Section 11.11 Jury Instructions

• Library: Eminent Domain 3rd Edition 2013

The test for the sufficiency of jury instructions is whether, taken as a whole, they allow the jury to consider the proper rules to be applied in arriving at the correct decision.

State ex rel. Miller v. Wells Fargo Bank, 194 Ariz. 126, 978 P.2d 103 (App. 1998)

Pima County v. Gonzalez, 193 Ariz. 18, 969 P.2d 183 (App. 1998)

State ex rel. Miller v. J.R. Norton Co., 158 Ariz. 50, 760 P.2d 1099 (App. 1988)

Appellate review of jury instructions given or refused is circumscribed by the objections raised in the trial court. A trial court has no duty to reword instructions and its refusal to give partially correct instructions is not error. Unless it is an issue resulting in fundamental error, an appellate court will not review claims of error in jury instructions in the absence of a sufficient objection made in the trial court.

City of Tucson v. LaForge, 8 Ariz. App. 413, 446 P.2d 692 (1968)

Ortega v. State ex rel. Herman, 6 Ariz. App. 356, 432 P.2d 904 (1967)

If a requested instruction is in part correct and in part erroneous, the trial court is not required to separate the good from the bad, nor is it error for the trial court to refuse such an instruction. This is especially true when counsel does not request that the objectionable portion of the instruction be deleted.

State ex rel. Herman v. Mestas, 12 Ariz. App. 289, 469 P.2d 855 (1970)

It is the duty of the trial court to instruct the jury as to the proper measure of damages. The fact that improper testimony as to damages based on noncompensable items is permitted to remain in evidence does not relieve the court from giving a proper instruction as to the damages. The instruction offered by...