Legal Research on Charge to Jury

    r
I ka.cb-oz

t:irse:r in t.his respccl <lo not alrply to civil cases.
I)rrlanov v. 13urrrs, 218 Ala. 493, 119 So.2l (1928).

('ited in Orr v. State,40 Ala. App.4l-r, 111 So.

2d (i27 (19118), aff'rl,269 Al:r. 176, l!1 So.2d 6:19
(lf)51)): Holly v. State, 46 Ala. App. 6?6, 248 So.

2<l 284 (1\171.1; Parham v. State, 47 Ala. App. 76,
250 So.2<l 61:l (1971); Lee v. State,47 Ala. App.
ir,lx, 25lr So. 2d 74:J (ll)72).

5 12-16-1r JURII]S 5 12-16-11

Verdict not set asidt rvhere civil jury
separated prior tht'rr:to. '- \\'lrcre jury shitll be
pernritterl to disperse after civil clrse has hetrn
submitted to thern is u'ithin rliscretion of court,
verrlict will nrit tre set :rsrtle merely tteciruse,
after br.ing chtrgetl, jury wt're perrnittcd to
leavo court and separate lrt'frtre givirrg their
vcrrlict. 'l'lris sectiorr is not itt cr>ttflict with this
theory of the law. 'l'[te rules relatrng to crtnttrtal

/'-/--
6 tZ-t6-tt.,Charge of court to jury generally.
\\-------l

The courl may state to the jury the ]sw of Lhe case and may also state the
evidence when the same is disputed, but sfiIii--not E[6Ee upon the effect of the
testimony, unloss required to do so by one of the parties. (Code 1852, 5 2274;

Code 186?, S 26?8; Code 18?6,5 3028; Code 1886, 92754; Code 1896,5 3326; Code

190?, S 5362; Code 1923, S 9507; Code 1940, T. 7,9 270.)

('ode commissioner's nott'. - This section is
supe,rsetled b1'A.R.C.P.. Rule 51, as to civil
proceedings, llut has been retained for possitrlp.
auolicalrilitv in criminal r,r urohate trrocee,lint{s.

(lross rel't'rence. - As tu rules ()l sul)remc
corrrt rt,l;rtrve to instructions to jury, see

A.tt.(1.P.. Rule itl.
Editor's note. - Cases utrrler this sectic-,n

were decirk,d prior to the prcrr.nulgation of the
Alabarrra Iiules of Civil I)rocedure.

/--1; s;;".ot. - S,,,fi? A L.lt. at p. 92d)rihere
| "a.o* 

r,rr tlris sr.ctionln , hrrrging on th6 efft'ct
I uf tlre evirlenee are cnllatr',1. Ilrandies v. Statell
\ .t.t ,\la. App. fi4R, 219 So. 2,1 404 (11,ti8). J
- F,,. :r generll revrp\\' of tho ju,licial

interpretations of the last clause of this st'ction,
st,e Ilowe v. State,243 Ala.6ltt, 11 So.2d 74:)
r I 1).13 ).

/'*('ourt may read law of case to jury. 
- The

I tri^l courl has the right to rt'l,l to the trial jrrrl
\ in it. charg,, tlrt' lltrv and I lre stittutes of ,\ lal,lrnra
I relative trr tlre irllege d erimt'. Green i. State, 42

| .\la. ,\1,1,. .l:lll, 1{i? So. 2d ril) I (196J): Gavirr v.

I State, i2 ,\la. Ap1,. +{;9. Zl,.l Sr,. 2rl I(il) t11l7Jt.q 
I'n,ler llris spction lhe jrr,lge mav state to tlle

iurv the la*'of the case. \\'ilkerson v. Girllahar,
2l Ala.,\1rp.62, l2{) So.7lX) (1930).

And ma.v also state evidence when same
disputed. - Sr,t' Vinson v. State, 29 AIa. App.
23,1, 194 So.705 (11)-10).

Also. undisputed and expressly adrnittcd
facts ma.v be stated to jury as fact u'ithout
hlpothesis. since the section u'ls not irrtt'nded
to abrirlge the inhert'nt powtr of courl to direct
jury's atlorrtiort to unrlispttterl, adntittetl facrts.
(ioff v. Sellt,rs,21ir Ala. 481), 111 So.210 (11)27);

(irslratt v. State, ll7 Al:r. A1r1r. 422, (ill So.2d 877
( 1 954).

