An exception to the hearsay rule is recognized in federal and some state courts for statements made while perceiving an event or condition or immediately thereafter which describe or explain it.{footnote} [3327]  FRE 803(1); Cargill, Inc. v. Boag Cold Storage Warehouse, Inc., 71 F.3d 545 (6th Cir. 1995)(manufacturer’s employees’ investigation notes); Tampa Elec. Co. v. Getrost, 10 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1942); Commonwealth v. Coleman, 326 A.2d 387 (Pa. 1974); Houston Oxygen Co. v. Davis, 161 S.W.2d 474 (Tex. 1942); Waltz, Present Sense Impression Exception to the Rule Against Hearsay: Origins and Attributes, 66 Iowa L. Rev. 869 (1981); Annot.  163 A.L.R. 38
{/footnote}  The statement must be so nearly contemporaneous with the event or condition that there would have been little or no time for reflection.{footnote}Hynes v. Coughlin, 79 F.3d 285 (2d Cir. 1996)(prison guard’s incident report did not satisfy exception because no evidence report was contemporaneous); Rock v. Huffco Gas & Oil Co., Inc., 922 F.2d 272 (5th Cir. 1991)(two days between alleged accident and filing report fails to satisfy exception); Bemis v. Edwards, 45 F.3d 1369 (9th Cir. 1995).{/footnote}  The declarant need not be unavailable and need not be identified.{footnote}But see Miller v. Crown Amusements, Inc., 821 F. Supp. 703 (S.D. Ga. 1993)(where declarant is unidentified bystander, court should be hesitant to find that bystandard had personal knowledge){/footnote}  It is required, however, that the declarant have had personal knowledge.{footnote}Hynes v. Coughlin, 79 F.3d 285 (2d Cir. 1996)(prison guard’s incident report did not satisfy exception because guard did not witness beginning of incident); Bemis v. Edwards, 45 F.3d 1369 (9th Cir. 1995).{/footnote}

Related Articles

ADMISSIONS; DYING DECLARATIONS; EXCITED UTTERANCES; STATEMENTS AGAINST INTEREST.