THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 1 - CHAPTER 4
Go to Volume 1 Table of Contents - Go to Chapter 4 Table of Contents

4.1 The Basic Rule: Instruction Issues Should Be Raised At Trial

    4.1.1 Instruction Issues Should Be Raised At Trial: General Principles
    4.1.2 Specific Ground For Objection Must Be Stated
    4.1.3 Duty to Obtain Ruling From The Court

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 1 - CHAPTER 4

   4.1.1    Instruction Issues Should Be Raised At Trial: General Principles

PRACTICE NOTE: As with most potential appellate claims, instructional errors may not be cognizable on appeal unless the error was properly preserved below. For example, if counsel failed to object, acceded to the prosecution's position or tendered the erroneous instruction, the error may not be reviewable. (See Henderson v. Kibbe (1977) 431 US 145, 154 [97 SCt 1730; 52 LEd2d 203] ["... it is the rare case in which an improper instruction will justify reversal of a criminal conviction when no objection has been made in the trial court"]; see also Johnson v. U.S (1997) 520 US 461, 466 [117 SCt 1544; 137 LEd2d 718] [limiting application of plain error under FRCRP Rule 52(b)]; Preston v. State (FL 1988) 531 So2d 154, 159.)

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 1 - CHAPTER 4

    4.1.2    Specific Ground For Objection Must Be Stated

PRACTICE NOTE: In most situations an objection will not be sufficient to preserve an issue for appeal unless the specific grounds for the objection are stated. (See BNA Criminal Practice Manual (Pike & Fisher Inc. 1999) § 131.101[7]; see also Wharton’s Criminal Procedure (West, 13th ed. 1989) § 466, p. 18; FRCP 30.)

    However, the objection may be deemed sufficient if "despite inadequate phrasing the record shows the court understood the issue presented. [Citations.]" (People v. Scott (CA 1978) 21 C3d 284, 290 [145 CR 876]; see also  U.S. v. Caputo (3rd Cir. 1985) 758 F2d 944, 949 [same]; Veteto v. State (TX 2000) 8 SW3d 805, 810-11 [issue preserved for review even though defendant's objections were not specific and he did not cite to any rule, where record showed that trial court clearly understood the objections]; Layman v. State (FL 1999) 728 So2d 814, 817 [same]; State v. Holliday (SC 1998) 509 SE2d 280, 283 [same]; State v. Seale (UT 1993) 853 P2d 862, 874 [same]; State v. Padilla (WA 1993) 846 P2d 564, 566 [same]; Felder v. State (AL 1991) 593 So2d 121, 122 [same]; Johnson v. Commonwealth (VA 1982) 298 SE2d 99, 100 [same].)

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 1 - CHAPTER 4

    4.1.3    Duty To Obtain Ruling From The Court

PRACTICE NOTE: Where the court, through inadvertence or neglect fails to rule, the party who objected must make some effort to have the court "actually rule." (See People v. Heldenburg (CA 1990) 219 CA3d 468, 474 [268 CR 255].)