California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Watts, 22 Cal.App.5th 102, 231 Cal.Rptr.3d 248 (Cal. App. 2018):
We review the trial court's denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. (See People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 156, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 157, 158 P.3d 731.) "Such an abuse of discretion arises if the trial court based its decision on impermissible factors [citation] or on an incorrect legal standard." ( Ibid . ) Here, the trial court's comments suggest it did not independently review the evidence and decide the proper weight to accord it. The comment that "there was enough for the jury to make the finding" indicates deference to the jury's weighing of the evidence. In sum, the trial court did not articulate the correct standard of review, failed to act as a 13th juror to review and independently evaluate the evidence, and failed to give Watts the benefit of its independent assessment regarding the sufficiency of credible evidence to support the verdicts. As such, we reject the Attorney General's contention that a rehearing is not required. Accordingly, the judgment and order denying the motion for a new trial are vacated
[231 Cal.Rptr.3d 260]
and this matter is remanded for a new hearing consistent with this opinion.14
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.