When part or all of a writing or recorded statement 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 ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it.
Md. R. Evid. 5-106
This Rule is derived without substantive change from F.R.Ev. 106. Any language differences are solely for purposes of style and clarification.
Committee note: The change that this Rule effects in the common law is one of timing, rather than of admissibility. The Rule does not provide for the admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence, except to the extent that it is necessary, in fairness, to explain what the opposing party has elicited. In that event, a limiting instruction that the evidence was admitted not as substantive proof but as explanatory of the other evidence would be appropriate. See Richardson v. State, 324 Md. 611 (1991). The Rule thus provides for the alternative of an earlier admission of evidence with regard to writings or recorded statements than does the common law rule of completeness. The timing under the common law remains applicable to oral statements and also remains as an alternative with regard to writings and recorded statements.
Rules 2-419, 4-261, 5-611, and 5-1001(a).