Opinion ID: 1708994
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did grayco fail to adequately specify the grounds for its objection?

Text: Defendant Poole argues that Grayco did not state the grounds for its objections to the trial court's failure to give numerous written requested jury charges. Consequently, argues Defendant Poole, Grayco waived its right to appellate review. All of the requested jury charges at issue here are statutory provisions or relate to case law construction of federal or state securities regulations. Defendant Poole relies on the following provision in Rule 51 as the basis for his argument: No party may assign as error the giving or failing to give a written instruction, or the giving of an erroneous, misleading, incomplete, or otherwise improper oral charge unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection. It is true that we have construed Rule 51 to proscribe general objections. This Court has often held that a party has waived appellate review based on the grounds requirement of Rule 51. See Burnett v. Martin, 405 So.2d 23 (Ala.1981), Wright v. Waters, 367 So.2d 960 (Ala.1979). We have also said, however, that an overly rigid enforcement of Rule 51 should not be permitted. Hosey v. Seibels Bruce Group, S.C. Ins. Co., 363 So.2d 751 (Ala.1978). Rule [51] [will] not be so technically construed as to obliterate its spirit. Odom v. Linsey, 365 So.2d 664 (Ala.1978). The essential purpose of Rule 51 is to give the trial court an opportunity to correct its instructions and to avoid the waste of time and money from reversals that result from oversight, technical omissions, or remediable mistakes. See Hosey, at 753, Gardner v. Dorsey, 331 So.2d 634 (Ala.1976), Crigler v. Salac, 438 So.2d 1375 (Ala.1983). That being the purpose, we have held that where an oral charge is misleading or confusing, strict adherence to the grounds-stating requirement of Rule 51 is necessary in order to achieve the essential spirit of the Rule. Here, however, we are not dealing with misleading or confusing jury charges. We are dealing with a total failure to give requested written instructions on case law construction of the securities regulations. It is the duty of the trial judge to educate the jury on the law of the case. Raines v. Williams, 397 So.2d 86 (Ala. 1981), Health Maintenance Group of Birmingham v. Rutledge, 459 So.2d 889 (Ala. Civ.App.1984). We agree with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals: It is the inescapable duty of the trial judge to instruct the jurors fully and correctly on the applicable law of the case, and to guide, direct and assist them toward an intelligent understanding of the legal and factual issues involved in their search for truth. McClendon v. Reynolds Electrical & Engineering, 432 F.2d 320 (5th Cir.1970), quoting from 2B Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1105 at 470 (1961). Considering the totality of the circumstances in this case, we cannot say that Plaintiff Grayco's objection was so general as to violate Rule 51 and thereby prevent appellate review. We take into consideration 1) the purpose of the Rule, which is to give the trial court an opportunity to correct the instructions, 2) the fact that these were written instructions and thus the trial judge had the opportunity to review them, and 3) the fact that plaintiff's counsel obviously raised his objections during a whispered bench conference at the close of the trial judge's charge to the jury. It is the opinion of this Court that the trial judge was aware of the plaintiff's objections. As we said in Gardner v. Dorsey, 331 So.2d 634 (Ala.1976): Surely, the Rule does not contemplate that the objecting party, in order to preserve for review an erroneous instruction, is required to deliver a discourse before the trial judge on the applicable law of the case. 331 So.2d 634, 637.