Colo. R. Evid. 602
A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that he has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the testimony of the witness himself. This rule is subject to the provisions of Rule 703, relating to opinion testimony by expert witnesses.
(Federal Rule Identical.)
CRE 602
Annotation Law reviews. For article, "Admissibility of Governmental Studies to Prove Causation", see 11 Colo. Law. 1822 (1982). For article, "Tips for Working With Evidence in Domestic Relations Cases", see 31 Colo. Law. 87 (June 2002). This rule is a specialized application of CRE 104(b) regarding conditionally relevant evidence. In a personal injury case by a husband against his employer, the question of whether the husband's spouse had personal knowledge as to the husband's admissions regarding the fraudulent nature of his claim was for the jury to determine in accordance with CRE 104(b). The trial court erred in not admitting, as conditionally relevant evidence, testimony of a wife as to admissions made by the wife's spouse about the fraudulent nature of his personal injury claim against his employer even though there was an issue about whether the admission was actually made by the spouse or based on the wife's dream. The proper analysis by the court in determining the admissibility of the wife's testimony should have been whether the jury could reasonably find by a preponderance of the evidence that the conditional fact, i.e. that the wife had personal knowledge of admissions made by her spouse regarding the fraudulent nature of his claim. Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Hood, 802 P.2d 458 (Colo. 1990). The threshold for establishing the personal knowledge requirement is not very high and may be inferable from sources other than the witness and from the total circumstances surrounding the matter that is the subject of the witness's testimony. As long as there is evidence before the trial court such that the jury could reasonably find that the witness has personal knowledge of the event, the witness should be permitted to testify and the question of credibility and weight should be left for the jury to resolve. Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Hood, 802 P.2d 458 (Colo. 1990); People v. Garcia, 826 P.2d 1259 (Colo. 1992). Where the witness was not qualified as an expert and the witness had no personal experience with the maintenance expenses on the property, evidence presented as to the amount of future maintenance expenses was legally insufficient. Pomeranz v. McDonald's Corp., 843 P.2d 1378 (Colo. 1993). Applied in Wise v. Hillman, 625 P.2d 364 (Colo. 1981); Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. Citizens State Bank, 651 P.2d 460 (Colo. App. 1982); Graham v. Lombardi, 784 P.2d 813 (Colo. App. 1989). .