Trial Motions/Motion for New Trial
Category > Trial Motions/Motion for New Trial
Updated 6/1/2024The trial court erred in denying the new trial motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing where the accuser’s mother acknowledged devising a plan to falsely accuse the defendant of molest.The trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence that the accuser’s mother admitted she had devised a plan for the accuser to falsely accuse defendant of abusing her. The court denied the motion based upon the timing of the mother’s declaration, but it erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing to assess the credibility of the new evidence.id: 28294
Updated 2/3/2024The trial court erred in denying defendant’s mistrial motion where the jurors heard evidence of a murder that had been severed from the charge for which he was on trial. Defendant was charged with unrelated murders in Hayward and Oakland. The trial court granted defendant’s motion to sever the counts since the evidence of the Oakland murder was weak. During trial of the Hayward murder where the defense presented a case of voluntary manslaughter based on provocation or imperfect self-defense, a witness testified about the Oakland murder, which weakened his defense. The trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial.id: 27751
A trial court reviewing a new trial motion based on insufficient evidence must act as the 13th juror and independently reweigh the evidence.In a new trial motion, the defendant argued the evidence was insufficient to support the true finding on the gang enhancement allegation. The trial court used the wrong standard in denying the motion, but the court was required to reweigh the evidence, and erred by extending evidentiary deference to the jury’s conclusion.id: 25614
Capital conviction was reversed after medical experts’ repudiations of earlier conclusions established that defendant was convicted based on false evidence. Medical evidence was presented at defendant’s capital trial for murder-rape, suggesting that trauma found in the victim’s genital and anal area could have been the result of acute rape. However, years after the trial, the child abuse expert who evaluated the victim at the hospital, and other medical experts repudiated their earlier conclusions, and suggested the evidence was inconsistent with rape. The court granted defendant’s habeas petition after finding that he had been convicted based on false evidence within the meaning of Penal Code section 1473, subd.(b)(1). The court reversed the entire judgment rather than reducing the degree of the murder.id: 25553
The trial court erred by finding it couldn’t reweigh the evidence as part of a motion for new trial.Defendant filed a new trial motion based on the lack of evidence to support the gang enhancement. The trial court employed the incorrect test when reviewing the motion claiming that it wasn’t the court’s job to reweigh the evidence. When the new trial motion is based on insufficient evidence under Penal Code section 1181, subd.(6), the court must act as a 13th juror to review and independently evaluate the evidence. The matter was remanded for a new hearing.id: 25428
Ineffective assistance of counsel claim can be included in a motion for new trial. The trial court erred by finding it lacked the authority to rule on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel as part of a new trial motion. While ineffective assistance is not one of the nine grounds listed in Penal Code section 1181, the courts have found that for purposes of judicial economy it makes sense to rule on the issue as part of the motion. However, defendant’s claim that trial counsel erred by failing to call a certain witness was not accompanied by a declaration from counsel as to his reasoning, and so, there was no evidence to support the claim.id: 25429
The trial court erred by denying the new trial motion after making remarks before the ruling reflecting a misunderstanding of the law. The trial court abused its discretion by denying defendant’s new trial motion based upon the erroneous belief that it was bound by the jury’s credibility determination of the alibi witnesses. The judge was speaking out loud before the ruling and showed a misunderstanding of the law. A new trial was ordered.id: 23628
The trial court erred by modifying the felony murder instruction following a jury inquiry, without reopening the case for additional argument.The trial court did not err by giving a supplemental instruction on felony murder following closing arguments, in response to the juror’s inquiry. However, once the court decided to clarify the felony murder instruction to include both defendants, fairness dictated that the court reopen the case to allow rebuttal argument by defense counsel. The error did not require reversal where the defense was not ambushed by a new theory. In fact, defense counsel addressed the alternative felony-murder theory in his closing argument.id: 22209
