Opinion ID: 2069253
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Reputation instruction.

Text: The defendant contends that the instructions of the trial court were deficient in that they did not include an  instruction with regard to the evidence as to the good reputation of the defendant. The trial court informed the defendant that he would give the standard jury instruction on reputation and by apparent oversight, omitted doing so. At the close of the instructions, and after the jury had retired, counsel for the defense called to the trial court's attention that he had not informed the jury in his instructions that the defendant had pleaded not guilty to the information. The trial court immediately resummoned the jury and gave that instruction. Counsel for the defense made no other objection to the instructions until motions after verdict. This court has consistently held that the failure to make a timely objection to the instructions of the court constitutes a waiver of any alleged defects in the instructions. Lampkins v. State (1971), 51 Wis. 2d 564, 187 N. W. 2d 164; Mitchell v. State (1970), 47 Wis. 2d 695, 177 N. W. 2d 833. An objection is not timely if it is made after the time when the error could have been corrected. Lampkins v. State, supra ; State v. Halverson (1966), 32 Wis. 2d 503, 145 N. W. 2d 739. The defendant waived any possible assertion of error by failure to make a timely objection.