pjc-family-2024-lib

I NTRODUCTION

4. P RINCIPLES OF S TYLE a. Basic philosophy . The Committee has sought to follow the admonition expressed by the supreme court in Lemos v. Montez , 680 S.W.2d 798, 801 (Tex. 1984): “Judicial history teaches that broad issues and accepted definitions suffice and that a workable jury system demands strict adherence to simplicity in jury charges.” b. Broad-form questions to be used whenever feasible. Tex. R. Civ. P. 277 pro vides that “the court shall, whenever feasible, submit the cause upon broad-form ques tions.” Accordingly, the basic questions are designed to be accompanied by one or more instructions. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 277–278. For further discussion, see PJC 251.2 regard ing broad-form issues and the Casteel doctrine. c. Definitions and instructions . The Supreme Court of Texas has disapproved the practice of embellishing standard definitions and instructions, Lemos v. Montez , 680 S.W.2d 798 (Tex. 1984), or adding unnecessary instructions, First International Bank v. Roper Corp. , 686 S.W.2d 602 (Tex. 1985). The Committee has endeavored to adhere to standard definitions and instructions, based whenever possible on applicable sections of the Texas Family Code, Texas Estates Code, Texas Property Code, and Texas Health and Safety Code. Most instructions and definitions are stated in general terms rather than in terms of the particular parties and facts of the case. If an instruction in general terms would be unduly complicated and confusing, however, reference to specific parties and facts is suggested. d. Placement of definitions and instructions in the charge . Definitions of terms and instructions that apply to a number of questions should be given immediately after the general instructions required by Tex. R. Civ. P. 226a. See Woods v. Crane Carrier Co. , 693 S.W.2d 377 (Tex. 1985). If a definition or instruction applies to only one ques tion or group of questions, however, it should be placed with that question or group. e. Burden of proof. As authorized by Tex. R. Civ. P. 277, it is recommended that the burden of proof be placed by instruction rather than by inclusion in each question. When the burden is placed by instruction, it is not necessary that each question begin: “Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that . . .” The admonitory instruc tions contain a general instruction that the jury is to answer all questions “Yes” or “No” unless otherwise instructed. That statement is followed by the basic directive that the burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence, together with a definition of that term. Certain questions may arise in cases covered by this volume that require answers based on clear and convincing evidence rather than a preponderance of the evidence. The definition of “clear and convincing evidence,” which should be given in conjunction with the specific question to which it relates, is provided in each relevant PJC. f. Hypothetical examples. Hypothetical facts have been italicized to indicate that the facts of the particular case should be substituted. Because it seemed impossible to avoid the suggestion of gender bias otherwise, the Committee has departed from the style of earlier Texas Pattern Jury Charges volumes in identifying parties. Hypothetical

xxviii