completeness doctrine in New Jersey

2022Its principles have been codified, for example, in N.J.R.E. 106. "'Under th[e] doctrine of completeness [under N.J.R.E. 106], a second writing may be required to be read if it is necessary to (1) explain the admitted portion; (2) place the admitted portion in context; (3) avoid misleading the trier of fact, or (4) insure a fair and impartial understanding.'" State v. Lozada, 257 N.J.

2008Consequently, the completeness doctrine allows the reading of a second writing or statement where "it is necessary to (1) explain the admitted portion, (2) place the admitted portion in context, (3) avoid misleading the trier of fact, or (4) insure a fair and impartial understanding." Lozada, supra, 257 N.J.Super. at 272 , 608 A. 2d 407 (discussing doctrine of completeness in context of federal counterpart to N.J.R.E. 106) (citations omitted).

1992Federal authority provides some guidance for the application of this doctrine: Under Fed.R.Evid. 106, when a party introduces a writing or part thereof, the opponent may require the other party to introduce any other part or writing "which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it." Under this doctrine of completeness, a second writing may be required to be read if it is necessary to (1) explain the admitted portion, (2) place the admitted portion in context, (3) avoid misleading the trier of fact, or (4) insure a fair and impartial understanding. [ United States v. Sources,

1991Under the doctrine of completeness, another writing or tape recording is "required to be read [or heard] if it is necessary to (1) explain the admitted portion, (2) place the admitted portion in context, (3) avoid misleading the trier of fact, or (4) insure a fair and impartial understanding." United States v. Soures, 736 F. 2d 87, 91 (3rd Cir.1984), cert. den. 469 U.S. 1161 , 105 S.Ct. 914 , 83 L.Ed. 2d 927 (1985); see also United States v. Boylan, 898 F. 2d 230, 257 (1st Cir.1990), cert. den. ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 139 , 112 L.Ed. 2d 106 (1990); United States v. Sweiss, 814 F. 2d 1208, 1211

2020Under N.J.R.E. 106, "[w]hen a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the A-5090-17T4 36 introduction at that time of any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously." The doctrine of completeness "allows the reading of a second writing or statement where 'it is necessary to (1) explain the admitted portion, (2) place the admitted portion in context, (3) avoid misleading the trier of fact, or (4) insure a fair and impartial understanding.'" Alves v. Rosenberg, 400 N

2017See N.J.R.E. 106; Alves v. Rosenberg, 400 N.J.

2024In Gomez, we concluded the defendant's exculpatory statement, which followed an inculpatory statement, was not admissible under the doctrine of completeness because the second statement was not necessary to explain the first. 246 N.J.

2020Specifically, [u]nder the doctrine of completeness, another writing or tape recording is "required to be read [or heard] if it is necessary to (1) explain the admitted portion, (2) place the admitted portion in context, (3) avoid misleading the trier of fact, or (4) insure a fair and impartial understanding." [State v. Gomez, 246 N.J.

2024Unrelated portions of the statement are not admissible under a theory of "completeness." Ibid.; see also State v. James, 144 N.J. 538, 555 (1996) (holding that the doctrine of completeness does not apply to "separate utterances").

2022Our review of these issues is guided largely by the principles of "opening the door," which we have already described, supra, in Part II(A), see James, 144 N.J. at 554 , and by the doctrine of completeness. 26 A-1628-18 The doctrine of completeness dates back to the common law.

2024However, "[t]he doctrine applies only when inadmissible evidence has been allowed, when that evidence was prejudicial, and when the proffered testimony would counter that prejudice." Ibid.

2024A-4941-18 79 Under the related doctrine of "completeness," [w]hen a witness testifies on cross-examination as to part of a . . . statement, . . . the party calling the witness is allowed to elicit on redirect examination "the whole thereof, to the extent it relates to the same subject matter and concerns the specific matter opened up." The theory behind the doctrine of completeness is "that the opponent, against whom a part of an utterance has been put in, may in his turn complement it by putting in the remainder, in order to secure for the tribunal a complete understanding of the total tenor

2024A-4941-18 79 Under the related doctrine of "completeness," [w]hen a witness testifies on cross-examination as to part of a . . . statement, . . . the party calling the witness is allowed to elicit on redirect examination "the whole thereof, to the extent it relates to the same subject matter and concerns the specific matter opened up." The theory behind the doctrine of completeness is "that the opponent, against whom a part of an utterance has been put in, may in his turn complement it by putting in the remainder, in order to secure for the tribunal a complete understanding of the total tenor

1991Under the doctrine of completeness, another writing or tape recording is "required to be read [or heard] if it is necessary to (1) explain the admitted portion, (2) place the admitted portion in context, (3) avoid misleading the trier of fact, or (4) insure a fair and impartial understanding." United States v. Soures, 736 F. 2d 87, 91 (3rd Cir.1984), cert. den. 469 U.S. 1161 , 105 S.Ct. 914 , 83 L.Ed. 2d 927 (1985); see also United States v. Boylan, 898 F. 2d 230, 257 (1st Cir.1990), cert. den. ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 139 , 112 L.Ed. 2d 106 (1990); United States v. Sweiss, 814 F. 2d 1208, 1211

1991Under the doctrine of completeness, another writing or tape recording is "required to be read [or heard] if it is necessary to (1) explain the admitted portion, (2) place the admitted portion in context, (3) avoid misleading the trier of fact, or (4) insure a fair and impartial understanding." United States v. Soures, 736 F. 2d 87, 91 (3rd Cir.1984), cert. den. 469 U.S. 1161 , 105 S.Ct. 914 , 83 L.Ed. 2d 927 (1985); see also United States v. Boylan, 898 F. 2d 230, 257 (1st Cir.1990), cert. den. ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 139 , 112 L.Ed. 2d 106 (1990); United States v. Sweiss, 814 F. 2d 1208, 1211

