What type of review applies to a court's denial of a proposed jury instruction?

The correct answer is that a court's denial of a proposed jury instruction is typically reviewed under the "abuse of discretion" standard. This means that an appellate court will evaluate whether the trial court acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or unreasonably in its decision regarding the jury instruction.

The concept of "abuse of discretion" recognizes the trial judge's broad authority in making decisions about how to structure and present a trial, including decisions related to jury instructions. A trial court is expected to use its judgment to determine whether a proposed instruction is a correct statement of the law and whether it is applicable to the facts of the case. Therefore, unless the appellate court finds a clear and significant error in that judgment, it will defer to the trial court's decision.

This standard contrasts with "de novo review," which applies when an appellate court considers a legal question without any deference to the lower court's decision. That would not be appropriate in this scenario since jury instructions are often context-specific and involve the trial judge's discretion.

"Standard review" is not a specific legal term used in federal or state law when discussing the review of jury instructions, and the term "clear error review" is typically associated with factual findings rather than decisions regarding legal instructions