Colo. R. Evid. 106
When a statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require introduction of any other part or any other statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it. The adverse party may do so over a hearsay objection.
(Federal Rule Identical.)
CRE 106
Annotation Law reviews. For note, "Curative Admissibility: Fighting Fire With Fire", see 23 Colo. Law. 2321 (1994). The purpose of this rule is to avoid creating a misleading impression by taking evidence out of context or otherwise creating a distorted picture by the selective introduction of evidence. People v. Medina, 72 P.3d 405 (Colo. App. 2003); People v. Knight, 167 P.3d 141 (Colo. App. 2006). Completeness rule. Where the admissible portion of a statement would be unfair or misleading without including the entire statement, the adverse party may introduce the other part of the statement. People v. Melillo, 976 P.2d 353 (Colo. App. 1998); People v. Medina, 72 P.3d 405 (Colo. App. 2003). But both the rule of completeness and the concept of "opening the door" are subject to the considerations of relevance and prejudice required under C.R.E. 401 and C.R.E. 403, 25 P.3d 769 (Colo. 2001). Applied in People v. Wilson, 841 P.2d 337 (Colo. App. 1992); People in Interest of A.W., 982 P.2d 842 (Colo. 1999); People v. Knight, 167 P.3d 141 (Colo. App. 2006).