In People v. Vines (2011) 51 Cal.4th 830, the defense introduced a portion of Proby's statement that he and Blackie committed the robbery. (People v. Vines, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 859.) Vines held that it was not error to permit the prosecution to admit another portion of Proby's statement that the defendant also participated in the robbery. "This case exemplifies the policy underlying the code section. Defendant wanted to rely on a part of Proby's statement to imply that Blackie was the shooter, which was contrary to what Proby actually said elsewhere in his statement. The rule of completeness exists to prevent such a misuse of evidence." (Id. at p. 861.)