The court has originirl, itrherent power to state
the arlrrrittorl facts to tlrc jury, and its statutory
I)ower t() "state the evirlence whcn tlre same is

disputcd," under this st-'ction, is not a linritation,
but iur enlargement of its inherent powers.
Tidwell v. Srate, 70 AIa. [.]3 (18tJl).

And when the record shows affirmatively that
certain facts are clearly shown and not disputed

- not nurde any part, of the contention - then
it is not error if they be assumed in the charge
to he facts and stated as such q'ithout
h1'p<.rthesis. !'inson v. Stat€, 29 .{la. App. 2:}4,
194 So. ?05 (1940); Coshatt v. SL1te, 3? AIa. App'
422. 61) So. 2d 877 (195,1).

Ilequested charges upon undisputed facts in
murrler trial presented question for court'
Rt srnondo v. State, 24 Ala. App. 566, 138 So' 425
( ll):l I ).

I,nrlislrLrterl evitlence in murdcr trinl justified
requested charges to effect that defendant was
not ohlig:rted to retreat from decedent's
unprovoked attack in defendant's yard.
Resnrondo v. State, 24 Ala. App. 566, 138 So.425
( 19:J 1 ).

In hr.,rrrir:ide prosecution where the evidence
disclosed conclusively that deceased, rvhen he

receiverl fatal wounds, was not only a trespasser
at rlefendant's home, but was a belligerent one,

trial court erred in refusing to instruct that
deceaser.l was a trespasser. Vinson v. State, 29

Ala, A1rp. 2:1,1, 194 So. 7011 (1940).
(iourt may state that there is or is not

evidtnce of particular facts. - The court does

not invtide the province of the jurv in a criminal
prosecution by stating that there is or is not
eviderrce of particular flrcLs when such is the
case. St,ilrold v. State, 2tl7 AIa. 541), 25ll So. 2d

302 ( r 9?0).
Antl state contentiotrs and theories ofl

parties. - (llr:rrgt' nlay stirl(' to jury the /
c()lrL(,utions and theorit's of the lxrrl.it's from t he I

evi,lt,ncr,. St. Louis & S.l'. Itv. v. Dettnis,212 Ala. I

l-rl,{r, 1oil So. Hl}4 (192J-r); Lovejoy r'. Stute,:t3 Ala. I

A1t1r. 41.1, ii4 So. 2d {il}z, cert. derrit'd, 250 AIa' I

221

,

I

i

i

i

'i
j{
'll

;

h"
t
li
i:

.{
Ii
il
t1

ii
ll
li
t;
I

li



UtW +o 4*"t
s 12-16-11

$ 12-16-13. Mcl'herson v. State, lf)ti AIa.5,73 So.
3il7 il1)lri)

(lourt m2ry recirll jury for ndditinnal
instructions on law <lf case. - It is elenrcntary
that the court may state to the jury tho law of
the c:rse. 1'here being no statutory prohihition,
the court rn:iy, after srrlrmission of the casc to
thc iury, on its own m()tion, recall the jury and
givc thern arlditional instructions on tlro lur.r' of
the cuse vyhen the enrls of justice rtnrl thu
circunrstanccs of tho c:tsn rcquire that this he
dr-rne.'l'his is especiallv true when the jurv
requests further instructions on the law of the
case. American Pamcor, Inc. v. Iivans, 288 Ala.
416, 261 So. 2tl 7li1) (1972).

Directing of verdict with or without written
request. - When the evirlence is finished and
plaintiff has failerl to make any proof of all the
essential features of his cause of action, it is not
prejudicial errrlr for the court, without a rvritten
request, ts required by this section, to direct a
verdict for defendant. On the other hand, it is not
error for the court not to do so unless requested
in writing. Sirirley v. Shirley, 261 AIa. 100, 73 So.
2d 77 (1954),

Request for affirmative charge. - If the
evidence of plaintiff upon completion of its case
he considered insufficient, the appropriate
remedy. for defendant is to rest his case and
suhmit a ll'ritten request for the affirnrative
charge. Mersereau v. Whitesburg Oenter, Inc.,

*47 Ala. App. 1.16,251 So.2d 761-r (l{l7l).
I An oral motion for directed vertlict is not

I appropriate in Alahama practice. Mersereau v.

