5 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Tuckergreen2 sentences2025Evid., provided that, "[w]hen a party introduces part of either a writing or recorded statement, 10 CR-2024-0426 an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part of the writing or statement that ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it."4 "The doctrine of completeness 'serves the purpose of allowing a party to explain or rebut adverse inferences which might arise from the fragmentary or incomplete character of the evidence introduced by his adversary.' Ex parte Tucker, 474 So. 2d 134, 135 (Ala. 1985). ... '[T]he rule which frowns upon incomplete 2009The completeness doctrine “serves the purpose of allowing a party to explain or rebut adverse inferences which might arise from the fragmentary or incomplete character of the evidence introduced by his adversary.” Ex parte Tucker, 474 So.2d 134, 135 (Ala.1985). | 3 | 3 |
King v. Stategreen1 sentence2025Evid., provided that, "[w]hen a party introduces part of either a writing or recorded statement, 10 CR-2024-0426 an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part of the writing or statement that ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it."4 "The doctrine of completeness 'serves the purpose of allowing a party to explain or rebut adverse inferences which might arise from the fragmentary or incomplete character of the evidence introduced by his adversary.' Ex parte Tucker, 474 So. 2d 134, 135 (Ala. 1985). ... '[T]he rule which frowns upon incomplete | 1 | 1 |
Ray v. Stategreen1 sentence2010The Supreme Court granted certio-rari review and, on May 29, 2009, reversed this Court’s judgment, holding that “the evidence regarding Ray’s juvenile adjudication in Ohio and the incident made the basis of that adjudication was not admissible under the completeness doctrine.” Ex parte Ray, 52 So.3d 555, 562 (Ala.2009). | 1 | 1 |
Ray v. Stategreen1 sentence2009She concluded that the majority’s reliance on the completeness doctrine was misplaced because (1) that doctrine allows only the admission of the relevant remainder of an oral conversation or of a document introduced by the other party, i.e., it does not “allow[ ] carte blanche admissibility of the remaining portions of statements” and (2) Rule 609(d) and § 12-15-72 specifically limit the admission of evidence regarding juvenile adjudications. 52 So.3d at 554 (Baschab, P.J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2007The completeness doctrine is contained in Rule 106, Ala.R.Evid., which states: “When a party introduces part of either a writing or recorded statement, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part of the writing or statement that ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it.” In discussing this doctrine, this Court in Johnson v. State, 823 So.2d 1, 39 (Ala.Crim.App.2001), stated: “Contrary to Johnson’s contention, the doctrine of completeness does not impose a ‘duty’ on the party offering a portion of a conversation to introduce the whole of that 2007The completeness doctrine is contained in Rule 106, Ala.R.Evid., which states: “When a party introduces part of either a writing or recorded statement, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part of the writing or statement that ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it.” In discussing this doctrine, this Court in Johnson v. State, 823 So.2d 1, 39 (Ala.Crim.App.2001), stated: “Contrary to Johnson’s contention, the doctrine of completeness does not impose a ‘duty’ on the party offering a portion of a conversation to introduce the whole of that | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Hugo Marin and Virgilio Orlando Romerogreen1 sentence2007“In the present case, the completeness doctrine did not require admission of Romero’s entire statement.” 669 F.2d at 84-85 (footnote omitted). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Charles D. McCorkle Jr.green1 sentence2007See, e.g., United States v. McCorkle, 511 F.2d 482 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 826 , 96 S.Ct. 43 , 46 L.Ed.2d 43 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
Reyes v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2007See, e.g., United States v. McCorkle, 511 F.2d 482 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 826 , 96 S.Ct. 43 , 46 L.Ed.2d 43 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
Merritt v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2007See, e.g., United States v. McCorkle, 511 F.2d 482 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 826 , 96 S.Ct. 43 , 46 L.Ed.2d 43 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Logan v. State
green
2 sentences2009In Stockard , this Court explained the doctrine as follows: “The rule of admissibility has been explained in McElroy’s Alabama Evidence as follows: “ ‘It is generally said, although sometimes loosely, that if one party proves any part of an oral conversation or oral statement, the other party has the right to prove all that was said on the same occasion [citing Logan v. State [, 291 Ala. 497 , 282 So.2d 898 (1973) ]]. 2009In Stockard , this Court explained the doctrine as follows: “The rule of admissibility has been explained in McElroy’s Alabama Evidence as follows: “ ‘It is generally said, although sometimes loosely, that if one party proves any part of an oral conversation or oral statement, the other party has the right to prove all that was said on the same occasion [citing Logan v. State [, 291 Ala. 497 , 282 So.2d 898 (1973) ]]. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.