Chapter
8 |
LIMITED ADMISSIBILITY:
FRE
105
Multiple admissibility. Sometimes an item of evidence may properly be used for multiple purposes. In some cases this is proper. For example, a party’s prior inconsistent statement may be admitted for impeachment as a prior inconsistent statement (Rule 613) and as substantive evidence as a party admission (Rule 801(d)(2)(A)).
Limited admissibility. Frequently, however, evidence may be admissible for one purpose but inadmissible for another purpose. Evidence also may be admissible against one party but not against another party. In other words, the evidence is admissible for a limited purpose. In such cases, Rule 105 applies, and the court must, upon request, instruct the jury as to the limited purpose of the evidence.
§ 8.02 Evidence Admissible for One Purpose [97-98]
Numerous examples of limited admissibility occur throughout the law of evidence. Sometimes a rule explicitly recognizes this principle. See Rule 404(b) (other-acts evidence); Rule 407 (subsequent remedial measures); Rule 408 (compromises & offers to compromise); and Rule 411 (liability insurance). However, sometimes the Rules are silent – e.g., hearsay context. For example, prior inconsistent statements are generally admissible only for the purpose of impeachment (and not for their truth). But see Rule 801(d)(1)(A).
§ 8.03 Evidence Admissible Against One Party [98-101]
Under Rule 105, when evidence is admissible against one party, but not another party, a limiting instruction must be given upon request, directing the jury to use the evidence only against the proper party. This issue most often arises in joint trials in criminal cases when a confession implicates the codefendant. This may raise a confrontation issue under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968). The Bruton issue can be obviated if separate trials are ordered, the defendant’s name is redacted, or the codefendant testifies. There is no Bruton issue if the statement falls within a recognized hearsay exception.
Chapter
8 |