I Whiteslrurg ('enter, lnc., 47 Ala. App. 141i, 2ltl
l s<,. z,l ?{ii iltTl).L Affirmative charge given ex mero motu by
court in oral charge, - Under the broad
larrguagrr of !i 12-16-13, one of several
defendants may assign as error the giving of
writt.en charges requested by a codefendant.
Certainlv the same nrle should apply when an
affirnrative charge is given ex mero motu by the
trial court in the oral charge. Birmingham
I3aptist Hosp. v. Orange, 284 Ala.160, 223 So.
2d 279 (1969).

Proper way to reserve exception to part of
oral charge is for the exceptor to select and
recite u.hat the court said, or state the suhstance
of what the court szrid, and thus, specifically
bring to the attention of the trial court and the
appellate court the matter and ruling of which
complaint is made. Cole v. Southern Ry., 286 Ala.
478, 242 So. 2d 381.| (1970), quoting Foster v.
Krvik (lhek Super Mkts., Inc., 2tt4 Ala. lJ4tt, 224
So. 2d 895 (i969).

l'ailure to objcct waives defect in oral
instruction. - Failure to ollject or except to the
giving of oral instructions ordinarily ol)erates as
a waivcr of any dr,fcct or ornission thcrein, and
tlrat rrrh, is t:ertrrinly aplrlicable wlrert' r'ourrscl
for aplxrlltnt inrlicttctl his aplrrovirl of the

COURTS

instructions of which he complains on appeal.
Cole v. Southern Ry., 286 Ala. 478, 242 So. 2d 383
(1$70). quoting lJrooks v. Jones, 279 Ala, 275,184
So. 2rl ilSti (1966).. _1

And error in instructions raised for first I
time in motion for new trial is too late. - The I
point, raised for thc first time in a motion for a I

nerv trial, that the trial court committed error in I

its orlrl instructiorrs to the jurV that they could I
not find for the lrlaintiffs against defendants on t
th(.wiu)tr)n colrnt, canre too late. (lolc v. /
Southern Ry.,28ti Ala. 478, 2425rl,.2d 382 (1970).

F'ailure of judse to give form of verdict of
guilt of distilling. - llven if failure to give a

form of verdict of guilt of distilling (contra
formam slatuti, $ 28-4-24) is error, nevertheless,
under the rule of Peterson r,. State, 227 A\a.361,
150 So. 156 (19i]3), no harm can be ascribed to
the trialjudge's omission of this formality where
his lttention is not called to this oversight. Oden
v. State,41 Ala. App. 212,127 So.2d 380 (1961).

State's evidence disputed by presumption of
innocence, - Although there was no evidence
offered by the defense, the supreme court
assumed, arguendo, that the presumptioir of
innocence, in effecL, made all of the state's
evidence disputed for the purpose of this section.
White v. State, 42 Ala. App. 249, 160 So. 2d 496
(1 964 ).

Instruct'ion as to legal significance of
release, - In the absence of a request from one
of the parties, it nray be doubted that the court
could, without error, instruct the jury as to the
legal significance of a release. Bush v. Stanton,
273 A\a.615, 143 So. 2d 621 (1962).

Charge peremptorily excluding on€ theory
of plaintifl's case which is supported tv a

scintilla of evidence is bad, and it is reversible
error to give the same. Birmingham Baptist
Hosp. v. Orange, 284 Ala. 160, 223 So. 2d 279
(1f)6li). rt

(luestion of credibility of witness is solely for I
the rletermination of the jury, and it is improper I
for the court to comment on or express an I
opirrion, rlirectly ur by implication, of the I
credihility of the u'itness. The reason is that I
wortls or conduet of the trial judge may, on the I
one hand, support the character of testimony of I
a witness or, on the other hand, destroy the same I

in the estimation of the jury, and thus his I
personal and official influence is exerted to thef
unfair advantage of one of the parties with aI
corresponding detriment to the case of the other. \
Mavs v. State,45 Ala. App. 337, 230 So. 2d 248-l
(1e70)

In murder prosecution, court is under
mandatory duty of instructing jury as to
elements of both degrees of murder. Jackson v.
State, 226 Ala.72,145 So. 656 (1933).

