Opinion ID: 1817293
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING JURY INSTRUCTION NUMBER P-8(b) WHICH WAS A MISSTATEMENT OF THE LAW AND ERRONEOUS.

Text: Jury instruction NO. P-8 is confusing. It combines testimony and statutory language in such a way that it seems to be a comment on the evidence and is doubtful that the instruction was helpful to the jury; therefore, it should not have been given. The bench and bar would be best advised not to grant such an instruction in the future. However, in this case the trial judge ruled on 54 instructions. Appellee submitted a total of 27 instructions in which 17 were granted, and ten were refused. Appellants also submitted a total of 27 instructions of which 16 were granted, and 11 were refused. In sum, 33 of the 54 instructions were granted. The fact that the jury was responsible for sorting through and calling to mind 33 instructions prior to rendering a verdict makes it highly unlikely that the one instruction by itself will be confusing to the point of misleading them so seriously as to necessitate reversal. This is not to say that this is not possible  in effect that is what appellants argue here today  but it does lead us to believe that the instruction must be grossly incorrect and confusing to have the effect appellants pray for today. The trial court's Instruction No. 1 is helpful. There the judge makes it very clear how the jury is to handle this voluminous amount of instructions: You are not to single out one instruction alone as stating the law, but you must consider these instructions as a whole. We hold that whatever misleading effect or misstatement of the law derived from Jury Instruction No. P-8 was evenly offset with the admittance of Instruction Nos. 10(D-24) and 25(D-16[A]) and does not warrant reversal. Appellants' argument fails on Issue No. 3.