§29.01 INTRODUCTION

• Jurisdiction: North Carolina

§29.01. INTRODUCTION

The refrain "My statements were taken out of context" is frequently heard. In evidence law, the "rule of completeness" is designed to deal with this problem.¹ For example, suppose the accused's written confession contains the following passage: "Yes, I killed him. But I did it in self-defense." However, the prosecution introduces the first but not the second sentence. Under Rule 106, which codifies the rule of completeness, the defense has the right to introduce the second sentence immediately.²

In addition to writings, the rule also covers recorded statements. It does not apply to oral statements.

--------

Notes:

^[1] See also Fed. R. Evid. 410(b)(1) (adopting a "rule of completeness" for statements made during certain types of pleas and plea discussions); Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(6) ("If a party offers in evidence only part of a deposition, an adverse party may require the offeror to introduce other parts that in fairness should be considered with the part introduced, and any party may itself introduce any other parts.").

^[2] See United States v. Jamar, 561 F.2d 1103, 1108 (4th Cir. 1977) (Rule 106's purpose is "to permit the contemporaneous introduction of recorded statements that place in context other writings admitted into evidence which, viewed alone, may be misleading."); Andrews v. United States, 922 A.2d 449, 459 (D.C. 2007) ("By failing to apply the rule, the trial judge...