The trial court erred in denying defendant’s acquittal motion made after the prosecution rested even though sufficient evidence was provided in the rebuttal case. Defendant was charged with three counts of criminal threats and three counts of dissuading a witness. A witness testified as to one incident in the prosecution’s case-in-chief, and the victim testified in the prosecution’s rebuttal case after the trial court denied the defendant’s motion for acquittal under Penal Code section 1118.1. The trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion for acquittal because the evidence before the court at the time the motion was made was insufficient to support certain counts even though the prosecution’s evidence in rebuttal supplied the missing evidence and thus would support the convictions.id: 22501
The court’s error in denying defendant’s section 1118.1 motion in the presence of the jury was not prejudicial.The trial court erred by denying defense counsel’s request to argue the Penal Code section 1118.1 motion outside the presence of the jury. However, the error was not prejudicial where defense counsel suggested he would probably just “submit” on the motion, the court’s minimal commentary on the nature of the motion (and summary denial) did not deny defendant a fair trial, and where defendant confessed to the charged conduct on the witness stand. id: 22129
The trial court imposed an improper burden on defendant in denying the new trial motion as defendant need only have proved the new evidence would have led to a better result, including a hung jury.Defendant was convicted of armed robbery and attempted murder. At defendant’s second new trial motion (after the appellate court reversed the denial of the first motion) the trial court erred by failing to consider new evidence, even though some of the evidence may have been available before trial, because the refusal to consider the evidence would result in a miscarriage of justice. The trial court also erred by imposing on defendant the burden of showing he was entitled to new trial only if he could show that he probably would have been acquitted if the new evidence had been presented. All he was required to prove was the probability of a better result, which included a mistrial resulting from a hung jury. The court ordered a new trial rather than remanding the matter to the trial court.id: 21883
The trial court did not err in finding that two of defendant’s three 1999 convictions were eligible for section 1203.4 relief.The prosecution argued the trial court erred in granting Penal Code section 1203.4 relief after finding two of defendant’s three convictions in 1999 were eligible for relief. The prosecution argued that defendant, as a result of his third conviction for a sex offense pursuant to Penal Code section 288, was not eligible for section 1203.4 relief for any of his three convictions. However, trial court may set aside guilty verdicts on individual counts in an information and dismiss those counts pursuant to section 1203.4, subd.(a).id: 20583
When a criminal defendant moves for a new trial based on allegations of jury misconduct, the trial court has discretion to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the truth of the allegations.A trial court has the discretion to grant an evidentiary hearing on a new trial motion based on jury tampering or juror misconduct and to have jurors called to testify at the hearing. However, such hearing should be held only when the trial court, in its discretion, concludes that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to resolve material, disputed issues of fact.id: 12139
Trial court was without authority to reconsider its previous order granting a new trial, but the People were permitted to appeal the order under the constructive filing doctrine.Following his conviction, defendant moved for a new trial arguing that prejudicial testimony had been erroneously admitted. The People filed no written opposition to the motion and the court held their inaction constituted acquiescence in defendant's motion. The new trial motion was granted. The court then granted the People's motion for reconsideration based on excusable neglect under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, and concluded the testimony was not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial. The trial court was without authority to reconsider its previous order granting a new trial. However, the Court of Appeal reinstated the People's appellate rights under the doctrine of constructive filing and found that under the circumstances, the People's failure to file an appeal written the 60-day time limit was not fatal.id: 12137
Trial court has the power to grant a new trial as to some but not all of the counts charged in the accusatory pleading.The trial court granted defendant's new trial motion on all seven counts even though the motion only challenged the verdicts on counts one through four. The court stated that there was no such thing as a partial motion for a new trial. However, a trial court has the power to grant a new trial as to some but not all of the counts charged in the accusatory pleading.id: 12134
Court erred in denying new trial motion on a factual scenario presumptively establishing prejudicial jury misconduct.After the jury returned its verdict, defendant moved for funding to investigate possible jury misconduct. Counsel had learned in questioning two jurors upon their discharge that the jury based its decision of guilt on the fact that defendant did not testify. The court denied the motion finding that a juror cannot impeach his or her own verdict on the theory that the jury did not follow the law. The court then stated the new trial motion would be denied even assuming that all twelve jurors said the decision regarding defendant's failure to testify took place. The court abused its discretion in denying the motion on a factual scenario that presumptively established prejudicial jury misconduct.id: 12122
