Opinion ID: 1875202
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: law direct appeal

Text: The city's and Butler's four assigned errors are considered together. They argue that the lower court erred in granting a new trial: since Copeland made no contemporaneous objection to the alleged improper testimony elicited from reserve police officer Ron Ashley; since a new trial was granted on grounds not mentioned in Copeland's motion for a new trial; and since the lower court found the jury verdict in the first trial to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Underlying this assignment of error is some testimony of reserve police officer Ron Ashley. Ashley's testimony supports Copeland's theory of the case. In sum, while on cross-examination, Ashley answered some questions explaining that he was involved in lawsuits against the City. These suits  one of in which Ashley was the plaintiff and another in which Ashley represents six police officers  were pending and were based upon reverse discrimination. This was one basis for the lower court ordering a new trial. The City and Butler argue that, since no contemporaneous objection was made by Copeland during Ashley's testimony, the circuit court judge may not consider this in his determination of whether to grant a new trial. This argument, along with the others grounded in the theory that a trial court may not order a new trial on grounds not mentioned in the motion for a new trial, are without merit, for as stated in Sanders v. State, 239 Miss. 874, 125 So.2d 923 (1961), It is clearly settled that a court of general jurisdiction, in the absence of a statute to the contrary, has inherent power to grant a new trial, on its own motion, in civil cases. 239 Miss. at 878, 125 So.2d at 925. See also National Cas. Co., et al. v. Calhoun, 219 Miss. 9, 67 So.2d 908 (1953). Again, the City and Butler argue that the jury is the trier of the facts, and that there was ample evidence and testimony to support the jury verdict in the first trial. As stated in Clayton v. Thompson, 475 So.2d 439 (Miss. 1985): The granting or denial of a new trial in a civil case is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Such motions should be granted sparingly and only when the trial judge is convinced that the jury has wholly departed from its oath to follow the law and has been actuated by bias, passion and prejudice. Jesco, Inc. v. Whitehead, 451 So.2d 706, 714-716, (Miss. 1984); Beard v. Williams, 172 Miss. 880, 884, 161 So. 750, 751 (1935). 475 So.2d at 443. In view of the attempted impeachment of Ashley, along with the conflicting evidence, and the fact that the granting of a new trial is within the sound discretion of the trial court, this assignment of error is without merit.