Opinion ID: 878969
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: did the district court commit reversible error by allowing jack leatham, part owner of leatham to submit testimony regarding an inspection of the condition of the headlights of the leatham truck in january 1980?

Text: Appellants claim the testimony of Jack Leatham should have been stricken because the matters testified to were not within his personal knowledge and the testimony was hearsay. Leatham testified that the truck involved in the collision was inspected and this inspection included the head lights. Leatham had no personal knowledge that the headlights on this particular truck were inspected. His testimony was based on hearsay. By definition, hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.  Rule 801(c), M.R.Evid. Hearsay is inadmissible except as otherwise provided by statute, the Montana Rules of Evidence, or other rules applicable in the courts of this state. Rule 802, M.R. Evid. Leatham did not acquire his knowledge that the truck was inspected from personal observation but from a document in the company records. An out-of-court statement, the document, was made and repeated in court by Leatham to prove the truth of the matter asserted, to-wit: that an inspection of the lights were made in January 1980. Leatham attempted to introduce this document to prove his testimony but the matter was dropped when the evidence was admitted. This document was itself hearsay but could have been admitted under the records of regularly conducted activity exception to the hearsay rule, Rule 803(6), M.R.Evid., if a proper foundation were laid. Since appellant did not pursue their objection and acquiesced to the admission of Leatham's testimony, we find no reversible error.