CRE 106

History

(Federal Rule Identical.) ANNOTATION Law reviews. For note, ‘‘Curative Admissi- bility: Fighting Fire With Fire’’, see 23 Colo. Law. 2321 (1994). The purpose of this rule is to avoid creating a misleading impression by taking evidence out of context or otherwise creating a distorted pic- ture by the selective introduction of evidence. People v. Medina, 72 P.3d 405 (Colo. App. 2003); People v. Knight, 167 P.3d 141 (Colo. App. 2006). Completeness rule. Where the admissible portion of a statement would be unfair or mis- leading without including the entire statement, the adverse party may introduce the other part of the statement. People v. Melillo, 976 P.2d 353 (Colo. App. 1998); People v. Medina, 72 P.3d 405 (Colo. App. 2003). But both the rule of completeness and the concept of ‘‘opening the door’’ are subject to the considerations of relevance and prejudice required under C.R.E. 401 and C.R.E. 403. People v. Melillo, 25 P.3d 769 (Colo. 2001). Rule of completeness is substantially appli- cable to oral testimony as well as writings and recorded statements. People v. Short, 2018 COA 47, 425 P.3d 1208. Evidence offered under the rule of com- pleteness is subject to the requirements of CRE 401 and 403. The court did not err in refusing to admit the evidence under the rule of completeness when the remainder of the record- ing contained evidence improper for the jury to consider. People v. Wilson, 2012 COA 163M, 411 P.3d 11, rev’d on other grounds, 2015 CO 54M, 351 P.3d 1126. Phone calls recorded when defendant was alone in an interview room during a police interview are not part of the interview, and admitting them as hearsay evidence is not nec- essary to provide a complete and accurate pic- ture of the admitted police interview. People v. Manyik, 2016 COA 42, 383 P.3d 77. Defendant’s otherwise inadmissible self- serving hearsay is admissible under the rule of completeness to qualify, explain, or place into context the evidence proffered by the prosecution. People v. Short, 2018 COA 47, 425 P.3d 1208 (holding contrary to People v. Davis, 218 P.3d 718 (Colo. App. 2008)). When prosecution seeks to use as evidence a defendant’s written or recorded statement refusing a chemical test, but the defendant disputes the refusal, the entire circumstances surrounding the defendant’s test-taking must be submitted for the jury’s consideration. People v. Montoya, 2022 COA 55M, 516 P.3d 970. Defendant’s exculpatory statement to the police, admissible under the rule of complete- ness, is not subject to impeachment. If the prosecution wants to admit part of a statement, it ought to, in fairness, ‘‘pay the costs’’ of ad- mitting it in its relevant entirety. People v. Short, 2018 COA 47, 425 P.3d 1208. Applied in People v. Wilson, 841 P.2d 337 (Colo. App. 1992); People in Interest of A.W., 982 P.2d 842 (Colo. 1999); People v. Knight, 167 P.3d 141 (Colo. App. 2006); People v. Mur- ray, 2018 COA 102, 452 P.3d 101.