Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

 Skip to Content

The Key to Jury Instruction Preservation: Objecting with Precision and Completeness
February 14, 2017

TipsIn Byrd v. Stubbs, 190 So. 3d 26 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016), the Mississippi Court of Appeals reminded us of the need to be diligent during a charge conference by raising specific objections to a proposed jury instruction, as opposed to a general objection. In Byrd, the plaintiff in a medical negligence case objected to a proposed superseding cause instruction on the grounds that the instruction was not supported by the evidence. It was not until her motion for new trial – after the verdict was rendered – that the plaintiff asserted that the proposed instruction was a misstatement of law.

This is a fundamental preservation principle that cannot be disregarded. While, in some circumstances, a party may cure its lack of objection at trial through a post-trial motion, that generally is not the case with jury instructions. The specific objection must be made at trial before the instructions are read to the jury; a general objection will not suffice.

On an interesting side note, the Mississippi court stated that there are only two distinct types of objections that a party can make to a proposed jury instruction: (1) that it is not warranted by the evidence; or (2) that it misstates the law. These broad categories may be misleading to a practitioner seeking to make a specific objection at trial. It often is not enough to simply say that a proposed instruction is not supported by the evidence or that it misstates the law. Instead, the specific reasons the objection falls into one of these broad categories must be given. Examples of such specific objections include:

  • The proposed instruction inappropriately comments on the evidence.
  • The proposed instruction ignores a party’s theory of the case.
  • The proposed instruction improperly deviates from the jurisdiction’s standard instruction.
  • The proposed instruction contradicts or conflicts with other instructions or conflicts with the verdict form.

 Preservation Issue

  • All objections to proposed jury instructions must specifically raise the reason for the objection; a general objection will not suffice.
  • In some jurisdictions, you may need to provide the court with an alternative proposed instruction that you believe is legally correct.

Tips

Given the time constraints and stresses of trial, trial lawyers often disregard the critical importance of the instructions given to the jury by not paying enough attention to the instructions or by making generalized objections to instructions. Practitioners should take the time to prepare their instructions before trial so they can adequately determine how to present their case. This also ensures that the instructions and their corresponding legal issues have been adequately analyzed, allowing trial counsel to have specific objections at the ready during the charge conference to adequately preserve their record for appeal.
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.