allows “a party [to] introduce evidence of the circumstances of a writing, statement, conversation, or deposition so the jury can have a complete picture of the contested evidence introduced by the adversary.” 191 S.W.3d at 49-50 (citing William A. Schroeder, 22 Missouri Practice, Missouri Evidence, section 106:1 (2d ed. 1999)). Because a defendant does not have an absolute right to insist on introduction of the whole of a confession or admission merely because a part has been introduced by the State, it follows that determining whether omitted portions of a confession or admission will yield distortion or exclude material that is substantially exculpatory to the portions introduced by the State remains a matter left to the discretion of the trial court. Collier, 892 S.W.2d at 695-96 (<HOLDING>) (quoting 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law section 885);
holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to require a defendant to pay all back taxes holding that when danger of distortion or exclusions of substantially exculpatory information is not present it is not an abuse of discretion to fail to require the production of the remainder of the statement holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion holding that it was an abuse of discretion for the bia to fail to consider the merits of a petitioners claim