Opinion ID: 1961286
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: DePina and Monteiro's Motions for a New Trial

Text: In deciding a motion for a new trial, the trial justice acts as a thirteenth juror and exercises independent judgment on the credibility of witnesses and on the weight of the evidence.    If, after an independent review of the evidence, the trial justice reaches the same conclusion as the jury, his or her task is complete and the verdict should be affirmed. State v. Bleau, 668 A.2d 642, 646 (R.I.1995) (quoting State v. Banach, 648 A.2d 1363, 1367 (R.I.1994)); see also State v. Snow, 670 A.2d 239, 243 (R.I.1996) (describing the trial justice's requisite inquiry: First, the trial justice must consider the evidence in light of the charge to the jury; second, the trial justice must determine his or her own opinion of the evidence; third, the trial justice must determine whether he or shewould have reached a different result from that of the jury). This Court accords great weight to the decision of the trial justice if the trial justice complies with this procedure and articulates an adequate rationale for denying a motion for a new trial. Id. at 244. We reverse the ruling only if we determine that the trial justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence or was otherwise clearly wrong. State v. Scurry, 636 A.2d 719, 725 (R.I.1994). DePina and Monteiro argued that the unexpected, antagonistic defense presented by Teixeira at trial, as well as the trial justice's refusal to sever their trial from Teixeira's trial, constituted grounds for a new trial. They pointed to Teixeira's counsel's speculation at closing argument that Teixeira may have been telling his codefendants to Stop! Stop! In addition, they argued that the trial justice neglected to conduct the requisite three-pronged analysis of the evidence. We reject this argument. DePina and Monteiro have misconstrued Banach's directive that the trial justice choose which conflicting testimony and evidence to accept and which to reject as imposing a requirement that the trial justice articulate explicitly his acceptance and rejection of each witness's testimony. Banach, 648 A.2d at 1367. Rather, Banach held that the trial justice need not refer to all the evidence supporting the decision but need only cite evidence sufficient to allow this Court to discern whether the justice has applied the appropriate standards. Id. Here, the trial justice conducted the requisite inquiry and adequately articulated the grounds for his denial of DePina and Monteiro's motions. The trial justice reviewed the testimony of each of the state's key witnesses and assessed their credibility. After examining the evidence against DePina and Monteiro, the trial justice concluded that [the court] cannot conclude that acting as the 13th juror, that it would have reached aresult that would have been any different than the result that was reached by the jurors. Although the trial justice did not extensively review the evidence, his analysis satisfied the requirements.