A cold-case unit at a local prosecutor's office gets a new lead on a murder of a beloved neighborhood character, Grover. The murder occurred December 1, 2000. A detective re-investigates the case and, on December 1, 2020, finds a now-elderly witness, Mr. Rogers, who states that the defendant (A Large Yellow Bird) said, "yeah I killed Grover, so what" shortly after the crime. At trial Mr. Rogers testifies about the 20-year old confession. The defense attorney cross-examines Rogers, harping on the witness's age, the lengthy passage of time, and his inability to remember other events from the same time period with any specificity.

"How is it you expect us to believe that you remember this one comment from 20 years ago and yet you don't remember anything else anyone said that day or even where you were when you heard it."

After the cross-examination, the prosecution seeks to introduce Ms. Rogers' testimony that Mr. Rogers told her about the defendant's confession on December 7, 2000.

How should the trial court rule? Is Mr. Rogers' out-of-court statement to Ms. Rogers admissible as substantive evidence?