CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Court Control of Proceedings
......Objections
.........Effect of Failure to Object
20 Cards On This Topic:

Reversal for erroneous admission requires objection and determination of miscarriage of justice.

Party must make trial ct. aware of substance, purpose, and relevance of the excluded evidence in order to preserve objection for appeal.

Where defendant objected to evidence on various grounds, on appeal defendant may argue that an additional legal consequence of the asserted error is a violation of due process.

D's failure to specifically object to population frequency testimony on specific grounds deprived DA of opportunity either to present other or to defend its decision not to.

Appeal of an HIV testing order on basis there was no express probable cause finding or docket notation is subject to general rule requiring a timely objection.

Since involuntary HIV testing is strictly limited by statute and PC 1202.1 conditions testing order on probable cause finding, D may challenge sufficiency of evidence even in absence of trial court objection.

Because D did not object to victim photos used in questioning witnesses, he failed to preserve issue for appeal; even if preserved, testimony relevant and admissible.

D did not waive objection to testimony by not raising at trial where co-Ds did so object and parties had stipulated an objection by one D would be deemed made by all.

As D did not object to DA’s cross-exam of expert at trial, claim could only be raised on habeas corpus, not appeal.

Victim need not include details of all alleged abuse so long as alleged abuser is placed on notice of the general allegations.

Where asserted instructional error was not a contradiction regarding the elements of a crime, defendant's substantial rights were not affected and defendant forfeited issue on appeal by not objecting.

Defendant did not forfeit Sanchez arguments on appeal by failing to raise objections at trial before Sanchez was decided.

Confrontation clause and Sanchez arguments forfeited because trial counsel failed to make a specific objection and change in law made by Sanchez was foreseeable.

Even though defendant's case was tried before Sanchez was decided, failure of D's counsel to make a hearsay objection constituted forfeiture where pre-Sanchez cases indicated that an expert's testimony to hearsay was objectionable.

Failure to make case-specific hearsay objections under Sanchez did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel.

Failure to make Sanchez objection waives it on appeal.

While pre-arraignment interrogation violated D's right to counsel, its admission was not error where no objection was raised below.

Court of Appeal could consider instructional error on reasonable doubt even though D did not object below.

Failure to promptly or properly object to inadmissible evidence waives objection.

Effect of failure to object to improper admission of evidence.