Opinion ID: 1961230
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Reviewable Error (ARCP 51) Issue

Text: Our previous treatment of the reviewable error issue under ARCP 51 seemed consistent in its requirement that the spirit and purpose of the Rule be complied with, but without exacting an overly technical standard. Admittedly, this is a close case; but I believe it breaks the consistency established through the cases cited and reviewed in Odom. The issue in the instant case arises in the context of given requested written instructions which were read by the trial Judge to the jury along with his oral charge. Additionally, when the Judge concluded his total instructions and inquired of counsel whether they had any objections, Plaintiff's counsel replied: No objections. The Power Company insists that this reply constituted a waiver of any and all objections to the entire charge (oral and given requested charges) irrespective of the objections and grounds therefor stated by the Plaintiff during the pre-charge conference. As to the oral instruction, unarguably, Plaintiff waived all objections; but my review of the record convinces me that the trial Court gave the requested charges after having fully understood counsel's objection and their grounds therefor as stated in a lengthy colloquy in chambers during the pre-charged conference. On the record as here postured, I would hold that the giving of the requested jury instructions as part of the whole of the Court's oral charge, as mandated by the Rule, did not have the effect of so merging its contents as to cause the given requested portion to lose its identity; and, consequently, Plaintiff's post-charge No objections did not constitute a waiver of his objections to the subject charges which were marked Given and read verbatim to the jury. Unquestionably, the better practice would be for counsel, who wishes to agree to the oral portion and preserve for appellate review any objections previously registered to the written requested portion of the charge, to continue beyond the mere No objections by adding, in substance: Except, of course, for those objections and grounds therefor to the given requested charges as previously stated on the record; or, counsel should restate his objections and grounds. But where, as here, the spirit of the Rule has been followed and the trial Judge has not been misled, I think we do violence to its purpose to exact upon the trial bar an overly technical application of the pertinent provisions of Rule 51.