Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...The phrase "opening the door" has been utilized interchangeably with the rule of completeness. See, e.g., Larzelere v. State, 676 So.2d 394, 402 (Fla.1996). The rule of completeness, however, is a separate evidentiary concept that falls within the general principle of door-opening. Codified at section 90.108, Florida Statutes (1995), the rule of completeness provides that "[w]hen a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him or her at that time to introduce any other part or any...

...Lockett entitles a capital defendant to introduce all relevant mitigating evidence at sentencing, but does not entitle the defendant to pick and choose between portions of documents and records in an attempt to mislead the sentencer. Cf. Fla.Stat. Sec. 90.108 ("When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement that in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously."); accord, Fed.R.Evid....

...e complete statements. At trial, the State introduced selected portions of taped statements the appellant and Jason made to police. Defense counsel objected to the introduction of this evidence and requested, under the "doctrine of completeness" and section 90.108, Florida Statutes (1991), that the entire tapes be introduced....

...tablished prejudice by the partial introduction of the tapes at that time. The judge stated that the defense could introduce the tapes in their entirety during its case-in-chief. The appellant argues that a showing of prejudice is not required, that section 90.108 allows an adverse party to require the contemporaneous introduction of the entire taped statements, and that the failure of the court to allow this testimony deprived appellant of a fair trial. Section 90.108, Florida Statutes (1991), provides in pertinent part: When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement that in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously....

...Even Correll must not have believed that the redacted portion was of great significance because he did not seek to introduce it in his case-in-chief, even though he presented several witnesses in his defense. See also Mulford v. State, 416 So.2d 1199, 1201 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (section 90.108 gives parties "only a qualified right to seek the admission" of an entire statement) (emphasis added); Ehrhardt, supra, § 108.1 at 35 ("Under ... section 90.108, the remainder to the document or writing is not automatically admissible when requested or offered by the adverse party."). Under a plain reading of the statute, parties may seek the introduction of other statements when those statements "in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously" with the introduction of the partial statement. § 90.108, Fla....

...The prosecutor claimed that the "rule of completeness" permitted Smith's complete answer on redirect with regard to the defense of insanity. The trial court ruled that the defense opened the door to Smith's relating Johnson's statement to him. The rule of completeness is codified as section 90.108, Florida Statutes (1987), and applies to writings and recorded statements. "Although the language of section *10 90.108 does not cover testimony regarding part of a conversation, a similar consideration of the potential for unfairness may require the admission of the remainder of a conversation to the extent necessary to remove any potential for prejudice that may result from the original evidence being taken out of context." Charles W....

...tatement in attempting to impeach his trial testimony. We disagree. When one party presents part of a prior written or recorded statement, an adverse party may have the remainder of the statement introduced into evidence in the interest of fairness. § 90.108, Fla....

...rior sworn statement differed substantially from his trial testimony. The trial court then admitted the previous sworn statement insofar as it was consistent with the trial testimony. Under the circumstances, the prior statement was admissible under section 90.108, Florida Statutes (1991)....

recording in the interest of fairness. H. (citing § 90.108(1), Fla. Stat. (2007)); 14 Reese v

...Thus, under Williamson a nontestifying codefendant's confession which also implicates the defendant can be admitted in their joint trial only if it sensibly and fairly can be redacted to include only those statements which are solely self-inculpatory vis-a-vis the codefendant. See § 90.108, Fla....

...The judge stated, "I agree with you, it might explain it, but that doesn't make it within the scope of what he brought out, though. That's why you have an opportunity to call witnesses to explain what they presented." We agree. This did not, as Reese alleges, violate the rule of completeness. Although that rule is defined at section 90.108, Florida Statutes (1995), to include only written or recorded statements, it is true that we have allowed the policy to apply to testimony as well....

...l be governed by applicable rules of evidence and rules of criminal procedure. If a part of the report is used by the defendant, the State may request the production of any other portion of that report which, in fairness, ought to be considered. Cf, section 90.108, Florida Statutes (1976), Rule 1.330(6) Florida Rules Civil Procedure....

...Moreover, "[t]he admission of such testimony is subject to a judicial determination that the statements `"in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously" with the introduction of the partial statements.'" Id. at 398 (quoting Larzelere, 676 So.2d at 402); see § 90.108(1), Fla....

...ain, limit or rebut the claim of remorse and to introduce evidence of additional aggravators using the same confession. See Ramirez v. State, 739 So.2d 568 (Fla.1999). However, while such a ruling appears to be an appropriate discretionary one under section 90.108(1) of the Florida Evidence Code, as well as under general concepts of evidentiary door opening, the legal precedent for it in a death penalty case is not clear....

