Definition: In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
Input: needed to object when appellant asked this court to look at and consider the DVD; appellant first requested this in her appellate brief, not in the motion to supplement. 7 . In fact, neither party contends, and we are aware of no authority so holding, that an in-court demonstration is reviewable on appeal only if captured on video. 8 . Rule 602 provides in relevant part: "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 testimony of the witness." TEX. R. EVID. 602. 9 . Rule 701 provides as follows: "If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness' testimony in the form of opinions or inferences 82) (<HOLDING>); McGuire v. Nelson, 162 Mont. 37, 508 P.2d
Holding statements: (A) holding that it was not plain error for the district court to admit an experts testimony that it was his opinion that approximately 200000 worth of cocaine was possessed with intent to distribute and not for personal use (B) holding that it was an abuse of discretion to admit the record when an admission was available (C) holding it was error to admit similar type knife allegedly found on plaintiff when it was not made clear admission was solely for illustrative purposes and therefore was prejudicial (D) holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive (E) holding that statement was stray remark where it was consistent with the context in which it was allegedly made
Output:
(C)