challenge to a jury instruction in Pennsylvania

2021Moreover, “[i]n reviewing a challenge to a jury instruction the entire charge is considered, not merely discrete portions thereof.” Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1138 (2007) (quotations omitted).

2011However, because, when reviewing a challenge to a jury instruction, we must consider the entire charge, not just selected portions thereof, see Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 591 Pa. 1 , 915 A.2d 1122, 1138 (2007), we set forth much of the instruction in the paragraphs below: Your verdict must be a sentence of death if you unanimously find—that is if you all find—at least one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstances. *297 If you do not all agree on one or the other of these findings, then the only verdict that you may return is a sentence of life imprisonment.

2024Commonwealth v. Stokes, 615 A.2d 704, 708 (Pa. 1992).

2020See Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1138 (Pa. 2007) (citing Commonwealth v. Stokes, 615 A.2d 704, 708 (Pa. 1992)).

2024When reviewing a challenge to a jury instruction, an appellate appellate court must review the charge as a whole." Commonwealth v. Spotz, 759 A.2d 1280 (Pa. 2000); see also Commonwealth v. Jones, 683 A.2d 1181 (Pa. 1996).

2024Appellant argues however that the Court should have reiterated the restriction of using Brunson statement as not doing so was contradictory, and prejudicial because it left the jury with "conflicting instructions that allowed them to draw negative inferences" that "were not supported by the record, evidence, or testimony" When reviewing a challenge to a jury instruction, an appellate court must review the charge as a whole." Commonwealth v. Spatz, 759 A.2d 1280 (Pa. 2000); see also Commonwealth v. Jones, 683 A.2d 1181 (Pa. 1996).

2021Furthermore, the trial court has broad discretion in phrasing the instructions, so long as the directions given ‘clearly, adequately, and accurately’ reflect the law.’ Commonwealth v. Lesko, . . . 15 A.3d 345, 397 ([Pa.] 2011) (citation omitted). ‘Error in a charge is [a] sufficient ground for a new trial, if the charge as a whole is inadequate or not clear or has a tendency to mislead or confuse rather than clarify a material issue.

2020Id. at 156 (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Lesko, 15 A.3d 345, 397 (Pa. 2011) (“It is well settled that in reviewing a challenge to a jury instruction the charge, as a whole, must be considered.”). -6- J.

2024When reviewing a challenge to a jury instruction, an appellate appellate court must review the charge as a whole." Commonwealth v. Spotz, 759 A.2d 1280 (Pa. 2000); see also Commonwealth v. Jones, 683 A.2d 1181 (Pa. 1996).

2024Appellant argues however that the Court should have reiterated the restriction of using Brunson statement as not doing so was contradictory, and prejudicial because it left the jury with "conflicting instructions that allowed them to draw negative inferences" that "were not supported by the record, evidence, or testimony" When reviewing a challenge to a jury instruction, an appellate court must review the charge as a whole." Commonwealth v. Spatz, 759 A.2d 1280 (Pa. 2000); see also Commonwealth v. Jones, 683 A.2d 1181 (Pa. 1996).

2024“When reviewing a challenge to a jury instruction, we review the charge as a whole to ensure it was a fair and complete statement of the law.” Commonwealth v. Towles, 106 A.3d 591, 607 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted).

2017Our review of a challenge to a jury charge is well-settled: “When reviewing a challenge to a jury instruction, we review the charge as a whole to ensure it was a fair and complete statement of the law.” Trial courts possess great discretion in phrasing jury instructions so long as the law is clearly, adequately, and accurately presented to the jury. “[A] trial court need not accept counsel’s wording for an instruction, as long as the instruction given correctly reflects the law.” Commonwealth v. Towles, 106 A.3d 591, 607 (Pa. 2014) (internal citations omitted), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct 1494 (U.S

2026See Commonwealth v. Davis, 273 A.3d 1228, 1246 (Pa. Super. 2022).

2026See Commonwealth v. Davis, 273 A.3d 1228, 1245-46 (Pa. Super. 2022).

2025See Commonwealth v. Pressley, 887 A.2d 220, 224 (Pa. 2005); Commonwealth v. Smith, 206 A.3d 551, 564 (Pa. Super. 2019). -4- J-S43027-24 The failure to place a timely, specific, objection on the record results in a waiver of the issue for lack of preservation.

2018Further, Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 647 provides, in relevant part, that “[n]o portions of the charge nor omissions from the charge may be assigned as error, unless specific objections are made thereto before the jury retires to deliberate.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 647(C)); see also Commonwealth v. Pressley, 887 A.2d 220, 225 (Pa. 2005) (stating that Rule 647 requires a specific objection to a jury charge or exception to the trial court’s ruling on a proposed point to preserve a challenge to a jury instruction on appeal). ____________________________________________ 3 The trial court, in its

2023Commonwealth v. Lake, 281 A.3d 341, 347 (Pa. Super. 2022), appeal denied, 291 A.3d 333 (Pa. 2023) (citing Commonwealth v. Postie, 200 A.3d 1015, 1026 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc)).

2022Commonwealth v. Postie, 200 A.3d 1015, 1026 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc).

2018Commonwealth v. Brown, 911 A.2d 576, 582-83 (Pa.Super. 2006).

