material issue error in Pennsylvania

2019In Hatwood v. Hosp. - 13 - J -A24013-16 of the Univ. of Pennsylvania, 55 A.3d 1229, 1235 (Pa.Super. 2012), we articulated the settled principle that "only when the charge as a whole is inadequate or not clear or has a tendency to mislead or confuse rather than clarify a material issue that error in a charge will be found to be a sufficient basis for the award of a new trial." We also repeated the ensconced precept that "a trial judge has wide latitude in his or her choice of language when charging a jury, provided always that the court fully and adequately conveys the applicable law." Id.

2019In Hatwood v. Hosp. - 13 - J -A24013-16 of the Univ. of Pennsylvania, 55 A.3d 1229, 1235 (Pa.Super. 2012), we articulated the settled principle that "only when the charge as a whole is inadequate or not clear or has a tendency to mislead or confuse rather than clarify a material issue that error in a charge will be found to be a sufficient basis for the award of a new trial." We also repeated the ensconced precept that "a trial judge has wide latitude in his or her choice of language when charging a jury, provided always that the court fully and adequately conveys the applicable law." Id.

2015Hatwood v. Hosp. of the Univ. of Penna., 55 A.3d 1229, 1235 (Pa. Super. 2012) (quoting Patton v. Worthington Assocs., Inc., 43 A.3d 479, 490 (Pa. Super. 2012)). “[A] trial judge has wide latitude in his or her choice of language when charging a jury, provided always that the court fully and adequately conveys the applicable law.” Id.

2015Hatwood v. Hosp. of the Univ. of Penna., 55 A.3d 1229, 1235 (Pa. Super. 2012) (quoting Patton v. Worthington Assocs., Inc., 43 A.3d 479, 490 (Pa. Super. 2012)). “[A] trial judge has wide latitude in his or her choice of language when charging a jury, provided always that the court fully and adequately conveys the applicable law.” Id.

2019Lewis v. CRC Indus., Inc., 7 A.3d 841, 844 (Pa.Super. 2010) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

2012Lewis v. CRC Industries, Inc., 7 A.3d 841, 844 (Pa.Super.2010) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

2011Ferrer v. Trustees of university of Pennsylvania, 573 Pa. 310, 345 , 825 A.2d 591, 612 (2002); see also Tindall v. Friedman, 970 A.2d 1159, 1175 (Pa. Super. 2009).

2009Tindall v. Friedman, 970 A.2d 1159 (Pa.Super 2009) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

2015Smith v. Morrison, 47 A.3d 131, 134-34 (Pa.Super. 2012), appeal denied, 618 Pa. 690 , 57 A.3d 71 (2012).

2015Philips v. Lock, 86 A.3d 906, 916-17 (Pa. Super. 2014).

2015Drew v. Work, 95 A.3d 324, 329 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation omitted).

2012Pringle v. Rapaporl, 980 A.2d 159, 165 (Pa.Super.2009) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

2011Ferrer v. Trustees of university of Pennsylvania, 573 Pa. 310, 345 , 825 A.2d 591, 612 (2002); see also Tindall v. Friedman, 970 A.2d 1159, 1175 (Pa. Super. 2009).

2011Ferrer v. Trustees of university of Pennsylvania, 573 Pa. 310, 345 , 825 A.2d 591, 612 (2002); see also Tindall v. Friedman, 970 A.2d 1159, 1175 (Pa. Super. 2009).

2006Blicha states: “It is only when ‘the charge as a whole is inadequate or not clear or has a tendency to mislead or confuse rather than clarify a material issue’ that error in the charge will be found to be a sufficient bases for the award of a new trial. [A] charge will be found adequate unless ‘the issues are not made clear to the jury or the jury was palpably misled by what the trial judge said or unless there is an omission in the charge which amounts to fundamental error.’ A reviewing court will not grant a new trial on the grounds of inadequacy of the charge unless there is a prejudicial o