In the Brooks-Brown case, the motion for interlocutory appeal has been entered.
Here is the case #24A-CR-00627
Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access
public.courts.in.gov
It's complicated (IMO) with 4 parts. I'm numbering them by the way they appear in the appeal.
First off:
A motion in limine is a pretrial motion asking that certain evidence be found inadmissible, and that it not be referred to or offered at trial.
This quote is from PT 4, giving a background on what this appeal is about:
"The order denied the State’s motion in limine seeking to preclude the admission of expert testimony regarding Brooks-Brown’s experience as a victim of sexual human trafficking. Brooks-Brown intends to use that evidence to challenge her mens rea for the charged crimes,
but she has not asserted an insanity defense."
The quotes below are in Part 1 The judge allowed all of this in the first paragraph to be excluded but the attempt to exclude the expert testimony on sex trafficking was denied.
"The Court, being duly advised, GRANTS Defendant's Motion in Limine as it relates to Paragraphs A, B, C, D, and F.The Court, being duly advised, GRANTS State's Motion in Limine as it relates to Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.The Court, being duly advised, FINDS that lnd. Code 35-41-3-11 must be strictly construed. Accordingly,
it has nothing to do with being human trafficking victim or the alleged facts in this case."
"Without similar controlling statute, the reasoning and analysis in this case would be similar to Barrett v. State, 675 N.E.2d 1112 (Ind. App. 1996) (
Holding that evidence of battered woman's syndrome is admissible as to intent without the necessity of an insanity defense). As such, State's Motion in Limine as it relates to
Paragraphs 6 and 7 is DENIED."
