Rule 602  Lack of personal knowledge.  A
witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to
support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. 
Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness'
own testimony.  This rule is subject to the provisions of rule 703, relating to
opinion testimony by expert witnesses. [L 1980, c 164, pt of §1; am L 1992, c
191, §2(5)]



 



RULE 602 COMMENTARY



 



  This rule, which is identical with Fed. R. Evid. 602,
restates the traditional common-law rule barring a witness from testifying to
facts of which he has no direct personal knowledge.  See McCormick §§10, 11. 
"Personal knowledge," for purposes of this rule, means that the
witness perceived the event about which he testifies and that he has a present
recollection of that perception.  The personal knowledge requirement should not
be confused with the hearsay ban, see Rule 802 infra.  In fact, the
requirements of Rule 602 apply to a hearsay statement admitted under any of the
hearsay exception rules, 802.1, 803, and 804 infra, in that admissibility of a
hearsay statement is predicated on the foundation requirement of the witness'
personal knowledge of the making of the statement itself.



  Evidence of personal knowledge is a general foundation
requirement for admissibility of all evidence, subject to Rule 703 relating to
expert witnesses.  The Advisory Committee's Note to Fed. R. Evid. 602 points
out:  "It will be observed that the rule is in fact a specialized
application of the provisions of Rule 104(b) on conditional relevancy." 
However, preliminary determination of personal knowledge need not be explicit
but may be implied from the witness' testimony.  "If under the
circumstances proved, reasonable men could differ as to whether the witness did
or did not have adequate opportunity to observe, then the testimony of the
witness should come in, and the jury will appraise his opportunity to know in
evaluating the testimony."  McCormick §10.  Compare Apo v. Dillingham, 50
H. 369, 371, 440 P.2d 965, 967 (1968), where the court said:  "A party may
testify as to the boundaries of the land he claims.  But before such testimony
is admissible, the witness must indicate his knowledge of the contents of documents
to which he refers."



 



Case Notes



 



  There was no rule 602 violation and circuit court did not err
in admitting witness' testimony, where all of the relevant portions of witness'
testimony were based on witness' own perception.  78 H. 383, 894 P.2d 80.



  Where evidence insufficient to find officer had present
recollection of field sobriety test, officer's testimony regarding test should
have been stricken and jury instructed to disregard testimony.  80 H. 138
(App.), 906 P.2d 624.



  Officer had sufficient personal knowledge, under this rule,
of intoxilyzer test officer administered to defendant and was thus competent to
testify as to test results; when officer could not remember exact reading of
test result, it was proper under rule 612 for State to allow officer to review
defendant's test result report and refresh officer's present recollection of
defendant's exact score.  95 H. 409 (App.), 23 P.3d 744.