concurring specially.
I concur fully with the result reached by the majority, but write specially with regard to Division 2. In assessing any error in the failure of the trial court to give a written request to charge, our main concern is whether at some point the grounds for the objection have been given on the record. Of course if the grounds were given prior to the charge to the jury, and this court has those grounds of record, there is no requirement that they be restated, and this court can review the error after determining whether those same grounds are argued on appeal. It is well established that review of the charge enumerated is limited to the ground of objection stated at trial.3 In summary, my view is that the proper method of making an objection to a requested charge that was not given is to state that objection and the charge, and then state the legal basis. As a practical matter, this gives the trial judge a final opportunity to evaluate whether the grounds given require the giving of the charge or whether an additional charge should be given prior to the jury beginning its delibera*242tions. This will assist in maintaining the integrity of the verdict and eliminate the need for appeals on this issue.
Decided March 30, 2001 — Reconsiderations denied April 13, 2001 — Alston & Bird, Jay D. Bennett, Candace N Smith, Paul J. Kaplan, Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, Emmet J. Bondurant, Michael B. Terry, Frank M. Lowrey TV, for appellant. King & Spalding, Griffin B. Bell, Benjamin F Easterlin TV, Michael C. Russ, John P. Brumbaugh, for appellees. Watson, Spence, Lowe & Chambless, Evans J. Plowden, Jr., Dawn G. Benson, Charles K. Wainright II, amici curiae.I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Pope, Presiding Judge Smith, Judge Ruffin and Judge Barnes join in this special concurrence.
Benson v. Tucker, 160 Ga. App. 217, 218 (1) (286 SE2d 485) (1981).