The Estate claims that it had no opportunity to cross examine Dr. Illman regarding the accuracy of the above statement or his qualifications. The Defendants argue that the medical records were admissible under both the rules for impeachment and the business records exception of the hearsay rule. We first address whether Eads’s statement was admissible under the impeachment rules. Indiana Evidence Rule 613(b) governs the admission of extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement of a witnes ed to impeach, not as substantive evidence of the matter reported. Young v. State, 746 N.E.2d 920, 926 (Ind.2001). However, the Estate did not request that the jury be admonished that the statement was only to be used to judge Eads’s credibility. See, e.g., Martin, 736 N.E.2d at 1218 (<HOLDING>). Because Eads’s statement was admissible for
holding that government could not impeach witness with prior statement because he refused to answer any questions and thus gave no testimony in court with which the prior statement could be judged to be inconsistent holding defendant who failed to request limiting instruction concerning use of extraneous offenses at the moment the evidence was admitted was not entitled to limiting instructions in jury charge holding that a prior inconsistent statement was admissible and the defendant failed to ask for a limiting instruction that the jury could not use the statement as substantive evidence holding that trial counsel was not ineffective when he failed to introduce defendants prior consistent statement statement was not admissible because it was made after defendant had been arrested clearly not a time when the effect of the statement could not have been foreseen holding that police officers testimony as to the victims prior inconsistent statements made to him on day of the alleged crime were not admissible as substantive evidence and could not be used to support a finding of guilt