The Rule of Completeness Isn't What You Think It Is

by: Ryan Scott • September 21, 2025 • no comments

OEC 106 provides:

"When part of an act, declaration, conversation or writing is given in evidence by one party, the whole on the same subject, where otherwise admissible, may at that time be inquired into by the other; when a letter is

read, the answer may at that time be given; and when a detached act, declaration, conversation or writing is given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation or writing which is necessary to make it

understood may at that time also be given in evidence."

Case law has made it plain that OEC 106 is not an independent basis for admission. It is generally concerned with timing. So if the state seeks to offer a portion of record -- say, a medical record -- then the defendant can offer the rest of it immediately, rather than in the defendant's case-in-chief, assuming the evidence code would allow the defendant to do so.

What this means in practice is that the state will offer a portion of defendant's statement, because it is a non-hearsay statement of a party opponent, but the defendant will not be able to offer the rest of it because the defendant has no independent basis for admitting the statement.

So as Brett Allin recently wrote in a petition for review, this rule would allow the state to offer the bolded part of the following statement, but not allow the defendant to offer the rest:

“They’re saying I shot the sheriff! I didn’t shoot the sheriff!”

That is a brilliant hypothetical because it makes the importance of the issue immediately and viscerally understandable.

This week, the Oregon Supreme Court granted Brett's petition for review. The case is State v. Hagenno. The case is set for oral argument March 18, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., at Willamette University College of Law, Salem, Oregon.

Brett's argument is not that OEC 106 is a separate basis for admission. Rather, the rest of the statement is necessary for a non-hearsay purpose: context. It is necessary to understand the portion of the statement the state has offered.

I like this argument. It's a simpler and more straightforward argument than the one I have long proposed in this type of situation, which was this: offering part of the statement misleads the jury, so unless the state offers the whole statement, it should be excluded under OEC 403.

This issue comes up a lot so be ready to preserve this argument when it does.