In what circumstances will the Attorney General allow a defendant's statement to be admitted under section 1093, subdivision (d) of the California Evidence Code?

Here, both the portions of defendant's interview admitted by the prosecution and the portions sought to be admitted by defendant were on the same subject of his actions and state of mind when he beat and smothered the victim to death. Omitting portions in which defendant claimed to be hearing voices when he did so and suggested the victim was the initial aggressor was likely to provide the jury with a misleading impression of his admissions to the detectives. (See People v. Vines, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 861 ["introduction of one portion without the other would have left a misleading impression in jurors' minds"].) To the extent the Attorney General's argument attempts to save the trial court's ruling on the basis of section 1093's requirement that evidence offered in surrebuttal must rebut evidence offered in the rebuttal case, we conclude that where Evidence Code section 356 applies, there is "good reason" for the trial court to allow the additional portions of the statement into evidence under section 1093, subdivision (d), even if those portions do not strictly rebut anything said in the portions of the statement admitted during the rebuttal case.