In considering a motion for new trial the court must make an independent evaluation of the evidence.When considering the motion for new trial the court stated that it was a close case but he thought the evidence with regard to the robbery was weak. The court then denied the motion stating . . . it would not be appropriate for me to interpose my opinion over and above that of the jurors who did hear the evidence. This statement indicates that the court deferred to the jury's conclusion and did not make an independent evaluation of the evidence. The judgement was reversed with directions to the trial court to again consider the motion for new trial and apply the correct legal standard.id: 12126
Trial court erred by refusing to consider a motion for new trial made orally, and the remedy for the error was a new trial.Defendant made a timely motion for a new trial by applying for it before judgment. He articulated the ground (jury misconduct) and said he was prepared to offer three declarations in support of the motion. The trial court erred by refusing to entertain the motion based upon its mistaken belief that a written motion was required. Defendant was entitled to a new trial since he was not permitted to create a record that would permit a reviewing court to measure the harm.id: 17205
The trial court erred in concluding it did not have the power to continue the trial and subsequently did not abuse its discretion in ordering a new trial on that basis.Defendant was convicted of attempted murder among other things. The trial court thereafter ordered a new trial, concluding it had erred in refusing to continue the original trial and that as a result, defendant was denied a fair trial. The trial court's refusal to continue the trial had been in deference to the supervising judge's earlier ruling. However, the trial court had the power and discretion to continue the trial and erred in concluding it lacked the power. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding the pro per defendant was denied a fair trial and in ordering a new trial. Moreover, the denial of a fair trial in itself results in a miscarriage of justice, without the defendant having to show it is reasonably probable that a more favorable result would have been reached absent the error.id: 15811
Ruling suppressing the evidence presented to the grand jury was a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant renewal of the 995 motions.After a grand jury indictment, the trial court granted defendants' motion to suppress evidence. Thereafter, defendants renewed the motion to dismiss under Penal Code section 995. Contrary to the prosecution's argument, the ruling suppressing much of the evidence presented to the grand jury was a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant renewal of the the motions under section 995.id: 15789
Updated 2/4/2024The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s mistrial motion after the prosecutor referred to evidence that had been ruled inadmissible. The prosecutor failed to comply with the trial court’s pretrial ruling, and referred to hearsay statements that had been excluded. The trial court immediately instructed the jurors that the statements were stricken. The trial court did not thereafter err by denying defense counsel’s motion for mistrial as the evidence was not so powerful that it was incurable and the court instructed the jurors not to consider it. id: 27844
Updated 2/1/202410 week recess in trial due to COVID-19 pandemic did not require a mistrial.The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s mistrial motions based on the 10 week recess caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s mistrial motions given the 10 week delay in his trial caused by the onset of the unprecedented global health crisis.id: 27938
he trial court did not err in denying mistrial motion where a witness at capital murder trial blurted out that defendant molested her kids. A witness at the murder trial interjected during testimony that the defendant had molested her kids. The defense moved for a mistrial. The trial court did not err in denying the motion where the comment was brief, the jurors were admonished that it was unfounded, and the jurors were questioned individually about the impact of the comment.id: 26185
The trial court properly denied the motion for new trial where the defense did not establish why the new witness could not have been found before trial.Defendants were convicted of felony vandalism after trying to stop someone from wrongfully repossessing their car. They filed a new trial motion based on newly discovered evidence in the form of a new witness to the incident. However, the trial court properly denied the motion as the defense failed to show the witness was newly discovered - that is why he couldn’t have been discovered with reasonable diligence before trial.id: 25954
