sense impression exception in Virginia

2010See Foley v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 149, 161-62 , 379 S.E.2d 915, 922 (1989) (noting that the present sense impression exception’s “‘requirement of contemporaneousness, or near contemporaneousness, reduces the chance of premeditated prevarication or loss of memory’” (quoting Booth v. State, 508 A.2d 976, 980 (Md. 1986))); see also Wilder, 55 Va. App. at 588 , 687 S.E.2d at 546 (“Contrary to Wilder’s contention, from the facts in the record, the trial court could have properly concluded that the statements contained in the tape recording were made contemporaneously or near contemporaneously w

1989The trial court allowed the testimony under the present sense impression exception, and the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed, stating that "the `present sense impression' exception to the hearsay rule rests upon a firm foundation of trustworthiness, and we adopt it in the form in which it appears at Fed.R.Evid. 803(1)." Booth, 306 Md. at 323-325 , 508 A.2d at 981 .

2010See Foley v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 149, 161-62 , 379 S.E.2d 915, 922 (1989) (noting that the present sense impression exception’s “‘requirement of contemporaneousness, or near contemporaneousness, reduces the chance of premeditated prevarication or loss of memory’” (quoting Booth v. State, 508 A.2d 976, 980 (Md. 1986))); see also Wilder, 55 Va. App. at 588 , 687 S.E.2d at 546 (“Contrary to Wilder’s contention, from the facts in the record, the trial court could have properly concluded that the statements contained in the tape recording were made contemporaneously or near contemporaneously w

2010See Foley v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 149, 161-62 , 379 S.E.2d 915, 922 (1989) (noting that the present sense impression exception’s “‘requirement of contemporaneousness, or near contemporaneousness, reduces the chance of premeditated prevarication or loss of memory’” (quoting Booth v. State, 508 A.2d 976, 980 (Md. 1986))); see also Wilder, 55 Va. App. at 588 , 687 S.E.2d at 546 (“Contrary to Wilder’s contention, from the facts in the record, the trial court could have properly concluded that the statements contained in the tape recording were made contemporaneously or near contemporaneously w

2010“In order for the present sense impression exception to apply, three requirements must be satisfied: ‘(1) the declaration must have been contemporaneous with the act; (2) it must explain the act; and (3) it must be spontaneous.’” Wilder v. Commonwealth, 55 Va. App. 579, 587 , 687 S.E.2d 542, 546 (2010) (quoting Clark, 14 Va. App. at 1070 , 421 S.E.2d at 30 ).

2010“In order for the present sense impression exception to apply, three requirements must be satisfied: ‘(1) the declaration must have been contemporaneous with the act; (2) it must explain the act; and (3) it must be spontaneous.’” Wilder v. Commonwealth, 55 Va. App. 579, 587 , 687 S.E.2d 542, 546 (2010) (quoting Clark, 14 Va. App. at 1070 , 421 S.E.2d at 30 ).

2010See Sargent v. Commonwealth, 5 Va. App. 143, 154 , 360 S.E.2d 895, 903 (1987). -5- trial court found that C.W.’s statements in the second 911 call, including these specific allegations, were admissible for the truth of the matter asserted under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule.

2010See Sargent v. Commonwealth, 5 Va. App. 143, 154 , 360 S.E.2d 895, 903 (1987). -5- trial court found that C.W.’s statements in the second 911 call, including these specific allegations, were admissible for the truth of the matter asserted under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule.

2004In order to be admissible, hearsay must “come within one of the many established exceptions to the general prohibition against admitting hearsay.” Hanson v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 173, 187 , 416 S.E.2d. 14, 22 (1992). “‘[T]he party seeking to rely upon an exception to the hearsay rule has the burden of establishing admissibility.’” Braxton v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 176, 183-84 , 493 S.E.2d 688, 691 (1997) (quoting Neal v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 416, 420-21 , 425 S.E.2d 521, 524 (1992)). -3- The trial court admitted the evidence of appellant’s plate number as meeting the present sense

2004In order to be admissible, hearsay must “come within one of the many established exceptions to the general prohibition against admitting hearsay.” Hanson v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 173, 187 , 416 S.E.2d. 14, 22 (1992). “‘[T]he party seeking to rely upon an exception to the hearsay rule has the burden of establishing admissibility.’” Braxton v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 176, 183-84 , 493 S.E.2d 688, 691 (1997) (quoting Neal v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 416, 420-21 , 425 S.E.2d 521, 524 (1992)). -3- The trial court admitted the evidence of appellant’s plate number as meeting the present sense

2004In order to be admissible, hearsay must “come within one of the many established exceptions to the general prohibition against admitting hearsay.” Hanson v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 173, 187 , 416 S.E.2d. 14, 22 (1992). “‘[T]he party seeking to rely upon an exception to the hearsay rule has the burden of establishing admissibility.’” Braxton v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 176, 183-84 , 493 S.E.2d 688, 691 (1997) (quoting Neal v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 416, 420-21 , 425 S.E.2d 521, 524 (1992)). -3- The trial court admitted the evidence of appellant’s plate number as meeting the present sense

2004In order to be admissible, hearsay must “come within one of the many established exceptions to the general prohibition against admitting hearsay.” Hanson v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 173, 187 , 416 S.E.2d. 14, 22 (1992). “‘[T]he party seeking to rely upon an exception to the hearsay rule has the burden of establishing admissibility.’” Braxton v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 176, 183-84 , 493 S.E.2d 688, 691 (1997) (quoting Neal v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 416, 420-21 , 425 S.E.2d 521, 524 (1992)). -3- The trial court admitted the evidence of appellant’s plate number as meeting the present sense

2004In order to be admissible, hearsay must “come within one of the many established exceptions to the general prohibition against admitting hearsay.” Hanson v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 173, 187 , 416 S.E.2d. 14, 22 (1992). “‘[T]he party seeking to rely upon an exception to the hearsay rule has the burden of establishing admissibility.’” Braxton v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 176, 183-84 , 493 S.E.2d 688, 691 (1997) (quoting Neal v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 416, 420-21 , 425 S.E.2d 521, 524 (1992)). -3- The trial court admitted the evidence of appellant’s plate number as meeting the present sense

2004In order to be admissible, hearsay must “come within one of the many established exceptions to the general prohibition against admitting hearsay.” Hanson v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 173, 187 , 416 S.E.2d. 14, 22 (1992). “‘[T]he party seeking to rely upon an exception to the hearsay rule has the burden of establishing admissibility.’” Braxton v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 176, 183-84 , 493 S.E.2d 688, 691 (1997) (quoting Neal v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 416, 420-21 , 425 S.E.2d 521, 524 (1992)). -3- The trial court admitted the evidence of appellant’s plate number as meeting the present sense

1987See Pepoon v. Commonwealth, 192 Va. 804, 809 , 66 S.E.2d 854, 857 (1951).

1987See Pepoon v. Commonwealth, 192 Va. 804, 809 , 66 S.E.2d 854, 857 (1951).