Court's failure in oral charge to instruct jury
on rnurdtrr in secr-rnd degrce could not be

reviewed on appeal where <-rbjection was raised

n

s 12-16-i1

224



)ERAL RUles or EvtoEXCe
aa

,ng, to prc-Rulc authority, it is propcr to-

,p&fr.t.icrf qucstion by cnumcration of
,ic tacu adduccd in othcr tcstimony for

:rc is sufficicnt cvidcncc to supPort jury

lrat thcsc facts cxist. Mcan v Olin (1975'

't't :ZZ fZa 1100; Fcrnandcz v Chios

t:o. (1976, CA2 NY) 542 Y)A t45'

' mav oroocrlv dcclinc to statc opinion

;ii.r; 6asii providcd in hvpothctical

ro bc inadcquaic. Kaufman v Edelstcin

A2 NY) 539 F2d 8ll.
witnessd for prosccution may bc askcd

'real oucstions which assumc facts upon

a"ienaint's guilt is predicatcd' Unitcd-uot"- 
0;71, cLz NY) 5r4 F2d 3l'

, ci+ 
-us gos. s+ L u 2d 450' 9E s ct

705 allows counscl to makc usc of hypo'

questions, disclosing underlying facls. or

ircliminarv to giving of cxpcrt oplnlon'

,'j.tn s;n Div. oiFMC CorP' (1978'

ex) 566 Hld 541.

)E

tl.

ld, p. 355.

ofofFacr 2d l.
timrcy. 14 Am Jur Proof of Facts 2d 

''

I l:553.6' l:1528.
t-20:533. , 

.

614 of thc Fcdcral Rules of Evidcncc' t

I 1182. I

Summcr, 1977

JD DECISIONS
,polntnetrt
'aid 

court's detcrmination whcthcr dcfandrl

'"itiii" *-rt"J-iti"t *itttin mcaning of l!
i '6 4244. inhercnt powcr of trial judgc r
,,t""-o.ti oi rri. o*ti choosing is clcsr utrd:r

Rules of Evid 706. Unitcd Statcs v Li,! r
6, CA3 Pa) 544 F2d 138'

,,ri.riti"i.outt's dcferral of action "i 9$1

tmt with his testimony, q[4 wgl_gtyen_glCgl
trial. hearinc. or other prdcedinc, or in a deD

Rule 801

of privatc propcrty for usc by Tenncsscc Vallcy
Authority, fcc and cxpcnscs for indcpcndcnt vduc
cxpcrt appointcd by court was to bc paid from
currcnt appropriation covering ncccssary travcl
and misccllancous cxpcns€s not othcrwisc provided
for, incurrcd by judiciary. Unitcd Statcs cr rcl.
Tcnncsscc Vallcy Authority v 109 Acra of hnd
(1975, DC Tcnn) {$4 F Supp 1392.

Erpert ritncsscs called by court arc cntitled to
rcasonablc compcnsation in whatcvcr gum the
court may allow, cven if cxpert is not callcd to
tcstify. Unitcd Stst6 v R. J. Rcynolds Tobacco
Co. (1976, DC Nr) 416 F Supp 313.

Court dircctcd partics to show causc why ordcr
appointing indepcndcnt cxpcrt witncss punuant to
Fcd Rules.of Evid 706 ghould not bc cnlcrcd, and
to submit propoccd dircctions for his study and
rcport on fsct aspccts of issuc whcthcr condcmncd
animal fccds, contaminatcd with antibiotics ob
taincd from ovcmcas manufacturcr which had not
obtaincd FDA approval for iB omr products,
could bc brought into compliancc by rccondition-
ing (2t USCS 0 334(d)) through blcnding with
ncw products to roducc conccntration of antibiot-
ics to pcrmissiblc lcvcl, and court propoocd to
asscss onG.hdf of coot of cxpcrt's scniccs in con-
ducting study and prcparing rcport, and for any
tctimony which cithcr or both p8rti6, or court,
may wieh to havc aftcr rcvicw of rcport. Unitcd
Statcs v Article . . . Provimi (1977, DC NI) 425
F Supp 22E, supp op (DC NI) 74 FRD 126.

Gcnerally, fccs and expcrxlc of cxpcrt witncsscs
appointcd by court in land condcmnation procccd-
ings arc considcrcd to bc cxpcnscs of litigation and
are thcrcforc pursusnt to USCS Rulcc of Evidenc€,
Rulc 706, payablc by litigating agcocy; howcvcr,
whcrc Tcnncsscc Vallcy Authority is litigating
rgcncy, cootc in condemnation c8!rc csnnot bc
asscascd against it End ccts cannot bc assascd
against condcmncc; if court so ordcrs, Administra-
tive Officc of Unitcd Statcs courts may pay litiga-
tion cxpcoscs from judiciary appropriations. (1979)
58 Op Comp Gct 259.

