State v. Smith

"If there is a significant danger that the jury will be misled by hearing evidence of a writing, act, declaration, or conversation taken out of context the rule [OEC 106] authorizes the supplementary evidence to be admitted contemporaneously." Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Oregon Evidence § 106.04, 69-70 (6th ed 2013).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for one count of rape in the first degree and two counts of unlawful sexual penetration in the first degree. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's ruling that "the state could impeach [defendant] under OEC 806 if he presented evidence that he had attempted to withdraw a guilty plea that he had previously entered in another case." On appeal, Defendant argued that the court was compelled to admit statements he had made in an effort to withdraw his plea under the "rule of completeness," OEC 106, without subjecting him to impeachment under OEC 806; arguing that the State was required to present evidence that Defendant had attempted to withdraw the plea. In response, the State argued that OEC 106 did not apply because "the rule of completeness [does] not require the court to admit statements that would not alter their character as hearsay." "If there is a significant danger that the jury will be misled by hearing evidence of a writing, act, declaration, or conversation taken out of context the rule [OEC 106] authorizes the supplementary evidence to be admitted contemporaneously." Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Oregon Evidence § 106.04, 69-70 (6th ed 2013). The Court held that the trial court did not err, because OEC 106 does not allow Defendant to render inadmissible evidence "otherwise admissible." Affirmed.