
Conduct of Trial - Redirect Examination - Rule of Completeness
The rule of completeness is a rule of fairness which applies where a witness is cross examined by reference to only a portion of his prior statements or admissions.
Where only a part of a statement is drawn out on cross-examination, the other parts may be introduced on redirect examination for the purpose of explaining or clarifying that statement. [1]
The rule was stated by the Court of Appeals in Grattan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., as follows:
“The rule appears to be firmly settled, both as to a conversation or writing, that the introduction of a part renders admissible so much of the remainder as tends to explain or qualify what has been received and that is to be deemed a qualification which rebuts and destroys the inference to be derived from or the use to be made of the portion put in evidence.”[2]
Completeness evidence may be admitted when portions of a party's prior statements have been introduced against him as admissions[3] or when he has been cross-examined about portions of his prior statements for purposes of impeachment. The attorney who called that witness to testify may then elicit testimony as to the omitted portions of the documents or conversations that tend to provide an explanation or qualification of the testimony. [4]
In People v. Schlessel,[5] the Court of Appeals stated the following three limitations on completeness evidence:
(a) the completeness evidence must be relevant to the issue;
(b) the completeness evidence must concern the same subject and explain it; [6]
(c) the completeness evidence merely aids in the construction of the utterance as a whole, and is not in itself testimony. This last limitation prohibits completion evidence to be used as affirmative evidence in those situations in which it would be otherwise admissible.
[1] People v Torre, 42 N.Y.2d 1036, 369 N.E.2d 759, 399 N.Y.S.2d 203, (citing People v Regina, 19 NY2d 65, 70; People v Buchanan, 145 NY 1, 24; see Feblot v New York Times Co., 32 NY2d 486, 498; Richardson, Evidence [10th Ed], § 523).
[2] Grattan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 92 N.Y. 274 (1883).
[3] See People v. Dlugash, 41 N.Y.2d 725, 736, 395 N.Y.S.2d 419, 427, 363 N.E.2d 1155, 1162 (1977); People v. La Belle, 18 N.Y.2d 405, 410, 276 N.Y.S.2d 105, 109, 222 N.E.2d 727, 729 (1966); People v. Gallo, 12 N.Y.2d 12, 15–16, 234 N.Y.S.2d 193, 195, 186 N.E.2d 399, 400 (1962); Grattan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 92 N.Y. 274, 1883 WL 12592 (1883).
[4] People v. Ochoa, 14 N.Y.3d 180, 187, 899 N.Y.S.2d 66, 69–70, 925 N.E.2d 868, 871–72 (2010); People v. Torre, 42 N.Y.2d 1036, 1037, 399 N.Y.S.2d 203, 204, 369 N.E.2d 759, 760–61 (1977); Feblot v. New York Times Co., 32 N.Y.2d 486, 496–98, 346 N.Y.S.2d 256, 265–66, 299 N.E.2d 672, 678–79 (1973); People v. Regina, 19 N.Y.2d 65, 78, 277 N.Y.S.2d 683, 693, 224 N.E.2d 108, 115 (1966).
[5] 196 N.Y. 476, 481, 90 N.E. 44, 45–46 (1909).
[6] Platner v. Platner, 78 N.Y. 90, 103, 1879 WL 10769 (1879) (portions which fail to explain, modify or qualify what was introduced by the adversary are not admissible.) Rouse v. Whited, 25 N.Y. 170, 177 (1862) (portions that relate to some other subject matter are not admissible).
The rule of completeness is a rule of fairness which applies where a witness is cross examined by reference to only a portion of his prior statements or admissions.
Where only a part of a statement is drawn out on cross-examination, the other parts may be introduced on redirect examination for the purpose of explaining or clarifying that statement. [1]
The rule was stated by the Court of Appeals in Grattan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., as follows:
“The rule appears to be firmly settled, both as to a conversation or writing, that the introduction of a part renders admissible so much of the remainder as tends to explain or qualify what has been received and that is to be deemed a qualification which rebuts and destroys the inference to be derived from or the use to be made of the portion put in evidence.”[2]
Completeness evidence may be admitted when portions of a party's prior statements have been introduced against him as admissions[3] or when he has been cross-examined about portions of his prior statements for purposes of impeachment. The attorney who called that witness to testify may then elicit testimony as to the omitted portions of the documents or conversations that tend to provide an explanation or qualification of the testimony. [4]
In People v. Schlessel,[5] the Court of Appeals stated the following three limitations on completeness evidence:
(a) the completeness evidence must be relevant to the issue;
(b) the completeness evidence must concern the same subject and explain it; [6]
(c) the completeness evidence merely aids in the construction of the utterance as a whole, and is not in itself testimony. This last limitation prohibits completion evidence to be used as affirmative evidence in those situations in which it would be otherwise admissible.
