To preserve an issue for appeal, the appellant must raise the objection below before the trial court. “‘The party also must cite to the record showing exactly where the objection was made.’” (K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Technology & Operations, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 939, 948.) “[A] reviewing court ordinarily will not consider a challenge to a ruling if an objection could have been but was not made in the trial court . . . The purpose of this rule is to encourage parties to bring errors to the attention of the trial court, so that they may be corrected.” (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293.)
The components of a proper objection are outlined in Evidence Code section 353: (1) it must be timely made, and (2) the specific ground of the objection must be included. “Section 353 does not specify the form in which an objection must be made; hence, the use of a continuing objection to a line of questioning would be proper under Section 353 just as it is under existing law.” (See Comment by Assembly Committee on Judiciary to Evidence Code section 353.) Typically, the attorney would use the word “objection” followed by the specific ground. Of course, there have been objections when that consist of “Objection” and “I object,” without the grounds stated, especially where the grounds may seem very obvious to all.
At a minimum, the attorney must state the grounds for an objection. Evidence Code § 353(a). “Evidence Code section 353 does not exalt form over substance. No particular form of objection or motion is required; it is sufficient that the presentation contains a request to exclude specific evidence on the specific legal ground urged on appeal.” People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 188 (disapproved on other grounds in People v. Stansbury (1995) 9 Cal.4th 824, 830, fn. 1).
Interposing objections requires an attorney to be quick on his or her feet. After all, it does little good to ponder whether a question is objectionable but wait before making it until seven questions later. It may be untimely and worst yet, it may be impossible to undo the damage of the jury having heard the evidence.
And making an objection on the wrong ground may not help you on appeal. It is not enough that you made a general objection without a ground or objected on a different ground. If you object on one ground, that will not preserve the objection on another ground. (People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 669, modified at 15 Cal.4th 1385A.) Nor should you rely on a “continuing objection” to preserve the error. Be clear in making a specific objection to the evidence and possibly renew the objection when the questioning exceeds the scope of your original objection or too much time has passed since the original objection.
And what do you do in the event you want to object to a line of questions? A “continuing” objection to certain evidence or a line of questioning may not be necessary, but the objection should relate to the same ground. If you have a new objection on another ground, you should state it as an objection with the new objection, including the specific grounds. (Smith v. County of Los Angeles (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 266, 285.) Be careful if the later questions are different in nature, especially where they cover different subject matter and are objectionable on different grounds. (Boeken v. Philip Morris Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1640, 1676 [objection should relate to “a particular, identifiable body of evidence”].)
While the Supreme Court has indicated that the rule that objections not made are forfeited is not automatic, it also noted “the appellate court’s discretion to excuse forfeiture should be exercised rarely and only in cases presenting an important legal issue.” (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293.) That means don’t depend on it, but if you can show some special circumstances, this rule of forfeiture may not be applied in your case.