WPI 6.07 Limited Purpose Evidence—Generally

This is an oral instruction.

Fill in the blanks to conform to the evidence. For the appropriate written instruction to be included in the set of instructions, see WPI 1.06 (Evidence for Limited Purpose).

ER 105.

Generally. When the party against whom evidence is admitted for a limited purpose requests that a limiting instruction be given, an appropriate limiting instruction must be given. ER 105; State v. Aaron, 57 Wn.App. 277, 281, 787 P.2d 949 (1990) (“[ER 105] is mandatory”). The court may give a limiting instruction on its own initiative, but it is under no obligation to do so. State v. Ellard, 46 Wn.App. 242, 730 P.2d 109 (1986). However, it is not error to refuse to instruct when the instruction provided is an incorrect statement of the law or would amount to a comment on the evidence. State v. Gresham, 173 Wn.2d 405, 423–26, 269 P.3d. 307 (2012); State v. Hartzell, 156 Wn.App. 918, 237 P.3d 928 (2010).

This pattern instruction is broadly written to apply to many different circumstances. For example, hearsay may be inadmissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted but admissible to show that the listener had knowledge or notice. Similarly, an admission may be admissible against the party making the admission but not against a co-party.

Criminal convictions offered for impeachment. This instruction is appropriate for use during trial, when a witness's prior conviction is admissible for impeachment under ER 609. At the conclusion of the trial, however, the specialized instruction should be used instead (WPI 3.02 (Conviction of Crime—Impeachment)).

Cross-reference. For a more detailed discussion of the case law under ER 105, see the Comments following WPI 1.06 (limited purpose, given at end of trial) and WPI 3.02 (conviction of crime for impeachment, given at end of trial). A detailed discussion of limiting instructions in the context of evidence admitted pursuant to ER 404(b) is contained in the Comment to WPIC 5.30 (Evidence Limited as to Purpose).