How have the courts dealt with the issue of witnesses giving evidence in a criminal case?

On appeal, Flores argues it was erroneous and prejudicial to preclude him from introducing his later revelations to law enforcement. The People respond that there was no abuse of discretion because "the rule of completeness did not apply to complete a statement [Flores made] at the scene with a statement that [he] made later after he was arrested." (See, e.g., People v. Farley (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1053, 1103 [no error in excluding additional letters from defendant to assault victim where the admitted letters were independently comprehensible on the offered topics].)