Dove is on trial for theft. At trial, the prosecutor called John and May Wong. They testified that, as they looked out their apartment window, they saw thieves across the street break the window of a jewelry store, take jewelry, and leave in a car. Mrs. Wong telephoned the police and relayed to them the license number of the thieves' car as Mr. Wong looked out the window with binoculars and read it to her. Neither of them has any present memory of the number. The prosecutor offers as evidence a properly authenticated police tape recording of May Wong's telephone call with her voice giving the license number, which is independently shown to belong to Dove's car. The tape recording of May Wong's stating the license number is 
admissible, under the hearsay exception for present sense impressions.  admissible, as nonhearsay circumstantial evidence.  inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.  inadmissible, because May Wong never had firsthand knowledge of the license number. 
Question: Dove is on trial for theft. At trial, the prosecutor called John and May Wong. They testified that, as they looked out their apartment window, they saw thieves across the street break the window of a jewelry store, take jewelry, and leave in a car. Mrs. Wong telephoned the police and relayed to them the license number of the thieves' car as Mr. Wong looked out the window with binoculars and read it to her. Neither of them has any present memory of the number. The prosecutor offers as evidence a properly authenticated police tape recording of May Wong's telephone call with her voice giving the license number, which is independently shown to belong to Dove's car. The tape recording of May Wong's stating the license number is 
A. admissible, under the hearsay exception for present sense impressions. 
B. admissible, as nonhearsay circumstantial evidence. 
C. inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception. 
D. inadmissible, because May Wong never had firsthand knowledge of the license number. 
Answer: