§56. - As the Hawaii Supreme Court said in Holstein v.

Rule 106 Remainder of or related
writings or recorded statements. When a writing or recorded statement or
part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the party
at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded
statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it.
[L 1980, c 164, pt of §1; gen ch 1985]

RULE 106 COMMENTARY

This rule is identical with Fed. R. Evid. 106.

The rule incorporates the common law doctrine of completeness,
see McCormick §56. As the Hawaii Supreme Court said in Holstein v. Young, 10
H. 216, 220 (1896), a party cannot "utilize so much of this evidence as
will serve his turn and reject the remainder." Cf. HRCP 32(a)(4), which
provides: "If only part of a deposition is offered in evidence by a
party, an adverse party may require him to introduce any other part which ought
in fairness to be considered with the part introduced."

The Advisory Committee's Note to Fed. R. Evid. 106 points
out: "The rule is based on two considerations. The first is the
misleading impression created by taking matters out of context. The second is
the inadequacy of repair work when delayed to a point later in the trial."

Rules of Court

Depositions, see HRCP rule 32(a)(4); HRPP rule 15(e); DCRCP
rule 32(a)(4).

Case Notes

Remainder of statement; when admissible. 68 H. 358, 714 P.2d
930.

This rule applies to statements "introduced" at
trial by being read to a witness. If a criminal victim's compensation form is
used at trial solely to establish that compensation was sought, the claimant's
response to the form's request for information is not admissible under this
rule as a statement "which ought in fairness to be considered
contemporaneously" with that part of the document describing its
compensatory purpose. 79 H. 255 (App.), 900 P.2d 1322.

Evidence admitted under this rule is subject to the
authentication requirement under rule 901. 108 H. 89 (App.), 117 P.3d 821.