Simon Velazquez Hernandez was convicted by a jury of possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute. During the trial, Hernandez sought to introduce two video recordings to support his affirmative defense of duress: a dash camera segment showing his emotional reaction during transport to the police station, and a post-arrest interview video where he detailed threats made against his mother by a drug dealer. The district court excluded both recordings on hearsay grounds, ruling they were not admissible as statements offered against the government. While the government played some body camera footage showing Hernandez's emotional state, they refused to play the full recordings. Hernandez argued on appeal that the court erred under Federal Rule of Evidence 106, the rule of completeness, by not allowing the jury to see the full context of his statements. However, the appellate record shows Hernandez never explicitly invoked Rule 106 in the district court, instead arguing only for admission based on the evidence's importance and his desire for the jury to see his emotional state.
The Tenth Circuit began by addressing the standard of review. The court held that because Hernandez failed to cite Federal Rule of Evidence 106 in the district court, the issue was forfeited. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) and Rule of Evidence 103(e), the appellate court could only review the claim for plain error. To succeed, Hernandez needed to show an error that was plain, affected his substantial rights, and seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. The court found Hernandez failed at the first prong: there was no error under Rule 106. The court explained that Rule 106 is a 'defensive shield against potentially misleading evidence proffered by an opposing party,' not a general right to introduce selected statements to counter an opponent's case. The rule applies only when a party has created a misimpression that requires correction. The court noted that the government's evidence, including testimony from the arresting officer and the detective, already established that Hernandez was emotional and fearful for his mother. Therefore, the recordings were not necessary to prevent a misimpression. Furthermore, the court clarified that the 2023 amendment to Rule 106, which allows completion of statements over a hearsay objection, did not change the outcome. The recordings were excluded because they were hearsay and Hernandez offered no legitimate evidentiary basis for their admission other than their probative value for his defense. The court emphasized that Rule 106 does not compel completeness for its own sake or allow a defendant to introduce the 'best' evidence for their position if the opposing party's evidence was not misleading.
The conviction for possession with intent to distribute stands, and the 120-month prison sentence followed by five years of supervised release remains in effect. The decision reinforces the strict requirement for criminal defendants to specifically cite Federal Rule of Evidence 106 when objecting to the exclusion of evidence to preserve the issue for appeal. It clarifies that the rule of completeness is a narrow tool to correct misleading impressions, not a broad avenue to introduce exculpatory evidence that was properly excluded as hearsay.