What is the test for a motion for a new trial on the basis that the verdict is "contrary to law or evidence"?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Romo v. Ford Motor Co., 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 139, 99 Cal.App.4th 1115 (Cal. App. 2002):
In the context of an order granting or denying a new trial motion on the basis the verdict is "contrary to law or evidence" (Pen.Code, 1181, subd. 6), the trial court has broad discretion "and there is a strong presumption that it properly exercised that discretion." (People v. Davis (1995) 10 Cal.4th 463, 524, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 826, 896 P.2d 119.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
When a defendant makes a mid-trial motion to revoke his self represented status and have standby counsel appointed for the remainder of the trial, does the trial court have a duty to manage the trial? (California, United States of America)
Does a motion for a new trial need to be denied because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for a motion for a new trial based on the assertion that the verdict is contrary to the law or evidence? (California, United States of America)
Does a deputy district attorney acquiesce in having the motion heard during the trial of a defendant before trial, rather than prior to trial? (California, United States of America)
Can a defendant obtain a new trial on the grounds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion to deny the motion on the same grounds as the previous motion? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for a motion to grant a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for a motion to obtain a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence? (California, United States of America)
In a motion for a new trial on a charge of sexual assault brought by defendant Perez, who has pleaded not guilty to the charge, is the evidence insufficient to support his claim of insufficiency of evidence? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for denying a motion for a new trial on the grounds that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion under the first two grounds? (California, United States of America)
In a motion for summary adjudication on a motion to exclude evidence as to drainage, does plaintiff need to explain to the arbitrator why it was necessary to exclude the evidence? (California, United States of America)
