Short answer. Generally no. Rule 51, Section 8 bars the court from considering an error unless it affects jurisdiction or the judgment's validity, is stated in the assignment of errors, or is closely related to and properly argued with an assigned error — except for plain and clerical errors, which the court may still address.

What the law says

No error which does not affect the jurisdiction over the subject matter or the validity of the judgment appealed from or the proceedings therein will be considered unless stated in the assignment of errors, or closely related to or dependent on an assigned error and properly argued in the brief, save as the court may pass upon plain errors and clerical errors.

Rule 51, Section 8 — Questions that may be decided. Read the full provision →

The assignment of errors generally sets the boundaries

Section 8 keeps appellate review tethered to what the appellant actually raised. No error which does not affect the jurisdiction over the subject matter or the validity of the judgment appealed from or the proceedings therein will be considered unless stated in the assignment of errors, or closely related to or dependent on an assigned error and properly argued in the brief.

Jurisdiction and validity are the main exceptions

Errors touching jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the validity of the judgment or the proceedings themselves, are treated differently — those may be considered even without being specifically assigned, reflecting how fundamental those defects are compared to ordinary trial errors. A jurisdictional defect can undo the entire proceeding, which is why the rule does not let it slip through simply because no one assigned it as an error.

Closely related errors, and plain or clerical errors

The section also allows consideration of an error that is closely related to or dependent on an assigned error and properly argued in the brief, plus a further carve-out: save as the court may pass upon plain errors and clerical errors. Beyond those specific exceptions, an unassigned, unrelated error is generally left untouched on appeal, no matter how apparent it might seem from the record.

Why appellants should assign errors carefully

Because review is generally confined to what the assignment of errors actually covers, an appellant should treat that list as the map of what the Court of Appeals will consider, rather than expect the court to comb through the record for issues the brief itself never raised. An argument buried in the discussion but never tied to a properly stated or closely related assigned error risks being disregarded entirely, regardless of how strong that argument might otherwise be.

Who this restriction binds

Section 8 binds the Court of Appeals itself, not just the appellant — the court is the one obligated to decline an unassigned, unrelated error rather than reach out and decide it on its own initiative. The plain-error and clerical-error exceptions exist for the court's own use, not as something a party can invoke to smuggle in an issue that otherwise fails every other condition the section sets, since those exceptions describe what the court may still pass upon, not a right the appellant can claim as of right.

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.