 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Miura12/30/1986
or seizure in violation of defendant's [constitutional] rights[.]" Defendant did not deviate from this stance at the hearing on the motion when his counsel stated to the court:
The Motion to Suppress I filed is based upon the fact that there were improper, was not enough evidence to show a stop of Defendant's vehicle in this matter. And two, that there was not enough evidence to ask the Defendant to step out of the vehicle in order to further examine the Defendant before giving him the
breathilyzer examination.
Transcript at 5.
Consequently, the issue at the hearing was the suppression of evidence on constitutional grounds. The question was not Mr. Chang's competency to testify regarding the intoxilyzer test results injected into the hearing by the State's motion in limine. The district court should have summarily ruled the State's motion to be out of order and proceeded to hear the merits of Defendant's motion. Rather, the court proceeded to hear the State's motion. Therefore, in essence, the Order was one denying the State's motion in limine rather than a granting in part of Defendant's motion to suppress.
Moreover, the State's motion was improper. A motion in limine is defined as "a procedural device which requests a pretrial order enjoining opposing counsel from using certain prejudicial evidence in front of a jury at a later trial." Rothblatt & Leroy, The Motion in Limine in Criminal Trials: A Technique for the Pretrial Exclusion of Prejudicial Evidence, 60 Ky. L. J., 611, 613 (1972). See also Gamble, The Motion in Limine: A Pretrial Procedure That Has Come of Age, 33 Ala. L. Rev. 1 (1981); Annot., 63 A.L.R.3d 311 (1975). Here, the State's motion sought the district court's declaration that Mr. Chang was competent to testify rather than precluding the admission of prejudicial evidence by Defendant. Also, since the case was to be tried without a jury, an in limine motion was unnecessary.
We hold that the State's appeal was not from a HRS § 641-13(7) pre-trial order granting a motion for the suppression of evidence and we lack appellate jurisdiction.
Appeal dismissed.
Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Page 1 2 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|