Opinion ID: 2223873
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Refusal of New Trial

Text: Dilger made a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33, N.D.R.Crim.P., which allows the court to grant a new trial if required in the interests of justice. This language is sufficiently broad to encompass a verdict against the weight of the evidence. See, Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982); United States v. Lincoln, 630 F.2d 1313 (8th Cir.1980); State v. Olmstead, 261 N.W.2d 880 (N.D.1978), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 918, 98 S.Ct. 2264, 56 L.Ed.2d 759 (1978); State v. Holy Bull, 238 N.W.2d 52 (N.D.1975). The trial court denied the motion. Without claiming that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction, Dilger contends that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence, requiring a new trial in the interests of justice. A motion for a new trial is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and its judgment is conclusive unless we can say that in denying the motion such discretion was abused. State v. McLain, 312 N.W.2d 343 (N.D.1981). We have reviewed the evidence pointed to and are unable to say that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial. The verdict is not contrary to the weight of the evidence and the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, is sufficient to sustain the conviction. For the reasons stated, the judgment and the order denying the motion for a new trial are affirmed. VANDE WALLE, PEDERSON, PAULSON and SAND, JJ., concur.