Home › North Dakota › North Dakota Rules of Evidence › Rule 105

Court Rules Network • courtrules.net

N.D.R.Ev. 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

← 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.

Amendment history: (Adopted Apr. 8, 1976; amended Mar. 1, 2014.)

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

This summary is not the rule. The rule text controls.

Sometimes evidence works for one part of a case but not another. For example, something might be fair to use against one defendant but not against a second defendant in the same trial. Or a piece of evidence might be allowed to prove one point but not allowed to prove a different point.

When this happens, the judge can let the jury hear the evidence, but only for the limited purpose it's actually allowed for. If a lawyer asks for it in time, the judge must tell the jury exactly how they can and can't use that evidence. This keeps the jury from using evidence in a way that isn't fair or isn't legally proper.

This rule protects people in a case from being unfairly judged based on evidence that doesn't really apply to them or to the specific question at hand. It puts the responsibility on the lawyers to speak up and ask for these instructions. If no one asks, the judge doesn't have to give this kind of warning to the jury.

Committee Notes

Rule 105 was amended, effective March 1, 2014.

Evidence is often admissible for one purpose, but not for another. Whenever this occurs the trial judge may decide, under Rule 403, that the prejudicial effect of admitting the evidence outweighs its probative value and exclude the evidence entirely. But total exclusion of evidence which has some probative value is a harsh remedy. This rule requires that a court restrict use of evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly.

Situations in which evidence is admissible as to one party but not to another usually occur in a joint trial of criminal defendants. This rule applies to these situations, but its use must be carefully considered in light of constitutional protections surrounding criminal defendants.

Rule 105 was amended, effective March 1, 2014, in response to the December 1, 2011, revision of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The language and organization of the rule were changed to make the rule more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.

SOURCES: Joint Procedure Committee Minutes of January 26-27, 2012, page 31; April 8, 1976, page 17; October 1, 1975, page 2.Fed.R.Ev. 105; Rule 105, SBAND proposal.

STATUTES AFFECTED:

CONSIDERED:N.D.C.C. § 45-06-03.

Cross Reference: N.D.R.Ev. 403 (Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time); N.D.R.Crim.P. 8 (Joinder of Offenses or Defendants); N.D.R.Crim.P. 13 (Joint Trial of Separate Cases); N.D.R.Crim.P. 14 (Relief from Prejudicial Joinder).

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