In California, an objection to a question that calls for speculation is raised when a question asks the witness to provide an answer based on guesswork or assumptions rather than on facts or personal knowledge. Speculation occurs when the witness is asked to provide information about something they don’t know, haven’t observed, or can’t reasonably infer. For example, asking a witness, “What do you think the driver was thinking when the accident occurred?” is objectionable because it asks the witness to speculate about another person’s state of mind without any basis for that assumption. Witnesses are only allowed to testify about facts they have personally observed or experienced, not about things they are guessing or assuming.
The purpose of objecting to speculative questions is to prevent unreliable or unfounded testimony from influencing the case. California law requires that a witness’s testimony be based on actual knowledge or experience, not on what they might think or assume about the situation. If the objection is sustained, the attorney must rephrase the question in a way that seeks a factual, grounded response. This ensures that the evidence presented in court is both relevant and credible, allowing the judge or jury to make decisions based on reliable information rather than hypothetical scenarios.
