State v. Robertson, Minn.S.Ct., 9/14/2016. A jury convicted Mr. Robertson of first degree premeditated murder of Kevin Braziel. It was the state's theory that Mr. Robertson shot and killed Mr. Robertson by mistake. When police interrogated Mr. Robertson he denied any involvement in Mr. Braziel's death.
The state did not play Mr. Braziel's recorded statement during the trial. Instead, the officer to conducted the interrogation testified about parts of the interview. Although the trial court allowed defense counsel to ask this officer about other portions of the interrogation the court denied a request to play the whole thing.
Mr. Robertson made this request under Rule 106 of the rule of evidence. This rule says that if one side introduces a portion of a recorded statement then the other side may be permitted to play any of the remainder of the recording "which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it." Chief Justice Gildea said, however, that the problem for Mr. Robertson was that the state didn't introduce any of the recorded statement (or its transcript). State v. Bauer, 598 N.W.2d 368 (Minn. 1999) says just that. It should be permissible, however, for the defense to introduce portions of the recorded interview where not doing so would mislead the jury.
Mr. Robertson raised some additional errors on appeal, none of which did the court find persuasive.