THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 32 | NOVEMBER 2025 Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. often. If the court requires the submission of a combined set of jury instructions, clearly object to the opposing party’s competing construction. Continue lodging your objection during the charge conference and when the court circulates the final drafts. Object again after the instructions are read. Foreclose any claim of forfeiture by preserving your objection on the record. Remember, whether an instruction accurately states the law will be reviewed de novo. Increase your chances of winning at the second bite of the apple on appeal by fully articulating your reasons for a novel instruction on the record.17 CONCLUSION By the time trial draws near, there is a lot on the trial lawyer’s plate. At that stage, countless hours will be spent perfecting an opening statement, devising a bulletproof impeachment and imagining impactful visuals that will resonate with the jury during closing. It’s easy for jury instructions to be overlooked. But those instructions – how the law is framed for the jury – arguably have the potential to move the needle more than any of those other trial presentations. Preparing them early, getting them right and using them to inform the rest of your case strategy and theory maximizes your chances of success at trial and beyond. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Andrew J. Hofland is a shareholder at GableGotwals, where his practice focuses on white-collar defense and commercial litigation. He previously served as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma and a Navy judge advocate. Justin A. Lollman is a shareholder at GableGotwals, where his practice focuses on appeals, complex commercial litigation and white-collar criminal defense. Before entering private practice, Mr. Lollman clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. ENDNOTES 1. 12 O.S. §577.1. 2. 12 O.S. §577.2; see also Marquez-Burrola v. State, 2007 OK CR 14, ¶26, 157 P.3d 749, 758 (“trial courts should use the Uniform Instructions whenever possible.”). 3. 12 O.S. §577.2. 4. Instruction 3.25 (OUJI-CIV (3d)); Instruction 9-4 (OUJI-CR (2d)). 5. Instruction 3.13 (OUJI-CIV (3d)); Instruction 10-8 (OUJI-CR (2d)). 6. Instruction 1.9 (OUJI-CIV (3d)); Instruction 10-10 (OUJI-CR (2d)); Instruction 1.9 (OUJI-JUV). 7. Instruction 19.9 (OUJI-CIV (3d)). 8. Instruction 9-46 (OUJI-CR (2d)). 9. Instruction 3.24 (OUJI-JUV). 10. See, e.g., Krimbill v. Talarico, 2018 CIV APP 37, ¶5, 417 P.3d 1240, 1244-45 (expressly embracing Texas case law as persuasive since Oklahoma’s Anti-SLAPP Act mirrors Texas’); Beard v. Love, 2007 OK CIV APP 118, ¶20-21, 173 P.3d 796, 802 (Delaware decisions “very persuasive” considering Oklahoma’s Corporation Act is based on Delaware’s). 11. In re T.T.S., 2015 OK 36, ¶18, 373 P.3d 1022, 1029. 12. 12 O.S. §577.2. 13. In re Amendments to OUJI-CIV, 2022 OK 75 (Sept. 20, 2022). 14. Id. 15. Instruction 18.8 (OUJI-CIV (3d)). 16. See Johnson v. Ford Motor Co., 2002 OK 24, ¶9, 45 P.3d 86, 90 (stating that the jury “instructions need not be ideal, but they must reflect the Oklahoma law regarding the subject at issue.”). 17. More on reminders on how to best preserve issues for appeal in “The Basics of Preserving Error for Appeal: A Trial Lawyer’s Guide for Making a Better Appellate Record” by Justin A. Lollman and Andrew J. Hofland, 96-Jan OBJ 28 (2025).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==