California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Morris, 279 Cal.Rptr. 720, 53 Cal.3d 152, 807 P.2d 949 (Cal. 1991):
A party desiring to preserve for appeal a challenge to the admission of evidence must comply with the provisions of Evidence Code section 353, which precludes reversal for erroneous admission of evidence unless: "There appears of record an objection to or a motion to exclude or to strike the evidence that was timely made and so stated to make clear the specific ground of the objection or motion." The reason for the requirement is manifest: a specifically grounded objection to a defined body of evidence serves to prevent error. It allows the trial judge to consider excluding the [53 Cal.3d 188] evidence or limiting its admission to avoid possible prejudice. It also allows the proponent of the evidence to lay additional foundation, modify the offer of proof, or take other steps designed to minimize the prospect of reversal. (See Bundy v. Sierra Lumber Co. (1906) 149 Cal. 772, 776, 87 P. 622.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.