§106 The Rule of Completeness in Regard to Writings, Statements,

• Library: Evidence Restated Deskbook (2021 Ed.)

§106 The Rule of Completeness in Regard to Writings, Statements,

Conversations, or Depositions—Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded Statements

When a party introduces part of a writing, statement, conversation, or deposition, the opposing party is entitled to introduce or inquire into other parts of the whole thereof in order to explain or rebut adverse inferences that might arise from the fragmentary or incomplete character of the evidence introduced.

Notes

The rule of completeness allows a party to "introduce evidence of the circumstances of a writing, statement, conversation, or deposition so the jury can have a complete picture of the contested evidence introduced by the adversary." State ex rel. Kemper v. Vincent, 191 S.W.3d 45 (Mo. banc 2006) (citing William A. Schroeder, Missouri Practice, Missouri Evidence § 106.1 (2^nd ed. 1999)). The rule seeks to ensure that the evidence that is introduced "is not admitted out of context." State v. Skillicorn, 944 S.W.2d 877, 891 (Mo. banc 1997); State v. Jackson, 313 S.W.3d 206 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010). To be within the rule, the evidence must be part of the same act, occurrence, or transaction sought to be explained. State v. Marshall, 410 S.W.3d 663, 672–73 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013). The rule of completeness is stated as follows:

It is a well settled rule . . . that, where either party introduces part of an act, occurrence, or transaction . . . the opposing party is entitled to introduce or to inquire into other parts of the whole thereof, in order to explain or rebut adverse inferences which might arise from the fragmentary or incomplete character of the evidence introduced by his adversary, or prove his version with reference thereto.

State v. Hayes, 391 S.W.2d 338, 340 (Mo. 1965) (quoting State v. Odom, 353 S.W.2d 708, 711 (Mo. 1962)); State v. Graham, 529 S.W.3d 363, 367 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017). An essential predicate to application of the rule of completeness is that the portions of the statement sought to be admitted under the rule must relate to the same subject matter as the portions previously admitted by the opposing party. State v. Ellis, 512 S.W.3d 816, 834–35 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016). The rule of completeness is also expressed in Federal Rule of Evidence 106. But unlike the Missouri expression, the federal rule is limited to writings and recorded conversations. See Fed. R. Evid. 106 advisory committee's note.

In relation to the rape-shield statute

The rule of completeness does not provide an exception to the rape-shield statute because it is not the province of courts to carve out more exceptions to the statute than the legislature saw fit to include in the statute. State v. Mason, 428 S.W.3d 746, 754 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (there was no error in excluding from a witness's testimony an overheard conversation between the defendant and the victim containing a reference to the victim's prior sexual conduct with other men after the court admitted reference to the defendant's prior sexual conduct with the victim).

Examples of application of the rule

1. Writings

· Confessions. When the State introduces part of a confession or admission into evidence, the defendant is authorized to

...