In a motion for a new trial in a sexual assault case brought by Dimas, who is remanded on remand pending a retrial, what factors will the court consider in deciding whether to grant or deny the motion?

Finally, we reject the People's argument that the application of a wrong standard, in the event this occurred, was harmless error. (Cf. People v. Braxton, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 820 [a trial court's refusal to hear a new trial motion is harmless error if the record on appeal allows the reviewing court to determine as a matter of law that the motion for new trial lacked merit or that the trial court would properly have exercised its discretion to deny the motion].) Because the trial court made comments that it had questions about the victim's testimony, we cannot say as a matter of law that the court would have, had it acted in the role of a 13 th juror, denied Dimas's new trial motion. We may not at this point express any view regarding the trial court's assessment of the victim's credibility, nor is anything in this opinion reflective of our view on whether the trial court should grant or deny the new trial motion upon remand. We hold only that the trial court must reconsider the new trial motion in light of the proper standard of review. If after such review, the trial court determines the motion for new trial should be granted, it should retry the case. If after such review the trial court determines the motion should be denied, the court should reinstate the judgment.

Page 18