With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". analysis. We disagree. In State v. Copeland, 278 S.C. 572, 300 S.E.2d 63 (1982), the South Carolina Supreme Court adopted the position that prior inconsistent statements, previously only used for impeachment, could be considered as substantive evidence. Heretofore, South Carolina has followed the traditional rule that testimony of inconsistent statements is admissible only to impeach the credibility of the witness. Henceforth from today, we will allow testimony of prior inconsistent statements to be used as substantive evidence when the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross examination. Id. at 581, 300 S.E.2d at 69 (emphasis added). Since its adoption, this rule has been applied in a myriad of cases. See State v. Smith, 309 S.C. 442, 447-48, 424 S.E.2d 496, 499 (1992) (<HOLDING>); State v. Ferguson, 300 S.C. 408, 411, 388

A: holding exclusion of defendants nephews prior inconsistent statement constituted reversible error
B: holding that the judges entry into the jury room constituted reversible error
C: holding exclusion was harmless error
D: recognizing potential reversible error by disclosing defendants prior jury conviction
A.