completeness doctrine in Illinois

2025People v. Patterson, 154 Ill. 2d 414, 453 (1992).

2022People v. Craigen, 2013 IL App (2d) 111300, ¶ 45 ; see also Patterson, 154 Ill. 2d at 453 (“The completeness doctrine permits an opposing party to introduce the remainder of an utterance or writing, so much as is required to shed light on the meaning of the evidence already received”).

2025However, the doctrine is limited in scope; the testimony regarding the oral statement “must actually be misleading.” Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d at 91 .

2022Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d at 91 . ¶ 48 Even if these statements were somehow subject to the completeness doctrine, the omission of the statements was harmless because they were merely cumulative of other evidence.

2025People v. Weaver, 92 Ill. 2d 545, 556 (1982) (“ ‘[W]here a conversation is related by a witness the opposing party has a right to bring out all of the conversation on cross- examination.’ ” (quoting People v. Nakutin, 364 Ill. 563, 571 (1936))). ¶ 43 Under the completeness doctrine, “when a portion of a conversation is related by a witness, the opposing party has a right to bring out the remainder of that conversation to prevent the trier - 15 - No. 1-23-1852 of fact from being misled.” People v. Ward, 154 Ill. 2d 272, 311 (1992).

2025In People v. Weaver, the supreme court held that the completeness doctrine applied because the jury was only allowed to hear part of what the defendant had told a neighbor on the night of the murder, and thus the jury “may have been misled into thinking that [the defendant] had given no details about the men she claimed had entered her home” which “may have made jurors more likely to believe that the story was false.” Weaver, 92 Ill. 2d at 556-57 .

2020The completeness doctrine is typically limited to “what was said on the same subject at the same time.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. ¶ 43 (quoting People v. Brown, 249 Ill.

2013I would find, however, that the error in excluding those statements was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. ¶ 70 “The completeness doctrine is an exception to the hearsay rule and provides that a party may introduce the balance of an *** oral statement that has been introduced by an opponent for the purpose of explaining, qualifying, or otherwise shedding light on the statement.” People v. Brown, 249 Ill.

2025People v. Weaver, 92 Ill. 2d 545, 556 (1982) (“ ‘[W]here a conversation is related by a witness the opposing party has a right to bring out all of the conversation on cross- examination.’ ” (quoting People v. Nakutin, 364 Ill. 563, 571 (1936))). ¶ 43 Under the completeness doctrine, “when a portion of a conversation is related by a witness, the opposing party has a right to bring out the remainder of that conversation to prevent the trier - 15 - No. 1-23-1852 of fact from being misled.” People v. Ward, 154 Ill. 2d 272, 311 (1992).

2022Here, defendant argues that the completeness doctrine affords an exception to the hearsay bar for his additional statements denying that he had anything to drink. ¶ 24 Under the completeness doctrine, “ ‘where a conversation is related by a witness, the opposing party has a right to bring out all of the conversation on cross-examination.’ ” People v. Weaver, 92 Ill. 2d 545, 556 (1982) (quoting People v. Nakutin, 364 Ill. 563, 571 (1936)).

2022Lovejoy, 235 Ill. 2d at 141 . ¶ 33 The common-law doctrine of completeness provides that “ ‘if one party introduces part of an utterance or writing the opposing party may introduce the remainder or so much thereof as is required to place that part originally offered in proper context so that a correct and true meaning is conveyed to the jury.’ ” People v. Williams, 109 Ill. 2d 327, 334 (1985) (quoting Lawson v. G.D.

2013See People v. Heider, 231 Ill. 2d 1 (2008) (there was no forfeiture where the trial court had an opportunity to review the claim that was later raised on appeal). ¶ 43 The completeness doctrine provides that “ ‘ “if one party introduces part of an utterance or writing the opposing party may introduce the remainder or so much thereof as is required to place that part originally offered in proper context so that a correct and true meaning is conveyed to the jury.” ’ ” People v. Moore, 2012 IL App (1st) 100857, ¶ 48 (quoting People v. Williams, 109 Ill. 2d 327, 334 (1985), quoting Lawson v. G.D.

