Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded Statements

If a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement, an adverse party may require the introduction, at that time, of any other part – or any other writing or recorded statement – that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time. [Restyled effective July 1, 2016.] Advisory Committee Historical Note Effective July 1, 2016, the Rule was amended as part of the general restyling of the Evidence Rules. Effective June 16, 2016, the “Comment” was retitled “Advisory Committee Note.” Advisory Committee Note The language of Rule 106 has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility. This rule is a codification of the common law doctrine of completeness. The rule is already codified with regard to depositions in M.R.C.P. 32(a)(4). However, Rule 106 is somewhat narrower than Mississippi common law. The rule only applies the doctrine of completeness to written or recorded statements of a specific document. Under Mississippi case law the rule of completeness is extended to other writings and even to oral statements. See Davis v. State, 230 Miss. 183, 92 So. 2d 359 (1957); Sanders v. State, 237 Miss. 772, 115 So. 2d 145 (1969). Such a rule attempts to prevent misleading the jury by taking evidence out of context. [“Advisory Committee Note” substituted for “Comment,” effective June 16, 2016; amended July 1, 2016, to note restyling.] ARTICLE II. JUDICIAL NOTICE