See also: CROSS-EXAMINATION–Scope of Cross-Examination
WAIVER—Opening the Door.

The common law rule of completeness provides that where a party introduces into evidence part of a writing or conversation, the adverse party is entitled on its cross-examination of the witness or as part of its own case to introduce any additional portions of the writing or conversation that are necessary to avoid misleading the trier of fact.{footnote}United States v. Southland Corp., 760 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1985) (additional portions of grand jury testimony erroneously excluded); Brewer v. Jeep Corp., 724 F.2d 747 (7th Cir. 1985) (film inadmissible without companion report).
Cal. Evid. Code § 356 (1967):

Where part of an act, declaration, conversation, or writing is given in evidence by one party, the whole on the same subject may be inquired into by an adverse party; when a letter is read, the answer may be given; and when a detached act, declaration, conversation, or writing is given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation, or writing which is necessary to make it understood may also be given in evidence.

Ga. Code Ann. § 24-2-4 (1981); Iowa Code § 622.20 (1950), Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.24 (1964); Rosenberg v. Wittenborn, 3 Cal. Rptr. 459 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960); Rokus v. City of Bridgeport, 463 A.2d 252, 255-56 (Conn. 1983); Williams v. U.S., 642 A.2d 1317, 1319-20 (D.C. App. 1994) (prosecutor properly introduced lyrics to entire song written by witness relating to stabbing after defense brought out selected portion); Brown v. State, 450 S.E.2d 821 (Ga. 1994); Schmitt v. Chicago Transit Authority, 179 N.E.2d 838 (Ill. Ct. App. 1962) (other portions of deposition).{/footnote}

Under the federal rules and in many states, the common law rule of completeness has been taken one step further.  Whenever a partial writing is introduced, the adverse party may require that any additional portions that "ought to in fairness to be considered contemporaneously" be introduced at the same time.{footnote}FRE 106.
See also Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153, 172 (1988); United States v. Rubin, 591 F.2d 278 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Smith, 794 F.2d 1333, 1335-36 (8th Cir. 1986).
Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 110A, & 212 (depositions); Me. R. Evid. 106 ("an adverse party has the right upon request to inspect" any documents used as evidence). {/footnote}  The adverse party may itself be be permitted to introduce the additional portions at the same time that the original is offerd.{footnote}United States v. Gravely, 840 F.2d 1156, 1163 (4th Cir. 1988); Huddleston v. Herman & MacLean, 640 F.2d 534, 553 (5th Cir. 1981), rev’d in part on other grounds, 459 U.S. 375 (1983); United States v. Sutton, 801 F.2d 1346, 1366 (D.C. Cir. 1986).{/footnote}    The additional portions will be excluded if they are not relevant to or explanatory of the portions already admitted.{footnote}United States v. Boylan, 898 F.2d 230, 256-57 (1st Cir. 1990); United States v. Marin, 669 F.2d 73 (2d Cir. 1982); United States v. Soures, 736 F.2d 87 (3d Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 105 S.Ct. 914 (1985) (additional grand jury testimony by defendant excluded); United States v. Ricks, 882 F.2d 885, 892-93 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Garrett, 716 F.2d 257 (5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied,, 104 S.Ct. 1910 (1984) (tape recording); United States v. LeFevour, 798 F.2d 977, 980-82 (7th Cir. 1986) (all conversations recorded on a tape need not be admitted); United States v. Dorrell, 758 F.2d 427 (9th Cir. 1985) (trial court properly redacted portions of statement relating to defendant’s religious and political views as irrelevant).
CHECK United States v. Branch, 91 F.3d 699, 709-11 (5th Cir. 1996).{/footnote}  Whether evidence is in fact related is for the judge to decide.{footnote}United States v. Burreson, 643 F.2d 1344 (9th Cir. 1981). {/footnote}

The additional evidence must not be inadmissible under some other rule.{footnote}United States v. Terry, 702 F.2d 299 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 931 (1983); United States v. Marin, 669 F.2d 73 (2d Cir. 1982); U.S. v. Wilkerson, 84 F.3d 692, 696 (4th Cir. 1996) (hearsay not rendered admissible by this rule); United States v. Jamar, 561 F.2d 1103 (4th Cir. 1977); United States v. Costner, 684 F.2d 370 (6th Cir. 1982); U.S. v. Burreson, 643 F.2d 1344, 1349 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 830 (1981).
Ohio R. Evid. 106 (additional evidence must be “otherwise admissible”); Ore. R. Evid. 106 (same); People v. Wilson, 463 N.E.2d 890, 895-96 (Ill. App. 1984) (error to allow prosecution to introduce remainder of arrest report on re-direct examination of police officer, including reference to defendant having committed uncharged crime; found harmless error).
But see U.S. v. Sutton, 801 F.2d 1346, 1368-69 (U.S. App. D.C. 1986) (court has discretion to admit hearsay and other excludable evidence under this rule).{/footnote}  But see OBJECTIONS–Waiver by "Opening the Door."

The rule of completeness was originally intended to apply to writings only.  The rule has sometimes been extended to grand jury testimony,{footnote}United States v. Maccini, 721 F.2d 840 (1sr Cir. 1983); United States v. Southland Corp., 760 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1985); United States v. Walker, 652 F.2d 708 (7th Cir. 1981).{/footnote} testimony at a prior trial{footnote}United States v. Ricks, 882 F.2d 885, 892-93 (4th Cir. 1989) (rejecting admissibility of entire cross-examination).{/footnote} tape recordings,{footnote}In re Air Crash Disaster, 635 F.2d 67 (2d Cir. 1980) (cockpit recording); United States v. LeFevour, 798 F.2d 977, 980-82 (7th Cir. 1986) (all conversations recorded on a tape need not be admitted).{/footnote} films{footnote}Brewer v. Jeep Corp., 724 F.2d 747 (7th Cir. 1985) (film inadmissible without companion report).{/footnote} and even song lyrics.{footnote}Williams v. U.S., 642 A.2d 1317, 1319-20 (D.C. App. 1994) (prosecutor properly introduced lyrics to entire song written by witness relating to stabbing after defense brought out selected portion).{/footnote}   It generally does not apply to oral conversations,{footnote}FRE 106 (Advisory Committee’s Note); United States v. Terry, 702 F.2d 299 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 931 (1983); U.S. v. Bigelow, 914 F.2d 966, 972 (7th Cir. 1990).
But see U.S. v. Woolbright, 831 F.2d 1390, 1395 (8th Cir. 1987) (appying rule of completeness to oral statement).{/footnote} although some states’ versions of FRE 106 include both unrecorded conversations and non-verbal conduct.{footnote}Iowa R. Evid. 106; Mont. R. Evid. 106; Neb. Rev. Stat. § 17-106; Ore. R. Evid. 106.{/footnote}

Bibliography

Charles T. McCormick, McCormick on Evidence § 56 (3d ed. 1984).
21 Charles Alan Wright & Kenneth W. Graham, Federal Practice & Procedure, 5071-5079 (1977).
Gillespie, Note: Federal Rule Of Evidence 106: A Proposal To Return To The Common Law Doctrine Of Completeness, 62 Notre Dame L. Rev. 382 (1987).
Nance, A Theory of Verbal Completeness, 80 Iowa L. Rev. 825 (1995).
Nance, Verbal Completeness and Exclusionary Rules Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, 75 Tex. L. Rev. 51 (1996).