Sometimes. If the prosecution introduces only part of a defendant’s act, declaration, conversation, or writing, California Evidence Code section 356 allows the other side to inquire into the rest on the same subject. It also allows material needed to make a detached portion understandable. That rule can address a damaging excerpt, but it does not create a blanket right to play an entire recording or introduce a different interview. The actual excerpt and proposed context must be compared. (Evidence Code § 356)
Compare the offered words with the proposed context
| Question for counsel | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What exact words, passage, or testimony did the prosecution introduce, and who introduced it? | Section 356 is triggered by a part of an act, statement, conversation, or writing being given in evidence. The precise excerpt defines what context may answer it. |
| What omitted words or passage are you asking the court to consider? | Identify the specific portion, rather than asking to add “everything else.” |
| Is the proposed remainder on the same subject or needed to understand the excerpt? | A connection to the offered portion is central. Unrelated statements or a different interview do not automatically qualify. |
| Does the excerpt leave a misleading impression that the connected passage would correct? | Explain the inference the excerpt invites and how the proposed context changes or clarifies it. |
| Is the complete source available, and is there another evidence objection? | Compare the actual recording, transcript, or witness account. Section 356 can answer a blanket hearsay objection to connected context, but the court still evaluates the specific passage and other objections. (Evidence Code § 1200; People v. Williams (1975)) |
California Supreme Court decisions illustrate the limits. In People v. Williams (1975), the Court rejected a blanket hearsay objection to relevant remainder of a defendant’s statement, while emphasizing that the remainder must relate to the introduced portion and remain subject to other objections. In People v. Williams (2006), the Court distinguished related parts of the same interview from a different interview that did not correct a misleading impression. In People v. Chism, the Court upheld exclusion of an unrelated proposed explanation. These decisions do not guarantee that a particular passage will be admitted. (Williams (1975); Williams (2006); Chism)
What to gather for a discussion with your lawyer
If the prosecution plans to use a statement excerpt, give counsel the complete available recording, transcript, writing, or witness account. Mark the excerpt the prosecution offers and the exact omitted words you believe relate to it. Note who introduced the excerpt and what inference it may leave with the jury. Counsel can assess whether section 356 supports asking about or offering that context and whether a separate objection or limitation applies. The trial judge decides the specific request based on the record.
This rule cannot supply a moment that was never recorded or words that were never captured. A missing-source or incomplete-recording problem may call for a different review. The Law Offices of David S. Chesley’s California criminal-trial overview provides broader context. To discuss a particular excerpt and the available source, call the Law Offices of David S. Chesley at (800) 755-5174.