Davidson and Smythe were charged with burglary of a warehouse. They were tried separately. At Davidson's trial, Smythe testified that he saw Davidson commit the burglary. While Smythe is still subject to recall as a witness, Davidson calls Smythe's cellmate, Walton, to testify that Smythe said, "I broke into the warehouse alone because Davidson was too drunk to help." This evidence of Smythe's statement is 
admissible as a declaration against penal interest. admissible as a prior inconsistent statement. inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.  inadmissible, because the statement is not clearly corroborated. 
Question: Davidson and Smythe were charged with burglary of a warehouse. They were tried separately. At Davidson's trial, Smythe testified that he saw Davidson commit the burglary. While Smythe is still subject to recall as a witness, Davidson calls Smythe's cellmate, Walton, to testify that Smythe said, "I broke into the warehouse alone because Davidson was too drunk to help." This evidence of Smythe's statement is 
A. admissible as a declaration against penal interest.
B. admissible as a prior inconsistent statement.
C. inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception. 
D. inadmissible, because the statement is not clearly corroborated. 
Answer: