Cited by

ntroduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement, an adverse party may require the introduction, at that time, of any other part—or any other writing or recorded statement—that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time.” “[H]owever, only the portion of a statement necessary to qualify, explain or place into context the portion already introduced need be admitted.” ¶ 58 (2008) (internal quotation omitted).

State v. Cruz , , ¶ 58, , 209 (2008), quoting State v. Prasertphong , , ¶ 15, , 831 (2005).

–70 ¶¶ 128–32 (2008) (holding elements of underlying crime may concurrently be used as aggravating circumstances).

DISCUSSION ¶7 “We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 47 (2008) ( ¶ 14 (2002)).

Indeed, our supreme court has held that simply asking jurors to continue to deliberate, as the superior court did in this case, is not coercive because it “neither asks the jury to reach a verdict nor suggests that any juror should change his or her views.” ¶ 115 (2008).

¶ 130, (“In [State v.] Lara [ P.2d 802 (1992)], we held that an element of a crime may also be used to aggravate a sentence.

¶ 28 (2008) ( ¶ 46 (2005), ¶ 18 (1999)).

“[O]nly the portion of a statement ‘necessary to qualify, explain or place into context the portion already introduced’ need be admitted.” ¶ 58 (2008) ( ¶ 15 (2005)).

See, ¶ 102 (2008) (defendant “failed to show that the snippet of [other act] testimony rendered his trial fundamentally unfair”).

Although such testimony may have been too speculative to assist the jury, and therefore inadmissible, ¶ 45 (2008), defense counsels’ objections to questions calling for such speculation were sustained.

¶8 Generally, the trial court has broad discretion over courtroom security measures, ¶ 118 (2008) and we uphold its security measures when they are supported by the record, ¶ 84 (2004).

801(d)(2)(A) (providing that statements by an opposing party are not hearsay); ¶ 51 (2008) (holding defendant’s out-of-court, inculpating statement to police officer is party admission under Rule 801(d)(2)).

¶ 15 , (noting the rule requires only admission of portions of a statement “necessary to qualify, explain or place into context the portion already introduced”) (internal citations omitted); ¶ 58

.” ¶ 58, (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

¶ 58, (“Rule 106 does not create a rule of blanket admission for all exculpatory statements simply because an inculpatory statement was also made.”).

DISCUSSION I. State’s Appeal ¶8 P.3d 196 (2008), the State argues the trial court erred in sua sponte declaring a mistrial on Count 2 and requests that the guilty verdict returned by the jury on that count be reinstated.

uire the introduction, at that time, of any other part—or any other writing or recorded statement—that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time.” But the rule does not necessarily require the admission of the entire account; instead “only the portion of a statement ‘necessary to qualify, explain or place into context the portion already introduced’ need be admitted.”