which the absence of an itemized verdict sheet impairs our ability to decide other issues raised on appeal. Because our ability to decide one of the issues raised here has been impaired, the judgment is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial as to damages. Finally, in his brief, Johnson asserts that mandatory itemization does not make sense for those categories of damages that are unsupported by competent evidence. We agree. In the case sub judice, for example, Wyatt did not offer evidence of future medical expenses or future lost wages. When an itemized verdict sheet is prepared in accord with CJP § 11-109, the trial judge may “zero out” or delete those damage categories that are not at issue in a particular case. [See Privette v. State, 320 Md. 738, 748, 580 A.2d 188 (1990) (<HOLDING>) ] II In view of our holding on the first
holding that in a criminal trial the trial court must correct or amend an improper instruction if the proper instruction is necessary for the jury to understand the case holding that a trial judge is obliged to give a correct jury instruction notwithstanding that request for instruction was technically erroneous if the evidence generates the subject matter of the jury instruction recognizing that upon request the trial court may provide a limiting instruction to the jury recognizing that a party that objects to a jury instruction before the jury retires may challenge the instruction on appeal holding that when no objection was made to jury instruction evidence to support finding based on instruction should be assessed in light of the instruction given