Short answer. Immediately, and the exact timing depends on what you're objecting to. Rule 132, Section 36 requires an objection to an offer of evidence right after the offer is made, an objection to testimony without a formal offer as soon as the witness begins testifying, and an objection to a question as soon as its objectionable nature becomes reasonably apparent.
What the law says
Objection to offer of evidence must be made orally immediately after the offer is made.
Rule 132, Section 36 — Objection. Read the full provision →
What the law says
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness must be made as soon as the grounds therefor become reasonably apparent. The grounds for the objections must be specified.
Rule 132, Section 36 — Objection. Read the full provision →
Three moments, three deadlines
Section 36 sets a different trigger depending on what is being objected to. An objection to offer of evidence must be made orally immediately after the offer is made. An objection to a witness's testimony where there was no formal offer must be made as soon as the witness begins to testify. And an objection to a specific question during oral examination must be made as soon as the grounds therefor become reasonably apparent — which in practice usually means right after the question is asked, before the witness answers.
Why the objection has to be specific
It is not enough to simply say 'objection.' The rule states plainly that the grounds for the objections must be specified. A vague objection without a stated legal basis gives the court and opposing counsel nothing to respond to, and risks being treated as no proper objection at all — the specific ground matters because it is what preserves the issue for appeal and tells the court exactly what rule or principle is being invoked.
What happens if you object late
Missing these windows generally means losing the right to object to that particular piece of evidence later — a party who lets an offer pass without objection, or lets a witness answer an objectionable question without speaking up when the grounds were already apparent, typically cannot resurrect the objection after the fact. This is why trial lawyers listen closely in real time rather than planning to raise concerns during closing arguments or in a later motion.
The narrow relief for repeated objections
The immediacy requirement does not mean a party has to repeat the identical objection to every question in an entire line of related questioning. Once it becomes apparent that a series of questions belongs to the same objectionable class as one already objected to, the rule does not require restating the objection each time — the adverse party can instead record a continuing objection to that class of questions, preserving the point without disrupting the flow of examination with repeated interruptions.