Opinion ID: 1874198
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Contemporaneity.

Text: The present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule permits admission of a statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter. KRE 803(1). Although the rule says immediately thereafter, KRE 803(1) is identical to Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 803(1); and the Advisory Committee's Note to that rule clarifies that the substitution of immediacy for contemporaneity was not intended as a departure from the traditional requirement that such statements be substantially contemporaneous with the event perceived. FRE 803 Advisory Committee's Note ([I]n many, if not most, instances precise contemporaneity is not possible, and hence a slight lapse is allowable.). Cf. Jarvis, 960 S.W.2d at 469-70 (but finding that the proponent of the evidence had failed to offer any evidence to prove contemporaneity). Though Davidson could not know for sure how much time elapsed between the event and when Roberts called her, she believed Roberts called her shortly after the event because there was a telephone extension in the basement and it was Roberts's custom to tell her about any unusual events occurring within the house as soon as they happened. [4] The burden of proof that evidence falls within a hearsay exception is on the party seeking its admission. Noel, 76 S.W.3d at 926; Slaven, 962 S.W.2d at 854. Davidson's testimony that she believed the statement was made shortly after the incident occurred and why she so believed was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that the statement satisfied the contemporaneity requirement of the hearsay exception for present sense impressions.