22/04/2026
TECHNIQUES,
TACTICS AND
GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION
UNDER THE 2019 RULES OF COURT.
By Atty. Florante A. Zagada.
Under our adversarial legal system, the lawyers have primary responsibility to marshal their proofs and present their cases. A judge’s responsibility is not to protect the lawyers or trier of fact from hearing inadmissible evidence, unless the potential impropriety is called to the judge’s attention for a ruling. In the absence of an objection, the judge simply does not intervene to the inappropriate wuestion and cannot commit error.
Litigation lawyers should make an objection to call the attention of the court to an impropriety that will likely happen, is happening, or has happened. The objection may be based upon a question that calls for improper evidence or upon an answer that contains objectionable information, even though the question was proper.
A number of techniques and tactics should be kept in mind once you determine an objection may be stated.
One: STAND.
Whenever addressing the court, including the assertion of or response to an objection, always do so from a standing position unless advised otherwise by the court. If you do not stand, the judge may chastise you for not doing so. As well as showing respect for the court, rising helps to interrupt the response of the witness.
Two: USE THE WORD “OBJECTION.”
The correct words are “objection, your honor” or “I object.” These are the words the court and opposing counsel expect to hear, so use them. Failure to object will constitute a waiver for purposes of arguing error on appeal.
Three: BE PROMPT.
An objection must be asserted in a timely manner. If a question is asked calling for inadmissible evidence and no objection is placed before hearing the answer, the objection will usually be waived. A timely objection, in other words, is usually one that is made after the question is asked but before the answer is given. If there is no reasonable opportunity to make an objection before the answer is given, the court will entertain an objection at the earliest opportunity. If no opportunity existed to object before the answer was given, a motion to strike should be made along with the objection.
Four: STATE THE OBJECTION WITH SPECIFITY.
If the evidence is inadmissible hearsay, a general objection is insufficient to preserve the issue for appeal. It is incumbent upon a trial lawyer, therefore, not only to object in a timely fashion, but also to do so with specificity. For example: “Objection, hearsay.” “Objection, assumes a fact not in evidence.” “Objection, calls for an improper opinion.”
Five: INSIST ON RULING.
Occasionally a judge will sidestep a ruling after an objection is made and merely say, “Rephrase the question.” The record will not reflect whether the judge has actually sustained the objection. If a ruling is not made by the judge, either sustaining or overruling the objection, counsel should politely request such a ruling:
Attorney: Excuse me, your honor, have you sustained the objection? A motive for a judge in not making a ruling is that the potential error in making an improper decision is then omitted from the record and cannot be used as a basis for appeal. And, of course, judges do not like to be reversed.
Six: BE COURTEOUS.
When arguing for or against an objection, always make statements directly to the court and do not argue with opposing counsel. After an objection is made, the court will usually permit opposing counsel to respond. The judge may be ready to make a ruling at that time, or objecting counsel can request an opportunity to respond. When the judge makes the ruling, the objecting party should thank the court and confidently sit down.
REVIEW OF LISTS OF EVIDENCE UNDER THE 2019 RULES OF COURT.
COMMON GROUNDS FOR OBJECTIONS.
1. Objection on the ground that the evidence is IRRELEVANT.
The evidence is irrelevant when the offered evidence has no probative value and it is not relevant to any of the issues of the case. Its admission has no useful purpose, and it may lead only to a confusion of the facts at issue in the trial. It also has no logical connection to or is too remote in time and substance to the matter at issue. It is evidence to prove a fact that is no longer an issue of the case.
Whether or not the evidence sought to be elicited is relevant depends upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case.
Thus, in a homicide case, to prove insanity, the accused presented a witness to testify that he was treated for the flu or an ailment not connected with sanity, it is irrelevant.
In the same case OF HOMICIDE, the accused presented a doctor to prove that he was treated for burns sustained from the fire, fire that would appear to be irrelevant. However, if the defense is alibi and the accused presented the said physician to prove that at the time the crime was committed, he was being treated for a burn injury by the said physician, it would now appear to be relevant.
