LIMITED ADMISSIBILITY LIMITING
EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT
ADMISSIBLE AGAINST OTHER PARTIES OR FOR OTHER PURPOSES Whenever evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but not
admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon request,
shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly.
If the court admits evidence that is admissible against a party or for a purpose, but not against another party or for another purpose, the court, on timely request, must restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly.
Rule 105 was amended, effective ________________.
Evidence is often admissible for one purpose, but not for another. Whenever this occurs the
trial judge may decide, under Rule 403, that the prejudicial effect of admitting the evidence
outweighs its probative value and exclude the evidence entirely. But total exclusion of
evidence which has some probative value is a harsh remedy.
and, especially in
as McCormick has suggested, should be used only "where the danger of the jury's misuse
of the evidence for the incompetent purpose is great, and its value for the legitimate purpose
is slight or the point for which it is competent can readily be proved by other evidence. * *
* " McCormick on Evidence 136. Normally, the decision made will be to admit the
evidence. In these situations, this This rule requires that a court restrict
the use of evidence
to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly.
Situations in which evidence is admissible as to one party but not to another usually occur
in a joint trial of criminal defendants.
Rule 105 This rule applies to
these situations, but its
use must be carefully considered in light of constitutional protections surrounding criminal
defendants. For example, it has been held that allowing the admission of statements
by a defendant who refused to testify, exculpating himself and incriminating a co-defendant,
was a deprivation of the latter's right to cross-examination and, furthermore, that instructions
restricting the use of the evidence were not sufficient to cure the problem of the jury's
possible misuse of the evidence. Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.
Ct. 1620, 20
L. Ed. 2d 476 (1968). But see Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S. Ct. 1726, 23 L.
Ed. 2d 284 (1969), holding that not all violations of Bruton are reversible error.
Rule 105 was amended, effective ______________, in response to the December 1, 2011, revision of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The language and organization of the rule were changed to make the rule more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.
Sources: Joint Procedure Committee Minutes
: of January 26-27, 2012,
page 31; Joint
Procedure Committee Minutes: April 8, 1976, page 17; October 1, 1975, page 2.
Fed.R.Ev. 105, Federal Rules of Evidence; Rule 105, SBAND
Considered: N.D.C.C. § 45-06-03.
Considered: Rules 8, 13, and 14, NDRCrimP.
Cross Reference: N.D.R.Ev. 403 (Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time); N.D.R.Crim.P. 8 (Joinder of Offenses or Defendants); N.D.R.Crim.P. 13 (Joint Trial of Separate Cases); N.D.R.Crim.P. 14 (Relief from Prejudicial Joinder).