Opinion ID: 1708994
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: did grayco fail to object before the jury retired?

Text: Defendant contends that Grayco waived its right to appellate review because the jury had retired before any objection was made. To support its contention, Defendant refers to the following colloquy, which occurred upon the conclusion of the court's oral charge: THE COURT: Let me see you all just a minute. (Whereupon a discussion between Court and counsel was held out of the hearing of the Jury and the trial proceeds as follows:) THE COURT: Any person who sells or offers to sell a security in violation of a division of this article or any rule or order imposed under this article. Is that what you want me to do? Okay. I just did it. Any person who offers to sell a security in violation of 5, Section 515 [sic] USCA, Section 77e. Ladies and gentlemen, if you will, retire and commence your deliberations. You all get the exhibits that were admitted in there. (Whereupon, the Jury retired to the jury room and the following occurs out of the presence and hearing of the Jury.) MR. MEMORY: Let the Record reflect that in the presence of the Jury and before they separated, it was brought to the attention of the Court that he had not given some of the requested legal charges offered by the Plaintiffs. That the Judge has noted on said requested charges which ones had been given and which ones were refused. We object to the refusal of the Judge and the Court to give each of the charges indicated based upon the fact that they state correct principles of law. They are good law and relate to this particular case. That relates to requested charges one through thirty-three. MR. HUFFAKER: I would like the Record to reflect that at the time the objection is being made, the Jury has already retired to deliberate. MR. MEMORY: And let the Record reflect that that statement was made under the suggestion of the Court because the objections were made while the Jury was still in the room. Rule 51, Ala.R.Civ.P., provides that no party may assign as error the giving or failing to give an improper charge unless he objects and states the grounds of his objection before the jury retires. We note that Rule 51, Fed.R.Civ.P., is substantially the same as the relevant portion of Alabama Rule 51. While it is true that the Rule requires that objections be made prior to the time the jury retires for deliberations, we will not construe this Rule so narrowly as to allow it to be a technical trap. As noted by the Committee Comments to Rule 1, Ala.R. Civ.P., the policy of rules such as these is to disregard technicality and form in order that the civil rights of litigants may be asserted and tried on the merits, citing Mitchell v. White Consolidated, Inc., 177 F.2d 500 (7th Cir.1949), cert denied, 339 U.S. 913, 70 S.Ct. 574, 94 L.Ed. 1339 (1950). The purpose of the provision of the Rule requiring that objections be made before the jury retires is to lessen the number of technical errors by giving both the trial judge and the opposing attorney an opportunity to correct possible errors. Pruett v. Marshall, 283 F.2d 436, 441 (5th Cir. 1960). See, also, Industrial Development Bd. of Town of Section, Ala. v. Fuqua Industries, 523 F.2d 1226, 1238 (5th Cir. 1975). Here, the record reflects that plaintiff made its objections to the trial judge during a whispered bench conference, prior to the time the jury retired. The charges were written and submitted to the court prior to its oral jury instructions. This is not a situation where the judge had no opportunity to correct his instructions. We find that the spirit of the rule has been complied with; thus, we will not deny plaintiff its right to appellate review.