the jury deadlocked on the two remaining counts. II. DJ.’s CAC Interview Appellant first contends that it was error to admit D.J.’s videotaped interview at the CAC. We review the trial court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. Diggs v. United States, 28 A.3d 585, 594 n. 11 (D.C.2011). A. Admissibility of the Video The portion of D.J.’s CAC interview which described the abuse charged in count nine was admitted as substantive evidence at trial. The government defends this ruling by relying primarily on D.C.Code § 14 — 102(b)(1), which provides that a statement is not hearsay if (1) the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, (2) the statement is inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony, and (3) the statement was made (1995) (<HOLDING>); State v. Williams, 182 N.J.Super. 427, 442
holding that witness could not be impeached with prior statement because his silence did not constitute testimony  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 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 a witnesss prior inconsistent statement to an officer could be used to impeach her holding that where a witness who testifies under oath and is subject to crossexamination in a prior state court proceeding explicitly refuses to answer the same questions at trial the refusal to answer is inconsistent with his prior testimony