If an eyewitness states one thing and later tells something different the next day, can that testimony be admitted?

The correct approach to this scenario is that the eyewitness's inconsistent statements can indeed be admitted as evidence of conflicting statements. This principle allows the fact-finder, such as a jury, to weigh the credibility of the witness and consider the reliability of their testimony.

When an eyewitness provides differing accounts of the same event, these inconsistencies can highlight issues related to memory, perception, or credibility. The jury or judge can use this information to assess the overall reliability of the witness's testimony. Additionally, it can be examined to determine whether the changes in the statement are due to a misunderstanding, new information, or other factors affecting the witness's recounting of events.

While there may be concerns about confusion arising from the varying testimonies, that does not preclude the statements from being admitted into evidence. The jury has the responsibility of sifting through the conflicting evidence. In this case, the admission of the differing statements serves to enhance the thoroughness of the examination of the witness's credibility and the overall factual determination.