State v. Smith, 455 P.3d 520

Defendant was separately charged in Clackamas and Washington counties for sexual abuse of the same child; he entered a global settlement and pleaded guilty to first‑degree sodomy in Clackamas County.
Before sentencing in Clackamas County, defendant sent a letter and moved to withdraw his plea, claiming innocence; the Clackamas court denied withdrawal and entered judgment.
In Washington County defendant proceeded to trial; the state sought to introduce evidence of his Clackamas plea/conviction and the trial court admitted that evidence over defendant’s relevance/prejudice objections.
Defendant argued that, if the jury heard his guilty plea, OEC 106 (the rule of completeness) required admission of his statements attempting to withdraw the plea, and that those statements therefore could not be used to impeach him under OEC 806.
The trial court ruled that the rule of completeness did not independently render otherwise inadmissible statements admissible and that, if defendant himself offered the withdrawal statements, they would be hearsay subjecting him to impeachment under OEC 806.
On appeal the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed: OEC 106 is not an independent basis for admissibility and does not convert defendant’s out‑of‑court withdrawal statements into non‑hearsay or bar OEC 806 impeachment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether OEC 106 required admission of defendant’s out‑of‑court statements withdrawing his plea and, if admitted, whether those statements must be treated as the prosecution’s evidence (so not subject to OEC 806 impeachment).	OEC 106 does not apply to or convert defendant’s withdrawal statements into admissible party‑opponent statements; even if OEC 106 required admission, the defendant would remain the proponent and OEC 806 would apply.	OEC 106 requires the proponent who introduced the guilty plea to “complete the picture,” so the withdrawal statements must be admitted as part of the prosecution’s case and cannot be used to impeach defendant under OEC 806.	OEC 106 does not supply an independent basis for admissibility; it does not convert defendant’s withdrawal statements into non‑hearsay or make the state the proponent. Those statements, if offered by defendant, are hearsay and subject to OEC 806 impeachment.
Whether defendant’s Fourteenth Amendment due‑process claim (that the ruling denied a fair trial) is reviewable on appeal.	The claim was not raised below and is therefore unpreserved for appellate review.	The trial court’s ruling violated due process by preventing admission of exculpatory context.	The claim was not preserved at trial; the appellate court declined to address it.

State v. Batty, 109 Or. App. 62 (rule of completeness does not independently render otherwise inadmissible evidence admissible)
State v. Tooley, 265 Or. App. 30 (OEC 106 cannot be used to admit hearsay that is otherwise inadmissible)
State v. Verado, 263 Or. App. 452 (a defendant who elicits his own out‑of‑court exculpatory statements puts his credibility at issue and may be impeached under OEC 806)
State v. Middleton, 295 Or. 485 (explaining limits on introducing parts of plea agreements and related materials)
Black v. Nelson, 246 Or. 161 (remainder excluded as irrelevant under completeness doctrine)
Myers v. Cessna Aircraft Corp., 275 Or. 501 (remainder excluded as hearsay under completeness doctrine)