The first was for a new trial, and the second was to dismiss the case on the ground that he was denied due process of law and did not receive a fair trial. The trial court concluded that it improperly had denied the defendant's pretrial motion to suppress evidence and that the defendant had not received a fair trial, because he had not received materials that the city attorney's office had developed. The reasons for the dismissal shall be set forth in the order, which shall be entered in the register. This court issued a peremptory writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate the judgment of dismissal and to enter judgment on the convictions. The court held that the only post-verdict motions authorized by statute in criminal cases are a motion for a new trial and a motion in arrest of judgment.
Defendants make the same argument here.
The trial court in Norblad dismissed the charges post-verdict in part because the court believed that it had erred in denying the defendant's pretrial motion to suppress. Defendants must pursue their ordinary appellate remedies for an asserted error regarding jury instructions. Defendants' attempt to attack the validity of the jury's verdict in this proceeding is unavailing in light of the availability of appellate review of the alleged error in jury instructions. We conclude that defendants' attempt to distinguish Norblad is unavailing. The trial court lacked authority to grant defendants' motion to dismiss the misdemeanor charges after the jury had returned guilty verdicts on those charges.