Home › North Dakota › North Dakota Rules of Evidence › Rule 106

Court Rules Network • courtrules.net

N.D.R.Ev. 106

Not legal advice. Verify against official sources before relying on this text in any legal matter.

Rule 106 Remainder of or Related Statements

← Previous Rule 105: Limiting Evidence That Is Not Admissible Against Other Parties or for Other Purposes Next → Rule 107: Illustrative Aids

Rule Text

If a party introduces all or part of a statement, an opposing party may require the introduction, at that time, of any other part, or any other statement, that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time. The opposing party may do so over a hearsay objection.

Amendment history: (Adopted Mar. 1, 1990; amended Mar. 1, 2014, Mar. 1, 2025.)

Plain-English Summary (for reference only — not a substitute for the rule text above)

This summary is not the rule. The rule text controls.

When one side reads part of a statement or document into evidence, the other side can ask that the rest of it be shared right away too, if that extra part helps give a full and fair picture. This stops people from taking a sentence or two out of context to make it sound different from what was really meant.

For example, if someone only reads part of a letter or a recorded conversation, the other side can ask that the missing parts be read too, at that same moment, instead of waiting until later in the trial. This keeps the jury or judge from getting a misleading version of what was said.

This rule also means the other side does not have to worry about a hearsay objection blocking this fuller version from coming in. Normally, hearsay rules can stop certain statements from being used as evidence. But under this rule, if the added material is needed to keep things fair and accurate, it can be included even if it would otherwise count as hearsay.

Committee Notes

Rule 106 was amended, effective March 1, 1990; March 1, 2014; March 1, 2025.

Rule 106 is not a rule of admissibility, but rather one dealing with order of proof and, as such, may be considered to be but a specific application of the general dictates of Rule 611.

The standard of fairness gives the trial court wide discretion under this rule, which accords with the powers of a trial court to regulate the mode and order of proof, generally, granted by Rule 611. Thus, the court need not admit all evidence that may be related to the evidence sought to be introduced. Rules of relevancy, and other rules of admissibility, generally, should guide the trial court's decision.

Rule 106 was amended, effective March 1, 2014, in response to the December 1, 2011, revision of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The language and organization of the rule were changed to make the rule more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.

Rule 106 was amended, effective March 1, 2025, in response to the December 1, 2023, amendments to Fed.R.Ev. 106. According to the Committee Note, the federal rule was amended in two respects: 1) if the existing fairness standard requires completion, then that completing statement is admissible over a hearsay objection; and 2) the rule was amended to cover all statements, including oral statements that have not been recorded.

SOURCES: Joint Procedure Committee Minutes of April 26, 2024, page 10; January 26-27, 2012, page 31; March 24-25, 1988, page 12; December 3, 1987, page 15; April 8, 1976, page 17; October 1, 1975, page 2. Fed.R.Ev. 106; Rule 106, SBAND proposal.

Cross Reference: N.D.R.Ev. 611 (Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation); N.D.R.Civ.P. 32 (Using Depositions in Court Proceedings) N.D.R.Crim.P. 15 (Depositions).

← Previous Rule 105: Limiting Evidence That Is Not Admissible Against Other Parties or for Other Purposes Next → Rule 107: Illustrative Aids