Issue Was Preserved Where Trial Court Understood Basis of Objection to Jury Charge
Even if the objection to a jury charge could have been more specific, the record showed that the trial court understood the basis of the objection, and had a chance to rule on the issue it raised. This was enough to preserve the issue for appeal. Ex parte Hatfield, No. 1070537 (Ala. Jan. 23, 2009).
This decision arises out of a murder conviction. The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals, finding that the defendant had properly preserved his issue for appellate review. (The rule involved here — Rule 21.3 of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure — has a close analog, indeed finds its source, in Rule 51 of the civil rules. The appellate principle underlying both rules is the same. The decision thus seems relevant to civil practice.)
The defendant argued that the circuit court had “erred by not instructing the jury on [a] lesser included offense.” “Although he objected when the court declined to give the requested instruction and after the trial court’s oral charge, he did not state any specific grounds in support of his objection.” The Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that, under Ala. R. Crim. P. 23.1, this lack of specificity meant the issue had not been preserved.
The Supreme Court disagreed. On certiorari review, it held that the charge conference had provided sufficient grounds to support and preserve the “lesser included offense” issue. The state’s high court wrote:
An objection should . . . fairly and specifically point out the particular grounds on which an alleged error occurred in order to inform the trial judge of the legal basis of the objection, thereby affording the trial judge an opportunity to reevaluate his or her initial ruling . . . .
However, this Court has consistently reviewed issues, though in the technical sense not preserved by a proper objection at trial, where it is clear that the trial court understood the basis for the objection.
(Quotations omitted.)
In this case, the defendant had raised at the charge conference, and the parties and court had there discussed, the “lesser included offense” question (and the more specific issue it posed of the defendant’s intent).
The Supreme Court explained: “The purpose of Rule 23.1 is to ensure that requested charges are timely presented to the trial court and supported by sufficient evidence to enable the trial court to rule correctly.” The “key factor” in concluding that the issue was preserved was “the fact that the trial court clearly understood the defendant[’s] objection and the grounds for [it], even if the objection[] and the grounds could have been stated more clearly or specifically.”
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals and remanded the case to the latter court to consider the merits of the defendant’s “lesser included offense” objection.
