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)....

...Stat. (2007)). However, if a partial statement, writing, or recording is admitted, the rule of completeness permits the opposing party to introduce other portions of that same statement, writing, or recording in the interest of fairness. Id. (citing § 90.108(1), Fla....

...2d 394, 402 (Fla. 1996). The trial court should consider the relative reliability of the complete statement in its ruling on the admissibility of the full statement. Jordan v. State, 694 So. 2d 708, 712 (Fla. 1997). 14. Neither section 90.803 nor section 90.108 has been substantially altered since 1997, the year of these crimes. - 43 -  In Reese, the defendant alleged that the trial court improperly restricted his cross-examination of a witness....

...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....

...We review a trial court’s evidentiary decisions for abuse of discretion as limited by the rules of evidence. See McDuffie v. State, 970 So.2d 312, 326 (Fla. 2007). A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies an “erroneous view of the law.” Id. (citation omitted). Section 90.108(1), Florida Statutes (2015), provides: When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, *615 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....

...Appellant concedes that the redacted 911 tape was not misleading but argues that it was “unfair” to allow the state to redact portions of the tape and that the statute requires admission of any part of a statement “that in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously.” § 90.108(1), Fla....

...Thus, the issue as to whether the defense failed to timely turn the messages over to the prosecution is now moot. We do, however, address the “rule of completeness,” which was the trial court’s final basis for excluding the messages. The rule of completeness is codified in section 90.108(1), Florida Statutes (2009), which 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 other writing...

..."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....

...Specifically, the State redacted Kaczmar’s statements in the recordings where he stated that he was framing Modlin because he was innocent. As a general rule of law, self-serving statements are inadmissible under section 90.803(18), Florida Statutes (2007). However, section 90.108 provides: (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....

..., 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....

...e, 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.” Larzelere v. State, 676 So.2d 394, 402 (Fla. 1996) (quoting § 90.108, Fla....

...not be disturbed on • appellate review absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” Gosciminski v. State, 132 So.3d 678, *600 697 (Fla. 2013) (quoting Brooks v. State, 918 So.2d 181, 188 (Fla. 2005)). Here, Anna’s deposition was admissible under section 90.108....

...This application of the rule against hearsay often requires a defendant to take the witness stand if he wants to tell his story, where he is subject to cross-examination.' ■ Appellant sought to admit his prior statements under the rule of completeness, codified at section 90.108(1), Florida Statutes (2014), 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...

...Ramirez describes the most common fact pattern, where - a party offers, only a portion of a statement and his opponent seeks admission of other parts of the same statement under the rule .of completeness. Appellant focuses on the plain language of section 90.108(1), which allows not just omitted parts of the same statement, but also' “any other writing or recorded statement that in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously” with the statement already introduced in evidence....

...*272 In practice, the statute has never been given the broad application urged by appellant. Taken-to its extreme, such a reading would require the contemporaneous admission of any written or recorded statement that might cast light on an admitted statement. Using the language of section 90.108(1), “fairness” does not require turning a trial into a voyage on a sea of hearsay....

...653 So.2d 1074, 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).'Because the opinion uses the terms “police officer” and “detective” interchangeably, it appears that the same officer heard both statements, distinguishing that case from this one. The third district held that section 90.108 allowed the defendant to question the .“detective/officer” about the formal statement after “the State had introduced [the defendant’s] first, informal statement.” Id. Although the two statements were separated by a short period of time, they were arguably part of a continuous process of interrogation. Johnson is consistent with cases applying section 90.108(1) to require, admission of the portion of a defendant’s statement relating to a defense to criminal charges....

...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....

...Dessett claims that the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the state’s deletion of parts of his statement, citing to the necessity of their inclusion because of the “rule of completeness.” The rule of completeness 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...

...r been inside their apartment. The defense’s motion to suppress Lena’s statement as to the prior incident was granted by the court pursuant to section 92.565. We first reject the State’s contention that this statement is admissible un *921 der section 90.108, Florida Statutes (2000), commonly known as the doctrine of completeness....

...This statute is inapplicable because the State is both the proponent of the evidence and the party seeking to introduce the other part of the statement. Only an adverse party can insist that in the interest of fairness the other part of the statement be considered contemporaneously. See § 90.108, Fla....

...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....

