PastPaperHero | Presentation of evidence

Learning Outcomes

This article explains how limited admissibility operates in the presentation of evidence on the MBE, including:

Recognizing when a single item of evidence is admissible for one purpose or against one party, but must be restricted for any other use.
Identifying when Rule 105 is triggered, what constitutes a timely request, and how a trial judge must frame and deliver an effective limiting instruction.
Distinguishing evidence admitted solely for impeachment from evidence admitted substantively, and predicting how that distinction affects jury use of the proof.
Evaluating when Rule 403 requires complete exclusion because a limiting instruction cannot adequately cure unfair prejudice, confusion, or risk of misuse.
Applying limited-purpose and limited-party doctrines in common exam settings, such as prior convictions, insurance, settlement negotiations, hearsay for non-hearsay purposes, and multi-defendant or multi-party cases.
Analyzing the respective roles of judge and jury in enforcing limited admissibility, preserving objections for appeal, and assessing whether any evidentiary error affected a substantial right.
Practicing MBE-style reasoning to choose between admitting evidence freely, admitting with a limiting instruction, or excluding it entirely under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

MBE Syllabus

For the MBE, you are required to understand limited admissibility of evidence and related jury instructions under the Federal Rules of Evidence, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

The concept of limited admissibility under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
The requirement, timing, and effect of limiting instructions (Rule 105).
Admissibility of evidence for one purpose but not another (e.g., impeachment vs substantive use).
Admissibility of evidence against one party but not another (e.g., multi-defendant or multi-party civil trials).
The interaction between Rule 105 and Rule 403 (unfair prejudice, confusion, and limiting instructions).
The respective roles of judge and jury in applying limited admissibility.

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

If evidence is admissible against one defendant but not another, what must the court do upon request?
1. Exclude the evidence entirely.
2. Admit the evidence without limitation.
3. Give a limiting instruction to the jury.
4. Allow the jury to decide how to use the evidence.
When is a limiting instruction under Rule 105 required?
1. Only if the judge believes the jury will misuse the evidence.
2. Whenever a party requests it and evidence is admissible for a limited purpose.
3. Only in criminal cases.
4. Only if the evidence is prejudicial.
Evidence of a prior conviction is admissible to impeach a witness, but not as substantive proof of guilt. What must the court do if the defendant requests?
1. Exclude the conviction.
2. Admit the conviction for all purposes.
3. Instruct the jury to consider it only for impeachment.
4. Allow the jury to decide the purpose.

Introduction

Evidence may sometimes be relevant and admissible for one purpose, but not for another, or may be admissible against one party but not another. The Federal Rules of Evidence address this situation through the doctrine of limited admissibility. Rule 105 requires the court to give a limiting instruction to the jury, upon request, when evidence is admitted for a limited purpose or against a limited party. Understanding how and when to apply these principles is essential for MBE success.

Limited admissibility sits at the intersection of basic relevance (Rule 401), the general admissibility rule (Rule 402), and the unfair-prejudice balancing test (Rule 403). On the exam, you are often told that a piece of evidence is relevant and admissible in some respect, but raises a danger that the jury will misuse it. Your task is to decide whether the evidence should be:

Admitted without restriction;
Admitted with a limiting instruction under Rule 105; or
Excluded entirely under Rule 403.

Key Term: Limited Admissibility
The principle that a single item of evidence may be admissible for one legitimate purpose or against one party, but inadmissible for other purposes or against other parties, so that the court must restrict how the fact-finder may use it.

Key Term: Limiting Instruction
A direction from the judge to the jury specifying the limited purpose or limited party for which certain evidence may be considered, and forbidding any other use of that evidence.

Key Term: Limited Purpose Evidence
Evidence that is relevant and admissible for one use (such as impeachment, notice, or ownership) but not for another use (such as proving negligence or guilt).

Key Term: Limited Party Evidence
Evidence that is admissible against one party (for example, the declarant of an admission) but inadmissible against another party in the same case.

The doctrine assumes that juries follow limiting instructions. For MBE purposes, unless a constitutional rule says otherwise, you must generally accept that a proper limiting instruction cures the risk that jurors will misuse the evidence.

Limited Admissibility: Rule 105

Rule 105 of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs situations where evidence is admissible for a specific purpose or against a specific party, but not for all purposes or against all parties. The rule ensures that the jury considers the evidence only for its proper use.

The rule provides that when evidence is admitted for a limited purpose or against a limited party, “the court, on timely request, must restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly.” This language leads directly to several exam-tested points.

When Is Limited Admissibility Required

Limited admissibility arises most often when:

Evidence is relevant to one issue but not another (e.g., ownership or control, but not negligence).
Evidence is admissible against one party but not another (e.g., in multi-defendant criminal trials or multi-party civil actions).
Evidence is admissible for impeachment but not as substantive proof (e.g., certain prior inconsistent statements or prior convictions).

