Which condition makes a declarant-witness's prior statement not hearsay under Rule 801(d)(1)?

• A. The prior statement was inconsistent with the declarant's testimony and given under penalty of perjury.
• B. The prior statement was made after the declarant testified and was not under oath.
• C. The prior statement was introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
• D. The prior statement was made by the declarant during cross-examination and was not under oath.

Answer: (A)

Under Rule 801(d)(1), a declarant-witness’s prior statement is not hearsay when the witness testifies and the prior statement is inconsistent with the current testimony and was given under oath (subject to penalty of perjury) at a prior proceeding or deposition. That specific combination—inconsistency plus an oath at a prior proceeding—lets the prior statement be admitted as non-hearsay and, if appropriate, used as substantive evidence.

The given scenario matches this: the prior statement was inconsistent with what the declarant testified to and was given under penalty of perjury, satisfying the required conditions. That’s why it’s not hearsay.

Reasoning about the other options: without the oath element, the statement isn’t excluded under this rule, even if it’s inconsistent. A statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted is generally hearsay unless it fits a listed non-hearsay condition, which isn’t indicated here. And a statement made during cross-examination would be under oath, but the option’s emphasis that it was not under oath contradicts the requirement, so it would not qualify.