The presiding judge may exercise a sound discretion in granting or refusing new trials in cases where the verdict may be decidedly and strongly against the weight of the evidence even though there may appear to be some slight evidence in favor of the finding.
(Ga. L. 1853-54, p. 46, § 3; Code 1863, § 3641; Code 1868, § 3666; Code 1873, § 3717; Code 1882, § 3717; Civil Code 1895, § 5482; Penal Code 1895, § 1058; Civil Code 1910, § 6087; Penal Code 1910, § 1085; Code 1933, § 70-206.)
Law reviews.- For survey of cases dealing with criminal law and criminal procedure from June 1, 1977 through May 1978, see 30 Mercer L. Rev. 27 (1978).
JUDICIAL DECISIONSANALYSIS
General grounds for new trial are addressed to discretion of trial judge. Burnet v. Bazemore, 122 Ga. App. 73, 176 S.E.2d 184 (1970).
Authority to grant new trial.
- No court except the trial court is vested by O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and5-5-21 with the authority to grant a new trial in a matter relating to the weight of the evidence. Clark v. State, 249 Ga. App. 97, 547 S.E.2d 734 (2001).
Defendant claimed on appeal that a conviction for the unauthorized possession of drugs by an inmate, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(b), was contrary to law, contrary to the evidence, and against the weight of the evidence, and that, on that basis, it was error for the trial court to deny a motion for a new trial, but, under O.C.G.A. § 5-5-21, only the trial court had the authority to grant a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. Collinsworth v. State, 276 Ga. App. 58, 622 S.E.2d 419 (2005).
Defendant's argument that the verdict convicting the defendant of the involuntary manslaughter of defendant's 17-month-old son was decidedly and strongly against the weight of the evidence could only be made to a trial court in a motion for new trial, not to an appellate court on appeal. The appellate court did not have the discretion to grant a new trial on these grounds. Lewis v. State, 304 Ga. App. 831, 698 S.E.2d 365 (2010).
Trial court's attention was clearly directed to the court's discretion under O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and5-5-21, and there was no indication that the court failed to exercise the court's discretion in denying the new trial motion. Wilson v. State, 302 Ga. 106, 805 S.E.2d 98 (2017).
Discretion rests solely with trial judge.
- Discretion to grant or refuse motions for new trials because verdict is strongly and decidedly against weight of evidence rests solely in presiding judge. Gledhill v. Brown, 44 Ga. App. 670, 162 S.E. 824 (1932); Turner v. Masonic Relief Ass'n, 52 Ga. App. 374, 183 S.E. 350 (1936).
Trial judge alone has the authority to grant new trial on ground that the verdict is strongly and decidedly against weight of evidence. Josey v. State, 197 Ga. 82, 28 S.E.2d 290 (1943); Wright v. State, 173 Ga. App. 408, 326 S.E.2d 584 (1985); Hood v. State, 192 Ga. App. 150, 384 S.E.2d 242 (1989); Dixon v. State, 192 Ga. App. 845, 386 S.E.2d 719 (1989); Madaris v. State, 207 Ga. App. 145, 427 S.E.2d 110 (1993).
Evidence supported the defendant's malice murder conviction when the defendant shot the victim because the defendant believed the victim took $400 and the defendant's phone, given that a witness saw the defendant meet the victim at the door of the defendant's house, call the victim a bitch, and yank the victim's arm, then the witness heard a gunshot, and the defendant admitted shooting the victim but claimed it was accidental. Furthermore, the trial court did not err in denying a motion for new trial on general grounds. Smith v. State, 300 Ga. 532, 796 S.E.2d 671 (2017).
Motion for new trial based on O.C.G.A. § 5-5-20, i.e., that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, addresses itself only to the discretion of the trial judge. Whether to grant a new trial based on O.C.G.A. § 5-5-21, i.e., that the verdict is strongly against the evidence, is a decision that is solely in the discretion of the trial court. An appellate court considers only the sufficiency of the evidence before the jury. Henderson v. State, 304 Ga. 733, 822 S.E.2d 228 (2018).
Duty upon trial judge to exercise discretion.
- Motion for a new trial on grounds set forth in former Code 1933, §§ 70-202 and 70-206 (see O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-520 and5-5-21) addressed the sound legal discretion of the trial judge and the law imposes upon the judge the duty of exercising this discretion. Kendrick v. Kendrick, 218 Ga. 460, 128 S.E.2d 496 (1962); Ricketts v. Williams, 240 Ga. 148, 240 S.E.2d 41 (1977), vacated on other grounds, 438 U.S. 902, 98 S. Ct. 3119, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1145 (1978).
Trial court failed to apply the proper standard in assessing the weight of the evidence as requested by the defendant in the defendant's motion for new trial under O.C.G.A. § 5-5-21. The issue was not whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, but whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Manuel v. State, 289 Ga. 383, 711 S.E.2d 676 (2011).
When faced with a motion for new trial based on general grounds, the trial court had the duty to exercise the court's discretion and weigh the evidence. The trial court did not exercise the court's discretion when the court evaluated the general grounds by applying the standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) to a motion for new trial based on the general grounds embodied in O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and5-5-21. Walker v. State, 292 Ga. 262, 737 S.E.2d 311 (2013).
Trial court failed to apply the proper standard in assessing the weight of the evidence as requested by the defendant in the defendant's motion for new trial, requiring remand for the trial court to apply the proper standard to the general grounds and to exercise the court's discretion to sit as a thirteenth juror pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and5-5-21. White v. State, 293 Ga. 523, 753 S.E.2d 115 (2013).
Appellate court vacated the trial court's decision denying the defendant's motion for new trial because the record failed to indicate that the trial court fulfilled the court's duty of exercising the court's discretion under the applicable standard set forth in O.C.G.A. § 5-5-21. Gordon v. State, 329 Ga. App. 2, 763 S.E.2d 357 (2014).
In a murder case, the record indicated that, contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court was aware of and exercised the court's discretion to weigh the evidence in the court's consideration of the defendant's motion for new trial on the general grounds under O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and5-5-21 because the trial court specifically responded that the court would not grant a new trial as the thirteenth juror. Allen v. State, 296 Ga. 738, 770 S.E.2d 625 (2015).
