Opinion ID: 2297488
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: use of part of deposition

Text: At the trial, the caveator sought to cross-examine the caveatee  with respect to his knowledge of and participation in an alleged attempt by the caveatee's sister to intimidate her mother-in-law  by offering only a part of the deposition of the mother-in-law for that purpose. The trial court sustained an objection to the cross-examination of the caveatee with regard to the alleged intimidation, and subsequently also ruled that the caveator should introduce all of the deposition or none of it. This the caveator declined to do. The reason for the ruling was clearly wrong but, so far as we can determine from the record, the result was right. The caveator proposed to use only that part of the deposition which purported to be a threat made, not by the caveatee, but by his sister  Margaret Loffler  to her mother-in-law over the telephone on the morning of the day the deposition was taken. Maryland Rule 413 a specifically provides that any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of evidence, may be used for any of the purposes set forth in the rule  one of which is the right of an adverse party to use the deposition for any purpose. Rule 413 a 2. On the other hand, Rule 413 a 4 states that, if only a part is offered, an adverse party may require the introduction of so much of the deposition as is relevant to the part introduced. The record quotes only the answer to one question. Since those parts of the deposition which were relevant to the part proposed to be used were not included, the incompleteness of the record precludes us from passing upon the admissibility of the part proffered. See Rule 413 a, a 2, supra.