If this is correct, an order in limine doesn't preclude a party from asking for the issue to be revisited if the other party opens a door.
The prosecution's intentions may be discussed in the hearing on the motion.
That's what the DCA said should have happened in a case I mentioned yesterday, Arias v. State
. The trial court granted a motion in limine to exclude the victim's 0.21 blood-alcohol level and cocaine traces, but the prosecutor opened the door by his argument.
In my opinion, a self-defense case victim's trace marijuana level shouldn't be admitted as evidence without some showing of relevancy, but a 0.21 blood-alcohol level certainly should be. I don't see how the jury can properly evaluate what occurred without knowing the victim was drunk.