Definition
A special charge is a jury instruction given by the trial court on a specific, targeted point of law arising in the case — as distinguished from a general charge that covers the whole of the applicable law. It is typically requested by counsel for one party and addresses a discrete legal issue, evidentiary question, or factual theory that counsel believes the jury requires specific guidance to resolve correctly. The court may grant or deny the request, and the manner in which a special charge is crafted, requested, and preserved for appeal carries significant procedural weight.
Common Confusion
SPECIAL CHARGE vs. GENERAL CHARGE: A general charge (also called a general instruction) surveys the full body of law applicable to the case — elements of the claim or offense, burdens of proof, credibility of witnesses, and the like. A special charge zeroes in on one point. The two are not mutually exclusive; a special charge supplements the general charge, it does not replace it.
SPECIAL CHARGE vs. SPECIAL VERDICT: A special verdict asks the jury to make specific factual findings rather than render a simple general verdict. A special charge instructs the jury on a point of law. The two may be used together, but they operate on different planes — one governs what the jury decides, the other governs how the jury is told to think about the law.
Why It Matters in Research
The procedural rules governing special charges are where most of the research action lies. In virtually every American jurisdiction, a party who wants a special charge must request it in a specific form, at a specific time, and failure to do so forfeits the right to complain on appeal that the instruction was missing. This means that appellate decisions turning on special charge issues are often less about the substantive law of the charge itself and more about whether the request was properly preserved.
When working in historical sources — particularly pre-twentieth century state reporters — expect the term to appear in the context of error assignments. A common appellate complaint was that the trial court "erred in refusing a requested special charge," and the appellate court's analysis often focused on whether the requested charge correctly stated the law and whether the issue was fairly raised by the evidence. Researchers reading these opinions need to track both dimensions: the substantive legal point the charge addressed and the procedural posture in which it was refused.
Jurisdictional variation matters here. Texas practice, for example, developed an elaborate body of law around requested special charges and the consequences of failing to object to omissions in the court's charge — the distinction between fundamental error and waivable error was often litigated through the lens of what a party did or did not request by special charge. Researchers working in Texas legal history will encounter this term with unusual frequency.
The term also appears in older equity practice in a narrower sense, though this usage is largely historical and unlikely to appear in modern materials.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's and Bouvier's are in close agreement: both define the special charge as a targeted instruction given at counsel's request on a specific point. Bouvier adds the cross-reference to GENERAL CHARGE, which is a useful signal that the term was understood relationally — its meaning was partly constituted by contrast with its counterpart.
Neither historical source addresses what modern practice has made central: the question of preservation and waiver. This is not a gap that reflects ambiguity in the definition itself, but it does mean that researchers relying only on the dictionary definitions will miss the procedural context that gives the term most of its practical significance in case law. The dictionaries describe what a special charge is; the reporters show what happens when you fail to ask for one.
Jurisdictional Note
The procedural mechanics of requesting and preserving special charges vary by jurisdiction and are governed by rules of civil and criminal procedure, not uniform common law. Texas, for instance, has historically given the special charge doctrine significant appellate development under its Rules of Civil Procedure. Federal practice uses the term "jury instruction" more broadly, and the distinction between "special" and "general" instructions is less formally marked in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure than in some state systems.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia: Sixth Amendment — Right to Be Informed of Charges (criminal_185) — relevant to the constitutional backdrop of what must be communicated to a defendant and, by extension, what the jury must be instructed upon in criminal proceedings.