Article 11: Trial · Last amended 1875 · Last verified July 22, 2026
Laws 1875, § 5, p. 77; R.S.1913, § 7854; C.S.1922, § 8798; C.S.1929, § 20-1115; R.S.1943, § 25-1115.
Section 25-1115 supplies the teeth behind the writing requirements laid out in §§ 25-1111 through 25-1114. No oral explanation of any instruction authorized by those preceding sections is allowed, in any case. A judge cannot deliver a written instruction and then add a spoken gloss or clarification on top of it — the written text stands alone.
The consequence for noncompliance is severe and automatic. Any instruction or charge, or any portion of one, given to the jury without being reduced to writing as required, or any neglect or refusal by the court to perform a duty imposed by the preceding sections, is deemed error in the trial of the case and sufficient cause for reversal of the resulting judgment. There is no room here for a showing that the departure was harmless — the section itself labels the failure as reversible error.
For anyone trying a case, this section is the reason the formalities in §§ 25-1111 through 25-1114 are not mere paperwork. Skipping the writing requirement, explaining an instruction aloud, or neglecting the marking and filing steps does not just create an awkward record — it creates grounds to undo the verdict.
No. Section 25-1115 flatly prohibits any oral explanation of an instruction authorized by the preceding sections.
The section treats that failure as error in the trial and sufficient cause for reversal of the judgment.
Yes, as stated in the section. A neglect or refusal by the court to perform a duty required by §§ 25-1111 through 25-1114 is deemed error sufficient to reverse the judgment.
The written-instruction framework only protects the record if courts follow it. Treating departures as reversible error gives that framework real force rather than leaving it as an aspiration.
Both parties, since strict compliance produces a clear, written record of exactly what the jury was told, which protects either side’s ability to challenge an instruction on appeal.