Short answer. Yes. Rule 132, Section 17 lets you inquire into the whole of the same subject once part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing, or record has been offered by one party, and lets you introduce any other material necessary to understand a detached portion the other side has offered on its own.
What the law says
When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence by one party, the whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the other, and when a detached act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation, writing or record necessary to its understanding may also be given in evidence.
Rule 132, Section 17 — When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence, the remainder admissible. Read the full provision →
The problem this rule prevents
Reading only a favorable fragment of a longer document or conversation into the record is a classic way to mislead a court about what was actually said or written, since context that would qualify, explain, or even flatly contradict the excerpt is simply left out. Section 17 exists precisely to stop that kind of selective presentation from going unanswered — once one party has opened the door by offering part of the material, the rule gives the other side an affirmative right to bring in the remainder, so the fact-finder sees the complete picture rather than a curated slice of it.
Two related but distinct triggers
The rule actually covers two situations. The first is where part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing, or record has been offered — there the opposing party may inquire into the whole of that same subject matter, not limited strictly to the document itself but extending to the broader subject the excerpt touches on. The second is narrower: where a detached, isolated act or statement has been offered on its own, any other material genuinely necessary to understand that detached piece may also come in, even if it goes slightly beyond the exact document or conversation first introduced.
Using this rule in practice
A party on the receiving end of a selectively-quoted letter, contract clause, or recorded statement should move promptly to introduce the balance of that same material, rather than simply arguing in closing that the excerpt was taken out of context — the rule gives an actual evidentiary right to place the fuller record before the court, not just an argument to make later. Counsel offering a document strategically should also expect that trimming it down to only the helpful portion invites the opposing side to complete the picture, often on terms less favorable than if the whole document had simply been offered from the start.
Related provisions
- Rule 132, Section 17 — When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence, the remainder admissible
- Rule 132, Section 16 — When witness may refer to memorandum
- Rule 132, Section 18 — Right to inspect writing shown to witness