In California, an objection to a question that calls for a narrative answer is raised when the question is too broad or open-ended, prompting the witness to provide a lengthy, uncontrolled response that may stray from the specific issue at hand. For example, asking a witness, “Can you tell us everything that happened during the accident?” could lead to a narrative answer, where the witness might give a long, detailed account that includes irrelevant information. Such questions can result in testimony that is confusing, time-consuming, and may introduce details that are not directly related to the case.
The purpose of objecting to a question that calls for a narrative answer is to ensure that testimony remains focused and concise, with witnesses providing relevant, specific facts in response to clear and directed questions. The judge may sustain the objection, requiring the attorney to ask more specific, focused questions to elicit clear and relevant information. This helps maintain the clarity of the trial and ensures that the jury or judge receives only the necessary facts to make a fair determination of the case. By preventing narrative answers, the court also helps avoid wasting time and keeps the proceedings orderly.