If a party requests, the court must instruct the jury to consider the evidence only for the permitted purpose or party.

Important details for the MBE:

The instruction is mandatory only on timely request. A party who wants the evidence limited must object or ask for a limiting instruction.
If no party requests an instruction, the court may give one on its own, but is not required to do so.
Failure to ask for a limiting instruction usually waives that issue on appeal, unless the misuse of the evidence is plain error affecting substantial rights.

How Does the Court Apply Rule 105

If evidence is admitted for a limited purpose or against a limited party, and a party requests a limiting instruction, the judge must:

Clearly inform the jury of the specific purpose or party for which the evidence may be considered.
Direct the jury not to use the evidence for any other purpose or against any other party.

The judge has discretion about the timing and wording of the instruction:

The instruction is often given immediately when the evidence is admitted, and again in the final jury charge.
The judge must make the limitation understandable and concrete (e.g., “You may consider this prior conviction only in assessing the witness’s credibility, not as proof that he committed the charged offense.”).

If no request is made, the court is not required to give a limiting instruction, but may do so at its discretion. On the MBE, if an answer choice states that the trial judge must give a limiting instruction even though no party requested one, that choice is incorrect.

Rule 105 and Rule 403: Limit vs Exclude

Rule 105 does not require the judge to admit evidence whenever it is admissible for a limited purpose. The court must first decide whether, under Rule 403, the danger that the jury will misuse the evidence (unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury) substantially outweighs its legitimate probative value.

If the evidence has significant probative value for a proper purpose and the danger of misuse can reasonably be handled by a limiting instruction, the judge should admit it with a Rule 105 instruction.
If the evidence’s main impact is through a forbidden use, and a limiting instruction would not realistically reduce that risk, the judge may exclude it entirely under Rule 403.

Example: Evidence of a defendant’s prior similar accident may be relevant to show notice of a dangerous condition, but poses a high risk that the jury will treat it as propensity evidence (“he must have been negligent again”). The judge must weigh:

Probative value for notice; against
Unfair prejudice if the jury treats it as proof of negligence.

On the exam, if the problem tells you that the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value, the correct response is exclusion under Rule 403, not admission with a limiting instruction.

Limited Purpose vs Limited Party

Limited admissibility questions fall into two main categories.

Limited purpose evidence
Evidence admissible for one purpose but not another. Common examples:
- Prior convictions admissible to impeach credibility (Rule 609), but not as substantive proof that the defendant committed the charged offense.
- Insurance coverage admissible to show ownership or control, or to impeach on bias, but not to prove negligence (Rule 411).
- Settlement negotiations admissible to show bias or prejudice of a witness, but not to prove the validity or amount of a disputed claim (Rule 408).
- Certain prior inconsistent statements admissible only to impeach, not as substantive evidence of the truth of the matter asserted (when they do not qualify under Rule 801(d)(1)(A)).
Limited party evidence
Evidence admissible against one party but not another party. Common examples:
- A party’s own statement (an “opposing party’s statement” under Rule 801(d)(2)(A)) is admissible only against that party, not automatically against co-parties.
- A co-defendant’s confession is admissible against the confessor, but often inadmissible against the other defendants because of Confrontation Clause issues (this is where constitutional doctrines like Bruton may require more than a limiting instruction).
- An employee’s admission may be admissible against the employee, but not necessarily against the employer unless the requirements for vicarious admissions are met.

Exam Tip:
If evidence clearly fits within a hearsay exception or exclusion only as to one party (e.g., an opposing party’s statement), it may still be admitted, with a limiting instruction clarifying which party it applies to.

Examples of Limited Admissibility

Evidence of insurance may be admitted to show ownership or control, or to prove a witness’s bias (e.g., adjuster’s testimony), but not to prove negligence.
A co-defendant’s confession may be admissible against the confessor but not against other defendants; the jury must be instructed accordingly, and constitutional rules may additionally require redaction or severance.
A prior conviction may be admitted to impeach a witness, but not as substantive evidence of guilt.
A hearsay statement may be admitted to show effect on the listener (e.g., notice or motive), but not for the truth of the matter asserted.

Judge and Jury Roles in Limited Admissibility

Under the Federal Rules:

The judge decides questions of law, including whether evidence is admissible and whether a limiting instruction is required.
The jury decides weight and credibility and is bound to follow limiting instructions given by the judge.

When the judge admits evidence subject to a limiting instruction:

The judge’s ruling on admissibility is a legal decision.
The jury must evaluate that evidence only within the boundaries the judge sets.

On appeal, an evidentiary ruling can be reversed only if:

A substantial right of a party was affected; and
The party preserved the issue by objection or request for a limiting instruction, unless the error is “plain error” that seriously affects the fairness of the proceeding.