Because the trial court expressly and incorrectly stated that the defendant had not advanced the issue that the trial court did not act as the thirteenth juror, the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a new trial, and the case was remanded solely for the trial court to consider the court's discretion to sit as the thirteenth juror. King v. State, 344 Ga. App. 244, 809 S.E.2d 824 (2018).
When the defendant's post-conviction counsel argued at a new trial hearing that a successor judge should grant a new trial on the general grounds, counsel knew that the judge planned to review only those portions of the trial transcript that counsel presented; counsel therefore waived any complaint that the judge failed to conduct a full general-grounds review of all of the evidence under O.C.G.A. § § 5-5-20 and5-5-21. However, a successor judge should consider all of the trial evidence. Hill v. State, Ga. , S.E.2d (Sept. 28, 2020).
Discretion to grant new trials should be exercised with caution. Ricketts v. Williams, 242 Ga. 303, 248 S.E.2d 673 (1978), vacated on other grounds, 438 U.S. 902, 98 S. Ct. 3119, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1145 (1978).
New trial should be granted only when evidence preponderates heavily against verdict.
- Power to grant new trial under this section should be invoked only in exceptional cases in which evidence preponderates heavily against verdict. Ricketts v. Williams, 242 Ga. 303, 248 S.E.2d 673 (1978), vacated on other grounds, 438 U.S. 902, 98 S. Ct. 3119, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1145 (1978) (see O.C.G.A. § 5-5-20).
Discretion duty applies no matter how many verdicts have gone against movant.
- In all cases when motion for new trial is being passed on by trial judge, no matter how many verdicts have gone against losing party, law places on the judge a solemn responsibility to exercise discretion in granting or refusing new trial. Mills v. State, 188 Ga. 616, 4 S.E.2d 453 (1939).
Discretion given trial courts and limitations on appellate review.
- Trial courts have discretion to grant a new trial on the grounds set forth in O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and5-5-21, but appellate courts do not. Appellate review is limited to the legal sufficiency of the evidence; even when asked to review a trial court's refusal to grant a new trial on the general grounds, the appellate court must review the case under the sufficiency standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). Plez v. State, 300 Ga. 505, 796 S.E.2d 704 (2017).
Trial court applied incorrect standard.
- Although the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant as a party of sexual exploitation of children, aggravated sodomy, child molestation, and first degree cruelty to children, the judgment was vacated because the successor judge erred in denying the defendant's motion for a new trial as there was no evidence that the successor judge reviewed the evidence under the appropriate discretionary standard in determining whether the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence or offended the principles of justice and equity. Wiggins v. State, 330 Ga. App. 205, 767 S.E.2d 798 (2014).
Trial court applied the wrong standard when reviewing the defendant's motion for a new trial based on general grounds, applying the sufficiency of the evidence standard rather than the standard embodied in O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and5-5-21. Atkins v. State, 342 Ga. App. 849, 805 S.E.2d 612 (2017).
Because the trial court failed to apply the proper standard when considering the defendant's motion for new trial as the court found that the testimony of the victim and the investigator was sufficient under the Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) standard, the judgment was vacated and the case was remanded for consideration of the motion for new trial under the proper legal standard. Cook v. State, 351 Ga. App. 845, 833 S.E.2d 544 (2019).
On motion for new trial, court may weigh evidence and consider credibility of witnesses. If court reaches conclusion that verdict is contrary to weight of evidence and that miscarriage of justice may have resulted, verdict may be set aside and new trial granted. Ricketts v. Williams, 242 Ga. 303, 248 S.E.2d 673 (1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1135, 99 S. Ct. 1059, 59 L. Ed. 2d 97 (1979).
Trial court did not apply the wrong standard in denying a defendant's motion for new trial by noting, in response to the defendant's argument that the eyewitnesses were not credible, that the credibility of the witnesses was for the jury unless "they were just way in left field." Tolbert v. State, 313 Ga. App. 46, 720 S.E.2d 244 (2011).
Role of court as thirteenth juror.
- Although the trial court exercised the court's discretion as the thirteenth juror to assess the credibility of at least one witness, the court failed to properly fulfill the court's affirmative statutory duty to independently weigh the trial evidence and identify any offending testimony. It was incumbent upon the trial court to then examine and weigh the remaining evidence and independently consider whether the jury's verdict was contrary to the evidence or was against the weight of the evidence. State v. Reid, 331 Ga. App. 275, 770 S.E.2d 665 (2015).
Following the defendant's felony murder trial, the trial court's order explicitly stated that the court declined to "exercise its discretion as a 'thirteenth juror"' only after weighing "the motion, the record of the case, and arguments of counsel" and finding both that the court believed there was sufficient evidence for the verdict and that the verdict "did not violate principles of justice and equity". Contrary to the defendant's argument, the trial court used the correct standard. Lowery v. State, Ga. , S.E.2d (Sept. 28, 2020).
Because the trial court specifically stated in its order that it was denying the defendant's motion for new trial after consideration of the pleadings, the transcript of proceedings, and the applicable law, the trial court did not state the incorrect standard in its order, and nothing in the record indicated that the court was unaware of its responsibility to exercise its discretion as the thirteenth juror. Hodges v. State, Ga. , S.E.2d (Aug. 24, 2020).
Motion for JNOV considered as motion for new trial.
- Although a father's motion seeking relief from a child support order was styled as a JNOV, and there had been no jury verdict, the trial court had plenary authority to consider it as a motion for new trial under O.C.G.A. § 5-5-20 or O.C.G.A. § 5-5-21, or a motion to set aside the judgment, based on the substance of the motion. Wheeler v. Akins, 327 Ga. App. 830, 761 S.E.2d 383 (2014).
Appellate court must presume trial court exercised discretion.
- Although a trial court's order denying the defendant's motion for new trial did not state that the trial court exercised the court's discretion as a thirteenth juror, the appellate court presumed that the trial court knew the rule as to the necessity of exercising the court's discretion in granting or refusing new trials; the order denying a new trial was taken to mean that the judge had, in the exercise of his or her discretion, approved the verdict. Butts v. State, 297 Ga. 766, 778 S.E.2d 205 (2015).
