Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): stated that he could not remember whether Bailey had reached into Evans’s truck. But the State counters Bailey’s argument by noting that Don-nerson’s statement was entered into evidence at the second trial, and the defense was able to impeach him with the contradictory statement. ¶ 55. Bailey also claims that he was prejudiced by the loss of an audiotape of Pickens’s statement to police. Bailey asserts that the audiotape was important to his defense because Pickens had changed his statement of the events, and the audiotape would corroborate some of his previous statements, as well as Bailey’s statements to police. The State points out that the admission of the audiotape was the reason that the Court of Appeals reversed Bailey’s first conviction. See Bailey, 952 So.2d at 236-38 (<HOLDING>). Also, the State points out that, while the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that admission of the audiotape as substantive evidence of pickenss prior statement was error (B) holding that any error in the exclusion of evidence is cured by the subsequent admission of the evidence (C) holding that admission of prior statement constituted error but was harmless when other admissible evidence established the same fact (D) holding that we would not review a claim of error regarding the admission of evidence when the defendant stipulated to its admission at trial (E) holding that a prior inconsistent statement was admissible and the defendant failed to ask for a limiting instruction that the jury could not use the statement as substantive evidence
Output (English): holding that a prior inconsistent statement was admissible and the defendant failed to ask for a limiting instruction that the jury could not use the statement as substantive evidence