Opinion ID: 2377179
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Contemporaneousness

Text: In Booth v. State, supra, 306 Md. at 324, 508 A.2d 976, we discussed the requirement that a statement of present sense impression be essentially contemporaneous with the event it describes: [B]ecause the presumed reliability of a statement of present sense impression flows from the fact of spontaneity, the time interval between observation and utterance must be very short. The appropriate inquiry is whether, considering the surrounding circumstances, sufficient time elapsed to have permitted reflective thought. See McCormick on Evidence § 298, at 862 (3d ed. E. Cleary 1984). In the words of Professor Jon Waltz, absent some special corroborative circumstance, there should be no delay beyond an acceptable hiatus between perception and the cerebellum's construction of an uncalculated verbal description. Waltz, The Present Sense Impression Exception to the Rule Against Hearsay: Origins and Attributes, 66 Iowa L.Rev. 869, 880 (1981). We also held that in some instances the content of the statement may furnish sufficient evidence of its spontaneity. Id. at 330-31, 508 A.2d 976. As conceded by Respondent's counsel at oral argument, the statements as related by Trooper Byrd to Judge Cameron are self-evidently contemporaneous. [5]