Opinion ID: 2080444
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: issues x & xi

Text: Defendant's argument under these headings raises only one claim: that the trial court, in denying the motion to correct errors, erred in that it failed to provide reasons for its ruling thereon. The motion had requested the trial court to weigh the evidence and to set forth its reasons for the ruling upon the motion. We rejected this same contention in Smith v. State, (1982) Ind., 429 N.E.2d 956, 958-59: Appellant claims the trial court erred by failing to set forth specific findings of fact or conclusions of law when denying the motion to correct errors. In support of this proposition he cites Moore v. State, (1980) Ind., 403 N.E.2d 335. In Moore this Court held that a trial judge in ruling on a motion to correct errors has the duty to examine the evidence to ascertain whether or not there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to support the verdict of the jury. When the verdict is against the weight of the evidence and a new trial is required, the trial court is compelled by T.R. 59(I)(7) (now 59(J)(7)) to make special findings of fact setting forth the supporting and opposing evidence to each issue upon which a new trial is granted. The trial court is not so required when overruling a motion to correct errors.  (emphasis added). We find no reversible error. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. GIVAN, C.J., and HUNTER and PIVARNIK, JJ., concur. DeBRULER, J., concurs with opinion in which PIVARNIK, J., concurs.