The trial court did not err in denying the mistrial motion based on late discovery where defendant could not show prejudice.Defendant moved for a mistrial based on the late discovery of vaginal swab slide evidence, the prosecution criminologist’s notes, and delayed notice of Dr. Wagner’s testimony that the intercourse took place less than 24 hours from the time the vaginal swab was taken during the autopsy. A mistrial should be granted where an error during trial results in prejudice that is incurable by instruction or admonition. The experts new notes did not prejudice the defense because the jury never saw them. The slide evidence was not a product of prosecutorial misconduct but rather the doctor’s view of the slide under different lighting conditions the day before trial. And the defense learned of Dr. Wagner’s position three weeks before trial but never requested a continuance.id: 25006
The trial court did not err by denying recently retained counsel a continuance to explore potential bases for a new trial motion.The trial court did not err in denying a continuance so that recently retained counsel could investigate and prepare a motion for new trial. The trial court seemed intent on proceeding to sentencing of an 18 year-old facing a life without parole term where defendant was not the shooter. Nevertheless, counsel had been retained a month earlier and had some time to explore possible bases for a new trial. The court’s ruling did not deny defendant’s right to counsel of his choice as the issue was simply whether there was good cause for a continuance.id: 24622
The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial after the prosecutor mistakenly played an unredacted video for the jury.The trial court ruled the video of defendant’s interview was admissible as long as the prosecutor redacted it to remove the reference to his PTSD. At trial, the prosecutor mistakenly played the unredacted version. The fleeting reference to PTSD did not deny defendant a fair trial and the court’s instruction fixed any problem.id: 24107
Trial court’s dismissal on double jeopardy principles was erroneous because that ruling can only be made after a once in jeopardy plea. The trial court did not err in granting defendant’s motion for new trial on the witness dissuasion count even though the court seemed to use two different standards of review when addressing the issue. The court’s use of the term “insufficient evidence” did not establish that the court used the wrong standard. However, the court erred by granting the motion under “a jeopardy theory” because double jeopardy applies only after a defendant has pled once in jeopardy. There was sufficient evidence to support a conviction so the error was not harmless. id: 23188
The trial court did not err in failing to declare a mistrial after 16.5 hours of deliberations in the lengthy capital case.The trial court did not err in failing to declare a mistrial at defendant’s capital trial where the jurors deliberated for over 16 hours during six days as the trial was long and complicated.id: 22856
The trial court did not err in denying the new trial motion based on two newly discovered instances of taser confusion.Defendant transit officer was convicted of involuntary manslaughter after shooting a passenger when thinking he was using a taser gun. At trial he presented six instances of handgun/taser confusion in the U.S. and Canada during a five year period. The trial court did not err by later denying a new trial based on the newly discovered evidence of two additional instances of taser confusion as the evidence was cumulative and would not have rendered a different result probable on retrial. id: 22736
Criminalist’s erroneous statistical DNA comparisons did not require a new trial in light of the overwhelming non-DNA evidence establishing defendant’s guilt. Following trial, the criminalist issued an amended report which lowered the probability significance of the DNA match. The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for new trial where there was more than ample non-DNA evidence connecting defendant to the crimes, and defendant never contested the test results identifying him as a contributor to the evidentiary DNA samples. id: 21971
The trial court did not err in denying the new trial motion where only two jurors heard the witness’s improper reference to a triple murder and defense counsel rejected the court’s offer to remove those jurors. The trial court sought to sanitize a witness’s testimony by referring to the prior offense as the “serious offense.” In response to the prosecutor’s question about the offense, the witness asked if she meant “the triple murder.” Defendant moved for a mistrial and the court interviewed the jurors. Only two said they heard the “triple murder” statement. Defense counsel declined the court’s invitation to have those jurors removed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the new trial motion where there was no reason to disturb the court’s finding that 10 jurors did not hear the improper remark and that defendant suffered no prejudice from the two jurors who did hear it.id: 21696
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the prosecution to reopen its case to present evidence that the marijuana found in the coin purse was a usable amount.The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the prosecution to reopen its case - after the defendant moved for judgment of acquittal under Penal Code section 1118.1 - to present evidence that was inadvertently omitted and involved an element of the offense. Section 1118.1 does not place a limitation on the trial court's authority to reopen its case for good cause and when justice so requires. id: 21617
