State v. Broyhill, ___ N.C. App. ___, 803 S.E.2d 832 (Jul. 18, 2017)

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding statements from the defendant’s custodial interviews on April 23^rd and 25^th while admitting statements from a third custodial interview on April 26^th. On appeal the defendant argued that his prior statements should have been admitted under Rule 106 because they would have enhanced the jury’s understanding of the third statement. The defendant failed to demonstrate that the third statement was out of context when it was introduced and that the two prior statements were either explanatory of or relevant to the third.