Opinion ID: 2394054
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Plain Language of the 2007 Statute

Text: OCGA 17-8-58 was added to the Criminal Code in May 2007 and applies to all trials that occur on or after July 1, 2007. The statute speaks in clear terms: (a) Any party who objects to any portion of the charge to the jury or the failure to charge the jury shall inform the court of the specific objection and the grounds for such objection before the jury retires to deliberate. Such objections shall be done outside of the jury's hearing and presence. (b) Failure to object in accordance with subsection (a) of this Code section shall preclude appellate review of such portion of the jury charge, unless such portion of the jury charge constitutes plain error which affects substantial rights of the parties. Such plain error may be considered on appeal even if it was not brought to the court's attention as provided in subsection (a) of this Code section. (Emphasis added.) Subsection (a) of the new statute changed the previous rule that this Court had recognized, which allowed defense counsel in criminal cases to preserve objections to jury charges for full appellate review merely by announcing at the end of the charges that the defendant was reserving his objections, without specifying the ground for objection until after the jury returned its verdict. See White v. State, 243 Ga. 250, 250, 253 S.E.2d 694 (1979) (holding that [w]here the trial court inquires whether there was objection [to the jury charges] and the defendant's counsel states that he reserves the right to object in his motion for new trial or appeal, there is no waiver of appellate review); Pruitt v. State, 282 Ga. 30, 33 & n. 2, 644 S.E.2d 837 (2007). This rule allowed a defendant not to specify objections at a time when the trial court might correct an erroneous charge, leaving as the only remedy (where the error was reversible) the grant of a new trial. The new statute requires specific objections to jury charges to be made before the jury starts deliberating, giving the trial court the opportunity to correct any errors identified and salvage the trial. Subsection (b) of OCGA § 17-8-58 begins by stating the cost of failure to make such a timely and specific objection: preclud[ing] appellate review of the jury chargereview that is normally de novo. Accurate jury charges are, however, important to the reliability of criminal trials. See Brodes v. State, 279 Ga. 435, 438, 614 S.E.2d 766 (2005) (discussing the critical importance of accurate jury instructions as `the lamp to guide the jury's feet in journeying through the testimony in search of a legal verdict' (citation omitted)). This may explain the remainder of subsection (b) of the 2007 statute, which states that, notwithstanding the failure to properly object at trial, a jury charge must still be reviewed for plain errormeaning a clear or obvious error that was not affirmatively waived; that affects the defendant's substantial rights, usually by affecting the outcome of the trial; and that also seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. [1] To make sure this point is not lost, the statute repeats it twice: improper objection waives appellate review  unless such portion of the jury charge constitutes plain error which affects substantial rights of the parties. Such plain error may be considered on appeal even if it was not brought to the court's attention as provided in subsection (a) of this Code section. OCGA § 17-8-8(b) (emphasis added). [2]