Paul sues Daniel for personal injuries that Paul suffered as a result of a battery committed on Paul by Daniel. Daniel's defense is that it is all a case of mistaken identity. Daniel admits that Paul was beaten up, but claims he had nothing to do with Paul's injuries. At trial, Daniel testified in his own behalf that on the date that Paul suffered his injuries, Daniel was on an extended vacation in England, 2,000 miles away from the place where the battery occurred. Paul's attorney did not cross-examine Daniel regarding that testimony. In rebuttal, Paul's attorney calls Walter, who is willing to testify that one week after Paul suffered his injuries, Daniel said to Walter, "I haven't been out of the country in five years." Walter's testimony is:
A. Admissible as a statement against interest by Daniel.
B. Admissible as a prior inconsistent statement of Daniel.
C. Admissible as an admission by Daniel.
D. Inadmissible, because Daniel was not given an opportunity to comment on the statement prior to Walter's testimony.
Choose A, B, C or D as your solution.
C