...State, 425 So.2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (defendant's self-serving hearsay statement inadmissible). Therefore, unless this testimony was admissible under the rule of completeness, the testimony was inadmissible. The rule of completeness is codified in section 90.108, Florida Statutes (1987), which provides that when a "writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him at that time to introduce any *646 other part of any other writing or record...

...Defense counsel introduced portions of Figueroa's statement during the cross-examination of investigator Horzepa. Once defense counsel opened the door, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the doctrine of completeness permitted the State to introduce the remainder of Figueroa's statement. See § 90.108(1), Fla....

...he statement into evidence but neither counsel agreed with the idea. Third, appellant had the opportunity to introduce the tape during his own case which he also did not do. Appellant incorrectly asserts that the "rule of completeness" recognized in section 90.108, Florida Statutes (1997) should have allowed him to enter exculpatory portions of the tape that the state did not introduce....

...NOTES [1] The 1994 version of section 782.11 provides, "Whoever shall unnecessarily kill another, either while resisting an attempt by such other person to commit a felony, or to do any other unlawful act, or after such attempt shall have failed, shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter..." [2] Section 90.108 states that "when a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement that in fairness ought to...

...tal nature of the shooting. Further, Tory told Officer Parks about his conversations with Jordan. The trial court would not allow Parks to testify, on cross-examination, as to the content of Jordan's second conversation with Tory. Jordan argues that section 90.108, Florida Statutes (1991), dictates that the trial judge erred in refusing to allow cross-examination as to the content of Jordan's second conversation with Tory....

...It is well established that, when the State offers in evidence a part of a confession or admission, the accused, in the interest of fairness, is entitled to bring out the remainder of that confession or admission. This concept is expressly set forth in section 90.108, Florida Statutes (1987), which provides in part: When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement that in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously....

of the rate or rate change.”). . See, e.g., § 90.108(1), Fla. Stat. ("When a writing or recorded statement

...It involves the rule of completeness, which allows an adverse party— at the time a portion of a writing or recorded statement is introduced—to have another portion or another statement or writing introduced that should, in fairness, be considered contemporaneously. § 90.108, Fla. Stat. (1995). It has thus been noted that: "If counsel for the adverse party does not seek to invoke section 90.108 at the time the writing or document is offered, the provision may not be utilized during cross-examination or during the party's own case. However, section 90.108 does not prohibit evidence of the remainder of the writing or document; the evidence would have to be subjected to proper cross-examination or meet the usual test of admissibility if offered during counsel's case." *9 Charles W....

...ce to them and requesting its adoption, but such adoption is not mandated. (e) This sectionsubdivision provides for the confidentiality of the information obtained by virtue of an examination of the defendant pursuant to this sectionsubdivision. Cf. § 90.108, Fla....

...te, he made no contemporaneous request to play other parts of the tape to bolster his own case. We are not persuaded by appellant's contention that his request (after the state had rested its case) to play the remainder of the videotape falls within section 90.108, Florida Statutes (1987)....

...d the crime: after his car was bumped, Alexander observed a car passenger taking his mother's purse, slamming her to the ground, and the car driving over his mother. [6] We find that Williams' argument has no merit. Under the "rule of completeness," § 90.108(1), Fla....

...___, 117 S.Ct. 615, 136 L.Ed.2d 539 (1996). The admission of such testimony is subject to a judicial determination that the statements "`in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously' with the introduction of the partial statement." Id. at 402 (quoting § 90.108(1))....

...g to prison, and the state agreed. When the redacted statement was admitted at trial, however, the second sentence had also been removed. Appellant objected to the deletion of that sentence, but the court overruled the objection. Appellant relies on § 90.108(1), Florida Statutes (1997) which provides in part: When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him or her at that time to introduce any other part of any other writing or recorded statement that in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously....

...olsters Long's claim of relevancy. Whenever part of a written or recorded statement is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction of any other part of the statement that in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously. § 90.108, Fla....

“erroneous view of the law.” Id. (citation omitted). Section 90.108(1), Florida Statutes (2015), provides: When

messages. The rule of completeness is codified in section 90.108(1), Florida Statutes (2009), which provides

..."When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement that in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously." § 90.108, Fla....

...his case. However, when the defendant later attempted to introduce the recording during his case-in-chief, the trial court again denied the request on grounds that it "would be improper bolstering of a witness' testimony." This ruling was erroneous. Section 90.108(1), Florida Statutes (1997), provides that when a party introduces a portion of a recorded statement, "an adverse party may require him or her at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement that in...

