Rule 106. Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded Statements

If a party introduces 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.

Comment:

This rule and F.R.E. 106 differ in two respects. First, F.R.E. 106, unlike this rule, does not require a statement to be written or recorded. Rather, F.R.E. 106 ‘‘covers all statements, including oral statements that have not been recorded.’’ F.R.E. 106, Advisory Committee Notes, 2023 Amendments, [para ] 3. Second, F.R.E. 106 permits the adverse party to introduce any other part of the statement or any other statement over a hearsay objection so long as the completing statement ought, in fairness, be considered at the same time. F.R.E. 106. The Pennsylvania rule is silent on this point. A similar principle is expressed in Pa.R.Civ.P. 4020(a)(4), which states: ‘‘If only part of a deposition is offered in evidence by a party, any other party may require the offering party to introduce all of it which is relevant to the part introduced, and any party may introduce any other parts.’’

The purpose of Pa.R.E. 106 is to give the adverse party an opportunity to correct a misleading impression that may be created by the use of a part of a writing or recorded statement that may be taken out of context. This rule gives the adverse party the opportunity to correct the misleading impression at the time that the evidence is introduced. The trial court has discretion to decide whether other parts, or other writings or recorded statements, ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with the proffered part.