Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
26. Is the appellate court likely to reverse the trial court's verdict?
A baker brought a federal diversity action against a wholesaler for breach of contract. The case was set for a jury trial. At the close of evidence, the court informed the baker and wholesaler of the proposed jury instructions. Prior to the jury being instructed and sent to consider a verdict, the baker objected to one of the proposed instructions regarding a peripheral step in procedure, claiming that the instruction would be prejudicial to the baker, without further information. The court gave the instruction anyway, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the wholesaler. The baker's attorney appealed and claimed that the jury instruction was given in error.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
In order to raise the inadequacy of instructions on appeal, a party who wishes to make an objection to the instructions must do so before the jury retires. Under FRCP 51(c), a party who objects to an instruction or the failure to give an instruction must state on the record the objection, stating distinctly the matter objected to and grounds for the objection. In other words, the objecting party must give the trial judge a chance to reconsider and correct his mistake.
Under FRCP 61, «harmless error» means that, «[u]nless justice requires otherwise, no error in admitting or excluding evidence — or any other error by the court or a party — is ground for granting a new trial, for setting aside a verdict, or for vacating, modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order. At every stage of the proceeding, the court must disregard all errors and defects that do not affect any party's substantial rights» (emphasis added).
«Plain error,» by contrast, is an error found by an appellate court that affects the substantial rights of the parties. Under FRCP 51(d), a court may consider a plain error in the instructions when the claim was not preserved by proper objection if the error affects substantial rights.
A is correct. The appellate court is not likely to reverse the trial court's verdict because the baker's objection failed to distinctly state the matter objected to and identify the precise grounds for the objection, which did not allow the trial court an opportunity to correct the mistake.
The only way the appellate court could properly reverse the verdict is if the improper jury instruction had amounted to «plain error.» However, the facts state that the instruction was about «a peripheral step in procedure,» indicating that it did not affect any substantial rights and therefore, was not plain error. As such, the appellate court is likely to uphold the verdict because the objection was not properly preserved.
B is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. Although it is true that the appellate court should not reverse the verdict, it is not because the wholesaler did not respond to the baker's objection to the jury instruction. Both parties are not required to be heard on an objection to a jury instruction for a court to consider the validity of the instruction. Therefore, the wholesaler was not required to respond to the baker's objection. Nevertheless, the appellate court is still unlikely to reverse, as explained above.
C is incorrect. This is an incorrect statement of the law. Although it is possible for flawed jury instructions to amount to prejudicial error, this is not always the case. It is possible for incorrect jury instructions to fall short of prejudicial error, which would prevent a reversal on appeal. Here, the instruction was about a minor procedural issue, implying that no prejudice resulted.
D is incorrect. This is also an incorrect statement of the law. An objection to a jury instruction must not only be timely, but it must also distinctly state the matter objected to and the grounds for the objection. Only then is the trial court judge required to reconsider and correct the mistake. The burden is not on the court to determine why the jury instruction is improper following a generalized objection.