2. Objection on the ground that the evidence is INCOMPETENT.
The evidence is incompetent when the offered witness is not QUALIFIED under the rules on testimonial evidence. Competent evidence is evidence that is not excluded by law in a particular case. The evidence is prohibited by law. The prohibition may be due to:
A provision of law—such as privacy of bank accounts under R.A 1405; statute of frauds (Art 1403) of Civil Code.
b) A rule of evidence—the hearsay rule—rules on offer of compromise in civil cases.
c) Settled jurisprudence—such as extrajudicial confession obtained without assistance of counsel (People vs. Robles, 104 SCRA 450)
If the test of relevance is logic and common sense, the test of competence is the law or the rules. If the law or a particular rule excludes the evidence, it is incompetent.
Competence is primarily, therefore, a matter of law or a matter of rule.
The question as to competence is, is the evidence allowed by the law or by the rules? If it is allowed, the evidence is competent. If it is not allowed, it is incompetent.
Example: The witness being offered will testify on the basis of what he heard from another person, and the examining party seeks to prove the truth of that fact through the testimony of that person. The facts to be elicited is considered HEARSAY, which is not allowed by the rules. The witness cannot testify on hearsay evidence. He is incompetent to testify on matters where he has no personal knowledge or perception except when it falls under the recognized exceptions. The objection, therefore, is either the witness is INCOMPETENT or the offered testimony is HEARSAY.
3. Objection on the ground that the evidence is IMMATERIAL.
The evidence is immaterial when the offered evidential fact is directed to prove some probandum that is not properly in issue. The rules on substantive law and pleading are what determine immateriality,
If the probandum is immaterial, of course no evidence to prove it is wanted. (Wigmore on Evidence) The issue is determined by the elements of the cause of action and the relationship to the fact in issue to induce belief as to its existence or inexistence; therefore, collateral matters are not allowed.
Thus, you have to present only evidence that will prove the elements of your cause of action or defense. Anything that is alien to the said elements that will not establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue is considered immaterial.
For example, in the case of nullity of marriage for lack of a marriage license, the evidence to establish that the respondent has so many vices and is an irresponsible husband is alien to the issue of lack of marriage license. Such facts are immaterial to the issue of lack of marriage license.
4. OBJECTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE QUESTION VIOLATES THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE:
If the party wants to prove the CONTENTS of a writing or what the document says, the rule is to present the ORIGINAL OF THE WRITING, if it is available or procurable. Otherwise stated, if the inquiry involves a document and its contents are the subject of that same inquiry, present the original document, the counterpart original, or a duplicate original (Sec. 4, Rule 130 of 2019 New Rules on Evidence).
So long as the original is available, no other evidence can be substituted for the original because the original is the preferred evidence ”in relation to mere copies or substitutes thereof.
Therefore, you cannot prove what is stated in the document by a mere copy of the document or by oral recollection of a witness UNLESS the existence and non-production of the original document are explained and accounted for. The ORIGINAL DOCUMENT is preferred to a mere copy thereof.
EXAMPLE: A testified that B obtained a loan from him in the amount of P100,000, and the same is covered by a promissory note stating that the said amount shall be paid after one year without interest. B denied the same. When A testified, he merely presented a photocopy of the said promissory note. If A fails to explain why he could not produce the original copy of the promissory note, the said photocopy can be objected to as a violation of the best evidence rule. Mr. should produce the original copy, counterpart original, or duplicate original to prove the contents of the said promissory note. (Sec. 4, Rule 130)
EXCEPTIONS:
a) When a party to the case never disputed the terms and conditions of the document (promissory note), which assumes that as far as the parties herein are concerned, the wordings or contents of the note are clear enough and leave no room for disagreement. Thus, the defense of lack of consideration and the contention that the signature in the note was not made in the personal capacity of the respondent are defenses that do not question the “precise wordings” of the promissory note and do not call for the application of best evidence rule.
