Colo. R. Evid. 806
When a hearsay statement, or a statement defined in Rule 801 (d)(2)(C), (D), or (E), has been admitted in evidence, the credibility of the declarant may be attacked, and if attacked may be supported, by any evidence which would be admissible for those purposes if declarant had testified as a witness. Evidence of a statement or conduct by the declarant at any time, inconsistent with his hearsay statement, is not subject to any requirement that he may have been afforded an opportunity to deny or explain. If the party against whom a hearsay statement has been admitted calls the declarant as a witness, the party is entitled to examine him on the statement as if under cross-examination.
(Federal Rule Identical.)
CRE 806
Annotation Law reviews. For article, "Hearsay in Criminal Cases Under the Colorado Rules of Evidence: An Overview", see 50 U. Colo. L. Rev. 277 (1979). For article, "Attacking the Credibility of a Non-testifying Hearsay Declarant", see 29 Colo. Law. 51 (March 2000). General rule, prior to adoption of this rule, was that inconsistent statements used to impeach a witness were not admissible unless the witness had been asked about the time and place and to whom the statement was made. People v. Madonna, 651 P.2d 378 (Colo. 1982). Trial court properly concluded that this rule allowed the prosecution to impeach defendant with evidence of his prior felony convictions, even though the defendant did not testify. Where defendant does not testify at trial, but he or she elicits his or her own hearsay statements through another witness, this rule authorizes the jury to hear impeachment evidence that would have been admissible if the defendant had testified. Prior felony convictions are admissible for this purpose. People v. Dore, 997 P.2d 1214 (Colo. App. 1999). This rule creates a specific exception to the foundational requirements of C.R.E. 613. Thus, where a transcript of a witness' testimony at the first trial was admitted into evidence at the second trial, testimony of a police detective as to inconsistent statements made by the witness were admissible without the witness first having opportunity to explain the prior inconsistent statements. People v. Ball, 821 P.2d 905 (Colo. App. 1991). Prosecution's reliance on this rule for use of testimony regarding defendant's silence was misplaced. People v. Welsh, 80 P.3d 296 (Colo. 2003). .