See also: APPEAL; MOTIONS TO STRIKE
OFFER OF PROOF; WAIVER
Index of Objections in Appendix.

1.  Generally

Failure to make a specific, timely objection ordinarily waives the objection. See APPEAL–Admission of Evidence: Failure to Object.  In federal court and in most state courts, parties need not take formal exception to rulings, as was traditionally required at common law.{footnote}Fed. R. Civ. P. 46; Fed. R. Crim. P. 51; Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 110A, & 301.

See also United States v. Williams, 182 App. D.C. 410, 561 F.2d 859 (D.C. Cir. 1977)(formal objection not required).{/footnote} Objections must be free from extraneous argument or comment tending to prejudice the jury.{footnote}Check Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 42 L.Ed.2d 574, 95 S.Ct. 584 (1975).

Eizerman v. Behn, 9 Ill. App. 2d 263, 132 N.E.2d 788 (1st Dist. 1956).{/footnote}  However, an objection should be made on the record, not merely in chambers.{footnote}United States v. Johnson, 542 F.2d 230 (5th Cir. 1976).{/footnote} If the court reporter fails to transcribe an objection, the appellant must have the record corrected, otherwise the objection will be deemed waived.{footnote}House v. State, 535 N.E.2d 103, 108-09 (Ind. 1989) (reporter did not hear sidebar conference; objection deemed waived).{/footnote}

It is not suffient that another party made an objection.  Unless the appellant joined in the objection, it is deemed waived.{footnote}People v. Sennon, 566 N.Y.S.2d 327, 328, app. denied, 78 N.Y.2d 926 (1991).{/footnote}

2.  Specificity

An objection must be phrased so as to alert the court to its specific legal basis{footnote} [2795]Fed. R. Crim. P. 51; Maish v. Arizona, 164 U.S. 599, 41 L.Ed. 567, 17 S.Ct. 193 (1896); Bryant v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 672 F.2d 217 (1st Cir. 1982); United States v. Hutcher, 622 F.2d 1083 (2d Cir. 1980); United States v. Long, 574 F.2d 761 (3d Cir.), cert. den., 439 U.S. 985 (1978); United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181 (5th Cir. 1975).
            But see Md. R. Evid. 4‑323(a) (the "grounds for the objection need not be stated unless the court . . . so directs."). {/footnote} unless the basis is obvious from the context.{footnote} [2796]  FRE 103(a)(1); United States v. James T. Barnes & Co., 758 F.2d 146 (6th Cir. 1985); Stone v. Morris, 546 F.2d 730 (7th Cir. 1976); United States v. O’Brien, 601 F.2d 1067 (9th Cir. 1979).
See also State v. Dudley, 912 S.W.2d 525, 527 (Mo. App. 1995) (defense objection that evidence of defendant’s prior crimes  was improper and inflammatory sufficient to preserve claim that probative value outweighed by prejudice).{/footnote}  The objection raised below must ordinarily be the same objection raised on appeal.{footnote}United States v. Barrett, 766 F.2d 609 (1st Cir. 1985); United States v. Mennuti, 679 F.2d 1032 (2d Cir. 1982); United States v. Sandini, 803 F.2d 123 (3d Cir. 1986), cert. den., 107 S.Ct. 1306 (1987).
Myers v. State, 876 S.W.2d 246, 247 (Ark. 1994); State v. Bean, 239 N.W.2d 556, 561 (Iowa 1976); Brecker v. State, 497 A.2d 479 (Md. 1985); Carmona v. State, 941 S.W.2d 949 (Tex. App. 1997) (objection raising attorney-client privilege inadequate to preserve additional issue of work product doctrine); James v. State, 772 S.W.2d 84, 99-100 (Tex.Cr.App. 1991) (relevance objection failed to preserve claim of error based on improper use of character evidence).
Cf. APPEAL–Exclusion of Evidence ("right ruling, wrong reason" rule){/footnote} Some cases hold that a general objection is sufficient where the evidence is improper in a number of ways.{footnote} [2798]  157 A.L.R. 598 [CLARIFY THIS]{/footnote}  Similarly, an objection must identify the specific evidence objected to,{footnote}Fletcher v. Industrial Commission, 44 Ill. 2d 359, 255 N.E.2d 403 (1970).{/footnote} unless this is clear from the context.

3.  Timeliness

An objection which is not timely raised is deemed waived.{footnote}United States v. Gibbs, 739 F.2d 838, 850 (3d Cir. 1984)(objection first raised in motion in strike after close of government’s case deemed waived).

1 Wigmore § 796.{/footnote}  To be deemed timely, an objection must be made as soon as the ground for the objection is known, or reasonably should have been known.{footnote}United States v. Check, 582 F.2d 668, 676 (2d Cir. 1978).{/footnote}  Objections to improper questioning of a witness must ordinarily be made before the witness asnswers.{footnote}Reagan v. Brock, 628 F.2d 721, 723 (1st Cir. 1980); Hutchinson v. Groskin, 927 F.2d 722, 725 (2d Cir. 1991).
House v. State, 535 N.E.2d 103, 109 (Ind. 1989).{/footnote}  Where the question was proper but the answer improper, an immediate objection and a motion to strike the improper testimony must be made, unless the ground for the objection is not disclosed until later, such as  upon cross-examination.  See MOTIONS–Motions to Strike.  Objections to real or documentary evidence must ordinarily be made before the item is admitted.{footnote}United States v. Benavente Gomez, 921 F.2d 378, 385 (1st Cir. 1990); Vallejos v. C.E. Glass Co.., 583 F.2d 507, 511 (10th Cir. 1978).{/footnote}

4.  Repeated Objections Not Always Required–Continuing Objections

An objection will generally suffice to preserve an issue on appeal as to all subsequently offered evidence of the same type, and it is not necessary to continue to object each time such evidence is offered.{footnote}United States v. Talavera, 668 F.2d 625, 630 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 978 (1982); United States v. Brown, 555 F.2d 407, 422 n. 32 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 904 (1978).
Padilla v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 642 P.2d 878, 880 (Ariz. 1982); People v. Pratt, 759 P.2d 676, 685 n. 5 (Colo. 1988).
See generally McCormick, § 52, at 118 (“Most courts…hold that [the objector] is entitled to assume that the judge will continue to make the same ruling and that he need not repeat the objection.") (footnotes omitted)); C. Wright & K. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure § 5037, at 191 (1977) ("Under the better traditional view, an objection overruled will suffice to preserve the point as to all subsequently offered evidence of the same type; the objector need not continue to object each time such evidence is offered." (footnote omitted)).{/footnote}

One may request that the court recognize a continuing objection to an entire line of questioning or connected items of evidence.  The objection must still be specific and unambiguous in order to preserve the objection for appeal.{footnote}United States v. Gomez-Norena, 908 F.2d 497, 500 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 947, 111 S.Ct. 363, 112 L.Ed.2d 326 (1990).{/footnote}  so long as the if the line of questioning changes, a renewed objection must be made or it is waived.{footnote}Powell v. Burns, 763 F.2d 337 (8th Cir. 1985).{/footnote}

Bibliography

Cady, Objections to Demonstative Evidence, 32 Mo. L. Rev. 333 (1967).