The Key To Jury Instruction Preservation: Objecting With Precision And Completeness

In Byrd v. Stubbs, 190 So. 3d 26 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016), the Mississippi Court of Appeals reminded us of the need to be diligent during a charge conference by raising specific objections to a proposed jury instruction, as opposed to a general objection. In Byrd, the plaintiff in a medical negligence case objected to a proposed superseding cause instruction on the grounds that the instruction was not supported by the evidence. It was not until her motion for new trial – after the verdict was rendered – that the plaintiff asserted that the proposed instruction was a misstatement of law.

This is a fundamental preservation principle that cannot be disregarded. While, in some circumstances, a party may cure its lack of objection at trial through a post-trial motion, that generally is not the case with jury instructions. The specific objection must be made at trial before the instructions are read to the jury; a general objection will not suffice.