When a hearsay statement 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 the declarant had testified as a witness. Evidence of a statement or conduct by the declarant at any time, inconsistent with the declarant’s hearsay statement, is not subject to any requirement that the declarant 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 the declarant on the statement as if under cross-examination.
This section is taken nearly verbatim from Commonwealth v. Mahar, 430 Mass. 643, 649, 722 N.E.2d 461, 466–467 (2000), in which the Supreme Judicial Court “accept[ed] the principles of proposed [Mass. R. Evid.] 806.” See Commonwealth v. Gray, 463 Mass. 731, 748 & n.17, 978 N.E.2d 543, 556–557 & n.17 (2012) (quoting with approval Mass. G. Evid. § 806 and ruling that grand jury testimony of unavailable witness Jamison, who identified photograph of person other than defendant as perpetrator, was erroneously precluded to impeach witness’s testimony at trial that Jamison had identified defendant). See also Commonwealth v. Pina, 430 Mass. 66, 76, 713 N.E.2d 944, 952 (1999) (“We now adopt the rule in the circumstances of this case.”); Commonwealth v. Sellon, 380 Mass. 220, 224 n.6, 402 N.E.2d 1329, 1334 n.6 (1980).