§51.6ANALYSIS
Although allegations of instructional error are frequent, standardized instructions have reduced the number of successful appeals, as trial courts retain substantial discretion in evaluating which instructions are appropriate to a particular case. This section discusses the general rules regarding jury instructions.
(1)Jury instructions
Closing instructions inform the jury of the law that it must apply to the facts of the case and are always in writing. It is at this point in the trial that remaining disputes about applicable law must be resolved. The number and specific language of jury instructions are left to the trial court's discretion. Douglas v. Freeman, 117 Wn.2d 242, 256-57, 814 P.2d 1160 (1991); Petersen v. State, 100 Wn.2d 421, 440, 671 P.2d 230 (1983). Because the instructions are statements of the law, an appellate court will review de novo the issue of whether an instruction is a correct statement of the law. Griffin v. W. RS, Inc., 143 Wn.2d 81, 87, 18 P.3d 558 (2001); Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 159 Wn.App. 35, 44, 244P.3d32 (2010), aff'd, 174 Wn.2d 851, 281P.3d289 (2012).
Taken together, jury instructions are sufficient if they are readily understood, accurately state the law, are not misleading to the ordinary mind, and permit a party to satisfactorily argue its theory of the case. Cox v. Spangler, 141 Wn.2d 431, 442, 5P.3d1265 (2000), corrected, 22P.3d791 (2001); Seattle W. Indus., Inc. v. David A. Mowat Co., 110 Wn.2d 1, 9, 750 P.2d 245 (1988). In evaluating whether instructions meet these standards, the courts read the instructions as a whole. Janson v. N. Valley Hosp., 93 Wn.App. 892, 904, 971 P.2d 67 (1999). Instructions are adequate if they allow the parties to argue their theories of the case. Higgins v. Intex Recreation Corp., 123 Wn.App. 821, 834, 99 P.3d 421 (2004).
An instruction may not be given unless there is substantial evidence to support it. Stiley v. Block, 130 Wn.2d 486, 498, 925 P.2d 194 (1996); Trendwest Resorts, Inc. v. Ford, 103 Wn.App. 380, 386, 12P.3d613 (2000), rev'd on other grounds, 146 Wn.2d 146, 43P.3d1223 (2002). See §51.7(2), below, for a more detailed discussion of the substantial evidence standard.
| Practice Tip: | When evaluating the sufficiency of jury instructions, review the instruction packet in its entirety to be sure all legal issues have been presented in language the jury will clearly understand This also will aid you in making specific objections, as you will be able to explain to the court why a given instruction is necessary to argue your theory of the case. |
(2)Objections
In objecting or "taking exception" to instructions, "[t]he objector shall state distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection, specifying the number, paragraph or particular part of the instruction to be given or refused and to which objection is made." CR 51(f). A general objection is insufficient. Bitzan v. Parisi, 88 Wn.2d 116, 125, 558P.2d775 (1977) (citing cases). The trial court must be informed of the grounds for objection, enlightened on the theories of law that support the objector's position, and given the opportunity to correct a mistake in time to avoid unnecessary retrials. Joyce v. Dep't of Corr, 155 Wn.2d 306, 324-25, 119P.3d825 (2005); Van Hout v. Celotex Corp., 121 Wn.2d 697, 703, 853P.2d908 (1993).
The pertinent inquiry is whether the objection was specific enough to inform the trial judge of the nature and substance of the objection. Walker v. State, 121 Wn.2d214,217,848P.2d721 (1993). If an objection is inadequate to so inform the judge, the issue will not be considered on appeal. Trueax v. Ernst Home Ctr., Inc., 124 Wn.2d 334, 339, 878P.2d1208 (1994); see also RAP 2.5.
The rules pertaining to making proper objections apply equally to the instructions and the verdict form. In Conrad ex rel. Conrad v. Alderwood Manor, 119 Wn.App. 275, 78P.3d177 (2003), Division III of the Court of Appeals affirmed a $4.75 million dollar verdict where the jury appeared to have awarded some duplicate damages. The court rejected the challenge to the jury's verdict, noting:
To preserve an argument on appeal - here, that a verdict form improperly allowed for double recovery - exception must be taken on that basis in the trial court [citations omitted].
This requirement is more than an idle, legal technicality. The object in this process is to avoid trying a case twice. The trial judge must then be given the opportunity, in the first instance, to properly instruct the jury. Trueax v. Ernest Home Ctr., Inc., 124 Wn.2d 334, 339, 878 P.2d 1208 (1994). So, if a...
