§ 29.02 RATIONALE

• Jurisdiction: North Carolina

§ 29.02. RATIONALE

Rule 106 is based on two considerations. "The first is the misleading impression created by taking matters out of context. The second is the inadequacy of repair work when delayed to a point later in the trial."³ The second consideration is the key to the rule. In most trial situations, a party wishing to put the opposing party's evidence in context must wait until cross-examination or the next point at which that party is entitled to introduce evidence. Rule 106 creates a special exception for documents and recorded statements, permitting a party to place the opposing party's evidence "in context" immediately.⁴ (The rule uses the phrase "at that time"). The rule "does not in any way circumscribe the right of the adversary to develop the matter on cross-examination or as part of his own case."⁵

--------

Notes:

^[3] Fed. R. Evid. 106 advisory committee's note.

^[4] See United States v. Castro-Cabrera, 534 F. Supp. 2d 1156, 1160 (C.D. Cal. 2008) ("Statements are inextricably intertwined when the meaning of a statement, if divorced from the context provided by the other statement, is different than the meaning the statement has when read within the context provided by the other statement. Under those circumstances, a court must take care to avoid distortion or misrepresentation of the speaker's meaning, by requiring that the statements be admitted in their entirety and allowing the jury to determine their meaning. Here, unless Defendant's statement is viewed in its entirety, there is a significant danger that its meaning will be taken out of context and misrepresent to the jury a meaning other than the one Defendant was communicating.").

^[5] Fed. R. Evid. 106 advisory committee's note.

⁶ See id. ("For practical reasons, the rule is limited to writings and recorded statements and does not apply to conversations."); United States v...