For example, defendant argued that he already paid the amount stated in the promissory note; the plaintiff is not duty bound to present the original to prove the content thereof because the term of the document is no longer disputed.
b) Where the issue is only as to whether such document was actually executed, or exists or on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its ex*****on, the best evidence rule does NOT apply, and testimonial evidence is admissible. Any other substitutionary evidence is likewise admissible without need to account for the original.
Example: A testified that he is married to B, and the latter denies the same. A is not duty-bound to produce the marriage contract. He can prove the marriage by testimonial evidence or even photographs to show the marriage. The issue here is not the content of the marriage contract but whether or not they were actually married.
c) If the writing is merely collateral or is connected in some remote way to the issue, oral testimony can be admitted to prove the said facts. Thus, oral testimony that a person is married, producing a marriage contract, is not necessary; that a person died, producing a death certificate, is not necessary; that a person traveled by bus, ticket, or travel documents; that in a forcible entry or unlawful detainer case that a person owns the land, producing the title is not required because the ownership is not an issue but mere possession.
d) When the purpose is to prove a fact that has an existence independent of any writing, even though that fact has been reduced to writing or is evidenced by a writing, best evidence rule does not apply.
Thus, the payment of money can be proved orally even if there was a receipt given for what is being proved is the fact of payment and not the terms and conditions of the receipt. Or, even if the conversation is recorded, oral testimony may be allowed to prove the conversation.
HOW TO PRESENT SECONDARY EVIDENCE:
BUT, if the original cannot be produced, the contents of the said writing can still be proved by SECONDARY EVIDENCE by proving due ex*****on, and delivery, and the reason for non-production of the original documents must be shown. Thus, the following predicate or FOUNDATION should first be laid:
a) The existence or due ex*****on of the original;
b) The loss and destruction of the original or the reason of the non-production in court, and
c) On the part of the offeror, the absence of bad faith to which the unavailability of the original can be attributed. (Santos vs. C.A. 368 SCRA 91 (2001)
The party must show he had in good faith exhausted all sources of information and means of discovery available to him in his effort to find the lost document, and the search is thorough and diligent, as if all benefit of the paper were to be lost unless it is found. (People vs. Wells, 380 Ill 347, 44 N.E. 2d 32)
5. OBJECTION FOR LACK OF FOUNDATION OR LACK OF PROPER BASIS.
Just like building a house, you cannot start the construction on the roof. You must start first with the foundation and the post. So with the building of evidence, there are certain types of evidence that require a foundation before they can be presented and admitted. This foundation is also called a PRELIMINARY FACT.
For example, you are presenting a private document as your exhibit. Before you ask about the contents of the document, you must first show that the writing is authentic, true, and genuine. You must first ask some preliminary questions, such as who signed the documents and whether the signatures appearing thereon are genuine.
Likewise, before a photocopy of a document is admitted as a substitute of the original, you must first ask preliminary questions about the loss of the original and why it is not available or cannot be procured in court.
Before a witness is asked to describe a certain incident, such as a vehicular accident, preliminary facts about his personal knowledge of the incident and that he was at the scene of the incident and that he witnessed the occurrence must first be established.
If the counsel presents exhibits, it is necessary that a proper foundation must first be established before they can be properly admitted in evidence.
For failure to establish a preliminary fact, the evidence may be objected to for “LACK OF BASIS” or lack of necessary foundation for the admissibility of either oral or documentary evidence.
6. OBJECTION FOR LACK OF PROPER AUTHENTICATION:
Certain writings and conversations must be authenticated to be admissible in court. The manner of authentication and proof of documents depends on whether the documents are PRIVATE or PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.
If it is a PUBLIC DOCUMENT, it does not require authentication. For example, you are presenting a notarized document; there is no need to prove the authenticity of the said document or that the same was duly executed by the parties. The reason is, public document enjoys the legal presumption that it is authentic and has been duly executed by the parties in the document.
In other words, when the notary public signs a certificate of acknowledgment in a notarized document, it is prima facie evidence of ex*****on of the instrument or document involved, and it may be presented in evidence without further proof. The notarization of the document converts the document from a private to a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. When it is presented in evidence, it requires no further proof because the certificate of acknowledgment of the notary public is prima facie evidence of the due ex*****on of the instrument or document involved and the authenticity thereof.
