Rule 106 Remainder of or related writings or recorded statements. When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the party at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it. L 1980, c 164, pt of §1; gen ch 1985

RULE 106 COMMENTARY

This rule is identical with Fed. R. Evid. 106.

The rule incorporates the common law doctrine of completeness, see McCormick §56. As the Hawaii Supreme Court said in Holstein v. Young, 10 H. 216, 220 (1896), a party cannot "utilize so much of this evidence as will serve his turn and reject the remainder." Cf. HRCP 32(a)(4), which provides: "If only part of a deposition is offered in evidence by a party, an adverse party may require him to introduce any other part which ought in fairness to be considered with the part introduced."

The Advisory Committee's Note to Fed. R. Evid. 106 points out: "The rule is based on two considerations. The first is the misleading impression created by taking matters out of context. The second is the inadequacy of repair work when delayed to a point later in the trial."

Rules of Court

Depositions, see HRCP rule 32(a)(4); HRPP rule 15(e); DCRCP rule 32(a)(4).

Case Notes

Remainder of statement; when admissible. 68 H. 358, 714 P.2d 930 (1986).

This rule applies to statements "introduced" at trial by being read to a witness. If a criminal victim's compensation form is used at trial solely to establish that compensation was sought, the claimant's response to the form's request for information is not admissible under this rule as a statement "which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously" with that part of the document describing its compensatory purpose. 79 H. 255 (App.), 900 P.2d 1322 (1995).

Evidence admitted under this rule is subject to the authentication requirement under rule 901. 108 H. 89 (App.), 117 P.3d 821 (2005).

As the right of confrontation is not absolute, circuit court properly ruled that defendant was not entitled to introduce selected portions of witness' statement that were favorable to defendant's defense and at the same time preclude the State from introducing other portions of witness' statement that were necessary to prevent the jury from being misled; thus, circuit court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the responsive portions of witness' statement offered by the State were admissible under this rule and rule 403. 125 H. 462 (App.), 264 P.3d 40 (2011).