We have held that although a trial judge is required to give such an instruction where applicable on request of one of the parties, the failure to do so when not requested is not error unless such failure is clearly erroneous. State v. Lolar, 259 Kan. 682, 687-88, 914 P.2d 950 (1996); State v. Knowles, 209 Kan. 676, 679-80, 498 P.2d 40 (1972). We conclude that the court was not required to instruct the jury regarding the applicability of the evidence where Kleypas failed to request such an instruction.

Giving an instruction or failing to give an instruction is clearly erroneous only if the reviewing court reaches a firm conviction that if the trial error had not occurred, there is a real possibility the jury would have returned a different verdict. See State v. Lolar, 259 Kan. 682, 687-88, 914 P.2d 950 (1996); State v. Richmond, 258 Kan. 449, 454, 904 P.2d 974 (1995). Harris identifies two aspects of the evidence that he contends made a cautionary instruction necessary: (1) M.S.'s trial testimony that he saw Laster and Harris walking in the alley immediately before Moore was killed, and (2) D.P.'s statement to police that "Harris was riding around the neighborhood with Laster before the shooting, and that he was in the alley, armed with a gun, immediately before the shooting."

It also acknowledges K.S.A. 60-406's application, which provides: "When relevant evidence is admissible . . . for one purpose and is inadmissible . . . for another purpose, the judge upon request shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly." See also State v. Lolar, 259 Kan. 682, 687-88, 914 P.2d 950 (1996) (referencing K.S.A. 60-406, noting certain evidence was relevant and admissible as an element of one charge but otherwise inadmissible, and stating: "If [the defendant] had requested an instruction limiting the jury's consideration of [certain evidence], the trial judge would have been required to give such an instruction."); State v. Kidwell, 199 Kan. 752, 755, 434 P.2d 316 (1967) (citing K.S.A. 60-406 and stating: "When evidence is introduced for a limited purpose the trial court should explain the limitation to the jury and limit its application to that purpose."); PIK Civ. 4th 102.40 (basing pattern instruction on K.S.A. 60-406).