BUT, if you are presenting a PRIVATE DOCUMENT, you have to authenticate the private document first before it is admitted in evidence.
To authenticate, you have to prove first that the private document was duly executed and that it is genuine and that it is not a forgery by the one who saw the document executed or written or by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker, such as a comparison made by the witness or the court with writings admitted or treated to be genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered. It may also be proven by expert witness.
By authentication, you ask the witness to identify the document, mark it, and ask questions to ensure that it was duly executed by the parties and that it is not fake but genuine. Authentication also applies to object evidence.
7. OBJECTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE QUESTION IS INSULTING, EMBARRASSING, AND HARSH, AND THE EXAMINER DEMONSTRATES HARSH DEMEANOR.
The witness should not be asked a question that will tend to degrade his reputation unless it is the very fact at issue. The examining party cannot ask questions that will tend to insult, defame, embarrass the witness. Object if your witness is being badgered.
8. OBJECTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE QUESTION is INDEFINITE AND UNINTELLIGIBLE.
The question must be specific or definite so that it will not cause confusion to the witness about what he will say.
For example, the witness is asked, “When you arrived in the house or market, where did you enter?” The question is indefinite and confusing, and it may be objected to as such. It is not understood if the question refers to entering the house or market.
8. OBJECTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE QUESTION IS ARGUMENTATIVE.
If the question elicits an answer to the argument presented by the examining party, it is argumentative. It is not the function of the counsel to argue with the witness or through the witness, to the court. Argument to the case is reserved after the evidence is concluded, and it should not be presented by way of interrogating the witness.
The question that says, “How can you remember the date of transaction when you cannot even remember the number of days in a year?” This question calls for an argument and not a fact.
9. OBJECTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE QUESTION CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION.
A question asking the witness to give a conclusion based on facts is not allowed. He must not be asked of his understanding, for it calls for a conclusion on his part. Conclusion of a witness, maybe of facts or of law. It is a conclusion of law when the witness is asked about the responsibility of a party under the law or whether or not the party is liable under the law or whether or not certain facts is a sale, agency, or mortgage.
The witness is asked, “Since A kills B during that nighttime, can you say that it is murder?” That is a conclusion of law. It is the prerogative of the court to make conclusions of facts and law and not the witness.
10. OBJECTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE QUESTION CALLS FOR
OPINION OF AN ORDINARY WITNESS. (Rule 130, Sec. 48-50)
The question must not allow the witness to interpret the facts and the law. He cannot give any importance or significance or form any opinion and draw any conclusion on what he has heard or seen.
Answers of witnesses that are mere guesses, conjectures, suppositions, or speculations are to be excluded. There are, however, exceptions to the Opinion Rule of Ordinary Witness under Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.
11. OBJECTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE QUESTION IS LEADING THE WITNESS DURING THE DIRECT AND RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION.
The QUESTION MUST NOT BE LEADING during the DIRECT AND RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION. (Rule 132, Sec. 10).
It is leading when it suggests and prompts the witness to give the answer the examiner wants to hear. The examiner here puts the answer or the words into the mouth of the witness, making the answer not his own but the examiner's. In cross examination, leading questions are allowed. A full explanation of this rule is found in Sec. 10, Rule 132, Rules of Court.
12. OBJECTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE QUESTION IS MISLEADING.
THE QUESTION MUST NOT BE MISLEADING. (Rule 132, Sec. 10).
When it assumes as true a fact that has not yet been testified to by the witness or because it is contrary to what he previously stated, it is misleading.
It is also misleading when the question suggests a wrong or untruthful answer. It is a trick question designed to confuse and make the witness give a false or inconsistent answer. While leading questions are allowed in cross-examination, misleading questions are not allowed in direct and cross-examinations.
For example, in cross-examination: “You stated in your previous testimony that Juan was driving the car; why are you now insisting that Juan was not driving the car?”
