relevancy objection, which the court overruled. Id. at 248. This error was further exacerbated when the prosecutor reiterated it during closing arguments. On appeal, the Fourth District was unable to find that the error was harmless. Id. at 249. However, as the State notes, McKeown did not hold that such an error was “per se reversible,” but implies that this Court must also conduct harmless error analysis.
In Claim IV, Counihan argues that allowing the arresting officer, Sergeant Bloom, to testify he does not arrest all individuals he originally suspects of DUI, was improper bolstering of Bloom’s credibility pursuant to McKeown v. State, 16 So.3d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) [34 Fla. L. Weekly D1689a] (holding that permitting police officer to testify he arrested only half of the DUI suspects he investigated was not harmless error); see also Ruiz v. State, 743 So.2d 1, 5 (Fla.1999) [24 Fla. L. Weekly S157a] (finding that the state engaged in improper argument by implying that “[i]f the defendant wasn’t guilty, he wouldn’t be here”); Cartwright v. State, 885 So.2d 1010, 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) [29 Fla. L. Weekly D2470a] (holding that it is improper for a prosecutor to suggest that the state charges only those who are guilty).