For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices or call 949-702-5390.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

U.S. Supreme Court

Feb. 28, 2012

To object or not to object: What is the consequence?

The contemporaneous objection rule is neither ubiquitous nor absolute.

2nd Appellate District, Division 2

Brian M. Hoffstadt

Associate Justice, California Court of Appeal

UCLA School of Law, 1995

One of the cardinal tenets of trial procedure is the contemporaneous objection rule, which obligates lawyers (or self-represented litigants) to speak up - either by objecting or making an offer of proof - at the time an issue is being decided. Penal Code Section1259; Dimmick v. Dimmick, 58 Cal. 2d 417 (1962); Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 30(d), 52(a); Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51(d), 61. The rule has teeth: In most instances, unpreserved rights are considered "forfeite...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Sign up for Daily Journal emails

Related Content

Criminal Law and Procedure

In re Seaton

Failure to raise issues about which petitioner had evidence at trial precludes consideration of those issues in habeas corpus proceeding.

Civil Procedure

Sullivan v. Delta Air Lines

Statute barring recovery of damages for pain and suffering doesn't apply if plaintiff dies during appeal.

United States v. Cotton

Order

Civil Rights

Green v. State of California

Like ADA, FEHA requires employees alleging discrimination to prove they are 'qualified individuals' able to perform job's essential duties with or without reasonable accommodation.

Government

Metcalf v. County of San Joaquin

Because County was neither negligent in creating dangerous condition nor had notice of condition, it is not liable for plaintiff's injuries.

Criminal Law and Procedure

People v. Martinez

Good cause does not exist for jury removal of probation department employee who was inadvertently contacted by investigator for defendant’s files.

Criminal Law and Procedure

People v. Anderson

Trial court has no obligation to provide instruction on defense of accident where defendant's theory attempted to negate intent element of crime.

Criminal Law and Procedure

People v. Gutierrez

Three-year old son's out-of-court statement implicating father in mother's murder is deemed inadmissible as spontaneous statement.

Criminal Law and Procedure

People v. Thornton

Convicted kidnapper and murderer’s sentence for kidnapping for robbery is modified where court punished him under wrong Penal Code subsection.

Criminal Law and Procedure

U.S. v. Vonn

Defendant who does not object to error of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 11 must satisfy plain-error rule.

Criminal Law and Procedure

Cone v. Bell

Defendant properly preserves 'Brady' claim in state court where federal court erred by barring claim as twice presented to state court.

Criminal Law and Procedure

People v. Simon

Defendant accused of felony must bring improper venue objection before trial begins or else forfeit his right to such objection.

Criminal Law and Procedure

Puckett v. U.S.

Plain-error standard in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 52(b) applies to forfeited claim that government broke plea agreement.

Criminal Law and Procedure

U.S. v. Jimenez-Recio

Erroneous instruction prevents jury from considering evidence of defendants' post-seizure involvement in conspiracy.

Criminal Law and Procedure

U.S. v. Grant

Sentencing judge may not consider rehabilitation for purposes of imposing imprisonment upon revocation of defendant’s supervised release.

Criminal Law and Procedure

U.S. v. Sanchez

Prosecutor’s statements urging jury against acquittal in case that rested on defendant’s credibility prejudices defendant's trial and warrants reversal of conviction.

Civil Procedure

Air Machine Com SRL v. Superior Court (Sukumar)

Defendants are not deemed to have appeared in action by serving 998 offer where they moved to quash before serving offer.



By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.