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. 4 Rule 106. Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded Statements. If a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement, an adverse party may require the introduction, at that time, of any other part — or any other writing or recorded statement — that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time. Comment This rule tracks F.R.E. 106. It is similar to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(6) and Delaware Court of Chancery Rule 32(a)(4) and Delaware Superior Court Civil Rule 32(a)(4). The Committee rejected the substitution of a “relevance” test for a “fairness” test for what must also be introduced if part of a writing or statement is introduced. For prior Delaware case illustrating the law covered by this rule, see Lowber v. State, Del. Supr., 100 A. 322 (1917). D.R.E. 106 was amended in 2017 in response to the 2011 restyling of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The amendment is intended to be stylistic only. The pre-2017 “Comment” to D.R.E. 106 was revised only as necessary to reflect the 2017 amendments and the current language of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There is no intent to change any result in ruling on evidence admissibility. ARTICLE II. JUDICIAL NOTICE