Although the trial court's order denying the defendant's motion for new trial did not explicitly state that the court exercised the court's broad discretion as the thirteenth juror, the appellate court presumed that the trial judge knew the rule as to the necessity of exercising the judge's discretion, and that the judge did exercise discretion, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Morris v. State, 303 Ga. 192, 811 S.E.2d 321 (2018).
All conflicts are resolved to favor verdict in determining whether there is any evidence supporting the verdict. Drake v. State, 241 Ga. 583, 247 S.E.2d 57 (1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 928, 99 S. Ct. 1265, 59 L. Ed. 2d 485 (1979).
Inference in favor of verdict.
- After verdict, in passing upon motion for new trial, that view of the evidence which is most unfavorable to the accused must be taken, for every presumption and every inference is in favor of the verdict. Brown v. State, 71 Ga. App. 522, 31 S.E.2d 85 (1944).
Motion for new trial must be made before trial court.
- Argument that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence may only be made to a trial court in a motion for new trial and not to the appellate court on appeal as the appellate court has no discretion to grant a new trial based on such a claim. Teele v. State, 319 Ga. App. 448, 738 S.E.2d 277 (2012).
Cited in Richmond & D.R.R. v. Allison, 89 Ga. 567, 16 S.E. 116 (1892); Western & Atl. R.R. v. Hughes, 278 U.S. 496, 49 S. Ct. 231, 73 L. Ed. 473 (1929); Jackson Disct. Co. v. Merck, 50 Ga. App. 381, 178 S.E. 208 (1935); Candler v. Smith, 50 Ga. App. 667, 179 S.E. 395 (1935); Rogers v. Rogers, 52 Ga. App. 548, 184 S.E. 404 (1936); Southern Ry. v. Lunsford, 57 Ga. App. 53, 194 S.E. 602 (1937); Carter v. Powell, 57 Ga. App. 360, 195 S.E. 466 (1938); Davis v. State, 202 Ga. 13, 41 S.E.2d 414 (1947); Halliburton v. Collier, 75 Ga. App. 316, 43 S.E.2d 339 (1947); Law v. State, 92 Ga. App. 604, 89 S.E.2d 550 (1955); Martin v. State, 95 Ga. App. 519, 98 S.E.2d 105 (1957); O'Quinn v. James, 127 Ga. App. 94, 192 S.E.2d 507 (1972); Kramer v. Hopper, 234 Ga. 395, 216 S.E.2d 119 (1975); Wilson v. State, 145 Ga. App. 33, 243 S.E.2d 304 (1978); Hembree v. Ideal Bldrs., Inc., 158 Ga. App. 574, 281 S.E.2d 328 (1981); Johnson v. Wills Mem. Hosp. & Nursing Home, 178 Ga. App. 459, 343 S.E.2d 700 (1986); Crump v. State, 183 Ga. App. 43, 357 S.E.2d 863 (1987); Glenridge Unit Owners Ass'n v. Felton, 183 Ga. App. 858, 360 S.E.2d 418 (1987); Stinson v. State, 185 Ga. App. 543, 364 S.E.2d 910 (1988); Towns v. State, 185 Ga. App. 545, 365 S.E.2d 137 (1988); Hart v. Fortson, 263 Ga. 389, 435 S.E.2d 45 (1993); Willis v. State, 263 Ga. 597, 436 S.E.2d 204 (1993); United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Gottschalk, 212 Ga. App. 88, 441 S.E.2d 281 (1994); Harper v. State, 213 Ga. App. 611, 445 S.E.2d 300 (1994); Leeks v. State, 226 Ga. App. 227, 483 S.E.2d 691 (1997); In re C.I.W., 229 Ga. App. 481, 494 S.E.2d 291 (1997); High v. Parker, 234 Ga. App. 675, 507 S.E.2d 530 (1998); Taylor v. State, 259 Ga. App. 457, 576 S.E.2d 916 (2003); Mitchell v. State, 262 Ga. App. 759, 586 S.E.2d 686 (2003); Newton v. State, 261 Ga. App. 762, 583 S.E.2d 585 (2003); Celestin v. State, 296 Ga. App. 727, 675 S.E.2d 480 (2009); Delgiudice v. State, 308 Ga. App. 397, 707 S.E.2d 603 (2011); Hargrave v. State, 311 Ga. App. 852, 717 S.E.2d 485 (2011); Nix v. State, 312 Ga. App. 43, 717 S.E.2d 550 (2011); Stepho v. State, 312 Ga. App. 495, 718 S.E.2d 852 (2011); State v. Jackson, 295 Ga. 825, 764 S.E.2d 395 (2014); Chadwick v. Brazell, 331 Ga. App. 373, 771 S.E.2d 75 (2015); Bowen v. State, 299 Ga. 875, 792 S.E.2d 691 (2016); Smith v. State, 350 Ga. App. 496, 829 S.E.2d 776 (2019); Irving v. State, 351 Ga. App. 779, 833 S.E.2d 162 (2019); State v. Hamilton, 308 Ga. 116, 839 S.E.2d 560 (2020).
Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict
New trial may be granted without demanding a judgment n.o.v. for the weight of evidence may be on one side, yet there be some to the contrary. Burnet v. Bazemore, 122 Ga. App. 73, 176 S.E.2d 184 (1970).
Motion for judgment n.o.v. may be denied without precluding grant of new trial; for though there may be some evidence, the verdict may still be against the weight of the evidence. Burnet v. Bazemore, 122 Ga. App. 73, 176 S.E.2d 184 (1970).
Denial of new trial on general grounds unexcepted to preclude judgment notwithstanding verdict on appeal.
- When trial judge denies motion for new trial on general grounds, the judge finds that verdict is not against weight of evidence and therefore, of necessity, that there is evidence to support the verdict. That determination being unexcepted to, the law of the case is established and the appellate court cannot find on motion for judgment n.o.v. that there is no evidence to support verdict or that evidence demands a verdict for the movant. Burnet v. Bazemore, 122 Ga. App. 73, 176 S.E.2d 184 (1970).
Application
Proper standard of review.
