Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): is not excluded by the hearsay rule. Tex.R. Evid. 803(1). The record does not reflect how long it took to walk from Carolina’s apartment to Carless’ and Carlos’ apartment, but it does reflect the two apartments were in close proximity and suggests the walk from one to the other was at best one minute. Given the close proximity between the two apartments, it is apparent Carolina’s first statement was made immediately after the con dition was perceived. We therefore hold Carolina’s first statement that Gizmo was upstairs in her apartment qualifies as a present sense impression because it was a statement describing a condition — Gizmo being in Carolina’s apartment — made by Carolina immediately after she perceived it. See Rabbani v. State, 847 S.W.2d 555, 560 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 926, 113 S.Ct. 3047, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an inculpatory statement by a declarant was not reliable when he viewed the defendant like an older brother providing a motivation to lie the statement was made only to defense investigators and not to prosecutors the declarant was not under oath had not been read his miranda rights and was not represented by counsel and the declarant ultimately recanted his admission (B) holding in a criminal case that a statement by an unavailable declarant was not admissible as a declaration against his penal interest and was not admissible under rule 804b5 either (C) holding that statement that declarant saw defendant outside was admissible under rule 8081 because the statement explained an event or condition (D) holding appellate argument that statement violated rule 404b was improper because it was the defendant who elicited the statement at trial (E) 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
Output (English): holding appellate argument that statement violated rule 404b was improper because it was the defendant who elicited the statement at trial