1991Under the doctrine of completeness, another writing or tape recording is "required to be read [or heard] if it is necessary to (1) explain the admitted portion, (2) place the admitted portion in context, (3) avoid misleading the trier of fact, or (4) insure a fair and impartial understanding." United States v. Soures, 736 F. 2d 87, 91 (3rd Cir.1984), cert. den. 469 U.S. 1161 , 105 S.Ct. 914 , 83 L.Ed. 2d 927 (1985); see also United States v. Boylan, 898 F. 2d 230, 257 (1st Cir.1990), cert. den. ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 139 , 112 L.Ed. 2d 106 (1990); United States v. Sweiss, 814 F. 2d 1208, 1211

1991Under the doctrine of completeness, another writing or tape recording is "required to be read [or heard] if it is necessary to (1) explain the admitted portion, (2) place the admitted portion in context, (3) avoid misleading the trier of fact, or (4) insure a fair and impartial understanding." United States v. Soures, 736 F. 2d 87, 91 (3rd Cir.1984), cert. den. 469 U.S. 1161 , 105 S.Ct. 914 , 83 L.Ed. 2d 927 (1985); see also United States v. Boylan, 898 F. 2d 230, 257 (1st Cir.1990), cert. den. ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 139 , 112 L.Ed. 2d 106 (1990); United States v. Sweiss, 814 F. 2d 1208, 1211

1991Under the doctrine of completeness, another writing or tape recording is "required to be read [or heard] if it is necessary to (1) explain the admitted portion, (2) place the admitted portion in context, (3) avoid misleading the trier of fact, or (4) insure a fair and impartial understanding." United States v. Soures, 736 F. 2d 87, 91 (3rd Cir.1984), cert. den. 469 U.S. 1161 , 105 S.Ct. 914 , 83 L.Ed. 2d 927 (1985); see also United States v. Boylan, 898 F. 2d 230, 257 (1st Cir.1990), cert. den. ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 139 , 112 L.Ed. 2d 106 (1990); United States v. Sweiss, 814 F. 2d 1208, 1211

1991Under the doctrine of completeness, another writing or tape recording is "required to be read [or heard] if it is necessary to (1) explain the admitted portion, (2) place the admitted portion in context, (3) avoid misleading the trier of fact, or (4) insure a fair and impartial understanding." United States v. Soures, 736 F. 2d 87, 91 (3rd Cir.1984), cert. den. 469 U.S. 1161 , 105 S.Ct. 914 , 83 L.Ed. 2d 927 (1985); see also United States v. Boylan, 898 F. 2d 230, 257 (1st Cir.1990), cert. den. ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 139 , 112 L.Ed. 2d 106 (1990); United States v. Sweiss, 814 F. 2d 1208, 1211

1991Under the doctrine of completeness, another writing or tape recording is "required to be read [or heard] if it is necessary to (1) explain the admitted portion, (2) place the admitted portion in context, (3) avoid misleading the trier of fact, or (4) insure a fair and impartial understanding." United States v. Soures, 736 F. 2d 87, 91 (3rd Cir.1984), cert. den. 469 U.S. 1161 , 105 S.Ct. 914 , 83 L.Ed. 2d 927 (1985); see also United States v. Boylan, 898 F. 2d 230, 257 (1st Cir.1990), cert. den. ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 139 , 112 L.Ed. 2d 106 (1990); United States v. Sweiss, 814 F. 2d 1208, 1211

1991Under the doctrine of completeness, another writing or tape recording is "required to be read [or heard] if it is necessary to (1) explain the admitted portion, (2) place the admitted portion in context, (3) avoid misleading the trier of fact, or (4) insure a fair and impartial understanding." United States v. Soures, 736 F. 2d 87, 91 (3rd Cir.1984), cert. den. 469 U.S. 1161 , 105 S.Ct. 914 , 83 L.Ed. 2d 927 (1985); see also United States v. Boylan, 898 F. 2d 230, 257 (1st Cir.1990), cert. den. ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 139 , 112 L.Ed. 2d 106 (1990); United States v. Sweiss, 814 F. 2d 1208, 1211

1991Under the doctrine of completeness, another writing or tape recording is "required to be read [or heard] if it is necessary to (1) explain the admitted portion, (2) place the admitted portion in context, (3) avoid misleading the trier of fact, or (4) insure a fair and impartial understanding." United States v. Soures, 736 F. 2d 87, 91 (3rd Cir.1984), cert. den. 469 U.S. 1161 , 105 S.Ct. 914 , 83 L.Ed. 2d 927 (1985); see also United States v. Boylan, 898 F. 2d 230, 257 (1st Cir.1990), cert. den. ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 139 , 112 L.Ed. 2d 106 (1990); United States v. Sweiss, 814 F. 2d 1208, 1211

1991Under the doctrine of completeness, another writing or tape recording is "required to be read [or heard] if it is necessary to (1) explain the admitted portion, (2) place the admitted portion in context, (3) avoid misleading the trier of fact, or (4) insure a fair and impartial understanding." United States v. Soures, 736 F. 2d 87, 91 (3rd Cir.1984), cert. den. 469 U.S. 1161 , 105 S.Ct. 914 , 83 L.Ed. 2d 927 (1985); see also United States v. Boylan, 898 F. 2d 230, 257 (1st Cir.1990), cert. den. ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 139 , 112 L.Ed. 2d 106 (1990); United States v. Sweiss, 814 F. 2d 1208, 1211