The witness did not say during the direct that he saw Juan driving the car. He stated only that he was seated in the front seat of the vehicle.
13. OBJECTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE QUESTION IS A COMPOUND QUESTION:
The QUESTION MUST NOT BE COMPOUND. It is a compound question when two or more questions are asked, usually connected by the conjunctions “and” and “or.”
This is prohibited because the questions may elicit an irrelevant and inadmissible answer. The witness also may answer the question not realizing that there are several queries in the question, and he may forget to answer some of them. The court may also find it difficult to know which of the questions was answered or not.
EXAMPLE: “Mr. Witness, did you see the witness walking and hear him say that statement?”
14. OBJECTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE QUESTION IS TOO GENERAL AND BROAD.
It is when the question elicits general answers such that a witness can say almost anything that comes to his mind. This will invite the witness to give his perception, guess, and not observation of the incident. It is easy to give his opinion also in giving his general answer.
Example: “Can you tell us what happened next after they got married?”
The answer of the witness to this question may cover a number of years and may refer to many places and incidents without relevance to the issue of the case. The better question is: “After they got married, what behavior did you observe from the husband during their first year? It is more specific.
15. OBJECTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE QUESTION CALLS FOR A NARRATION OF FACTS:
When the question invites the witness to give a continuous recitation of the facts of the incident from beginning to end, the witness is called to narrate the facts.
For example: “Mr. Witness, please tell us what happened on December 5, 2012.”
The question practically gives the witness the freedom to say almost anything that happened during that date, even if it is not connected or relevant to the issue. There is also a temptation that the witness may give his opinion and unnecessary and irrelevant testimony.
The question must be limited to that aspect that has a relation to the case, such as “Mr. Witness, on December 5, 2012, at about 3p.m., did you observe any untoward incident in connection with this case?”
16. OBJECTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE QUESTION IS HYPOTHETICAL:
This kind of question usually starts with the words “suppose,” “assuming,” or “is it not possible.”
The questions that merely assume facts that are not yet in evidence are not permitted. This also misleads the witness. It also calls the witness to give his opinion as an ordinary witness.
If he is an expert witness, hypothetical questions may be asked of him to express his opinion on specific matters.
17. OBJECTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE QUESTION IS
ASKED ON ADMITTED MATTER. (Sec. 4, Rule 129).
A counsel is required only to present evidence or testimony on disputed facts. If the fact is already admitted either by admissions during the course of the trial or in the pleadings or by stipulation of facts, no need to ask questions to the witness on those admitted matters. It will only waste the precious time of the court.
Only when the admission was through a palpable mistake might the witness be asked to explain such a mistake.
18. OBJECTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE QUESTION IS ALREADY ANSWERED.
Repetition of questions on the same facts consumes the precious time of the court. It is also unfair to the witness. But if the same question is asked to clarify a previous answer, it is allowed.
But in cross examination, the witness may be asked to repeat what he has stated in the direct to test his recollection, memory, credibility of his testimony of an incident, or to find out if he has changed his observation. But if the purpose is to annoy him or harass him, it is not allowed.
19. OBJECTION ON THE GROUND THAT IT INCRIMINATES THE WITNESS.
It is a constitutional right of every citizen or witness not to be compelled to be a witness against himself. If the question has a tendency to expose a witness to a criminal prosecution or charge or any kind of punishment, it is an incriminating question, and the witness has the right not to answer it, and the examiner can be admonished not to propound questions of that nature.
This is a personal right that can be invoked by the witness. Not even his lawyer can claim such a right. But the lawyer of the witness may object and request the court to advise the witness of his right to self incrimination or advise the witness not to answer the question with the court’s permission. This is the right of witness under par. 4 of Sec. 3 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court which states that “(4)Not to give an answer that will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law.”
The right against self incrimination refers to testimonial compulsion. Thus, if the witness is willing to answer the question although incriminating, he can waive such right.
20.) OBJECTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ANSWER IS HEARSAY. (Sec. 36, Rule 130, Rules of Court.)
