California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Cornejo, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 804, 247 Cal.App.4th 807 (Cal. App. 2016):
This provision 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, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 868.) 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.] Thus, if a party's oral admissions have been introduced in evidence, he [or she] 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. [Citations.] (People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 156, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 770, 913 P.2d 980.) We review the trial court's determination of whether or not to
[247 Cal.App.4th 855]
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.