Opinion ID: 1995858
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The Standard of Review as to the Motion for a New Trial

Text: In reviewing a trial justice's determination as to whether or not to grant a motion for a new trial, we accord great weight to a trial justice's ruling on a motion for a new trial if he or she has articulated sufficient reasoning in support of the ruling. State v. Texieira, 944 A.2d 132, 140-41 (R.I.2008); see also State v. Woods, 936 A.2d 195, 197 (R.I.2007); Imbruglia, 913 A.2d at 1028. We have consistently held that this Court will not overturn a trial justice's determination with regard to such a motion unless we determine that the trial justice committed clear error or that he or she overlooked or misconceived material and relevant evidence [relating] to a critical issue in the case. Texieira, 944 A.2d at 141 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Bolduc, 822 A.2d 184, 187 (R.I.2003). We employ this deferential standard of review due to the fact that a trial justice, being present during all phases of the trial, is in an especially good position to evaluate the facts and to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Texieira, 944 A.2d at 141. Further, at the appellate review level, the party challenging the trial justice's decision bears the burden of convincing this [C]ourt that the trial justice did not conscientiously apply these standards. State v. Banach, 648 A.2d 1363, 1367 (R.I.1994); see also State v. DaRocha, 121 R.I. 182, 185, 397 A.2d 500, 502 (1979).