Opinion ID: 1355273
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Failure to Act as 13th Juror

Text: Defendant Thomas also argues that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence and the trial court, acting as thirteenth juror, should have overturned the verdicts. Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(f) provides that [t]he trial court may grant a new trial following a verdict of guilty if it disagrees with the jury about the weight of the evidence. Our supreme court has explained that Rule 33(f) imposes upon a trial court judge the mandatory duty to serve as the thirteenth juror in every criminal case.... State v. Carter, 896 S.W.2d 119, 122 (Tenn.1995). When the trial judge simply overrules a motion for new trial, this Court may presume that the trial judge has served as the thirteenth juror and approved the jury's verdict. See id. In the instant case, the trial court simply overruled the Defendant's motion for new trial without making any comments regarding a dissatisfaction with the weight of the evidence. Thus, this Court presumes that the trial court acted as thirteenth juror and approved the verdicts of the jury. Because the record contains no statements by the trial court expressing dissatisfaction or disagreement with the weight of the evidence or the jury's verdict, or indicating that the trial court misunderstood its role as thirteenth juror, this Court will not grant the defendant a new trial on this basis. See State v. Moats, 906 S.W.2d 431, 435-36 (Tenn.1995).