Legal Definitions - contemporaneous-objection rule

The contemporaneous-objection rule is a fundamental principle in court proceedings that requires a party to formally object to a judge's decision or the introduction of evidenceat the very moment the issue arises during a trial. If an objection is not made promptly and clearly stated for the court record, the party generally loses the right to argue later, on appeal, that the judge made a mistake regarding that specific issue.

This rule serves two main purposes:

• It ensures that the trial judge has an immediate opportunity to consider the objection, correct any potential error, or clarify their ruling, thereby promoting fairness and efficiency in the legal process.
• It "preserves" the issue for a potential appeal, meaning that if the trial judge overrules the objection, the party can then raise that specific point as a reason for overturning the trial court's decision in a higher court.

An objection is considered "contemporaneous" if it is made as soon as the basis for the objection becomes apparent and is formally stated on the record for all parties and the court reporter to hear.

Here are some examples illustrating the contemporaneous-objection rule:

• Example 1: Improper Evidence Introduction

  During a civil trial for breach of contract, the plaintiff's attorney attempts to introduce a document as evidence without first establishing its authenticity (proving it is what it claims to be). The defense attorney believes the document is not properly authenticated and therefore inadmissible. Under the contemporaneous-objection rule, the defense attorney must immediately stand up and state, "Objection, Your Honor, lack of foundation," or "Objection, Your Honor, improper authentication," as soon as the plaintiff's attorney tries to present the document. If the defense attorney waits until after the trial is over and then tries to appeal, arguing the document was improperly admitted, an appeals court would likely reject their argument because they failed to give the trial judge an immediate opportunity to rule on the authenticity issue.

• Example 2: Hearsay Testimony

  In a personal injury lawsuit, a witness on the stand begins to testify, "My friend told me that the defendant admitted to running the red light." This statement is likely inadmissible hearsay (an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted). The opposing attorney, recognizing the hearsay, must immediately interject with "Objection, Your Honor, hearsay!" If the attorney allows the witness to complete the statement, or waits until cross-examination, or tries to raise it only on appeal, they will have missed their chance to make a contemporaneous objection. The trial judge needed to hear the objection right away to decide whether to allow the testimony or instruct the jury to disregard it.

• Example 3: Challenging Jury Instructions

  At the conclusion of a criminal trial, before the jury begins deliberations, the judge reads the instructions that will guide the jury in applying the law to the facts. The defense attorney believes one of the judge's instructions misstates a crucial element of the crime or a defense. According to the contemporaneous-objection rule, the defense attorney must object to the specific wording of that jury instruction before the jury retires to deliberate. If they fail to do so, they cannot later argue on appeal that the jury instruction was flawed, because the trial judge was not given the opportunity to reconsider or clarify the instruction at the appropriate time, potentially preventing a costly retrial.