OBJECTIONS
1. AMBIGUOUS – Confusing question in that it is capable of being understood in more than one way. CRE 611(a)
2. ARGUMENTATIVE – (1) Counsel’s question is argument to the jury in the form of a question (example: counsel summarizes facts, states conclusions, and demands that witness agree with conclusion); (2) excessive quibbling with witness. CRE 611(e)
3. ASKED AND ANSWERED – Counsel cannot emphasize evidence through repetition.
4. ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE – Fact not testified to is contained within the question. CRE 103(c)
5. NO AUTHENTICATION – No proof that the exhibit is in fact what it is claimed to be. CRE 901(a)
6. BEYOND SCOPE (Direct, Cross, etc.) – Question unrelated to examination immediately preceeding. CRE 611(b)
7. BOLSTERING – Improper to bolster the credibility of a witness before credibility is attacked. CRE 611(b)
8. CALLS FOR CONCLUSION – Except for expert, witness must testify to fact within personal knowledge only. Watch questions that begin with “why,” “would” and “how.” Conclusions are for the jury. CRE 602
9. COMPOUND QUESTION – More than one question contained in counsel’s question to witness. CRE 611(a)
10. CONFUSING – What the heck is opposing counsel trying to say? CRE 611(a)
11. CUMULATIVE – Repeated presentation of the same evidence by more exhibits or more witnesses is unfair, unnecessary, and wastes time. CRE 102, 611(a)
12. NO FOUNDATION – No proper foundation for testimony or exhibit. (example: offer of “recorded recollection” without showing memory failure). CRE 602, 901(a)
13. HEARSAY (question) – Answer would elicit hearsay, no exception has been shown. CRE 802
14. HEARSAY (answer) – Question did not call for hearsay, but witness gave it anyway. Consider making motion to strike and asking judge to instruct jurors to disregard. CRE 802
15. IMPROPER IMPEACHMENT – The methods of impeachment are pretty limited and specific. CRE 607-610
16. IMPROPER CHARACTERIZATION – Question or response has characterized a person or conduct with unwarranted suggestive, or argumentative language (example: “He looked like a crook”). CRE 404-405
17. RELEVANCE – Would not tend to make any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable. CRE 402
18. LEADING – Form of question tends to suggest the answer. CRE 611(c)
19. MISQUOTING WITNESS (MISSTATING EVIDENCE) – Counsel’s question misstates prior testimony of witness. Similar to “Assumes facts not in evidence.”
20. NARRATIVE – Questions are so broad or cover large period of time it would allow the witness to ramble. Or witness is rambling. CRE 103(c), 611(a)
21. OPINION – Lay opinion or inference which is beyond the scope permitted by Rule 701; personal knowledge lacking; or expert witness has not been qualified as such. CRE 602, 701, 702
22. SPECULATION – Calls for conjecture; requires witness who lacks personal knowledge to guess. CRE 602
23. UNRESPONSIVE – Answer includes testimony not called for by the question. Especially applicable to voluntary response by hostile witness. CRE 611(a)
1. AMBIGUOUS – Confusing question in that it is capable of being understood in more than one way. CRE 611(a)
2. ARGUMENTATIVE – (1) Counsel’s question is argument to the jury in the form of a question (example: counsel summarizes facts, states conclusions, and demands that witness agree with conclusion); (2) excessive quibbling with witness. CRE 611(e)
3. ASKED AND ANSWERED – Counsel cannot emphasize evidence through repetition.
4. ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE – Fact not testified to is contained within the question. CRE 103(c)
5. NO AUTHENTICATION – No proof that the exhibit is in fact what it is claimed to be. CRE 901(a)
6. BEYOND SCOPE (Direct, Cross, etc.) – Question unrelated to examination immediately preceeding. CRE 611(b)
7. BOLSTERING – Improper to bolster the credibility of a witness before credibility is attacked. CRE 611(b)
8. CALLS FOR CONCLUSION – Except for expert, witness must testify to fact within personal knowledge only. Watch questions that begin with “why,” “would” and “how.” Conclusions are for the jury. CRE 602
9. COMPOUND QUESTION – More than one question contained in counsel’s question to witness. CRE 611(a)
10. CONFUSING – What the heck is opposing counsel trying to say? CRE 611(a)
11. CUMULATIVE – Repeated presentation of the same evidence by more exhibits or more witnesses is unfair, unnecessary, and wastes time. CRE 102, 611(a)
12. NO FOUNDATION – No proper foundation for testimony or exhibit. (example: offer of “recorded recollection” without showing memory failure). CRE 602, 901(a)
13. HEARSAY (question) – Answer would elicit hearsay, no exception has been shown. CRE 802
14. HEARSAY (answer) – Question did not call for hearsay, but witness gave it anyway. Consider making motion to strike and asking judge to instruct jurors to disregard. CRE 802
15. IMPROPER IMPEACHMENT – The methods of impeachment are pretty limited and specific. CRE 607-610
16. IMPROPER CHARACTERIZATION – Question or response has characterized a person or conduct with unwarranted suggestive, or argumentative language (example: “He looked like a crook”). CRE 404-405
17. RELEVANCE – Would not tend to make any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable. CRE 402
18. LEADING – Form of question tends to suggest the answer. CRE 611(c)
19. MISQUOTING WITNESS (MISSTATING EVIDENCE) – Counsel’s question misstates prior testimony of witness. Similar to “Assumes facts not in evidence.”
20. NARRATIVE – Questions are so broad or cover large period of time it would allow the witness to ramble. Or witness is rambling. CRE 103(c), 611(a)
21. OPINION – Lay opinion or inference which is beyond the scope permitted by Rule 701; personal knowledge lacking; or expert witness has not been qualified as such. CRE 602, 701, 702
22. SPECULATION – Calls for conjecture; requires witness who lacks personal knowledge to guess. CRE 602
23. UNRESPONSIVE – Answer includes testimony not called for by the question. Especially applicable to voluntary response by hostile witness. CRE 611(a)