- In a prosecution for, inter alia, hijacking a motor vehicle, a trial court incorrectly applied the standard in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), when deciding a defendant's challenge in a motion for a new trial as to the weight of the evidence; the trial court had to reconsider the claim pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 5-5-21. Rutland v. State, 296 Ga. App. 471, 675 S.E.2d 506 (2009).
Trial court, on the court's own motion, did not err in granting the defendant a new trial on general grounds because the trial court's written order unequivocally applied the correct standard of review in granting the new trial, explaining that the court was granting a new trial because the verdict was contrary to the evidence and principles of justice and equity. State v. Hamilton, 306 Ga. 678, 832 S.E.2d 836 (2019).
Jury's fact finding not final until verdict approved when motion for new trial is made.
- No finding of fact by jury is final or conclusive when motion for new trial is presented, unless and until that verdict is approved by trial judge. Mills v. State, 188 Ga. 616, 4 S.E.2d 453 (1939).
Trial court's written order granting a new trial on the general grounds was in compliance with the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 5-5-51. Jackson Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Snead, 231 Ga. App. 406, 499 S.E.2d 173 (1998).
There was no merit to the defendant's claim that a new trial on kidnapping charges was warranted on general grounds because the trial court's statement that the evidence against the defendant was very substantial, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, the evidence supported the verdict, and the verdict was not contrary to the evidence as the evidence showed that the trial court understood the court's discretion and declined to exercise discretion. Alexander v. State, 348 Ga. App. 859, 825 S.E.2d 405 (2019).
Denial of new trial becomes law of case.
- Absent specific appeal from ruling on motion for new trial or enumerating the ruling as error, denial of motion becomes law of case as to all grounds contained therein. Burnet v. Bazemore, 122 Ga. App. 73, 176 S.E.2d 184 (1970).
No double jeopardy bar.
- Grant of new trial under former Code 1933, § 70-202 (see O.C.G.A. § 5-5-20) or former Code 1933, § 70-206 (see O.C.G.A. § 5-5-21) did not result in statutory double jeopardy bar under Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1 (see O.C.G.A. § 16-1-8(d)(2)). Ricketts v. Williams, 240 Ga. 148, 240 S.E.2d 41 (1977), vacated on other grounds, 438 U.S. 902, 98 S. Ct. 3119, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1145 (1978).
Successful motion for new trial at trial level, precludes later plea of former jeopardy.
- Motion for new trial, if granted at trial level, is a forfeiture of any right to plead former jeopardy because of grant of new trial. Ricketts v. Williams, 240 Ga. 148, 240 S.E.2d 41 (1977), vacated on other grounds, 438 U.S. 902, 98 S. Ct. 3119, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1145 (1978).
Grant of new trial under section not same as finding evidence legally insufficient.
- Grant of new trial by trial court on ground that verdict is against the weight of evidence under this section, does not amount to a finding that evidence is legally insufficient, and does not thereby bar a second trial under the double jeopardy clause of the U.S. Constitution. Ricketts v. Williams, 242 Ga. 303, 248 S.E.2d 673 (1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1135, 99 S. Ct. 1059, 59 L. Ed. 2d 97 (1979).
Distinction between legally insufficient evidence and verdict against weight of evidence.
- There is a distinction at law between a decision holding the evidence legally insufficient and a discretionary decision of the trial court that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Ricketts v. Williams, 242 Ga. 303, 248 S.E.2d 673 (1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1135, 99 S. Ct. 1059, 59 L. Ed. 2d 97 (1979).
Trial court's review of the evidence under O.C.G.A. § 5-5-21 differs from its review of the evidence on a motion for a directed verdict under O.C.G.A. § 17-9-1. In the latter case, the trial court has a duty to grant a directed verdict of acquittal when there is no conflict in the evidence and it clearly demands a verdict of acquittal as a matter of law. Lavertu v. State, 325 Ga. App. 709, 754 S.E.2d 663 (2014).
When some evidence supports verdict.
- When trial judge has exercised discretion vested in the judge by law, and there is some evidence to support the verdict, the judgment overruling general grounds of motion for new trial is not error. Kendrick v. Kendrick, 218 Ga. 460, 128 S.E.2d 496 (1962).
Because the state proved venue through testimony that the address of the crime scene was in a specific county and because counsel's actions were within the bounds of reasonable professional conduct, the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion for a new trial. Henry v. State, 279 Ga. 615, 619 S.E.2d 609 (2005).
Trial court did not err in denying DUI defendant's motion for new trial under O.C.G.A. § 5-5-21 based on the lack of definitive evidence of intoxication from field sobriety tests and the defendant's acquittal on the charge of failure to maintain a lane because the defendant's blood alcohol level was 0.159 and two or three empty airplane-size vodka bottles were in the defendant's car. Lavertu v. State, 325 Ga. App. 709, 754 S.E.2d 663 (2014).
Sufficient evidence supported the defendant's conviction for armed robbery and other crimes based on the victim identifying the defendant as one of the two robbers and as the robber who had struck the victim with a gun and the defendant was apprehended a short distance from the attack in possession of the victim's backpack and a pistol within minutes of the attack. Cooper v. State, 342 Ga. App. 351, 801 S.E.2d 589 (2017), cert. denied, No. S17C2017, 2018 Ga. LEXIS 7 (Ga. 2018), cert. dismissed, No. S17C2022, 2018 Ga. LEXIS 10 (Ga. 2018), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 2039, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 3176, 201 L. Ed. 2d 288 (U.S. 2018).
In a suit resulting in a $ 2.2 million jury verdict for a passenger on a gambling ship who fell into a hatch that was open and unwatched, the evidence supported the jury's attribution of 100 percent of the fault to the ship owner, given that a worker was supposed to be guarding the hatch but was not at the time the passenger fell, and there was no evidence that the passenger was at fault. Golden Isles Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Lowie, 350 Ga. App. 1, 827 S.E.2d 703 (2019).
Expert evidence.
- Driver's motion for a new trial was properly denied when an expert witness in the field of accident reconstruction opined that the second driver's collision was unavoidable since the driver changed lanes immediately in front of the second driver's vehicle. Flynn v. Mack, 259 Ga. App. 882, 578 S.E.2d 488 (2003).
