law-jury-charge
JURY CHARGE AND CHARGE ERROR
The standard of review for alleged error in the jury charge is abuse of discretion. Lake
Conroe Med. Ctr., Ltd. v. KMT Bldg. Co., 290 S.W.3d 541 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2009, no
pet.). A trial court’s refusal to submit a properly requested question or instruction constitutes
an abuse of discretion only if it acts without guiding rules or principles. Tex. Dep’t of Human
Servs. v. E.B., 802 S.W.2d 647 (Tex. 1990). “The goal of the charge is to submit to the jury
the issues for decision logically, simply, clearly, fairly, correctly and completely.” Hyundai
Motor Co. v. Rodriguez, 995 S.W.2d 661, 664 (Tex. 1999). Accordingly, the trial court is
accorded broad discretion so long as the jury charge is legally correct. Id.
When an element of a claim is omitted from the jury charge without objection and no written
findings are made by the trial court on that element then the omitted element is deemed to
have been found by the court in such manner as to support the judgment. TEX. R. CIV. P.
279; In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 263 (Tex. 2002). Here there was no objection to the charge
on the basis that it omitted the element nor did the trial court make findings on it, so there is a
deemed finding in support of the judgment. But just as with any other finding, there must be
evidence to support a deemed finding
When a trial court refuses a requested jury instruction, we examine whether the instruction
was reasonably necessary to enable the jury to render a proper verdict. Tex. R. Civ. P. 277;
Cleaver v. Cundiff, 203 S.W.3d 373, 379 (Tex. App.-Eastland 2006, pet. denied). Because the
jury should not be burdened with surplus instructions, not every correct statement of the law
belongs in the jury charge. Id. A trial court's refusal to include an instruction is reviewed under
an abuse of discretion standard. Magro v. Ragsdale Bros., Inc., 721 S.W.2d 832, 836 (Tex.
1986). To establish an abuse of discretion, the requested instructions must be necessary to
enable the jury to render a proper verdict so that the court's refusal probably caused the
rendition of an improper verdict. Pitts v. Sabine River Auth. of Tex., 107 S.W.3d 811, 819
(Tex. App.-Texarkana 2003, pet. denied). A trial court is required to submit a jury question if it
controls the disposition of the case, is raised by the pleadings and evidence, and properly
submits the disputed issues for the jury's determination. Id. at 820.
Although the Texas Pattern Jury Charges are a guide and not binding on the court, well-
settled pattern jury charges should not be embellished with addendum. H.E. Butt Grocery Co.
v. Bilotto, 928 S.W.2d 197, 201 (Tex. 1996); Weeks Marine, Inc. v. Salinas, 225 S.W.3d 311,
319 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, pet. dism’d).
CASES
09-0349
THE SHED, LLC AND MARY ELLEN MALONE v. EDOM WASH 'N DRY, LLC; from Van Zandt
County;12th district (12-07-00431-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 03-18-09, pet. denied July 2009) 2
petitions (easement dispute, injunction, exemplary damages reversed, attorneys fees must be
segregated)
09-0291 SUZANNE COATES AND 2055 INCORPORATED v. ROBERT COATES; from Dallas
County; 5th district (05-08-00440-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 03-17-09, pet. denied June 2009)(jury
charge issues, factual sufficiency review)
Also see:
Texas Causes of Action and Defenses | 2011 Texas Supreme Court Opinions |
2011 Tex Sup Ct Per Curiams | Texas Caselaw Topics Pages | Texas Opinions Homepage |