COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
 
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
 
                           NO. 83778
 
 
 
STATE OF OHIO                 :        JOURNAL ENTRY
                              :             AND
          Plaintiff-appellee :            OPINION
                              :
       -vs-                   :
                              :
FRED TAYLOR                   :
                              :
          Defendant-appellant :
 
 
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
    OF DECISION:                  JUNE 17, 2004
 
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:          Criminal appeal from the
                                  Court of Common Pleas
                                  Case No. CR-434759
 
 
JUDGMENT:                         Dismissed.
 
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:
 
 
APPEARANCES:
 
For Plaintiff-Appellee:           WILLIAM D. MASON, ESQ.
                                  CUYAHOGA COUNTY PROSECUTOR
                                  BY: PAUL M. SOUCIE, ESQ.
                                  ASST. COUNTY PROSECUTOR
                                  8TH Floor, Justice Center
                                  1200 Ontario Street
                                  Cleveland, Ohio 44113
 
For Defendant-Appellant:          WENDLE SCOTT RAMSEY, ESQ.
                                  The Hanna Building
                                  Suite 1604
                                  1422 Euclid Avenue
                                  Cleveland, Ohio 44115
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                -2-
 
ANN DYKE, J.:
 
     Defendant-appellant Fred Taylor ("appellant") appeals from the
 
judgment of the trial court denying his motion in limine to exclude
 
expert testimony on behalf of the State of Ohio. For the reasons
 
set forth below, we dismiss this appeal for a lack of a final
 
appealable order.
 
     The Ohio Constitution confers upon appellate courts "such
 
jurisdiction as may be provided by law to review and affirm,
 
modify, or reverse judgments or final orders of the courts of
 
record inferior to the court of appeals." Section 3(B)(2), Article
 
IV, Ohio Constitution.
 
     R.C. 2505.02 defines, in relevant part, a final appealable
 
order as
 
     "(1) An order that affects a substantial right in an action
 
that in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment;
 
     "(2) An order that affects a substantial right made in a
 
special proceeding or upon a summary application in an action after
 
judgement ***."
 
     It is well settled that the granting or denial of a motion in
 
limine  is  a   tentative,  interlocutory,   precautionary  ruling
 
reflecting the trial court's anticipatory treatment of an
 
evidentiary issue which the trial court may change at trial when
 
the disputed evidence appears in context. State v. Grubb (1986), 28
 
Ohio St.3d 199, 201.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                               -3-
 
    We find that the denial of appellant's motion in limine to
 
exclude expert testimony that the State is expected to present does
 
not constitute a final appealable order.
 
    Appeal dismissed.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                               -4-
 
     It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs
 
herein taxed.
 
     A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate
 
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
 
Exceptions.
 
 
 
 
ANNE L. KILBANE, P.J.       AND
 
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.,   CONCUR.
 
 
 
                                        ANN DYKE
                                          JUDGE
 
 
 
 
N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See
App. R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will
be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court
pursuant to App. R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with
supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days
of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for
review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the
journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the
clerk per App.R. 22(E). See, also S.Ct.Prac.R. II, Section
2(A)(1).
 
 
 
.