Opinion ID: 2429951
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Substantive evidence

Text: Rule 801(d)(1)(i) makes clear that in criminal cases, if the witness testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination concerning his prior statement, the statement is not hearsay if it is inconsistent with the trial testimony of the witness and if at the time the prior inconsistent statement was made, it was given under oath and subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition. In the case before us, the statement by McNichols' nephew was an out-of-court statement to someone within the sheriff's department and, while it was notarized, the statement clearly does not meet the requirements of Rule 801(d)(1)(i) that it must have been subject to the penalty of perjury. Accordingly, the statement would not have been admissible at trial as substantive evidence. Lewis, supra ; Roberts v. State, 278 Ark. 550, 648 S.W.2d 44 (1983).