Opinion ID: 1419202
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Refusal to Admit Several Complete Pages of a Transcribed Statement

Text: (24a) On cross-examination of the defense investigator who took a statement from Diana, the prosecutor asked the investigator whether he had given Diana a trick question. The investigator replied in the negative, and the prosecutor introduced a question from the statement which concerned Diana's relationship with Sergeant Odiorne. Objecting that the question was taken out of context, Redmon's counsel requested that the three pages before and after the disputed question be read to the jury. The court denied the request but informed counsel that he could cover the subject on redirect examination. On redirect, Redmon's counsel asked the investigator to tell what questions he had posed to Diana on the subject of her relationship with Odiorne. The investigator started reading from the first page of the transcribed statement, and, after determining that the first few lines read were not relevant to the point at issue, the court directed the witness to eliminate extraneous matter from his answer. Redmon's counsel argued that the entire statement was admissible under section 356 of the Evidence Code and moved for admission of the entire statement. The court denied this motion, and Redmon assigns this denial as error. (25) Section 356 provides in pertinent part: Where part of an act, declaration, conversation or writing is given in evidence by one party, the whole on the same subject may be inquired into by an adverse party.... (Italics added.) However, this provision `is necessarily subject to the qualification that the court may exclude those portions of the conversation not relevant to the items thereof which have been introduced.' ( Witt v. Jackson (1961) 57 Cal.2d 57, 67 [17 Cal. Rptr. 369, 366 P.2d 641]; [20] Legislative Committee Comment to Evid. Code, § 356.) The rule is not applied mechanically to permit the whole of a transaction to come in without regard to its competency or relevancy.... (Witkin, Cal. Evidence, supra, § 320, p. 283.) (24b) In the instant case, Redmon's counsel sought to introduce portions of the statement which were unrelated to the excerpt introduced by the prosecution during cross-examination. The record is devoid of any indication that counsel ever tried to introduce those portions of the statement which pertained to the trick question. We find no error in the trial court's ruling.