Home › Delaware › Rules of Evidence › Rule 105

Court Rules Network • courtrules.net

Del. Unif. R. Evid. 105

Not legal advice. Verify against official sources before relying on this text in any legal matter.

Rule 105 Limiting Evidence That Is Not Admissible Against Other

← Previous Rule 104: Preliminary Questions Next → Rule 106: Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded Statements

Rule Text

Parties or for Other Purposes. 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.

Plain-English Summary (for reference only — not a substitute for the rule text above)

When a judge allows certain evidence in a trial, that evidence might only be allowed for one specific reason or against one specific person. If that situation comes up, any party in the case can ask the judge to explain this to the jury.

The judge must then tell the jury exactly how they can use that evidence and warn them not to use it in any other way. For example, a jury might hear something that applies to one defendant but not another. The judge would instruct them to only consider that evidence when thinking about the right person.

If you want the judge to give the jury this kind of instruction, you need to ask for it at the right time, while the evidence is being presented. If you wait too long, you may lose your chance to get that protection.

Summary generated March 12, 2026

Committee Notes

This rule tracks F.R.E. 105. The present procedure in Delaware is for the court to give a jury instruction when evidence is admitted for a limited purpose and to again give a jury instruction when the jury is charged. The instruction is given only upon request of a party, however. The Committee approved this practice. A close relationship exists between this rule and Rule 403. The Committee agreed that the rule should not be read to indicate that a limiting instruction in every case will cure any potential prejudice that might be encountered by the admission of the evidence. E.g., Bruton v. United States, 389 U.S. 818, 88 S. Ct. 126, 19 L. Ed. 2d 70 (1967). Such a decision is for the court to make under Rule 403 or applicable statutory or constitutional provisions. But see Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S. Ct. 1726, 23 L. Ed. 2d 284 (1969), holding that not all violations of Bruton are reversible error. The Committee agreed that a violation of the rule of law set forth in Bruton should be avoided if possible and the evidence should not be admitted even though its admission might not be reversible error. D.R.E. 105 was amended in 2017 in response to the 2011 restyling of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The amendment is intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in ruling on evidence admissibility.

← Previous Rule 104: Preliminary Questions Next → Rule 106: Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded Statements