In criminal, as wcll as in condcrnnation cascs,
whcrc Rulc 706 prccludcs assigning any of coot of
court appointcd cxpcrt witncsses to privatc litigsnt
or dcfcndant, thcac co6ts should bc bornc by
Dcpartmcnt of Justicc. (1980) J9 Op Comp Gcn p.
3 13.

of peri
or testimony

Fennnnl Rures oF EvTDENcE

trial court in sccking additional cxpctl tetimony
aftcr conclusion of trial comported with rcquire-
mcnts of Rulc 706, which was dcsigned in part to
lcsscn risk that advcrsary system would bc cn-
croached upon by judgc's inquisitorial power; Rulc
706 is ordinarily invokcd considerably bcfore trial,
sincc thcrc must bc timc for hcaring on order to
show causc, conscnt by dcsignatcd expcrt, notiflca-
tion of expert of hir duti6, and findings by crpcrt
to bc communicstcd to parti6. United States v
Wcathers (1980, CAl0 NM) 518 HIA 66'1.

Court shsll appoint crpcrt witncsscs whcn par-
tics fail to producc cvidcncc of clear probity on
complcx or technical issucs. Pennwalt Corp. v
Bccton, Dictinson & Co. (1977, DC NI) 434 F
Supp 758.

Whilc court rctains broad discrction in appoint-
mcnt of impartial crp€rts it should not do so in
situation whcrc mattcrs at issuc arc within com-
prchcnoion of laypcrsons and whcrc prcscncc of
court sponsorcd witncss would transform trial by
jury into trial by witncss. Kian v Mirro Aluminum
Co. (1980, ED Mich) 88 FR-D 351.

3. -{oorcnt of erpert
Rulc docs not limit partics in calling cxpctt

vitnesscg of thcir own sclcction and party may
rubpocna involuntary cxpcrt. Ksufmsn v Edclstcitr
(1976, CA2 ND 539 F2d 8lt.

SuMivision (d) of Rulc 706 at lcast suggcsts
that rcquiranant of conscnt in suMivision (a) of
ume Rule docs not extcnd to party'B attcmpt to
rubpocna unwilling crpcrt witncss. United Statca v
Intcrnationd Busines Machincs Corp. (1975, DC
ND 406 F Supp l7E, motion dco (DC ND 406 F
Supp 184.

f. C.ompcnrdon
Court has no authority to tar costs for compcn-

rtion to cxpcrt witnBs in erccss of statutory per
dicm, milcagc, and subsistcncc allowances. Joncs v
Diamond (1979, CAi Miss) 594 F2d 997, reh gr
(CA5 Mis) @2 FU 1243; E. W. Blisg C.o. v
Unitcd States (1954, ND Ohio) 226 F Supp 382;
Tborn v Bryant (1970, DC NC) 52 FRD 25;
I{rrrirburg Coalition against Ruining thc Environ-
nant v Volpc (1974, MD Pa) 65 FRD 608, 29
ALR Fd 926.
. h cmincnt domain procceding involving taking

./--- \
@t_Q9fJOeflnltlonc

Lfroductory Dstcrld [Unchanged]
OHc) [Unchanged]

Strtementc which are not hernay.-A statcmcnt is not hcarsay if-
(l) Prior ststemetrt by rttnees.-The dcclarant testifies at thc trial or hearing and is
cubject to cross-examination concerning the ststement, and the statement is (A) inconsis-

iect to the

t,
{:
a.

P.lr
*l

an exPress or
improper influencc or
pcrceiving him; or
O) [Unchanged]

motive, or (C)

' ' NOTE: Act Oct. 16, 1975, P. L. 94-113, 89 Stat. 576, addcd clauec (C) to subscc. (d)(l)
"cfcctivc on thc flftccnth day aftcr thc datc of cnactmcnt of this Act,"

RESEARCH GUIDE
Fcdcret Procedure L Ed:

Fcd Proc, L Ed $$ 22:698, 22:876, 33:1, 33:23-33:25, 33:217-33:223, 3l:229-31247,
13:254, 33:28E, 3!:291,332299,80:4, 80:43, 80:44, E0:60, 80:64, 80:72, 80:76' 80:79' 80:83.