[1] People v Torre, 42 N.Y.2d 1036, 369 N.E.2d 759, 399 N.Y.S.2d 203, (citing People v Regina, 19 NY2d 65, 70; People v Buchanan, 145 NY 1, 24; see Feblot v New York Times Co., 32 NY2d 486, 498; Richardson, Evidence [10th Ed], § 523).
[2] Grattan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 92 N.Y. 274 (1883).
[3] See People v. Dlugash, 41 N.Y.2d 725, 736, 395 N.Y.S.2d 419, 427, 363 N.E.2d 1155, 1162 (1977); People v. La Belle, 18 N.Y.2d 405, 410, 276 N.Y.S.2d 105, 109, 222 N.E.2d 727, 729 (1966); People v. Gallo, 12 N.Y.2d 12, 15–16, 234 N.Y.S.2d 193, 195, 186 N.E.2d 399, 400 (1962); Grattan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 92 N.Y. 274, 1883 WL 12592 (1883).
[4] People v. Ochoa, 14 N.Y.3d 180, 187, 899 N.Y.S.2d 66, 69–70, 925 N.E.2d 868, 871–72 (2010); People v. Torre, 42 N.Y.2d 1036, 1037, 399 N.Y.S.2d 203, 204, 369 N.E.2d 759, 760–61 (1977); Feblot v. New York Times Co., 32 N.Y.2d 486, 496–98, 346 N.Y.S.2d 256, 265–66, 299 N.E.2d 672, 678–79 (1973); People v. Regina, 19 N.Y.2d 65, 78, 277 N.Y.S.2d 683, 693, 224 N.E.2d 108, 115 (1966).
[5] 196 N.Y. 476, 481, 90 N.E. 44, 45–46 (1909).
[6] Platner v. Platner, 78 N.Y. 90, 103, 1879 WL 10769 (1879) (portions which fail to explain, modify or qualify what was introduced by the adversary are not admissible.) Rouse v. Whited, 25 N.Y. 170, 177 (1862) (portions that relate to some other subject matter are not admissible).
The material on our website is from the New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook , by Joel R. Brandes of the New York Bar. It focuses on the procedural and substantive law, as well as the law of evidence, that an attorney must have at his or her fingertips when trying a New York matrimonial action or custody case. It is intended to be an aide for preparing for a trial and as a reference for the procedure in offering and objecting to evidence during a trial. There are numerous questions for the examination and cross-examination of witnesses.
Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc. publishes The New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook . It is available in Bookstores, and online in the print edition at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Goodreads and other online book sellers.
The New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook is available in Kindle ebook editions and epub ebook editions for all ebook readers in our website bookstore and in hard cover at our Bookbaby Bookstore.
The New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook is available in Kindle ebook editions and epub ebook editions for all ebook readers in our website bookstore and in hard cover at our Bookbaby Bookstore.
Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc.
2881 NE 33rd Court (At Dock) Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33306. Telephone (954) 564-9883. email to:[email protected]. Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc is a Florida corporation which is owned and operated by
Joel R. Brandes of The New York Law Firm of Joel R. Brandes. P.C. |
This website is published by Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc., and written by Joel R. Brandes of The Law Firm of Joel R. Brandes. P.C. Mr. Brandes has been recognized by the Appellate Division* as a "noted authority and expert on New York family law and divorce.” He is the author of the treatise Law and The Family New York, 2d (9 volumes),Law and the Family New York Forms 2d (5 Volumes), Law and the Family New York Forms 2019 Edition (5 volumes)(Thomson Reuters), and the New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook. Click here to visit New York Divorce and Family Law ™ the definitive site on the web for New York divorce and family law, presented by Joel R. Brandes of the Law Firm of Joel R. Brandes, P.C., 43 West 43rd Street, New York, New York 10036. (212) 859-5079.
|