Opinion ID: 1224510
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: did the trial court err when it allowed the state to redact defendant's recorded statement?

Text: {13} The State introduced a tape recording and transcript of a phone conversation between Defendant, Carlos, and Lorenzo. The State wished to redact a portion of the recording in which Defendant stated that he blacked out during the shooting. Defendant objected, citing to Rule 11-106 NMRA 1998, which states that [w]hen a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it. The trial court overruled Defendant's objection, and found that, under Rule 11-403, the statement created a potential for confusing the jury which substantially outweighed its probative value. {14} Defendant argues that his statement that he blacked out is relevant to his mental state and intent at the time of the shooting. While Defendant acknowledges that he was not raising an insanity defense or asserting that he lost consciousness, he believes that the jury could understand his remark as a kind of vernacular, showing that [he] did not have the requisite intent for first degree murder. Precisely what it meant was a matter for the jury to decide. However, when offered for this limited purpose, its relevance is considerably diminished. {15} We discussed Rule 11-106 in State v. Sanders, 117 N.M. 452, 458, 872 P.2d 870, 876 (1994). The rule applies only to other parts of a document that are relevant and that illuminate the parts of the document already admitted. Id. In Sanders, the defendant requested that the court admit all of his 22-page statement, and we held that because he made no showing that the entire document was relevant, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit it. Id. There is no rule that either the entire document or none of it must be admitted under Rule [11-]106. Id. While there may be some merit to Defendant's contention that the statement is relevant, we cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion when it found that its probative value was substantially outweighed by its potential to confuse the jury.