Laserfiche WebLink
i <br />that the testimony satisfied the requirements of CRE 702. The <br />record here is sufficient to permit appellate revie I of the trial <br />court's ruling. See People v. McAfee, 104 P.3d 226, 229 (Colo. App. <br />2004); People v. Johnson, 74 P.3d 349 (Colo. App. 2002). We also <br />note that this case was tried to the court, not to a jury. Under <br />these circumstances, we conclude that the failure to make specific <br />findings respecting determinations of reliability and relevancy did <br />not substantially influence the verdict or affect th;e fairness of the <br />trial. We thus conclude that any error here is h (armless. CRE <br />103(a); see People v. Gaffney, 769 P.2d 1081 (Colo. 1989). <br />We also conclude that the record supports the trial court's <br />denial of Basin's request to strike testimony of homeowner's expert <br />witness on the grounds that such testimony was based on improper <br />factual assumptions and improper methodology. <br />At trial, the expert witness testified that, ab (ent any <br />subsidence damage or threat of future subsidence damage, <br />homeowners' residence would have an appraised fair market value <br />of $850,000. The witness then testified that with the damage that <br />had occurred and with an ongoing threat of subsidence damage <br />13 <br />