BROWN, J.
Hearsay statements may be admitted into evidence if they qualify as a present sense impression, which is defined as “[a] statement describing or explaining a material event, condition, or transaction, made while the declarant was perceiving the event, condition, or transaction, or immediately thereafter.” Ind. Evidence Rule 803(1). This rule requires that the statement describe or explain the event or condition during or immediately after its occurrence, and the statement must be based upon the declarant’s perception of the event. Amos, 896 N.E.2d at 1168 (citing Truax v. State, 856 N.E.2d 116, 125 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)). In order for Brenda’s testimony to fall under the present sense impression, three requirements must be met: (1) it must describe or explain an event; (2) during or immediately after its occurrence; and (3) it must be based on the declarant’s perception of the event. Id. (citing Truax, 856 N.E.2d at 125).
Here, the record reveals that Brenda testified that she was translating for her mother, who did not speak very good English, when Martina gave verbal statements to Officer Keith. Officer Keith testified at trial that he knew that Martina “didn’t speak very good English” and “asked Brenda to translate for [him].” Transcript at 157. Brenda testified that Officer Keith was “essentially asking questions to Martina through [Brenda].” Id. at 148. Brenda testified that Officer Keith “would ask questions,” she would ask Martina, Martina “would speak,” and then Brenda “would relay the information back to the officers.” Id. Brenda’s statements were contemporaneous translations of the statements made by Martina. There was little possibility that Brenda’s memory would render her translations inaccurate and the circumstances of this case provided little opportunity for fabrication. Further, Brenda testified that she “truthfully translate[d] everything [her] mother said to [Officer Keith],” that she did not “add anything to the story” or “leave anything out from the story.” Id. at 143-144.
Based upon the record, we conclude that Brenda’s translations providing contemporaneous descriptions of the statements made by Martina constituted present sense impressions. See Amos, 896 N.E.2d at 1167 (holding that the declarant’s statements about what another person had told the declarant during a telephone conversation were admissible under the exception to the hearsay rule for present sense impressions where the declarant perceived the event of the other person’s comments through listening and the declarant made the statements about what the other person said immediately after the telephone conversation had ended); see also United States v. Kramer, 741 F. Supp. 893, 896 (S.D. Fla. 1990) (holding that a translation was admissible as a present sense impression); [footnote omitted] United States v. Abell, 586 F. Supp. 1414, 1425 (D. Me. 1984) (concluding that a translation is exempted from the hearsay rule as a present sense impression and relying upon United States v. Portsmouth Paving Corp., 694 F.2d 312, 323 (4th Cir. 1982) (applying the present sense impressions exception to allow admission of summary of telephone conversation)); John A. Bourdeau, J.D., WHEN IS HEARSAY STATEMENT “PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSION” ADMISSIBLE UNDER RULE 803(1) OF FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE, 165 A.L.R. Fed. 491 (2000) (observing that a translation by a translator has been held to be admissible as a present sense impression). [Footnote omitted.]
MATHIAS, J., concurs.
BARNES, J., concurs in result with separate opinion:
. . . Palacios, however, only argues that the statements at issue are hearsay. He makes no attempt to establish that they do not fall into the hearsay exceptions set out in Indiana Evidence Rule 803. In the absence of such an argument, it is my opinion that Palacios has not shown a hearsay objection would have been sustained and, therefore, has not established he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
. . . .
I specifically reserve judgment on the analysis made by the majority on the hearsay issue. I agree with the majority’s conclusion that Palacios has not established ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to object to the out of court statements.