1. IMMATERIAL

"I object on the ground that the question calls for an immaterial answer."

Evidence having slight relevancy is immaterial. Evidence that is relevant but has little or no probative value and is therefore immaterial.

"I object on the ground that the question is argumentative."

When the purpose of the question is to persuade the trier of fact rather than to elicit information. Questions which call for an argument in answer to an argument contained in the question. Questions which call for no new facts, but only asks the witness to agree to conclusions drawn by the questioner.

The court, in its discretion, can allow argumentative questions on cross-examination.

"I object on the ground that the witness has already answered that question."

This objection is a form of the immateriality objection in that it attempts to prevent a waste of time by unnecessary repetition and to avoid giving evidence undue emphasis. The lawyer asks a question over and over again either because he's not getting the answer he wants or for emphasis.

"I object on the ground that the question is ambiguous (or unintelligible,) in ..."

"I object on the ground that the question is compound and calls for one answer to two different questions."

The compound question confuses the jury because it will be uncertain as to whether the answer is to one on the compound parts or to both parts.

"I object, this is an attempt to impeach the witness is improper because ..."

Prior contradictory statements, interest of the witness, bias, conviction of a felony, relationship, poor character for honesty or veracity, lack of opportunity to observe are some of the ways in which a witness may be impeached, but the form of the question must be articulated in such a way as to comply with the rules of evidence.

"I object on the ground that the question calls for an irrelevant answer."

Evidence which influences the issues, having probative value in proving a fact; that which tends to render probable a certain inference important in the case is relevant. Any evidence which does not perform these functions is irrelevant. A matter of logic and experience. All evidence must be relevant.

A question which suggests an answer is deamed to be leading. (test: Whether a reasonable person would get the impression that the examiner desires one answer rather than another.)

Permissible Leading Questions:

This objection is in the nature of an "irrelevance" objection in that a question inviting a narrative answer or that is too broad, general or indefinite and allows the witness to inject irrelevant and otherwise inadmissible matter (such as incompetent evidence where no proper foundation has been laid). Each question should limit the witness to a specific answer.

Basically, inadmissible opinion evidence is incompetent evidence (lack of sufficient foundation). (The objection to the effect that the answer would invade the province of the trier of fact or calls for an opinion on an ultimate fact is obsolete.)

"I object, the question calls for disclosure of a privileged communication between (attorney, psychiatrist, psychologist, priest, wife, husband) and on behalf of _______, I assert that privilege."

Communications in the course of protected relationships are presumed to be confidential.

A witness may testify to facts based on his or her own person knowledge or, in some instances, the witness may give an opinion. The witness may not base an answer, in any event, on speculation.

"I object on the ground that the question calls for hearsay."

Hearsay is testimony as to what someone said, other than while testifying in court (an extra-judicial statement), offered as proof of the truth of the matter asserted. As a general rule hearsay statements are not admissible unless the statement is within one of the recognized exceptions:

original speaker is the accused;

original speaker is deceased;

the statement is being made to establish that a conversation took place, but not to establish the substance of the original conversation.

"I object on the ground that the question assumes a fact not in evidence."

A question that assumes unproved facts to be true is objectionable as it seeks to bring before the trier of fact facts that have not been proved and may not be true. Further, such a question attempts to trap a witness into impliedly affirming the truth of the assumed fact without, in many cases, the witness meaning to affirm that fact.

17. OUT OF SCOPE