Background
Shawn Griffin, Jr. sought supervisory review of a ruling by the 19th Judicial District Court in East Baton Rouge Parish. The challenged August 17, 2026 judgment denied, in relevant part, Griffin’s motion in limine concerning evidence that he did not have a driver’s license at the time of the accident underlying the litigation.
Griffin asked the Court of Appeal to reverse that evidentiary ruling and exclude evidence of his lack of a driver’s license from trial.
The Court’s Holding
The Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit denied the supervisory writ. The court concluded that the criteria for supervisory review under Herlitz Construction Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., 396 So. 2d 878 (La. 1981) (per curiam), were not met.
Judge Stromberg concurred, reasoning that Griffin failed to satisfy his burden because no evidence was formally introduced at the motion hearing; documents merely attached to memoranda could not be treated as evidence. Judges Penzato and Lanier dissented, concluding that the license evidence was irrelevant under Louisiana Code of Evidence articles 401 and 402 and that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to exclude it.
Key Takeaways
- The court declined to exercise supervisory review and left the trial court’s challenged motion-in-limine ruling intact.
- Judge Stromberg’s concurrence emphasized that materials placed in the record or attached to memoranda are not evidence unless properly offered and introduced.
- Two dissenting judges would have excluded evidence that Griffin lacked a driver’s license because they viewed it as irrelevant to any consequential fact in the case.
Why It Matters
The order underscores both the limited availability of supervisory review for interlocutory evidentiary rulings and the importance of formally introducing evidence at motion hearings. The separate opinions also identify a dispute over whether a plaintiff’s unlicensed status may properly be presented to the jury when it does not bear on a consequential issue.