Home Table of Contents

WPIC 5.30 Evidence Limited as to Purpose

11 WAPRAC WPIC 5.30Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal

11 Wash. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. Crim. WPIC 5.30 (5th Ed)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
January 2024 Update
Washington State Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions
Part II. Evidence and Guides for Its Consideration
WPIC CHAPTER 5. General Principles of Evidence
WPIC 5.30 Evidence Limited as to Purpose
Certain evidence has been admitted in this case for only a limited purpose. This evidence [consists of and] may be considered by you only for the purpose of . You may not consider it for any other purpose. Any discussion of the evidence during your deliberations must be consistent with this limitation.
NOTE ON USE
This is a generic instruction to be used when evidence is admissible only for a limited purpose.
For specialized instructions for specific situations, see WPIC 5.05 (Prior Conviction—Impeachment—Defendant), and as to a witness's criminal conviction, see WPIC 5.06 (Prior Conviction—Impeachment—Witness). Use bracketed material as applicable.
COMMENT
ER 105.
Generally. When the party against whom evidence is admitted for a limited purpose requests that the 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”).
“Although it is usually preferable to give a limiting instruction contemporaneously with the evidence at issue,it is within a trial court's discretion to choose instead to give a limiting instruction at the close of all of the evidence.” State v. Ramirez, 62 Wn.App 301, 305, 841 P.2d 227 (1991). The limiting instructions included in WPIC Chapter 5 (General Principles of Evidence) are designed for use at the end of trial. For corresponding instructions to be used during trial, see WPIC 4.64 (Evidence of Prior Conviction—Impeachment) and WPIC 4.64.01 (Evidence Limited as to Purpose).
In State v. Gresham, 173 Wn.2d 405, 423–26, 269 P.3d 207 (2012), the Supreme Court established the following ground rules for the use of limiting instructions under Rule 404(b):

  • 1. The trial court has no responsibility to give a limiting instruction if neither side requests a limiting instruction.

  • 2. The trial court may (and usually does) ask the requesting party to draft the limiting instruction.

  • 3. The trial court is under no obligation to give a limiting instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law.

  • 4. If the requesting party's instruction is an incorrect statement of the law, the trial court may not decline to give an instruction solely on that basis. The trial court itself should draft, and give, an instruction that is a correct statement of the law.
See also, State v. Aaron, 57 Wn.App. 277, 281, 787 P.2d 949 (1990) (“[ER 105] is mandatory”); State v. Mohamed, 186 Wn.2d 235, 375 P.3d 1068 (2016); State v. Athan, 160 Wn.2d 364, 158 P.3d 27 (2007) (a party who fails to propose a limiting instruction may not assert its absence as error on appeal).
Drafting limiting instructions:
When drafting a limiting instruction, the instruction must be sufficiently detailed as to clearly direct the jury as to the purpose for which the evidence may be considered. This is particularly true when the evidence, which was admitted for a limited purpose, implicates ER 404(b). A general, laundry-list type of instruction based upon the language of Rule 404(b) is insufficient to neutralize prejudice to the defendant. State v. Fitzgerald, 39 Wn.App. 652, 694 P.2d 1117 (1985) (dictum).
Care must be taken to avoid a comment on the evidence, forbidden by article 4, section 16 of the Washington Constitution. State v. Hartzell, 156 Wn.App. 918, 237 P.3d 928 (2010) (when giving limiting instructions under ER 404(b), trial court must avoid expressing personal opinion on the merits of the case or on the credibility of any evidence presented).
An example of a generic instruction under ER 404(b) might state as follows:
You may have heard evidence concerning alleged misconduct by the defendant on dates other than that of the charged incident. Such evidence may only be considered by you to the extent you find it relevant to issues of [intent] [knowledge] [absence of mistake] [acting pursuant to a common scheme or plan]. It is not to be considered by you for any other purpose.
A more specific example in a prosecution for resisting arrest might state as follows:
Evidence of the existence of a warrant for the defendant's arrest may be considered by you only in connection with the element of a “lawful arrest” and for no other purpose.
Other specialized instructions. Specialized limiting instructions are appropriate when a criminal conviction is admitted to impeach a witness, including a defendant who testifies as a witness. See WPIC 5.05 (Prior Conviction—Impeachment—Defendant) and WPIC 5.06 (Prior Conviction—Impeachment—Witness).
As a general rule, admissions by one party are not admissible against a co-party, but in criminal cases the rule has become primarily a rule of constitutional law and is subject to some exceptions. See the discussion following WPIC 6.42 (Admissions or Incriminating Statement by Codefendant).
ER 105 is covered in more detail in Tegland, 5 Washington Practice, Evidence Law and Practice, sections 105.1 to 105.4 (6th ed.).
[Current as of January 2019.]
Westlaw. © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
End of Document