If the party who called the declarant as a witness wants to examine the declarant on the statement as if on cross-examination, under which rule is this permitted?

• A. Rule 806
• B. Rule 805
• C. Rule 901. (b)(3)
• D. Rule 901. (a)

Answer: (A)

The main idea is how to challenge the credibility of a witness who is a declarant by showing that the declarant made a prior statement that contradicts what the declarant testified. This is addressed by Rule 806, which allows a party who called the declarant to cross-examine the declarant about a statement the declarant made that is inconsistent with the declarant’s trial testimony. The cross-examination aspect is central here, because it gives the opposing party a chance to question the declarant directly about the prior statement and its inconsistencies.

Rule 806 also covers when you can bring in other evidence about that inconsistency. Extrinsic evidence of the prior inconsistent statement is permissible only if the declarant is given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement, and the opposing party has an opportunity to examine the declarant about it. That ensures the declarant isn’t blindsided and has a fair chance to respond.

This is why this rule fits the scenario: it explicitly governs examining the declarant on the statement in a cross-examination-like way to test credibility, rather than addressing hearsay content or authentication. Other options focus on different areas (such as authentication or hearsay rules) and don’t provide the specific framework for impeaching a declarant by cross-examining about their own prior statements.