...on a statement someone else had given her. OCGA § 24-8-801 (c) defines hearsay as "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." And OCGA § 24-6-602 says, with exceptions not applicable here, that "[a] witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of such matter." See **478United States v....

...2014) (explaining that a court should exclude testimony for lack of personal knowledge if " 'the witness could not have actually perceived or observed that which he testifies to' " (citation omitted) ).4 Evidence proving personal knowledge may consist of the witness's own testimony, as OCGA § 24-6-602 explains, but a witness cannot use inadmissible hearsay to demonstrate personal knowledge of a matter....

...mining the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we consider all of the evidence that was admitted at Appellant's trial, even though some of the evidence should have been excluded." Kennebrew v. State, 299 Ga. 864, 867-868, 792 S.E.2d 695 (2016). OCGA § 24-6-602 is part of Georgia's new Evidence Code and its pertinent language tracks Federal Rule of Evidence 602....

...ave any personal knowledge about why Detective Murphy wrote what he did, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that 130 Appellant could not ask Detective Stoddard about the statements. See OCGA § 24-6-602 (“A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of such matter.”).88 However, the court did abuse its discretion when it prevented Appellant from asking Detective Murphy about the statements....

...Under Georgia’s Evidence Code, a lay witness “may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of such matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness’s own testimony.” OCGA § 24-6-602 (“Rule 602”)....

...a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of such matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of 27 the witness’s own testimony.’” Draughn v. State, 311 Ga. 378, 385 (858 SE2d 8) (2021) (quoting OCGA § 24-6-602) (holding that eyewitness testimony identifying the defendants in a surveillance video was based on personal knowledge because the witness identified the defendants based on his “recollection of the stabbing”). In addition, except...

...28  Finally, Hawkins and Seay argue that the State failed to lay an adequate foundation for the officers’ testimony because it did not show that they had personal knowledge of the matters about which they testified. See OCGA § 24-6-602 (“A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of such matter. . . .”). But the testimony at issue was that of the gang officers as experts, not lay persons, so Rule 602 presents no bar to such testimony. See OCGA § 24-6-602 (“The provisions of this Code section are subject to Code Section 24-7-703....

...police department. In any event, it was within the trial court’s discretion to prevent Appellant from asking Corporal Banville questions that Appellant had not shown that Corporal Banville could answer based on his personal knowledge. See OCGA § 24-6-602 (“A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of such matter....

...deficiently by not objecting to these questions, Burke has not established prejudice. See Sawyer, 308 Ga. at 384 (2) (b). A witness generally may not tes- tify about a subject if he lacks personal knowledge about what he is asked about. See OCGA § 24-6-602....

...Finch’s attorney told her after the call. 25  Sconyers objects to Morgan’s testimony on two bases. First, he contends that her testimony was not based on personal knowledge and therefore was not admissible under OCGA § 24-6-602 (“Rule 602”)....

...at 773 (3). (a) Sims first contends that his counsel performed deficiently by failing to object when Jackson testified that he thought Sims “was “taking up” for Toles, asserting that Jackson’s testimony was based on speculation. We disagree. Under OCGA § 24-6-602, a witness generally cannot testify about a matter “unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge” of the matter. That evidence “may, but need not, consist of the witness’...

...sadness for Callaway), this was not impermissible opinion testimony, as Cooper argues, but rather, was no more than straightforward factual testimony regarding matters within Detective Black’s personal knowledge, which is admissible. See OCGA § 24-6-602; see also Draughn v....

...If those three requirements are met, we may remedy the error if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Rawls, 310 Ga. at 213 (3) (citations and punctuation omitted). Regarding a witness’s personal knowledge of a matter, OCGA § 24-6-602 is controlling: “A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of such matter....

...ing at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” OCGA § 24-8-801 (c). But McCray did not testify about something someone else told her; instead, she testified about what she personally did. See OCGA § 24-6-602 (a witness’s own testimony may prove that she has personal knowledge of the matter 11 at issue); see also Brown v....

...Trantham. Rogers argues that the trial court should have excluded this testimony because, he claims, it clearly violated several provisions of the Evidence Code.3 3 Specifically, Rogers contends that Agent Dyal’s statement referred to facts outside his personal knowledge, in violation of OCGA § 24-6-602; invaded the province of the jury concerning witness credibility, in violation of OCGA § 24-6-620; and was improper layperson opinion testimony, in violation of 9  As Rogers concedes, however,...

...if the other witnesses’ testimony were untrue—he had personal knowledge of any reason the other witnesses would come to court and say those things. Nothing in our current Evidence Code, Jones, or Schmitz prohibits such a question. See OCGA §§ 24-6-602 (“A witness may 23 not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of such matter....

...one else had given her. OCGA § 24-8-801 (c) defines “hearsay” as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” And OCGA § 24-6-602 says, with exceptions not applicable here, that “[a] witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of such matter.” See United States v....

...Gutierrez de Lopez, 761 F3d 1123, 1132 (10th Cir. 2014) (explaining that a court should exclude testimony for lack of personal knowledge if “‘the witness could not have actually perceived or observed that which he testifies to’” (citation omitted)).4 4 OCGA § 24-6-602 is part of Georgia’s new Evidence Code, and its pertinent language tracks Federal Rule of Evidence 602....

...courts, particularly the Eleventh Circuit, for guidance in applying this provision. See Olds v. State, 299 Ga. 65, 69 (786 SE2d 633) (2016). 13 Evidence proving personal knowledge may consist of the witness’s own testimony, as OCGA § 24-6-602 explains, but a witness cannot use inadmissible hearsay to demonstrate personal knowledge of a matter....