Rule 806 Attacking and Supporting Credibility of Declarant

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

When a hearsay statement, or a statement defined in Rule 801(d)(2)(C), (D), or (E), has been admitted in evidence, the credibility of the declarant may be attacked, and if attacked may be supported, by any evidence which would be admissible for those purposes if declarant had testified as a witness. Evidence of a statement or conduct by the declarant at any time, inconsistent with the declarant's hearsay statement, is not subject to any requirement that the declarant may have been afforded an opportunity to deny or explain. If the party against whom a hearsay statement has been admitted calls the declarant as a witness, the party is en-titled to examine the declarant on the statement as if under cross-examination.

Comment

Evidence presented to the trier-of-fact is evidence, whether in the form of direct testimony from a witness or through hearsay testimony. This rule recognizes that result and removes some of the obstacles in impeaching a hearsay statement.[1] There are no foundational requirements to introducing an inconsistent statement, such as the requirement that a live witness be given the opportunity to deny or explain the prior inconsistency, and the credibility of the declarant is subject to impeachment and support as though the declarant were in fact testifying. The rule also states that the impeachment may come from a statement or conduct by the declarant made at any time, meaning that a prior as well as a subsequent inconsistent statement may be used to impeach the hearsay...