Opinion ID: 2796228
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the circuit court erred by denying

Text: CHASE’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO ASSESS THE CREDIBILITY OF THE PERSONS INTERVIEWED BY DR. RESCHLY. ¶74. Chase timely filed a motion for reconsideration, raising numerous issues. In the motion, Chase noted the circuit court’s recognition of Dr. Macvaugh’s testimony that he had 4 The 2010 AAIDD manual explains that, infrequently, standardized assessments cannot be used and provides guidelines for that scenario. Intellectual Disability: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Support 48 (11th ed. 2010). No expert in this case provided an explanation for why he did not use standardized assessments. 42 wanted to interview the third parties interviewed by Dr. Reschly, but he had been unable to contact them. Chase requested that the circuit court reopen the hearing, take additional testimony from these third parties, and make new findings of fact and conclusions of law. ¶75. Chase filed his “motion for reconsideration” under Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 52(b). We have held that a “motion for reconsideration” is treated as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e). Brooks v. Roberts, 882 So. 2d 229, 233 (Miss. 2004). Rule 59(e) states that “[a] motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be filed not later than ten days after entry of the judgment.” Rule 52(b) states, in pertinent part: (b) Amendment. Upon motion of a party filed not later than ten days after entry of judgment or entry of findings and conclusions, or upon its own initiative during the same period, the court may amend its findings or make additional findings and may amend the judgment accordingly. The motion may accompany a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59. M.R.C.P. 52(b). Neither Rule 59(e) nor Rule 52(b) contemplates reopening the judgment to take additional testimony and amend the judgment. That procedure is embraced by Rule 59(a), which governs motions for a new trial and states that “[o]n motion for a new trial in an action without a jury, the court may open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law or make new findings and conclusions, and direct the entry of a new judgment.” M.R.C.P. 59(a). See Graves v. Dudley Maples, L.P., 950 So. 2d 1017 (Miss. 2007) (stating that “[t]he proper method to address any concerns about evidence [is] through a motion for a new trial pursuant to M.R.C.P. 59”); Street v. Street, 936 So. 2d 1002, 1008 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (stating that 43 “the timing of a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment and a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial is identical; both motions must be made ‘not later than ten days after the entry of judgment’”) (quoting M.R.C.P. 59(b)). ¶76. We review Chase’s request for the circuit court to reopen the judgment, take additional testimony, and amend the judgment as a motion for a new trial under Rule 59(a). The denial of a motion for a new trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Rogers v. Morin, 791 So. 2d 815, 820 (Miss. 2001). In his motion, Chase argued that the case should be reopened to allow Dr. Macvaugh to interview the third parties or to allow them to testify. On appeal, Chase argues that the circuit court should have reopened the proceedings to hear testimony from the third parties. Dr. Macvaugh testified that, while he would have preferred to conduct interviews, he had sufficient information with which to reach a conclusion on the question of whether Chase was intellectually disabled. Dr. Macvaugh believed his evaluation of Chase to be complete, and there is no indication that hearing testimony from the third parties would have caused Dr. Macvaugh to revisit his opinions. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Chase’s motion for a new trial.