2005App. 3d 986, 990 (1993), quoting People v. Hudson , 198 Ill.

1993App. 3d 149, 154 , 592 N.E.2d 447 .) However, the completeness doctrine restricts the admissibility of the balance of a statement already introduced “ ‘to what was said on the same subject at the same time.’ ” (People v. Hudson (1990), 198 Ill.

2021Defendant contends he was prejudiced by counsel’s conduct because the State emphasized the select recorded statements in its closing argument to the jury. ¶ 51 “The completeness doctrine permits a party to introduce the balance of an utterance or writing in order to explain, qualify or otherwise shed light on that portion of a statement introduced by an opponent.” People v. Pietryzk, 153 Ill.

2021Defendant contends he was prejudiced by counsel’s conduct because the State emphasized the select recorded statements in its closing argument to the jury. -9- ¶ 51 “The completeness doctrine permits a party to introduce the balance of an utterance or writing in order to explain, qualify or otherwise shed light on that portion of a statement introduced by an opponent.” People v. Pietryzk, 153 Ill.

2025People v. Weaver, 92 Ill. 2d 545, 556 (1982) (“ ‘[W]here a conversation is related by a witness the opposing party has a right to bring out all of the conversation on cross- examination.’ ” (quoting People v. Nakutin, 364 Ill. 563, 571 (1936))). ¶ 43 Under the completeness doctrine, “when a portion of a conversation is related by a witness, the opposing party has a right to bring out the remainder of that conversation to prevent the trier - 15 - No. 1-23-1852 of fact from being misled.” People v. Ward, 154 Ill. 2d 272, 311 (1992).

2025People v. Weaver, 92 Ill. 2d 545, 556 (1982) (“ ‘[W]here a conversation is related by a witness the opposing party has a right to bring out all of the conversation on cross- examination.’ ” (quoting People v. Nakutin, 364 Ill. 563, 571 (1936))). ¶ 43 Under the completeness doctrine, “when a portion of a conversation is related by a witness, the opposing party has a right to bring out the remainder of that conversation to prevent the trier - 15 - No. 1-23-1852 of fact from being misled.” People v. Ward, 154 Ill. 2d 272, 311 (1992).

2025“A defendant has no right to introduce portions of a statement which are not necessary to enable the jury to properly evaluate the portions introduced by the State.” People v. Olinger, 112 Ill. 2d 324, 338 (1986). ¶ 44 The completeness doctrine does not apply, because Detective Rodenberg’s initial testimony was not misleading.

2022See also People v. Alvarado, 2013 IL App (3d) 120467, ¶¶ 12-13 (affirming the trial court’s ruling under the completeness doctrine that it would be misleading to play for the jury only a portion of the defendant’s videotaped interrogation, as it “would not present a complete picture of the interview and would be inadequate for assessing defendant’s state of mind”). ¶ 31 The State relies on People v. Olinger, 112 Ill. 2d 324 (1986), which illustrates limitations on the doctrine.

2021For the completeness doctrine to apply, the statement to be admitted must concern “ ‘ “what was said on the same subject at the same time.” ’ ” (Emphasis in original.) People v. Cowper, 145 Ill.

2021For the completeness doctrine to apply, the statement to be admitted must concern “what was said on the same subject at the same time.” (Emphasis in original and internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Cowper, 145 Ill.

2020People v. Donoho, 204 Ill. 2d 159, 170 , 788 N.E.2d 707, 714 (2003).

2020People v. Donoho, 204 Ill. 2d 159, 170 , 788 N.E.2d 707, 714 (2003).

2014See People v. Sanchez, 169 Ill. 2d 472, 500 (1996) (declining review of contentions not supported by argument or authority). ¶ 67 Forfeiture aside, both the completeness doctrine and Rule 106 are inapplicable.

2014See People v. Sanchez, 169 Ill. 2d 472, 500 (1996) (declining review of contentions not supported by argument or authority). ¶ 65 Forfeiture aside, both the completeness doctrine and Rule 106 are inapplicable.

