 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Swindle v. State6/8/1999
t favorable to his case, and his co-defendant, Timothy Washington, introduced one of the NCIB inspection reports into evidence. Only then did the State move to admit the remaining reports into evidence in order to give the jury a complete picture. See the comment to Rule 106 which states: `Such a rule attempts to prevent misleading the jury by taking evidence out of context.'" Washington v. State, 726 So.2d 209, 216 (Miss. App. 1998). Even if "Rule 106 does not necessarily require that all the remainder of a document" be admitted, it does not bar admission of "that part which `ought in fairness to be considered.'" Id. That is the purpose of Rule 106, that in order to "minimize the inaccuracy of an incomplete presentation of a record, . . . trial courts have the power to determine whether `fairness' requires the proponent to introduce the whole writing" as relevant to the issues of the case. Weinstein's Federal Evidence §106.02 (1998) at 106-5.
. Moreover even if evidence is otherwise inadmissible, one party can open the door to its admission. Washington, 726 So.2d at 216 (citing Crenshaw v. State, 520 So.2d 131, 133 (Miss.1988)).
. Therefore, I agree that this was a prior consistent statement. It "need not be `identical in every detail' to the trial testimony to be considered `consistent.' The test of admissibility is whether a reasonable mind would accept the central thrust of the prior statement as being consistent with the witness's in-court testimony." Weinstein's Federal Evidence §801.12 at 801-34. I also find that even by using the actual statement that is considered consistent, the defense implicitly charged that what Allen was saying on the stand was different than what he had said soon after the shooting. That implies recent fabrication. So long as the central thrust of the prior statement is consistent with the trial testimony, it is a prior consistent statement even if the cross-examining attorney was attempting to show that it was not.
. I agree the statement was admissible.
McMILLIN, C.J., JOINS ISSUE I. IRVING, J., JOINS THIS SEPARATE OPINION.
|