N.M. R. Evid. 11-105
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.
N.M. R. Evid. 11-105
Committee commentary. - The language of Rule 11-105 NMRA was amended in 2012 to be consistent with the restyling of the Federal Rules of Evidence to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on admissibility.
[As amended by Supreme Court Order No. 12-8300-015, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after June 16, 2012.]
ANNOTATIONS The 2012 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 12-8300-015, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after June 16, 2012, rewrote the title of the rule and the rule to make stylistic changes. The 1993 amendment, effective December 1, 1993, substituted "the court" for "the judge" near the middle of the rule. Compiler's notes. - This rule is similar to Rule 105 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Proper situation for limiting instruction. - Where a state's witness's mention of defendant's previous armed robbery was off-handed and casual, whereas evidentiary value of entire exchange between the two was compelling, appellate court was not willing to conclude that the jury would not have followed limiting instructions, if requested, so that prejudicial effect of evidence could have been minimized; defendant should have requested and been granted a curative instruction. State v. Ortiz, 1975-NMCA-112, 88 N.M. 370, 540 P.2d 850. Where a statement of one defendant includes inculpatory facts concerning a codefendant, the proper procedure is to admit the statement but to exclude from the jury's consideration all parts thereof damaging to the other defendant. State v. Alaniz, 1951-NMSC-049, 55 N.M. 312, 232 P.2d 982 (decided before enactment of this rule). Limiting instruction not given where failure to request. - The trial court was not required to give an instruction on the limited purpose of the cross-examination where the defendant failed to request such an instruction. State v. Wyman, 1981-NMCA-087, 96 N.M. 558, 632 P.2d 1196. Defendant who failed to request a limiting instruction as to testimony from codefendant's preliminary hearing that was not admissible against defendant was precluded from arguing on appeal that introduction of the testimony at trial violated his right to confront the witness. State v. Gonzales, 1992-NMSC-003, 113 N.M. 221, 824 P.2d 1023. Limiting instruction is mandatory when properly requested. Gonzales v. Sansoy, 1984-NMCA-133, 103 N.M. 127, 703 P.2d 904. Admissibility of codefendant's guilty plea. - Hearsay evidence of a coconspirator's or codefendant's guilty plea may not be admitted when the witness himself does not testify, nor when that evidence is offered solely to prove the defendant's guilt. State v. Gilbert, 1982-NMCA-081, 98 N.M. 77, 644 P.2d 1066. Timing of curative instruction. - Exclusion of portions of statement damaging to a codefendant may be accomplished by an instruction to disregard the inadmissible portions, both when the statement is read to or seen by the jury, and again when the jury is instructed on the law of the case. State v. Minor, 1968-NMSC-016, 78 N.M. 680, 437 P.2d 141 (decided before enactment of this rule). Law reviews. - For article, "Evidence," see 12 N.M.L. Rev. 379 (1982). Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. - 75 Am. Jur. 2d Trial § 321 et seq. 88 C.J.S. Trial §§ 87, 130 to 132.