A witness testifies; the opposing party seeks to introduce the witness's prior inconsistent statement; Extrinsic evidence is admissible only if the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny.

A witness testifies; the opposing party seeks to introduce the witness's prior inconsistent statement; Extrinsic evidence is admissible only if the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny.

• A. Admissible as substantive evidence automatically.
• B. Admissible as impeachment only if the witness is given opportunity to explain or deny.
• C. Not admissible at all.
• D. Admissible if the prior statement was under oath.

Answer: (B)

The main idea is impeachment through a prior inconsistent statement. When you offer extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement to attack a witness’s credibility, you must first give the witness a chance to explain or deny the statement. This safeguards fairness and gives the witness an opportunity to reconcile or clarify the inconsistency before the jury hears the prior statement. In this scenario, the party wants to use a prior inconsistent statement to impeach the witness. The rule requires that the witness be given an opportunity to explain or deny before the extrinsic evidence of that statement can be admitted for impeachment. Therefore, the statement is admissible only if that opportunity is provided. The other choices aren’t correct for these reasons: it isn’t automatically admissible as substantive evidence just because it’s a prior inconsistent statement; extrinsic evidence isn’t admissible solely on a whim—there must be an opportunity to explain or deny; and while a prior statement under oath can sometimes be used for substantive purposes, that separate issue does not remove the requirement to allow the witness to explain or deny before using extrinsic evidence for impeachment.

The main idea is impeachment through a prior inconsistent statement. When you offer extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement to attack a witness’s credibility, you must first give the witness a chance to explain or deny the statement. This safeguards fairness and gives the witness an opportunity to reconcile or clarify the inconsistency before the jury hears the prior statement.

In this scenario, the party wants to use a prior inconsistent statement to impeach the witness. The rule requires that the witness be given an opportunity to explain or deny before the extrinsic evidence of that statement can be admitted for impeachment. Therefore, the statement is admissible only if that opportunity is provided.

The other choices aren’t correct for these reasons: it isn’t automatically admissible as substantive evidence just because it’s a prior inconsistent statement; extrinsic evidence isn’t admissible solely on a whim—there must be an opportunity to explain or deny; and while a prior statement under oath can sometimes be used for substantive purposes, that separate issue does not remove the requirement to allow the witness to explain or deny before using extrinsic evidence for impeachment.