Rule 806. Attacking and Supporting the Declarant'S Credibility

When a hearsay statement—or a statement described in Rule 801(d)(2)(C),

(D) , or (E)—has been admitted in evidence, the declarant's credibility may be attacked, and then supported, by any evidence that would be admissible for those purposes if the declarant had testified as a witness. The court may admit evidence of the declarant's inconsistent statement or conduct, regardless of when it occurred or whether the declarant had an opportunity to explain or deny it. If the party against whom the statement was admitted calls the declarant as a witness, the party may examine the declarant on the statement as if on cross-examination.

Committee Notes

Maine Restyling Note [November 2014] Maine Rule 806 and Federal Rule 806 are substantively identical, and therefore the Advisory Committee recommends adoption of the language of the restyled Federal Rule.

Advisers' Note to former M.R. Evid. 806 (February 2, 1976) This rule gives the factfinder the widest opportunity to assess the credibility of a hearsay declaration. It allows an attack by any evidence which would be admissible if the declarant had testified as a witness. For example, his bias or prejudice, his conviction of a crime, or his inconsistent statements may be shown. This seems no more than common fairness requires. Classification of admissions by a party-opponent as not being hearsay under Rule 801(d)(2) might have the consequence of not allowing the declarant's credibility to be attacked under this rule if the reference to such admissions were not included. Plainly an employer should be allowed to impeach an employee or an alleged conspirator to impeach a co-conspirator so as to weaken the effect of their out-of-court statements. ARTICLE IX. AUTHENTICATION AND IDENTIFICATION