Short answer. No. Rule 44, Section 15 lets the appellant include in the assignment of errors any question of law or fact that was raised in the court below and falls within the issues framed by the parties, whether or not a motion for new trial was filed.

What the law says

Whether or not the appellant has filed a motion for new trial court below, he may include in his assignment of errors any question of law or fact that has been raised in the court below and which is within the issues framed by the parties.

Rule 44, Section 15 — Questions that may be raised on appeal. Read the full provision →

No new-trial motion required as a precondition

Section 15 removes a possible obstacle to raising issues on appeal. It states: whether or not the appellant has filed a motion for new trial court below, he may include in his assignment of errors any question of law or fact that has been raised in the court below and which is within the issues framed by the parties. Filing a motion for new trial is simply not a prerequisite.

Two conditions still apply

The freedom this section grants is not unlimited. The question must have been raised in the court below, and it must fall within the issues framed by the parties. An entirely new issue that was never presented at trial, or that falls outside what the parties actually litigated, does not qualify simply because no new trial motion was ever filed in the case.

Why this matters for appellants

This provision reassures an appellant who did not seek a new trial that the appeal is not thereby narrowed. What actually limits the assignment of errors is whether the issue was raised below and stayed within the case's original scope — not whether a particular post-trial motion was filed first. An appellant should not assume the absence of a new trial motion has weakened the appeal in any way the rule itself recognizes.

Why this rule exists

A motion for new trial and an appeal serve different purposes: the former asks the trial court to reconsider before judgment becomes final, while the latter asks the appellate court to review errors already made. Making one a precondition for the other would force a party to file a motion purely to preserve appellate options, adding cost and delay without changing what issues the case actually presents. Section 15 avoids that redundancy by tying the assignment of errors to what was litigated, not to what post-trial motions were filed.

What happens when an issue does not meet both conditions

Section 15 binds the appellant preparing the assignment of errors and, indirectly, the appellate court reviewing it, since the court will not consider an assigned error that fails either condition. An issue that was never raised in the court below is typically treated as waived on appeal regardless of its underlying merit, and an issue outside what the parties actually framed at trial fares no better, even where no new trial motion was ever contemplated. The rule's silence on new trial motions therefore does not open the door to unlimited new arguments — it only confirms that the presence or absence of such a motion is not itself the gatekeeper.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.