Rule 51. Instructions to Jury: Objection

• Library: South Carolina Rules Annotated (SCBar) (2020 Ed.)

RULE 51. INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY: OBJECTION

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 as set forth in the requests. The court shall inform counsel of its proposed action upon the requests prior to their arguments to the jury, but the court shall instruct the jury after the arguments are completed. No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds for his objection. Opportunity shall be given to make the objection out of the hearing of the jury.

Notes:

This is the language of Federal Rule 51. This Rule, as does the Federal Rule, requires the court to inform the lawyers of its proposed action on their requested instructions prior to argument. The language preserves Code §15-27-100, opportunity to object to charge or request additional charge out of presence of the jury, and present Circuit Court Rule 11.

Annotations Rule 51

51

Appeal

Objection required before jury retires to consider its verdict. McAlhaney v. McElveen, 413 S.C. 299, 307, 775 S.E.2d 411, 416 (Ct. App. 2015), reh'g denied (Aug. 20, 2015).

"In reviewing jury charges for error, we must consider the court's jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issue presented at trial. If, as a whole, the charges are reasonably free from error, isolated portions which might be misleading do not constitute reversible error." Keaton v. Greenville Hospital System, 334 S.C. 488, 514 S.E.2d 570, 575 (1999).

"In order to warrant reversal for failure to give a requested charge, the refusal must be both erroneous and prejudicial." Dalon v. Golden Lanes, Inc., 320 S.C. 534, 466 S.E.2d 368, 372 (Ct. App. 1996).

"In reviewing jury charges for error, we must consider the court's jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issue presented at trial. If, as a whole, the charges are reasonably free from error, isolated portions which might be misleading do not constitute reversible error." Bragg v. Hi-Ranger, Inc., 319 S.C. 531, 462 S.E.2d 321, 330 (Ct. App. 1995).

"Where trial judge's instructions are not printed in the record, the appellate court must presume the judge correctly charged the jury." Sullivan v. Davis, 317 S.C. 462, 454 S.E.2d 907, 910 (Ct. App. 1995).

"Jury instructions must be read in light of the entire charge and the facts of the case." Washington v. Whitaker, 317 S.C. 108, 120, 451 S.E.2d 894, 901 (1994).

One cannot base error on an instruction that is more favorable than that to which one is entitled. Otis Elevator, Inc. v. Hardin Const. Co. Group, Inc., 316 S.C. 292, 450 S.E.2d 41, 45 (1994).

"Jury instructions should be considered as a whole, and if as a whole they are free from error, any isolated portions which may be misleading do not constitute reversible error. The substance of the law is what must be instructed to the jury, not any particular verbiage." State v. Smith, 315 S.C. 547, 446 S.E.2d 411, 415 (1994).

"The law declared by the court must be the current and correct law. Jury instructions should be confined to the issues made by the pleadings and supported by the evidence. Ordinarily, a trial court has a duty to give a requested instruction that correctly states the law applicable to the issues and the evidence. To warrant reversal for refusal to give a requested instruction, the refusal must have been erroneous and prejudicial." Singletary v. S.C. Dept. of Education, 316 S.C. 153, 447 S.E.2d 231, 234 (Ct. App. 1994).

"Ordinarily, a trial court has the duty to give a requested instruction that correctly states the law applicable to the issues and the evidence." Williams v. Addison, 314 S.C. 35, 443 S.E.2d 582, 585 (Ct. App. 1994).

"The law to be charged to the jury is determined by the evidence presented at trial." State v. Goodson, 312 S.C. 278, 440 S.E.2d 370, 372 (1994).

Clarification of Ambiguities from Jury

"[T]he time to clarify ambiguities in a jury verdict is...