Legal Definitions - multiple admissibility

Multiple admissibility refers to a situation in a legal proceeding where a single piece of evidence, or a particular fact, can be properly admitted into court for one specific legal purpose or against one specific party, even if it would be inadmissible for other purposes or against other parties. When evidence is multiply admissible, the judge often provides a "limiting instruction" to the jury, explaining the specific, narrow reason for which they may consider the evidence and cautioning them not to use it for any other purpose. This ensures fairness and adherence to the rules of evidence.

• Example 1: Evidence Admissible for Intent, Not Character

  In a trial for arson, the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence that the defendant previously set fire to another property five years ago. Generally, evidence of a person's past bad acts is not admissible to prove that they have a tendency to commit crimes (i.e., to show they are a "bad person" likely to have committed the current crime). However, this prior act is admissible for a more limited purpose, such as to show the defendant's motive, intent, or a common plan or scheme in the current arson charge. The judge would instruct the jury that they can only consider the past act to understand the defendant's intent or plan, and not as proof that the defendant is simply a criminal or has a propensity for arson.

• Example 2: Evidence Admissible Against One Party, Not Another

  Consider a civil lawsuit where a trucking company and one of its drivers are both sued for negligence after an accident. A statement made by the driver to a friend after the accident (e.g., "I was so tired, I barely saw the stop sign") is offered as evidence. This statement might be admissible as an "admission by a party-opponent" against the driver to show their knowledge and potential negligence. However, depending on specific legal rules regarding agency and scope of employment, this same statement might not be admissible directly against the trucking company to prove the company's negligence. The judge would instruct the jury to only consider the statement when evaluating the driver's actions, and not necessarily as proof of the company's liability.

• Example 3: Hearsay Admissible for Effect on Listener, Not Truth

  In a personal injury case arising from a slip-and-fall incident at a grocery store, a witness testifies that just before the plaintiff fell, another customer shouted, "Watch out, there's a huge spill by the dairy aisle!" If the plaintiff offered this statement to prove that there was actually a huge spill (the truth of the matter asserted), it would likely be inadmissible hearsay. However, the statement is admissible for a different purpose: to show that the grocery store management (if they were within earshot) was put on notice or warned about the hazard, which is relevant to whether the store acted negligently in failing to clean it up. The judge would instruct the jury to consider the statement only for its effect on the store's knowledge or state of mind, and not as definitive proof that the spill was indeed present.