AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The plaintiff, Dennis Knight, appealed a jury verdict related to what he alleges as instructional error concerning a special verdict form in a case involving the defendants, Dirty Bourbon Dance Hall and Saloon, LLC, Kyle Kinney, Mark Travis, John Doe Employees, and Jerrad Bowen.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Carl J. Butkus, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that there was instructional error by the jury “as a matter of law” with regard to a special verdict form and suggested the possibility of juror confusion resulting from the wording of the special verdict form (para 1).
• Defendants-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the plaintiff preserved instructional error for appellate review.
• Whether the district court erred with regard to the instructions given to the jury.
• Whether the plaintiff has overcome the presumption that the jury followed the instructions given by the court.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge, DANIEL J. GALLEGOS, Judge concurring):
  The court found that the plaintiff did not appear to assert instructional error on appeal effectively, as his docketing statement did not assert facts indicating such error was preserved (para 2). It is established law that to preserve instructional error for appellate review, it is necessary to object to the instruction at trial, which the plaintiff did not do (para 3). The plaintiff relied on post-trial events to assert that instructional error was preserved, which is not considered timely or sufficient for preservation of such error (para 4). The court also noted that the plaintiff failed to provide a concise summary of material facts related to the instruction, such as the basis of any objection to the court’s instruction and the wording of any alternative instruction proposed by the plaintiff, which is necessary for appellate review (para 4). Furthermore, the plaintiff did not overcome the presumption that the jury followed the instructions given by the court (para 4). Regarding the plaintiff's second issue, the court reiterated that it has no duty to search the record for facts, arguments, and rulings to support generalized arguments, and the plaintiff did not provide a summary of evidence necessary for review of his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence (paras 5-6). Lastly, the plaintiff did not provide the court with facts material to a consideration of alleged error in Defendant’s closing argument (para 6).