Home › Federal › Rules of Evidence › Rule 105

Court Rules Network • courtrules.net

Fed. 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 Parties or for Other Purposes

GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

Rule Text

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 into a trial, that evidence sometimes only applies to one person or one issue in the case. It would not be fair to let the jury use that evidence against someone it was not meant to affect, or for a reason it was not meant to support.

If this happens, any party in the case can ask the judge to give the jury a limiting instruction. This is a direction that tells the jury exactly how they can and cannot use that piece of evidence. The judge is required to give this instruction if someone asks for it at the right time.

For example, if a statement made by one defendant is admitted into evidence, the jury might be told they can only consider it against that one defendant, not against a co-defendant. The instruction is meant to keep the jury focused on using the evidence only where it legally applies.

Summary generated March 09, 2026

Committee Notes

Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules

A 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. 93–650

Rule 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 Amendment

The 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.

(, Jan. 2, 1975, ; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)

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