2025People v. Craigen, 2013 IL App (2d) 111300, ¶ 42 . ¶ 46 Because Rule 106 and the completeness doctrine are inapplicable here, the circuit court did not err in sustaining the State’s hearsay objection.

2022The purpose of the completeness doctrine is not to assist a defendant in having all helpful evidence admitted, but only “to correct the misleading nature of a *** recorded statement or a portion thereof that has been taken out of context or is difficult to understand on its own.” See Craigen, 2013 IL App (2d) 111300, ¶ 48 .

2022Searle & Co., 64 Ill. 2d 543, 556 (1976)).

1986Searle & Co. (1976), 64 Ill. 2d 543 ; People v. Provo (1951), 409 Ill. 63 .) The mere mention of a conversation or statement does not entitle the opponent to bring out its content (People v. Crawford (1962), 23 Ill. 2d 605 ); the admission of any prior statement under the completeness rule is subject to the proscriptions of relevance and materiality (People v. Andersch (1982), 107 Ill.

2025Hernandez-Chirinos, 2024 IL App (2d) 230125, ¶ 67 . ¶ 104 In the case at bar, without the information elicited on redirect examination, the jury would have been left under the misleading impression that, during four interviews with the detective, the victim had failed to say a word about being raped, although she described her assailant’s pushing his way through her door, putting a gun in her mouth, and dragging her immediately up the stairs to her bedroom. ¶ 105 In his reply brief, defendant argues that the completeness doctrine does not apply here because there were four different interviews

2024See People v. Viramontes, 2021 IL App (1st) 190665, ¶ 56 (noting - 31 - 2024 IL App (2d) 230125 that, for the completeness doctrine to apply, the statement to be admitted must concern what was said on the same subject at the same time).

2025Therefore, the remainder of an oral statement is admissible under the completeness doctrine if it is necessary to “prevent the trier of fact from being misled,” to “place the admitted portion in proper context so as to convey the correct and true meaning to” the trier of fact, or to “shed light on the meaning of evidence already presented.” People v. Viramontes, 2021 IL App (1st) 190665, ¶ 51 .

2024See People v. Viramontes, 2021 IL App (1st) 190665, ¶ 56 (noting - 31 - 2024 IL App (2d) 230125 that, for the completeness doctrine to apply, the statement to be admitted must concern what was said on the same subject at the same time).

2026Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984); People v. Boose, 2025 IL App (4th) 231467, ¶ 30 ; People v. Olsen, 2023 IL App (4th) 220738-U, ¶ 32 . ¶ 97 Defendant claims that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance at trial by failing to make the following objections to the audio files in People’s exhibit No. 42: (1) the lack of a foundation and (2) the impossibility of ensuring compliance with (a) the doctrine of completeness and (b) Brady. ¶ 98 “The remedy for a valid claim of ineffective assistance of counsel should be tailored to the injury from the constitutional violation a

2024A defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is analyzed under the two-pronged test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

2024Had defendant truly made a “request under Rule 106,” as he asserts in his brief, the court would neither have cited the one-month gap as a basis for denying said request nor emphasized that the completeness doctrine allows for the admission of the remainder of a conversation only if it occurred within the “the context of a single statement.” See Ruback, 2013 IL App (3d) 110256, ¶ 43 .

2022See People v. Ruback, 2013 IL App (3d) 110256 (witness statement that was consistent with her 14 trial testimony, but did not explain her later inconsistent statement, was inadmissible under the completeness doctrine).

2022App. 3d at 580-81 (when a police officer testified only to the defendant’s birthdate as stated in a report containing the defendant’s statement, the remainder of the report was not admissible for completeness because the defendant offered not to clarify the birthdate but for exculpatory purposes); Harman, 125 Ill.

1993People v. Harman (1984), 125 Ill.

2026The State quotes United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 109-10 (1976), which states: “The mere possibility that an item of undisclosed information might have helped the defense *** does not establish ‘materiality’ in the constitutional sense.” ¶ 118 The State further contends that defendant’s claim of a violation of the completeness doctrine likewise is speculative.