In a suit when plaintiff mulch seller sought money owed for plastic mulch, and defendants, two individuals doing business as a company, counterclaimed regarding crop damage due to the mulch deteriorating prematurely, the trial court did not abuse the court's discretion in denying the company's motion for a new trial after the jury returned a verdict in the seller's favor because, despite the company's claim on appeal that the evidence supported a finding of breach of express warranty, the testimony of the seller's vice-president that the seller advised customers on the order form that it could not provide a warranty, provided some evidence to support the verdict. McLeod v. Robbins Ass'n, 260 Ga. App. 347, 579 S.E.2d 748 (2003).
Inadequacy of damages for pain and suffering.
- Amount of damages returned by jury in verdict, for pain and suffering, sustained because of alleged negligence, being governed by no other standard than enlightened conscience of impartial jurors, the question of inadequacy of verdict is not one which can be raised by general grounds in motion for new trial. Trammell v. Atlanta Coach Co., 51 Ga. App. 705, 181 S.E. 315 (1935); Brown v. Garcia, 154 Ga. App. 837, 270 S.E.2d 63 (1980).
Improper award of damages.
- Trial court erred in denying defendants' motion for a new trial pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 5-5-21 in an action by a produce company and a storage company for damages which arose from an alleged joint venture to grow onions, and the packing, grading, and storage of onions thereafter; the trial court erred in awarding the produce company the total amount of lost profits for onions which the defendant did not account for, as the agreement provided that the defendants and the company would split the profits or losses evenly, and because the storage company failed to provide any evidence of the company's anticipated expenses, and therefore the company's proof of lost profits was insufficient as a matter of law. Williamson v. Strickland & Smith, Inc., 263 Ga. App. 431, 587 S.E.2d 876 (2003).
Fact that verdict is generous is not basis for setting verdict aside.
- Trial judge may exercise sound discretion in refusing new trial in case where verdict may be decidedly and strongly against weight of evidence, but a generous verdict will not be set aside merely for that reason. Evans v. Caldwell, 52 Ga. App. 475, 184 S.E. 440 (1936), aff'd, 184 Ga. 203, 190 S.E. 582 (1937).
Fact that verdict is large will not prevent approval if any evidence supports the verdict. Southern Ry. v. Brock, 132 Ga. 858, 64 S.E. 1083 (1909).
Although plaintiff introduced more witnesses than defendant, judge's refusal of new trial is not error. McGriff v. McGriff, 154 Ga. 560, 115 S.E. 21 (1922).
Verdict in favor of party whose evidence does not correspond with pleadings justifies new trial. Western & Atl. R.R. v. Hunt, 116 Ga. 448, 42 S.E. 785 (1902).
Court refusal to accept verdict not abuse of discretion.
- In action concerning a stock sales agreement, trial court did not abuse the court's discretion in declining to accept a jury verdict that required the defendant specifically to perform the agreement, but also recommended that bank balance and surplus stock in a warehouse be turned over to the defendant. Brown v. Reeves, 168 Ga. App. 403, 309 S.E.2d 654 (1983).
Court abuses discretion by refusing to set aside excessive award.
- Trial judge fails to exercise the discretion vested in the judge by law when the judge agrees that the amounts awarded to the plaintiff by the jury are excessive but refuses to set the amount aside or order a new trial on the basis that the judge does not want to impose the judge's opinion upon the jury. Story v. Monteith, 176 Ga. App. 853, 338 S.E.2d 32 (1985), rev'd on other grounds, 255 Ga. 528, 341 S.E.2d 1 (1986).
Newly discovered evidence and alleged perjury insufficient for new trial.
- Trial court did not err in denying a defendant's motion for a new trial pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and5-5-21 based on newly discovered evidence because the "new" evidence - that the defendant's girlfriend got "five hundred" from the defendant in connection with the incident - did not come to the defendant's knowledge since the prior trial, and the girlfriend's alleged perjury would not in itself constitute grounds for a new trial. Jackson v. State, 294 Ga. App. 555, 669 S.E.2d 514 (2008).
Motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict as motion for new trial in DUI case.
- Assuming that the defendant's post-verdict motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was a motion for new trial, it was, nevertheless, wholly without merit because the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of driving under the influence (to the extent that the defendant was a less-safe driver, O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391(a)(1)) because a police officer administered two field-sobriety tests, and defendant exhibited clues of impairment on each. Masood v. State, 313 Ga. App. 549, 722 S.E.2d 149 (2012).
Judgment sustaining double jeopardy plea in bar reversed in murder case.
- After a mother and daughter were charged with the murder of the daughter's boyfriend, the judgment sustaining the double jeopardy plea in bar on the basis of insufficient evidence in the first trial was reversed because there was evidence of a common criminal intent, including the women's presence, companionship, and conduct before and immediately after the fatal shooting. State v. Cash, 302 Ga. 587, 807 S.E.2d 405 (2017).
New trial properly granted in criminal case.
- After the defendant was found guilty of felony murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of the defendant's ex-husband, the trial court properly exercised the court's discretion to grant the defendant a new trial on the general grounds because the court concluded that the jury's guilty verdicts were decidedly and strongly against the weight of the evidence and contrary to the principles of justice and equity; and the supreme court would not disturb the first grant of a new trial based on the general grounds unless the trial court abused the court's discretion in granting it and the law and the facts demanded the verdict rendered. State v. Hamilton, 299 Ga. 667, 791 S.E.2d 51 (2016).
Trial court did not err in granting the defendant's motion for new trial on the general grounds because, in the defendant's first motion for new trial, the defendant did not waive or abandon the defendant's claims that the verdict was contrary to the evidence and justice, and against the weight of the evidence, which were predicated upon the already existing trial record, by not separately raising those claims in an evidentiary hearing where the focus was upon the defendant's ineffective assistance claim; and by failing to raise the claims in the defendant's brief following the evidentiary hearing. State v. Byrd, 341 Ga. App. 421, 801 S.E.2d 99 (2017).
