§ 8.02 Evidence Admissible for One Purpose

• Jurisdiction: United States

§ 8.02 Evidence Admissible for One Purpose

The concept of limited admissibility is ingrained in evidence law. In United States v. Abel,⁵ the Supreme Court wrote that "there is no rule of evidence which provides that testimony admissible for one purpose and inadmissible for another purpose is thereby rendered inadmissible; quite the contrary is the case."⁶ The Federal Rules explicitly address some issues of limited admissibility. Examples include:

Other-acts evidence. Rule 404(b) provides that evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts may be admissible for several purposes, including proof of motive, opportunity, intent, or identity. Such evidence, however, "is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character."⁷ A limiting instruction is mandatory upon the request of a party.

Subsequent repairs. Similarly, Rule 407 prohibits the use of evidence of subsequent remedial measures if offered to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a product's design, or a need for a warning or instruction. The prohibition, however, does not extend to the use of the same evidence if offered "for another purpose, such as impeachment or—if disputed—proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures."⁸

Prior inconsistent statements. The doctrine of limited admissibility also applies in many situations that the Federal Rules do not explicitly address. For example, prior inconsistent statements are generally admissible only for the purpose of impeachment.⁹When offered for this purpose, the statement is relevant only because it was made and is inconsistent with the witness's in-court testimony, not because it was true. If the jury uses the statement for the truth of its content, the hearsay rule is violated. Accordingly, an instruction limiting the jury's use of prior inconsistent statements to impeachment is required if requested.

--------

Notes:

^[5] 469 U.S. 45 (1984).

^[6] Id. at 56.

^[7] See infra chapter 11 (discussing other-acts evidence).

^[8]...