California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Sperling, 12 Cal.App.5th 1094, 219 Cal.Rptr.3d 570 (Cal. App. 2017):
"The reason for [the forfeiture] rule is that [i]t is both unfair and inefficient to permit a claim of error on appeal that, if timely brought to the attention of the trial court, could have been easily corrected or avoided. [Citations.] [T]he forfeiture rule ensures that the opposing party is given an opportunity to address the objection, and it prevents a party from engaging in gamesmanship by choosing not to object, awaiting the outcome, and then claiming error. [Citation.]" (People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 46, 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 605, 178 P.3d 1100.) "Had [appellant] timely and specifically objected below, the trial court presumably would have had an opportunity to correct, and could have corrected, any error. [Citation.]" (People v. Ortiz , supra , 208 Cal.App.4th at p. 1372, 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 907, fn. omitted.)
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.