In the case of Caffrey v. Oklahoma Territory in 1899, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a trial court's decision could not be overturned based on an error in instructions to the jury if those instructions were not objected to at trial. The defendant, Caffrey, was convicted of introducing and selling liquor in Oklahoma territory where it was prohibited by law. On appeal, he claimed that there were errors made during his trial including incorrect jury instructions regarding intent and knowledge about breaking the law. However, since these issues weren't raised during his original trial proceedings as objections or exceptions to rulings or orders by the judge presiding over his case; they couldn't serve as grounds for overturning his conviction according to established legal principles upheld by this ruling from America's highest court.

In the dissenting opinion for Caffrey v. Oklahoma Territory, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold Mr. Caffrey's conviction was flawed due to a lack of sufficient evidence and procedural errors during his trial. The dissenting justices believed that there were serious issues with how testimonies were handled in this case, particularly regarding hearsay evidence which should not have been admissible under law. They also pointed out inconsistencies in witness accounts and questioned their credibility based on these discrepancies. Furthermore, they criticized the handling of jury instructions by the presiding judge who failed to adequately explain legal concepts crucial for determining guilt or innocence such as reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; thus potentially influencing jurors' decisions unfairly against Mr.Caffrey.