...she did not see a scar on Mr. Pierce’s body since counsel would have been able to read into evidence the entire portion of the interview in which Detective Jones eventually elicited her observation of the scar only after he asked a third time. See § 90.108(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.”)....

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

...Under the rule of completeness, “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.” § 90.108(1), Fla....

...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...

...ion, but was having difficulty securing the presence of the official for a hearing or trial. To avoid an appellate issue regarding the Nicaraguan confession, the State made a tactical decision to use the recorded second confession for the retrial. . Section 90.108(1), Florida Statutes (2001)....

...State, 610 So.2d 1276 (Fla.1992); Chao v. State, 661 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1995)(a party, in the interest of fairness, has the option to introduce all or part of a recorded statement if the opposing party “opens the door” by referring to portions of it during its case); § 90.108, Florida Statutes (2001)....

...the rest of *360 Calhoun’s interview with Raley should have been admitted to provide the context of these statements. As a general rule of law, self-serving statements are not admissible under section 90.808(18), Florida Statutes (2009). However, section 90.108 provides: (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....

...The trial court refused to have the statement in its entirety played. Rather, the trial court gave Chao the option of having the prosecutor read any other portions of the statement Chao deemed appropriate to “make it fair.” Chao argues this was reversible error, citing section 90.108, Florida Statutes (1993) and Long v. State, 610 So.2d 1276, 1280 (Fla.1992). We agree. Long is clear that under section 90.108, a party, in the interest of fairness, has the option to introduce all or part of a recorded statement if the opposing party “opens the door” by referring to portions of it during its case....

...ter v. State, 182 So. 3d 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015), on the latter issue. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.  Specifically, two issues are presented on review: (1) whether a defendant is permitted to require the State under section 90.108(1), Florida Statutes (2014)—the statutory rule of completeness—to introduce into evidence the entire video recording of the defendant’s statement to police when the State has questioned a detective on direct examination concer...

...Florida Statutes (2014)—which authorizes attacking the credibility of a hearsay declarant—when the defendant elicits from the detective on cross-examination exculpatory portions of the defendant’s statement to the police. We hold that section 90.108(1) does not apply unless a written or recorded statement is introduced into evidence....

...require the State to admit the entire video recording of [Nock’s] statement into evidence, under the best evidence rule and the [statutory] rule of completeness. The trial court denied the request, specifically finding the rule of completeness [contained within section 90.108(1), Florida Statutes (2014),] inapplicable because the State did not offer the video into evidence....

...In that issue, Nock argued that “the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion in limine and overruling his subsequent objections concerning the introduction of [Nock’s] entire recorded statement.” Id. at 324. Specifically, Nock argued that: “(1) the rule of completeness applie[d]” under section 90.108(1) and “(2) the trial court erred in permitting the State to impeach [Nock’s] credibility with evidence of his prior felony convictions” under section 90.806(1)....

...at 323-25. Analysis I. Completeness We first address whether a defendant is permitted to require the State to introduce the entire video recording of the defendant’s statement to the police into evidence under section 90.108(1)—the statutory rule of completeness—when the State questions a detective on direct examination about his conversation with the defendant without introducing any portion of the recording of the defendant’s statement into evidence....

...conversations and oral statements, Florida’s common law rule of completeness accounted for the “practical problem[s]” associated with contemporaneously applying the rule of completeness to testimony on direct examination about conversations and oral statements. See § 90.108, Fla....

...This Court adopted the provisions of the Florida Evidence Code to the extent that they were procedural. In re Fla. Evidence Code, 372 So. 2d 1369, 1369 (Fla. 1979); accord In re Amend. of Fla. Evidence Code, 404 So. 2d 743, 743 (Fla. 1981). “The [statutory] rule of completeness is codified in section 90.108” of the Florida Evidence Code. Christopher v. State, 583 So. 2d 642, 645 (Fla. 1991). The “purpose” of section 90.108(1) is “to avoid the potential for creating misleading impressions by taking statements out of context.” Larzelere v. State, 676 So. 2d 394, 401 (Fla. 1996). Section 90.108(1) has not been substantially altered since it was enacted in 1976 and amended in 1978. Section 90.108(1) 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. An adverse party is not bound by evidence introduced under this section. - 11 - § 90.108(1), Fla. Stat. (2014) (emphasis added). The 1976 Law Revision Council Note to section 90.108(1) specifically comments: This section does not apply to conversations but is limited to writings and recorded statements because of the practical problem involved in determining the contents of a conversation and whether the remainder of it is on the same subject matter....