Under the rules, a witness can testify only to those facts that he knows of or come from his personal knowledge, that is, which are derived from his perception. A witness, therefore, may not testify as to what he merely learned from others, either because he was told, or he read or heard the same. Such testimony is considered hearsay and may not be received as proof of the truth of what he has learned or heard. The right person to testify is the author of that statement. This is known as the hearsay rule.
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of what it asserts. The general rule is that hearsay is inadmissible. The purpose of the hearsay rule is to limit the danger of unreliable evidence at trial. By its very nature, hearsay is the statement of a person who is not testifying at trial under oath and not subject to cross-examination.
21. OBJECTION BECAUSE THE QUESTION VIOLATES THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE:
Do not confuse parol evidence from Original Document Rule.
Example. If what you are proving is the CONTENT of the writing or document, or what the document says, invoke the Original Document Rule.
But if what you are proving is the terms of the agreement or that it is not what the parties have agreed upon, you invoke the parol evidence rule. Parol evidence applies only to a document or writing containing an AGREEMENT, including a will. It does not cover writing that merely describes or states an occurrence of a fact or event, such as a receipt, etc.
Under this rule, a party is prohibited from presenting evidence that will change, modify, or vary an agreement that has been reduced to writing. Evidence of what parties said BEFORE or AT THE TIME of the agreement was made cannot be presented to alter, contradict, diminish, or enlarge the agreement.
The reason is when the agreement is reduced in writing, it is presumed to embody all the intentions of the parties, and the parties should respect it as the final and complete repository of the agreement. The main purpose of the rule is to preserve the credibility as well as the value of the agreement.
There are, however, recognized exceptions to this rule provided the following should be PLEADED as an issue in the case. Oral evidence may be introduced to prove the following:
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake, or imperfection in the written agreement;
(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the ex*****on of the written.
22. OBJECTION AS TO THE FORM OF QUESTIONS:
1. The question is TOO GENERAL AND BROAD AND AMBIGUOUS. The judge and witness should be able to reasonably understand the nature of the question.
It is when the question elicits general answers such that a witness can say almost anything that comes to his mind. This will invite the witness to give his perception, guess, and not observation of the incident. It is easy to give his opinion also in giving his general answer.
Example: “Can you tell us what happened next after they got married?”
The answer of the witness to this question may cover a number of years and may refer to many places and incidents without relevance to the issue of the case. The better question is, “After they got married, what behavior did you observe from the husband during their first year? It is more specific.
2. The question is ARGUMENTATIVE.
If the question elicits an answer to the argument presented, it is argumentative. It is not the function of the counsel to argue with the witness or, through the witness, to the court. Argument to the case is reserved after the evidence is concluded, and it should not be presented by way of interrogating the witness.
The question that says, “How can you remember the date of the transaction when you cannot even remember the number of days in a year?”
This question calls for an argument and not a fact.
A question should attempt to elicit facts and not comment on the witness’s credibility or argue with the inferences to be drawn from the answer.
3. The question assumes facts not in evidence.
A question should not contain facts that are in dispute and assumed to be true but on which there has been no evidence.
4. The question calls for improper HYPOTHETICAL question.
This kind of question usually starts with the words “suppose,” “assuming,” or “is it not possible.” The questions that merely assume facts that are not yet in evidence are not permitted. This also misleads the witness. It also calls the witness to give his opinion as an ordinary witness. If he is an expert witness, hypothetical questions may be asked of him to express his opinion on specific matters.
Some reasons for advancing this objection could include there being insufficient facts for the expert to respond, the question misstating evidence, and the question only stating opinions and not facts.
5. The question is LEADING. The witness on direct examination should be, with limited exceptions, required to provide the answers and not merely agree to suggestions of counsel. This is allowed in cross-examination.
6. The question is MISLEADING: the question may mislead the judge and cause them to give more importance to the response than is appropriate.
THE QUESTION MUST NOT BE MISLEADING. (Rule 132, Sec. 10).
