Rule of completeness

The Rule of Completeness is codified in Evidence Code section 356.

Evidence Code section 356

Where part of an act, declaration, conversation, or writing is given in evidence by one party, the whole on the same subject may be inquired into by an adverse party; when a letter is read, the answer may be given; and when a detached act, declaration, conversation, or writing is given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation, or writing which is necessary to make it understood may also be given in evidence.

Notable Cases

Federal cases

People v. Vallejos, 742 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 2014)

Holding

Because an edited version of a statement was not misleading, the Rule of Completeness did not mandate admission of the entire statement.

Facts

A detective discovered the defendant was sharing child pornography via peer-to-peer file sharing. Police searched the defendant's computer, finding more images. After the search, the defendant admitted responsibility for the content on his computer and gave a recorded statement. An edited version of that statement was played at trial.

Rationale

The purpose of the Rule of Completeness is to avoid misleading a jury when only a portion of a statement is introduced. If the complete statement does not correct a misleading impression, then the Rule of Completeness does not require admission of the complete statement. In this case, the omitted portions of the statement, such as the defendant's prior prison sentence and drug history, concerned sentencing, but did not correct any misleading impressions from the admitted portions. Thus, it was proper for the court to exclude the omitted portions.