Court Opinion

ID: 9547992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:56:01.033476+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:20.525738
License: Public Domain

COMPTON, Chief Justice (dissenting). It is my considered judgment that all Uniform Jury Instructions stand on a parity, and that the failure to give any one, where applicable, constitutes reversible error where the error is preserved for review. It was neither the purpose of the U.J.I. committee nor this court, in adopting its proposed rules, to put trial judges in strait jackets with regard to instructions. The court’s action, in entering the mandatory Order 8000, was to give to the Bench and Bar a windfall — a surcease from a practice fraught with danger, drafting instructions in haste and with uncertainty. The majority points out that the refused instruction was only cautionary. Be that as it may, it is the one the court said must be given. Chipping away of U.J.I. has now begun and will be camping at the door of the trial courts by what is being done. The majority suggests that this court must keep one eye on our Rule 17(10) (§ 21-2-1(17) (10), N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp.) in construing U.J.I. If and when this is done, U.J.I. will have met its demise. The majority having reached a different conclusion, I respectfully dissent.