When it assumes as true a fact which has not yet been testified to by the witness or because it is contrary to what he previously stated, it is misleading. It is also misleading when the question suggests a wrong or untruthful answer. It is a trick question designed to confuse and make the witness give a false or inconsistent answer. While leading questions are allowed in cross-examination, misleading questions are not allowed in direct and cross-examinations.
For example, in cross-examination: “You stated in your previous testimony that Juan was driving the car; why are you now insisting that Juan was not driving the car?” The witness here merely stated that he saw Juan seated in the front seat of the vehicle.
7. The question asks MULTIPLE QUESTIONS, i.e., is COMPOUND.
A witness should only be responding to one question at a time. A multiple question asks the witness to respond to more than one question at a time.
It is a compound question when 2 or more questions are asked, usually connected by the conjunction “and” or “or.” This is prohibited because the questions may elicit an irrelevant and inadmissible answer. The witness also may answer the question not realizing that there are several queries in the question, and he may forget to answer some of them. The court may also find it difficult to know which of the questions was answered or not.
EXAMPLE: “Mr. Witness, did you see the witness walking and hear him say that statement?”
8. The question calls for a NARRATIVE RESPONSE or NARRATION OF FACTS.
When the question invites the witness to give a continuous recitation of the facts of the incident from beginning to end, the witness is called to narrate the facts.
For example: “Mr. Witness, please tell us what happened on December 5, 2012?”
The question practically gives the witness the freedom to say almost anything that happened during that date, even if it is not connected or relevant to the issue. There is also a temptation that the witness may give his opinion and unnecessary and irrelevant testimony. The question must be limited to that aspect that has a relation to the case, such as “Mr. Witness, on December 5, 2012 at about 3 p.m., did you observe any untoward incident in connection with this case?”
A narrative response is one in which the witness testifies without repeated questions from counsel. The problem with a narrative response is that it gives the witness the opportunity to testify to inadmissible matters without the prior opportunity to object.
Specific questions asking for specific responses help the objecting party to exclude improper evidence before the jury can hear it if the objection is sustained.
The judge has discretion to allow narrative responses. If the judge overrules the objection, a motion to strike with a curative instruction will be necessary if any objectionable testimony comes out.
9. The question calls for the witness to SPECULATE.
A witness may only testify to facts or opinions actually perceived by that witness and may not engage in speculation, conjecture, or guessing.
23. THE QUESTIONS CALL FOR IMPROPER IMPEACHMENT.
The purpose of impeachment is to attack a witness’s credibility so that the jury will be less inclined to believe that witness. Impeachment may be improper because of:
A) Improper use of criminal conviction\
B)Improper use of a prior bad act.
C) Improper use of character witness.
D) Improper use of prior inconsistent statement.
E) Improper impeachment of one’s own witness.
F) Improper use of bias, prejudice, or interest.
24. Cross-examination question exceeds scope of direct-examination .
The cross-examiner may only inquire about the subject matter raised on direct examination unless the court permits otherwise. In the US, some states permit a wide-open cross-examination on any relevant matter. Under both the federal rule and the wide-open approach, credibility of the witness is always a proper matter for cross examination.
25. Opinion rule violated.
A lay witness may state an opinion if the basis of the opinion is personal knowledge and it would be helpful to the trier of fact.
26. Improper expert opinions.
An expert’s opinion may be challenged on a number of grounds, including a witness who is not qualified as an expert. The subject matter of the opinion is sufficiently within the jurors’ knowledge so that the opinion would not be helpful to the trier of fact. The opinion provides a legal standard. The opinion is not predicated upon a proper basis. The opinion is based in part on data that has not been admitted into evidence and would not reasonably be used by an expert in rendering such an opinion.
27. Improper authentication and identification .
A foundation must be established as a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence (real evidence, writings, photographs, voices) that an item is what it purports to be.
28. Improper judicial notice.
Only adjudicative facts and not legislative facts can be judicially noticed if there is no reasonable dispute of that fact because of common knowledge of people within the jurisdictional territory of the court or the fact can readily be ascertained from a reliable source.
More objections in the next reflection.
-END -
