must describe an event or condition, that was perceived by the declarant, and the statement must be made immediately after the event. Id. ¶ 44 There is no dispute that AnnMarie’s statements to Cassie describe an event that AnnMarie perceived. The issue here is the lapse of time between the perception and the statement. Specifically, Tucker argues that AnnMarie did not make her statement to Cassie “immediately” after she perceived Tucker’s statement, as is required by Rule 803(1). While Cassie testified that, in the July 13 conversation, AnnMarie said, “she had just hung up” with Tucker, Cassie admitted she did not know exactly when Tucker and AnnMarie spoke that day. ¶45 The phrase “just hung up” could have a variety of meanings. To some it might denote a lapse of mere s Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds, Idaho v. Wright,
holding statement made twentythree minutes after event admissible as a present sense impression holding that under certain circumstances statements on a 911 tape may be admissible as a present sense impression holding statements on 911 tape admissible as present sense impression where call was made almost immediately after the defendant left the store after a shooting incident holding railroad workers statement to police made after he had walked approximately 100 feet admissible as a present sense impression holding that tapes of two 911 calls the first 2 to 3 minutes after the shooting and the other approximately 16 minutes after shooting were sufficiently contemporaneous with the event and therefore admissible as present sense impressions