With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for impeachment purposes and provides: Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless the witness is afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the same and the opposite party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate the witness thereon, or the interests of justice otherwise require. This provision does not apply to statements of a party-opponent as defined in Rule 801(d)(2). “[W]hen a prior inconsistent statement is used to impeach a witness, it is not hearsay because the statement is not used to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Martin v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1213, 1217 (Ind.2000). Eads’s statement to the emergency room doctor is arguably inconsistent with his testimony and could be used for impeachment purposes. See, e.g., id. at 1217 (<HOLDING>). Generally, prior inconsistent statements are

A: holding that a witnesss prior inconsistent statement to an officer could be used to impeach her
B: holding witnesss prior inconsistent statement about whether he was an eyewitness was evidence favorable to the defendant establishing brady violations first requirement
C: holding that counsel was ineffective for inter alia failing to impeach a witness with prior inconsistent statements
D: holding that government could not impeach witness with prior statement because he refused to answer any questions and thus gave no testimony in court with which the prior statement could be judged to be inconsistent
A.