Rule 51 INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY.

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

Rule 51. Instructions to Jury.

The parties shall tender jury instructions pursuant to C.R.C.P. 16 (g). All instructions shall be submitted to the parties, who shall make all objections thereto before they are given to the jury. Only the grounds so specified shall be considered on motion for a new trial or on appeal or certiorari. Before argument, the court shall read its instructions to the jury but shall not comment upon the evidence. Such instructions shall be taken by the jury when it retires. All instructions offered by the parties, or given by the court, shall be filed with the clerk and, with the endorsement thereon indicating the action of the court, shall be taken as part of the record of the cause.

Source: Entire rule amended and adopted April 14, 1994, effective January 1, 1995, for all cases filed on or after that date; entire rule amended and effective September 10, 2009.

ANNOTATION

I. General Consideration.

II. Numbered.

III. In Writing.

IV. Objections.

V. Read to Jury.

I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION.

Law reviews. For article, "Limitations of the Power of Courts in Instructing Juries", see 6 Dicta 23 (March 1929). For article, "Shall Colorado Procedure Conform with the Proposed Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?", see 15 Dicta 5 (1938). For article, "Colorado Criminal Procedure — Does It Meet Minimum Standards?", see 28 Dicta 14 (1951). For article, "Trials: Rules 38-53", see 23 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 571 (1951). For article, "One Year Review of Civil Procedure", see 34 Dicta 69 (1957). For article, "Jury Nullification and the Rule of Law", see 17 Colo. Law. 2151 (1988). For article, "There is Still a Chance: Raising Unpreserved Arguments on Appeal", see 42 Colo. Law. 29 (June 2013).

Annotator's note. Since this rule is similar to § 205 of the former Code of Civil Procedure, which was supplanted by the Rules of Civil Procedure in 1941, relevant cases construing that section have been included in the annotations to this rule.

The giving of an instruction for special findings by a jury is discretionary with the court. Brown v. Maier, 96 Colo. 1, 38 P.2d 905 (1934).

Where there was no statute or rule to support the presumption created by a jury instruction, the presumption could only be properly given if it was supported by common law rules governing the admissibility and evidentiary effect of defendant electrical utility's compliance with industry standards. Yampa Valley Elec. v. Telecky, 862 P.2d 252 (Colo. 1993).

In the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion, no error can be predicated on the refusal to give such an instruction. Brown v. Maier, 96 Colo. 1, 38 P.2d 905 (1934).

A judgment of the trial court refusing to give requested instruction will not be reversed unless the refusal results in substantial, prejudicial error. Armentrout v. FMC Corp., 842 P.2d 175 (Colo. 1992).

The purpose of jury instructions is to provide the jury with the applicable law so that its attention will be directed to the specific issues that are to be determined. Rio Grande S. R.R. Co. v. Campbell, 44 Colo. 1, 96 P. 986 (1908); Yampa Valley Elec. v. Telecky, 862 P.2d 252 (Colo. 1993).

The trial court may exercise sound discretion as to the form and style in which instructions shall be given. Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Kerns, 172 Colo. 59, 470 P.2d 34 (1970).

The duty imposed upon the trial court necessarily involves a large discretion as to the form and style in which instructions to the jury shall be given. Moffat v. Tenney, 17 Colo. 189, 30 P. 348 (1892).

Court should state all issues and both parties' cases. A clear statement of the issues to the jury is eminently proper, but the court should be careful to state all the issues and put the case not only as it is laid by the plaintiff, but also as it is controverted by the defendant; he is entitled to have his defense and case stated. Kindel v. Hall, 8 Colo. App. 63, 44 P. 781 (1896).

A party is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case when it is supported by competent evidence. Davis v. Cline, 177 Colo. 204, 493 P.2d 362 (1972).

A party is entitled to a jury instruction only when it is supported by the evidence and is consistent with existing law. Sufficient competent evidence, rather a mere scintilla of evidence, is required to support an instruction. Melton by and through Melton v. Larrabee, 832 P.2d 1069 (Colo. App. 1992).

Jury instruction that the highest degree of care was owed by the defendant gas service company in the distribution of propane gas was proper in action for negligence for gas explosion that destroyed home of insurance company's client, as was instruction on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur; record showed that explosion would not have occurred but for negligence. U.S. Fidelity and Guarantee Co. v. Salida Gas Serv. Co., 793 P.2d 602 (Colo. App. 1989).

It is error for the court to instruct a jury on questions not presented by the pleadings, or with reference to matters irrelevant to the evidence. Bijou Irrigation Dist. v. Cateran Land & Live Stock Co., 73 Colo. 93, 213 P. 999 (1923); McCaffrey v. Mitchell, 98 Colo. 467, 56 P.2d 926, 57 P.2d 900 (1936).

Trial court's failure to instruct jury on loss of future earning capacity was error. Evidence was presented that the plaintiff had previously worked as a nurse aide at a specified rate of compensation, and testimony was such that a reasonable inference could be made that a return to work would be problematic. Plaintiff was not required to introduce evidence of an intention to return to work in the future. Martinez v. Shapland, 833 P.2d 837 (Colo. App. 1992).

Trial court has discretion to issue or refuse to issue instruction on loss of future earning capacity, but the court's decision must be based on the evidence and be premised on the presence or absence of evidence regarding earnings. When there is evidence in the record the court has an obligation to present proper instruction to the jury in support of a party's theory of recovery. Martinez v. Shapland, 833 P.2d 837 (Colo. App. 1992).

A trial court cannot in its instructions to the jury withdraw from its consideration a proper defense and, by an erroneous construction of the law, reenact a statute, disregarding its plain provisions, so as to fit the case under consideration. Potts v. Bird, 93 Colo. 547, 27 P.2d 745 (1933).

The charge of the court is to be taken as a whole. Coors v. Brock, 22 Colo. App. 470, 125 P. 599 (1912).

Instructions are to be read together and considered as a unified whole. Kendall v. Lively, 94 Colo. 483, 31 P.2d 343 (1934).

In construing a charge, each instruction is to be considered in connection with the entire charge. Dozenback v. Raymer, 13 Colo. 451, 22 P. 787 (1889).

Court's instruction to the jury at the close of evidence outweighs any previous instruction. In determining an award for damages, the jury was justified in considering evidence previously barred by an order in limine because the court's final instructions effectively negated that order. Belfor USA Group v. Rocky Mtn. Caulking & Waterproofing, 159 P.3d 672 (Colo. App. 2006).

Tendered instruction on "inherently dangerous activity" was properly refused, where record did not indicate that installation of heat tape was an activity analogous to other inherently dangerous activities. Melton by and through Melton v. Larrabee, 832 P.2d 1069 (Colo. App. 1992).

All instructions should be considered in determining whether the necessary law has been correctly stated. All of the trial court's instructions to the jury are to be read and considered as a whole in determining whether all the necessary law has been correctly stated to the jury. Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Kerns, 172 Colo. 59, 470 P.2d 34 (1970).

Instructions to the jury are to be read and considered together in determining whether it has been adequately and correctly advised of the law. Martin v. Bralliar, 36 Colo. App. 254, 540 P.2d 1118 (1975).

If, when so read and considered, they constitute a fair, full, and reasonably accurate statement of the law, the fact that some isolated portions may seem to be incomplete or incorrect is immaterial. Kendall v. Lively, 94 Colo. 483, 31 P.2d 343 (1934).

Regardless of the fact that some instructions were not in the form suggested by the Colorado Jury Instructions, and...