Section 14.31 Necessity of Proper Objections

• Library: Civil Trial Practice 2015 Supp

A. (§14.31) Necessity of Proper Objections

Counsel must object to matters as they occur at the time of trial. An allegation in a motion for new trial and the brief on appeal must be based on objections that were timely and properly made, but counsel should also include the denied request in the motion for new trial. Fallert Tool & Eng’g Co. v. McClain, 579 S.W.2d 751, 758, (Mo. App. E.D. 1979); Davis v. Fiske, 578 S.W.2d 328 (Mo. App. W.D. 1979); Koedding v. Kirkwood Contractors, Inc., 851 S.W.2d 122, 125 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993); Krenski v. Aubuchon, 841 S.W.2d 721, 728 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992). The requirement for timely objection is still necessary to preserve error, notwithstanding a denial of a motion in limine. State v. Johnson, 586 S.W.2d 437, 440 (Mo. App. E.D. 1979).

The objection should specifically point out with a reasonable degree of definiteness the error claimed and the reason for it. If the objection is not made in such a manner, the trial court will not be convicted of error in overruling it, and nothing is preserved for appellate review. Stafford v. Lyon, 413 S.W.2d 495, 497–98 (Mo. 1967); Negley B. Calvin, Inc. v. Cornet, 427 S.W.2d 741, 746 (Mo. App. E.D. 1968). See also Fickbohm v. Schoonover, 453 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. App. S.D. 1970), concerning the necessity of specific objections at the time the motion for directed verdict is sustained or in the motion for new trial.

When the alleged error is attacked in the trial court on one ground only, in the absence of plain error, a different objection to evidence may not be advanced on appeal. Halford v. Yandell, 558 S.W.2d 400, 404 (Mo. App. S.D. 1977); Fallert Tool & Eng’g Co., 579 S.W.2d 751.

These principles are not necessarily binding if the appellate court believes that manifest injustice occurred and relief is ordered under the plain error rule. Gordon v. Oidtman, 692 S.W.2d 349, 356 (Mo. App. W.D. 1985). Repeated objections do not need to be made if a proper objection was raised initially and previously presented in the matter. Pickett v. Stockard, 605 S.W.2d 196, 199 (Mo. App. W.D. 1980).

When several parties are involved in an action, an objection made by only one of the parties will not inure for appeal purposes to the benefit of the party or parties who do not join in the objection. Thomas v. Bank of Springfield, 631 S.W.2d 346, 351 (Mo. App. S.D. 1982).

Rule 78.09 provides that formal exceptions are no longer necessary. It is sufficient if the party, at the time the court makes the ruling or...