The defendant was on trial for driving while intoxicated and injuring a pedestrian. The pedestrian claimed that the defendant was driving the car; however, the defendant's spouse testified at trial that she had been driving the car at the time of the accident and had not consumed any alcohol that evening. In response, the prosecution calls a friend of the defendant's spouse to testify that the spouse told the friend that she and the defendant had changed seats in the car after the incident and that she remained in the driver's seat until the police arrived. Is the testimony admissible? A. Admissible for impeachment purposes only.
B. Admissible to show bias.
C. In-admissible, because a witness who is available to testify can be impeached only through cross-examination.
D. In-admissible, because the witness must be given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement.

.

A. Admissible for impeachment purposes only.

Explanation:

A testimony can be admissible for impeachment when the defendent speak things contrary or inconsistent with the trial testimony

The spouses friend that was called to serve as defendent spoke in contrary to what he was expected to say he was to say they lady was driving and wasnt under any alcohol influence but he said they both changed seat this wasn't consistent with the trial testimony and this made the testimony impeached because of the inconsistency with what the woman's husband was saying.

Moctezuma II welcomed the Spanish, thinkingthat Cortés was the human incarnation of thegod Quetzalcoatl.

Cortés established alliances with enemies ofthe Aztec such as the Tlaxcalans.

Cortés marched up the coast of Mexico and conquered the territory of Veracruz.

Cortés and his men brought smallpox to thecity of Tenochtitlan, killing many Aztec.