The trial court erred by failing to inquire into the basis for a new trial motion asserting incompetence of counsel. The trial court erred by failing to make further inquiry when defendant moved (before sentencing) for a new trial based on the ineffective assistance of counsel. The matter was remanded for a full Marsden inquiry into the basis for defendant’s allegations of counsel’s incompetence.id: 21512
The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s new trial motion after a witness blurted out that his sister had been executed.Defendant argued the trial curt erred in denying his mistrial motion following the testimony of a witness that he was afraid to testify because his sister had been “executed.” However, there was nothing in the prosecutor’s question that called for an explanation as to why the witness was afraid, and the court did not err in denying the motion for new trial.id: 21191
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant a new trial based on grounds not raised in the motion and the appellate court could decide the issue where it was raised for the first time in the AG’s reply brief. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant a new trial for instructional error where defendant did not raise the issue in his motion for new trial. The Court of Appeal ruled on this issue even though it was raised by the Attorney General for the first time in its reply brief as it was a question of pure law based on uncontested facts.id: 20397
The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s request to reopen the case after closing argument.The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing defendant’s request to reopen his case after closing arguments to investigate the condition of hedges described by the arresting officer. It was late in the proceedings, the potential evidence was not significant and there were multiple photos admitted at trial depicting the area of the accident. id: 20798
Wende/Anders procedures need not be extended to motions for new trial.After the verdict on counts 2 through 5, the trial court appointed separate counsel to investigate possible grounds for a motion for new trial. After reviewing the transcripts, counsel reported that he saw no grounds to support the motion. Defendant argued, on appeal, that the second lawyer was deficient for failing to file a new trial motion or a pleading consistent with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, or Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. However, due process does not require extending the Wende/Anders procedures to motions for new trial.id: 19964
The court did not err in ruling the new trial motion alleging IAC filed immediately after the guilt verdicts should be litigated during the habeas corpus proceedings.After the guilt phase verdicts, defendant moved for a new trial alleging the ineffective assistance of counsel. The court sought to determine whether defendant was seeking replacement counsel, pro per status, or substitute counsel to file the new trial motion. The court ultimately ruled that the claim should be litigated later during habeas corpus proceedings. The trial court did not err in refusing to decide the merits of the claim.id: 18732
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial motion on the attempted murder count where it failed to state reasons and the evidence supported a finding of intent to kill.Defendant was convicted of several offenses including deliberate and premeditated attempted murder. At the close of the prosecutor's case-in-chief, defense counsel moved to dismiss the attempted murder charge for lack of evidence showing an intent to kill. The court commented on the lack of evidence but denied the motion. However, after trial, the court granted the motion for new trial on that charge on the same basis. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion even though it failed to state reasons for finding the evidence insufficient, and where substantial evidence supported the verdict. On appeal, the court only looks to determine whether the trial court's ruling is supported by substantial evidence. In this case, two percipient witnesses gave contradictory statements as to what happened. It was within the trial court's discretion to find one account was credible.id: 18640
When the trial court does not hear a new trial motion, and the record does not show whether the motion was meritorious, the court can remand the matter for a hearing in the trial court.When a trial court has refused or neglected to hear a defendant's new trial motion, a separate motion citing Penal Code section 1202 (which requires that the motion be heard) is not required, but a defendant may forfeit a claim to the section 1202 remedy by acquiescing in the trial court's failure to hear the new trial motion. A reviewing court may order a new trial under section 1202 only if the trial court's failure to hear the motion has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. A reviewing court, may, in appropriate circumstances, prevent a miscarriage of justice by remanding the matter to the trial court for a belated hearing and ruling on the new trial motion.