Following the defendant's murder trial, the trial court did not err in granting the defendant's motion for a new trial on general grounds, sitting as the thirteenth juror, pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and5-5-21 because the trial court's written order, although provided by the defendant, did not reveal any improper basis for the grant of a new trial and showed that the trial court properly exercised the court's discretion. State v. Holmes, 306 Ga. 647, 832 S.E.2d 777 (2019).
Trial court did not err in granting the defendant's motion for new trial because the witness was a party to the crime of armed robbery as the witness was with the victim before the armed robbery, was present for the robbery's planning, and had prior knowledge the robbery was going to occur; the witness was present when the armed robbery and shooting occurred, fled the scene with the co-conspirators, and received $50 to stay quiet about the robbery and murder; and the witness's accomplice testimony was insufficiently corroborated. State v. Grier, Ga. , S.E.2d (Aug. 10, 2020).
New trial properly denied in criminal case.
- Because, at the hearing on the defendant's motion for new trial, the defendant clarified that the defendant was solely arguing the points raised in the defendant's amended motion, and the defendant repeatedly stated that the defendant's claim was that the evidence was insufficient to support the defendant's convictions, the defendant could not now be heard to complain that the trial court failed to exercise the court's discretion under O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and5-5-21 in finding that the verdict was strongly against the weight of the evidence or contrary to evidence and the principles of justice and equity. Gray v. State, 298 Ga. 885, 785 S.E.2d 517 (2016), overruled on other grounds by Willis v. State, 304 Ga. 686, 820 S.E.2d 640 (2018).
Trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for new trial on general grounds because the victim's testimony was sufficient to establish that the defendant was a party to armed robbery and aggravated assault. Carter v. State, 339 Ga. App. 140, 793 S.E.2d 459 (2016).
Pretermitting whether trial counsel was deficient in not calling the defendant as a witness at a Jackson-Denno hearing, the defendant failed to show prejudice entitling the defendant to a new trial because the defendant testified at trial about the circumstances of giving an inculpatory statement that the defendant spoke with police for more than four hours, that the police falsely told the defendant the police had DNA evidence, that the defendant had not slept in three days, and that the defendant was worried about the defendant's children. Davis v. State, 350 Ga. App. 69, 827 S.E.2d 910 (2019).
Defendant's claim that the trial court failed to exercise the court's discretion as the thirteenth juror in denying the defendant's motion for a new trial failed as the court never explicitly declined to consider the credibility of witnesses or make clear the court's belief the court had no discretion to grant a new trial despite disagreeing with the jury's verdict. Massey v. State, 346 Ga. App. 233, 816 S.E.2d 100 (2018), cert. denied, No. S18C157, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 80 (Ga. 2019).
Language of the trial court's order did not show that the court failed to exercise discretion by denying the defendant's motion for a new trial because the trial court expressly addressed the defendant's argument that the verdict was contrary to the evidence and strongly against the weight of the evidence and concluded that the evidence was sufficient under the case law standard and that the verdict was not contrary to the law and principles of justice. Davis v. State, 350 Ga. App. 69, 827 S.E.2d 910 (2019).
Evidence was sufficient to prove that the defendant fatally shot the victim, and that the defendant did not act in self-defense, because the jury was entitled to give greater weight to the evidence that the defendant had a gun cocked and ready before the meeting with the victim, while the victim was unarmed; the defendant told the homeowner to make the scene look like a burglary and threatened the homeowner; the defendant disposed of the gun and clothes; and there was evidence that the defendant was engaged in a felony drug deal at the time of the shooting, which would preclude the defendant's self-defense claim; thus, the defendant was not entitled to a new trial based on general grounds. Bannister v. State, 306 Ga. 289, 830 S.E.2d 79 (2019).
In the order denying the defendant's motion for a new trial, because the trial court performed the court's duty to sit as a thirteenth juror, weighed the evidence, considered the credibility of the witnesses, and found that the verdicts were amply supported by the evidence, and not strongly and decidedly against the weight of the evidence, the defendant's motion for a new trial on the general grounds was properly denied. Dixon v. State, Ga. , 843 S.E.2d 806 (2020).
Following the defendant's murder trial, the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for new trial based on the general grounds, O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and5-5-21, because multiple witnesses saw the defendant shoot the victim in a mall parking lot, chase the victim down, and then shoot the victim again; the jury was not required to credit the defendant's testimony that the victim had a gun. A hearing on the motion was not required. Bundel v. State, 308 Ga. 317, 840 S.E.2d 349 (2020).
Defendant's murder conviction was supported by evidence that the defendant was a party to the crime, O.C.G.A. § 16-2-20, although the defendant's friend was the actual shooter, because the defendant drove the vehicle with the other perpetrators and got out, armed, and confronted the victim before the defendant's friend shot the victim; defendant then drove the car away with the others and then ran away with the shooter after crashing the car. The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for a new trial. Williams v. State, 307 Ga. 689, 838 S.E.2d 314 (2020).
Insufficient evidence of asportation for kidnapping conviction.
- Defendant's conviction for kidnapping required reversal because the movement of the victim from one bedroom to another did not further isolate the victim or decrease the potential for rescue, thereby posing no significant danger to the victim independent of the danger posed by the sexual assault and rape; thus, the evidence of asportation was insufficient. Sellers v. State, 325 Ga. App. 837, 755 S.E.2d 232 (2014).
Denial of motion for new trial proper in shoplifting case.
- Trial court did not abuse the court's discretion by denying the defendant's motion for a new trial with regard to the defendant's trial for felony shoplifting because the testimony of the store's loss prevention officer established each element of the crime and provided sufficient evidence to support the conviction. Parham v. State, 320 Ga. App. 676, 739 S.E.2d 135 (2013).
Appeal or Certiorari From Denial of New Trial
Appellate court does not have same discretion as trial judge who approved verdict. Southern Ry. v. Brock, 132 Ga. 858, 64 S.E. 1083 (1909).
Supreme Court does not have discretion to grant new trial on grounds enumerated in section; it can only review evidence to determine if there is any evidence to support verdict. Drake v. State, 241 Ga. 583, 247 S.E.2d 57 (1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 928, 99 S. Ct. 1265, 59 L. Ed. 2d 485 (1979).
