What rulings compel a defendant to testify in his civil case?

The rulings defendant contends impelled him to testify are the trial court's exclusion of a hearsay statement defendant made during police questioning in which he expressed remorse for the shooting. The trial court held defendant's statement was inadmissible because the statement was not shown to be admissible for a nonhearsay purpose, and because no evidence of defendant's statement, the police interrogation, or defendant's demeanor during the interrogation had been introduced by the People in their case-in-chief. Because the prosecutor elected not to introduce any of defendant's statements made during police interrogation, the trial court held defendant's statements of remorse were inadmissible under the "rule of completeness." (People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 156 ["if a party's oral admissions have been introduced in evidence, he may show other portions of the same interview or conversation, even if they are self-serving, which 'have some bearing upon, or connection with, the admission ... in evidence'"].)