Chapter 1 - §5. Raising objection to relevance

• Jurisdiction: United States

§5. Raising objection to relevance

§5.1. Method. A party can object on the ground of relevance by filing a motion in limine, by making an oral objection at trial, or by making a motion to strike.

§5.2. Timing. An objection must be timely made to preserve the objection for appellate review or else it is waived. People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 61. The general rule is that an objection is timely if made at the time the evidence is offered. People v. Harrison (2005) 35 Cal.4th 208, 230.

§5.3. Form of objections & responses.

1. Generally. A relevance objection and any response should be specific. If only part of the evidence is irrelevant, the objection should be limited to that part of the evidence and a limiting instruction from the court should be requested.

OBJECTION: "Objection, Your Honor. The question calls for an irrelevant response in that {it relates to a fact not in dispute/it relates to a fact that is not material to the case/it does not have any tendency to prove or disprove a fact in dispute}."
OBJECTION: "Objection, Your Honor. The evidence is irrelevant in that {specify its limited application}. The evidence should be limited to {specify its limited application}. I respectfully request that the court give an appropriate limiting instruction to the jury.
RESPONSE: "The evidence sought to be admitted is relevant because {it has a tendency to prove or disprove a disputed issue/it is material to the issue of ___/it pertains to the credibility of the witness}".

2. Conditional relevance. If the evidence is conditionally relevant, the following objections and responses should be considered:

OBJECTION: "Objection, Your Honor. The evidence offered by opposing counsel is irrelevant unless other necessary facts are satisfactorily proved."
RESPONSE: "I will establish the relevance of the offered evidence by proof of {specify the type of proof to be presented}, the preliminary fact necessary for the admission of the evidence. This will be shown through the testimony of ___."
OBJECTION: "I move to strike the conditionally admitted evidence consisting of {specify the item of evidence} because counsel has failed to satisfactorily establish the preliminary facts necessary to support its relevance."
RESPONSE: "The relevance of the conditionally admitted evidence has been demonstrated through the testimony of ___, who has furnished the requisite preliminary facts."

3. Completeness. If the evidence is objectionable on the ground of relevance because the...