Agree w/r/t jurisdiction, but assuming your jurisdiction is in line with the Federal Rules of Evidence, then almost certainly the prior inconsistent statement may be admissible. The way it works is if he is stating something in the current case that is inconsistent with a prior statement he made.
Also, “[a] prior inconsistent statement is admissible to raise the suggestion that if a witness makes inconsistent statements, then his entire testimony may not be credible, such an inference does not depend on whether either the prior statement or the subsequent in-court statement is true.” See U.S. v. Bao, 189 F.3d 860, 866 (9th Cir. 1999).
Now, the above is when the statement is offered as evidence to attack the credibility of the that witness and such prior inconsistent statements may be offered as evidence at any time. This is: you said x then, you say y now, therefore, we should not trust you, period.
However, if you want to admit a prior inconsistent statement in order to establish the truth of the matter asserted, (here we are talking about an exclusion to the hearsay rule), the prior inconsistent statement may be brought in if it is inconsistent with the witness’ current testimony and it was given under oath with the penalty of perjury in a previous proceeding (which can be another trial, a deposition, or other hearing where the witness was sworn in to tell the truth), and the witness must be present in the current case and available to be cross examined on that issue.
A brief example. Car accident, Plaintiff v. Defendant. Witness 1 testifies that D was going “at least 65mph through the intersection.” D brings Witness 2 who testifies that W1 said the day after the accident that “D was driving slowly.” This is offered to attack the credibility of W1 and it is not to be offered to show how fast D was or was not going.
Same hypothetical, but here, D offers that same evidence (the prior inconsistent statement of W1) to prove that he was actually going slowly. If W1 had simply been speaking to some people the day after the accident, it would be inadmissible hearsay. However, if W1 for whatever reason had said “D was going slowly” and W1 had been under oath at the time, D could use that statement as proof of the matter asserted (that he was going slow).