Rule 51. Instructions to jury: objection

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 and, in such event, shall serve on all opposing parties 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. The judge shall write “given” or “refused” as the case may be, on the request which thereby becomes a part of the record. Those requests marked “given” shall be read to the jury without reference as to which party filed the request. Neither the pleadings nor “given” written instructions shall go into the jury room. Every oral charge shall be taken down by the court reporter as it is delivered to the jury. The refusal of a requested, written instruction, although a correct statement of the law, shall not be cause for reversal on appeal if it appears that the same rule of law was substantially and fairly given to the jury in the court’s oral charge or in charges given at the request of the parties. No party may assign as error the giving or failing to give a written instruction, or the giving of an erroneous, misleading, incomplete, or otherwise improper oral charge unless that party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating the matter objected to and the grounds of the objection. Submission of additional explanatory instructions shall not be required unless requested by the court. Additional instructions shall be submitted in writing, except that with respect to any additional instruction taken from Alabama Pattern Jury Instructions, it shall be sufficient to identify said instruction on the record by reference to the number and title of said pattern jury instruction. Opportunity shall be given to make the objection out of the hearing of the jury. In charging the jury, the court shall not express its opinion of the evidence.

(dc) District court rule. Rule 51 does not apply in the district courts. [Amended 1-23-84, eff. 3-1-84; Amended eff. 10-1-95.]

Committee Notes

Committee Comments on 1973 Adoption This Rule is based upon Federal Rule 51 but it does differ in several particulars. Basically, the rule is different in that 1) the charges are to be marked “given or refused”, 2) the oral charge can serve to cure errors in refusing written instructions, 3) pleadings and charges are not to be taken to the jury room, 4) the oral charge is to be reported, 5) broader grounds for objection to the oral charge are provided and 6) the court is not to comment on the evidence. Former practice was regulated by Tit. 7, §§ 270-74, 818, Code of Ala. Under these statutes certain anomalous situations existed which are now eliminated. For example, Tit. 7, § 818 gave automatic exceptions to adverse rulings on requested written charges. This permitted a party to sit silently as an erroneous charge was given or a meritorious charge was refused after the court had sifted through numerous charges submitted by the parties. Should the court fail to cover the error in its oral charge, counsel could thereby preserve appellate relief in the event the jury verdict was unsatisfactory. Under this Rule, the party must, as a condition to the right to assert error on appeal, object and state grounds therefor before the jury retires. To facilitate the making of objections to requested written charges, the rule requires that they be served on all opposing parties. For proof of service under such circumstances, see the commentary to Rule 5(d). The rule also requires that opportunity be given for the making of such objection outside the presence of the jury. Obviously, the automatic exception rule of Tit. 7, § 818 put the court at a great disadvantage. This has been offset by numerous cases imposing highly technical requirements upon the form of requested charges and affirming the trial court for refusing a charge not in compliance with these formalities. For example, see Louisville & N.R.R. v. Clark, 205 Ala. 152, 87 So. 676 (1920) (misspelled word); Blair v. St. Ma