If a statement is to fall within the hearsay exception for present sense impressions created by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(1) or a comparable State rule, the maker of the statement -- the declarant -- must personally perceive the event or condition that he or she describes or explains with the statement.

United States v. Reynoso-Uloa, 548 F.2d 1329, 1341 (9th Cir. 1977) (upholding trial court's admission of agent's testimony about accused's previous heroin transactions because such evidence was offered to prove accused's predisposition after he relied on entrapment as a defense).A subjective entrapment defense makes an accused's criminal liability contingent on a finding of the accused's predisposition or the accused's lack of predisposition to commit the crime charged and since criminal predisposition is a character trait, the defense of subjective entrapment makes accused's character an element of either a defense or a criminal charge, evidence of accused's criminal predisposition -- including evidence in the form of reputation, opinion, and evidence of specific instances of accused's conduct -- is not barred by the rule against the use of a person's character to show the person's conduct.

United States v. Boone, 229 F.3d 1231, 1232-1234 (9th Cir. 2000) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of the out-of-court statements of defendant's girlfriend as statements against interest because "the....A statement that exposes a declarant (other than the defendant) to criminal liability is admissible under the hearsay exception for statements against interest to exculpate a criminal defendant only if corroborating circumstances show that the statement is trustworthy.

Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, pin? (1987).The exclusion of exculpatory evidence in a criminal trial does not violate the due constitutional right to present a defense if the grounds for exclusion are not arbitrary or disproportionate.