the interview in his opening statement and in questioning witnesses. The court ruled against Matthews by granting the motion in limine. See Sims v. State, 251 Ga. 877, 879 (311 SE2d 161) (1984) (“[T]he trial court has a sound discretion to control the content of the opening statement of either party, particularly with regard to matters of questionable admissibility.”). When the trial court’s oral ruling on the motion in limine is viewed in its full context, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in concluding that its pretrial decision was understood by the court and by the parties as prohibiting Matthews from making any mention of Appellant’s police interview in his opening statement. See Saye v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 311 Ga. App. 74, 77 (714 SE2d 614) (2011) (<HOLDING>). One of the primary reasons that motions in
holding that a party failed to preserve error by not pursuing a ruling at trial where the courts motion in limine ruling invited the party to attempt to admit the evidence during trial holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion holding admonishment not mistrial appropriate where police officer made statement in violation of ruling on motion in limine holding that trial courts have discretion to decide whether litigation conduct violates a ruling on a motion in limine holding that adaptation to adverse ruling on motion in limine did not waive established objection