Subject to limitations, a witness may be impeached by a prior inconsistent statement.

Fed. R. Evid. 803(2) ("A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.").Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) or a comparable State rule creates a hearsay exception for an utterance that relates to a startling event or condition and is made while the declarant -- the maker of the statement -- is excited as a result of the starling event or condition.

United States v. Zedner, 401 F.3d 36, 49-50 (2d Cir. 2005) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of rebuttal witnneses' testimony about accused's previous commission of fraud, where accused claimed lack of criminal intent, and evidence of fraud was relevant to prove accused's "financial...Evidence of a criminal or wrongful act apart from the act that at issue at trial Is not barred by the prohibition against circumstantial use of character if intent, knowledge, mistake, or accident is a legally-material factual issue, the opposing party suggests the non-existence of knowledge or urges mistake or accident as a defense, and evidence of another crime, wrong, or act is offered to prove the knowledge or the absence of mistake or accident by a criminal defendant or other person.

Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) ("A statement is not hearsay if-- ... (2) Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is ... (E) a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.").A statement by a co-conspirator of a party is not barred by the hearsay rule from being admitted against the party if the statement was made by the co-conspirator during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.