Opinion ID: 1129388
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trial Court's Failure to Give Limiting Instruction

Text: While the victim's statements were admissible for a nonhearsay purpose (i.e., to contradict the argument that the victim was suicidal), the jury was not given a limiting instruction explaining the scope of that admissibility. Specifically, the jury was not instructed that it could consider the statements solely for their tendency to establish that the victim was not suicidal and that it could not consider the statements as proof that Martin in fact killed the victim. On proper objection, such an instruction would have been appropriate. Rule 105, Ala. R. Evid. (When evidence which is admissible . . . for one purpose but not admissible . . . for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly.). Martin's trial counsel did not request a limiting instruction. Moreover, trial counsel did not object to the admission of the statements on the ground that the evidence was simply inadmissible by reason of Rule 403, Ala. R. Evid., which permits the exclusion of otherwise admissible evidence when the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. [7]