perceived error in Rhode Island

2012Counsel’s objection to the jury instruction must be made before the jury retires because “once alerted to the perceived error in the instruction that has been given, the trial justice has an opportunity to cure the alleged deficiencies before the jury retires *1244 for deliberations.” State v. Crow, 871 A.2d 930, 935 (R.I.2005) (citing State v. Hanes, 783 A.2d 920, 924 (R.I.2001)).

2009With respect to jury instructions, Rule 30 provides that “[n]o party may assign as error any portion of the charge or omission therefrom unless the party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict * * This Court has held that “[t]he requirement in Rule 30 that the objection to an instruction be made before the jury retires * * * is crucial because, once alerted to the perceived error in the instruction that has been given, the trial justice has an opportunity to cure the alleged deficiencies before the jury retires for deliberations.” State v. Hollenbeck, 878 A.2d 992, 100

2012Counsel’s objection to the jury instruction must be made before the jury retires because “once alerted to the perceived error in the instruction that has been given, the trial justice has an opportunity to cure the alleged deficiencies before the jury retires *1244 for deliberations.” State v. Crow, 871 A.2d 930, 935 (R.I.2005) (citing State v. Hanes, 783 A.2d 920, 924 (R.I.2001)).

2005Standard of Review Rule 30 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure provides in part: “No party may assign as error any portion of the charge or omission therefrom unless the party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which the party objects and the grounds of the party’s objection.” Recently, we have held that “[t]he requirement in Rule 30 that the objection to an instruction be made before the jury retires (and that it be made with clarity and specificity) is crucial because, once alerted to the perceived error in the inst

2015See State v. Hollenbeck, 878 A.2d 992, 1007 (R.I.2005); see also State v. Figuereo, 31 A.3d 1283, 1289 (R.I.2011).

2009With respect to jury instructions, Rule 30 provides that “[n]o party may assign as error any portion of the charge or omission therefrom unless the party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict * * This Court has held that “[t]he requirement in Rule 30 that the objection to an instruction be made before the jury retires * * * is crucial because, once alerted to the perceived error in the instruction that has been given, the trial justice has an opportunity to cure the alleged deficiencies before the jury retires for deliberations.” State v. Hollenbeck, 878 A.2d 992, 100

2015In addition, our law is demanding as to when an objection to a jury instruction should be made: pursuant to Rule 30 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure, “[n]o party may assign as error any portion of the charge or omission therefrom unless the party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which the party objects and the grounds of the party’s objection.” (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, we have emphasized that “[cjounsel’s objection to the jury instruction must be made before the jury retires because once alerted to the perc

2013In addition, we have held that “[e]ounsel’s objection to the jury instruction must be made before the jury retires because once alerted to the perceived error in the instruction that has been given, the trial justice has an opportunity to cure the alleged deficiencies before the jury retires for deliberations.” State v. Viveiros, 45 A.3d 1232, 1243-44 (R.I.2012) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Rule 30.

2021See Mendez, 116 A.3d at 245 (reaffirming that, in the context of instructions given to the jury, “it is required that the objecting party not only voice the objection contemporaneously with the perceived error, but it is further required that all grounds for the objection be brought to the attention of the presiding 8 However, the trial justice rejected this argument and pointed out, twice, that the justice’s reading of the criminal complaint would include both theories. - 20 - judicial officer at that time”).

2015In addition, our law is demanding as to when an objection to a jury instruction should be made: pursuant to Rule 30 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure, “[n]o party may assign as error any portion of the charge or omission therefrom unless the party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which the party objects and the grounds of the party’s objection.” (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, we have emphasized that “[cjounsel’s objection to the jury instruction must be made before the jury retires because once alerted to the perc

2015See State v. Hollenbeck, 878 A.2d 992, 1007 (R.I.2005); see also State v. Figuereo, 31 A.3d 1283, 1289 (R.I.2011).

2015In addition, our law is demanding as to when an objection to a jury instruction should be made: pursuant to Rule 30 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure, “[n]o party may assign as error any portion of the charge or omission therefrom unless the party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which the party objects and the grounds of the party’s objection.” (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, we have emphasized that “[cjounsel’s objection to the jury instruction must be made before the jury retires because once alerted to the perc

2013The defendant was charged with simple assault, which this Court has defined as “an unlawful attempt or offer, with force or violence, to do a corporal hurt to another, whether from malice or wantonness.” *531 State v. Lomba, 37 A.3d 615, 620 (R.I.2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2009Grayhurst, 852 A.2d at 518 ; see also Vorgvongsa v. State, 785 A.2d 542, 547 (R.I.2001); State v. Figueroa, 673 A.2d 1084, 1092 (R.I.1996); State v. Burke, 522 A.2d 725, 731 (R.I.1987). 6 Accordingly, since defendant voiced no objection to the giving of any flight instruction at the time when the trial justice expressly indicated objections should be made, we will not entertain his argument on that issue on appeal.

2009Grayhurst, 852 A.2d at 518 ; see also Vorgvongsa v. State, 785 A.2d 542, 547 (R.I.2001); State v. Figueroa, 673 A.2d 1084, 1092 (R.I.1996); State v. Burke, 522 A.2d 725, 731 (R.I.1987). 6 Accordingly, since defendant voiced no objection to the giving of any flight instruction at the time when the trial justice expressly indicated objections should be made, we will not entertain his argument on that issue on appeal.

2009Grayhurst, 852 A.2d at 518 ; see also Vorgvongsa v. State, 785 A.2d 542, 547 (R.I.2001); State v. Figueroa, 673 A.2d 1084, 1092 (R.I.1996); State v. Burke, 522 A.2d 725, 731 (R.I.1987). 6 Accordingly, since defendant voiced no objection to the giving of any flight instruction at the time when the trial justice expressly indicated objections should be made, we will not entertain his argument on that issue on appeal.

2006We repeat here what we said quite recently in State v. Crow, 871 A.2d 930, 935 (R.I.2005): “The requirement in Rule 30 that the objection to an instruction be made before the jury retires (and that it be made with clarity and specificity) is crucial because, once alerted to the perceived error in the instruction that has been given, the trial justice has an opportunity to cure the alleged deficiencies before the jury retires for deliberations.” Absent a sufficiently specific objection, the trial justice cannot be expected “to be endowed with that quantum of total recall which would enable him

2006We repeat here what we said quite recently in State v. Crow, 871 A.2d 930, 935 (R.I.2005): “The requirement in Rule 30 that the objection to an instruction be made before the jury retires (and that it be made with clarity and specificity) is crucial because, once alerted to the perceived error in the instruction that has been given, the trial justice has an opportunity to cure the alleged deficiencies before the jury retires for deliberations.” Absent a sufficiently specific objection, the trial justice cannot be expected “to be endowed with that quantum of total recall which would enable him

2005See State v. Hanes, 783 A.2d 920, 924 (R.I.2001) (“The purpose of the rule is to ensure that the trial justice is alerted to any deficiencies in the charge while there is still an opportunity for cure.”); see also State v. Brown, 744 A.2d 831, 837 (R.I.2000); State v. Cianci, 430 A.2d 756, 765 (R.I.1981).

2005See State v. Hanes, 783 A.2d 920, 924 (R.I.2001) (“The purpose of the rule is to ensure that the trial justice is alerted to any deficiencies in the charge while there is still an opportunity for cure.”); see also State v. Brown, 744 A.2d 831, 837 (R.I.2000); State v. Cianci, 430 A.2d 756, 765 (R.I.1981).