In California, an objection to a question seeking testimony on matters that are irrelevant to the present proceedings is raised when the question asks the witness to testify about information that does not have any bearing on the issues at hand in the case. Under California Evidence Code section 350, only relevant evidence is admissible in court. Relevant evidence is defined as evidence that has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. If the question delves into matters unrelated to the specific legal questions being decided, it may be objectionable as irrelevant. For example, if a witness is asked about their opinions on unrelated political matters when the case involves a contract dispute, this would likely be deemed irrelevant.
The purpose of this objection is to ensure that the trial remains focused on the facts and issues that are pertinent to the case. Allowing testimony on irrelevant matters can distract the court and jury, waste time, and potentially confuse the issues being litigated. When a question is objected to as irrelevant, the court will typically sustain the objection and instruct the attorney to rephrase the question to focus on the relevant facts. While there are some instances where seemingly unrelated matters may be relevant (for example, in establishing a background or motive), as a general rule, irrelevant questions are not permitted because they do not assist in resolving the issues before the court.
