Colo. R. Evid. 105
When evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly.
(Federal Rule Identical.)
CRE 105
Annotation Evidence properly admissible for one purpose does not become inadmissible because it would be inadmissible if offered only for another purpose. Spencer v. People, 163 Colo. 182, 429 P.2d 266 (1967); Florey v. District Court, 713 P.2d 840 (Colo. 1985). Completeness rule. Where the admissible portion of a statement would be unfair or misleading without including the entire statement, the adverse party may introduce the other part of the statement. People v. Melillo, 976 P.2d 353 (Colo. App. 1998). But both the rule of completeness and the concept of "opening the door" are subject to the considerations of relevance and prejudice required under C.R.E. 401 and C.R.E. 403. People v. Melillo, 25 P.3d 769 (Colo. 2001). Judge should repeat limited-purpose instruction in written instructions in order to safeguard against potential misuse of other-crime evidence by the jury. People v. Garner, 806 P.2d 366 (Colo. 1991). Trial court's failure to provide guidance to the jury as to the purpose of the evidence at the time it came in or at the close of the trial was abuse of discretion. People v. Welsh, 80 P.3d 296 (Colo. 2003). Trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the probative value of the prosecution's psychiatrist's opinion, based in part on defendant's criminal history, was not substantially outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice. Defendant's criminal record was central to psychiatrist's antisocial personality disorder diagnosis. Furthermore, the parties had agreed that the court would instruct the jury to consider this evidence only as it related to defendant's insanity defense. Finally there were no particular facts to diminish the probative value of the evidence. People v. Gonzales-Quevedo, 203 P.3d 609 (Colo. App. 2008). Applied in O'Neal v. Reliance Mortg. Corp., 721 P.2d 1230 (Colo. App. 1986).