Because the defendant failed to seek a new trial on the general grounds under O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and5-5-21, that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and contrary to the principles of justice and equity, but rather sought a new trial on the grounds of arguments made at trial, the appellate court could not address these grounds. Slaton v. State, 296 Ga. 122, 765 S.E.2d 332 (2014).
Function of appellate court is to review sufficiency of evidence, not to determine the weight of the evidence. Though evidence might have authorized a different verdict or verdict is supported by only slight evidence or evidence is conflicting or preponderates against the verdict, when no material error of law appears, the appellate court will not disturb the trial judge's judgment in overruling the motion for new trial. McBowman v. Merry, 104 Ga. App. 454, 122 S.E.2d 136 (1961).
Discretion of superior court, on certiorari, to grant new trial in lower court.
- Deaton v. Taliaferro, 80 Ga. App. 685, 57 S.E.2d 215 (1950).
First grant of new trial is not normally reviewable by appellate courts.
- First grant of new trial to either party will never be reversed by appellate courts, unless verdict set aside by trial judge was absolutely demanded. Gledhill v. Brown, 44 Ga. App. 670, 162 S.E. 824 (1932).
Ruling on a motion for new trial under Code 1933, § 70-206 (see O.C.G.A. § 5-5-21) or former Code 1933, § 70-202 (see O.C.G.A. § 5-5-20) did not amount to any ruling on evidence as a matter of law, and as a result, first grant of new trial is not normally reviewable by appellate courts. Ricketts v. Williams, 240 Ga. 148, 240 S.E.2d 41 (1977), vacated on other grounds, 438 U.S. 902, 98 S. Ct. 3119, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1145 (1978).
Sole question on appeal from denial on general grounds.
- Appellate court will not disturb trial court's refusal to grant new trial if there is any evidence at all to support the verdict, however slight, and regardless of what may be character of witnesses. McBowman v. Merry, 104 Ga. App. 454, 122 S.E.2d 136 (1961).
On appeal of denial of motion for new trial based on general grounds, sole question for appellate court is whether there is any evidence to support the verdict. Burnet v. Bazemore, 122 Ga. App. 73, 176 S.E.2d 184 (1970).
Trial judge's denial of a motion for new trial on evidentiary grounds will be reversed on appeal only if there is no evidence to support the verdict. Ricketson v. Fox, 247 Ga. 162, 274 S.E.2d 556 (1981).
Even though the trial court did not explicitly cite O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and5-5-21, the language used by the trial court in the court's discretionary determinations that the evidence at trial was not "sufficiently close" to warrant the grant of a new trial as to either the guilt/innocence or the sentencing verdicts indicated that the trial court did in fact exercise the court's discretion under the relevant statutory provisions. Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 739 S.E.2d 332 (2013).
Defendant's argument that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and, therefore, the trial court erred by denying the motion for a new trial was rejected because the trial court's order clearly indicated that the court considered the general grounds in denying the motion for new trial and therefore the court exercised the court's discretion. Lamb v. State, 355 Ga. App. 65, 842 S.E.2d 514 (Apr. 28, 2020).
Appellate court cannot set aside verdict on general grounds trial judge could have relied upon.
- In considering case in which verdict of jury has approval of trial judge, appellate court is without power to set verdict aside on general grounds upon which the trial judge, in exercise of the discretion vested in the judge, might have set the verdict aside. Gledhill v. Brown, 44 Ga. App. 670, 162 S.E. 824 (1932).
Because two witnesses heard the defendant threaten to use a gun moments prior to the shooting, and eyewitnesses saw the defendant shoot the victim, the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of the victim, and the trial court did not err when the court denied the defendant's motion for new trial. Batten v. State, 295 Ga. 442, 761 S.E.2d 70 (2014).
Appellate court cannot grant new trial if any evidence supports verdict.
- While appellate division of Municipal Court of Atlanta may grant new trial when no evidence supports the verdict, when there is some evidence on which the verdict could be based, and such verdict has the approval of the trial judge, the appellate division of Municipal Court of Atlanta erred in granting a new trial. Turner v. Masonic Relief Ass'n, 52 Ga. App. 374, 183 S.E. 350 (1936).
Contrary to the defendant's argument, the trial court reviewed the defendant's motion for new trial under the discretionary thirteenth juror standard based on the court's own independent review of the trial record and finding no discrepancy between the jury's conclusions regarding the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses and the court's own views of those matters; moreover, the transcript showed clearly that the court understood the court's obligations as the so-called thirteenth juror. Burney v. State, 299 Ga. 813, 792 S.E.2d 354 (2016).
Defendant could challenge the sufficiency of the evidence by appealing the denial of the defendant's motion for new trial, even though the defendant did not invoke such a ruling from the court at trial. Jones v. State, 219 Ga. App. 780, 466 S.E.2d 667 (1996).
New trial motion denied in criminal case.
- Evidence was sufficient to support the convictions of murder, aggravated assault, and firearm possession in connection with the shooting death of the victim because the evidence showed that: (1) the defendant's teenage children made a cell phone call to the children's parents' home to tell the parents that the children were being followed by a motorcycle rider; (2) as the children arrived home, the defendant exited from the house with a handgun; (3) the defendant fired two warning shots at the rider when the rider rode past; (4) the rider turned the motorcycle around and when the rider rode past the house again, the defendant fired again as the defendant claimed that the rider swerved toward the defendant; and (5) this shot struck the victim, resulting in the victim's death. Gear v. State, 288 Ga. 500, 705 S.E.2d 632 (2011), overruled on other grounds by State v. Lane, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 98 (Ga. 2020).
Trial court did not abuse the court's discretion by denying the defendant's motion for a new trial because neither the trial court's order nor the court's statement during the hearing that the court was "just going to stick by what the jury did," demonstrated that the court failed to exercise the discretion afforded to it under O.C.G.A. § 5-5-21 and merely showed the court's manner of expressing that the court was exercising the court's discretion against setting aside the jury's verdict. Dixon v. State, 341 Ga. App. 255, 800 S.E.2d 11 (2017).
Appellate court had no basis for disturbing the trial court's exercise of discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a new trial because the order reflected that the trial court performed the court's duty using the proper legal standard. Lundy v. State, 341 Ga. App. 767, 801 S.E.2d 629 (2017).
