Rule 602 Lack of Personal Knowledge

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

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.

Comment

This rule provides that testimony must be based upon events perceived by use of the witness's physical senses, and has been interpreted to preclude testimony concerning matters the witness did not observe or had no opportunity to observe.[1] Although the assessment of a witness's ability to perceive and recall events is a question of credibility for the jurors, the trial court must first determine whether the party offering the witness has presented sufficient evidence upon which the jurors could find that the witness does have personal knowledge.[2] The trial court may preclude testimony only if it appears that there is no way in which the witness could have personal knowledge about the facts in question, but it may not disallow testimony from a witness merely because it personally believes that the witness is mistaken or falsifying. A witness may testify that something did not happen or that the witness did not see or hear anything only if the witness's position, attitude, or access to information were such that the witness probably would have seen, heard, or known of the event if it had happened.[3] The requirement of personal knowledge likewise is imposed on the declarant whose declarations are offered by another witness as an exception to the hearsay rule.[4]

The reference to Rule 703 is designed to avoid the question of a conflict between the two rules. An expert is allowed to express opinions based on facts of which the expert does not have personal knowledge, but a lay witness may only give an opinion based upon facts of which the witness has personal knowledge.

Cases

602.010 For a witness to testify about a matter, the witness must have personal knowledge of the matter.

State v. Rushing, 156 Ariz. 1, 749 P.2d 910 (1988) (only testimony about value of stolen ring came from victim's sister; because this witness could only guess at value of ring, state failed to present sufficient evidence of this element of offense).

Selby v. Savard, 134 Ariz. 222, 655 P.2d 342 (1982) (trial court properly precluded testimony of character witnesses that was based on newspaper accounts of case appearing after...