Court Opinion

ID: 9766129
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:33:29.353293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:19.564883
License: Public Domain

HYDE, Judge.
I respectfully dissent because I do not believe we should hold Instruction No. 6 to be reversibly erroneous. If the trial court had granted a new trial on the ground that this instruction was not clear or misleading, I would affirm such an. order. However, I do not think this instruction is a misdirection, and if merely ambiguous it falls within the principle stated in Hooper v. Conrad, 364 Mo. 176, 189, 260 S.W.2d 496, 501, “that if either of the parties deems a hypothesized fact or situation not to have been clearly or sufficiently hypothesized in any instruction, he should offer a clarifying or amplifying instruction.”