Trial court did not abuse the court's discretion by denying the defendant's motion for a new trial because sufficient evidence supported the defendant's convictions for arson and aggravated assault based on the testimony of the witnesses who testified that the witnesses could see the defendant starting the fire through the kitchen windows and witnessed the defendant shoot a shotgun in the direction of a neighbor and four law enforcement officers who were at the scene as well as the defendant's admission that the defendant set the fire. Jackson v. State, 347 Ga. App. 199, 818 S.E.2d 268 (2018).
Trial court erred by denying the defendant's motion for new trial as abandoned instead of ruling on the merits of the defendant's arguments that the verdict of the jury was contrary to evidence and the principles of justice and equity and was contrary to the weight of evidence because counsel's failure to file a brief on the hearsay issues constituted an abandonment of the opportunity to make further argument on those issues rather than the entire motion for new trial. Wilson v. State, 349 Ga. App. 386, 825 S.E.2d 843 (2019).
Following the defendant's murder trial, the trial judge properly exercised the judge's discretion as the thirteenth juror under O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and5-5-21 in finding that "the state had presented ample evidence" and that "the evidence was not sufficiently close nor represented a failure of justice in general." Strother v. State, 305 Ga. 838, 828 S.E.2d 327 (2019).
Trial court did not abuse the court's discretion by denying the defendant's motion for new trial on general grounds because several codefendants testified that the defendant was a coconspirator and a participant in the victim's robbery, there was evidence that the defendant placed the telephone call to summon the victim, that the defendant was the first to confront the victim, and that the robbery was the defendant's idea. Smith v. State, 350 Ga. App. 336, 829 S.E.2d 408 (2019).
Illustrative cases.
- Trial court properly denied defendant's motion for a new trial despite defendant's claim that there was insufficient evidence to prove the identity and value of the items which defendant shoplifted, as there was sufficient evidence to prove the identity and value of the items given that: (1) a store manager saw defendant place items from the manager's store into the trunk of defendant's car and identified defendant in a showup identification less than 30 minutes later, after the defendant was stopped for shoplifting at a second store; (2) the manager from the first store identified a number of items that were found in the defendant's trunk as coming from the first store based on the store code markings on the items; and (3) the packages contained pricing labels. Horne v. State, 260 Ga. App. 640, 580 S.E.2d 644 (2003).
Because a condemnee did not claim lost profits or business losses, the trial court properly limited the condemnee's evidence to the value of the property taken and consequential damages to the remainder; because the jury's valuation was within the range of the evidence, the trial court properly denied the condemnee's motion for a new trial. Thornton v. DOT, 275 Ga. App. 401, 620 S.E.2d 621 (2005).
In a suit on a guaranty, the trial court did not err in denying a guarantor's motion for a new trial on general grounds, as the jury's award fell within the range of damages established by the evidence, the guarantor consented to the bank's modification of the terms of one of the loans, and the guarantor failed to demonstrate prejudice by the court's instructions. Beasley v. Wachovia Bank, 277 Ga. App. 698, 627 S.E.2d 417 (2006).
Although defendant received effective assistance from trial counsel, because defendant did not waive or abandon defendant's claims under O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and5-5-21, the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for new trial. Hartley v. State, 299 Ga. App. 534, 683 S.E.2d 109 (2009).
Trial court did not err in refusing to grant the defendant's motion for a new trial under O.C.G.A. § 5-5-21 because the evidence establishing that the defendant and the victims had engaged in a heated argument, which escalated to preparations for a physical altercation, was sufficient to sustain the defendant's voluntary manslaughter conviction, O.C.G.A. § 16-5-2(a); given the heated exchange and the defendant's belief that the defendant was in serious danger, there was sufficient provocation to excite the passion necessary for voluntary manslaughter, and the jury was authorized to reject the defendant's claim of self-defense under O.C.G.A. § 16-3-21(a) and conclude that the defendant was so influenced and excited that the defendant reacted passionately, rather than simply in self defense, when the defendant shot an unarmed victim. White v. State, 312 Ga. App. 421, 718 S.E.2d 335 (2011).
Trial court was aware of the court's responsibility as the "thirteenth juror" and, despite the court's mention of the sufficiency of the evidence at trial, the court exercised the court's discretion accordingly when denying the defendant's motion for a new trial after citing personal observations of witnesses and evidence at trial. Perdue v. State, 298 Ga. 841, 785 S.E.2d 291 (2016).
Trial court failed to exercise the court's discretion as the "thirteenth juror" because, rather than reweighing the evidence presented at trial, the court applied a sufficiency-of-evidence standard when the court considered the defendant's motion for new trial on general grounds. Holmes v. State, 306 Ga. 524, 832 S.E.2d 392 (2019).
Denial of motion for new trial improper.
- Defendant was entitled to a new trial because the order denying the defendant's motion for a new trial made only the legal determination that the evidence was sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), and did not show that the successor judge exercised discretion, weighed evidence, and acted as the thirteenth juror in determining whether the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence or offended the principles of justice and equity. Wiggins v. State, 330 Ga. App. 205, 767 S.E.2d 798 (2014).
Trial court erred by denying the appellant's motion for a new trial because the motion hearing transcript clearly showed that the appellant requested the trial court to exercise the court's discretion to review the evidence as a thirteenth juror, but in the court's order denying the motion, the trial court stated that, "The testimony and the other evidence introduced at trial was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," which was not the proper standard of review. Gomillion v. State, 296 Ga. 678, 769 S.E.2d 914 (2015).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
C.J.S.
- 23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 1973. 66 C.J.S., New Trial, §§ 117, 125, 237 et seq., 283.
ALR.
- Power of court to reduce or increase verdict without giving party affected the option to submit to a new trial, 53 A.L.R. 779; 95 A.L.R. 1163.
Power of trial court to dismiss defendant in criminal case for insufficiency of evidence after submitting case to jury or after verdict of guilty, 131 A.L.R. 187.
Court's power to grant new trial as to both defendants, over their objection, because of verdict holding employer and absolving employee for latter's negligence, 16 A.L.R.2d 969.