Title

Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Proposed Exhibits (#65, 66, 67)

Authors

William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
Marilyn B. Cassidy, Cuyahoga County Assistant Prosecutor

Document Type

Davis v. State of Ohio, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Case No. CV96-312322

Date

2000-01-03

Box Number

43A

Item Number

84

Keywords

state's filing, motion in limine, exhibits, Richard Eberling, Ethel Durkin, Ohio Evid.R. 401, Ohio Evid.R. 402, Ohio Evid.R. 403, Ohio Evid.R. 404

Abstract

The State of Ohio seeks to exclude Plaintiff's Exhibits 65, 66, and 67, which include two documents and one article relating to the death Ethel Durkin. The State argues that this type of evidence can only be used prove "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident," and the Estate is not using it for one of those express purposes.

Motion was granted by Memorandum Opinion Regarding Motions in Limine, but the court will reconsider if Plaintiff establishes a basis for allowing other acts evidence.

Comments

See Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion in Limine

Also see: Order Regarding Further Admission of Evidence of the Durkin Homicide

Memorandum Opinion Regarding Further Admission of Evidence of the Durkin Homicide

Memorandum Opinion Regarding Admissibility of Character Evidence, Other Acts of Richard Eberling, Other Acts of Samuel H. Sheppard, Statements of Samuel H. Sheppard, and Admissibility of Portions of Transcript From Prior Proceedings

Recommended Citation

Mason, William D. and Cassidy, Marilyn B., "Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Proposed Exhibits (#65, 66, 67)" (2000). 1995-2002 Court Filings. 75.
https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/sheppard_court_filings_2000/75