If a jury instruction is not given, what potential review might follow?

When a jury instruction is not given, the review that follows is typically for abuse of discretion. This means that an appellate court will assess whether the trial court made an unreasonable or arbitrary decision in failing to provide the jury instruction that was requested. The standard of review for such cases is often highly deferential, focusing on whether the trial court had a solid basis for its choice rather than simply evaluating the effectiveness of the instruction itself.

This approach recognizes the trial judge's role in managing the trial and making decisions about the instructions given to the jury, balancing the need for legal accuracy with the practical aspects of trial management. If the appellate court finds that the trial court abused its discretion, it may reverse the decision and remand the case for a new trial with the appropriate instructions.

The other potential reviews listed do not align with the proper standard applied in cases involving omitted jury instructions. For instance, deferring to the jury's decision would not apply since the issue in question is about the adequacy of the instructions they received, not the jury's verdict itself. Similarly, reviewing based on new evidence is irrelevant as the focus here is on procedural correctness during the trial, not the introduction of new information. Lastly, reviewing for clarity of instructions is not the appropriate lens