Rule 106 and the Doctrine of Completeness
| Jurisdiction | Colorado,United States |
| Citation | Vol. 25 No. 7 Pg. 47 |
| Pages | 47 |
| Publication year | 1996 |
1996, July, Pg. 47. Rule 106 and the Doctrine of Completeness
Q: Under Colorado Rules of Evidence ("C.R.E.") 106, may an adverse party require an opponent to introduce a writing or recorded statement during the opponent's case, rather than waiting for cross-examination or presentation of its own case?
A: Yes. An adverse party may require an opponent to introduce a writing or recorded statement which, in fairness, should be considered together with a writing or recorded statement introduced by the opponent.
In a dispute regarding whether defendant Buyer was entitled to take a discount for early payment, plaintiff Seller introduces an invoice that was sent to Buyer that makes no mention of a discount ("Invoice"). When Seller began doing business with Buyer, however, Seller sent to Buyer a letter confirming a conversation with Buyer in which the Seller agreed, contrary to its normal practice, to allow an early payment discount in light of the amount of business that Seller contemplated from Buyer ("Confirmation Letter"). Buyer wants to interrupt the presentation of Seller's case and require that Seller introduce the Confirmation Letter contemporaneously with the Invoice. How should the court rule?
C.R.E. 106 clarifies and extends the common law doctrine of completeness.(fn1) C.R.E. 106, which is substantively identical to F.R.E. 106,(fn2) provides:
Thus, C.R.E. 106, in effect, permits a deviation from the traditional rule that each side has the freedom to present the evidence favoring its side alone. Rule 106 does not, however, limit the right of an adversary to further develop its evidence on cross-examination or during its own case.(fn3)[w]hen a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it.
The doctrine of completeness and C.R.E. 106 are intended: (1) to avoid the misleading impression created by taking matters out of context; and (2) to remedy the inadequacy of repair work that would otherwise be delayed to a later point in the trial.(fn4) Although Rule 106 states that an adverse party may "require" introduction of...
To continue reading
Request your trial