Opinion ID: 700870
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: admission of murchison testimony

Text: 8 Ambursley assigns error to the district court's admission of the following testimony by Derman Murchison on redirect examination: 9 Q. Mr. Ambursley--why was he living in Jacksonville, North Carolina? 10
11 The objection of Ambursley's attorney was overruled. 12 We find no abuse of discretion. In his preceding testimony, Murchison detailed several joint enterprises and a variety of encounters with Ambursley. We conclude that the foundation laid was adequate to meet Federal Rule of Evidence 602's dictate that a witness have personal knowledge of the matter before testifying to it. We find no evidence suggesting that Murchison could not have known Ambursley's motivation for moving from Toronto to Jacksonville. On cross- and recross-examination, Ambursley's counsel had, and took, the opportunity to test the extent and reliability of Murchison's personal knowledge of Ambursley's affairs. The admission of the challenged testimony, however, was not in error.