Opinion ID: 1662320
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: characterization of trial court's order

Text: We agree with the Court of Appeals that the trial court's order granted a new trial pursuant to RCr 10.02 rather than a JNOV pursuant to RCr 10.24. Although certain language in the order purports to grant a JNOV, we find the language that orders a new trial dispositive as to the trial court's clear intent. A JNOV would constitute an acquittal of the charge [3] that would leave nothing to be decided at a subsequent trial under the indictment. In other words, to grant both a JNOV and a new trial is a conflict in the use of the terms because a trial court could grant one or the other, but not both because [a] motion for JNOV raises the single question: whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction. [4] However, RCr 10.02 permits a trial court to grant a new trial for any cause which prevented the defendant from having a fair trial, or if required in the interest of justice. [5] Under RCr 10.02, therefore, absent a cause that does not appear from the record of the trial, the trial judge's authority would not differ from that of this court in reviewing the case on appeal .... [6] Stated otherwise, a motion for a new trial is generally directed towards alleged errors committed during the course of the trial, while a motion for JNOV is directed towards the sufficiency of the evidence. In the case sub judice, the trial court's order reflects the court's belief that certain evidence admitted at Appellee's trial affected the fairness of the proceedings, but the court clearly did not determine that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict. [7] We agree with the Court of Appeals that the trial court did not intend to acquit Appellee of the offense by granting a JNOV, but rather granted him a new trial at which a jury could again deliberate the evidence.