Court Opinion

ID: 9770263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:56:18.183295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:15.956079
License: Public Domain

Robert H. Dudley, Justice, dissenting. Perhaps every lawyer who has appealed a case and written a brief pursuant to our rules has envisioned the horror of the appellate court affirming, which in effect dismisses the appeal, on the basis of then Rule 9, now Rule 4-2 of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. The majority opinion reaches out to make that horror come true in this case; so far out that in reality it misapplies the rule and reverses the trial court because appellee, not appellants, failed to abstract two pattern instructions. The case is being reversed for an alleged error that every member of this court knows did not occur. Appellants contend that the court erred in refusing to give proffered instruction AMI 903. Appellee responds that it was not necessary to give the proffered instruction because the trial court gave AMI 904 and 907, and, as the trial court ruled, they were sufficient to instruct the jury on the issue. The instructions given are neither abstracted nor in the record. The abstract reflects only that appellants proffered AMI 903. The majority opinion holds that this court will not consider whether the instructions given were sufficient because appellee, not appellants, did not abstract them, and that constitutes a violation of Rule 4-2. The majority opinion cites Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Co. v. Koenig, 240 Ark. 650, 401 S.W.2d 216 (1966), as authority for its holding. I cannot agree. This case is clearly different from Koenig, and ought to be distinguished from it. In the Koenig case, we said that when an appellee argues that the refusal to give a proffered instruction was cured by other instructions, ‘“it is the dúty of the appellee to point out such other instructions to the court.’” Koenig, 240 Ark. at 653, 401 S.W.2d at 218 (quoting Forest Park Canning Co. v. Coler, 226 Ark. 64, 287 S.W.2d 899 (1956)). The other instructions were not pointed out in Koenig. Here, the curative instructions are pointed out. The trial court is quoted as saying, “I think 904 and 907 will cover the fact situation.” There was no discussion about modifying the pattern instructions. Both 904 and 907 are complete model instructions. Neither has alternative sections. There is simply no question about the wording of the two instructions. The majority opinion provides: “Apparently the Trial Court chose to do just as the Committee [on Model Jury Instructions (Civil)] recommends, but we still do not know what the jury was told. Although the Trial Court mentioned he thought AMI 904 and 907 would ‘cover it,’ we cannot tell from the record that either of these instructions was given.” I agree that the trial court did what the Committee recommends, but cannot agree that we do not know whether the insutructions were given. The jury was given the instructions with the AMI numbers on them. For example, the record reflects that in closing argument defense counsel said, in part: 903 is an instruction which says that—I’m sorry, it’s 901 for any of you that might be listening to me. 901 is the one that says. . . . (Tr. 194) That’s 907—that instruction number. And 907 says—I’m going to look at it. It says.... (Tr. 201) 603 says. . . . (Tr. 204) Appellee states that AMI 904 and 907 were given and the trial court followed the Committee’s recommendation in refusing 903. Appellants do not dispute that 904 and 907 were given. In summary, the trial court said it was going to give 904 and 907; the record reflects that appellee made arguments that were based on the trial court’s having given the model instructions; appellee argues that they were given; and appellants do not dispute the fact they were given. Every member of this court knows that AMI 904 and 907 were given just as the model instructions provide. It is unfair not to consider the instructions on the ground that this court does not know whether the instructions were given, and it is a misapplication of Rule 4-2 to so hold. This case is clearly distinguishable from Koenig, supra. Corbin and Brown, JJ., join in this dissent.