to this line of questioning, and argued it hinted at the pornography topic Ellis had discussed in his interview, and that the trial court had already ruled was not relevant. The trial court overruled the objection, after extended discussion, with the “understanding the State’s not going to argue that it’s evidence that he was requiring her to watch pornography.” Ellis has not challenged this ruling on appeal. Nor did Ellis argue at trial that Saxton’s testimony rendered the fifty-eight-second segment of his interview admissible pursuant to the rule of completeness. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing, after the State’s direct examination of Saxton, to sua sponte revisit whether the rule of completeness required the admission of Ellis’s denial about s o. banc 1994) (<HOLDING>)). Ellis argues no other basis for admitting
holding that rule of completeness did not apply where statements made at the scene and the statement made at the police station were  distinct and not part of one confession holding that trial counsel was not ineffective when he failed to introduce defendants prior consistent statement statement was not admissible because it was made after defendant had been arrested clearly not a time when the effect of the statement could not have been foreseen holding that statement to police made thirtysix hours after a different statement to police was not part of one confession and not admissible under the rule of completeness holding also that only a childs first statement made is admissible under the exception holding that anonymous statement was admissible as a statement by a partys agent under rule 801d2d and noting that a district court should be presented with sufficient evidence to conclude that the person who is alleged to have made the damaging statement is in fact a party or an agent of that party