Rule 105 Limited Admissibility

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

When 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.

Comment

This rule recognizes the problem with admitting evidence relevant or otherwise admissible for one party or for a limited purpose, but not relevant or otherwise admissible against another party or for other purposes.[1] By instructing the jurors on the limited used for which the evidence is admitted, it will negate the prejudicial effect from the potential improper use of the evidence.[2]

This rule has three features. First, a party must object to the admission of the evidence; if the party does not object, the evidence will be considered to have been admitted for any and all purposes.[3] Second, a party must request a limiting instruction; if the party does not request a limiting instruction, the party cannot claim on appeal that the trial court erred in not instructing the jurors.[4] Third, once a party has invoked the rule, the trial court is required to give a limiting instruction, and failure to so instruct the jurors will be grounds for reversal on appeal.[5]

This rule permits the trial court to give the limiting instruction at the time the evidence is introduced. This is the preferred method because, once the evidence has been admitted, the jurors cannot be expected to consider that evidence in a vacuum pending the numerous instructions that are given just before the jurors begin their deliberation.

When a non-testifying co-defendant has given a statement implicating the defendant, a limiting instruction will not be sufficient to prevent unfair prejudice to the defendant. In such a situation, unless the co-defendant's statement is directly admissible against the defendant,[6] the only solution is either to redact the co-defendant's statement to eliminate any reference to the defendant, or to hold separate trials. In other instances when testimony or evidence implicates one co-defendant but not the other, a limiting instruction may suffice.[7]

Cases

105.010 Evidence that is admissible for one purpose or against one party is not to be excluded merely because it is not admissible for some other purpose or against another party.

Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel, 149 Ariz. 442, 719 P.2d 1058 (1986) (Rules 105 and 403 provide methods of protecting a party from misuse of evidence admissible for some purposes but inadmissible for others).

Rossell v. Volkswagen of Am., 147 Ariz. 160, 709 P.2d 517 (1985) (charts admitted to show basis of experts' opinions and not as substantive evidence, and jurors instructed accordingly).

State v. Lawson, 144 Ariz. 547, 698 P.2d 1266 (1985) (only when such evidence is unfairly prejudicial, when evidence is statement of a co-defendant and is used against defendant and defendant cannot cross-examine co-defendant, or when co-defendants present antagonistic defenses should trial court sever trials).

State v. Sanchez, 191 Ariz. 418, 956 P.2d 1240 (Ct. App. 1997) (because implied consent form was admissible to provide foundation for defendant's breath test results, it was not inadmissible merely because it contained information about possible punishment if defendant did not take test).

Rhue v. Dawson, 173 Ariz. 220, 841 P.2d 215 (Ct. App. 1992) (in suit claiming wrongful termination of partnership agreement, evidence of defendant's alcoholism and mood swings was relevant because it could affect his credibility and memory loss and thus was admissible, even though it might not have been admissible for some other purposes).

Anderson v. State, 155 Ariz. 289, 746 P.2d 30 (Ct. App. 1987)...