901.07 Remainder of or related writings or statements.

353 words·~2 min read·/wi/chapter-901/901-07-3

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

901.07 Remainder of or related writings or statements. When any part of a writing or statement, whether recorded or unrecorded, 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 statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it to provide context or prevent distortion.

901.07 Note NOTE: Sup. Ct. Order No. 16-02A states that: “The Judicial Council Notes to Wis. Stats. §§ 901.07, 906.08, 906.09, and 906.16 are not adopted, but will be published and may be consulted for guidance in interpreting and applying the rule.”

901.07 Note Judicial Council Note, 2017: This amendment is consistent with State v. Eugenio , 219 Wis. 2d 391 , 410, 579 N.W.2d 642 , 651 (1998), which acknowledged that the rule of completeness is applicable to oral testimony, and with State v. Anderson , 230 Wis. 2d 121 , 600 N.W.2d 913 (Ct. App. 1999), review denied, 230 Wis. 2d 275 , 604 N.W.2d 573 (1999), which provided guidance on how, and when, to apply the rule of completeness.

901.07 Note “The rule of completeness, however, should not be viewed as an unbridled opportunity to open the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence. Under the rule of completeness the court has discretion to admit only those statements which are necessary to provide context and prevent distortion. The circuit court must closely scrutinize the proffered additional statements to avert abuse of the rule ... ’[A]n out-of-court statement that is inconsistent with the declarant’s trial testimony does not carry with it, like some evidentiary Trojan Horse, the entire regiment of other out-of-court statements that might have been made contemporaneously.’” Eugenio , 219 Wis. 2d at 412 (citations omitted).

901.07 Note A party’s use of an out-of-court statement to show an inconsistency does not automatically give the opposing party the right to introduce the whole statement. Under the rule of completeness, the court has discretion to admit only those statements necessary to provide context and prevent distortion. State v. Eugenio , 219 Wis. 2d 391 , 579 N.W.2d 642 (1998), 96-1394 .