Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 401 provides that evidence is only admissible at trial if it has the tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, and the fact is of consequence to the action at hand. Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 403 provides that a court may still exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The interplay between these two rules often determines whether a court will grant a party’s motion in limine prior to trial to exclude seemingly relevant evidence.

In Detrick v. Burrus, a case in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, the plaintiff and defendant were involved a motor vehicle accident on August 10, 2009. Seven months later on March 10, 2010, plaintiff had an initial visit with Dr. Karazim-Horchos who asked about use of marijuana and other drugs in connection with his consideration of medication to prescribe. The plaintiff denied any such use.  On July 27, 2010, Dr. Karazim-Horchos ordered a drug test which had positive results for marijuana, opiates, and benzodiazepine. At plaintiff’s deposition on August 17, 2011, she again denied the use of marijuana following her accident.

The plaintiff sought a motion in limine to preclude evidence of the positive urine drug test, citing Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence 401 and 403. The defendant countered that the evidence was relevant and could be used to impeach her credibility since she twice lied about marijuana use as a form of treatment following the accident. Further, the defendant noted that her own medical provider had ordered a drug test because of serious concern that may be Detrick self-medicating with marijuana to treat her injuries.

The court granted plaintiff’s motion in limine to preclude evidence of the failed drug test. First, the court relied on the fact that a witness may not be impeached on a “collateral” matter if the evidence does not have an independent basis for being admissible. Here, the failed drug test has no independent basis for admissibility absent the proposed impeachment. Second, the court held that the failed drug test’s probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, and therefore, excluded under Rule 403. The failed drug test occurred more than 11 months after the accident. Overall, the court believed that the plaintiff’s use of drugs did not directly bear on her character for truthfulness.

Thanks to Eric Clendening for his contribution.

For more information, contact Denise Fontana Ricci at .