Opinion ID: 1833850
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Failure to Allow Objections to Court's Charge Issue.

Text: Beloit argues that the trial Judge committed reversible error in denying counsel the right to make specific objections to the Court's charges before the jury retired. The trial Judge did, however, allow each attorney an exception to everything the Court had said or done in the charges. The Judge elaborated by stating that his purpose was to preserve for all the attorneys any error committed. Although we do not approve of the Court's refusal to allow counsel to state their objections before the jury retired for deliberation, we believe no prejudicial error was committed unless the given instructions were themselves erroneous; and our careful review of all challenged portions of the charge discloses no erroneous jury instruction. The purpose of allowing counsel the opportunity to state their objections is twofold. First, it preserves, for appellate review, any error committed in the giving of a defective instruction. Secondly, it offers the trial judge an opportunity to correct any error he may have committed. See ARCP, Rule 51, and Comments. Here, there is no question that the trial Judge, by refusing to allow the parties to state specific objections to his charge, denied himself the opportunity to correct any error he might have made; but the crucial question is whether, absent an erroneous charge, this was prejudicial to Beloit. We hold it was not.