Castillo's statement, which relayed what he had learned from reading documents not in the record, was a statement not based on personal knowledge, and therefore not entitled to weight under the Virginia rules. See Bowman v. Commonwealth, 28 Va.App. 204, 210-11 (1998) (Executor of estate did not have "personal knowledge," and his statements were hearsay, when his testimony that a decedent's account had been closed was based on his review of bank statements not in evidence.); Va. R. Evid. 2:602 (personal knowledge requirement). PRA also presented Stacy, a PRA custodian of records, as a trial witness.

Lewis, 213 Va. at 157, 191 S.E.2d at 233. Bowman v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 204, 213, 503 S.E.2d 241, 245 (1998) (emphasis in original). Here, the issue is whether the Commonwealth proved beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant had no authority to sign Matthew M. Poppie's name to check #2632.

The statute, by its own terms, does not apply to criminal cases "in which the 'person incapable of testifying' is not a party." Bowman v. Commonwealth, 28 Va.App. 204, 210 (1998). Moss testified that he feared Brant and that Brant had a gun in his lap when sitting in Morgan's car.

Testimony given by a witness is not hearsay if it relates to "personal knowledge." See Bowman v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 204, 210, 503 S.E.2d 241, 244 (1998). Personal knowledge is "knowledge of a fact which a person has [her]self gained through [her] own senses and not from others or from information supplied by others."

Hearsay is "'testimony given by a witness who relates not what he knows personally, but what others have told him or what he has heard said by others. '" Bowman v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 204, 209, 503 S.E.2d 241, 243 (1998) (quoting Cross v. Commonwealth, 195 Va. 62, 74, 77 S.E.2d 447, 453 (1953)). "'Hearsay evidence is testimony in court, or written evidence, of a statement made out of court, the statement being offered as an assertion to show the truth of matters asserted therein, and thus resting for its value upon the credibility of the out-of-court asserter.'"

"To sustain a conviction for forgery in violation of Code § 18.2-172, the Commonwealth must prove that the accused falsely made or materially altered a writing, without the authority to do so, and did so to the prejudice of another's right." Bowman v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 204, 213, 503 S.E.2d 241, 245 (1998). Wooding argues that, without the affidavits discussed above, the evidence was insufficient to prove that she did not have permission to sign or cash the checks.

"Hearsay is 'testimony given by a witness who relates not what he knows personally, but what others have told him or what he has heard said by others.'" Bowman v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 204, 209, 503 S.E.2d 241, 243 (1998) (quoting Cross v. Commonwealth, 195 Va. 62, 74, 77 S.E.2d 447, 453 (1953)). "Hearsay evidence is defined as a spoken or written out-of-court declaration or nonverbal assertion offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein."

. See Clark v. Commonwealth, 14 Va.App. 1068, 1070, 421 S.E.2d 28, 30 (1992) (defining hearsay as "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at trial, which is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted" (emphasis added) (citing Arnold v. Commonwealth, 4 Va.App. 275, 279-80, 356 S.E.2d 847, 850 (1987))); see also Bowman v. Commonwealth, 28 Va.App. 204, 209, 503 S.E.2d 241, 243 (1998) ("Hearsay is 'testimony given by a witness who relates not what he knows personally, but what others have told him or what he has heard said by others.'"

West v Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 906, 911, 407 S.E.2d 22, 25 (1991) (quoting Schindel v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 814, 817, 252 S.E.2d 302, 304 (1979)). See also Bowman v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 204, 212, 503 S.E.2d 241, 245 (1998); Ferguson v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 9, 12, 427 S.E.2d 442, 444 (1993). Thus, we must review the evidence to determine whether the affidavit was merely cumulative and whether the information it contained was clearly established by other evidence.

Thus, when the legislature has used words of a clear and definite meaning, the courts cannot place on them a construction that amounts to holding that the legislature did not intend what it actually has expressed." Bowman v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 204, 210, 503 S.E.2d 241, 243-44 (1998) (citation omitted).