This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 KATHY C. FAIN, 2 Plaintiff-Appellant, 3 v. No. 31,905 4 TERESA ROMERO, 5 Defendant-Appellee. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF VALENCIA COUNTY 7 John W. Pope, District Judge 8 Kathy C. Fain 9 Los Lunas, NM 10 Pro Se Appellant 11 Law Offices of Bruce S. McDonald 12 Bruce S. McDonald 13 Albuquerque, NM 14 for Appellee 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 VIGIL, Judge. 17 Plaintiff appeals from the denial of her motions for judgment notwithstanding 18 the verdict (jnov) and new trial. We proposed to affirm in a calendar notice. Plaintiff 192 has responded with a memorandum in oppositi on. We have carefully considered 1 Plaintiff’s arguments, but we find them unpersuasive. We affirm. 2 In her memorandum in opposition, Plaintiff continues to claim that it was error 3 for the district court to deny her renewed motion for j nov and her motion for a new 4 trial. Plaintiff first argues that the district judge erred in failing to consider the 5 “weight” of the evidence when ruling on her motions, and refers to oral comments by 6 the judge in support of her argument. [MIO 17-18] We point out that “[o]ral 7 statements of a judge in articulating his ru ling at the close of trial do not constitute a 8 ‘decision’ . . . , and error may not be predicated thereon.” Balboa Constr. Co. v. 9 Golden , 97 N.M. 299, 304, 639 P.2d 586, 591 (Ct. App. 1981). In addition, there is 10 nothing to suggest that Plaintiff made this argument to the district court. See 11 Woolwine v. Furr’s, Inc. , 106 N.M. 492, 496, 745 P.2d 717, 721 (Ct. App. 1987) (“To 12 preserve an issue for review on appeal, it mu st appear that appellant fairly invoked a 13 ruling of the trial court on the same grounds argued in the appellatecourt.”). Even if 14 Plaintiff properly preserved her argument, the district court did not err in denying 15 Plaintiff’s motions, as we discuss below. 16 Plaintiff claims that the district court and this Court failed to consider “very 17 crucial, undisputed facts.” [MIO 3] In particular, Plaintiff contends that Defendant 18 relied on a “sudden stop” defe nse, but negated her defense through her own testimony. 19 Plaintiff states that the district court, in deciding her motions, was required to 203 determine that Defendant had a duty to Pl aintiff to avoid the accident by keeping a 1 proper lookout, to determine wh ether Defendant breached thatduty, and to determine 2 whether there were exceptions to the “sudden stop” defense that “did not excuse the 3 duty.” [MIO 3-4] According to Plaintiff, Defendant was aware th at trucks in the area 4 of the accident make wide turns, Defendant had looked up to see Plaintiff braking, and 5 Defendant testified that she did not see th e large tractor trailer in the adjacent lane 6 prior to the accident. [MIO 8-9] Plaintiff argues that this information should have 7 been given more weight and would have led to a different verdict. 8 We disagree with Plaintiff’s argument. The jury heard the testimony and was 9 given instructions on Plaintiff’s theories , including Plaintiff’s belief that Defendant 10 did not keep a proper lookout, and the jury concluded that Defe ndant was not liable. 11 [RP 261-81] The evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. Therefore, 12 based on the standards applicable to the motions filed by Plaintiff, the district court 13 did not err in denying Plaintiff’s motions. See Gonzales v. N.M. Dep’t of Health , 14 2000-NMSC-029, ¶ 18, 129 N.M. 586, 11 P.3d 550; Martinez v. Ponderosa Prods., 15 Inc. , 108 N.M. 385, 386, 772 P.2d 1308, 1309 (Ct. App. 1988); see also Rhein v. ADT 16 Auto., Inc. , 1996-NMSC-066, ¶ 24, 122 N.M. 646, 930 P.2d 783 (stating that a district 17 court cannot disturb a jury verdict base d on the court’s doubt about credibility; the 18 jury exclusively evaluates evidence and credibility, and a trial court only intervenes 194 if the verdict is clearly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence such that 1 grave injustice would result). 2 Plaintiff continues to claim that st atements made by certain jurors and 3 overheard by Plaintiff and her counsel demonstrated “bias in failing to decide the case 4 based on the evidence presented. ” [MIO 15] As we expl ained in our calendar notice, 5 the affidavits could not be considered in d eciding whether to grant a new trial. A new 6 trial cannot be granted based on affidavits and statements presented to the district 7 court after the jury returns a verdict. See Kilgore v. Fuji Heavy Indus. Ltd. , 2010- 8 NMSC-040, ¶ 11, 148 N.M. 561, 240 P.3d 648

. Otherwise, the jury’s deliberations 9 would be reviewable and the jury would not have the final authority over its verdict. 10 Shadoan v. Cities of Gold Casino , 2010-NMCA-002, ¶ 13, 147 N.M. 444, 224 P.3d 11 671. 12 Plaintiff seeks to amend her docketing statement to add a claim that the district 13 judge’s judgment was affected by his use of alcohol. [MIO 21] This Court will deny 14 motions to amend that raise issues that are not viable, even if they allege fundamental 15 or jurisdictional error. State v. Moore , 109 N.M. 119, 129, 782 P. 2d 91, 101 (Ct. App. 16 1989), superceded by rule on other grounds as stated in State v. Salgado , 112 N.M. 17 537, 817 P.2d 730 (Ct. App. 1991). 18 Plaintiff refers to a newspaper article that indicated the district judge was 19 removed from the bench for violating his probation. Plaintiff alleges that the conduct 205 of the judge may have affected his judgmen t and performance. [MIO 21] Plaintiff 1 does not provide information to show thatthe district judge was engaging in this 2 conduct during the trial in her case, or that the conduct of the district judge affected 3 the outcome of her trial in any way. We deny Plaintiff’s motion to amend her 4 docketing statement. 5 For the reasons discussed in this opini on and in our calendar notice, we affirm 6 the denial of Plaintiff’s motions. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8

_______________________________ 9 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 10 WE CONCUR: 11

_________________________________ 12 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 13

_________________________________ 14 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 15