...s-examination, the entire conversation or all statements made by the defendant at the same time and relating to the same subject matter, whether such other statements or the remainder of the conversation are exculpatory in nature. § 90.108, Fla. Stat. Ann. (2011) (Law Revision Council Note); see also Christopher, 583 So. 2d at 646 (quoting § 90.108(1), Fla. Stat. Ann. (1979) (Law Revision Council Note)). Section 90.108(1) by its plain terms “only governs writings or recordings.” Calloway v....

...State, 210 So. 3d 1160, 1184 (Fla. 2017); accord Reese v. State, 694 So. 2d 678, 683 (Fla. 1997); Johnson v. State, 608 So. 2d 4, 9-10 (Fla. 1992), death sentences vacated on other grounds, 44 So. 3d 51, 68 (Fla. 2010). Therefore, it is clear that section 90.108(1) does not apply to testimony about conversations and oral statements. Although some of our caselaw contains loose statements suggesting that section 90.108(1) is applicable when no writing or recorded - 12 - statement has been introduced into evidence, see, e.g., Calloway, 210 So....

...2d at 645-46, we have never actually applied the statute in such circumstances. Instead, we have applied the common law rule of completeness to allow portions of a conversation or oral statement omitted on direct examination to be brought in on cross-examination. Of course, that is not how section 90.108(1) operates. Section 90.108(1) requires the omitted portions of the writing or recorded statement to be introduced by the party who originally introduced the writing or recorded statement, subject to a determination of fairness by the trial court. § 90.108(1), Fla....

...2d at 402 (“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.” (quoting § 90.108, Fla....

...2d at 646 (emphasis added). C. The Statutory Rule of Completeness is Inapplicable Here In this case, Nock filed a motion in limine prior to trial seeking to require the State to admit the entire video recording of Nock’s statement to the police into evidence under section 90.108(1). The trial court denied the motion, specifically finding section 90.108(1) inapplicable because the State was not offering the recording into evidence....

...to the police and other relevant portions of the statement on cross-examination of the detective. But Nock was not entitled to require the State to introduce the recording of Nock’s statement during its direct examination of the detective under section 90.108(1). The statute was inapplicable because the State never introduced any portion of the recording into evidence....

...And no other legal basis has been presented for requiring the State, during its direct examination of a State witness, to introduce into evidence a video recording of the interview about which the witness gave testimony. Nock argues that the Fourth District erred in holding that the “principles” of section 90.108(1) did not apply to the detective’s testimony regarding Nock’s statement to the police. Nock’s argument runs up against the text of section 90.108(1)....

...of completeness inapplicable” because the State “questioned the detective on direct examination about his conversation with [Nock]” without “introduc[ing] [Nock’s] - 15 - recorded statement” into evidence. Nock, 211 So. 3d at 324. Section 90.108(1) could not be more clear in limiting its scope to “writing[s] or recorded statement[s] . . . introduced by a party.” Accordingly, we expressly approve the Fourth District’s conclusion that section 90.108(1) “does not apply when the written or recorded statement is not introduced into evidence.” Id. II....

...“Specifically, the State redacted [the defendant’s exculpatory] statements in the recordings where he stated that he was framing [someone else] because he was innocent.” Id. “[T]he State warned the defense that introducing the exculpatory statements [under section 90.108(1), Florida Statutes (2007)—the statutory rule of completeness—]would open the door to impeachment of those statements by introducing [the defendant’s] prior felonies pursuant to section 90.806(1), Florida Statutes (2007) ....

...onies and crimes of dishonesty under section 90.806(1) whenever the defendant introduces portions of his or her out-of-court self-serving exculpatory statement into evidence. We thus reject Nock’s argument that had the “principles” of section 90.108(1) been applied to the detective’s testimony regarding Nock’s statement to the police, Nock would not have been “bound” or held responsible for eliciting the omitted portions of his statement and there would have been no section 90.806(1) - 21 - impeachment. See § 90.108(1), Fla. Stat. (“An adverse party is not bound by evidence introduced under this section.”). Nock’s argument suffers from multiple flaws. First, it erroneously asserts that section 90.108(1) is applicable to his case. As explained previously, “the trial court properly ruled the [statutory] rule of completeness inapplicable” because the State “questioned the detective on direct examination about his conversation with [Nock]” without “introduc[ing] [Nock’s] recorded statement” into evidence. Nock, 211 So. 3d at 324. Second, Nock’s interpretation of section 90.108(1) is foreclosed by Kaczmar and Huggins....

