Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the rule of completeness is served, such that omitted portions must relate to the subject matter of the portions the State has introduced. State v. Williams, 448 S.W.2d 865, 868-69 (Mo. 1970) (“Where a witness has been cross-examined as to a part of a conversation [with a defendant] the whole thereof, to the extent that it relates to the same subject matter and concerns the specific matter opened up, may be elicited on redirect examination”) (quotation omitted); State v. Perkins, 92 S.W.2d 634, 638 (Mo. 1936) (“[I]t is ... well settled that where declarations of the defendant are put in evidence against him he has a right to insist that the whole thereof bearing on the matter under investigation be presented to the jury.”) (emphasis added); State v. Sibley, 207 S.W. 806, 808 (Mo. 1918) (<HOLDING>); State v. Hodges, 575 S.W.2d 769, 774 (Mo. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that clear language in one portion of a later may cause ambiguity in another portion to dissipate (B) holding no error occurred in excluding portion of statement offered by defendant because the rejected portion of the conversation in no manner explains or modifies that portion of the conversation which came into evidence (C) holding that error if any in excluding portion of defendants statement to police was harmless because similar evidence was admitted through the testimony of another witness (D) holding that the portion of the retirementplan annuity paid for by the employer but not the portion paid for by the employee  is includable in the marital estate  (E) holding that because defendant initiated conversation leading to statement trial court did not err in admitting statement
Output (English): holding that error if any in excluding portion of defendants statement to police was harmless because similar evidence was admitted through the testimony of another witness