Worked Example 1.1

In a joint criminal trial, Defendant A’s confession is admitted. The confession directly implicates Defendant A but also mentions Defendant B. The court admits the confession only against Defendant A. What must the court do if Defendant B requests?

Answer:
The court must give a limiting instruction to the jury, directing them to consider the confession only as evidence against Defendant A and not against Defendant B. Under Rule 105, once Defendant B makes a timely request, the judge is required to restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly. On an evidence question, you should assume that the jury can and will follow that instruction, unless the fact pattern brings in a separate constitutional rule that says otherwise.

Worked Example 1.2

A plaintiff sues two defendants. Evidence of a prior settlement is admissible to show bias of one defendant, but not to prove liability. The other defendant objects. What should the court do?

Answer:
The court should admit the settlement evidence for the limited purpose of showing bias, then instruct the jury that it may consider the evidence only in assessing that defendant’s credibility and bias, not as proof of liability of either defendant. Because the evidence is relevant for bias but inadmissible to prove liability under Rule 408, Rule 105 requires the judge, upon timely request, to give a limiting instruction to prevent misuse of the evidence.

Worked Example 1.3

In a negligence action, the plaintiff calls the defendant as an adverse witness. The defendant admits a prior felony conviction from five years ago. The conviction is admissible for impeachment under Rule 609 but is not admissible as substantive proof of negligence. The defendant’s attorney asks the court to instruct the jury that the conviction may be used only to evaluate credibility. How should the court rule?

Answer:
The court must give the requested limiting instruction. The conviction is relevant for the limited purpose of attacking the defendant’s credibility, not as substantive evidence that the defendant was negligent on this occasion. Once the conviction is admitted and counsel makes a timely request, Rule 105 obligates the judge to tell the jury explicitly that:

The conviction may be used only to decide whether the defendant is a truthful witness; and

The jury may not treat the conviction as proof that the defendant acted negligently in the incident at issue.

Worked Example 1.4

A store is sued for negligent security. The plaintiff offers a prior customer complaint letter to show that the store had notice of dangerous conditions. The letter contains detailed accusations about prior assaults on the premises. The store objects that the letter is hearsay and highly prejudicial. The court finds that the letter is admissible only to show notice, not to prove that the prior assaults actually occurred. What is the best ruling?

Answer:
The court should admit the letter for the limited purpose of notice and give a limiting instruction, unless the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value. The letter is hearsay if used to prove that the prior assaults occurred, but it is not hearsay when used to show its effect on the listener (that the store was warned). Under Rule 105, the judge should:

Admit the letter as non-hearsay evidence of notice; and

Instruct the jury that it may consider the letter only to decide whether the store was on notice, and not as proof that the prior assaults described in the letter actually happened.

If the facts indicate that the jury is very likely to misuse the letter despite an instruction, the judge may instead exclude it under Rule 403. On the MBE, pay close attention to whether the question specifies that unfair prejudice “substantially outweighs” probative value; if so, exclusion is usually the correct answer.

Exam Warning

Evidence admitted for a limited purpose can be highly prejudicial if the jury misuses it. Always consider:

Is the evidence relevant for at least one legitimate purpose or against at least one party?

Has a party requested a limiting instruction?

Does Rule 403 require exclusion because the risk of misuse substantially outweighs the legitimate probative value?

If the fact pattern suggests that a limiting instruction will adequately protect against misuse, “admit with a limiting instruction” is often the correct answer.

Revision Tip

On the MBE, if you see evidence that is admissible for one purpose but not another, or against one party but not another, look for an answer involving a limiting instruction. Only choose complete exclusion when the facts support a strong Rule 403 analysis or a separate constitutional bar.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

Rule 105 governs limited admissibility of evidence.
Evidence may be admitted for a specific purpose or against a specific party only.
When evidence is admitted for a limited purpose or limited party, an instruction is mandatory if a party makes a timely request.
The judge must clearly instruct the jury to consider the evidence only for its proper purpose or against the proper party, and not for any other use.
If no party requests a limiting instruction, the court is not required to give one, though it may do so in its discretion.
Limited admissibility is common with impeachment, prior convictions, insurance, settlement evidence, and multi-party cases.
Rule 105 does not override Rule 403; evidence may still be excluded entirely if its unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value, even if a limiting instruction is theoretically possible.
Appellate review of limited-admissibility rulings focuses on whether a substantial right was affected and whether the issue was preserved by objection or request.
For MBE purposes, assume juries follow limiting instructions, unless the problem invokes a constitutional rule that says otherwise.

Key Terms and Concepts

Limited Admissibility
Limiting Instruction
Limited Purpose Evidence
Limited Party Evidence

Presentation of evidence - Limited admissibility