Opinion ID: 1775430
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY AS TO THE LEGAL EFFECT OF THE LEARNED TREATISES ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE. Two medical treatises were admitted into evidence at the plaintiff's request. These treatises were verified by plaintiff's expert as publications in the medical field that are generally recognized as standard and authoritative works in the diagnosis and treatment of the conditions experienced by Mr. Brackett. The trial court, in its oral instruction to the jury, made no mention of these treatises or of their legal effect. In initially instructing the jury as to the effect of expert testimony, the trial court failed to indicate that the authoritative treatises admitted into evidence constituted expert evidence. During deliberations, the jury had some questions as to the effect of expert testimony. The trial court reinstructed the jury on this aspect of the case; however, no instruction was given that expert testimony is not limited to the opinions expressed by witnesses, but may also be contained in authoritative treatises admitted into evidence. After the trial court reconvened following a weekend recess, the jury had no further questions and was sent back to the jury room to continue its deliberations. At this time, the appellant made her first exception to the oral charge failing to instruct the jury that the written treatises admitted into evidence were to be considered expert testimony. The plaintiff concedes that, in response to questions from the jury, the trial court simply recharged the jury as to the credibility of witnesses and the definition and instructions concerning expert witnesses. Dr. Coleman maintains that the instructions given by the trial court are sufficient in this area. Also, Dr. Coleman asserts that the failure of the appellant to object to the trial court's original charge and her failure to submit written additional or explanatory instructions precludes her right to assign error on appeal. The trial court's initial charge to the jury included the following instruction: In a case of this nature, this standard is established by law and by the expert medical evidence presented for your consideration, including the testimony of physicians called as witnesses. The inference from this charge is clear. The jurors are to consider all medical evidence, of which the testimony of doctors as witnesses is merely a portion. As previously noted, at the time the charge was initially given, the appellant made no objection. We find the holding in Johnson v. McMurray, 461 So.2d 775 (Ala. 1984), to be dispositive on this issue. Where there is no proper objection to the court's oral charge, this Court is powerless to reverse, even if the appellant's argument is meritorious. Rule 51, Ala.R.Civ.P.