(1) When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him or her at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement that in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously. An adverse party is not bound by evidence introduced under this section.
(2) The court may, and upon request of a party must, instruct the jury that a writing or recorded statement that is admitted into evidence as a result of a party’s compliance with subsection (1) may be considered by the jury only for the purpose of explaining or clarifying the writing or recorded statement that was originally offered by the adverse party.
The Rule of Completeness: This statute prevents a party from misleading the jury by presenting only a snippet of a document or recording out of context. It gives the opposing party the right to immediately provide the rest of the story.
Core Principle: If one party introduces part of a written or recorded statement, the opposing party can require them to introduce any other part of that statement—or any other related statement—that is needed to provide the full context and ensure fairness. This happens "at that time" to immediately correct any misleading impression.
Example: A prosecutor introduces a defendant's email that says, "I have to admit, I took the jewelry." This sounds like a confession. However, the full sentence was, "My friend asked what I would do if I were desperate, and I told her, 'I suppose I'd do anything... I'd have to admit, I took the jewelry' would be a line from a movie I'd act out." Under this rule, the defense can immediately require the prosecutor to read the full email to the jury.
The rule also clarifies that when a party is forced to introduce this additional context, they are not "bound" by it, and the judge must instruct the jury that the additional material is only for the purpose of clarifying the original snippet.