...ot otherwise demonstrate that the trial court exercised its discretion. At least some portions of the recording were relevant since they were offered by the state through the agent's testimony as evidence of the defendant's guilt. Accordingly, under section 90.108(1), it was error for the trial court to prevent the defendant from presenting relevant portions of the recording during his case-in-chief....

...d. at 401-02. Admittedly, the right is not absolute. In Correll v. State, 523 So.2d 562, 566 (Fla.1988), the court declared: "Ordinarily, a defendant's statement should be introduced into evidence in its entirety, absent totally extraneous matters." Section 90.108, Florida Statutes (1999) only mandates the introduction of that which in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously with the introduction of the partial statement....

...Lastly, Moore contends the trial judge erred in allowing the jury to learn of his prior criminal record. Although Moore did not testify at trial, he succeeded in introducing exculpatory statements made to the police under the rule of completeness. See § 90.108, Fla....

...On the whole, I am convinced that it would not disparage, at least substantially, the reputation of *431 either the profession or the courts if lawyers and judges acted fairly and the same fairness that supports the "rule of completeness" supports the introduction of Dr. Dineen's recollection of the conversation. See section 90.108, Fla....

...1996), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 615, 136 L.Ed.2d 539 (1996); Eberhardt v. State, 550 So.2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Generally, a party may not introduce his own exculpatory statements. However, the "rule of completeness" recognized in section 90.108, Florida Statutes, provides: When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement that in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously....

803(18), Florida Statutes (2007). However, section 90.108 provides: (1) When a writing or recorded statement

..., Everette's taped pretrial statement, which was redacted and played for impeachment purposes, should have been played in its entirety to include Everette's statement that Stewart had previously shot at him. The "rule of completeness" is codified in section 90.108, Florida Statutes (1987), and provides that when a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him at that time to introduce any other part of the writing or recorded statement that in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously....

...He appeals the conviction on three grounds: the admission into evidence of portions of his custodial statement after denial of his motion to suppress; the exclusion from evidence of the remainder of his custodial statement under the rule of completeness (section 90.108, Florida Statutes); and the trial court's decision not to instruct the jury on section 776.013, Florida Statutes, effective October 1, 2005, concerning self-defense....

...The reference in Wilson's letter to appellant's previous conviction was not necessary to his complaint against appellant and should have been deleted because of its potential prejudicial effect on the jury. See Goodman v. State, 336 So.2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). The State contends that Section 90.108, Florida Statutes, required the introduction of the entire letter. Section 90.108, Florida Statutes, gave the State only a qualified right to seek the admission of the entire letter: 90.108 Introduction of related writings or recorded statements....

...witness with prior inconsistent statements. Finally, appellant argues that the trial court erred in refusing to admit appellant's statement to Detective Chastain in its entirety, thereby violating the "rule of completeness." The rule is codified in section 90.108(1), Florida Statutes, which provides in pertinent part: When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him or her at that time to introduce any other part or any other writin...

...dence. Id. at 579. The "rule of completeness" provides that "[w]hen a writing ... is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require ... her at that time to introduce any other part ... that in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously." § 90.108(1), Fla....

Arthur hearing and the deposition testimony. Section 90,108(1), Florida Statutes, provides that, “[w]hen

case and to further discuss the application of section 90.108(1), Florida Statutes (2015). One day after

...he deputy—that someone had given him the property and he did not know it had been stolen from the park tool shed until after being contacted by the authorities. Metz argued that his entire statement was admissible under the rule of completeness, subsection 90.108(1), Florida Statutes (2009), but the trial court ruled that the excluded words were "not necessary to understand the part of the statement" that the jury heard from the deputy....

...operty knew or should have known that the property had been stolen. The trial court erred when it prevented the jury from hearing the exculpatory portion of Metz's statement to the deputy because that portion of the statement was admissible under subsection 90.108(1), the rule of completeness. In Ramirez v. State, 739 So.2d 568, 580 (Fla. 1999), the Supreme Court described the operation of this rule: Codified at section 90.108, Florida Statutes (1995), the rule of completeness provides that "when a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him or her at that time to introduce any other part or any ot...

...ading impressions by taking statements out of context." Mason v. State, 719 So.2d 304, 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); see also Whitfield v. State, 933 So.2d 1245, 1248 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Husseain v. State, 805 So.2d 1066, 1067 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). The subsection 90.108(1) rule of completeness has been applied where excluded portions of a defendant's statement relate to a defense to criminal charges....

