[Tr. 412-413] William A. Schroeder, 22 Missouri Practice, Missouri Evidence, section 106:1 (4th ed. 2012) (observing that the rule of completeness only applies where “[t]he parts introduced to complete the whole ... relate to the same subject matter” as that which has been admitted). It is true, as Ellis notes in his Brief, that Saxton (V.W.’s school principal), was permitted on direct examination, over Ellis’s objection, to read from an incident report she prepared that V.W. told her she would “have to turn the TV off [at Ellis’s house] so [M.W.] does not see. They kiss and take them clothes off.” [Tr. 689-695] Ellis objec inadmissible, self-serving hearsay statement denying that he showed the girls pornography. State v. Beishline, 920 S.W.2d 622, 626-27 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996) (<HOLDING>) (citing State v. Sweet, 796 S.W.2d 607, 614
holding rule 16a1a does not include statements made by coconspirators even if those statements can be attributed to the defendant for purposes of the rule against hearsay holding that federal rule of evidence 8034 the hearsay exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment does not apply to statements made by doctors holding exculpatory statements by a third party should have been admitted in the punishment phase notwithstanding the hearsay rule holding selfserving declarations are inadmissible hearsay unless defendant testifies holding that as a general rule a defendant cannot create exculpatory evidence by introducing selfserving hearsay statements made by the defendant to another