1602

The first two are not assertions of fact, but commands. The one spoken by Maryk is also the statement of the opposing party (defendant) offered by the prosecutor.

The third could be either a present sense impression or an excited utterance.

Questions? Email tanford@indiana.edu and refer to 1602

What are the best responses that the statement by Keith is neither a present sense impression nor an excited utterance? When you think you know, click here.