Final answer:
The FRE Present Sense Impression and CA Present Sense Impression are both hearsay exceptions, with the former allowing statements made during or immediately after perceiving an event. California's approach in its Evidence Code may differ procedurally and substantively, lacking a direct counterpart to the FRE's exception.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question refers to the differences between two legal concepts: the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) Present Sense Impression exception and the California Evidence Code's (CA) version of the Present Sense Impression exception. Both deal with exceptions to the hearsay rule, which generally prohibits the admission of out of court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The FRE Present Sense Impression exception, under Rule 803(1), allows for the admission of a statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter.
In contrast, the California Evidence Code does not have a direct equivalent to the FRE's Present Sense Impression. Instead, it has a slightly different approach to hearsay exceptions that might cover similar ground. Differences between the two might include the timing of the statement in relation to the event, the declarant's perception, and the procedural requirements for admitting such evidence in court.
Without the actual text of the California rule or a specific CA code section reference, a direct comparison cannot be made, but it is important to understand that while both aim to allow certain types of statements to be admitted into evidence, they may have distinct procedural and substantive requirements.