Differentiate between admissibility for the truth of the matter asserted and for impeachment for prior statements.

Differentiate between admissibility for the truth of the matter asserted and for impeachment for prior statements.

• A. All prior statements offered to prove truth
• B. Some prior statements offered to prove truth; others for impeachment
• C. No prior statements admissible
• D. Only for impeachment

Answer: (B)

The key idea is that prior statements can be used for two different purposes, and the admissibility depends on that purpose. Some prior statements can be admitted to prove the truth of the matter asserted if they fit a hearsay exception or aren’t hearsay in the given context (for example, a sworn statement or a party admission used substantively). Other prior statements are typically limited to impeaching the witness’s credibility—showing inconsistency, bias, or unreliability—without proving the truth of the matter asserted. So the correct description is that some prior statements are offered to prove truth, while others are offered for impeachment.

The key idea is that prior statements can be used for two different purposes, and the admissibility depends on that purpose. Some prior statements can be admitted to prove the truth of the matter asserted if they fit a hearsay exception or aren’t hearsay in the given context (for example, a sworn statement or a party admission used substantively). Other prior statements are typically limited to impeaching the witness’s credibility—showing inconsistency, bias, or unreliability—without proving the truth of the matter asserted. So the correct description is that some prior statements are offered to prove truth, while others are offered for impeachment.