Opinion ID: 2599880
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Motion for New Trial (Oliver)

Text: Oliver contends that the court failed to articulate sufficient reasons for denying his motion for new trial, and thereby violated section 1181, paragraph 6. [28] He also argues that the court's actions denied him due process and a reliable penalty determination under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, and violated parallel provisions of the state Constitution. On May 21, 1993, after the jury returned the death verdicts and before sentence was pronounced, the trial court considered each defendant's written motion for a new trial. Pertinent here is Oliver's motion. The first four grounds concerned rulings on the Wheeler motion ( Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d 258, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748), the courtroom assault, prosecutorial comments about the assault, and Oliver's request for a continuance of the penalty trial. As his fifth reason in support of a new trial, Oliver complained that the guilt verdict was contrary to the evidence, apparently in violation of section 1181, paragraph 6. He stressed the lack of either motive evidence or identification testimony. In a lengthy ruling from the bench, the trial court individually discussed each ground raised in the motion. As to the first four issues, it set forth its reasons for the challenged rulings, and explained why those rulings were correct. With regard to the fifth and final ground raised in the new trial motion, the court disagreed with Oliver's evaluation of the evidence of guilt. Specifically, the court stated, Finally, with respect to the verdict [being] contrary to the evidence, I disagree with you on that. Oliver suggests that the trial court's ruling under section 1181, paragraph 6, was so perfunctory that we cannot be confident that the court properly exercised its discretion, or exercised any discretion at all. Relying on People v. Robarge (1953) 41 Cal.2d 628, 634, 262 P.2d 14, Oliver claims the court failed to reach an independent conclusion as to the sufficiency of credible evidence to support the verdict. The claim lacks merit. Although the trial court's rejection of Oliver's insufficient evidence argument was stated succinctly, we infer from the record of the hearing itself that the court properly discharge[d] [its] duty to conscientiously consider [the] motion for new trial.... The hearing transcript reveals that [the court] was well acquainted with the briefs and the transcript of the trial and carefully considered those claims before denying the motion. ( People v. Burgener, supra, 29 Cal.4th 833, 893, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 747, 62 P.3d 1.) Because no manifest or unmistakable abuse of discretion appears, we will not disturb the ruling on appeal. ( People v. Staten (2000) 24 Cal.4th 434, 466, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 213, 11 P.3d 968.)