N.M. R. Evid. 11-106
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.
N.M. R. Evid. 11-106
Committee commentary. - The language of Rule 11-106 NMRA was amended in 2012 to be consistent with the restyling of the Federal Rules of Evidence, effective December 1, 2011, 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 admissibility.
[As amended by Supreme Court Order No. 12-8300-015, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after June 16, 2012.]
ANNOTATIONS The 2012 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 12-8300-015, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after June 16, 2012, rewrote the rule to make stylistic changes. The 1993 amendment, effective December 1, 1993, substituted "require the introduction at that time of" for "require him at that time to introduce" near the middle of the rule. Compiler's notes. - This rule is similar to Rule 106 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Letters written in jail. - Where defendant was charged with murdering the victim; the court admitted into evidence three letters that defendant wrote while in custody in which defendant admitted attacking and killing the victim without remorse; and the court refused to admit five letters introduced by defendant that arguably indicated that defendant had expressed remorse for the killing and made claims to have acted in self-defense, the rule of completeness did not apply to the letters defendant introduced because fact that the five letters were not admitted did not distort the context of the letters that were admitted. State v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, 278 P.3d 1031. Rule of completeness not applicable. - Where defense counsel attempted to impeach a witness with the minor inconsistencies between the witness's in-court testimony and the witness's videotaped statement to police officers by asking the witness whether the witness remembered telling the police certain details of the killing of the victim and where the state failed to show that the entire videotaped statement of the witness was relevant and either qualified or explained the portion of the statement relied upon by defense counsel during cross-examination, the videotaped statement was not admissible under the rule of completeness. State v. Barr, 2009-NMSC-024, 146 N.M. 301, 210 P.3d 198. Purpose of this rule is to permit the introduction of recorded statements that place in context other writings admitted into evidence which, viewed alone, may be misleading. State v. Carr, 1981-NMCA-029, 95 N.M. 755, 626 P.2d 292, cert. denied, 95 N.M. 669, 625 P.2d 1186, 454 U.S. 853, 102 S. Ct. 298, 70 L. Ed. 2d 145 (1981), overruled on other grounds, State v. Olguin, 1994-NMCA-050, 118 N.M. 91, 879 P.2d 92. Only relevant other parts of document competent. - This rule is subject to the qualification that only the other parts of the document which are relevant and throw light upon the parts already admitted become competent upon its introduction. There is no rule that either the whole document, or no part of it, is competent. State v. Carr, 1981-NMCA-029, 95 N.M. 755, 626 P.2d 292, cert. denied, 95 N.M. 669, 625 P.2d 1186, 454 U.S. 853, 102 S. Ct. 298, 70 L. Ed. 2d 145 (1981), overruled on other grounds, State v. Olguin, 1994-NMCA-050, 118 N.M. 91, 879 P.2d 92. This rule applies only to the other parts of the document which are relevant and shed some light upon the parts of the document already admitted. State v. Case, 1985-NMCA-027, 103 N.M. 574, 711 P.2d 19. Counsel may use portion of exhibit to illustrate argument. - No authority prevents counsel from using a portion of an exhibit, such as a portion of a medical report admitted as evidence, to illustrate his argument. Chavez v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry., 1967 -NMSC-012, 77 N.M. 346, 423 P.2d 34. Probative value weighed against potential confusion. - Trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit a portion of a recorded phone conversation of defendant because its probative value was substantially outweighed by its potential to confuse the jury. State v. Lucero, 1998-NMSC-044, 126 N.M. 552, 972 P.2d 1143. Evidence admissible to impeach misleading statement. - A videotape proffered to impeach the statement of the victim of attempted murder that "they killed me" should have been admitted under the rule of completeness since the videotape placed the victim's statement in context and showed that when she said "they" she meant one particular person. State v. Baca, 1995-NMSC-045, 120 N.M. 383, 902 P.2d 65. Law reviews. - For article, "Survey of New Mexico Law, 1979-80: Evidence," see 11 N.M.L. Rev. 159 (1981). Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. - 29 Am. Jur. 2d Evidence § 357 et seq. Requirement, under Rule 106 of Federal Rules of Evidence, that when writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced in evidence, another part or another writing or recorded statement must also be introduced in evidence, 75 A.L.R. Fed. 892. 32A C.J.S. Evidence § 980.