Rule 105. Limiting Evidence That Is Not Admissible Against Other

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.

Comment

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.