Court Opinion

ID: 9633616
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:54:15.390275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:38.589207
License: Public Domain

RABINOWITZ, Chief Justice,
concurring.
Article I, section 16 of the Alaska Constitution provides in part: “In civil cases where the amount in controversy exceeds two hundred fifty dollars, the right of trial by a jury of twelve is preserved to the same extent as it existed at common law.” By way of partial implementation of this constitutionally guaranteed right this court promulgated Civil Rule 51. Two aspects of Rule 51 are of significance here. First, it is important to note that under Alaska’s system of jury trials a party may, but is not required to, submit requested instructions.1 Second, whether or not the party *757has submitted requested instructions, Civil Rule 51(b) mandates that “[t]he court shall instruct the jury on all matters of law which it considers necessary for their information in giving their verdict.”
This latter aspect of Civil Rule 51(b) is in accord with, and reflective of, the firmly established doctrine that it is the inescapable duty of common law judges “to instruct the jurors, fully and correctly, on the applicable law of the case, and to guide, direct, and assist them toward an intelligent understanding of the legal and factual issues involved_” 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2556, at 654 (1971) [hereinafter Wright & Miller]. See also Pierce v. Ramsey Winch Co., 753 F.2d 416, 424-25 (5th Cir.1985); Watland v. Walton, 410 F.2d 1, 5 (8th Cir.1969); Tyler v. Dowell, Inc., 274 F.2d 890, 897 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 812, 80 S.Ct. 1248, 4 L.Ed.2d 1153 (1960). Of particular relevance is the conclusion of Professors Wright and Miller that “[t]he court must instruct the jury properly on the controlling issues in the case even though there has been no request for an instruction or the instruction requested is defective.” 9 Wright & Miller, supra, § 2556, at 654-55. See Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. v. Superior Burner Serv. Co., 427 P.2d 833, 837 (Alaska 1967).
Given the foregoing I urge our trial judges to reject this court’s invitation to author pretrial orders which provide that the late filing of requested instructions constitutes a waiver of the party’s constitutionally guaranteed right to a jury trial. The insertion of notice of this potential sanction in pretrial orders will, in my view, have counterproductive consequences. As indicated earlier, it is the trial court’s duty to instruct the jury on all legal facets of the trial whether or not the party has submitted requested instructions. Rather than filing a late requested instruction and thus forfeiting the right to a jury trial, a litigant facing a pretrial order waiver sanction will simply opt to decline to file any requested instructions. As a result, the trial court will be deprived of the particularly valuable assistance and experience of trial counsel’s analysis of often complex and novel legal doctrines.
In short, there are available to trial courts an entire array of sanctions short of the denial of a jury trial to a litigant who files untimely requested instructions.2 The majority’s suggestion in my view denigrates an important constitutional right and in all probability will deprive trial courts of the valuable assistance of attorneys in fashioning legally correct instructions.3

. In this regard Civil Rule 51(a) reads in relevant part: "At the close of the evidence or at such earlier time during the trial as the court reasonably directs, any party may file written requests that the court instruct the jury on the law set forth in the requests." (Emphasis furnished.)

. Professors Wright and Miller state: "The court may refuse to consider an untimely request, although its discretion to decline the request because it is untimely should be sparingly and cautiously exercised." 9 Wright & Miller, supra, § 2552, at 624-25.

. I concur in all other aspects of the court’s opinion.