prior inconsistent statements are admissible as non-hearsay when “the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination about a prior statement, and the statement [is] inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony and was given under penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition.” Choute’s prior inconsistent statement failed to comply with this requirement because his videotaped statement was not given under oath at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition. Canton failed to object to the admission of Choute’s inconsistent statement at trial; therefore, the trial court’s error only warrants reversal if it meets the plain error standard. See V.I.S.Ct.R. 4(h); Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121, 1124, 185 L. Ed. 2d 85 (2013) (<HOLDING>). The plain error standard is met where there
holding that plain error exists when 1 an error was committed 2 that was plain 3 that affected the defendants substantial rights and 4 the error seriously affects the fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings recognizing that plain error analysis requires 1 error 2 that is plain 3 that affects defendants substantial rights and 4 that seriously affects fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings holding that a plain error that affects substantial rights may be considered even though it was not objected to or brought to the courts attention holding that under federal rule of appellate procedure 52b plain error in a jury charge may be considered by an appellate court although it was not brought to the attention of the trial court recognizing that an error prejudices substantial rights when it affects the outcome of the hearing at issue