State v. Prasertphong

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that trial court’s decision to admit remaining portions of co- defendant’s statement under rule of completeness did not violate the Confrontation Clause
• concluding \the rule of completeness confers upon trial judges the discretion to admit the remaining portions of a statement if the redacted portion of the statement may mislead the jury\
• noting the rule requires only admission of portions of a statement “necessary to qualify, explain or place into context the portion already introduced”
• evidence admissible under Rule 106 may be excluded if danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading jury, or waste of time substantially outweighs probative value

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).