2012 US Code
Title 28 - Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
Appendix (rules 1 - 1103)
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (rules 101 - 1103)
ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS (rules 101 - 106)
Rule 105 - Limiting Evidence That Is Not Admissible Against Other Parties or for Other Purposes
Publication Title | United States Code, 2012 Edition, Title 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE |
Category | Bills and Statutes |
Collection | United States Code |
SuDoc Class Number | Y 1.2/5: |
Contained Within | Title 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE TITLE 28 - APPENDIX FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS Rule 105 - Limiting Evidence That Is Not Admissible Against Other Parties or for Other Purposes |
Contains | rule 105 |
Date | 2012 |
Laws in Effect as of Date | January 15, 2013 |
Positive Law | Yes |
Disposition | standard |
Source Credit | Pub. L. 93-595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1930; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011. |
Statutes at Large Reference | 88 Stat. 1930 |
Public Law Reference | Public Law 93-595 |
Download PDF
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.
(Pub. L. 93–595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1930; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)
Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed RulesA close relationship exists between this rule and Rule 403 which requires exclusion when “probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.” The present rule recognizes the practice of admitting evidence for a limited purpose and instructing the jury accordingly. The availability and effectiveness of this practice must be taken into consideration in reaching a decision whether to exclude for unfair prejudice under Rule 403. In Bruton v. United States, 389 U.S. 818, 88 S.Ct. 126, 19 L.Ed.2d 70 (1968), the Court ruled that a limiting instruction did not effectively protect the accused against the prejudicial effect of admitting in evidence the confession of a codefendant which implicated him. The decision does not, however, bar the use of limited admissibility with an instruction where the risk of prejudice is less serious.
Similar provisions are found in Uniform Rule 6; California Evidence Code §355; Kansas Code of Civil Procedure §60–406; New Jersey Evidence Rule 6. The wording of the present rule differs, however, in repelling any implication that limiting or curative instructions are sufficient in all situations.
Notes of Committee on the Judiciary, House Report No. 93–650Rule 106 as submitted by the Supreme Court (now Rule 105 in the bill) dealt with the subject of evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but is not admissible against another party or for another purpose. The Committee adopted this Rule without change on the understanding that it does not affect the authority of a court to order a severance in a multi-defendant case.
Committee Notes on Rules—2011 AmendmentThe language of Rule 105 has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.
Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. The United States Government Printing Office may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the US site. Please check official sources.