Newton v. State

I would reverse Newton’s conviction and remand for a new trial. Neither party disputes that the second half of Newton’s statement should have been admitted under the rule of completeness, even if it was self-serving and exculpatory.3 This conclusion is supported by the Florida Evidence Code,4 our decision in' Antoury v. State, 943 So.2d 906, 909 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), and a myriad of other cases holding that when the State elicits part of a defendant’s admission, other relevant portions of that statement are admissible to provide context, see, e.g., Metz v. State, 59 So.3d 1225, 1226-27 (Fla.…