Court Opinion

ID: 9463760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:15:22.696533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:16.260976
License: Public Domain

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING
Appellant has petitioned for rehearing on grounds that the district court did not fully comply with Fed.R.Crim.P. 30, in affording counsel for defendant-appellant an opportunity to object to jury instructions.
That rule, as pertinent, reads:
* * * No party may assign as error any portion of the charge or omission therefrom unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds to his objection. Opportunity shall be given to make the objection out of the hearing of the jury and, on request of any party, out of the presence of the jury.
In this case the court, immediately following instructions and retirement of the jury, inquired if counsel had any objection to the instructions. Defendant’s counsel, although voicing objection to the judge’s comment indicating that the jury might limit its deliberations to a short period of time that day because of the late hour, stated that as to the substance of the instructions he had “no further objections.”
Thus, appellant’s counsel did receive an opportunity to object to any substantive instruction but failed to do so. Accordingly, the petition for rehearing must be denied as being without merit.
However, we note that the district court did not comply with the literal language contained in Fed.R.Crim.P. 30, that a party be given the opportunity to make objections “before the jury retires to consider its verdict.” The court should have permitted counsel to make objections prior to the time the jury formally retired to consider its verdict.