California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Champlin, A140705 (Cal. App. 2016):
Evidence Code section 356 provides in relevant part, "Where part of [a] . . . conversation . . . is given in evidence by one party, the whole on the same subject may be inquired into by an adverse party; . . . when a detached . . . conversation . . . is given in evidence, any other . . . conversation . . . which is necessary to make it understood may also be given in evidence." The statute "is sometimes referred to as the statutory version of the common law rule of completeness. [Citation.] According to the common law rule: "[T]he opponent, against whom a part of an utterance has been put in, may in his [or her] turn complement it by putting in the remainder, in order to secure for the tribunal a complete understanding of the total tenor and effect of the utterance." [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Parrish (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 263, 269, fn. 3.) The purpose of the rule "is to prevent the use of selected aspects of a conversation, act, declaration, or writing, so as to create a misleading impression on the subjects addressed. [Citation.]
Page 12
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.