Vaidik, J.
Steen contends that the trial court erred in admitting the loss-prevention officer’s testimony concerning the security tags and store labels that were on the clothing because it was inadmissible double hearsay. . . . .
. . . .
Steen argues that both the security tags and store labels on the clothing and Hadley’s testimony about the tags and labels constitute hearsay. We disagree.
Hearsay is “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Ind. Evidence Rule 801(c). We find that the security tags and store labels in this case do not fall under this definition and therefore are not hearsay. While the security tags and store labels are not in evidence, we assume based on the parties’ briefs that the security tags and the store labels contained the writing “H & M.” This writing, taken by itself, is not capable of being true or not true.1 [1 This distinguishes the present case from those that the State refers to in its brief in which price tags were deemed to be hearsay since they were admitted for the truth of the price listed on the label in order to establish the value of an item. See, e.g., Stephans v. State, 262 P.3d 727, 732 (Nev. 2011); Robinson v. Com., 516 S.E.2d 475, 478 (Va. 1999); State v. Odom, 393 S.E.2d 146, 151 (N.C. Ct. App. 1990).] Since it is not capable of being true or not true, the clothing labels could not have been admitted for the truth of the matter asserted. Rather, they were admitted as circumstantial evidence showing that because the tags were attached to the clothing, it made it more likely than not that the clothing belonged to H & M. Since the security tags and store labels inside the clothing were not out-of-court assertions admitted for the truth of the matter asserted, they did not constitute hearsay evidence.
As for Hadley’s testimony about the clothing labels, the trial court stated that Hadley was “testifying to what he observed,” Tr. p. 76, and we agree. [Footnote omitted.] A witness may testify to what he observed as long as it is based on his personal knowledge of the matter. Ind. Evidence Rule 602. Since Hadley was testifying to his personal knowledge of what he saw on the clothing, the H & M security tags and store labels, his testimony was proper and not inadmissible hearsay.
KIRSCH, J., and PYLE, J., concur.