Sipary v. State
Court of Appeals of Alaska
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MANNHEIMER, Judge.
This case involves the “rule of completeness”, a common-law rule of evidence designed to prevent litigants from introducing portions of an out-of-court statement when these portions, taken out of context, would tend to be misleading. The rule of completeness states that when one party introduces portions of an out-of-court statement (whether oral or written), an adverse party is entitled to introduce remaining portions of the statement to the extent that this is necessary to correct any material misimpression that the initially offered portions might arguably create.
Th…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Beech Aircraft Corp. v. RaineySupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- United States v. Robert B. Sutton, United States of America v. Mark A. SucherCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1986
- United States v. Roger E. HaddadCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993
- United States v. Ronald Sherrill WilkersonCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1996
- United States v. Angel Pendas-Martinez and Andres Morrero-LasoCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1988
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. SanchezCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2016
- Charlie Willie Steven v. State of AlaskaCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2023
- State v. SanchezCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2016