與美國聯邦證據規則801(d)(1)(A)將先前不一致陳述豁免於傳聞證據之外不同，我國刑事訴訟法第159條之2將其定位為傳聞例外。此種法制修正是否會造成先前不一致陳述於我國出現迥異於美國之實務，乃值得注意。經比較我國與美國有關先前不一致陳述之法制後，本文認為，不論將先前不一致陳述定位為非傳聞或是傳聞例外，均不影響其於證據法上之價值。而雖我國刑事訴訟法第159條之2並未要求先前不一致陳述須於宣誓下做成，法院之說理義務卻成為另一個擔保先前不一致陳述真實性之基礎。而我國實務之發展，雖大致符合前述法理之分析，亦存在些許概念上之混淆，亟待釐清。

Comparing to the Federal Rules of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A) which exempts prior inconsistent statement from hearsay evidence, Article 159-2 of the ROC Criminal Procedure Code identifies it as hearsay exception. Whether this discrepancy results in different practices deserves consideration. This study, after comparing the above-mentioned discrepancy, asserts that no substantial effect of its evidential value emerges whether identifying prior inconsistent statement as either non-hearsay or hearsay exception. Although Article 159-2 of the ROC Criminal Procedure Code does not provides that prior inconsistent statement be made under oath, the court's duty to justify its truth-finding becomes the other guarantee of trustworthiness. The practice in Taiwan complies the above-mentioned theory in general although some misunderstandings to be clarified exist.