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 military judge, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the members accordingly.
A limiting instruction may be an appropriate alternative to exclusion of evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Dorsey, 16 M.J. 1 (C.M.A. 1983) (exclusion of Rule 412 evidence); United States v. Ureta, 44 M.J. 290 (1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 692 (1997) (prior inconsistent statements offered for impeachment); United
States v. Barrow, 42 M.J. 655 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 1995) (uncharged
The rule embodies the view that, as a general rule, evidence should be received if
it is admissible for any purpose. The rule places the major responsibility for the
limiting instruction upon counsel. Counsel should state the grounds for limiting
the evidence outside the hearing of the members. Counsel should offer, and the
court may request, the specific language to use. The limiting instruction may be
given at the time the evidence is received or as part of the general instructions, or
at both times.