id: 18249
A trial court's decision to grant a new trial based upon the ineffective assistance of counsel is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.After the jury convicted defendant of murder, the trial court granted the motion for a new trial based on the ineffective assistance of counsel. Following the granting of such a motion, the appellate court may not conduct a de novo review, but must affirm the determination unless it constituted an abuse of discretion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the new trial motion in the present case where defense counsel failed to call defendant to the stand and that prevented her from telling the jury why she acted as she did.id: 18202
When the trial court grants a criminal defendant's motion for a new trial based on prejudicial juror misconduct, the trial court's ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion.When a trial court, after examining all of the relevant circumstances, grants a new trial in a criminal case on grounds that proven juror misconduct was prejudicial, that determination is not (as in the case where the court denies the defendant's motion) subject to independent or de novo review on appeal, but may be affirmed unless it constituted an abuse of discretion.id: 18035
The superior court retained jurisdiction to vacate its order granting defendant's motion for new trial and to enter an order denying the motion.An order granting a new trial is an interim order in the sense that it requires further proceedings before the case may be resolved and judgment may be pronounced. Therefore, the trial court retains jurisdiction to reconsider an order granting a new trial after the time for the prosecution to appeal the order has expired.id: 17890
Due process did not require that the trial judge preside over the motion for new trial.Defendant argued that due process requires the motion for new trial under Penal Code section 1181 be heard by a judge who presided over the trial. However, defendant had no right to demand or expect that the trial judge preside at the new trial motion, and another judge may competently perform the supervisory function to review the evidence and determine whether it supported the verdicts.id: 17868
Court did not err in denying the new trial motion where appellant argued a witness's post-trial availability constituted newly discovered evidence.Appellant intended to call a witness to testify the cocaine found in the motel room belonged to her. However, with sentencing pending on her guilty plea, she invoked her privilege against self-incrimination as to all questions. Following trial, appellant presented a declaration from the witness claiming that she had purchased the cocaine for her personal use. Appellant argued this newly discovered evidence necessitated the granting of his motion for new trial. The court did not err in denying the motion where the affidavit did not contradict the strongest evidence against appellant and it was not reasonably probable her testimony would have affected the outcome of the trial if it had been presented to the jury.id: 12118
Court did not err in denying the new trial motion where the newly discovered evidence consisted of results from a new DNA procedure which has yet to be approved by the courts.After verdict but before sentencing appellant moved for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The evidence consisted of the results of a scientific test on the victim's panties which allegedly eliminated appellant as a source of fragments of sperm DNA on the panties. The test did not involve the RFLP analysis of DNA testing which has been approved as admissible under <i>Kelly-Frye</i> standards. Rather, the test involved a more recently established technique PCR amplification which has yet to be approved by the courts. In light of the entire factual background, the evidence of appellant's guilt was very strong and the newly discovered evidence inconclusive. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial.id: 12119
Court did not err in denying new trial motion based on the allegedly newly discovered evidence of defendant's brain damage as described in counsel's vague declaration.The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial based on the allegedly newly discovered evidence of brain damage. All the court had before it was counsel's vague and equivocal declaration regarding the alleged results of the brain testing. It was so tenuous that it clearly did not make a different outcome probable or even remotely likely. This was plainly insufficient to warrant a new trial.id: 12121
Defendant's request for a stipulated reversal of his misdemeanor was rejected as there is no legal method of substituting one adverse judgment for another.Defendant was acquitted of several charges but convicted of the misdemeanor of carrying a loaded firearm in public (Penal Code section 12031, subdivision (a)). Because the offense involved a weapon, he was subject to permanent deportation. With the support of the district attorney, defendant moved for a stipulated reversal of his misdemeanor conviction with the entry in the abstract of judgment of an assault conviction that would not subject him to deportation but would result in a longer sentence in the event of a probation violation. However, there is no authority for the substitution of one adverse judgment for another. Expungement under Penal Code section 1203.4 is the only post conviction relief from the consequences of a valid criminal conviction available to a defendant under the law.id: 12123
Failure to raise the issue of the reception of unauthorized evidence at a jury view of the death scene at the first new trial motion precluded raising of the issue later.Defendant asserted juror misconduct and the reception of the unauthorized evidence at a jury view of the death scene based upon questions and answers that he was not unaware of and the fact that he was present when certain experiments with the truck were performed. However, the record established that defendant was present for the question and answer period and in fact authorized which questions could be answered and which could not. Regarding the experiments, even if defendant was unaware of the juror experimentation as it occurred, he should have gained that information when interviewing the declarant jurors before their testimony at the first motion and presented it at the time. He was not entitled to raise the issue at the second new trial motion or on appeal.id: 12125
