§ 29.03 Oral Conversations

• Jurisdiction: North Carolina

§ 29.03 Oral Conversations

Rule 106 does not apply to oral conversations unless they are recorded.⁶ A party who wishes to elicit additional parts of a conversation to put the conversation in context must wait until a later stage in the proceeding—typically, cross-examination or redirect examination. The trial court, however, has authority under Rule 611(a) to apply the rule of completeness to conversations.⁷

Rule 106 does apply when a witness is questioned about a writing, which is tantamount to the introduction of the writing in evidence.⁸

--------

Notes:

^[6] See id. ("For practical reasons, the rule is limited to writings and recorded statements and does not apply to conversations."); United States v. Verdugo, 617 F.3d 565, 579 (1st Cir. 2010) ("Rule 106 does not apply to testimony about unrecorded oral statements such as the one that Verdugo gave to Naylor and Cardello when he was arrested."); United States v. Garcia, 530 F.3d 348, 353 (5th Cir. 2008) ("[I]t is undisputed that the government did not introduce as evidence the transcript or tape recording of the interrogation. Rule 106 does not apply to a witness's testimony at trial. Nor did the government quote or read from the transcript during direct examination.").

^[7] See Fed. R. Evid. 611(a) ("The court should exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence."); United States v. Verdugo, 617 F.3d 565, 579 (1st Cir. 2010) ("district court retained substantial discretion under Fed. R. Evid. 611(a) to apply the rule of completeness to oral statements"); United States v. Li, 55 F.3d 325, 329 (7th Cir. 1995) ("We have recently refused to...