2017Commonwealth v. Brown, 911 A.2d 576, 582-83 (Pa.Super. 2006).

2016We have held that a _______________________ (Footnote Continued) Czimmer v. Janssen Pharm., Inc., 122 A.3d 1043, 1052 (Pa. Super. 2015). 2 Appellant filed a pretrial motion in limine to exclude all evidence of the Appellees’ products’ compliance with government regulations.

2016We have held that a _______________________ (Footnote Continued) Czimmer v. Janssen Pharm., Inc., 122 A.3d 1043, 1052 (Pa. Super. 2015). 2 Appellant filed a pretrial motion in limine to exclude all evidence of the Appellees’ products’ compliance with government regulations.

2013Trial courts are given latitude and discretion in phrasing instructions and are free to use their own expressions so long as the law is clearly and accurately presented to the jury.”); Boutte v. Seitchik, 719 A.2d 319, 324-25 (Pa.Super.1998) (“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 which amounts to fundamental error.

1999Boutte v. Seitchik, 719 A.2d 319, 324 (Pa.Super.1998).

2013When reviewing a challenge to a jury instruction, an appellate court is limited to determining “whether the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion or error of law controlling the outcome of the case.” Cooper v. Lankenau Hospital, _ Pa. 51 A.3d 183, 187 (2012) (citation omitted).

2013Cooper v. Lankenau Hosp., 616 Pa. 550 , 51 A.3d 183, 187 (2012) (“In reviewing a challenge to a jury instruction, the entire charge is considered, as opposed to merely discrete portions thereof....

2012Montalvo , at 99 (quoting Commonwealth v. Saunders, 529 Pa. 140 , 602 A.2d 816, 818 (1992)).

2012Montalvo , at 99 (quoting Commonwealth v. Saunders, 529 Pa. 140 , 602 A.2d 816, 818 (1992)).

2026May 29, 2024) (non- precedential memorandum decision at *4), appeal denied, 329 A.3d 587 (Pa. 2024) (affirming obstruction conviction where the appellant did not comply in the face of a blood draw warrant)3; Palchanes, 224 A.3d at 62 (same); cf. Commonwealth v. Sow, 333 A.3d 698 , 703 (Pa. Super. 2025) (rejecting a challenge to a jury instruction concerning whether the officer was required to ____________________________________________ 3 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (unpublished non-precedential memoranda decision of Superior Court filed after May 1, 2019, may be cited for persuasive value). -6- J-S3

2025Commonwealth v. Saranchak, 675 A.2d 268, 276 (Pa. 1996).

2025See Commonwealth v. Pressley, 887 A.2d 220, 224 (Pa. 2005); Commonwealth v. Smith, 206 A.3d 551, 564 (Pa. Super. 2019). -4- J-S43027-24 The failure to place a timely, specific, objection on the record results in a waiver of the issue for lack of preservation.

2023Commonwealth v. Lake, 281 A.3d 341, 347 (Pa. Super. 2022), appeal denied, 291 A.3d 333 (Pa. 2023) (citing Commonwealth v. Postie, 200 A.3d 1015, 1026 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc)).

2021Commonwealth v. Rush, 162 A.3d 530, 540 (Pa. Super. 2017).

2021The Commonwealth Court ‘is obligated to apply an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion for a new trial, and may overturn the trial court’s determination only if that court abused its discretion.’ Ball v. Bayard Pump & Tank Co., . . . 67 A.3d 759, 767 ([Pa.] 2013) (citation omitted). ‘It is well settled that in reviewing a challenge to a jury instruction the charge, as a whole, must be considered.

2020Furthermore, the trial court has broad discretion in phrasing the instructions, so long as the directions given ‘clearly, adequately, and accurately’ reflect the law.” Grove v. Port Auth. of Allegheny Cty., 218 A.3d 877 , 887 (Pa. 2019) (citation omitted). “[A] reviewing court will not grant a new trial on the ground of inadequacy of the charge unless there is a prejudicial omission of something basic or - 11 - J-S03016-20 fundamental.” Id. at 888 , quoting Stewart v. Motts, 654 A.2d 535, 540 (Pa. 1995).

2020Id. at 156 (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Lesko, 15 A.3d 345, 397 (Pa. 2011) (“It is well settled that in reviewing a challenge to a jury instruction the charge, as a whole, must be considered.”). -6- J.

2020See Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294 , 317 n.18 (Pa. 2014) (citations omitted); Pa.R.Crim.P. 647(C) (“No portions of the charge nor omissions from the charge may be assigned as error, unless specific objections are made thereto before the jury retires to deliberate”).

2019Id.; see also Commonwealth v. Smallhoover, 567 A.2d 1055, 1059 (Pa. Super. 1989) (deeming waived a challenge to a jury instruction under similar circumstances).

2018See Trial Court Opinion, 4/29/11, at 8-9, 15. -5- J-S72027-17 Though we are sympathetic to Lucas’s plight, based on his counsel’s failure to object to the jury instructions, we are constrained to rule that Lucas has waived his claims in the instant appeal.4 See Forbes, 867 A.2d at 1274 (finding that the appellant waived his challenge to the court’s jury instruction on the elements of burglary where he did not object to that charge); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 647(C).