...len because his girlfriend had given it to him; as in this case, the excluded statement in Guerrero related to the defendant's state of mind while possessing stolen property. In Sweet v. State, 693 So.2d 644, 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), we held that subsection 90.108(1) required admission of that portion of the defendant's statement that related to his defense of voluntary intoxication....

completeness.” The rule of completeness is codified in section 90.108(1), Florida Statutes, which provides in pertinent

that this statement is admissible un*921der section 90.108, Florida Statutes (2000), commonly known as

...State, 576 So.2d 825, 830 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) ("When a defendant seeks to introduce his own prior self-serving statement for the truth of the matter stated, it is hearsay and it is not admissible."). However, the rule of completeness, which is codified in section 90.108(1), Florida Statutes (2004), provides: When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him or her at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement that in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously....

...210 months. This appeal followed. Rule of Completeness Relying on the rule of completeness, the Gutierrezes argue that the trial court erred in not allowing them to present to the jury their entire taped and written statements made to the detective. Section 90.108, Florida Statutes (1997), also known as the rule of completeness, states, (1) When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him or her at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement that in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously. An adverse party is not bound by evidence introduced under this section. § 90.108(1), Fla....

...Since the state never introduced Santiago's taped or written statements during its case-in-chief, the rule of completeness did not come into play. See Vazquez v. State, 700 So.2d 5, 8-9 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (explaining that counsel may not seek to invoke section 90.108 during cross-examination or during the party's own case) (citation omitted), rev. granted, 705 So.2d 902 (Fla.), dismissed, 718 So.2d 755 (Fla.1998). The only time he could have made any argument for admission of his tape under section 90.108 was during his cross-examination by the state....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 90.108(1), Fla. Stat. (2009); Jackson v. State, 2 So.3d 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA

the scar only after he asked a third time. See § 90.108(1) (“When a writing or recorded statement or part

same in violation of this Article.... N.C.G.S. § 90-108(a)(7) (1993). The court found the following evidence

fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously.” § 90.108(1), Fla. Stat. (2003). See generally Charles W

...Accordingly, we reverse and remand for new trial. Reversed; remanded for new trial. NORTHCUTT and KELLY, JJ., Concur. 1Although the error is particularly problematic in this case where only the prejudicial clip was shown, the rule of completeness, see § 90.108, provides no remedy because it is designed to alleviate the prejudice emanating from usage of an excerpt of a recorded statement, including videos; it neither adds probative value to the evidence nor does it reduce the harm flowing from the...

recorded second confession for the retrial. . Section 90.108(1), Florida Statutes (2001). . In Rigterink

referring to portions of it during its case); § 90.108, Florida Statutes (2001). Reversed and remanded

808(18), Florida Statutes (2009). However, section 90.108 provides: (1) When a writing or recorded statement

Chao argues this was reversible error, citing section 90.108, Florida Statutes (1993) and Long v. State

defendant is permitted to require the State under section 90.108(1), Florida Statutes (2014)-the statutory rule

has no merit. Under the “rule of completeness,” § 90.108(1), Fla. Stat. (1995), the court properly permitted

remaining exculpatory portion of the statement. . § 90.108(1), Fla. Stat. .(2014) ("When a writing or recorded

threat. Based upon the rule of completeness, section 90.108, Florida Statutes (2018), I would reverse.

pursuant to the rule of completeness set forth in section 90.108(1), Florida Statutes (2011), all portions of

...Accordingly, we reverse and remand for new trial. Reversed; remanded for new trial. NORTHCUTT and KELLY, JJ., Concur. 1Although the error is particularly problematic in this case where only the prejudicial clip was shown, the rule of completeness, see § 90.108, provides no remedy because it is designed to alleviate the prejudice emanating from usage of an excerpt of a recorded statement, including videos; it neither adds probative value to the evidence nor does it reduce the harm flowing from the...

which in fairness ought to be considered. Cf. section 90.108, Florida Statutes (1976), Rule 1.330(6) Florida

portion of the report, the Quades rely upon Section 90.108, Florida Statutes, permitting, once a portion

fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously.” § 90.108(1), Fla. Stat. (2014) (emphasis added). The purpose

trial court was referring is apparently that of section 90.108(1), Florida Statutes (2005), which reads, in

statutory rule of completeness is codified in section 90.108(1), Florida Statutes (2018), which states:

of the report in the interest of fairness. See § 90.108(1), Fla. Stat. (2010) (“When a writing or recorded

Also, the rule of completeness as set forth in section 90.108(1), Florida Statutes (2012), requires that

provides persuasive authority for this conclusion. Section 90.108 requires that “[w]hen a writing or recorded

to be considered “contemporaneously” under section 90.108(1), Florida Statutes (2022), or under the common

”). 5 § 90.108(1), Fla. Stat. (2017). The purpose of the rule