another portion of testimony where, during redirect examination by the prosecution, one of the detectives commented on Davis's credibility. The court of appeals affirmed the admission of this testimony on grounds that defense counsel opened the door to it during cross-examination. Because of the court of appeals' holding, that portion of challenged testimony is not encompassed within the granted certiorari questions, and we do not consider it here. 2 . Section 16-10-201, C.R.S. (2012), permits the introduction at trial of a witness's previous inconsistent statement, not only for the purpose of impeachment but also for the purpose of establishing a fact. A witness's actual or feigned memory loss is tantamount to denial. See People v. Pepper, 193 Colo. 505, 508, 568 P.2d 446, 448 (1977) (<HOLDING>); see also People v. Baca, 633 P.2d 528, 529
holding that a witnesss prior inconsistent statement to an officer could be used to impeach her holding that a witnesss testimony or an exhibit may not explicitly and directly contain an opinion as to a trial witnesss credibility holding that a witnesss prior inconsistent statements are admissible even in the event of that witnesss actual or feigned memory loss holding witnesss mental histoiy irrelevant because witnesss present not past memory ability was the only relevant inquiry holding that witnesss prior grand jury testimony was inconsistent with his claimed loss of memory at trial