and to others the passage of a longer time. Rule 803(1) requires some degree of contemporaneity between the event and the statement. How much contemporaneity has never been specified because every ease is decided on its individual facts. See Livermore et ah, supra, at 346 (citing cases). The admissibility of such statements must be judged on the totality of the circumstances. State v. Barnes, 124 Ariz. 586, 589-90, 606 P.2d 802, 805-06 (1980). ¶ 46 That Cassie could not say that Ann-Marie’s statements were made “immediately” after her conversation with Tucker does not necessarily make the statements inadmissible. Trial courts have some latitude in finding whether a statement was made immediately after the event. See, e.g., United States v. Parker, 936 F.2d 950, 954 (7th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Blakey, 607 F.2d 779, 786
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 trial courts allowance of testimony under the present sense impression exception if error was harmless because statement was admissible under excited utterance exception holding statement made twentythree minutes after event admissible as a present sense impression holding railroad workers statement to police made after he had walked approximately 100 feet admissible as a present sense impression holding that under certain circumstances statements on a 911 tape may be admissible as a present sense impression