In State v. Gomez, 246 N.J. Super. 209, 218, 587 A.2d 272 (App.Div.1991), the Court noted four bases on which an otherwise inadmissible statement could be accepted into evidence in order to provide "completeness" for another, admissible statement: (1) to explain the initial, admissible statement; (2) to provide a context for the admissible statement; (3) to avoid any misleading of the trier of fact; (4) to insure "a fair and impartial understanding" of the initial statement. Id. at 220, 587 A.2d 272. In dealing with the first theory, the primary question is whether the two declarations are "essentially a single, integral statement." If they are, then the "trustworthiness ascribable to the first portion of the statement" which was against the declarant's interest, may also apply to the second portion even though, if considered in isolation, it would not be deemed contrary to the declarant's interest. As the court phrased the issue in Gomez, "In other words, the question is whether the trustworthiness ascribable to the portion of defendant's statement that was admitted ..., is transferable to the portion in which he exonerated himself from criminal liability." Gomez, supra, 246 N.J. Super. at 219, 587 A.2d 272.