Letter discovered after the verdict did not require granting of new trial motion where the letter was not authenticated.Given the deficiencies in the verification and authentication of the newly discovered letter as well as the showing in the record that defendant knew about the witness early in the trial and had evidence of the threats to defendant before the investigation was launched, there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of the new trial motion.id: 12127
The trial court was under no sua sponte duty to order a new trial or further hearings once it learned of appellant's brother's confession.Appellant argued that when counsel informed the court that appellant's brother had confessed to shooting the victim, the court, on its own motion, should have ordered a new trial. However, absent a defense motion for a new trial, the court was without authority to grant one.id: 12129
Trial court acted within its discretion in denying new trial motion based on post trial declaration of a witness where the court determined the confession lacked credibility.Defendant was convicted of murder and moved for a new trial following a witness' post trial confession. In light of the witness' series of newly remembered revelations of critical exculpatory evidence, her obvious continued attachment to defendant, and conflicts between her stories and other evidence admitted at trial, the trial court was well within its discretion in finding that the proffered new testimony lacked credibility, and implicitly finding that it would not have changed the result on retrial.id: 12130
Trial court did not improperly restrict defendant's new trial motion by mischaracterizing the oral non-statutory ground.A new trial motion under Penal Code section 1181 may be oral. Further, despite the in the following cases only language of section 1181, there are certain non-statutory grounds for a new trial motion. However, the trial court did not mischaracterize the non-statutory ground in the instant case since it was defense counsel who stated the ground as newly discovered evidence. The trial court acted within its discretion in denying the motion based on lack of due diligence, and finding the new testimony only went to the issue of prosecutorial misconduct.id: 12131
Trial court had jurisdiction to reverse its ruling granting defendant's new trial motion.After first granting defendant's new trial motion, the trial court did not err in vacating that finding and reversing the ruling on an issue of law. Although the ruling involved the correct legal standard of prejudice and hence required a reevaluation of the facts under the substituted standard, no new factual findings were made as a result thereof which would have affected defendant's substantial interest in evidentiary matters.id: 12133
Trial court must decide whether the evidence of witness' recantation is credible in deciding upon new trial motion.The role of the trial court in deciding a motion for new trial based upon a witness' recantation is to determine whether the new evidence is credible, i.e., worthy of belief by the jury. That determination is made after a consideration of all the facts pertinent to the particular issue. The trial court is not the final arbiter of the truth or falsity of the new evidence. Once the trial court has found the recantation to be believable, it must then decide whether consideration of the recantation would render a different result on retrial reasonably probable. In the instant case, the court's comments that it believed the recanted testimony together with the evidence that the victim changed her story several times, supported the order granting the new trial motion.id: 12136
After the issuance of a remittitur in a prior appeal directing the trial court to deny the motion for new trial, the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain a second motion for new trial based on different grounds.Defendants were convicted and moved for a new trial on the ground of evidentiary error and newly discovered evidence. The motion was granted and the People appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed the order with directions that the trial court deny the motion. After the remittitur was issued to the trial court, defendants filed a second motion for new trial on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence. The trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the second new trial motion. Moreover, defendants do not come within the exception based upon the failure of trial counsel to include the ground of insufficiency of the evidence in the first new trial motion because that ground would have lacked merit even if it had been timely asserted or had the trial court possessed jurisdiction to entertain the motion.id: 12113
Alleged misconduct based on intimidation of non-smoking jurors and an expressed desire to avoid prolonged deliberations were insufficient to warrant a new trial.Defendant argued juror misconduct predicated on the intimidation of smoking jurors over nonsmoking jurors and the expressed desire of some jurors to resolve the penalty and avoid prolonged deliberations. However, while the conduct of jurors disregarding an agreement on smoking or complaining about the pace of deliberations, may be scrutinized, the effect of this conduct on subsequent votes may not be. Moreover, the record did not support the allegation that some members of the jury were prevented from freely expressing their views because of the two circumstances.id: 12114
Comments indicated the court exercised its independent judgment in ruling on the new trial motion.In denying defendant's new trial motion, the court stated there was enough evidence there for the jury to do what they did. Defendant argued this comment demonstrated that the court erred in failing to independently weight the evidence as required in ruling on a new trial motion. However, prior to the challenged statement the court said I think the evidence was sufficient. The court's exercise of its independent judgment was reflected in this statement. The further comment was mere surplusage.id: 12115
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245