State v. Bellamy

Summary

The concurrence would reject the broad implied-waiver rule for unpreserved jury-instruction claims and restore a narrower, case-specific approach requiring focused, on-the-record discussion of the challenged instruction followed by counsel's explicit assent. Applying that approach, it would find no waiver because the identification instruction was only described generally and was not substantively discussed on the record. It nevertheless would affirm because the asserted instructional defect was nonconstitutional and therefore could not satisfy the applicable constitutional-error review framework. Chief Justice Rogers, concurring, would reach that result on reasoning different from the majority's.