Legal Definitions - assigned error

An assigned error refers to a specific mistake or legal misstep that a party alleges was made by a trial court during a case. This alleged error is formally identified and presented to a higher court (an appellate court) as the reason why the lower court's judgment should be reversed, modified, or sent back for a new trial. It forms the core argument for an appeal, detailing what went wrong legally in the original proceedings and why that error warrants intervention by a higher court.

Here are some examples illustrating assigned error:

• Example 1: Incorrect Jury Instructions

  In a complex intellectual property dispute, the trial judge provided the jury with instructions that incorrectly explained the legal standard for determining patent infringement under federal law. The jury subsequently found in favor of the plaintiff based on these flawed instructions.

  Explanation: The losing defendant would "assign" the trial judge's incorrect jury instructions as an error in their appeal. They would argue to the appellate court that because the jury was guided by an inaccurate statement of the law, their verdict was fundamentally flawed, and therefore the judgment should be overturned or a new trial ordered.

• Example 2: Improper Exclusion of Evidence

  During a criminal trial for assault, the defense attorney attempted to introduce testimony from a witness who saw the alleged victim initiate the physical altercation. However, the trial judge ruled this testimony inadmissible, stating it was irrelevant, despite its clear potential to support a self-defense claim.

  Explanation: The defendant's legal team would identify the judge's decision to exclude this crucial exculpatory testimony as an "assigned error." They would contend to the appellate court that this exclusion prevented them from presenting a full and fair defense, thereby prejudicing their case and warranting a new trial.

• Example 3: Misinterpretation of a Statute

  A trial court ruled in a zoning dispute that a local business was exempt from certain environmental regulations based on its interpretation of a state environmental protection statute. However, the state's highest court had previously issued a binding precedent interpreting that same statute differently, making such a business subject to the regulations under those circumstances.

  Explanation: The local government, challenging the ruling, would "assign" the trial judge's misinterpretation or disregard of established appellate precedent as an error. They would argue that the judge applied the law incorrectly, leading to an erroneous judgment that should be reversed to align with the higher court's authoritative interpretation.