...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....

...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))....

...Although the trial court was correct that Newton’s statement was hearsay, i.e., an out-of-court statement being offered for its truth, an exception to the hearsay rule applies when the statement “in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously.” § 90.108(1), Fla....

...st her were not related to the 2010 case. In other words, the letter, when read in full context, does not threaten the victim or her family. When taken out of context, the letter appears to be a clear threat. Based upon the rule of completeness, section 90.108, Florida Statutes (2018), I would reverse....

...is indisputable. 1 As a result, Ms. Swearin- *886 gen did not receive a fair trial. Accordingly, we reverse her conviction and remand this case for a new trial. On remand, we remind the parties that, pursuant to the rule of completeness set forth in section 90.108(1), Florida Statutes (2011), all portions of Ms....

...‘the jury should hear the remaining portions at the same time so as to avoid the potential for creating misleading impressions by taking statements out of context.’ ” (quoting Mason v. State, 719 So.2d 304, 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998))). Although section 90.108(1), Florida Statutes (2011), speaks in terms of written or recorded statements, “[t]his rule has been applied to verbal statements as well.” Ramirez, 739 So.2d at 580 (citing Reese v....

...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

...However, the rule of completeness provides: “[w]hen a writing or recorded statement or pari 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.” § 90.108(1), Fla....

...I’m going to allow it.” As it turned out, there was nothing in Schreiber’s statement to the detective that identified the underlying offense for which she was on probation. The “doctrine of completeness,” or “rule of completeness,” to which the trial court was referring is apparently that of section 90.108(1), Florida Statutes (2005), which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: 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. See also Larzelere v. State, 676 So.2d 394, 401 (Fla.1996) (noting that section 90.108 is known as the “rule of completeness”)....

...Furthermore, there was nothing misleading or confusing about the testimony concerning the money mismanagement theory that testimony concerning probation could have clarified. See Evans, 808 So.2d at 104 . Finally, the introduction of the probation testimony did nothing to enhance fairness, as contemplated by section 90.108(1)....

...brought out only the incriminating parts of [his] statement” and the “rest of the statement would have put all those supposed incriminating statements in context, so the jury could hear they were not actually incriminating.” The statutory rule of completeness is codified in section 90.108(1), Florida Statutes (2018), which states: 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...

...1999) (quoting Larzelere, 676 So. 2d at 402). However, the rule “does not apply unless a written or recorded statement is introduced into evidence.” Nock v. State, 256 So. 3d 828, 830 (Fla. 2018). In Nock, the Florida Supreme Court narrowly construed section 90.108(1)....

...e report’s contents. Under the rule of completeness, once CSX opened the door by introducing that part of the report related to the truck driver, Robinson was entitled to bring in the redacted portion of the report in the interest of fairness. See § 90.108(1), Fla....

...The redacted portion relates directly to the voluntariness of the statement. The jury was properly instructed on the effect of the statement, but it only had a portion of the statement and could not evaluate the “totality of the circumstances” as required by the law. Also, the rule of completeness as set forth in section 90.108(1), Florida Statutes (2012), requires that all portions of Appellant’s statements should be provided contemporaneously to the jury, not just those that benefit the State....

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

...s’s post-arrest statement to police would have required multiple pre-trial motions raising Miranda issues, severance, redaction issues, and whether other parts of the statement “in fairness” ought to be considered “contemporaneously” under section 90.108(1), Florida Statutes (2022), or under the common law rule of completeness. Judge Murphy properly found that the prosecutor had represented it was not going to use the defendants’ statements to police at trial, held the State to i...

...dered contemporaneously. 3 See Luongo v. State, 278 So. 3d 871, 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (“We review a trial court’s decision to consolidate or sever charges for an abuse of discretion.”). 5 § 90.108(1), Fla....