Printable Format60-406. Limited admissibility. When relevant evidence is admissible as to one party or for one purpose and is inadmissible as to other parties or for another purpose, the judge upon request shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-406; January 1, 1964.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
1963-65 survey of law of evidence, Spencer A. Gard, 14 K.L.R. 263, 264 (1965).
Note concerning the defense of entrapment, John E. Caton, 12 W.L.J. 64, 73 (1972).
Comment concerning use of evidence of prior convictions, Wendell F. Cowan, Jr., 12 W.L.J. 111, 112 (1972).
"Evidence: Settlement Offers Not Relevant For Mitigating Punitive Damages," James B. Albertson, 23 W.L.J. 452, 461 (1984).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. When evidence introduced for limited purpose, trial court should explain limitation to jury and limit application to that purpose. State v. Kidwell, 199 Kan. 752, 755, 434 P.2d 316.
2. Jury instruction relating to evidence of prior conviction to prove intent approved on appeal. State v. Jerrel, 200 Kan. 415, 420, 436 P.2d 973.
3. Instruction was adequate to restrict evidence to its proper scope though party against whom it was admitted was dismissed. Davis v. City of Kansas City, 204 Kan. 524, 531, 464 P.2d 154.
4. Absent request to restrict evidence to proper scope, verdict should not be set aside. Scogin v. Nugen, 204 Kan. 568, 577, 464 P.2d 166.
5. Evidence properly admitted; no request made to restrict evidence to issues authorized under K.S.A. 60-449 and 60-450. Williams v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 204 Kan. 772, 780, 465 P.2d 975.
6. Counsel for appellant specifically stated he did not want an instruction given as to limited scope of evidence, as contemplated hereunder. Huxol v. Nickell, 205 Kan. 718, 723, 473 P.2d 90.
7. Prior conviction admissible as essential element of charge; failure to give limiting instruction not error where not requested. State v. Knowles, 209 Kan. 676, 679, 498 P.2d 40.
8. Evidence of similar explosion admitted for limited purpose of showing appellant was on notice of possible hazard properly admitted. Kearney v. Kansas Public Service Co., 233 Kan. 492, 498, 665 P.2d 757 (1983).
9. Offer of compromise not admissible for inference of liability; may be admissible if containing an admission of fact. Ettus v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 233 Kan. 555, 567, 665 P.2d 730 (1983).
10. Cited; plaintiff's burden in product liability case where needle believed to be in loaf of bread examined. Hazelton v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 12 Kan. App. 2d 377, 385, 745 P.2d 309 (1987).
11. Cited; whether court erred by admitting photographs showing unused safety devices at accident scene taken two years after accident examined. Smith v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 256 Kan. 90, 124, 883 P.2d 1120 (1994).
12. Trial court's failure to give an instruction limiting use of prior crimes evidence held harmless error. State v. Denney, 258 Kan. 437, 441, 905 P.2d 657 (1995).
13. Failure of judge to give limiting instruction for admission of prior felonies not clearly erroneous. State v. Lolar, 259 Kan. 682, 687, 914 P.2d 950 (1996).
14. Failure of trial court to give limiting instruction regarding evidence of felony conviction absent request by defendant not reversible error. State v. Banks, 260 Kan. 918, 928, 927 P.2d 456 (1996).
15. Confrontation clause not applicable to nonhearsay evidence and does not bar certain testimonial statements, when. State v. Araujo, 285 Kan. 214, 169 P.3d 1123 (2007).
16. Admitting evidence for a limited purpose does not automatically require judge to instruct the jury on such limitation. State v. Alfaro-Valleda, 314 Kan. 526, 548, 502 P.3d 66 (2022).