Harmless error is a mistake made during a trial that doesn’t really affect the outcome. It’s not a big deal for the side that won, but it can be frustrating for the side that lost. Appellate courts usually don’t do anything about harmless errors, unless they’re really sure that the error could have changed the result. For example, if a jury is given the wrong instructions for one part of a case, but the right instructions for another part, and they don’t say which part they based their decision on, the appeals court will usually just leave the decision as it is, even if they agree that there was a mistake. This is called the two-issue rule. After the Colonial Stores case, Florida courts have clarified a legal rule called the two-issue rule. This rule says that if there are two separate legal issues in a case, a mistake in one of them might not be enough to change the outcome of the case.
But there have been some disagreements about how this rule should be applied. For example, some courts said it only applies when there are two different reasons why someone might be responsible for damages. Others said it also applies when a defendant has two different reasons why they shouldn’t be responsible.
In a recent case, the Florida Supreme Court said that the rule only applies when the winning side in the case has more than one reason why they should win, or the losing side has more than one reason why they should lose. This means that the rule might not be as helpful when there’s only one main reason why someone should win or lose a case. The “two-issue rule” in appellate law requires an appellant to show that an error in a trial must have affected the outcome, rather than just may have affected it. This is because the rule only applies when a jury returns a general verdict, and an appellant can request a special verdict to avoid this higher burden. Also, concerns about the length and confusion of verdict forms may motivate the desire to put some issues beyond the rule’s reach. This can create extra work for attorneys in tailoring verdict forms, but it’s important for preserving issues for appeal. The law about how a jury’s decision should be written down can be confusing. The rules about what needs to be included have changed over the years, and it’s not clear if the government even has the power to make these rules. Following the law doesn’t always guarantee that the verdict form will be correct. Lawyers can also choose to follow the rules or not, but they have to be careful not to accidentally give up their right to a more detailed form. The two-issue rule in court requires lawyers to be specific about the different parts of the verdict, but they shouldn’t go overboard with too many details because it can confuse the jury. If the jury gets confused, it creates more work for the lawyers to figure out if the verdict is inconsistent. Detailed verdicts also increase the risk of appeals. So, lawyers have to find a balance in how they present the verdict to avoid problems with the two-issue rule, but also to make sure it’s clear for everyone involved. These are references to legal cases and rules related to verdict forms in Florida courts. Some cases emphasize the importance of requesting an itemized verdict to avoid problems, while others suggest that not requesting it may not be a problem. If a problem with the verdict form is not raised before the jury is dismissed, it may be waived. Some judges believe that itemized verdicts are causing more appeals because they make it easier to challenge the amount awarded. There are also references to federal court cases that discuss the importance of errors on specific issues in a trial. Tracy Raffles Gunn and Charles Tyler Cone are lawyers at a firm in Tampa. Tracy handles appeals in Florida and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Charles focuses on state and federal appellate litigation. This column is from the Appellate Practice Section.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-two-issue-rule-and-itemized-verdicts-walking-the-tightrope/
Leave a Reply