When Fairness Meets the Rules of Evidence: The "Opening the Door" Doctrine

In Arizona criminal trials, the admissibility of evidence is governed by both the state's evidentiary rules (Rules of Evidence for Courts in the State of Arizona) and constitutional protections. However, when one side brings up an issue that would normally remain excluded, the opposing party may be permitted to respond. This principle is known as the "opening the door" doctrine.

What Does It Mean to "Open the Door"?

In a courtroom, there are strict rules about what kind of evidence can be shown to a jury. However, if one side brings up something they should not have or gives the jury a misleading impression, the other side may be allowed to respond with evidence that normally would not be allowed. This is called the "opening the door" doctrine, and it is based on the principle of fairness.

Here is how this doctrine works, using real cases to show how courts apply it:

1. It's About Fairness

The "opening the door" rule is designed to prevent one party from giving the court a misleading version of events and then using evidentiary rules to block the other side from correcting the record.

Case: United States v. Baumann, 54 M.J. 100 (C.A.A.F. 2000)

2. Filling in the Gaps

Federal courts have explained that when one side presents an incomplete or false impression, the other side may introduce additional evidence to give the jury a more accurate and complete picture.

Cases:

• United States v. Sine, 493 F.3d 1021, 1037 (9th Cir. 2007)
• United States v. Whitworth, 856 F.2d 1268, 1285 (9th Cir. 1988)
• Ilyia v. El Khoury, 855 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016)

3. Arizona Follows the Same Rule

Arizona courts follow this same principle. If a party introduces improper or irrelevant information, the opposing party may respond on that same topic to restore fairness.

Case: State v. Alvarez, 145 Ariz. 570, 573, 701 P.2d 1178, 1181 (1985)

4. You Can't Object to What You Caused

If a party raises an issue at trial, they cannot later argue that it is unfair for the opposing side to respond to it. Courts will not allow a party to create a problem and then complain about the consequences.

Cases:

• State v. Lindsey, 149 Ariz. 472, 720 P.2d 73 (1986)
• M. Udall & J. Livermore, Law of Evidence § 11 at 11 (2d ed. 1982)
• State v. Kemp, 185 Ariz. 52, 912 P.2d 1281 (1996)

5. Arizona Courts Allow Responses to Improper Evidence

Arizona appellate courts have held that when one side brings up something off-topic or improper, the opposing side may respond to that issue. This helps keep the trial process balanced and fair.

Cases:

• State v. Woodward, 21 Ariz. App. 133, 516 P.2d 589 (1973)
• M. Udall & J. Livermore, Law of Evidence § 11 at 11 (2d ed. 1982)

6. Irrelevant Evidence Can Become Relevant

Sometimes, a party's statements can make an otherwise irrelevant topic important. When this happens, judges may allow new evidence that helps provide context or clarification.

Cases:

• State v. Williams, 133 Ariz. 220, 229, 650 P.2d 1202, 1211 (1982)
• State v. Mincey, 130 Ariz. 389, 636 P.2d 637 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1003 (1982)

Summary

The "opening the door" doctrine helps ensure a fair trial by allowing one side to respond when the other introduces improper or misleading information. Arizona courts use this rule to protect the integrity of the courtroom process. While it allows for a limited response, it does not give parties a free pass to introduce any evidence they want. It simply ensures that the jury gets an accurate and complete picture of the issues being discussed.

Disclaimer

This posted blog is in no way specific legal advice on any subject. It is intended to provide general information for the public.

If you need specific legal advice, call Chuck at 480-545-0700

Sources

• Rules of Evidence for Courts in the State of Arizona
• United States v. Baumann, 54 M.J. 100 (C.A.A.F. 2000)
• United States v. Sine, 493 F.3d 1021, 1037 (9th Cir. 2007)
• United States v. Whitworth, 856 F.2d 1268, 1285 (9th Cir. 1988)
• Ilyia v. El Khoury, 855 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016)
• State v. Alvarez, 145 Ariz. 570, 573, 701 P.2d 1178, 1181 (1985)
• State v. Lindsey, 149 Ariz. 472, 477, 720 P.2d 73, 78 (1986)
• State v. Kemp, 185 Ariz. 52, 61, 912 P.2d 1281, 1290 (1996)
• M. Udall & J. Livermore, Law of Evidence § 11 (2d ed. 1982)
• State v. Woodward, 21 Ariz. App. 133, 516 P.2d 589 (1973)
• State v. Williams, 133 Ariz. 220, 229, 650 P.2d 1202, 1211 (1982)
• State v. Mincey, 130 Ariz. 389, 636 P.2d 637 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1003 (1982)
• Hemphill v. New York, 595 U.S. 134 (2022)