Opinion ID: 1642624
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: LOPA Instruction

Text: At trial, the hospital, Ivey, and Strength presented to the trial court requested jury instruction numbers 27, 28, and 29, which were drawn from the LOPA but which the trial court declined to give. Although instruction number 29 is not in issue on appeal, the defendants complain of the denial of the other two requested instructions. Requested instruction number 27 consisted of the language of Ala. Code 1975, § 22-19-142(a); requested instruction number 28 consisted of the language of Ala.Code 1975, § 22-19-140(a). The record reflects that before closing arguments counsel for the hospital, Ivey, and Strength stated to the court, We do have defendants' charges 27, 28 and 29 that we would like to file with the Court at this point in time. The trial court responded to explain how it proposed to cover the subject matter in its oral charge, and no further comments were addressed to those proposed charges at that time. After the trial court instructed the jury, the hospital, Ivey, and Strength purported to renew an objection to the trial court's failure to give instructions 27 and 28, although they were in fact objecting for the first time. The defense stated: Finally, the defense renews objection to the Court's refusal to give charges 27 through 29, which are, again, based on the [LOPA] and the legislative intent underlying [the LOPA]. We believe [they] are correct and applicable charges. The trial court noted and overruled the objection by the hospital, Ivey, and Strength. `The ground that a jury instruction is a correct statement of law is insufficient to preserve an objection to the trial court's refusal to give the instruction.' Vaughan v. Oliver, 822 So.2d 1163, 1177 (Ala.2001) (quoting Ex parte R.D.W., 773 So.2d 426, 429 n. 3 (Ala.2000) (quoting in turn Knight v. State, 710 So.2d 511, 513 (Ala.Crim.App.1997))). The objection made by the hospital, Ivey, and Strength that their requested instructions were correct failed to preserve the objection. Further, the additional statement that the charges were applicable suffers the same lack of particularity as the statement regarding the correctness of the instructions. Vaughan, 822 So.2d at 1177. Consequently, this ground of objection has not been properly preserved for appeal.