RULE 106. REMAINDER OF OR RELATED WRITINGS OR RECORDED STATEMENTS
Whenever a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced
by a party, an
adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part or any other writing
or recorded statement which in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously with
If a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement, an opposing party may require the introduction, at that time, of any other part, or any other writing or recorded statement, that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time.
Rule 106 was amended, effective March 1, 1990; March 1, 2014.
is an expression of what Wigmore has termed "the rules of
Wigmore on Evidence § 2094, et seq. (3d ed. 1940). The rule is not a rule of
admissibility, but rather one dealing with order of proof and, as such, may be considered to
be but a specific application of the general dictates of Rule 611.
According to the Advisory Committee's note to 106, FRE: "The rule is based on
considerations. The first is the misleading impression created by taking matters out of
context. The second is the inadequacy of repair work when delayed to a point later in the
trial." 1 Weinstein's Evidence 106-2.
To avoid these problems, Rule 106 requires that the remainder of or related
recordings be admitted at the same time as the principal evidence if the trial court
determines, in fairness, that this ought to be done. The standard of fairness gives the
court wide discretion under this rule, which accords with the powers of a trial court to
regulate the mode and order of proof, generally, granted by Rule 611. Thus, the court
not admit all evidence that may be related to the evidence sought to be introduced. Rules of
relevancy, and other rules of admissibility, generally, should guide the trial court's
Rule 106 was amended, effective March 1, 1990. The amendments are technical in
and no substantive change is intended.
Rule 106 was amended, effective March 1, 2014, in response to the December 1, 2011, revision of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The language and organization of the rule were changed to make the rule more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.
Sources: Joint Procedure Committee Minutes
: of January 26-27, 2012,
page 31; March 24-25, 1988, page 12; December 3, 1987, page 15; April 8, 1976, page 17;
October 1, 1975,
page 2. Rule Fed.R.Ev. 106, Federal Rules of
Evidence; Rule 106, SBAND proposal.
Considered: Rules 32(a)(4), NDRCivP; Rule 15(e), N.D.R.Crim.P.
Cross Reference: N.D.R.Ev. 611 (Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation); N.D.R.Civ.P. 32 (Using Depositions in Court Proceedings) N.D.R.Crim.P. 15 (Depositions).